|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
The lowest buffer setting for "core audio" is 64 samples, but the manual says nothing about what the buffer setting range is for PT Native. If a setting 32 samples is unavailable, then this whole Native card is worthless. If I missed something in the manual, someone set me straight.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini i7 2.6Ghz, 16GB RAM, 250GB SSD, OS 10.8.4, 003R, PT10.3.4, Midi I/O and late 08 15" Macbook Pro 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, OS 10.8.4, Mbox2, PT10.3.4 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
Quote:
I think you can do 32 sample buffers at 44.1/48. At 88.2/96k thats not possible, but the latency up there is so short at 64 sample buffer (1.6 ms round trip - Avid's specs with their new interfaces like the OMNI) that it's unnoticeable. That's actually less latency than Low Latency Monitoring mode on an 002 Rack, and WAY less than 32/64 sample settings in the 002, which are around 7/8 ms in 44.1. And then of course if that's still not cutting it you have Low Latency mode, which looks to be quite workable. You can set it for any pair of outputs (not just "1/2" like LE rigs), and according to reports that I believe are coming right from Avid, you will be able to set up some sort of aux situation on the Low Latency tracks to give it time based FX like verb, delay etc. This DOES NOT work in LE. In LE you can set it up simultaneously so an aux is getting the new input and the effects, but it's the latent audio and it can't be routed to outs "1/2". Obviously the whole point of this is to be able to give a singer reverb or delay, so them not being able to hear it is useless! But this way at least the control room, if monitoring from different outs than "1/2", can hear effects as the track is going down, but I think 98% people want it the other way. Hopefully Avid isn't just referring to this scenario again with Native, and this is somewhere in which a definitive answer would be helpful. BTW in the above scenario, you don't send the audio you're recording to a bus; low latency will just mute the bus anyway. You set up an aux track with the physical input that you're recording from as the input |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
tamasdragon, how have you actually gotten this to work in LE? It doesn't. After countless tests I've accepted the fact that in LE, a singer can't hear their Low Latency input along with effects. It's one or the other. He/she CAN hear a latent input with effects, even in Low Latency mode. But it's latent, hence defeating the purpose.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
For me it's THE question. Hassle-free, low-latency monitoring is precisely the reason why I was willing to part with the huge wad of cash to buy HD for my home studio. I couldn't stand the latency in LE anymore. Drove me insane. When playing guitar... Aaargh! And effects had to be bypassed. Another buzz kill.
If PT-Native exhibits the same awkward personality as LE with regard to latency then... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
Quote:
"Q: What is the lowest roundtrip latency you can get when working @ 44.1? A: Around 3ms. (not in low latency mode) Q: Is 64 the lowest buffer setting you can use? A: 32 sample buffer" So at 44.1, not in LLM mode, you'll be dealing with about 3ms latency at small buffer sizes (32/64). That's pretty good - in an 002 at 44.1 with Low Latency ON you're at about 2ms, and to my ears you're just about there. And if need be you can always engage LLM which will be under 1ms. Remember, PT HD TDM will still have better specs for latency. But this is a league better than any LE rig. But, alas, it's not QUITE as "set and forget" as TDM. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
I agree that all this is very confusing, especially after having read what Avid reps have written about it on this and other forums.
1) ASIO user can only use the 128 buffer or higher. What about Core Audio users not using PT? The lowest buffer setting that can be used is 32 - but for whom? 2) The lowest latency @ 48/44.1 is around 3 ms - but only with the new HD interfaces. What's the latency with the 192 I/O? 3) If the lowest buffer setting is 32, why doesn't the online manual say so? 4) If the best latency is 1.6 ms @ 96 kHz, and 3 ms @ 44.1, where does the statement about groundbreaking low latency come from? Re. "We do not allow 32 sample buffer at higher sample rates with Pro Tools HD to insure the rock solid performance expected from our customers"...: 5) Re. sound quality issues when using the 32 buffer: If PT|HD Native has performance or sound issues with the 32 buffer @ 96 kHz - does this suggest that the drivers aren't really mature yet, or is this due to hardware limitations? Re. "The reason 3ms is the best value at lower sample rates is because we made a choice to keep the converters (HD OMNI and HDI/O) in a higher latency mode at lower sample rates to get the best sound quality output"... 6) The only reason to use the 32 buffer is to get lower latencies - so why is there an option to use the 32 buffer at lower sample rates if the system automatically switches the converters to a "higher latency mode" at these sample rates?? 7) Is the latency (with the 192, of for non-PT users) as high as around 5 milliseconds or higher? 8) If that's the case, is the PCIe card worth the extra money compared with using an USB or FW interface for ASIO/CoreAUdio/192 users who mainly will get it for the lower latency values? 9) Will any of these issues be addressed for users of Pro Tools or 3rd part DAWs in future versions? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
From my understanding you would be better off getting a new Mbox with onboard DSP if you want your singer to have a little verb with no latency.
TDM is Still the King!!!!!! |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
I guess this is a wait and see situation. Maybe when they finish 8.5, we will get concrete answers. I have 2 reasons for interest in PT HD Native. 1) I need more I/O, which LE is unable to provide. 2) I am sick of loosing connections over firewire whenever the cpu spikes from adding a new VI. Even though my old Digi001 sounded horrible, it was rock solid. I believe that it was because of the card! I may be wrong.
__________________
2012 Mac Mini i7 2.6Ghz, 16GB RAM, 250GB SSD, OS 10.8.4, 003R, PT10.3.4, Midi I/O and late 08 15" Macbook Pro 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, OS 10.8.4, Mbox2, PT10.3.4 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
Quote:
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HD Native low latency monitoring
Quote:
Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em! __________________ "Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer." Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM __________________ Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Still can't get Low Latency Monitoring With My HD Native Omni! | mmk | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 8 | 04-10-2020 01:19 PM |
Low Latency Monitoring with HD Native | David Sandwisch | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 31 | 03-31-2020 01:57 PM |
Does HD native or native native disable plugins when monitoring inputs? | BasketCase | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 7 | 05-20-2013 08:48 AM |
omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency | chrisdee | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Win) | 34 | 03-30-2012 07:24 AM |
PT HD 9 Native - Low Latency Monitoring does not engage | nuancerec | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 4 | 02-04-2011 11:16 AM |