|
|
Post by srb on Apr 11, 2021 14:07:06 GMT -6
I use a 32 channel RME HDSP AES as a "digital patchbay". It's been perfect for managing the several 2-channel AD/DA I can choose from in conjunction with two DSD-capable hard disk recorders I employ often for capture of various sources.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934 
|
Post by ericn on Apr 11, 2021 14:31:22 GMT -6
You want the lowest latency? You know it’s going to be HDX, nothing comes close especially with DSP powered plugins.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Apr 11, 2021 14:58:02 GMT -6
I never run into latency issues tracking with 1 HDX card and a pair of Avid HD I/O 16x16 interfaces. I spent a lot of time trying to avoid the cost of an HDX rig but am so glad I have it now. Almost all of the plugin alliance stuff has an AAX DSP version. Between those, cranesong phoenix, MDW EQ & the arousor, I can cover all bases. It’s awesome to be able to give the band a killer mix while tracking without having to commit the plugins to “tape.”
|
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Apr 11, 2021 15:31:50 GMT -6
I wish the HDX cards worked with Logic, like the old TDM cards did. I started on Pro Tools, but left it for Logic like 16+ yrs ago. Really don't want to go back.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 11, 2021 15:49:22 GMT -6
The latency question always confused me too, but I'm not running any virtual anything. By nature, any reverb plugs blow up low buffer settings here, so overdubs on a mix in progress require a low latency digital path (AVB mixer here) or a parallel analog hardwire path (using that mostly). I don't care what the size of the session is, if there's a reverb plug in there I'm 1 or 2 seconds buffer, have never seen anything lower that won't hit CPU. And I don't think about that at all because.....see above.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Apr 11, 2021 16:35:54 GMT -6
One thing about the RME HSDPe cards is you can stack them 3 high, I believe, for massive I/O counts, and an appealing alternative to an expensive Avid system for people that doen't float that way. You can fit 3 hdx cards in a machine as well. They only take up one slot. Just need the depth. That's be a ton of voices of hdx. Which again that's just dsp voices. You'll gain the advantage of having a lot more with a native mix engine hybrid with dsp like carbon. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 11, 2021 21:14:14 GMT -6
One thing about the RME HSDPe cards is you can stack them 3 high, I believe, for massive I/O counts, and an appealing alternative to an expensive Avid system for people that doen't float that way. You can fit 3 hdx cards in a machine as well. They only take up one slot. Just need the depth. That's be a ton of voices of hdx. Which again that's just dsp voices. You'll gain the advantage of having a lot more with a native mix engine hybrid with dsp like carbon. Yup. 768 voices with 192 I/o. That seems to be enough for most of us.  |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 11, 2021 22:07:52 GMT -6
Hey fam. Regardless of brand or allegiance or anything else . . . I am so sick of latency, even minute latency. What is the lowest latency computer, OS and DAW available>? I have got to upgrade past the cheese-grater Westmere at some point. Let's say running 48 tracks and still overdubbing backing vocals. Average of about 120 plug-ins in total. Many thanks in advance. All answers are correct but with a native system latency goes up the more computer power you use. You will need a fast interface and powerful computer to keep it down. That’s why I am keen to hear about the next generation M1 CPUs. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Apr 12, 2021 0:57:46 GMT -6
You can fit 3 hdx cards in a machine as well. They only take up one slot. Just need the depth. That's be a ton of voices of hdx. Which again that's just dsp voices. You'll gain the advantage of having a lot more with a native mix engine hybrid with dsp like carbon. Yup. 768 voices with 192 I/o. That seems to be enough for most of us. half that with 96k though..which is still a lot! haha |
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Apr 12, 2021 8:03:17 GMT -6
HDX advertises .7ms at 96k. UAD 1.1ms at 96k. I think Apogee just says less than 1ms.
Sound travels through air at about .889ms per foot, so these are all less than what you'd experience singing through a floor monitor or playing through a guitar amp, unless you had the monitor/amp within a foot of your ear. So I'd argue that as long as you're direct monitoring, the latency you get from any of these systems would be negligible. The other great thing about direct monitoring is you can set your buffer to max without affecting latency.
|
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Apr 12, 2021 8:09:30 GMT -6
Hdx is the lowest latency thing you can do. Other stuff is getting close but really to do that you aren't dealing with a Daw at that point. As in, uad has low latency but only if you send things back out through it's console app and same for every other thing. Hdx is all in protools. Apogee has now integrated their hardware direct monitoring in Logic, and UAD has Luna. But yes if you want low latency integrated in Pro Tools you need HDX. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Apr 12, 2021 8:09:40 GMT -6
Those minimum advertised latencies, an advertising norm, are not always usable in the real world. Just to add this caution. It's more about how they perform in a "typical session." In other words, real world usage. If you went by the advertised specs you would think an inexpensive Focusrite interface would be nearly as good as these top performing ones, which is not true in the real world.
There are many audio drivers, also, that simply report incorrect latency numbers to the DAW, so you really have to measure it yourself to know the true latency.
But I agree that the "best in class" interfaces with a strong computer will get you to the finish line, and you won't worry about these things any longer. It's a nice place to get to. Especially if you're building tracks with virtual instruments or performing live with a computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 12, 2021 8:41:02 GMT -6
Yup. 768 voices with 192 I/o. That seems to be enough for most of us. half that with 96k though..which is still a lot! haha You still have the 192 I/o though, and that's what matters!!! |
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Apr 12, 2021 8:59:35 GMT -6
Those minimum advertised latencies, an advertising norm, are not always usable in the real world. Just to add this caution. It's more about how they perform in a "typical session." In other words, real world usage. If you went by the advertised specs you would think an inexpensive Focusrite interface would be nearly as good as these top performing ones, which is not true in the real world. There are many audio drivers, also, that simply report incorrect latency numbers to the DAW, so you really have to measure it yourself to know the true latency. But I agree that the "best in class" interfaces with a strong computer will get you to the finish line, and you won't worry about these things any longer. It's a nice place to get to. Especially if you're building tracks with virtual instruments or performing live with a computer. My understanding is that with direct monitoring, the latency is a fixed number, UNLESS you're recording through plugins, in which case the latency of those plugins gets added in. I've also heard that HDX's latency can vary but I don't know the inner-workings of what those scenarios are. For me in real-world use, I've never had issues with latency as long as I'm using PTHD or direct monitoring. It's always been negligible and I've never had a musician notice it. The only times I've experienced noticable latency or had musicians complain about latency is when I used PT without direct monitoring and therefore had to use the buffer. I've been using the UAD system through their Console app for the last five years or so, I mix as I go in my DAW and always keep the buffer at max, and its given me negligble latency and rock solid stability even on my old 2012 macbook pro. It's also the fastest system I've encountered for setting up multiple cue mixes, even faster than an analog console. BUT! If you're running VIs or amp sims in your native DAW then all of this goes out the window because you can't use direct monitoring. |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 12, 2021 10:36:29 GMT -6
Those minimum advertised latencies, an advertising norm, are not always usable in the real world. Just to add this caution. It's more about how they perform in a "typical session." In other words, real world usage. If you went by the advertised specs you would think an inexpensive Focusrite interface would be nearly as good as these top performing ones, which is not true in the real world. There are many audio drivers, also, that simply report incorrect latency numbers to the DAW, so you really have to measure it yourself to know the true latency. But I agree that the "best in class" interfaces with a strong computer will get you to the finish line, and you won't worry about these things any longer. It's a nice place to get to. Especially if you're building tracks with virtual instruments or performing live with a computer. My understanding is that with direct monitoring, the latency is a fixed number, UNLESS you're recording through plugins,
That's my dream to monitor through the DAW direct monitoring is not bad too, but live would be easier to hear the sound already sitting in the rough balanced tracking mix.
That needs fast CPUs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ab101 on Apr 12, 2021 10:48:10 GMT -6
HDX advertises .7ms at 96k. UAD 1.1ms at 96k. I think Apogee just says less than 1ms. Sound travels through air at about .889ms per foot, so these are all less than what you'd experience singing through a floor monitor or playing through a guitar amp, unless you had the monitor/amp within a foot of your ear. So I'd argue that as long as you're direct monitoring, the latency you get from any of these systems would be negligible. The other great thing about direct monitoring is you can set your buffer to max without affecting latency. Which UAD? The cards? Or are you speaking of their interfaces? Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Apr 12, 2021 10:55:33 GMT -6
HDX advertises .7ms at 96k. UAD 1.1ms at 96k. I think Apogee just says less than 1ms. Sound travels through air at about .889ms per foot, so these are all less than what you'd experience singing through a floor monitor or playing through a guitar amp, unless you had the monitor/amp within a foot of your ear. So I'd argue that as long as you're direct monitoring, the latency you get from any of these systems would be negligible. The other great thing about direct monitoring is you can set your buffer to max without affecting latency. Which UAD? The cards? Or are you speaking of their interfaces? Thank you! You'd have to use their interfaces to take advantage of their direct monitoring feature. |
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Apr 12, 2021 11:07:16 GMT -6
My understanding is that with direct monitoring, the latency is a fixed number, UNLESS you're recording through plugins,
That's my dream to monitor through the DAW direct monitoring is not bad too, but live would be easier to hear the sound already sitting in the rough balanced tracking mix.
That needs fast CPUs.
Maybe I'm not understanding your statement. You mean if you want to monitor what you're recording through plugins? I don't record through plugins much; this is where I use my hardware. But if you are in the UAD ecosystem and you wanted to record through plugins, you can instantiate the UAD plugins in Console. All the lifting would be done by the Sharc chips in your interface so it wouldn't put additional strain on your CPU. There is a list somewhere of how much latency each UAD plugin adds. Most are either zero additional samples or 55 samples. If my math is correct, even the 55 samples is only going to add about .5ms of latency at 96k. If you are trying to record through non-UAD plugins in your DAW, then yes you will have latency, will need to make the round trip through the buffer and need a lot of CPU. Virtual Instruments are the obvious scenario where you would want to do this. This is probably why UAD has introduced their own VIs in Luna. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
|
Post by ericn on Apr 12, 2021 11:52:27 GMT -6
From my days of Building DAW’s I am skeptical of pretty much every latency figure provided except those for HDX. HDX with DSP based plugins is a system designed to intergrate unlike all the other major players.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Apr 14, 2021 7:20:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 14, 2021 7:27:06 GMT -6
The latency question always confused me too, but I'm not running any virtual anything. By nature, any reverb plugs blow up low buffer settings here, so overdubs on a mix in progress require a low latency digital path (AVB mixer here) or a parallel analog hardwire path (using that mostly). I don't care what the size of the session is, if there's a reverb plug in there I'm 1 or 2 seconds buffer, have never seen anything lower that won't hit CPU. And I don't think about that at all because.....see above. Yeah I disable reverb plugs during tracking. Otherwise I'm getting around 5-8ms through motu/reaper and don't notice it. |
|
