mettelus

Larry Jones
 
If I can't do that I will have to change the way I've been working for the past 15 years or so.

I cannot resist temptation here... how did you adapt to the internet and cell phones?

The internet and cell phones made things faster. USB audio interfaces make things slower. Of course I will adapt if I have to, but so far all the options I can find for working with the newer inferior technology seem like poor-choice kludges to me.

Larry Jones
My real issue all along has been latency: Is the lag short enough that I'll be able to record a direct guitar while monitoring back through an amp sim in Sonar without committing the sim to my track? If I can't do that I will have to change the way I've been working for the past 15 years or so.

Not sure why you need the amp sim to be inside of SONAR, unless that's the only amp sim you've got AND there's no way to run it stand-alone for monitoring.
 
I use Waves' GTR 3.5 for this purpose. I have 2 basses and an A/E long-neck concert ukulele that I used to plug directly into an Instrument input (Input 1 or 2, unbalanced instrument cable) on my 44 VSL. By default, the VSL driver passes the DRY input signal along to the DAW. The VSL mixer provides PreSonus Fat Channel support for the four inputs (Gate, EQ, Compressor) plus 2 FX busses (with Reverb and Delay). The headphone amp on the 44 VSL in in parallel with the Main Outs (Outputs 1 & 2) and is strong enough to drive my 250 ohm Beyerdynamics. So, there's quite a bit you can do to the signal from a monitoring mix perspective and still keep zero latency within the 44VSL.
 
If I want to use an amp sim for monitoring, I use GTR and bypass the Fat Channel and FX buss effects in the VSL mixer (that's actually the default). The first time only, I point GTR to my audio i/f (now a Tascam US-16x08), specify the input channel my guitar is plugged into and the output mains. I then select the amp, cab and stomp boxes I want to use that session (or load from a saved preset).
 
In any case, the dry signal is available to the DAW (was Studio One, now SONAR; doesn't matter). I have not used SONAR's native amp sims yet. I haven't had any reason to.

Maartian - Sounds like you've got a way to do what (I think) I need to do. Without having any of the gear you describe, I can't quite get my head around how it's done, but I'll figure it out if I need to.
 
I've noticed a lot of people seem not to understand why I feel I need an amp sim. It's because a.) I don't want to mic a real amp and make that much noise in my house and b.) I need at least some overdrive to get the feel I need to play things the way I want to play them. Ergo, amp sim. Doesn't seem that crazy to me.
 
I don't have any experience with external (USB) interfaces, so I was unaware that latency might prevent me from monitoring through the DAW with FX until the past week. I'm like a guy who was given a Ferrari for his 16th birthday and didn't know that not all cars can go 160 mph.

Larry Jones 
My real issue all along has been latency: Is the lag short enough that I'll be able to record a direct guitar while monitoring back through an amp sim in Sonar without committing the sim to my track?

There's no such thing as "committing the sim to my track".
 
Sonar takes the data being streamed from your interface and dumps it directly to disc.  It does not process it in any way.  The wav in a clip that you just recorded is always raw data.
 
Yes, you can destructively process it later, but not during record.    What you're hearing during record is a duplicate of the recorded data being fed into the channel, to which you can add any FX (like amp sims) without affecting what is actually being recorded.
 
As far as Sonar is concerned the only difference between record and playback is the data source for each track, either your interface or the disk.
 
 
There should be no reason why even the cheapest interface can't get a latency low enough to be able to track guitars with an amp sim loaded in Sonar's FX bin.

Karyn
Sonar takes the data being streamed from your interface and dumps it directly to disc. It does not process it in any way. The wav in a clip that you just recorded is always raw data.
 
Yes, you can destructively process it later, but not during record. What you're hearing during record is a duplicate of the recorded data being fed into the channel, to which you can add any FX (like amp sims) without affecting what is actually being recorded.
 
As far as Sonar is concerned the only difference between record and playback is the data source for each track, either your interface or the disk.
 
There should be no reason why even the cheapest interface can't get a latency low enough to be able to track guitars with an amp sim loaded in Sonar's FX bin.

I'm going to have to try this. It does make sense to challenge one's workflow after making one or more major changes (like S1 to SONAR). I'm doing it the old way, because? That's the way I've always done it.  Maxima mea culpa!

Karyn
There should be no reason why even the cheapest interface can't get a latency low enough to be able to track guitars with an amp sim loaded in Sonar's FX bin.

 
Total round-trip latency can vary radically between different units.
 
The best performers yield ~5ms total round-trip latency at a 64-sample ASIO buffer size (44.1k).
Other units can yield round-trip latency as high as 14ms at those same settings.
The X-factor is the driver's hidden safety-buffer.
With most audio interfaces, the user has no control over the safety-buffer's size.
In that scenario, your only option for reducing high round-trip latency is to double (significantly increase) the sample-rate.  This reduces round-trip latency at the expense of much higher CPU load...
 
Some will argue that 14ms round-trip latency is perfectly acceptable.
More power to them...
To me, round-trip latency above ~6ms starts to feel sluggish.
Above 10ms feels absolutely terrible...
 
Luckily, there are affordable audio interfaces that yield low round-trip latency.

Karyn

Larry Jones 
My real issue all along has been latency: Is the lag short enough that I'll be able to record a direct guitar while monitoring back through an amp sim in Sonar without committing the sim to my track?

There's no such thing as "committing the sim to my track".
 
Sonar takes the data being streamed from your interface and dumps it directly to disc.  It does not process it in any way.  The wav in a clip that you just recorded is always raw data.
 
Yes, you can destructively process it later, but not during record.    What you're hearing during record is a duplicate of the recorded data being fed into the channel, to which you can add any FX (like amp sims) without affecting what is actually being recorded.
 
As far as Sonar is concerned the only difference between record and playback is the data source for each track, either your interface or the disk.
 
 
There should be no reason why even the cheapest interface can't get a latency low enough to be able to track guitars with an amp sim loaded in Sonar's FX bin.

Karyn - Thanks for your clarification. I guess this wasn't clear. What I meant was that I don't like the "pure" sound of electric guitar plugged straight in. I want the fatness and character that you get from guitar amp circuitry, speakers,  etc., but I don't want to use an actual amp. And so far I haven't had to, because there are a number of good simulators out there in the form of VST plugins.
 
Starting to look for a replacement for my ancient PCI sound card led me to the concern that USB interfaces (the ones I can afford) would introduce enough latency that monitoring back through the DAW/VST would not be practical. So, two interrelated problems: 1.) finding an affordable audio interface fast enough that it wouldn't interfere with my timing as I played, and 2.) getting a decent guitar sound in the monitors to help me play my parts better, while recording the track with no FX. If problem#1 isn't solved, it begets problem #2. And the latency values I've seen (admittedly anecdotal) seem to suggest that I'd better get on with trying to solve problem #2.
 
One potential solution I've looked at is the Steinberg UR-44, which (maybe) comes with an amp sim in the hardware itself. If the sim is any good, I could use it when recording. This might work for me, but I haven't been able to figure/find out if it's possible to monitor with it and not record it. The other possibility would be to hook up something like my Line 6 Pod and record with that. So in these two scenarios, either I would definitely be "committing the sim to my track," (Pod) or I would maybe be committing the effect to the recorded track (UR-44 sim).
 
As for your statement that any interface will do the job, I hope that's true, but I suspect it's not, and I'm trying to find out one way or the other before I make a buying decision. I know I can return merchandise, but I'd rather get it right the first time. So I'm experimentally trying to create longer, measurable latencies on the system I have, so I can see just how much I can tolerate. 

Jim Roseberry
Some will argue that 14ms round-trip latency is perfectly acceptable.
More power to them...
To me, round-trip latency above ~6ms starts to feel sluggish.
Above 10ms feels absolutely terrible...

Hey Jim
Normally I agree with every word you say without even reading it...
The stage I normally work is 20 feet deep by 30 feet wide.  With a guitar amp on the back of the stage and the guitarist playing to the crowd at the front, that's an instant 20ms (approx) lag...
If you put the guitar in a front of stage monitor and the guitarist is 6' tall he still hears a 6ms lag (with a 14ms slap back echo from the backline).
 
My point?  My personal opinion is it's unrealistic to expect latency less than 10ms as if the "real world" was better.  It just doesn't happen unless you spend your entire career wearing headphones or IEMs.

Larry Jones

As for your statement that any interface will do the job, I hope that's true, but I suspect it's not, and I'm trying to find out one way or the other before I make a buying decision. I know I can return merchandise, but I'd rather get it right the first time. So I'm experimentally trying to create longer, measurable latencies on the system I have, so I can see just how much I can tolerate. 

As Jim said above, the actual latency you'll get will depend on the driver and hidden 'safety' buffers that you can't do anything about, but as long as you buy an interface specifically intended for pro or semi-pro recording (not a SoundBlaster or equivalent) then there should be no problem with latency.
 
The differences between the cheap and expensive ones are preamp quality, converter quality, number of channels, number of features, and of course...  branding...  

Karyn
My personal opinion is it's unrealistic to expect latency less than 10ms as if the "real world" was better.  It just doesn't happen unless you spend your entire career wearing headphones or IEMs.

I've played a lot of places where I couldn't hear accurately what was going on, due to unavoidable bad equipment placement and terrible acoustics. When I started a long time ago no one had stage monitors. I've tried to improve things for myself and band mates over the years. Call me crazy, but I want the acoustics to be even better in the controlled environment of my project studio.

Karyn
As Jim said above, the actual latency you'll get will depend on the driver and hidden 'safety' buffers that you can't do anything about, but as long as you buy an interface specifically intended for pro or semi-pro recording (not a SoundBlaster or equivalent) then there should be no problem with latency.
 
The differences between the cheap and expensive ones are preamp quality, converter quality, number of channels, number of features, and of course...  branding...  

Looks like you don't think there's enough difference in latency for me to worry about. I'll still try to do my own tests and see how different delay times feel to me, but thank you for your opinion.