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 Hardware > Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Win)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-24-2011, 10:49 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,028
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
[URL="http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/5315/llmh.png"] keep the buffer at 1024(Except MIDI production)
I mostly compose so i use VIs in every session.
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-25-2011, 11:45 AM
filosofem filosofem is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Christchurch NZ
Posts: 11,864
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

The latency besides MBox Pro direct monitoring is far superior with PCIe based Native card. Check this latency graph out if you have not seen that already. Running a Nehalem based Extreme processor or Sandy Bridge based Extreme processor with a Native card at H/W Buffer sizes of 64 or 32 Samples with large audio and MIDI track counts is very achievable. RTAS VI's aside running VSTi's with VEP is still preferable. It's my opinion that VEP will still have it's place in the new era of 64-bit Pro Tools.
__________________
Aaron Mulqueen - 001 HD Native
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-23-2012, 11:44 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,028
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Hi again.

Im thinking about upgrading to hd from my mbox 3 pro.

Im close to buying an Native + Omni for my home studio but just wanted to clear up something
i feel i didnt get an direct answer to last time i asked.

Does the omni have DM(direct monitoring) so i can track a vocalist with almost zero latency
(like i can with my mbox pro direct monitoring) ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-24-2012, 01:05 PM
filosofem filosofem is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Christchurch NZ
Posts: 11,864
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisdee View Post
Does the omni have DM(direct monitoring) so i can track a vocalist with almost zero latency (like i can with my mbox pro direct monitoring)?
Hey Chrisdee, I believe there are only two latency options LLM or H/W Buffer.
__________________
Aaron Mulqueen - 001 HD Native
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-24-2012, 01:33 PM
Greg M Greg M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 1,243
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

You can directly monitor your input to an Omni. Or, you can use LLM, or use a low buffer setting.

Greg
__________________
Intel i7 3930K, Gigabyte GA-X79-UP4 (rev 1.0), 32 GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 ram, EVGA Nvidea GT 720 TI video card, a Samsung 850 Pro (256 GB) OS drive, 2 Samsung 850 Pro's (512 GB) in externally mounted drive bays for session and sample storage, Win 10 Pro, PTHDN 2018.4, HD Omni, HD I/O 16x16 .
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-24-2012, 03:14 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,028
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg M View Post
You can directly monitor your input to an Omni. Or, you can use LLM, or use a low buffer setting.

Greg
Great. So omni has direct monitoring.

Have you tested when tracking vocals, guitars etc if direct monitoring sounds much different from LLM or buffers size of 32 samples ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-24-2012, 10:14 PM
Greg M Greg M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 1,243
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Yes and there is no discernible delay in any of the 3 methods. Using the Omni and an HD I/O 16x16 with an HD|Native card is way faster than any firewire interface. I still have an 002r rig and I can tell you that a buffer of 64 with HD|Native is way faster than 64 with the 002r. With the low buffer setting or LLM you just can't do something unreasonable like put a mastering plug with 10,000 samples of latency on the 2 bus when you track.

Anyone who is getting discernible latency with an HD|N rig and a powerful computer has got something else going on.

Hope this helps,
Greg
__________________
Intel i7 3930K, Gigabyte GA-X79-UP4 (rev 1.0), 32 GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 ram, EVGA Nvidea GT 720 TI video card, a Samsung 850 Pro (256 GB) OS drive, 2 Samsung 850 Pro's (512 GB) in externally mounted drive bays for session and sample storage, Win 10 Pro, PTHDN 2018.4, HD Omni, HD I/O 16x16 .
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-25-2012, 12:25 AM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,028
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Thanks Greg.

Does it work with PT 10 and is it possible to playback also outside PT like in windows media player, vlc , streaming, youtube , etc ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-25-2012, 05:45 AM
Greg M Greg M is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 1,243
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

I have no problems with Omni and PTHD10.0.1. It works just fine with apps such as Sony Vegas and ACID as well as Reason 6 via the Avid ASIO driver. What I do for streaming media and other outside apps is use the SPDIF output from the MoBo on board sound to SPDIF in on the Omni - and it works seamlessly. I don't think Avid provides a Windows Classic Wave driver for PTHD10, really no need for it.

Greg
__________________
Intel i7 3930K, Gigabyte GA-X79-UP4 (rev 1.0), 32 GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 ram, EVGA Nvidea GT 720 TI video card, a Samsung 850 Pro (256 GB) OS drive, 2 Samsung 850 Pro's (512 GB) in externally mounted drive bays for session and sample storage, Win 10 Pro, PTHDN 2018.4, HD Omni, HD I/O 16x16 .
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-25-2012, 07:26 AM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,028
Default Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg M View Post
I don't think Avid provides a Windows Classic Wave driver for PTHD10, really no need for it.

Greg

Well, it would be nice to have a wave driver for times when I want to go out on youtube or itunes, etc to listen to other music to get ideas/compare to my own. But maby Omni is more a tool for the recording/mixing engineer than the recording/mixing artist ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
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
HD Native latency stevegalante Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 6 03-17-2014 11:49 PM
Still can't get Low Latency Monitoring With My HD Native Omni! mmk Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 2 10-25-2013 05:09 PM
PT HD Native & HDX / latency? kirkbross Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 13 08-24-2013 09:48 AM
HD NATIVE vs HD TDM latency James Drake Pro Tools 10 20 06-19-2012 04:27 PM
HD Native latency CamM Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 2 11-30-2010 07:02 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM.


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