MBox auto latency fix request

[Rail Jon Rogut]

From the digi Answerbase :

When you record into Pro Tools there is a latency of 164 samples. All tracks recorded into Pro Tools have 164 samples of latency

:

1) After recording your second track/pass into Pro Tools, adjust the newly recorded audio track to compensate for the 164 samples of latency.
2) Select the second pass of audio with the Grabber Tool. Edit Menu > Shift. Click "Earlier" and type in 164 in the "Samples" field. Click "OK". Now, Pro Tools will locate the audio 164 samples earlier.


So how come when the engine is set to MBox can't the software simply move the regions after recording earlier by 164 samples for us?

This certainly wasn't documented or raised as an issue before I bought the MBox.

Thanks.

Rail

[DesertDude]

yeah, all we got that crappy Zero/Low latency knob. What a bunch of marketing [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

Pasquale

[Rail Jon Rogut]

Pasquale

I don't mind the low latency knob.. 'cause that's explained on this site (in the marketing section).. however asking the user to constantly have to shift regions that have been overdubbed earlier manually is a joke (IMO)... especially since it could easily be adjusted in software for us automatically since it is a fixed value.

Rail

[CCash]

http://duc.digidesign.com/cgi-bin/ub...;f=24;t=012344

Rail, the short of this long thread is that I believe the delay they are referring to in this case is the result of the converters, not host processing. The converters on the 001 have a latency of 51 samples out and in (about 25 samples each). When you monitor playback, there is the D/A time, then the A/D time for your new recording to get in... total of 51 samples. On the mbox it appears to be 164 samples. The USB connection is the only explanation I can think of as to why it is higher than the 001.

So, PT DOES compensate for buffer settings (which is another story... it's double what it says) by compensating and placing the audio correctly on the timeline. It does not compensate for converter latencies.

Those are my findings for the 001 anyway.

[Rail Jon Rogut]

Ccash

The point is, it doesn't matter where the latency comes from - be it monitor path or record path -- if Digi says the fix is to put every newly recorded region/track earlier by 164 samples (but you can ignore the first track).. then there's no reason that the software can't automatically do this for us.

BTW - if you're using a MIDI click track to record to, your first track will be late too... so any track/region recorded (with an I/O as opposed to a buss input) should just be shifted earlier by 164 samples by PT/LE when the MBox is selected as the hardware.. and the user shouldn't have to worry about this.

I'd certainly like an explanation if my logic is off here.

Regards.

Rail

[nz]

What about if you are using an external converter such as a Rosetta?

I have noticed something interesting recording this week on my MBox and TiBook. Normally I run a 001 with a Pod Pro and have the processed signal go through and external mic pre into the Rosetta into the 001 while at the same time I use the unprocessed signal from the PP into input 3 on the back of the unit (for reamping later). The two waveforms do not line up perfectly as the signal from SPDIF/Rosetta hits the disc sooner.

So this week I am tracking on my MBox and Tibook and have both signals running into the Rosetta and hitting the MBox via SPDIF. They match perfectly.

Does this sound right? Kinda strange, but maybe this is something that I just didn't know about.

[superbass73]

Yes. Love my Mbox but please can this issue be fixed!

[AvidCS]

Thanks for the posts folks. Yes this is an issue that we are aware of. We are looking at ways of working through this and hope that we can address it in a future PT release.

Thanks for your input.

DigiCS

[DesertDude]

Thanks for the posts folks. Yes this is an issue that we are aware of. We are looking at ways of working through this and hope that we can address it in a future PT release.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Excellent thanks!

and thank you Rail for bringing this issue to the front [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[vf124]

I'd certainly like an explanation if my logic is off here.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Rail,

I'd say DigiCS is thinking about us Mbox Owners [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Yes this is an issue that we are aware of. We are looking at ways of working through this and hope that we can address it in a future PT release.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Maybe that new release will contain the xtra tracks too... [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]