Can you confirm this (Bug)?

[TOM@METRO]

Originally Posted by XJENSEN

Well, no response in about 3 months. Think you got your answer there..

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by edwinstar

Is there anyone using LLM

no

[edwinstar]

it became a confirmed bug in the meantime!

[edwinstar]

Message from Avid Support: Both issues are now logged with our Engineering team as bugs separate bugs for now. I was given confirmation today of the official bug numbers. Here they are for your reference:

PT-249648
Record enabled audio tracks play early when LLM is enabled (new to PT 2018.7)

PT-249649
Record enabled tracks play early when LLM and HEAT are enabled (new to PT 2018.7)

[albee1952]

While I agree that LLM should work correctly, it has been flawed and/or limited often enough that I gave up on it years ago.

Things work a lot more "correctly" if you simply stop using LLM and drop your buffer to 64 or 128(higher sample rates can use a higher buffer). As long as you control overall latency by tracking without latency-causing plugins, things should be dandy. I tracked full bands for several years on my old LE setup(based around the 003 with the full 18 inputs) at a 64 buffer setting and rarely heard any mention of latency from players, When I moved to HD/Native(the card) and HD IO boxes, I continued using the 64 buffer and nobody ever mentioned latency. Thru all this, my stereo headphone mixes(4 on the LE rig and 6 on the HDN rig) were done from the sessions via sends

[JFreak]

^^ this.

If a feature says it is hyper low latency and comes with restrictions, is it better than ultra low latency without restrictions? As long as the artist you track can monitor oneself, all is good.