omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

Hi everyone.

I currently have the Mbox Pro wich has almost zero monitoring latency while tracking through the mixer.

I might get a deal on omni/native but have concerns regarding the latency on this system. I wonder if native has lower latency than the direct monitoring of the mbox, or if it also has the possebillity of direct monitoring ?

Iv grown accustomed to the direct monitoring of mbox pro and leave the buffer size at 1024. It would be bad if the latency is not better or atleast equal to the mbox pro direct monitoring.

Also i will have to track beside the omni because of my small room
so im wondering if the fan noise is still a problem.

Third, might this be a bad time getting the omni/native combo ?

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

The latency should actually be better, not worse. Since HD Native is PCIe based, and because the card handles processing of the I/O, it actually reduces latency vs. firewire/usb.

Plus, the new HD converters, including the Omni, are a more advanced design, with a simpler path to the A/D converter, so they actually convert analog to digital faster (this is mentioned in the Avid promo videos about the new HD interfaces when they came out).

And the experience of users has confirmed this. So a buffer of 128 feels more like 64, 64 feels more like 32, etc.


And, it also has a low latency monitoring mode, similar to the other Avid/Digi interfaces. In this mode, plugins on the tracks you're recording onto are disabled. And it's only for 2 tracks at a time, which is probably not an issue if you're just recording stuff yourself. The only thing is that the Omni doesn't have any built-in DSP effects like the Mbox Pro does.


As for the fan noise, it seems to be different for different people, and how they've got it set up. I've been able to hear one at my local Guitar Center and it's very quiet, perfectly fine for tracking near it. The Mac Pro on the floor next to it is actually louder (and that's not very loud).


Also, this is a great time to buy the HD Native/Omni bundle, because of the current special of $1500 off. That price is cheaper than any trade up deal they've done.

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

Thanks nst7.

I just found the following about direct monitoring in the omni manual on page 34.
http://akmedia.digidesign.com/suppor...825.pdf#page38

Does this mean I can mute the recorded channel in pt but still hear the vocalist with zero latency through the omni mixer through the headphones out ?

In this case it will be like my mbox pro and just what im looking for. Timing while recording wont be an issue.
In this case I could actually set and forget the buffersize in pt to 512 or 1024 because ill be using direct monitoring while tracking instead?

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

HDN has Low Latency Monitoring(like the 00x line of hardware). Do you record through plug-ins? Also keep in mind that a buffer of 32 and 64 is more than suffice.

Shane

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

No. I dont track with plugins. I always track dry.

I use direct monitoring on my Mbox Pro. Wich i belive means the mic input is directly routed to the output (headphone) without going through the computer and PT first.
To my ears this direct monitoring has much less audible latency than low latency monitoring has. Atleast on my mbox.
I guess it would be equal to plugin a mic into a mixer and monitor it on the mixer output (=no latency).

If you se my second post above it seems like also Omni has this feature (se page 34 in the manual). Just want to have someone else confirm this.

Infact I dont se the use of low latency monitoring if Omni has direct monitoring capabillities ?

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

No direct monitoring with the Omni.
LLM on the nativeHD, and 32 and 64 buffer are excellent as far a latency goes.

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

Hmm. I find it very strange that is says it has direct monitoring in the manual and you say it doesnt.

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

LLM is for you then. I use it all the time for tracking and just keep the buffer at 1024(Except MIDI production). Give me a shout on Skype if you have anymore questions.

Shane

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

I'd recommend LLM, but you could also use the mixer in the hardware setup, which I like very much. I think a few more features should be added down the road, but it's still very flexible. Here I'm doing DM of some digital signals. Here is another screen shot of the pull-down menu that will give you more info. If you want any routing tests done for certainty, just give me a call and I'll be glad to help.

Shane

Re: omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency
 

Thanks Shan.

If i understand correctly you are saying omni has direct monitoring through
its mixer, but you prefer LLM ?

Im guessing there is less or no difference in DM and LLM on omni/native?
On my mbox pro there is a big difference between DM and LLM.