Pragi

Sanderxpander
I'm fine with not knowing because I don't want to buy that card, it's just important to state if it's real latency or reported latency..

But you asked  in post  33 :
Is that actual or driver-reported latency?
 
So  ?
Is it for you just important to state if it´s real latency  ? or
Are you fine with not knowing because you don't want to buy that card ?
 
It still seems that you don´t believe that the ur 22 mk can manage that latency,
I´´m trusting the Splat reported 4,7 ms rtl ,don´t you ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I don't want to buy that card, no, I'm not in the market for one because I'm very happy with what I have. So I have no stakes in this. I was asking merely because comparing actual latency vs reported latency is not fair and if someone has to base their decision on that...

Cactus Music

Sanderxpander
I'm fine with not knowing because I don't want to buy that card, it's just important to state if it's real latency or reported latency. If you want to know the real latency, play back a mono track (preferably something percussive) out of one of your outputs and record it (also mono) through one of your inputs (be careful to disable monitoring). Now put the tracks next to each other, zoom in and see how many samples the rerecorded one has shifted.

 
That is not testing RTL, that is testing Sonars Offset adjustment which is based on the driver reporting the RTL. Most good ASIO drivers will get this bang on and nothing to worry about, But this test with the same interface using WDM ,WASAPI or MME will result in the offset being out and sometimes by a lot. 
Almost any interface will report low RTL figures at 64  buffer,,,, but is your system stable? Do you get drop outs or crackles?  This is the big difference in quality drivers/ firmware of interfaces. And it certainly helps to be running a powerful optimized computer system.  And don't forget those "hidden" buffers most interfaces under $500 seem to sport. 
At what RTL is your system stable? Nothing else means diddly squat. I can get 3.4 ms with my Scarlett but it will result in drop outs. 
a Stable system @ 7ms is par for the course with the under $500 price point. 
 

 
And note that this test as shown above does not differ in results at ANY buffer setting. And for me it did not differ between both tmy Tascam and my Scarlett interfaces. But interestingly the Scarlett does not seem to support WDM or MME mode for me so I used the Tascam. 
 
 

I'm trying to understand how this is NOT measuring RTL... Because it is. It takes the complete path including things like USB buffers, interface safety buffers and AD/DA conversion.

Pragi

Sanderxpander
I'm fine with not knowing because I don't want to buy that card, it's just important to state if it's real latency or reported latency..

But you asked  in post  33 :
Is that actual or driver-reported latency?
 
So  ?
Is it for you just important to state if it´s real latency  ? or
Are you fine with not knowing because you don't want to buy that card ?
 
It still seems that you don´t believe that the ur 22 mk can manage that latency,
I´´m trusting the Splat reported 4,7 ms rtl ,don´t you ?
 

 
 
 

I don't want to buy that card, no, I'm not in the market for one because I'm very happy with what I have. So I have no stakes in this. I was asking merely because comparing   is not fair and if someone has to base their decision on that...

 

I too think that it is unfair to compare actual latency vs reported latency .
specially if your suggested way of actual latency measurement is measuring the
Sonar offset.
Was anybody in this thread  doing your way of"actual latency" measurement ?
 
So it is a fair comparison cause everybody was using the Sionar or otherwise
reported rtl,
 
 
So I´m doing some recordings  today .
Imo it´s useless to discuss to make a measurment 
Sanderex.  wants me to do but  is not interrested at all in !!??
 
have a nice day
 

Reading up more, I realized a second loop is needed for a RTL test - output one going into input one, looping out to output two going into input two. Loop 1 gives the recording offset, loop 2 gives RTL.

But do it or don't, I don't care. I've just gotten wary of trusting DAW reported latency. My RME doesn't add much beyond what's reported but some interfaces do, the AD/DA is a fixed amount independent of the sample buffer and especially at the lowest latencies it makes up a significant amount of the total latency.

Sanderxpander
Reading up more, I realized a second loop is needed for a RTL test - output one going into input one, looping out to output two going into input two. Loop 1 gives the recording offset, loop 2 gives RTL.

But do it or don't, I don't care. I've just gotten wary of trusting DAW reported latency. My RME doesn't add much beyond what's reported but some interfaces do, the AD/DA is a fixed amount independent of the sample buffer and especially at the lowest latencies it makes up a significant amount of the total latency.

And yes, you can´t believe that a low budget interface like the UR 22 mk 2 can manage 
rtl like mentioned, only "your RME" can do.
I understand your point.
 
If the everywhere accepted rtl measurement doesn´t fit to your idea of the rtl of the UR 22 mk 2,
the measurement has to be changed , til the rtl fits to your idea ,
equal if it´s the measurement of the sonar offset or whatelse.
 
I´m bored and out of this thread.
 

You can assume whatever you want about me. It never occurred to me that a cheaper interface wouldn't have low latency, I've owned a bunch and they all did well enough for my purposes. Nevertheless, this is way too much harping on something unimportant to me, as I've said before.

I'm sorry if you don't understand how this all works. The loopback test will show clearly if your system is out of sync. This matters most when working with overdubs, They will be out of sync to the original recording which in most cases might be Midi drums etc. Many do not notice this or even care but a good ear will hear music that is not tight. 
 
The ASIO driver reports to Sonar the RTL,, it measures the input  and the output,  That is shown in the dialog and it will show the total RTL. That figure is usually accurate. You can run the Centrance RTL test as well if you don't believe Sonar. 
 Sonar will also try and calculate for some plug ins and there's a whole other system that deals with that.  That part we all know we will hear latency when using look ahead type plug ins so we by pass the bins while tracking. 
 
You don't hear RTL latency if you monitor at your interface so 90% of the time it does not matter.It only matters when we use guitar sims and plug ins with input echo on. SO it is correct that you may never experience issues with cheap interfaces if you always direct monitor. 

Are you addressing me here? Because I do understand what RTL is and when it's important. As far as I understand it, the latency reported by Sonar is based on what the driver tells Sonar and it doesn't take into account some things like AD/DA buffers or hidden safety buffers. But it matters in the real world - it's extra delay. Of course we're talking about monitoring through Sonar. Pretty important when using amp sims. My UCX adds 14 samples AD buffer and 7 DA for instance. Some interfaces can add a lot more, adding extra milliseconds.

Sanderxpander
Are you addressing me here? 

Yes, phhhhh.