|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
I am running PT LE 7.3 with my 003 rack. when I patch a hardware insert into my compressor (RNC) the audio no longer syncs with the other tracks. when I turn my playback buffer down it gets better, but that usually results in a crash of some sort. I want to be able to leave my buffer size up - is there anything( other than shifting the regions back in time) that will resolve this problem?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
Nope. Time to shift your tracks. Latency is a given with any kind of host-based DAW. It's lessened if you use devices with Digital connections instead of Analog, but it's always going to be there.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
Quote:
Why wouldn't you want a small buffer? The concept of high buffers was when we need to scrap all the resources we could for the computer, with the current computers available 32/64 buffers are all I would ever be willing to do. High buffers makes PT LE pretty unuseable for me. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
they want to leave the buffer up because it seems as though they are in the mix stage, and keeping the buffer up will increase plugin count and drop the number of errors kicked off. Also it doesn't mention the model computer they are using, maybe they have an older model where using a high buffer is almost mandatory. The Mac Pro offers the power luxury of running low buffers most of the time, but I still crank it up towards the end of the mixing process and ESPECIALLY for doing bounces. There is nothing worse than getting 3/4 of the way through the bounce and getting a Buffer error. Manual delay compensation is a necessary evil in PT LE, so might as well learn to do it now. Here is a thread from a while back. There is some good stuff in it...
http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.p...rt=&PHPSESSID=
__________________
Mac Book Pro Retina 2.6 GHz i7 Quad | 16GB | OSX 10.8.5 | Digi 002 | Apogee Rosetta 800/96 | PT 10 | Waves Gold/RevMaxx V9 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
32 is all I do, and all I will ever do.
If I move it to 128 or even 256 that's more than enough to cause me tracking problems if I forget to put it back and it doesn't cause any problems at mixdown. If I had an older computer that I couldn't upgrade I would choose an old MIX plus system instead of LE. Manual Delay Compensation is a CREATED PT LE evil based on a choosen work flow, nothing more. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
sweet dude, good to know, thanks for your wonderful input, it has really helped the situation.
__________________
Mac Book Pro Retina 2.6 GHz i7 Quad | 16GB | OSX 10.8.5 | Digi 002 | Apogee Rosetta 800/96 | PT 10 | Waves Gold/RevMaxx V9 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
I went back and referenced some other threads about TIME ADJUSTER - then tried to put it to application.i created a 3 track session - two guitar and one mono drum. when i put my insert on the drum track, the delay was measured to be 6 samples... to test the theory of time adjuster i put it on the guitar tracks and set it to compensate for 6 samples - in fact...when I engaged the time adjuster plug on the tracks they in turn incurred a 20 sample delay!
I'm not one to be obnoxious and tell other people their theories are wrong. really I just want to learn as much as possible about this problem. considering what i just described, am i still doing something wrong? how can a plugin designed to compensate for delay add 20 samples of delay? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
Quote:
He never said what computer he was using so he could be dealing with an improperly setup system. Again the concept of changing the buffer during mixdown should not be considered a requirement or recommendation. It pretty much goes in the same pot as bouncing tracks down to save CPU cycles, both are crutches with their own set of problems that they add to a workflow. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
using a macbook for the record.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: latency when using hardware inserts (oo3)
Quote:
Try this just make a session put 2 mono tracks and a master. Record the same thing to the 2 tracks, a stereo signal will also work but don't use a stereo track in the session. Add something that has a real latency like 512 or more but only to one track, use multiple plugs if necessary since it makes it easier to experiment with when you can hear the delay. Now add the medium or large adjuster to the other track, it will add 4 samples of delay to that track so don't worry about that. Next you just input the numerical value shown on the track with the plugs you should hear things line up once you do it. It's also helpful if you do a OPTION + COMMAND when you click to get the channel to display DLY so it shows on all the channels when you are in a session. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hardware insert 1&2 cutting off other hardware inserts on aux tracks | Led | Windows | 4 | 12-09-2013 09:19 AM |
Low Latency Monitoring and Hardware Inserts | BobbyDazzler | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 11 | 06-21-2012 05:34 PM |
Latency Compensation on Hardware Inserts | BJosephs | macOS | 6 | 07-11-2011 06:45 AM |
[002R] Hardware Inserts Latency: how much is it? | HotRats_Reloded | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 8 | 06-14-2006 01:03 PM |
latency on hardware inserts | vtone | Tips & Tricks | 4 | 10-22-2000 05:37 AM |