Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > Pro Tools

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 03-29-2023, 08:28 AM
Rich Breen Rich Breen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Burbank, CA USA
Posts: 2,377
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
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.
Oboy - look up "sel-sync"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
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.
Musicians *might* be more tolerant (or just not be able to figure out what's going on) with latency issues in a live situation with wedges, but that's very different from a studio recording with headphone cue, which is the scenario most of us deal with on a daily basis. I have been involved with live recordings where the crew were not careful about system latency - aside from it being confusing for the players, the resultant recordings were problematic because of the delayed monitor feed leakage into the mics - it's bad enough in live recordings with all the leakage from acoustically delayed sources throughout the room - adding monitor latency just makes everything worse.

OK, I'm about out of popcorn too...
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-29-2023, 08:49 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 24,849
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

^ I use in-ears on stage. More specifically Shure PSM1000's (4 stereo or 8 mono) and PSM900's (another 4 stereo or 8 mono). Due to PT send limit of 10 I try to get some of the band members share a channel, but sometimes I need some... umh... advanced routing. But that is another story.

Mind you, that super fast PSM1000 has wireless latency of 0.37ms, or 18 samples at 48k. Add 2.9ms (139 samples at 48k) from Shure ULX-D wireless mic and it sums 157 samples of wireless roundtrip latency you would experience with otherwise full-analog monitoring.

How can they perform if 64 is too slow?
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-29-2023, 09:33 AM
K Roche's Avatar
K Roche K Roche is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wilds of Wyoming
Posts: 2,278
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm View Post
You are confusing record and read heads with record/sync heads.

Give up now on this argument, I am running out of popcorn.
Here you can share my popcorn, but you will have to get your own high tech 3 D glasses

__________________
System :
Studio - Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Mid 2020 (intel) iMac 27" Ventura 13.2 .1
Mobile - 2021 14 " MBP M1 Pro PT Ultimate 2023.12.1 Ventura 13.2.1



Enjoy the Journey
.... Kev...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-29-2023, 12:35 PM
marsian marsian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 237
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

...now I would like some popcorn, too!
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-29-2023, 12:57 PM
Darryl Ramm Darryl Ramm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 19,488
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

If you are going to do it, do it well. So as a community service announcement: A friend got me hooked on popcorn popped in Avocado oil with parmesan cheese grated on top. Quality Avocado oil adds a great flavor and has a very high smoke-point.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-29-2023, 01:12 PM
685 685 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 394
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sardi View Post
If I had someone in a VO booth and fed them a 256 sample buffer for their monitoring, they’d walk out.

I honestly don’t know what to say if you can not hear the comb filtering when speaking into a microphone at that buffer setting. Heck, it’s there at a 64 sample buffer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya man. I can record trouble free on my Mac Studio Max with the buffer set to 32 but 64 works great as well.
You seem to be on the right path by not trying to record with the buffer at 256. It's not a very smart move at all.
__________________
.
System info
https://duc.avid.com/member.php?u=57185


"please stop OVER-complicating simple things"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-29-2023, 01:49 PM
Eric Lambert's Avatar
Eric Lambert Eric Lambert is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,571
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

If an engineer reports that they've had musicians/VO complain about specific buffer sizes then that's not debatable via science, it's a real world problem. What typically happens in these arguments is we discover that some other element is adding latency -- might be digital, might be analog, might be both. I do wish more effort was spent on discovering the discrepancies instead of arguing about the science, and that "feel" was allowed into the discussion. I understand that tests have shown that human ears don't respond to latencies below a certain time, but I've also had drummers who've identified latencies my own ears couldn't possibly have. They feel it -- I'm only listening. The same is true with singing/VO, when your jawbones vibrate around the ears but the sound returning via headphones/monitors is even the slightest bit later. The brain calls foul even if the scientific test wouldn't have.

More specific to the question, I do have 32 as an option but when recording myself I rarely *need* anything under 128. Occasionally 64.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-29-2023, 02:07 PM
RobertDorn RobertDorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 405
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carsi View Post
Hello PT User,

i am currently using a Mac Mini 2018 i5 16GB Ram with an Antelope Orion 32 Gen3. I do the monitoring via the Orion. I would like to do this entirely in the PT. But I can only record with a buffer size of 64. Now I have 2 options. Either I stick with Antelope and buy a Mac Mini M2 and hope I can record with a buffer size of 32 or I trade the Antelope for a Pro Tools Carbon. Can someone tell me whether recording with an M2 with 32 is possible? I only need the channel strip in the tracks. I do not need more. At 64, the latency is too high.

Thaks Carsi
The fun thing with Carbon, hdx or also an universal audio Apollo, is, you can have your native playback buffer at 2048 samples if you will, and let the DSP path do it's zero latency experience thing while tracking :) . With Carbon and/or HDX, just click the lighting button on a Pro Tools track and your signal flow is all the way through DSP.
__________________
Apple MacBook Pro M2 Max, 96GB ram | Pro Tools HDX | Avid MTRX | Pro Tools Ultimate 2023.12 | macOS 13.6.3
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-30-2023, 02:26 AM
LDS LDS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,492
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertDorn View Post
The fun thing with Carbon, hdx or also an universal audio Apollo, is, you can have your native playback buffer at 2048 samples if you will, and let the DSP path do it's zero latency experience thing while tracking :) . With Carbon and/or HDX, just click the lighting button on a Pro Tools track and your signal flow is all the way through DSP.


The devil is really in the detail though. The problem with DSP in 2023 is that most DAWs now offer dual sample buffers for recording and playback as standard. If you use as 64 sample buffer natively in Pro Tools, that doesn't actually mean your playback channels are using a 64 sample buffer too. That is the benefit of playback channels! You can buffer them extensively before playback actually starts.

When it comes to latency, round trip latency is the only thing that actually matters. The native sample buffer is only one aspect of round trip latency. Some food for thought:

- the difference between 32 and 64 sample native buffers is 64 samples of latency.
- HD I/O have an AD/DA calculated latency of 50 samples.
- Lynx Auroras are 25 samples.
- RME are 14 samples.
- A HD Native card as a digital I/O interface has a latency of 82 samples.
- HDX + HD I/O interfaces has a latency of 76 samples before plugins.
- third party AAX-DSP plugins add between 30 and 75 samples per instance.
- many UAD DSP plugins add 55 samples per instance.

There is really nothing more wasteful than talking about latency as something that only exists with sample buffers. This is particularly applicable in an era of DAD/MTRX interfaces which don't adhere to the calculated digilink latency of HD I/O interfaces. Like most things digital, converter latency has improved leaps and bounds compared to the HD I/O latency of 2012 that most digilink interfaces adhere too.
__________________
Pro Tools Ultimate 2022.12. OSX 13.2. Win 10. HDN. DAD DX-32R. DADman 5.3.4.2. i9-13900KF. ASRock Z690 Steel Legend. 64GB Ram. AMD Vega 64. BM Decklink. Sync HD. Dolby Mastering Suite 3.7.2 via RME HDSPe MADI.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-30-2023, 02:55 AM
midnightrambler midnightrambler is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,862
Default Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
The amazingly fast TDM systems had a real life round-trip latency of about 350 samples (with a full mixer) and nobody complained.
Actually we used to get clients in who did complain, back when we got our first ProTools rig (late 90s). Not a huge number, admittedly, but there were definitely some who said it made them uncomfortable. Just my 2p
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com