Helpful ReplyM-Audio Fast Track Ultra vs M-Audio FW1814--decreasing latency questions

Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
cecelius2
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1494
  • Joined: 2009/11/06 16:12:11
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
  • Status: offline
2010/10/05 23:23:36 (permalink)

M-Audio Fast Track Ultra vs M-Audio FW1814--decreasing latency questions

Hi all: 

I have read many posts hear about round-trip latency in audio cards, CPU loads, and how that the Fast Track Ultra has low latency (5.5ms) for USB 2.0 and for an inexpensive card.  You guys got be interested!

For about 5 years now, I have been using a M-audio FW1814 (TI control card) and get latency of 7.8ms round-trip at 64 samples. 

BTW, I use WIN7 64bit, Sonar 64 bit 8.5.3, AMD Phenom 955be and 8 gigs of Ram.  I use a lot of memory intensive VSTi plugins, Omnisphere, Komplete 6, and the IK suites and need a stable audio card.  I also do a lot of midi input via midi Guitar (Axon AX100Mkii) and need lower audio card latency to help with the natural latency input of midi guitar.

So here are my questions:

1)  Is going from 7.8ms to 5.5ms a good improvement?  (is it noticeable?)

2)  Is the Fast Track Ultra (not the R) model stable? 

3)  Does it take a significant portion of the CPU to operate?  [I have read that because it is USB2.0 that it is somewhat dependent on the CPU, and that USB2 does not get a high priority in CPU usage architecture--whereas FW is dedicated on a controller card.]]

Anyway, I know you guys have opinions and advice, which I look forward to reading.  Thanks for your input.

Cecelius2
post edited by cecelius2 - 2010/10/05 23:24:56




#1
List Solutions Only

1 Reply Related Threads
    Guitarhacker
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 24398
    • Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
    • Location: NC
    • Status: offline
    Re:M-Audio Fast Track Ultra vs M-Audio FW1814--decreasing latency questions 2010/10/06 08:20:28 (permalink) ☄ Helpful
    1. 7.8 reduced to 5.5  yeah it's better but the more important question:  is it noticeable..... Nope. Only with electronic measuring gear.  That's the difference between standing 8 feet from you amp and taking one big step closer to 6 feet from the amp. You will not hear that difference.

    2. IDK

    3. IDK... the more CPU intensive soft synths you load up the more the processor strains to keep up...

    In my experience with loading the processor down.... I have NOT noticed an increase in the latency as I add more stuff... synths and FX. I think the latency for the system remains constant at whatever roundtrip it has decided it can do.  For example 8ms.   Anything below 10ms (from what I understand is pretty good) ..a little over, no big problem.

    What does happen however, as the processor is trying to keep all the data processed to the round trip time, if there is more data than can be processed in real time, the system simply "drops" it out of the data stream in an attempt to keep up.... you hear this as clicks and pops... and if the drops become too many and the data stream to hard to process, the DAW simply "drops the audio" and the DAW stops with the  dropped audio warning.

    On my old lappy DAW, my solution to this issue was to simply "bounce to track" the synths and the CPU intensive audio FX.... and either mute, freeze, archive, or delete the original tracks with the CPU intensive object in them. In the end I worked with 100% audio tracks, and CPU usage and disk usage were both in a reasonable range.

    My website & music: www.herbhartley.com

    MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW   
    Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface


    BMI/NSAI

    "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer " 
    #2
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1