Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!

[JFreak]

256/48000=5.33ms

You need to have a lousy AD/DA to go over the "about 10ms" threshold that is good enough for monitoring.

[Sardi]

Originally Posted by JFreak

No. It is a matter of being able to monitor yourself. If the latency is too much you hear delay. If it is good enough you do not. Physiological fact.



Only thing different between stage and studio is not many divas want to tell the audience that he or she doesnt feel good right now so just lets try another time and/or blame someone else. In studio you can do that. Either your water is too hot or too cold or whatever, but on stage you have one chance to satisfy your audience.



That is the only difference.



(and btw I have been running monitors on studio conditions at 256 as well. when someone asks to lower latency I just mute the monitors for a second and say it is done. works 99% of the time)

In ears or wedges? If the latter, of course they won’t complain.

It bugs the crap out of me when people say 256 is acceptable. Find me one VO person who finds that acceptable. Decades of recording VO and complaints unless it was LLM or analog path.

Comb filtering is VERY real.

[Southsidemusic]

Yeah sorry but I agree with Sardi here. We record big popstar artists from the US and Europe aswell and anything over 64 is not gonna work with these seasoned artists. They would hear a ”delay” as they say or say they hear themselves twice when trying to explain as ”latency” is not the word these youngones use.

So 256 is unreal but if you (Jfreak) work with church and hobby people then maybe but in the studio with real artists anything over 64 is a no go. Period!

[Ben Jenssen]

Originally Posted by Sardi

In ears or wedges? If the latter, of course they won’t complain.
It bugs the crap out of me when people say 256 is acceptable. Find me one VO person who finds that acceptable. Decades of recording VO and complaints unless it was LLM or analog path.
Comb filtering is VERY real.

I used to be a singer. When I had my own studio (and still had a voice) I had the opportunity to experiment thoroughly with different latencies and direct monitoring. Long story short, I found anything but no-latency direct-monitoring to be unacceptable. That's when singing with headphones.

My theory goes like this; when singing you hear both the signal in headphones and your voice actually resonating inside your head! Any latency at all in hp's - and you get comb-filtering between the two. But this is of course especailly singing with headphones. The tolerable amount of latency depends on the situation.

[JFreak]

With respect to all posts here, all of this is psychology not physiology. You can monitor yourself with 256 buffer if you are alright, but if you have a bad day you want to make it look the problem is something else not you. I said I have 99% success rate of fixing the delay problem by pressing a mute button for few seconds. It comes down to psychology; you tell the artist the problem is fixed and the brain thinks something has changed. I have done this since 2002 and very few times I have had to say "okay I reduce it a little more" in which case 128 has been the happy buffer.

You should do a blind test. Have your buddy set up an unknown buffer and monitor yourself. When you cannot sing/play you know what is too much. My experience is 256 fine 512 disaster.

It is a mind game.

[JFreak]

Maybe someone remembers better but I dont think there even was an option to go lower than 128 buffer when DigiDesign introduced their LE hardware line? Back then we did not have this problem

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Maybe someone remembers better but I dont think there even was an option to go lower than 128 buffer when DigiDesign introduced their LE hardware line? Back then we did not have this problem

We ran 2" 24 track studer back then as LE was never an option for us. We used HD from the day it came out but kept using 2" until HD8.1 when PT was starting to be great

[JFreak]

And should you ask me why I do this.. well.. as a mixing engineer I want to have all the horsepower possible at my disposal. So I start with 256 buffer I know is physiologically possible, which leaves me as much CPU as possible. If the artist is picky, I need to give up some and the artist may not get all plugins I would likely use. Just practical thinking.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

We ran 2" 24 track studer back then as LE was never an option for us. We used HD from the day it came out but kept using 2" until HD8.1 when PT was starting to be great

If you ask me, PTHD 8.1.1 is best there ever was, stability-wise

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I am talking about real world latency experienced by musicians on stage. There are only two types of latency: too much and good enough. If you dont tell them numbers they are okay with 256 buffer. Period. That is my point.

And I am telling you which you don't seem to believe, that I have NEVER told them the buffer and i have always had complaints from vocalists in the studio when at 128 for flanging/delays.

UAD solved that part of it for me at least, but even with that, I have to avoid certain effects that add too much latency.

If you don't believe me, there is nothing more I can do to convince you, and that's ok. Peace.