Any Carbon users who were using UAD Apollo before?

[Oblivion777]

Hi all,

Many thanks for all the input and thoughts.

I just have one final question: I use a lot of VI's. Now of course I know that all VI's run natively. But I did read a review in S.O.S. magazine that specifically mentioned this: "Latency is still an issue with software instruments.". And this is what worries me. I did use a setup Apollo/PT before and I didn't notice any particular problems there (using VI's I mean). Here's some more on Carbon/VI from S.O.S.: " To play virtual instruments through Carbon, you’ll thus need to specify a low buffer‑size setting, and AVB is not as fast as Thunderbolt for the same buffer size; at 44.1kHz and with a 32‑sample buffer, Reaper reported Carbon’s output latency as being over 6ms."

To be completely honest I don't really care much if I use one or the other interface as I own a lot of UAD plugins and basically 80% of AAX-DSP plugins. The only thing remaining - before I make the final decision on purchase - is which interface is "better" to use for heavy VI composing. Thoughts?

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by Oblivion777

Hi all,

Many thanks for all the input and thoughts.

I just have one final question: I use a lot of VI's. Now of course I know that all VI's run natively. But I did read a review in S.O.S. magazine that specifically mentioned this: "Latency is still an issue with software instruments.". And this is what worries me. I did use a setup Apollo/PT before and I didn't notice any particular problems there (using VI's I mean). Here's some more on Carbon/VI from S.O.S.: " To play virtual instruments through Carbon, you’ll thus need to specify a low buffer‑size setting, and AVB is not as fast as Thunderbolt for the same buffer size; at 44.1kHz and with a 32‑sample buffer, Reaper reported Carbon’s output latency as being over 6ms."

To be completely honest I don't really care much if I use one or the other interface as I own a lot of UAD plugins and basically 80% of AAX-DSP plugins. The only thing remaining - before I make the final decision on purchase - is which interface is "better" to use for heavy VI composing. Thoughts?

VI's will all be native, regardless of which interface you use. Neither UAD nor Carbon host VI's on the DSP in the interface. So the VI work will be done by your CPU.

The latency across Ethernet (AVB) will be higher than Thunderbolt. That's as a result of Ethernet being a pretty poor choice of physical media for communication for audio interfaces. The reasons are many and various but the main points are:

• Thunderbolt is closely related to PCIe - a relatively direct communication with the CPU, whereas Ethernet is a 'bolt-on' for network communications and requires translation to 'ip'.
• Thunderbolt is fast (40Gb/s) and Ethernet is slow (10Gb/s if you're lucky, more usually 1Gb/s).
• Thunderbolt is a point-to-point communication medium, intended for the CPU to talk directly to peripherals whereas Ethernet is a many-to-many communication protocol with lots of things built in to deal with collisions and delays in devices speaking to each other. These overheads create inefficiencies.

Ethernet has the advantage that it's been around for ages and lots of equipment exists for using it to communicate across long distances. It also is easy to translate to/from 'ip' on a wide variety of devices.

But the overall effect of all of these is that Ethernet is less efficient and subsequently has higher latency. It's pretty unlikely to change. So your VI's will always 'sound' a bit later using an AVB interface.

From what I have read, the DSP-based monitoring on the Carbon is faster and more efficient than the Apollos, and so for foldback monitoring of live audio signals, the Carbon has lower latency. But in this case, the delay from computer to interface over Ethernet is not involved. That is not the case with VI's which are triggered on the computer and need to travel across Ethernet to get to your speakers/heaphones.

Of course, the VI delay may still be small enough for you to work with, it depends on how sensitive you are to latency.

[chrisdee]

Originally Posted by Oblivion777

which interface is "better" to use for heavy VI composing. Thoughts?

I’m in the same boat and use PT mostly for composing and production with VIs. But i also do some vocal tracking.
So it would be nice with a dsp system that does near zero latency for both. Zero latency not only for tracking but mixing aswell simultaniously.
I wonder why nobody is making dsp aax VI’s?

Why was ethernet choosen over thunderbolt and pice if ethernet is much slower and gives more latency on VI’s?

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

I’m in the same boat and use PT mostly for composing and production with VIs. But i also do some vocal tracking.
So it would be nice with a dsp system that does near zero latency for both. Zero latency not only for tracking but mixing aswell simultaniously.
I wonder why nobody is making dsp aax VI’s?

Because you practically can't make sample based VIs run on DSPs. Sample base VIs need to access samples in memory, lots of memory (lots more that the DSP can provide) and ability to load sample etc from disk. Nothing a HDX DSP processor can do. And you don't want it trying to go thought the main processor/PCIe bus/operating system to do this on it's behalf.

Could somebody make a modeling (not sample) based VI, sure. I expect high-end complex ones might consume lots of DSP resources, and otherwise who cares, most folks working with VIs know they have to run on the CPU, and if somebody produced one or a few modeling VIs that could run on the HDX they are probably not going to sell many copies. So the whole effort is probably not justified.... and so many VI vendors support multiple formats, HDX-DSP for them would probably be worrying about a gnat on a fly's ass.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by Oblivion777

Hi all,

Many thanks for all the input and thoughts.

I just have one final question: I use a lot of VI's. Now of course I know that all VI's run natively. But I did read a review in S.O.S. magazine that specifically mentioned this: "Latency is still an issue with software instruments.". And this is what worries me. I did use a setup Apollo/PT before and I didn't notice any particular problems there (using VI's I mean). Here's some more on Carbon/VI from S.O.S.: " To play virtual instruments through Carbon, you’ll thus need to specify a low buffer‑size setting, and AVB is not as fast as Thunderbolt for the same buffer size; at 44.1kHz and with a 32‑sample buffer, Reaper reported Carbon’s output latency as being over 6ms."

To be completely honest I don't really care much if I use one or the other interface as I own a lot of UAD plugins and basically 80% of AAX-DSP plugins. The only thing remaining - before I make the final decision on purchase - is which interface is "better" to use for heavy VI composing. Thoughts?

I don’t have Carbon but have an MTRX Studio/HDX and previously owned a 2nd gen Apollo. Using HDX/MTRXs and keeping plug-ins after any VIs all DSP as opposed to Native, I get HALF the latency compared to using a native interface for any given PT buffer size. In other words, to get the same latency as HDX I have to double the buffer running natively.

Personally I hated the Apollo because I mix as I go with a lot of VIs/VE Pro running live and UAD plug-ins are latency killers. I also found the UAD Console workflow clunky and intrusive compared to HDX.

[chrisdee]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

I don’t have Carbon but have an MTRX Studio/HDX and previously owned a 2nd gen Apollo. Using HDX/MTRXs and keeping plug-ins after any VIs all DSP as opposed to Native, I get HALF the latency compared to using a native interface for any given PT buffer size. In other words, to get the same latency as HDX I have to double the buffer running natively.

Personally I hated the Apollo because I mix as I go with a lot of VIs/VE Pro running live and UAD plug-ins are latency killers. I also found the UAD Console workflow clunky and intrusive compared to HDX.

Nice. How are you connecting your mtrx studio to your computer?
When using VI's does it have lower latency than Carbon?

I have Omni + Native PCIe. I'm wondering what I should do :
1) Keep Omni + Native PCIe
2) Get MTRX Studio + my Native PCIe
3) Get MTRX Studio + HDX
4) Get Carbon

I'm mostly composing/producing with VI's but also do vocal tracking.
What would be the best solution for this?

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

Why was ethernet choosen over thunderbolt and pice if ethernet is much slower and gives more latency on VI’s?

Distance is the primary advantage of Ethernet. Connecting multiple distant devices across TB is an expensive prospect.

Writing drivers for Ethernet connected devices may also be simpler than for TB, although that's conjecture. And writing good, fast, reliable device drivers for any protocol is time consuming and expensive.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

Nice. How are you connecting your mtrx studio to your computer?
When using VI's does it have lower latency than Carbon?

I have Omni + Native PCIe. I'm wondering what I should do :
1) Keep Omni + Native PCIe
2) Get MTRX Studio + my Native PCIe
3) Get MTRX Studio + HDX
4) Get Carbon

I'm mostly composing/producing with VI's but also do vocal tracking.
What would be the best solution for this?

MTRX Studio is connected via Digilink to HDX1. Digilink is the only way. I’m not sure if VI latency would be lower with Carbon but I doubt it. I can keep it super-low with HDX providing I keep all plug-ins HDX-DSP apart from VIs.

EDIT: Forgot to say I’m also tracking live instruments and vocals, right up to and sometimes including the mix. I’m also using a lot of VIs.

[chrisdee]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

I can keep it super-low with HDX providing I keep all plug-ins HDX-DSP apart from VIs.

Lower than Native PCIe?

What do you mean apart from VIs?
Does it mean that you don't have any dsp plugins on any VI tracks?

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

Lower than Native PCIe?

What do you mean apart from VIs?
Does it mean that you don't have any dsp plugins on any VI tracks?

I’ve no idea about Native PCIe vs HDX.

I’m only using DSP plug-ins on VI tracks including only routing to busses/auxes with DSP reverbs etc. The idea is to get the output of a VI to DSP as soon as possible and leave it there.

This way I’m getting half the latency for any given buffer than I get running 100% native. I was quite surprised by this! Also latency is low enough to track right through to and including mixdown and I can pipe audio from Abelton Live via Dante with super-low latency.

Absolutely loving HDX/MTRX Studio for composing! It’s the smoothest, most stable and lowest latency system I’ve ever had.