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 > Legacy Products > 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-25-2009, 10:48 AM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,030
Default low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

Hello. After I upgraded to PT8 I feel there is more delay while recording at hardware buffer size (HWB) of 64 samples compared to same HWB setting on PT7.4.

From the time I pick a note on my guitar to I actually hear it though the speakers there is a pretty large delay. For me it sounds like 64 samples in PT8 equals 512 in PT7.4.

This gives me big timing problems. So the only solution is to record in low latency monitoring (wich is great cause there is no delay).

The problem with this again is that effects is byassed. So if am making a rock session wich "screaming" overdrive guitar tracks, I have to record dry (with not so screaming ovedrive guitar). Riffs doesnt sound so powerfull with dry guitars going right into my Mbox2 Pro. Neither does a solo guitar part for that matter.

This applies also for vocals and dynamics/limiter. The problems here is that my vocalist has a powerfull but dynamic voice wich recorded in low latency monitoring mode often introduces clipping while recording. It pretty terrible when this happens because she lose concentration and we have to start recording all over again. Turning the input volume on my mbox2 pro down to much (so clipping wount occure) is not a solution either cause then she can't hear herself sing.

I guess outboard gear is the only solution ?
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-25-2009, 02:11 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,030
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

Hi again. I'v been searching around a bit for a high end mic preamp/compressor combo that will greatly improve my vocal and guitar recordings befor going into the Mbox2 Pro. I have basically put a button on one of the 3 following :

- UA LA610 MKII
- UA 6176
- Focusrite Voice Master Pro.

If price is not an object, wich of the above can you recommend ?
I see the UA 6176 is 3 times the price of Focusrite Voice Master Pro.
Unless it is 3 times "better" i guess is silly to waste money.

Note I will be using it with my shure KSM 32 Condenser mic and my Fender Robben Ford and Vigier Excalibur guitars befor going into the Mbox2 Pro.
I'll maby get a Neumann TLM 49 mic at a later stage.

Any suggestions are greatly apreciated.
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-25-2009, 05:28 PM
barstool719 barstool719 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 625
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

for your first post, put your guitar on an aux track and buss it to an audio track in LLM mode. this way you can still hear the plugin.

the 610 is a nice pre, and focusrite doesnt suck either.
__________________
i7-860 / 12GB Kingston / Intel DP55WB / 500GB Barracuda / 1TB Deskstar W7x64
Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 / Pro Tools 9.0.3
Mics, Guitars, Amps, Basses, Drums, Keys


http://overtheeffect.bandcamp.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-25-2009, 11:15 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 34,742
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

For my money, the 6176 is the best of those 3 and the VM is the worst(I've never been a fan of the Platinum series). But for that money, you really have lots of choices. How about a Grace pre thru a Distressor?

Back to the latency QQ, are you using plugins on your tracks while recording? If so, maybe you are choosing plugins that have lots of latency so try others. For instance, the BF76 feels like zero latency while the Waves Rcomp has a noticeable amount. In any case, I just recorded a 4 piece band with my rig on PT8 with the 128 buffer(64 choked it with 16 tracks, several plugins and 4 aux sends on each track for phone mixes) and no one said a word about latency(and 2 of the players have Pro Tools at home).
__________________
Gigabyte X79/intel i7 3930K, 32GB RAM, DIGI003 Rack
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works


The better I drink...the more I mix.....

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-26-2009, 12:15 AM
therecordinghouse therecordinghouse is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Fort Wayne, IN.
Posts: 1,094
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

Quote:
Originally Posted by barstool719 View Post
for your first post, put your guitar on an aux track and buss it to an audio track in LLM mode. this way you can still hear the plugin.

you should probably read up on LLM. this information is incorrect.
__________________
Lynn Graber
Studio and Mobile Recording, Fort Wayne, IN.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-26-2009, 12:20 AM
tamasdragon tamasdragon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hungary
Posts: 2,190
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

Why not go down to 32buffer? It's perfect for tracking, and even you can use some plugs if you need to.
Tamas Dragon
__________________
my blog:Tamas Dragon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-26-2009, 12:39 AM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,030
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

32 samples is this possible ?

I can't se that as an option. It only goes to 64 samples to me.
__________________
Christian D Hagen | I7 Builds | PT/OS Compability Chart
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-26-2009, 04:50 AM
tamasdragon tamasdragon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hungary
Posts: 2,190
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

What sample rate do you record at? I'm sure it's available at 44.1 and 48k.
But even 64buffer can be good enough, and that is available even at 96kHz.
Tamas Dragon
__________________
my blog:Tamas Dragon
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-26-2009, 05:40 AM
bob duster bob duster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Orlando,Fl
Posts: 22
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

I personally have never experienced any problems with recording 18 ins at the same time with a buffer setting at 32. I wouldn't see where you would have any problems recording thru/with FX at 32 if you where just doing a guitar track at a time either, Do you have any instrument tracks running at the same time?(i.e samplers, beats, keys, bass?) If so, that may be why you can't run the guitar FX while recording.
As far as the vocal clipping thing there are a number of solutions for that, I would first suggest making an entirely different headphone mix and sending that to the singer, make sure the vox are cranked going back to them though. Remember you have a fader that goes all the way to +12 on your analog outs in your aux window, use it.
By sending the vox hot back to the singer in a seperate headphone mix you then can lower your pre coming in to prevent clipping and have your own monitor mix as well! Hope this helps
__________________
James Hershberger
Owner Five Spot Records
Orlando, Fl
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-26-2009, 02:06 PM
chrisdee's Avatar
chrisdee chrisdee is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 3,030
Default Re: low latency recording vs low hardware buffer size recording

Thanks I however have two more questions. Why is not hardware buffer size of 32 samples not avalible to me ? The lowest I can choose is 64 samples. I record sometimes at 44 KHz or 48Khz both 24 bit.

Question number two. I went out today and bought the UA LA610 preamp from my local music shop. It was on sale for $1738 dollars. They usually take $2800 dollars for it here in Norway. Anyway. I'v been testing it connected to my Mic/Line In 1 (on the back of my Mbox2 Pro).

As I said Iv been testing it with my Vigier Excalibur guitar. First recording though the LA610, then directly into the Mbox2 Pro.

I'v been switching back and forth several times and recorded. Both clean and with the sansamp pluging in PT8. And dissapointingly I cant hear no difference. I was hoping for a jaw dropping experience considering the price of this preamp but no.

I wonder if am doing anyting wrong here. Shouldn't I be hearing a big "better" difference ?
__________________
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
H/W Buffer size stopping recording ? JamesUdesky macOS 0 02-17-2012 03:12 PM
Buffer Size Recording Error link197 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 1 12-13-2009 08:39 PM
Buffer size problems(too little then too much) during recording nathanh26 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 2 06-02-2009 09:19 AM
Recording at 256 hw buffer size now causes error deanguidry 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 06-14-2006 02:17 PM
Recording Latency, Buffer Size, Plug Ins JDL 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 4 08-11-2003 08:26 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM.


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