Recording latency Mbox

[Hanslemonverm]

I've read a lot on this forum about recording (and monitoring)latency on the Mbox, but I've still some burning questions.
When recording I should set my H/W buffersize as low as possible (128), then I will get 164 samples of latency. When recording a guitar I noticed that this latency on the recorded track was a lot higher. Is this latency related to this H/W buffersize in the way that I'll get more than 164 samples latency when I record on 256; will the latency be 328 samples then, a.s.o.?
Is there a way to actually SEE or measure how high this latency actually is?

Would I get a lower latency when using the digital in of the Mbox (e.g. when purchasing the optional digital out-card for my Focusrite Voicemaster Pro)? How much would the latency be then?

Thank you
H.

[Hanslemonverm]

Anyone?

[goldfinger]

Monitor with the headphone outputs on the MBox. That way you will have no latency at all, since the incoming signal is routed directly to the output of the MBox. Make sure to enable the mono switch on the box if you record mono.

The only thing is, you will not be able to add any insert effects to the signal you are recording.


G.

[Tubz]

You should adjust the mixknob to apr. 12 o'clock. Then mute the track you're recording on. Now you have zerolatency monitoring, and it's zero regardless the H/W buffersize. When you're done, the track will be 164 samples late. It will always be 164 samples, regardless the H/W buffer size.
Don't know if the same goes for digital recording.

BR Tubz

[mobilemac'nstrat]

go to "search the answerbase" and type in Mbox latency, you will get the full rundown, but basically as the other guys said, mute the track you are recording and use the 'mix' knob to monitor the input, this gives zero monitoring latency. Your track will be recorded 164 samples late relative to the click or previous tracks. You should correct this by shifting each track 164 samples earlier immediately after recording and BEFORE you record any further tracks, or the latency will accumulate as you multi-track and become a problem.
Why don't Digi get Pro Tools to do this automatically? No idea, but it gives us something to moan about



Good luck!

[underbiteman]

Why 164 instead of 128, where does the 36 sample latency come from?

[underbiteman]

I've searched the answerbase and it seems like 164 sample latency is only applicable to macs and not pc's. Is this true? If so, why?

[mobilemac'nstrat]

There was a thread a while back about this, if you do a search of the DUC.
Yes the 164 samples was fixed for windows but not for macs. Don't know why.........

[underbiteman]

Okay, gotcha. I'm a PC user with a mac envy, but I feel a little better about it after knowing this. Now if these companies would start making plugins for PC's...

One more question: If I'm using something like Amplitube with 128 buffer and monitoring the signal made by the software(i.e. playing so that the the sound amplitube puts out matches the rest of the tracks) I would have to move the amplitube track up 128 samples after recording, right? And if I play so that the acoustic sound that my guitar makes is matching the rest of the tracks (i.e. playing so that the sound amplitube puts out is late), I don't need to compensate for latency at all right?

[Hanslemonverm]

Thank you all for your reply's. Almost all my questions are answered. I did a search for 'latency and Mbox' before posting. (And I knew how to get zero latency when monitoring) So my questions were really more about RECORDING latency. So, latency on a Mac is always 164 samples (not 128, Underbiteman), regardless of the H/W buffersize.

So, my guitarrecording being off more than 164 samples means, it was just a bad performance from my guitarist? Could it have something to do with the length of my cables to the mic and to the headphones, because these are more than 8m long?

Anyone knows if recording via the digital input of the Mbox would reduce the latency and how much?

To answer your question Underbiteman; I think using a plugin doesn't change the recording latency (=164 samples then), but increases the monitoring latency (You will hear the signal with more latency).I think you will always have to compensate for the recording latency on a Mac (unless Digi does something about this!), but not on a PC.


Thank you

Hans