HDX and HD 44.1 and 48k in and out latency?

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Guys... the ballpark of 10ms comes from the fact that earliest digital pianos had rtl latency of +10ms and somehow the pianists had no trouble using the tools.



As far as most digital gear, the AD/DA round-trip is at least 3ms so if that's barely good enough we could not be able to use any digital gear on stage.



I have had success for +15 years tracking and mixing using 256 buffer @48kHz and rarely has any artist complained about the can sound. On the other hand upping the buffer to 512 is horrible for most everyone.



So therefore I call it nonsense if someone really requires lower than 128 buffer. Every time (so far) when artist has complained about the 256 setting I have first tried the placebo effect as in not changing anything, just saying I did, and strangely enough the problem goes away just like that.



I know all the theories behind comb filtering and such, but it's not real world. You get comb filtering if you stick one headphone deeper than another, but again it's okay for some reason.



And this discussion could be endless, so let's just say I'm sorry to derail this thread

Mr. 10m/s is your name and that’s how you shall be called!!

Last name 256 buffer

[Rich Breen]

Originally Posted by YYR123

...
How do you specifically setup a path with a certain latency on it?
...
I would like to listen To the difference between 10 and 5.

If you've measured the round trip latency of the path (which is easy to do), then just add a delay line with the additional latency desired.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Guys... the ballpark of 10ms comes from the fact that earliest digital pianos had rtl latency of +10ms and somehow the pianists had no trouble using the tools.

As far as most digital gear, the AD/DA round-trip is at least 3ms so if that's barely good enough we could not be able to use any digital gear on stage.

I have had success for +15 years tracking and mixing using 256 buffer @48kHz and rarely has any artist complained about the can sound. On the other hand upping the buffer to 512 is horrible for most everyone.

So therefore I call it nonsense if someone really requires lower than 128 buffer. Every time (so far) when artist has complained about the 256 setting I have first tried the placebo effect as in not changing anything, just saying I did, and strangely enough the problem goes away just like that.

I know all the theories behind comb filtering and such, but it's not real world. You get comb filtering if you stick one headphone deeper than another, but again it's okay for some reason.

And this discussion could be endless, so let's just say I'm sorry to derail this thread

but playing piano and listening to comb filtering in cans are two entirely different things...

I hear you though and i understand that, at least when playing VIs, it could be placebo and being "spoiled" in modern times vs old digital pianos.

But whatever it is, i am so used to it.. I really got addicted to low latency from creamware days, that's when it all started for me with regards to digital audio.. Also, at the very same time, in the studio, we had a pro tools mix cube and G3 mac.. so all i had was ultra low latency both at work and at home..
All my hardware synths were being monitored through avid tdm hardware using logic as a front end (ah those were the days lol!). it felt FAST.
It WAS fast.

I can literally feel the difference now between 32 and 64, and 64 and 128.. i kid you not..

but sure, if i wasn't worried about monitoring issues, then i could eventually get used to key playing latency.

Also note, i am dealing with tons of midi hardware.. and this problem has surfaced for me due to apollo console latency..

at 8MS.. since pro tools can not, of course, nor any DAW, compensate what's going through apollo when playing live, alongside what is playing back in pro tools (ie audio tracks and vi).. the hardware through console and the software through PT are 8ms out of time with each other and it is really obvious. This is why i wanted to go lower..

but not only that.. with HDX PT can compensate the live signals anyway to be sample accurate with the internal PT stuff playing back..

it's just a case of money at this stage.

If i had 25k lying around, i would be at avid dealer today, salivating.

This is why i needed to ask all this stuff, to know whether it was worth the pain of selling all my apollo stuff and taking a loan out for HDX for the difference :)

[JFreak]

If you can feel the difference between 32 and 64 buffer, then perhaps shelling out for HDX will be worth it...

[YYR123]

At least Avid is living in the real world, with the pricing structure for the new HDX Cards.

$3000 isn’t a bad deal.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by YYR123

At least Avid is living in the real world, with the pricing structure for the new HDX Cards.

$3000 isn’t a bad deal.

unfortunately australian distributors milk us as cash cows.

If it was 4k here which is a correct conversion, i'd buy 2 now.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

If you can feel the difference between 32 and 64 buffer, then perhaps shelling out for HDX will be worth it...

actually, i have to be fair, after my post i did a lot of VI testing at 32 and 64, and they both feel great. The only thing that matters when one plays a vsti is the output latency of the interface.. and it's not that different at 32 in mx than it is at 64 (certainly no where near half).

Where i can definitely feel it is 32 to 128. 32 literally feels that as the keyboard key makes contact, the sound is heard instantly.

Unfortunately, the cpu usage is ridiculous which is why i settled on 128 in PT when i do 44 or 48K.. 128 seems to have most benefits performance vs latency wise.

I can be playing a korg kadget aax synth at 128 buffer, just some drums, and it is using 3% cpu when armed live.. drop it to 64 and it jumps to 50%, 32 to 70. The difference in cpu is so great when you go under 128, on mac at least, that it's just not worth it. On windows daw's in general, because you can disable speedstep in bios and everything related to it, it's a lot more stable at low latencies. I used to be really into performance testing as a side hobby and i've tested every major DAW on both mac and windows, as well as windows via bootcamp on the same mac, and windows always thrashes mac for number of plugins using same interface and same cpu.