|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Quote:
I do not follow the other post comment about integration with Pro Tools track arm/input monitoring. These are really DAD/NTP boxes, with the MTRX Studio being a more custom design for Avid I just don't follow what integration you are talking about, and on the UAD side if the UAD Console was not being used it should be fairly out of the way. Other good third party interfaces should be able to work just as well for what you are discussing. Or keeping your MTRX Studio, you can add up 8 IO to it via ADAT at 96kHz but regardless of the ADAT boxes used will almost certainly have HW insert latency differences there that ASC will not automatically correct, it is not hard to manually correct that, just takes making a measurement and setting a value. But that only gives you 24x24 IO. ADAT will give you a lot less latency than Dante, but presumably you can link two MTRX Studio together via Dante and use as expanded IO including for HW inserts. I would expect significant need to correct ADC latency here. But more of a PITA to correct input latency, and I suspect that would be needed while tracking. But I have no direct experience with two MTRX Studio used like tgat. If you can test all carefully then maybe get your hands on another ones to test. Or back to aggregate IO with two MTRX Studio, that should have clean input and hw insert/latency behavior but you could be stuck on your own with any aggregation caused instability. There are far too many latency and ADC related issues and bugs in Pro Tools, including with H/W inserts. Many of these can be worked around/corrected with some effort, but you are more likely to face those when using different interfaces/interface connections. If you really want to do this with two MTRX Studio then maybe start by trying two in software aggregates, things will be helped by you being able to track at large HW buffer size, if that does not work, then two connected via DADman/Dante, and they have problems then find a Thunderbolt HDN card and use that. But would depend on how much you can test all this carefully so you reduce the risk of having problems in front of clients. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Quote:
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
I've written about H/W insert latency issues/how to work with H/W insert latency etc. many times but none of the individual posts I can find are great to link to. So I'll savor a can of beer while I write this...
Pro Tools (when you enable ADC) with a CoreAudio interface will attempt to correct for the H/W insert latency (IO buffer, ADC/DAC conversion and some other overhead) but it relies on the latency data reported by the interface driver. In most situations with a simple interface (e.g. all the I/O the same type) this will be the correct data and the ADC will align things correctly. If you use an interface that has multiple different types of I/O connected to it things don't work so simply. For example ADAT connections off the interface will often have lower actual latency (because there is no ADC/DAC involved) but Pro Tools only looks at what seems to be the latency of the initial input and output ports on the device and assumes they all have the same latency. So insert pairs that are actually lower latency will be shifted back in negative time, and actually lead the signal feeding the insert... because Pro Tools applies too much latency correction or shifted to positive time if the actual latency of the insert is more than the ADC correction. You correct these errors by carefully measuring the offset error, that can be done by recording a click to an audio track, playing that thought an HW insert pair just using a straight though cable, and recording the output of the track with the insert on it to another track. Measuring the difference between the same click signal on each audio track clicks, measure between matching zero crossings on the timeline, you should be able to measure to within one sample accuracy. Now apply that measurement to the +/- ADC field for the track with the insert on it, multiple that value for each insert on the track if needed, you need to manually add those values when you enable inserts, or of the latency is higher than the driver reports you can use the H/W insert delay settings in I/O setups to correct here, but you can't use that to correct ADC over-correction and I just find it easier to work in samples in the ADC +/- field. And for many setups where ADC is not just working all you need is one measurement, (at the sample rate and H/W buffer size you are working at), and you can use that on all inserts connected to the same type of I/O poets, e.g. ADAT or Madi to a remote box. CoreAudio interface drivers are perfectly capable of reporting different latencies for different I/O ports (or more technically accurate CoreAudio streams). But that's typically ignored by DAWs, not just Pro Tools. But most modern DAWs provide an easy way of ignoring all this and just have a ping function to measure the actual H/W inserts latency. Pro Tools just does not have this, just such an embarrassing deficit compared to other DAWs. --- When Pro Tools with a CoreAudio interface records audio from an input it automatically corrects for latency, regardless of ADC being enabled or not. But here again it takes the latency info that the driver provides, but with the same limits as above, if you have different types of I/O ports on an interface Pro Tools will use the first port latency numbers reported by the driver. So you can find situations where the recorded tracks are out of time and that might require manual adjustment, maybe modifying ADC +/-, sliding around content, or using a plugin like Eventide Precision Time Align. If mixing up Dante and the physical I/O on a MTRX Studio I expect you to see significant input timing errors, but again they are correctable. And throw in a few occasional bugs which can complicate things more, but you should be able to get stuff working in almost every situation, it just takes some effort... which may or may not be a PITA depending on how busy you are and how many inserts or different types of inputs etc. you are using. How much you are willing to pay to avoid hassles is the question, again a MTRX II and Thunderbolt should eliminate issues here, but the >$20k price makes an Aurora Lynx (n) 32x32 look damn attractive. Digilink will get you the I/O ports, but you may face latency/H/W insert timing issues there as well but with different causes (like you I'd personally avoid Digilink). Last edited by Darryl Ramm; 01-19-2024 at 09:49 PM. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Very good foundational info on latency in PT here! Thank you for this! What do you think about connecting a Ferrofsh A32 pro Dante? Been reading the device manual and Dante controller instructions and watch some videos, but can't find any comments from people who are extending an interface like MTRX Studio which is Dante capable using a Dante enabled AD/DA converter like the A32pro.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Quick update...., to recap, my goal was to add at least 16 AD/DA to the MTRX ST thunderbolt at 96khz while not having to repurchase/upgrade to PT Ultimate from PT Studio and am pleased to report that I found a setup that is working so far. ended up adding a Ferrofish A32P to the MTRX ST using Dante. Ran a tracking session over the weekend and the setup is working and sounding wonderful so far. Was a bit of a learning curve setting up Dante environment. Ran lots of tests but haven't tried using hardware inserts yet....so am interested to test that.out.
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Great you got this going.
I'd love to know what RTL latency you measure for the Ferrofish over Dante (samples at a sample rate). You'll likely need to make that measurement anyhow as you set up your hardware inserts and make any latency adjustments. Since you are running CoreAudio a simple way to make measurements is with RTL Utility. https://oblique-audio.com/rtl-utility.php Both the driver reported and actual measured RTL latencies would be interesting to see. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Quote:
I did have the HW buffer size set at 512 samples. Not sure does this need to be set a certain way when doing an RTL test? Also, Delay Compensation was also turned on. If you have any comments about this testing methodology, please let me know. Happy to restest if there's a flaw somewhere in this test. Attached is a screenshot. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Thanks for doing this.
Quote:
Using RTL Utility also removes any chance of errors possible if using Pro Tools, including running into bugs in Pro Tools. I would work out what is happening with RTL Utility. Does the Test Button work? Do you see meters on the interface? If you connect up monitors do you hear the test tone? etc. Although I would hope it should be OK I would make sure Pro Tools and other apps are not using the interface when you run the RTL Utility tests. Quote:
If I am following what you are doing, you are not doing your Pro Tools test as an insert test but rather going out and back in on two tracks, in this case enabling ADC should correct for output latency that was not otherwise corrected (but hardware insert latency correction, both the input and output part, correction requires ADC to be on). And so doing what you are doing with an ideal interface with ADC turned on you should see zero samples of latency for the interface since that latency is all corrected in this test. That you don't see that seems to point to a problem here... but it is kinda surprising/hard to believe that the MTRX Studio main analog I/O would have such a problem. Pro Tools likely treats all interfaces I/O as having the same latency (that of the analog input and output I/O ports) and I'd expect the Dante connected I/O to have more latency that was not corrected and so appears to lag on the timeline. Yes H/W buffer size have a direct impact on latency. All the H/W buffer does is buffer I/O from the DAW/application to the outside physical world so changing the H/W buffer size always affects that (well for native systems, not if you have HDX). But the driver includes the contribution from the latency due to the H/W buffer size so applications can correct for this. If you change the sample rate or H/W buffer size, the driver lets the app/DAW know stuff has changed and it can ask for the new latency values. What sample rate are you measuring at? It's better to just keep all work/measurements in samples. Last edited by Darryl Ramm; 02-27-2024 at 04:50 PM. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2 MTRX Studio - Which version of PT needed?
Quote:
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MTRX and MTRX STUDIO together? | kingtone | Pro Tools | MTRX & MTRX Studio | 4 | 06-05-2023 03:32 PM |
Difference between MTRX and MTRX Studio? | snowplaysmusic | Pro Tools | MTRX & MTRX Studio | 4 | 11-26-2022 08:48 AM |
MTRX MTRX Studio Forum Section? | off the wall | Pro Tools | MTRX & MTRX Studio | 2 | 05-08-2022 03:20 PM |
MTRX Studio tuning v MTRX SQP card | Goombot | Avid Pro Mixing General Discussion | 9 | 07-15-2021 11:00 AM |
Protools MTRX / SyncHD Still Needed? | Nathan W. | Post - Surround - Video | 16 | 07-14-2017 04:12 AM |