Pro Tools 9 and my FireFace UC ..... ?

[ben ifin]

Hi all

So .... am I understanding this correctly ?

I can now buy PT9 and use it with my RME FireFace UC on my Intel i7 DAW - is this correct ?

If so .... I presume there will be limitiations - if so, can someone please post what are the limitations / restrictions ?

Last question - is PT9 available as a fully native X64 version or is it still only native X32 ?

Many thanks,
Ben

[TOM@METRO]

I. Yes, as long as the computer will run Pro Tools.
2. There are always limitations, what specifically is your concern.
3. No. 32-bit with 64-bit OS compatibility.

[geetarpicker]

The only issue I can think of is PT doesn't work nicely with outboard DSP mixers like the ones RME uses. Folks talk about workarounds, but really PT simply needs a way to turn off the live monitoring so than you can take advantage DSP monitoring. Sonar can do it, even Reaper can do it, but not yet PT. Yes you can actually use the RME DSP mixer, but the problem is you will also hear audio coming from PT at the same time albiet just tad bit later that is if you are monitoring a track recorded prior that you want to punch in on. Depending on your buffer size you will hear anything from a phasing effect to a true slap back echo. To kill the echo/phase effect you have to learn to mute the track in PT as you hit record to get around this, but that really makes for messy punch in and out work. Folks may have work arounds for this, some even hit two buttons at once via automated controllers and such...

PT is really designed to monitor through their software and though HD is apparently quite quick with this, in the native world we are still a little bit behind (pun intended) what HD or a dedicated DSP mixer can do.

Currently I have an RME FF800/Rosetta 800 setup and live monitoring with it's built in DSP mixer has a latency of only 1.6ms! Just measured it today using a separate computer to compare what the live mics were picking up, vs what the monitoring headphones were reproducing out of the Totalmix DSP mixer. I'm considering a move to PT9, but it will probably mean about 3 times the latency. At 48 buffers it might be workable for some folks, but I don't know...I can feel 5ms and it truly doesn't feel as good as 1/3 that amount. I guess I could learn to live with it.

Maybe others can chime in on this!

[ben ifin]

Hi geetarpicker & TOM@METRO

Many thanks for that.

geetarpicker - as per my post, I run a FireFace UC which has lower real-world latency than the FF800.

The following is all based on 44k / 24 bit

At 48 Samples, the FFUC delivers 4.9ms real-world latency [ as measured by CEntrance Latency Utility ].

On the same test, the FF800 delivers 5.8ms.

Reason for the differnce is that the FFUC only uses 1 x 32 Sample Safety Buffer on the Output end -the FF800 uses larger Sample Safety Buffers plus it only goes down to 64 Sample ASIO setting - these 2 differences account for the extra 0.9ms total real-world latency

The 1.6ms you refer to is the ASIO setting in the FF800 driver window.

The FFUC reports 1.1ms in the same ASIO setting in the FF800 driver window.

Forget the ASIO driver setting latency reading - its meaningless - the *only* thing that matters is the total ASIO I/O + System AD + System DA latecny which = real world latency.

Just for playback / mixing only [ and assuming 0 Samples of ADC ] the FF800 will deliver a real-world total latecny of no less than ~2.9ms and the FFUC no less than ~2.45ms

geetarpicker - regarding Tracking Monitoring / Input Monitoring / Live Input Monitoring - what you wrote is really important.

I gather then that there is no track button / track switch to turn input monitoring on or off for each track ?

Many thanks again for the great info and really helpful posts.

All the best,
Ben

PS: BTW ...... in todays world of " soft-synth-everythings " the X32 RAM Ceiling Limit is going to be much more of a problem / " limiter" than the 96 Track count ever will be ........ surely a Native X64 version cant be too far away - maybe 9.1 ?