Tracking with Buffersize 32?

[Darryl Ramm]

Can we not. So many folks here are fed up with these incessant stupid threads about what latency works for that user and users telling other people what they need to be doing.

[685]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Please in future just create you own thread for your own questions. Spamming onto other people really unrelated threads is super annoying for lots of other users here. And in this case you picked a cracker of an unrelated thread. Ok it has the word latency in it... but it's nothing to do with your question, and you don't explain what you are trying to do or why. So just maybe you get the response you deserve.

This stuff has been covered in multiple other threads... that's not a criticism of you, the amount of confusion out there and repeated on DUC means it's impossible to find stuff and the confusion keeps getting repeated. If I can find a thread I'm thinking of I'll link it here, but I can't even find that now.



Again you mean going out a track output and back in another track input. 1 sample latency is not strange, that's a measurement error it should be 0 samples.



As I said Pro Tools always compensates for physical IO like this. It is not a part of ADC. A super-common point of confusion.



You still seem confused here, again this is confusing to lots of folks, so not a criticism. Enabling ignore errors is introducing a latency error. Turning on ignore errors should not change what you measure... which should be 0 samples. What you are seeing is a bug. It's a bug I've been posting here a lot about because it keeps tripping up users and not many folks seem to know about it, and I'm hoping Avid might do something about it along with the other latency/ADC/HW insert bug(s?) and general need to clean up/improve this stuff (including adding a H/W insert ping capability).

Again the quick way I would measure conversion RTL in Pro Tools is to use an HW insert with ADC turned off. ... that bypasses both ADC and the automatic track input and output latency correction that you otherwise can't bypass.

All the comments LDS made are great. The RTL utility is very handy, doing external measurement of RTL with another interface is great to do. Sometimes doing free acoustic measurements with a mic and understanding all the delay components is useful.

[and related to this my own developer interest is in some area of CoreAudio internals, I have utilities that report on all of a driver's latency metrics (like RTL Utility also does but you have to step it though doing stuff) and other utilities for reporting CoreAudio driver versions for all types of drivers ... frustrating that is not obvious/simple to do. If there are folks interested in similar things I'd love to talk offline]

Look!!
I do not have time to spend ALL DAY, EVERYDAY on internet forums because it does not produce any income for me. I surely don't care to go back and forth with with anyone, especially you of all people. This thread seems fitting for what I'm asking and if you weren't so arrogant you "might" see it for what it is. It sure beats creating a new thread after searching/reading through the DUC. I guess you would rather try and belittle members as you normally do instead of just reserving comment if you feel it's a repetitive topic. Not three weeks ago I told a friend to search DUC for an issue he was having because I could not take his call at the time. His text reply was "Man, F that place". I completely understood him! And he's done a lot in music including winning Grammy awards. It totally reminds of the thread that Barry Johns created basically asking why this forum is not as active as it once was....Go FIGURE! Sometimes it seems like asking what's the very first letter of the alphabet and then mostly getting replies about the letters B thought Z....aka over complicating simple things.


On topic..
I did contact tech support and they are saying something different than you. Not to mention that I've already tested things in several different ways...again, including in the ways you are recommending.

I just asked the questions in the way I did just for my own understanding. Not because I'm having any negative issues. 2023.6 is working in my favor while tracking/mixing at a low buffer whether its a bug or not. It's weird, but hey it's working. It seems to be compensating for 3rd party interfaces and it should not be doing so. But no need to spend any more time here.


I apologize for my rant.
Peace..

[Darryl Ramm]

Ah yes the magic support person who disagrees with what I said. Were they smoking a hooka and sitting under a large mushroom?

If you start a new thread, share your actual measurements that don't seem to make sense then folk here can have an intelligent conversation with you. Again the only actual measurement you have mentioned shows the expected behavior of IO compensation, so it's kinda bewildering what the problem you are worried about actually is.

[Bob Olhsson]

Let me pop in with a little information. There are three different kinds of latency that should never be confused:

1. relative latency between tracks
(This is what latency compensation corrects.)

2. monitoring latency from input to monitor output
(ideally, you never want performers to monitor through a computer. It screws up performances long before it becomes noticeable to the performer. A cheap little analog monitor mixer provides a great solution.)

3. fader/control latency (A little understood factor that seriously impacts how quickly you can mix.)

[Darryl Ramm]

Bob I suspect you are replying to this old thread because somebody woke it up by posting to it today and then deleted their post. The fourth kind of latency is threads on DUC

The deleted post was from a user frustrated by folks in this thread telling others they can track with software monitoring latency. They made good points, especially about singer/vocal in-head effects being different than time delay/apparent distance.

[Bob Olhsson]

[zakco]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

Bob I suspect you are replying to this old thread because somebody woke it up by posting to it today and then deleted their post. The fourth kind of latency is threads on DUC

The deleted post was from a user frustrated by folks in this thread telling others they can track with software monitoring latency. They made good points, especially about singer/vocal in-head effects being different than time delay/apparent distance.

Guilty as charged.

This thread (actually one particular individual's posts) was so full of BS and complete dismissal of other's very valid experiences that I was compelled to type a retort. Then I realized that the next few days of my life would be peppered with futile debate with someone that has zero interest in learning anything new. So into the trash can it went...sorry.

Carry on folks.

[Darryl Ramm]

You had my support, for both the post, and the decision to remove

But yes time to do better things.