A Few Questions About HD|Native

[jaminjamesp]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

1.7ms is for 96k sessions at a buffer setting of 64 or 44.1/48k sessions at a buffer of 32. Your computer may or may not be able to do that. I remember someone posting about having issues possibly related to their chassis, would have to do a search.

I use my Native card set to 64 samples (at 44.1) and track bands all the time without issue. However, as evidenced by a recent thread here, some people don't find this acceptable. Maybe you're one of them? Who knows.

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=348426

Don't know about the pres in the Omni, but the converters are the same as my HD I/O and they are very good IMO.

You could/should get HD Native Thunderbolt which would connect directly to your iMac.

All your plugs will work just fine on the new setup.

Okay, made it halfway through the thread before the flames got a little too hot for me, but I got the general point. Also read the gearslutz thread that was posted.

So here is my question: Whats my best option for super low latency? I don't multitrack, it's just one instrument at a time, but I struggle with vocals. I'm a songwriter and not a super strong vocalist, but I still do all my own demo singing before I send off songs. Latency kills me. And I know so many people frown on it, but I really have a hard time tracking with a dry signal in my headphones. I don't have a lot of vocal control, so compression and some 1/8th note delay really goes a long way for me. I'll compress just a hair going in to PT, but I don't like a lot of dynamics in my headphones, so I end up hitting the track pretty hard with a plugin compressor, add on top of that something like Echoboy, and I'm facing latency issues if I don't bounce down my who session before hand, which I hate doing.

Does anyone make something for someone in my situation? I don't need a ton of I/Os, I just need something powerful.

EDIT I guess I should add I'm running really large sessions, lots of plugins, lots of automation on plugins and tracks, LOTS of VIs, which I always print once a part is written, but usually there are several running as I'm writing... it gets hairy pretty fast.

[Mike496]

Consider just getting a quality line level splitter (mult) out of your pre and feeding a signal back to something like a Behringer mixer with build in reverb. Split the signal so one feed goes to PT and another to the mixer.

Send the click and other instruments or previously recorded tracks out to the mixer as will from two of the mbox outs. Do not monitor off the record enabled track in the headphones, no latency.

You'll to set up need a nice template to drop keeper takes to and to make punching in easier.

[mrtomcat]

You should look at products that offer Direct Monitoring such as the RME cards.
They are fully compatible with PT and you don't have to worry about latency when recording in your type of setup.
Maybe the UA Appollo? Not sure how well this handles in your situation though

I am using a MadiXtreme by SSL with the Alphalink mx converters and get 1.5ms at 32 samples 48khz. But I constantly have to fiddle around. Dramatically better in PT11 though due to the input/output buffer isolation.

I used the RME interfaces before and they were perfect for recording (0 latency due to direct monitoring) I am probably going to replace the SSL card with a RME Madi card in the future...or just save up and go the HDX route...not sure yet.

http://www.rme-audio.de/en_index.php

[propower]

Advice above abut analog monitoring is good advice.... Using direct or LLM is also ok but in your case you will need efx processor to make the monitor signal sound like what you want.

Per the GS Poll fully 30% of folks do real zero latency analog monitoring.

If you insist on going through ProTools the numbers are already there for you to look at in the GS post from AVID. 96k/64 is lower latency than the old HD.

HDx @ 96kHz is under 1ms
96/64 HDN is 1.7ms
96/128 is 3.12
44.1/32 is 3.35

Pick what you can live with both sonically and $$ wise... I run 96/64 exclusively (1.7ms) but I have a very select amount of plug ins (for example: Waves gives constant errors when working at 96/64 or 96/128). I track vocals all the time and am very happy with the latency performance and being able to use delay. EQ and compression for vibe while tracking. If you run lots of plugs and need multiple VI's going analog monitoring may really be a good choice. I run BFD3, Toontrack and NI K9 but usually only a few instances per session. With PT11 I am getting pretty used to printing these to audio once they are pretty set to keep sessions lean and running well. I also have a Late 2013 3.5GHz i7 imac. A really fast clock speed and modern machine is crucial to low latency work.

[jaminjamesp]

Originally Posted by mrtomcat

You should look at products that offer Direct Monitoring such as the RME cards.
They are fully compatible with PT and you don't have to worry about latency when recording in your type of setup.
Maybe the UA Appollo? Not sure how well this handles in your situation though

I am using a MadiXtreme by SSL with the Alphalink mx converters and get 1.5ms at 32 samples 48khz. But I constantly have to fiddle around. Dramatically better in PT11 though due to the input/output buffer isolation.

I used the RME interfaces before and they were perfect for recording (0 latency due to direct monitoring) I am probably going to replace the SSL card with a RME Madi card in the future...or just save up and go the HDX route...not sure yet.

http://www.rme-audio.de/en_index.php

Okay, you'll have to forgive me. Can you kind of explain the RME cards? This is a physical card that installs into my computer, or connects via thunderbolt or something? I have an iMac, so anything that needs a slot is kind of out of the question. I've only recently made the transition to recording anything more than simple demos, so I'm not super informed on all the computer hardware thats out there. Quite a learning curve!

[Mike496]

PS I like the mixer option because it not only provides zero latency but depending on the number of outputs you have you will allow the talent to setup up their own headphone mix from submixed tracks (drums, guitars, click, etc).

Also, it's probably only a 300 dollar investment.

Mixer $100
Line splitter $100
Cables $100

Even cheaper if you buy used.

[jaminjamesp]

Originally Posted by Mike496

PS I like the mixer option because it not only provides zero latency but depending on the number of outputs you have you will allow the talent to setup up their own headphone mix from submixed tracks (drums, guitars, click, etc).

Also, it's probably only a 300 dollar investment.

Mixer $100
Line splitter $100
Cables $100

Even cheaper if you buy used.

Okay, so I like this option because it's quite a bit less expensive, plus it doesn't require me getting all computery and geeky. I want to write songs, not spend my days trying to get different computer hardware and software to work with each other. I spend too much time doing that already without adding a new piece of computer gear.

[Mike496]

I agree, sometimes the tech gets in the way. I owned HDN and used this method. I own HDX now and still prefer this method. I like that the talent can control their que mix. Of course their are some trade offs with the use of plugins while tracking, but you can experiment with an fx stereo out to the mixer.

[propower]

Originally Posted by Mike496

Mixer $100
Line splitter $100
Cables $100

I too like this approach though I would keep in mind to make sure that the signal integrity both to your recording device and your headphone mixer are commensurate with the rest of your equipment. Cheap mic splitters with transformers or bottom of the barrel mixers with terrible onboard effects with carefully chosen Mics, preamps and converters just wouldn't do it for me!

Mid grade or better mixer - a few hundred
Nice splitter cables for 8 channels - a couple of hundred - though patchbay and extra snakes would work -- though I am all XLR in the recording room - no normalled patchbay help for me...
Nice cables for feeding multiple channels from ProTools - depends on length (I would have to go 50 feet)!
Mid grade Lexicon Reverb - maybe a nice little compressor - can add up...

Sure - no problem doing it for a few hundred - but ~ $1K is what it would cost me to make it worth my while -- just another opinion

[Mike496]

Originally Posted by propower

Sure - no problem doing it for a few hundred - but ~ $1K is what it would cost me to make it worth my while -- just another opinion

Totally agree! A quality splitter is important.

However, if you're a player on a budget you can get into the game affordably when tracking only 1 or 2 channels of audio at a time and utilize interface outputs for prerecorded tracks. This is a singer song writer/home situation so I think the cheaper solution will work. I did a full record over the summer using a $100 mixer for a headphone que.