vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 20:50:11
(permalink)
Are these that same in-house developers that destroyed Gigastudio? IMO in-house drivers from Tascam is a serious liability.
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 21:14:56
(permalink)
Please oh please Craig, implore the to revive the FW-18xx series drivers moving forward. Even thought I now use my RME as primary interface, using my FW-1884 as an interface for remote recordings would be really cool as it at least looks like a console. 
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 21:18:11
(permalink)
vintagevibe
Are these that same in-house developers that destroyed Gigastudio?
No. You might want to ask Garritan, who bought the technology, why they haven't continued to develop Gigastudio. IMO in-house drivers from Tascam is a serious liability. Seriously? Having third party companies thousands of miles away that split their resources among multiple clients is less of liability than hiring a team of in-house software developers dedicated solely to a company's products? I'm not passing judgement on the new drivers, I haven't used them yet. I'm pointing out that TASCAM is bringing development in-house. Most people realize that has far more potential for timely updates than relying on outside companies and working around their schedules. It also means these drivers will be tested extensively with Sonar, which not all companies do.
|
Jeff M.
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 541
- Joined: 2012/09/22 03:02:04
- Location: RI, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 21:44:50
(permalink)
Anderton
" The best I've seen is RME, which can hit a little over 5 ms due to the really low safety buffer they use (good drivers).
Little bit under, actually. Mine shows 4.6 RTL (2.1 in, 2.5 out) with a UCX through USB2 44100, 64 sample buffer size.
Platinum 64 RME UCX | Studio Cat Platinum: i7 2700k @ 4.5Ghz | 16Gb DDR3 | Win 7 64Komplete Kontrol S61 Gibson, Jackson, Parker, Suhr, Breedlove, Taylor, Lakland, Peavey, Marshall, Kemper
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 21:48:26
(permalink)
Just out of curiosity, is that the reported latency, or did you use something like CEntrance's software to test it? I don't think there's no question that RME's drivers are excellent, but I believe it's important to know exactly what the various specs really mean. This comparison chart is two years old, and mostly involves PCI and Firewire, but it's still interesting and there are posts that extend for a while. The one clear conclusion is that USB and FireWire are not as good as PCI.
|
Jeff M.
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 541
- Joined: 2012/09/22 03:02:04
- Location: RI, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 22:03:52
(permalink)
72 audio tracks on the current project, not a lot of VI or fx.
But I get that on pretty much everything.
Another has 40 tracks, EZD2, Alchemy, Dim Pro, a couple pro channel modules on most tracks, 7 group busses, Ozone 5 on the Master.
Another with 68 tracks, Rapture, Dim Pro, Garritan, similar setup, fewer busses
...reported latency in Sonar prefs
Platinum 64 RME UCX | Studio Cat Platinum: i7 2700k @ 4.5Ghz | 16Gb DDR3 | Win 7 64Komplete Kontrol S61 Gibson, Jackson, Parker, Suhr, Breedlove, Taylor, Lakland, Peavey, Marshall, Kemper
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 22:06:33
(permalink)
I just noticed your specs - an i7 at 4.5 GHz probably doesn't hurt 
|
Jeff M.
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 541
- Joined: 2012/09/22 03:02:04
- Location: RI, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 22:15:12
(permalink)
I'm sure that has a LOT to do with it, too Bottom line, everything I throw at it performs great with no lag on anything. Once I get a bunch over 100 tracks, "Play" after hitting the enter key is a couple secs, but that's about it. But I typically stay well under that.
Platinum 64 RME UCX | Studio Cat Platinum: i7 2700k @ 4.5Ghz | 16Gb DDR3 | Win 7 64Komplete Kontrol S61 Gibson, Jackson, Parker, Suhr, Breedlove, Taylor, Lakland, Peavey, Marshall, Kemper
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 22:48:03
(permalink)
rodreb
If only they would make an interface with 16 to 24, line level, TRS inputs, for easy interfacing to a mixer.
I guess they were watching this thread, and work really fast.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 22:51:54
(permalink)
Jeff M.
I'm sure that has a LOT to do with it, too
Bottom line, everything I throw at it performs great with no lag on anything.
Once I get a bunch over 100 tracks, "Play" after hitting the enter key is a couple secs, but that's about it.
But I typically stay well under that.
Yeah, I can get a hundred tracks too with the V-Studio...but not at anywhere near those kind of latencies. I have to goose it up to a 256 or even 512 sample buffer, and there are significant safety buffers added on top of that. That's one reason I'm keen to see what TASCAM can do, given that I can still use the V-Studio control surface for the faders and such.
|
vintagevibe
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2446
- Joined: 2003/12/15 21:45:06
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 22:53:17
(permalink)
Anderton
vintagevibe
Are these that same in-house developers that destroyed Gigastudio?
No. You might want to ask Garritan, who bought the technology, why they haven't continued to develop Gigastudio.
IMO in-house drivers from Tascam is a serious liability.
Seriously? Having third party companies thousands of miles away that split their resources among multiple clients is less of liability than hiring a team of in-house software developers dedicated solely to a company's products?
I'm not passing judgement on the new drivers, I haven't used them yet. I'm pointing out that TASCAM is bringing development in-house. Most people realize that has far more potential for timely updates than relying on outside companies and working around their schedules. It also means these drivers will be tested extensively with Sonar, which not all companies do.
In-house is only as good as the house. Tascam has a great reputation for hardware and a terrible reputation for software. They're simply not a software company and good drivers are not easy to write. So a hardware company is building a new software development team from scratch. It reminds me of MOTU and their Windows version of DP. It will probably work someday but I wouldn't touch it until it's been out for several years and is proven to be solid. And that's from a company with a good reputation for software. Tascam is a different story.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 23:15:10
(permalink)
Whatever knowledge you have of TASCAM's inner workings are at odds with what I've seen over the past 1.5 years since the acquisition occurred. They have been accumulating considerable software and DSD expertise as well as other expertise I can't discuss. It's not like they woke up yesterday and said "Hey, let's hire some kids off the street, and write drivers!" They know drivers are difficult to write. That's why they had been using third-party companies to write them. This is part of a long-term strategy.
Look at what happened with Cakewalk since the acquisition. Compare how X3 has been handled compared to X2. Similar changes are occurring at TASCAM.
I said I wasn't going to pass judgement on the drivers until I had a chance to evaluate them. However, I am comfortable stating that bringing driver software development in-house is a positive move. If you think TASCAM has a terrible record with software, it seems odd that you would automatically assume that pursuing a different direction in an effort to improve that record will not provide at least some degree of improvement.
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/10 23:56:49
(permalink)
Master Magic Maker
It's not like they woke up yesterday and said "Hey, let's hire some kids off the street, and write drivers!" . btw, sometimes it's the kids off the street who you want!! I'm a software guy and I realize that the right guy for the last problem isn't always the right guy for the next problem. That said, I totally think it's a great idea to have in-house software developers. And, I used my Tascam 2488 with my RME UCX tonight to make a 16 track recording. It was a great time. I much prefer my Tascam 2488 to the M-Audio devices I've had. And the Line 6. The Tascam has had surprising staying power.
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
thomasabarnes
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3234
- Joined: 2003/11/11 03:19:17
- Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 00:26:58
(permalink)
I've been checking out the Tascam UH 7000. There are impressive reviews on Amazon, Sweetwater, and Youtube, especially about the preamps and AD/DA converters in the unit. I think I'm sold on getting one (if only to use it as a standalone preamp), but one or two owner reviews say that the drivers are somewhat lacking in low latency performance. I checked the UH 7000 download page and there has been an update to the drivers since the unit was firist released, but I don't know what's beeing said about them improvement wise. Still with this news (of writing in house drivers) and because the preamps are so impressive, as I watched a review of the unit on Youtube, I think I'm gonna get one. If the in house driver team can write some drivers that will get the unit to perform at 8.2 ms roundtrip latency or lower, I think I can live with that performance. I went to the Tascam site earlier today and read the news section and saw that Tascam announced the TASCAM US-16x08 audio interface today at the AES show in LA. I'm gonna check in there tomorrow also to see if there are any more audio interface announcements like some big brother to the UH 7000, as the preamps on the UH 7000 are better (specs wise) than those on the the three new units announed by Tascam that use the Ultra-HDDA preamps (namely the US 2x2, 4x4, and 16x08.) And it would be ideal for me if some such big brother audio interface had S/PDIF connectors instead of the AES/EBU connectors. Only 2 inputs is enough for me, but I do want high quality sound and prefer ultra-low latency performance in an audio interface. I've got to say, though, that this news, henceforth, is exciting! I'm really looking forward to getting that UH 7000. That little joker is very impressive with the hardware inside!
post edited by thomasabarnes - 2014/10/11 00:37:17
 "It's not a song till it touches your heart. It's not a song till it tears you apart!" Lyrics of Amy Grant. SONAR Platinum X64 (jBridge), Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit, Core i7 990X Extreme Edition Processor 3.46 GHz 6 Cores, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, Crucial Ballistix 24GB 1333MHz DDR3 @1333 MHz, TASCAM UH-7000, Behringer X-Touch, EVGA GTX 980TI Superclocked 6GB, 1TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD, 150GB, 320GB, 1TB 7200rpm HDDs
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 02:31:50
(permalink)
The UH-7000 is not a low-latency device on the order of the RME and uses third-party drivers. Its latency performance is average, 13-20 ms depending on your computer, track load, etc. The PreSonus article I linked to previously explains why round-trips in that range are commonplace. I consider 13 ms fine for playing guitar through amp sims, which is what matters most to me about latency. I'd prefer under 10 ms, but can certainly cope with 13 ms.
That said, the preamps are phenomenal and the circuit design is exemplary. The crosstalk really benefits by having separate power supplies for each channel. The circuit board layout is outstanding and the construction is excellent. The mic pres are discrete. TASCAM is also marketing the UH-7000 as a high-quality stereo mic pre, not just an interface. IF this is representative of the future direction of their hardware, and they can cut the latency by 33%-50%, they're going to be a real contender for interfaces.
To me there's not a whole lot of difference in feel between 5 and 7 ms. Practically speaking, I think there are basically three latencies...under 10 ms (good), between 10 and 20 ms (mostly acceptable), and over 20 ms (not acceptable). If I track guitar with headphones instead of listening through monitors, that avoids another 4 ms of latency due to the distance between my ears and the monitors.
|
Tshepo#2
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13
- Joined: 2014/09/26 11:55:12
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 03:36:07
(permalink)
These are exciting developments. I'm looking forward to the results.
|
backwoods
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2571
- Joined: 2011/03/23 17:24:50
- Location: South Pacific
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 04:18:31
(permalink)
That uh7000 does look pretty cool :) as you say Craig if they can cut the latency by about a third that would make it very attractive.
I got a studio capture and can't complain but that new 16x08 would look better in the rack!
|
thomasabarnes
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3234
- Joined: 2003/11/11 03:19:17
- Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 04:25:49
(permalink)
Anderton
the preamps are phenomenal and the circuit design is exemplary. The crosstalk really benefits by having separate power supplies for each channel. The circuit board layout is outstanding and the construction is excellent. The mic pres are discrete. TASCAM is also marketing the UH-7000 as a high-quality stereo mic pre, not just an interface. IF this is representative of the future direction of their hardware, and they can cut the latency by 33%-50%, they're going to be a real contender for interfaces.
Hi Craig: TASCAM would certainly be able to compete with the best, if they can get hardware such as the UH 7000 to perform at ultra low latencies. The reason I threw out the low latency numer of 8.2 ms roundtrip is because my UltraLite mk3 performs well at that latency under heavy load projects, without cracks pops and dropouts, such as is the case with the SONAR demo songs. I can be OK with that kind of performance from an audio interface. I primarily use virtual instruments in my music creation. When I'm laying a track with a Vi, I want smooth playback. Using a 20 ms or lower round trip latency setting is OK at the beginning part of a project, but when adding more tracks, Vis, and effects, crackles, pops, and dropouts start to occur unless the ASIO buffer size is increased. And higher ASIO buffer sizes cause the delay of sounds for virtual instruments, and when trying to record them, that is unsatisfactory. However, at a round trip latecy of 8.2 ms or lower, I experience no delay problems. That's why I can be OK with that number I threw out there. Consequently to something you said above, it certainly makes me start to thinking, as it seems like you're alluding that the in house driver team wont be writing drivers for the UH 7000. That seems wierd to me since the unit was just released earlier this year, but I don't know all that's involved in the TASCAM decision concerning that matter. If TASCAM will only be writing drivers for the gear announced very recently, at least, that's some kind of good intention start. The UH 7000 is an impressive piece of hardware! I hope the drivers can be improved for better low latency performance. It's something else how it always seems to be when something great comes along, there are its weaknesses as well as its strong points. I do, however, think that TASCAM and Cakewalk can do great things together! Cya around.
post edited by thomasabarnes - 2014/10/11 04:40:23
"It's not a song till it touches your heart. It's not a song till it tears you apart!" Lyrics of Amy Grant. SONAR Platinum X64 (jBridge), Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit, Core i7 990X Extreme Edition Processor 3.46 GHz 6 Cores, Gigabyte EX58-UD5, Crucial Ballistix 24GB 1333MHz DDR3 @1333 MHz, TASCAM UH-7000, Behringer X-Touch, EVGA GTX 980TI Superclocked 6GB, 1TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD, 150GB, 320GB, 1TB 7200rpm HDDs
|
hockeyjx
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 839
- Joined: 2003/12/09 18:36:28
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 09:48:04
(permalink)
I've never had latency problems with my trusty FW-1884! What is everyone using for testing? DPC Latency Checker? I may run that to see what that 10 year old unit gets.
Intel i7 950 Proc, Asus Sabertooth x58 MB, 2 Crucial 128GB SSDs and Seagate 1TBGB drive, 12GB Corsair 1600mhz 8-8-8-24 Memory, Nvidia GeForece 8400 Dual Monitor vid card
Cooler Master Silent Pro 700w Power Supply, Cooler Master Sileo 500
Win 7 64 bit, SPlat 64-bit, Komplete 10 Ultimate, AmpliTube3 and AD2 Tascam FW-1884 and AKAI MPK-49
|
brconflict
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1891
- Joined: 2012/10/05 21:28:30
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 10:27:50
(permalink)
Since I figured out how to compensate (to the sample) for latency in hardware, I've not seen latency be a real problem for me. The only thing I wish for is a Low-latency [Echo] button in Sonar, where I can use a compressor on the armed channel I'm recording vocals on.
I really don't get why that still doesn't exist. I think the Echo button is not placed into the chain at the right place, maybe. If, by enabling the Echo button, the armed track wouldn't care how much plug-in delay it or any other channel creates and simply play back the armed track's audio as fast as possible, we could have a better Echo capability. In other words, the Echo function shouldn't care or be affected by plug-in delay compensation, because the singer won't be concerned with it, either. She's going to sing to the audio playback she hears. If the plug-in delay is applied to what's written to disk (to sync the recorded audio to the project) vs. what's heard back in the Echo function...maybe?
So, why is this a concern to me? I know I can disable all plug-ins, but singers like to sing along to a real mix, and have some compression applied to their incoming vocals as it's echoed back into the cans. Disabling all plugins is unappealing, since we've been able to use compressors while tracking for decades. I have an old Yamaha AW4416 that allows the singer to hear the tracking vocal with compression and absolutely no delay.
Anyway, that's where I find the absolute biggest delay problem is that old funky Echo function (and since MOTU wasn't nice enough to allow their CueMix software use a plug-in or two).
Brian Sonar Platinum, Steinberg Wavelab Pro 9, MOTU 24CoreIO w/ low-slew OP-AMP mods and BLA external clock, True P8, Audient ASP008, API 512c, Chandler Germ500, Summit 2ba-221, GAP Pre-73, Peluso 22251, Peluso 2247LE, Mackie HR824, Polk Audio SRS-SDA 2.3tl w/upgraded Soniccraft crossovers and Goertz cables, powered by Pass-X350. All wiring Star-Quad XLR or Monster Cable. Power by Monster Power Signature AVS2000 voltage stabilizer and Signature Pro Power 5100 PowerCenter on a 20A isolation shielded circuit.
|
sonarizer
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2
- Joined: 2014/10/11 12:40:32
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 12:59:27
(permalink)
I am disappointed.
My US-1641 has a combined signal and overload LEDs per channel. The signal LED is especially useful for quickly finding a channel.
My newer US-1800 only has an overload LED. Tascam dropped the signal function.
This new US-16x08 has NO LEDs AT ALL! Nor does it have a monitor mix knob (the 2x2 and 4x4 both do). The maximum input is now only +8dBu, the 1641 and 1800 both handle +14dBu. This overload margin has proved invaluable for drums (and that is after all what these multi-input interfaces are mostly purchased for).
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 13:38:45
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby jbow 2015/01/04 15:39:28
brconflict
In other words, the Echo function shouldn't care or be affected by plug-in delay compensation, because the singer won't be concerned with it, either. She's going to sing to the audio playback she hears. If the plug-in delay is applied to what's written to disk (to sync the recorded audio to the project) vs. what's heard back in the Echo function...maybe?
You do know about the PDC override button? This does exactly this function :)
post edited by Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk] - 2014/10/11 13:50:11
|
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5562
- Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
- Location: Baton Rouge Area
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 13:39:48
(permalink)
Grem
Michael Music PC i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, Home PCAMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 Surface Pro 3Win 10 i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 21:39:42
(permalink)
sonarizer
This new US-16x08 has NO LEDs AT ALL! Nor does it have a monitor mix knob (the 2x2 and 4x4 both do).
I haven't worked with or even seen the unit, but it seems the control application is designed to provide metering, phase switch, solo, mute, DSP, etc. I suspect you'll continue to see this trend to "dumb" hardware boxes with the smarts showing up in an iOS device or computer (I think the US-16x08 application supports Mac, Windows, and iOS). As to the gain, I wonder if that relates to a changed input structure. The 16x08 has enough gain for ribbon mics, the 1800 did not. I don't know if there's a software-switchable input pad like the V-Studio interface has, but I can find out.
|
brconflict
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1891
- Joined: 2012/10/05 21:28:30
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/11 22:31:25
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
brconflict
In other words, the Echo function shouldn't care or be affected by plug-in delay compensation, because the singer won't be concerned with it, either. She's going to sing to the audio playback she hears. If the plug-in delay is applied to what's written to disk (to sync the recorded audio to the project) vs. what's heard back in the Echo function...maybe?
You do know about the PDC override button? This does exactly this function :)
Right. My experience is using the PDC override function and there's still some delay in Echo, maybe 50-60ms. Even disabling literally all of the FX as well, Sonar still has to somehow process the audio in a way that induces delay when getting the audio back to the ASIO device. It's still too distracting for the singers I've tracked. We always revert to CueMix's low-latency feedback and bring in an outboard compressor to make the tracking more comfortable.
Brian Sonar Platinum, Steinberg Wavelab Pro 9, MOTU 24CoreIO w/ low-slew OP-AMP mods and BLA external clock, True P8, Audient ASP008, API 512c, Chandler Germ500, Summit 2ba-221, GAP Pre-73, Peluso 22251, Peluso 2247LE, Mackie HR824, Polk Audio SRS-SDA 2.3tl w/upgraded Soniccraft crossovers and Goertz cables, powered by Pass-X350. All wiring Star-Quad XLR or Monster Cable. Power by Monster Power Signature AVS2000 voltage stabilizer and Signature Pro Power 5100 PowerCenter on a 20A isolation shielded circuit.
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/12 09:02:58
(permalink)
The only delay involved when using PDC override is the audio interfaces buffer and roundtrip latency. SONAR doesn't impose any extra delay beyond that using ASIO. With a good audio interface running at a 64 to 128 sample buffers, the delay should be imperceptible. Beyond that the only other option is using the direct monitoring feature on the device.
|
brconflict
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1891
- Joined: 2012/10/05 21:28:30
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/12 11:23:06
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
The only delay involved when using PDC override is the audio interfaces buffer and roundtrip latency. SONAR doesn't impose any extra delay beyond that using ASIO. With a good audio interface running at a 64 to 128 sample buffers, the delay should be imperceptible. Beyond that the only other option is using the direct monitoring feature on the device.
Correct. So, with 128 samples even with a 51-sample manual sample offset (ASIO reported latency doesn't seem to be very accurate), recording a vocal track in a 28-track Project, we get drop-outs quickly. Admittedly, I'm using a spinning disk vs. SSD, but this is on a really fast PC running Windows 8.1. Surely throughput isn't an issue. So, we revert to the hardware's own feedback channel and an outboard compressor because it uses a separate software engine and resources. Being able to run the Echo function in Sonar separate from the main Sonar Audio Engine would be a dream.
Brian Sonar Platinum, Steinberg Wavelab Pro 9, MOTU 24CoreIO w/ low-slew OP-AMP mods and BLA external clock, True P8, Audient ASP008, API 512c, Chandler Germ500, Summit 2ba-221, GAP Pre-73, Peluso 22251, Peluso 2247LE, Mackie HR824, Polk Audio SRS-SDA 2.3tl w/upgraded Soniccraft crossovers and Goertz cables, powered by Pass-X350. All wiring Star-Quad XLR or Monster Cable. Power by Monster Power Signature AVS2000 voltage stabilizer and Signature Pro Power 5100 PowerCenter on a 20A isolation shielded circuit.
|
InstrEd
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1276
- Joined: 2004/10/13 20:55:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/14 13:05:50
(permalink)
Let us know the RTL Craig when you get one in your hands.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/14 16:36:39
(permalink)
InstrEd
Let us know the RTL Craig when you get one in your hands.
Will do...waiting for the package to show up.
|
pentimentosound
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1535
- Joined: 2005/08/15 23:37:34
- Location: Honor, Michigan
- Status: offline
Re: Interesting TASCAM News from AES
2014/10/15 09:21:31
(permalink)
I was just thinking about moving from my us1641 to this new us16X08. So, I am eager to find out more!
|