|
Post by gouge on Feb 13, 2017 22:14:33 GMT -6
now that I'm rocking a focusrite in a mobile rig, I've had to start to think about latency a bit more as the auto reporting is not accurate enough.
end result is i am being forced into developing my quantizing and stretch marker skills. I'm ok with that as I've developed a way that retain the feel of the artist.
but... I'm left thinking i'll need to recal the latency each session as there are to many variables at play like ambient temp slowing down the surface pro, channel count changes, plugin numbers on monitoring etc.
what was a big help was tracking more cowbell and tamborine to help as a guide.
so, is it just me?
or do others have workflow sorted. any tips or tricks.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 13, 2017 23:29:01 GMT -6
HDX is my tip and trick. Never think about latency. YMMV. $0.0000478325 (adjusted for streaming royalties)
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Feb 14, 2017 0:13:51 GMT -6
now that I'm rocking a focusrite in a mobile rig, I've had to start to think about latency a bit more as the auto reporting is not accurate enough.
end result is i am being forced into developing my quantizing and stretch marker skills. I'm ok with that as I've developed a way that retain the feel of the artist.
but... I'm left thinking i'll need to recal the latency each session as there are to many variables at play like ambient temp slowing down the surface pro, channel count changes, plugin numbers on monitoring etc.
what was a big help was tracking more cowbell and tamborine to help as a guide.
so, is it just me?
or do others have workflow sorted. any tips or tricks. I dont understand the question, we talk tracking latency? If yes does not the focusrite has a sort of direct monitoring like RME. Thats cool with RME I just have to deal with 2 ms latency in tracking... love it.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Feb 14, 2017 5:36:00 GMT -6
HDX is my tip and trick. Never think about latency. YMMV. $0.0000478325 (adjusted for streaming royalties) I also don't have any issues with the lynx setup but this is the live rig. :-) i'd be scared to put 6k of converters into the wild.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 14, 2017 5:36:57 GMT -6
Ever heard the expression "stick to your knitting"? I wish Focusrite had done that and stuck to making great preamps, VCA comps and EQs. Both the red line and blue line were almost sacrosanct. I don't actually know anyone who has raved about a claret or some other wine namesake Focusrite product. And Rednet? I've heard as many de-install stories and install stories.
But I'm just a grumpy 50 year old man.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Feb 14, 2017 5:43:12 GMT -6
now that I'm rocking a focusrite in a mobile rig, I've had to start to think about latency a bit more as the auto reporting is not accurate enough.
end result is i am being forced into developing my quantizing and stretch marker skills. I'm ok with that as I've developed a way that retain the feel of the artist.
but... I'm left thinking i'll need to recal the latency each session as there are to many variables at play like ambient temp slowing down the surface pro, channel count changes, plugin numbers on monitoring etc.
what was a big help was tracking more cowbell and tamborine to help as a guide.
so, is it just me?
or do others have workflow sorted. any tips or tricks. I dont understand the question, we talk tracking latency? If yes does not the focusrite has a sort of direct monitoring like RME. Thats cool with RME I just have to deal with 2 ms latency in tracking... love it. yes we are talking tracking latency not monitor latency. monitoring is latency free. however when doing overdubs the monitor latency from previously recorded parts can bite. inside a daw is an algo that measure the latency and adjusts to suit. I've found that amount in the focusrite/surface pro setup to be unreliable. what is recommended is to measure the round trip latency and fix that figure into your daw settings and avoid auto calculate. to be honest, the lynx has some latency. I hear it when I build up songs using overdubs. but it's so small I ignore it. tracking then entire band live avoids the issue. I am certain the hdx has it also. what has thrown me with the focusrite is the amount of latency seems to vary depending on session.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Feb 14, 2017 5:46:38 GMT -6
Ever heard the expression "stick to your knitting"? I wish Focusrite had done that and stuck to making great preamps, VCA comps and EQs. Both the red line and blue line were almost sacrosanct. I don't actually know anyone who has raved about a claret or some other wine namesake Focusrite product. And Rednet? I've heard as many de-install stories and install stories. But I'm just a grumpy 50 year old man. I've often wondered if one of the reasons stretch and quantize has become so prevalent is because in fact all digital mediums are flawed. I prefer on the whole to record bands in full to digital if i can and just avoid all of this.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 14, 2017 5:48:49 GMT -6
Well Mr. gouge, that would definitely be the preferred way to do things. Dr. Bill says he experiences little to no latency with HDX and I experience none that I can measure with Pro Tools HD. Maybe the problem is the Focusrite?
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Feb 14, 2017 6:25:15 GMT -6
I dont know the products by focusrite, but I can tell you that you can track a whole band with one of the newer RMEs if I remember right the new Fireface UFX+ eats up to 90 mono tracks. I even tracked Bands in the 00 years with just 16 tracks of my old FireFace 400... no headphones muscians close together in a simple improvised wooden living room... turned out great.
It sounds to me that you over complicate things?
Get rid of those anoying interfaces and buy one of the RMEs they still have the lowest tracking latency in direct monitoring mode.... Many friends who tracked here bought RME after they experienced a native session with nearly no latency at all 2 ms hard to hear/feel.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Feb 14, 2017 8:51:07 GMT -6
What software are you using?
What you are talking about is record offset, the ability of the software to place a recorded track back in proper time using the latency figure from the interface. If it's changing per session then something is off between the software and hardware.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Feb 14, 2017 9:33:16 GMT -6
What software are you using? What you are talking about is record offset, the ability of the software to place a recorded track back in proper time using the latency figure from the interface. If it's changing per session then something is off between the software and hardware. yep that's what I am talking about.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,976
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Feb 14, 2017 10:08:45 GMT -6
RADAR V no problem here ! Or JW favorite Alesis HDR, Closed loop systems are so much easier for tracking!
|
|
|
Post by spock on Feb 14, 2017 11:23:44 GMT -6
RADAR V no problem here ! Or JW favorite Alesis HDR, Closed loop systems are so much easier for tracking! RADAR!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 14, 2017 11:44:59 GMT -6
If a DAW is required over RADAR or the like, and if you want minimum latency and transparency of work flow.....
Then you look to the most demanding and expensive sessions and check out what they are using.
An argument can be made that film scores with 110+ musicians - many making double scale, a half dozen engineers, directors, editors, producers, and other studio exec's are the most "expensive" (on a variety of fronts) sessions on the face of the earth.
What method do they use to record? Tape? Cubase? RADAR? Logic? Reaper? Studio One? PT Native?
nope.
There's only one method used to record expensive film scores for the last 10-15 years.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 14, 2017 12:03:28 GMT -6
now that I'm rocking a focusrite in a mobile rig, I've had to start to think about latency a bit more as the auto reporting is not accurate enough.
end result is i am being forced into developing my quantizing and stretch marker skills. I'm ok with that as I've developed a way that retain the feel of the artist.
but... I'm left thinking i'll need to recal the latency each session as there are to many variables at play like ambient temp slowing down the surface pro, channel count changes, plugin numbers on monitoring etc.
what was a big help was tracking more cowbell and tamborine to help as a guide.
so, is it just me?
or do others have workflow sorted. any tips or tricks. I have an 18i8 and haven't had any latency issues with it. I don't use it often, but when I've used it, it's been smooth sailing. Set the DAW to low latency monitoring and use the Focusrite software to monitor direct.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Feb 14, 2017 12:22:59 GMT -6
Lynx Aurora 16 -> RME AES 32. No latency.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,976
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Feb 14, 2017 12:50:17 GMT -6
If a DAW is required over RADAR or the like, and if you want minimum latency and transparency of work flow..... Then you look to the most demanding and expensive sessions and check out what they are using. An argument can be made that film scores with 110+ musicians - many making double scale, a half dozen engineers, directors, editors, producers, and other studio exec's are the most "expensive" (on a variety of fronts) sessions on the face of the earth. What method do they use to record? Tape? Cubase? RADAR? Logic? Reaper? Studio One? PT Native? nope. There's only one method used to record expensive film scores for the last 10-15 years. I won't disagree but most of us won't ever need that capability, besides I'm guessing HDX is way beyond our OP's budget!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2017 13:04:55 GMT -6
If a DAW is required over RADAR or the like, and if you want minimum latency and transparency of work flow..... Then you look to the most demanding and expensive sessions and check out what they are using. An argument can be made that film scores with 110+ musicians - many making double scale, a half dozen engineers, directors, editors, producers, and other studio exec's are the most "expensive" (on a variety of fronts) sessions on the face of the earth. What method do they use to record? Tape? Cubase? RADAR? Logic? Reaper? Studio One? PT Native? nope. There's only one method used to record expensive film scores for the last 10-15 years. FruityLoops?
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Feb 14, 2017 13:32:23 GMT -6
We have a pair of Alesis HD24XR's in a hybrid setup with an analog console. One is used as a dedicated AD and the second unit is the DA.
We use the first HD24XR (AD) to record directly into Reaper on an iMac via a Presonus FireStudio Lightpipe (Soon to be replaced by an RME ADI-648)
Because the 24 analog line outs are not used for playback on the HD24XR (AD) these outputs can instead be used for direct monitoring.
Currently this is achieved through a patchbay but I am building a 24 way switching panel which will take the analog outputs from both units and allow switching of individual tracks between playback from the DA for normal playback/mix-down or direct (latency free) monitoring from the AD line outputs whilst overdubbing.
This will allow the use of large buffers (if required) with zero latency issues for the clients. It also allows the choice of DAW plugin verbs/delays etc while tracking or we can use outboard effects with the console.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 14, 2017 13:38:06 GMT -6
If a DAW is required over RADAR or the like, and if you want minimum latency and transparency of work flow..... Then you look to the most demanding and expensive sessions and check out what they are using. An argument can be made that film scores with 110+ musicians - many making double scale, a half dozen engineers, directors, editors, producers, and other studio exec's are the most "expensive" (on a variety of fronts) sessions on the face of the earth. What method do they use to record? Tape? Cubase? RADAR? Logic? Reaper? Studio One? PT Native? nope. There's only one method used to record expensive film scores for the last 10-15 years. I won't disagree but most of us won't ever need that capability, besides I'm guessing HDX is way beyond our OP's budget! If you want great it's not cheap. If you want cheap, it's almost certainly likely not great. I'm assuming that the op wanted zero or as close to it as possible latency. The answer is out there. It's not some esoteric question. You don't have to jump thru hoops, and slide stuff around, or find secret buffer settings, or update drivers or jump thru hoops with some complicated anti-creative workflow. It's just there. It works. And it's not that expensive if compared to the historic cost of gear over the last 20 years. It's only expensive if you compare to it to $149 DAW's hooked up to $499 AD/DA's. And the work flow makes life so much easier, you might actually find it CHEAPER in the long run.... My $0.02 - adjusted to $0.0000478325 for streaming royalties
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 14, 2017 13:39:30 GMT -6
If a DAW is required over RADAR or the like, and if you want minimum latency and transparency of work flow..... Then you look to the most demanding and expensive sessions and check out what they are using. An argument can be made that film scores with 110+ musicians - many making double scale, a half dozen engineers, directors, editors, producers, and other studio exec's are the most "expensive" (on a variety of fronts) sessions on the face of the earth. What method do they use to record? Tape? Cubase? RADAR? Logic? Reaper? Studio One? PT Native? nope. There's only one method used to record expensive film scores for the last 10-15 years. FruityLoops? Haha!! Exactly. I can tell your'e a Hollywood insider!!!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,976
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Feb 14, 2017 14:06:08 GMT -6
I won't disagree but most of us won't ever need that capability, besides I'm guessing HDX is way beyond our OP's budget! If you want great it's not cheap. If you want cheap, it's almost certainly likely not great. I'm assuming that the op wanted zero or as close to it as possible latency. The answer is out there. It's not some esoteric question. You don't have to jump thru hoops, and slide stuff around, or find secret buffer settings, or update drivers or jump thru hoops with some complicated anti-creative workflow. It's just there. It works. And it's not that expensive if compared to the historic cost of gear over the last 20 years. It's only expensive if you compare to it to $149 DAW's hooked up to $499 AD/DA's. And the work flow makes life so much easier, you might actually find it CHEAPER in the long run.... My $0.02 - adjusted to $0.0000478325 for streaming royalties [br Come on you know I agree HDX is the standard, but not everybody has the coin! The OP's talking focuswrong ! Old HD might hit his budget, but it's also mobile! Besides I'll take my Remote over a cheap keyboard any day!😎
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Feb 14, 2017 15:02:22 GMT -6
I don't know that suggesting other interfaces is going to help him much...8)
basically recording offset is right.
If you aren't changing sample rates, from session to session, it should stay the same... should....8) across the same inputs and outputs... e.g. the physical AD DA inputs/outpus will have a different offset than the ADAT IO as per my Motu 16A.
It sounds to me, like a driver issue.
Talk to focus rite support.
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by donr on Feb 14, 2017 15:08:30 GMT -6
Monitoring aside, recorded tracks always line up on playback. If they don't, it's an interface issue. Or the Russians hacked your session. 😁
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Feb 14, 2017 15:50:36 GMT -6
I don't know that suggesting other interfaces is going to help him much...8) basically recording offset is right. If you aren't changing sample rates, from session to session, it should stay the same... should....8) across the same inputs and outputs... e.g. the physical AD DA inputs/outpus will have a different offset than the ADAT IO as per my Motu 16A. It sounds to me, like a driver issue. Talk to focus rite support. cheers Wiz Yeah, either that or being locked inside a qldr during a heatwave. It was over 40. I'm going to set the offsett manyally and see what happens.
|
|