|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
It also depends on the AD/DA hardware. Sample buffer is just what is happening within the computer. MIX era round-trip latency was about twice the playback buffer, which is why HD systems' default was set to 128.
I am just curious why HD systems with 128 latency were super fast and current native systems with 64 latency are too slow.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Quote:
This notion of trying to equate latency in headphone cue systems with floor monitors, musicians across the room, etc etc just doesn't hold up in real-world work. They are completely different scenarios and our brains have all kinds of ways to compensate for natural acoustic phenomenon that don't apply to the headphone world. Put on a pair of headphones, add a 5 or 6msec delay to the cue and snap your fingers - see if it doesn't immediately drive you crazy - it certainly does me and the artists I work with.
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com ---------------------------------------- Mac Studio / Ventura, PT 2023.12.HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, 3xS1/Dock Also running a Mac Studio Ultra / Ventura / HDX / MTRX / S6 Last edited by Rich Breen; 03-27-2023 at 09:17 AM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Maybe I am oldskool then, who knows.
But yes, monitoring via wedge and cans is differentg. With that said, I have been using in-ears and I can hear the change in stereo image if other plug is pushed a millimeter too deep compared to the other. Still, I have no problem with 256 setting. Neither has people, with one exception, who have first complained and after a minute of doing nothing other than saying try again now, everything has been fine. It is psychological, mostly.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Was all this testing done with zero plugin latency? I ask because I recorded countless times at a 64 buffer with anywhere from a single singer/player, up to 7 piece bands and in over 8 years, the ONLY time anyone ever mentioned perceived latency was when there was a problem(caused by a send that went nowhere). Other than that one time, a 64 buffer and no big plugin latency was not an issue. The worst plugin latency I ever allowed while tracking was 11 samples. Just wondering if there is/are other things contributing?
__________________
HP Z4 workstation, Mbox Studio https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works The better I drink, the more I mix BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Tracking with Buffersize 32?
No. It isn’t.
And it sure as ***** has nothing to do with being ‘oldskool’. Issues like this didn’t exist when tracking entirely in the analogue domain. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Hi,
we record VO/OFF day by day on HDN systems. When we are on 128 buffers, it is not comfortable for the talent. 64 buffers are all right. Best Maik
__________________
PT HDN 2023.6, OMNI, SYNC HD, Dock, 2xS1, PT Control, MacPro 5,1 12core 48GB, OSX 12.6.6, BM Decklink Extreme 3D ------------ mars13.de |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
?? Been dealing with throughput latency since the first 3M digital multitracks in the late 70's/early 80's. And that's the point of the sync head on an analog machine - zero latency.
Definitely not.
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com ---------------------------------------- Mac Studio / Ventura, PT 2023.12.HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, 3xS1/Dock Also running a Mac Studio Ultra / Ventura / HDX / MTRX / S6 |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Nope. Write and Read heads are slightly misaligned, which makes even tape non-zero latency. This is the physical reason for the famous tape delay effect.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
You are confusing record and read heads with record/sync heads.
Give up now on this argument, I am running out of popcorn. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Right, so be it.
Just sayin' I have successfully recorded/mixed live bands in front of audience providing monitor mixes w/256 buffer @48k since 2002 (back then with whopping 667MHz G4 horsepower and 1GB memory) and nothing anyone says is not going to change that. If human hearing has evolved in two decades I apparently know nothing about it.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to get the low H/W buffersize of 32 | Dutchmountain | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 7 | 12-18-2009 10:34 AM |
How do i change the I/O Buffersize? | One-i | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 1 | 01-15-2006 09:26 AM |
Buffersize vs RAM | soebx | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 06-01-2005 02:27 PM |
H/W Buffersize and Rewire | am.syn | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 2 | 09-23-2004 03:03 AM |
buffersize PT 6.4 ?? | hoijandee | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 05-05-2004 01:01 AM |