Tracking with Buffersize 32?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Sardi

Yep, that’s it.

Everyone else’s experience is wrong except for yours.

Got it.

What did I just miss here? He said 128 is okay and I have been saying 64 is not too slow.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Sardi

16 sample buffer which is not possible in Pro Tools

Buy a DSP system and never use a plugin. Still you have roundtrip latency of hardware which is waaaaaayyyy more than 16 samples.

[JFreak]

Just get real guys.

Yamaha LS9 is well known monitor board and it has latency of 2.5ms (120 samples @48k). Nobody, as in not anyone, has ever complained. And that is just the digital mixer. Add wireless stuff and the realworld latency from singing to hearing is about 6ms.

So therefore, if 64 sample buffer is too slow, the problem must be somewhere else.

Maybe it is too fast?

[Ben Jenssen]

OK, I want in on the fun.

I ran a small studio for many years, and mostly used direct monitoring thru a desk. When this wasn't practical I could use a 256 buffer or less if I could.

I also sang. Singing solo with headphones is where the latency became obvious is a special way. No matter how small the buffer size, my voice in the headphones would always sound bad/strange. Only direct monitoring would 'sit'.

The way I explained this to myself in the nineties was that I would hear my voice directly in my head, as well as from my headphones. Therefore the very slightest difference in timing would create a kind of 'phasing' between the two. I still stand by this.

A guitarist, or whatever, with headphones, wouldn't have this problem.

So, I say, treat your vocalists well, and give them direct monitoring, even if it's a bit more work for you. They will thank you when they hear the difference, and it might even result in a a better performance.

[JFreak]

Well said.

Anyone who has ever sung should know you hear with your bones also. There will always be latency, even if it is zero-latency mix from analog signal chain. Which is why singers with a proper singing technique perform better with one ear open and cue on another.

Expecting a monitor mix sound like a record, well.. isn't realistic. It will only need you to help do your thing. Feelgood comes later.

[Ben Jenssen]

Originally Posted by JFreak

There will always be latency, even if it is zero-latency mix from analog signal chain.

Yes. The time it takes for sound to reach the microphone membrane, and from the headphone speaker to your inner ear nerves. Apart from that, very little.

[Sardi]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Well said.

Janne, seriously… WTF?

I’ve literally been saying this the entire thread and you keep pushing back on me about the comb filtering I mentioned due to latency.

Am I being trolled now?

F&@$ me! I’m serious walking away from this discussion now. This has become absurd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JFreak]

No. You just refuse to get it that most artists can perform with or without comb filtering -- only few have problems.

[Sardi]

Rubbish. You’re being a d1ck and you know it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JingleDjango]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Well said.

Anyone who has ever sung should know you hear with your bones also. There will always be latency, even if it is zero-latency mix from analog signal chain. Which is why singers with a proper singing technique perform better with one ear open and cue on another.

Expecting a monitor mix sound like a record, well.. isn't realistic. It will only need you to help do your thing. Feelgood comes later.

You reassert that the headphone mix doesn't need to feel good which to me is completely baffling. Maybe the fidelity won't be the same as the final mix from a good playback system but if the headphone mix doesn't feel good you're doing a lousy job.