Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Good point, Per. For example, on mBox/ProTools, you can just turn the wet mix off and hear your direct signal....works great if you record with effects. I actually use 128 as my buffer setting, because I'm not using the mBox to record, just host my VSTs. Hence I get no buffer errors that I would get if I recorded at 128. Kris -----Original Message----- From: Per Boysen [mailto:per@boysen.se] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 12:54 PM To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com Subject: Re: All-Laptop live?? (was RE: RE: A poll--shoes off?) Hi, Please remember that any discussion of latency is only valid IF you do intend to use software monitoring on the machine (i.e. real-time effect processing of your direct instrument input sound). If your instrument input already sounds good you should use direct monitoring to pipe it directly to the output. Since audio software is usually compensating for AD/DA latency, the part of the sound that is being processed and looped by software will be catching up with the direct instrument sound at the output in perfect sync (= no latency). I do this and usually keep the buffer setting at 256 samples, sometimes 512. Greetings from Sweden Per Boysen --- http://www.looproom.com (international) http://www.boysen.se (Swedish site) http://www.cdbaby.com/perboysen > At 8:24 AM -0700 3/14/05, Kris Hartung wrote: >> >> I have a friend who bought a notebook, but decided to cut corners on >> the processor....I noticed a huge difference in latency and >> performance with ProTools. We both had notebooks with similar RAM, >> XP, and hard drive configurations. The only difference was our >> processors. It was very interesting. On ProTools in the Playback >> Engine settings, I can run >> my hardware buffer size at 256 samples with no latency. He had to run >> his at 128, but then when he started to record it would crash ProTools >> once in a while....lower buffer size, less latency, but more risk of >> the >> crash. I found that 256 yielded no latency and no crashes for me, >> unless I'm playing back a lot of tracks and mixing down...then I bump >> my >> bufffer up to 512 where latency is not an issue because I'm not >> recording. > On Mar 14, 2005, at 19:49, Edwin Hurwitz wrote: > > This seems odd to me. While I am a Mac guy (love my PB 1.5 Ghz!), I > don't think this would be different on PC. From what I understand, > hardware buffer settings introduce various amounts of latency > independent of anything else. If I set a buffer size of 256, that > means that there will be a latency of 256 samples. I started using > Protools LE a while back on various processors and every one of them > has given me (admittedly not scientifically tested) the same amount of > latency for each setting. Is there any chance that you had the Low > Latency Monitoring option turned on? If this operates in a different > fashion, I'd really like to know, because whenever I select a buffer > size over 128, the latency becomes very noticeable. It would be very > interesting to me to know that if I just got a fast enough processor, > I could set the buffer as large as I wanted without introducing > latency! > > > All the best, > Edwin > -- > > Edwin Hurwitz > Boulder CO > http://www.indra.com/~edwin > http://www.cafemontalban.com Location Recording Services