|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Dec 22, 2023 7:18:55 GMT -6
? Not really understanding you. Prior to UA going native, there was no choice, you had to use UA dsp to run UA plugs: period. Whether, you tracked with them and needed an apollo was a choice. Now, with uadX and Luna, you don’t need UA dsp, you might choose to run apollo but you don’t have to. The only reason to buy UA dsp now is to run the uad2 plugs which are not native: yet. The only ua plug for me on that list would be ampex, but there are other tape options, studer runs natively or competitors’ plug, won’t be buying UA dsp for one plug, that’s for sure!  Sorry, yes, you are right there was no option before, therefore even those who would not otherwise use dsp was forced to. Now as you take that equation out, probably even a majority plus a whole bunch of others will be happy to go native. But the debate and discussion around the dsp seem vastly to circle around dsp just being an expensive platform for uad plugs and the economy around that. Where as I claim the actual use and need for dsp is something completely different. Ibelieve UA and it’s dsp is built to support ofcourse their whole idea of unison etc. but also as a midway between hdx and native. It’s probably yet very hard to define how many of the uad users used to categorize in the “dsp just to be able to run uad” and how many in the “dsp for the sake of latency etc.” So looking at the pricing aspect of it. Absolutely, they cannot go back from cheap pricing on native they now have joined. But that path alone is debatable if it will carry the company. So I suppose the more expensive, longterm commitment dsp users will probably not be ignored in the future either. I see 2 complementing systems that will likely have a price setting similar to the one we can now see. I personally do not run dsp to run uad plugs per se, I use it because it lets me run low latency mixes in a way no native plugs will allow despite how pimped my cpu would be. In another world I would likely run hdx which would not make economically sense to me though. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 9:30:21 GMT -6
? Not really understanding you. Prior to UA going native, there was no choice, you had to use UA dsp to run UA plugs: period. Whether, you tracked with them and needed an apollo was a choice. Now, with uadX and Luna, you don’t need UA dsp, you might choose to run apollo but you don’t have to. The only reason to buy UA dsp now is to run the uad2 plugs which are not native: yet. The only ua plug for me on that list would be ampex, but there are other tape options, studer runs natively or competitors’ plug, won’t be buying UA dsp for one plug, that’s for sure! Sorry, yes, you are right there was no option before, therefore even those who would not otherwise use dsp was forced to. Now as you take that equation out, probably even a majority plus a whole bunch of others will be happy to go native. But the debate and discussion around the dsp seem vastly to circle around dsp just being an expensive platform for uad plugs and the economy around that. Where as I claim the actual use and need for dsp is something completely different. Ibelieve UA and it’s dsp is built to support ofcourse their whole idea of unison etc. but also as a midway between hdx and native. It’s probably yet very hard to define how many of the uad users used to categorize in the “dsp just to be able to run uad” and how many in the “dsp for the sake of latency etc.” So looking at the pricing aspect of it. Absolutely, they cannot go back from cheap pricing on native they now have joined. But that path alone is debatable if it will carry the company. So I suppose the more expensive, longterm commitment dsp users will probably not be ignored in the future either. I see 2 complementing systems that will likely have a price setting similar to the one we can now see. I personally do not run dsp to run uad plugs per se, I use it because it lets me run low latency mixes in a way no native plugs will allow despite how pimped my cpu would be. In another world I would likely run hdx which would not make economically sense to me though. Agreed. It's all about the latency during tracking. DSP is still totally relevant for these purposes. Some users ignore that benefit, but it's still a benefit over and above tracking without DSP. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 22, 2023 12:21:16 GMT -6
Check out the signature bundle it’s all the native plugs. If you like that bundle, you could sell your UA stuff, get your new interface and buy signature and run native. What a gigantic pain in the ass, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 22, 2023 12:24:33 GMT -6
? Not really understanding you. Prior to UA going native, there was no choice, you had to use UA dsp to run UA plugs: period. Whether, you tracked with them and needed an apollo was a choice. Now, with uadX and Luna, you don’t need UA dsp, you might choose to run apollo but you don’t have to. The only reason to buy UA dsp now is to run the uad2 plugs which are not native: yet. The only ua plug for me on that list would be ampex, but there are other tape options, studer runs natively or competitors’ plug, won’t be buying UA dsp for one plug, that’s for sure! Sorry, yes, you are right there was no option before, therefore even those who would not otherwise use dsp was forced to. Now as you take that equation out, probably even a majority plus a whole bunch of others will be happy to go native. But the debate and discussion around the dsp seem vastly to circle around dsp just being an expensive platform for uad plugs and the economy around that. Where as I claim the actual use and need for dsp is something completely different. Ibelieve UA and it’s dsp is built to support ofcourse their whole idea of unison etc. but also as a midway between hdx and native. It’s probably yet very hard to define how many of the uad users used to categorize in the “dsp just to be able to run uad” and how many in the “dsp for the sake of latency etc.” So looking at the pricing aspect of it. Absolutely, they cannot go back from cheap pricing on native they now have joined. But that path alone is debatable if it will carry the company. So I suppose the more expensive, longterm commitment dsp users will probably not be ignored in the future either. I see 2 complementing systems that will likely have a price setting similar to the one we can now see. I personally do not run dsp to run uad plugs per se, I use it because it lets me run low latency mixes in a way no native plugs will allow despite how pimped my cpu would be. In another world I would likely run hdx which would not make economically sense to me though. Also - even with the modern Macs and big machines, I would still have to freeze/commit if I didn’t have dsp. It allows me to have really large sessions open, stay at a higher buffer and track with no latency. |
|
|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Dec 22, 2023 13:25:45 GMT -6
Sorry, yes, you are right there was no option before, therefore even those who would not otherwise use dsp was forced to. Now as you take that equation out, probably even a majority plus a whole bunch of others will be happy to go native. But the debate and discussion around the dsp seem vastly to circle around dsp just being an expensive platform for uad plugs and the economy around that. Where as I claim the actual use and need for dsp is something completely different. Ibelieve UA and it’s dsp is built to support ofcourse their whole idea of unison etc. but also as a midway between hdx and native. It’s probably yet very hard to define how many of the uad users used to categorize in the “dsp just to be able to run uad” and how many in the “dsp for the sake of latency etc.” So looking at the pricing aspect of it. Absolutely, they cannot go back from cheap pricing on native they now have joined. But that path alone is debatable if it will carry the company. So I suppose the more expensive, longterm commitment dsp users will probably not be ignored in the future either. I see 2 complementing systems that will likely have a price setting similar to the one we can now see. I personally do not run dsp to run uad plugs per se, I use it because it lets me run low latency mixes in a way no native plugs will allow despite how pimped my cpu would be. In another world I would likely run hdx which would not make economically sense to me though. Also - even with the modern Macs and big machines, I would still have to freeze/commit if I didn’t have dsp. It allows me to have really large sessions open, stay at a higher buffer and track with no latency. Exactly, this is how i have experienced it too. I do have rockets under the hood of my macs, but it does not natter, the bottlenecks are elsewhere. I do enjoy not to have to go thru freeze etc., just being able to keep tracking overdubs on the fly with ongoing mix. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Dec 22, 2023 15:21:25 GMT -6
Sorry, yes, you are right there was no option before, therefore even those who would not otherwise use dsp was forced to. Now as you take that equation out, probably even a majority plus a whole bunch of others will be happy to go native. But the debate and discussion around the dsp seem vastly to circle around dsp just being an expensive platform for uad plugs and the economy around that. Where as I claim the actual use and need for dsp is something completely different. Ibelieve UA and it’s dsp is built to support ofcourse their whole idea of unison etc. but also as a midway between hdx and native. It’s probably yet very hard to define how many of the uad users used to categorize in the “dsp just to be able to run uad” and how many in the “dsp for the sake of latency etc.” So looking at the pricing aspect of it. Absolutely, they cannot go back from cheap pricing on native they now have joined. But that path alone is debatable if it will carry the company. So I suppose the more expensive, longterm commitment dsp users will probably not be ignored in the future either. I see 2 complementing systems that will likely have a price setting similar to the one we can now see. I personally do not run dsp to run uad plugs per se, I use it because it lets me run low latency mixes in a way no native plugs will allow despite how pimped my cpu would be. In another world I would likely run hdx which would not make economically sense to me though. Also - even with the modern Macs and big machines, I would still have to freeze/commit if I didn’t have dsp. It allows me to have really large sessions open, stay at a higher buffer and track with no latency. Latency is where they are sort of drawing the line between pro and pro- sumer, but some at UA has to realize that they are still not AT HDX levels when it comes to latency. UA has never been to focused on video/ post but they really have to take a look at what Blackmagic / Fairlight offer, not sure of the latency numbers but in theory I could buy a Fairlight card, run the AU or VST version of UA plugins and approach UA DSP latency figures for a lot less. I love it when a manufacturer makes a plan and doesn’t look at what all the competitors offer. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 22, 2023 15:44:28 GMT -6
Check out the signature bundle it’s all the native plugs. If you like that bundle, you could sell your UA stuff, get your new interface and buy signature and run native. What a gigantic pain in the ass, though. Hardly, I freed up like $15-1600 usd selling my UA stuff and buying back just the plugs I wanted:,works for me ! |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 16:07:12 GMT -6
Sorry, yes, you are right there was no option before, therefore even those who would not otherwise use dsp was forced to. Now as you take that equation out, probably even a majority plus a whole bunch of others will be happy to go native. But the debate and discussion around the dsp seem vastly to circle around dsp just being an expensive platform for uad plugs and the economy around that. Where as I claim the actual use and need for dsp is something completely different. Ibelieve UA and it’s dsp is built to support ofcourse their whole idea of unison etc. but also as a midway between hdx and native. It’s probably yet very hard to define how many of the uad users used to categorize in the “dsp just to be able to run uad” and how many in the “dsp for the sake of latency etc.” So looking at the pricing aspect of it. Absolutely, they cannot go back from cheap pricing on native they now have joined. But that path alone is debatable if it will carry the company. So I suppose the more expensive, longterm commitment dsp users will probably not be ignored in the future either. I see 2 complementing systems that will likely have a price setting similar to the one we can now see. I personally do not run dsp to run uad plugs per se, I use it because it lets me run low latency mixes in a way no native plugs will allow despite how pimped my cpu would be. In another world I would likely run hdx which would not make economically sense to me though. Also - even with the modern Macs and big machines, I would still have to freeze/commit if I didn’t have dsp. It allows me to have really large sessions open, stay at a higher buffer and track with no latency. Exactly |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 22, 2023 16:11:54 GMT -6
Also - even with the modern Macs and big machines, I would still have to freeze/commit if I didn’t have dsp. It allows me to have really large sessions open, stay at a higher buffer and track with no latency. Latency is where they are sort of drawing the line between pro and pro- sumer, but some at UA has to realize that they are still not AT HDX levels when it comes to latency. UA has never been to focused on video/ post but they really have to take a look at what Blackmagic / Fairlight offer, not sure of the latency numbers but in theory I could buy a Fairlight card, run the AU or VST version of UA plugins and approach UA DSP latency figures for a lot less. I love it when a manufacturer makes a plan and doesn’t look at what all the competitors offer. What are the figures you have (and their source) for comparing Apollo and HDX monitoring latency? The ones I’ve seen are comparable (when comparing the same sample rate). |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 16:18:11 GMT -6
Also - even with the modern Macs and big machines, I would still have to freeze/commit if I didn’t have dsp. It allows me to have really large sessions open, stay at a higher buffer and track with no latency. Latency is where they are sort of drawing the line between pro and pro- sumer, but some at UA has to realize that they are still not AT HDX levels when it comes to latency. UA has never been to focused on video/ post but they really have to take a look at what Blackmagic / Fairlight offer, not sure of the latency numbers but in theory I could buy a Fairlight card, run the AU or VST version of UA plugins and approach UA DSP latency figures for a lot less. I love it when a manufacturer makes a plan and doesn’t look at what all the competitors offer. There isn't THAT much difference in the latency between HDX and the Apollos. At 96k, HDX RTL is 0.7 ms and the Apollo is 1.1 ms. I forget what the figures are at 44.1k or 48k, but they are also comparable. So the differences are basically negligible, if you ask me. @ Ragan I was answering this at the same time that you were apparently asking about it. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Dec 22, 2023 16:25:07 GMT -6
Latency is where they are sort of drawing the line between pro and pro- sumer, but some at UA has to realize that they are still not AT HDX levels when it comes to latency. UA has never been to focused on video/ post but they really have to take a look at what Blackmagic / Fairlight offer, not sure of the latency numbers but in theory I could buy a Fairlight card, run the AU or VST version of UA plugins and approach UA DSP latency figures for a lot less. I love it when a manufacturer makes a plan and doesn’t look at what all the competitors offer. What are the figures you have (and their source) for comparing Apollo and HDX monitoring latency? The ones I’ve seen are comparable (when comparing the same sample rate). My figures match quints, but while the difference is small, time and again I hear of artists who can’t live with the Apollo latency, I honestly was just looking at HDX because of a potential client who will only track on HDX with their favorite plugins. might just make the jump if they can show they will deliver on the billable hours. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 16:34:56 GMT -6
What are the figures you have (and their source) for comparing Apollo and HDX monitoring latency? The ones I’ve seen are comparable (when comparing the same sample rate). My figures match quints, but while the difference is small, time and again I hear of artists who can’t live with the Apollo latency, I honestly was just looking at HDX because of a potential client who will only track on HDX with their favorite plugins. might just make the jump if they can show they will deliver on the billable hours. For those artists saying such things, I suspect there is something more to this than just a simple apples to apples comparison between HDX and the Apollo. Sure, there are those people who struggle with ANY latency, and thus require an all analog monitoring chain. But I think, once you're into the group of people who work fine with ultra low latency, I struggle to imagine how 0.4 ms of difference between the two makes a real difference. There's gotta be more to this story. It wouldn't shock me to hear that artists saying they can only work with HDX latency, and not Apollo latency, are either 1. just introducing bias based on things they've heard from others, but not actually experienced themselves, or 2. going purely on name recognition of HDX or 3. basing their belief on real world experience rooted in a lack of understanding of why they might have experienced more latency with an Apollo versus HDX (it would be easy with either system, for an artist with little knowledge of such things, to experience more latency with one system or the other and not know why, given that there are multiple variables at play in such a scenario). |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 22, 2023 17:03:42 GMT -6
That Avid figure is at 64 sample buffer. I’d be interested to know how many people are actually running at 64 sample buffer. In my experience, not many.
I think the meaningful difference between HDX and Apollo is workflow (if you’re using PT, HDX wins there) and I would hazard a guess that people who think they’re hearing latency difference between Apollo and HDX are actually not. But, that’s a guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Dec 22, 2023 17:06:35 GMT -6
The whole DSP and apollo vs hdx is an apt comparison and somewhat amusing...
Amusing in that for many, many years Avid was basically a closed system and now, as of a few years ago with the whole Luna/apollo combination... UA basically created yet another closed DSP system.
And ya know what? I'm glad they did! Its nice to have a choice. And if you can't make a record on either rig you can't make a record period.
Me? I made another choice and don't run either... but I do have a UAD satellite and genuinely adore it. Would buy it again tomorrow. It does add horsepower to the system. Full stop. Not even a question. Love my virtual outboard rack!
I think its probably right to speculate about the future pricing of DSP plugs... rightly so. But also right in that as a DSP user? With my rig I don't buy a whole lot. Its been a year since I added a plug? Always think I should take advantage of the end of year sale...
But its kinda dumb to think they would completely abandon that entire DSP ecosystem and go 100% native. Not at this point in the process.
I also think its equally dumb to think there aren't ways UA as a company could separate me from my money. How many things do they make now besides DAW software?! Guitar pedals. Microphones. That ox powersoak DI thing... Man I'd love to have a pair of those. Anyone got $3k I could borrow? Need a record mixed?!!
Its a big company now. Not just a handful of guys building 1176 & LA2A reissues in a little rented shop anymore. I have a pair of those... from those early days... I also have new UA gear. Saul good! They're good I'm good the gears good what's not good? Besides paying for all that awesomeness?
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 22, 2023 17:08:57 GMT -6
I’m really, really sensitive to latency in general. The Symphony MKII I use advertises 0.6ms (using the Control app to monitor, similar to UA Console), but I didn’t notice latency difference when I switched from Apollo to Symphony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 17:14:20 GMT -6
That Avid figure is at 64 sample buffer. I’d be interested to know how many people are actually running at 64 sample buffer. In my experience, not many. I think the meaningful difference between HDX and Apollo is workflow (if you’re using PT, HDX wins there) and I would hazard a guess that people who think they’re hearing latency difference between Apollo and HDX are actually not. But, that’s a guess. The buffer shouldn't matter here though. I'm not sure why it's even quoted. DSP RTL isn't even entering the computer. Unless I'm not understanding what buffer you're referring to? |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 22, 2023 17:15:39 GMT -6
Don’t think anybody is saying you can’t use UA dsp.
But now the UA has 50 odd good plugs native why buy UA dsp.?
br]
I really only use plugs for mixing, use my ob for tracking, so latency is mostly a non-issue.
Nice to have options.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 17:19:51 GMT -6
Don’t think anybody is saying you can’t use UA dsp. But now the UA has 50 odd good plugs native why buy UA dsp.m I really only use plugs for mixing, use my ob for tracking, so latency is mostly a non-issue. Nice to have options. But others DO use the DSP for tracking. Super low latency matters more to some people. That's why DSP is still around. Some people are also mixing large track count songs, where overdubs could be a problem for their CPU, regardless of how new, fast, or powerful their computer might be. That's where DSP also comes into play. So I would disagree that DSP isn't needed by anyone anymore. Certainly not for some people. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 22, 2023 17:31:17 GMT -6
That Avid figure is at 64 sample buffer. I’d be interested to know how many people are actually running at 64 sample buffer. In my experience, not many. I think the meaningful difference between HDX and Apollo is workflow (if you’re using PT, HDX wins there) and I would hazard a guess that people who think they’re hearing latency difference between Apollo and HDX are actually not. But, that’s a guess. The buffer shouldn't matter here though. I'm not sure why it's even quoted. DSP RTL isn't even entering the computer. Unless I'm not understanding what buffer you're referring to? Yeah I thought it was weird that Avid was quoting it too. Maybe it’s because Avid’s figures are from within PT, while UA or Apogee’s figures are using their own standalone monitor mixers. I didn’t think HDX armed-track monitoring would have to stream through the DAW buffer, but them including it in their quoted latency suggests that maybe it does. This would suggest that putting the buffer at something reasonable (like 512) would add another 5ms of latency (at 96kHz). Can that be true? |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 22, 2023 18:04:37 GMT -6
Don’t think anybody is saying you can’t use UA dsp. But now the UA has 50 odd good plugs native why buy UA dsp.m I really only use plugs for mixing, use my ob for tracking, so latency is mostly a non-issue. Nice to have options. But others DO use the DSP for tracking. Super low latency matters more to some people. That's why DSP is still around. Some people are also mixing large track count songs, where overdubs could be a problem for their CPU, regardless of how new, fast, or powerful their computer might be. That's where DSP also comes into play. So I would disagree that DSP isn't needed by anyone anymore. Certainly not for some people. I don’t believe I said it was not needed in all cases. i said if you are are not tracking with UA plugs, and only mixing with them , then the native versions are attractive. Don’t need apollo or cards so get better bang for you bucks as you don’t need an interface with dsp or a satellite. So, why buy into the UA dsp works now if you don’t have too? Depends on your workflow. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Dec 22, 2023 18:41:18 GMT -6
That Avid figure is at 64 sample buffer. I’d be interested to know how many people are actually running at 64 sample buffer. In my experience, not many. I think the meaningful difference between HDX and Apollo is workflow (if you’re using PT, HDX wins there) and I would hazard a guess that people who think they’re hearing latency difference between Apollo and HDX are actually not. But, that’s a guess. I was talking to a guy who does regional live gigs, he was telling me that since going digital wireless and IEM their are a bunch of acts who always complain about latency, so much so they have been buying up used analog just to cut it down. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098
|
Post by ericn on Dec 22, 2023 18:47:31 GMT -6
The whole DSP and apollo vs hdx is an apt comparison and somewhat amusing... Amusing in that for many, many years Avid was basically a closed system and now, as of a few years ago with the whole Luna/apollo combination... UA basically created yet another closed DSP system. And ya know what? I'm glad they did! Its nice to have a choice. And if you can't make a record on either rig you can't make a record period. Me? I made another choice and don't run either... but I do have a UAD satellite and genuinely adore it. Would buy it again tomorrow. It does add horsepower to the system. Full stop. Not even a question. Love my virtual outboard rack! I think its probably right to speculate about the future pricing of DSP plugs... rightly so. But also right in that as a DSP user? With my rig I don't buy a whole lot. Its been a year since I added a plug? Always think I should take advantage of the end of year sale... But its kinda dumb to think they would completely abandon that entire DSP ecosystem and go 100% native. Not at this point in the process. I also think its equally dumb to think there aren't ways UA as a company could separate me from my money. How many things do they make now besides DAW software?! Guitar pedals. Microphones. That ox powersoak DI thing... Man I'd love to have a pair of those. Anyone got $3k I could borrow? Need a record mixed?!! Its a big company now. Not just a handful of guys building 1176 & LA2A reissues in a little rented shop anymore. I have a pair of those... from those early days... I also have new UA gear. Saul good! They're good I'm good the gears good what's not good? Besides paying for all that awesomeness? Any competition for Avid is a good thing, but to compete with Avid you really need to be in the post world. I keep wondering if SSL’s latest masters might take a stab at it. Imagine a system where for video you record on Sound Devices edit and mix in a SSL / Harrison intergrated DAW. They could compete with AVID Eucon with their own protocol. |
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Dec 22, 2023 20:01:48 GMT -6
The buffer shouldn't matter here though. I'm not sure why it's even quoted. DSP RTL isn't even entering the computer. Unless I'm not understanding what buffer you're referring to? Yeah I thought it was weird that Avid was quoting it too. Maybe it’s because Avid’s figures are from within PT, while UA or Apogee’s figures are using their own standalone monitor mixers. I didn’t think HDX armed-track monitoring would have to stream through the DAW buffer, but them including it in their quoted latency suggests that maybe it does. This would suggest that putting the buffer at something reasonable (like 512) would add another 5ms of latency (at 96kHz). Can that be true? No, running the buffer at 64 or 1024 during tracking, has no effect on HDX monitoring latency. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 20:22:47 GMT -6
But others DO use the DSP for tracking. Super low latency matters more to some people. That's why DSP is still around. Some people are also mixing large track count songs, where overdubs could be a problem for their CPU, regardless of how new, fast, or powerful their computer might be. That's where DSP also comes into play. So I would disagree that DSP isn't needed by anyone anymore. Certainly not for some people. I don’t believe I said it was not needed in all cases. i said if you are are not tracking with UA plugs, and only mixing with them , then the native versions are attractive. Don’t need apollo or cards so get better bang for you bucks as you don’t need an interface with dsp or a satellite. So, why buy into the UA dsp works now if you don’t have too? Depends on your workflow. Fair enough. It just sounded like a blanket statement about DSP when you said "The only reason to buy UA dsp now is to run the uad2 plugs which are not native: yet". That sounded pretty absolute to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Dec 22, 2023 20:25:52 GMT -6
The buffer shouldn't matter here though. I'm not sure why it's even quoted. DSP RTL isn't even entering the computer. Unless I'm not understanding what buffer you're referring to? Yeah I thought it was weird that Avid was quoting it too. Maybe it’s because Avid’s figures are from within PT, while UA or Apogee’s figures are using their own standalone monitor mixers. I didn’t think HDX armed-track monitoring would have to stream through the DAW buffer, but them including it in their quoted latency suggests that maybe it does. This would suggest that putting the buffer at something reasonable (like 512) would add another 5ms of latency (at 96kHz). Can that be true? Yeah I thought it was weird that Avid was quoting it too. Maybe it’s because Avid’s figures are from within PT, while UA or Apogee’s figures are using their own standalone monitor mixers. I didn’t think HDX armed-track monitoring would have to stream through the DAW buffer, but them including it in their quoted latency suggests that maybe it does. This would suggest that putting the buffer at something reasonable (like 512) would add another 5ms of latency (at 96kHz). Can that be true? No, running the buffer at 64 or 1024 during tracking, has no effect on HDX monitoring latency. So it still makes you wonder why they mention the buffer in the first place? Who knows. |
|
