HDX vs Native

[justinhill]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I know, some divas are even sensitive to the temp of drinking water they are being served.

Quite so - but the jazz artists who come into my studio aren't divas. Tiny variations in timing are everything to them in some circumstances. The vibe between a drummer and a pianist during a piano solo can be messed up by just a few too many milliseconds of latency.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I know, some divas are even sensitive to the temp of drinking water they are being served.

Nevertheless, HDN rtl 96k@128 buffer is 3ms (don't remember who measured this but thanks anyway) which is pretty darn good. I still use my trusty old HD rig on live gigs and never ever my real life mixer has less than 350 samples of DSP latency (@48k) which means +7ms just for processing plugins. I have never had HDX of my own so don't have any numbers for it.

Latency is only noticeable when it's too much; you either can monitor or you cannot. But sure, if you have a bad day changing that drinking water to colder one may make your guitar solo shine. I understand that.

HDX has base RTL of 1.7ms @ 48kHz.
HDX has an RTL of 4.5ms @ 48kHz if you monitor through a single DSP plugin followed by nine native plugins with a native buffer of 64.
HDX has an RTL of 7.2ms @ 48kHz if you monitor through a single DSP plugin followed by nine native plugins with a native buffer of 128.

But obviously, one of the prime benefits of HDX can still have an RTL of 1.7ms even if the native buffer is set to 1024.

[JFreak]

Yea, so unless I participate in a blind test where I can pick a difference between 2ms and 3ms rtl I still think the difference is irrelevant and as long as you stay safely below 10ms there is no REAL problem for anyone

[seanmccoy]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Sweet. Also my experience on native systems since 2002 have been similar if you set playback buffer to 256 or lower. To repeat myself, 256 playback buffer makes "headphone feeds sound correct"

That's really interesting to me, because with my native system I find anything above 64 to be completely annoying. 128 is noticeably phasey, and at 256 we're talking distinct echo. Do most people find 256 usable?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by seanmccoy

That's really interesting to me, because with my native system I find anything above 64 to be completely annoying. 128 is noticeably phasey, and at 256 we're talking distinct echo. Do most people find 256 usable?

That of course depends on the hardware you're using. I've always been using Digidesign/Avid interfaces (and now lately at home an Apogee Symphony mk2) and with these the problems start with 512 buffer.

[seanmccoy]

Avid Omni here, and even with no plugins whatsoever I can't tolerably work above 64. I'm curious to see if I can take advantage of the new low latency options to get to zero latency while maintaining all routing options. On my to-do list...

[JFreak]

That sounds weird, the Omni is an HD interface after all. Then again, omni specs don't mention roundtrip latency which is weird too

[JFreak]

Interesting thing is many musicians using Shure UR wireless radios are okay on stage if for example monitor mixes are done with Yamaha LS9 and delivered using Shure PSM1000 IEM.. total latency of this combination is 0.7ms + 2.5ms + 0.7ms = 3.9ms and nobody complains because it isn't a computer.

But with computers we suddenly need to have sub-millisecond monitoring.

[seanmccoy]

Hmm, that is weird. I think the tolerance for latency is somewhat of an individual thing, too. I'm old enough to remember doing everything through analog boards and multi-track recorders, long before the word 'latency' entered the lexicon, so my tolerance is very low. Much to the consternation of my children, I constantly rant about the delay in cell phone conversations that drives me crazy.

[arche3]

So hdx is better is the jist?? Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk