HD Native low latency monitoring

[tamasdragon]

Originally Posted by holyspicoli

Holy crap...is that the one thing I never tried?? Well assuming it works, thank you!

Sorry, I was off this weekend, but I'm glad you figured it out with the help of Shan.
Cheers, Tamas

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by holyspicoli

Absolutely, still a pain in any sort of professional situation. But it's certainly good info to know for the home studio!

Certainly.

[RaySoul]

Originally Posted by Shan

Then simply record at a buffer of 32 or 64 if you're on native. Tracking drums at a buffer of 64 with an i7 in large sessions is not an issue.

Shane

Like the man said, I track at a buffer of 32 all the time. You do have to be conscious of course, that the plugs you use are zero latency. Other than that, if the session is bigger, I use 64. Works great...

[undertone]

Trying to answer my own questions here, based on some more reading since these questions were posted:

Originally Posted by undertone

1) ASIO user can only use the 128 buffer or higher. What about Core Audio users not using PT? The lowest buffer setting that can be used is 32 - but for whom?

The 32 buffer is only for DAE users. The lowest buffer CoreAudio users can use is 64 samples.

2) The lowest latency @ 48/44.1 is around 3 ms - but only with the new HD interfaces. What's the latency with the 192 I/O?

@ 44.1, CoreAudio users will probably get a roundtrip latency around 4.7 ms which is what PT users get with the 64 buffer + some extra latency from the CoreAudio driver (maybe circa 1ms?) + extra latency from using the 192 interface (probably 1.4 ms) = 7.1 milliseconds, or around 6 ms for Pro Tools users.

3) If the lowest buffer setting is 32, why doesn't the online manual say so?

64 is is listed as the lowest buffer for CoreAudio users only.

4) If the best latency is 1.6 ms @ 96 kHz, and 3 ms @ 44.1, where does the statement about groundbreaking low latency come from?

The groundbreaking part here must be that one can get this latency with the 64 buffer, which @ 96 kHz should offer better performance than one can get with the 32 buffer (which isn't possible with higher sample rates). The other thing that's new is that the new interfaces have lower latency than many other audio interfaces.

5) Re. sound quality issues when using the 32 buffer: If PT|HD Native has performance or sound issues with the 32 buffer @ 96 kHz - does this suggest that the drivers aren't really mature yet, or is this due to hardware limitations?

The need for increasing the lowest allowed buffer size probably has to do with avoiding error messages at high track counts.

6) The only reason to use the 32 buffer is to get lower latencies - so why is there an option to use the 32 buffer at lower sample rates if the system automatically switches the converters to a "higher latency mode" at these sample rates??

Maybe because using the 32 buffer with the automatically activated higher latency mode still offers a slightly lower latency than if one would use the 64 buffer?

7) Is the latency (with the 192, of for non-PT users) as high as around 5 milliseconds or higher?

If my estimates above are correct, the answer is yes.

8) If that's the case, is the PCIe card worth the extra money compared with using an USB or FW interface for ASIO/CoreAUdio/192 users who mainly will get it for the lower latency values?

I could be wrong, but believe that the answer has to be no here.

9) Will any of these issues be addressed for users of Pro Tools or 3rd part DAWs in future versions?

---

[undertone]

Can anyone who know the facts or have a HD Native system correct my speculations above, now when the cat is out of the bag?
Thanks. :)