Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community (https://duc.avid.com/index.php)
-   003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) (https://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   NO: 001 mic pre, Mackie pre, latency (https://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=35707)

lespaul 05-04-2000 09:00 AM

NO: 001 mic pre, Mackie pre, latency
LWILLIAM;....... Anyone?

Mackie 24x8 (for monitoring); Avalon 737; 001

.....Could you give me an idea of how you would run the 001 / Mackie ins and outs? ...as balanced as possible, I have all my synths/sampler running into Mackie, plus DAT for mix.

I would like to know how I can track Avalon 737 into 001 (balanced) without using
the 001 mic pre, without using the Mackie mic pre, AND without latency?!?!!

This is one of my major concerns, since I am doing a lot of live tracking - guitars,:O


*e* 05-04-2000 01:54 PM

Re: NO: 001 mic pre, Mackie pre, latency
only 2 out of 8 have mike-pres I have mackie 32x8, avalon737,&001 have everything going through patchbays so I just go direct from 737out to3-8 on 001 bypassing mackie and 001 pres .latancy exists.even your da-38 has it. set the buffer size realy low and you are good to go. e

lwilliam 05-04-2000 02:24 PM

Re: NO: 001 mic pre, Mackie pre, latency
I do pretty much what "e" does. I bring my Studio Technologies preamp into a patch bay. Then I run directly into 3/4 of the 001. I've had no issues with latency at 128 samples - even with experienced vocalists (and also recording myself).

I also run my synths into my 32x8. When I get to final mix time, I route them all to a stereo sub out and patch that into the 001 for recording the midi to audio. It's a LOT easier to recall the mix that way.

When I was using a system with 35ms of latency, the only difference was that I took the preamp outs into a line in on a couple of channels, took the direct out to the digital card, and then muted the DAW output on those channels so everything was monitored through the board. The other option would be to split your preamp outs with a patchbay mult and run both into the digital card and to the mixer. That may be a bit cleaner, but I didn't have a mult set up on my patch bay.

It gets a little trickier when you punch, tho'.

I'd try it with the first setup and see if the "latency" issue is a problem for you, then do the work-arounds if it's a problem. Just don't assume it will be a problem before you try it yourself.

Remember, sound travels at about 1 foot/ms, so 6ms of latency is less than "locking in" with a bass player on the other side of the drummer from you - even on a small stage.


[This message has been edited by lwilliam (edited May 04, 2000).]

lespaul 05-05-2000 08:41 AM

Re: NO: 001 mic pre, Mackie pre, latency
Thanks a lot, e and lwilliam.

AH, the Mult! that was the trick I was looking for - but I guess it sounds a lot easier to just bypass 001 pre's and go preamp to balanced 001 input, and monitor the output of the 001 using the desk.....everyone seems to be flipping over latency issues! probable no worse than good old midi delays.

Very cool. thanks again

lwilliam 05-05-2000 11:27 AM

Re: NO: 001 mic pre, Mackie pre, latency
I would bet that the majority of the people who hear the "phasey" sound associated with latency are listening to both the source and the post A/D signal at the same time.

Yeah, you'd be getting into the flanger/comb filter stage of delays at 6ms, but most of the time, you don't need to listen to both signals at the same time, and 6ms won't really be felt or heard if you're just listening to the post-A/D sound. Certainly on midi instruments or D/I instruments, where you don't here the direct sound at all, it shouldn't be a problem.

If you use good isolation-type headphones, you mostly won't hear the source. The only thing I've noticed when recording my own vocals is that instead of the sound coming from the "center" of my head (no latency), it seems to come from both ears (in the phones). To me, it's not significant enough to be a problem. Some people (such as voice-over specialists) are super-sensitive about it, however.

At least there is a work-around, if you need it.

I don't think there is any host-based system providing significantly LESS latency than the PTLE/001 combo.

Here is a direct quote from the MOTU site:

"When monitoring a record enabled track, there may be some amount of latency. Latency occurs with any Audio system that utilizes the computer's CPU for it's signal processing. This is the small amount of time it takes the card to carry an input, process the information and get it back out to the outputs. This latency can be reduced to a level that is unnoticeable.

In the configure hardware driver you can change the Samples Per Buffer setting allowing you to reduce the latency to where it isn't even noticeable. Approximately 4ms will be the smallest latency. This makes the processor work a little harder. So the number of tracks you are playing back, amount of effects you are running, and what machine you are using, will determine the minimum amount of samples per buffer you can afford to get away with while monitoring a record enabled track.

We also offer Direct Hardware Playthrough. This means we take your input and route it directly to it's corresponding output while allowing you to record. You will not be able to monitor the input through your effects in Direct Hardware Playthrough."


[This message has been edited by lwilliam (edited May 05, 2000).]

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:30 PM.

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