Helpful ReplyQuestion: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ?

Author
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
2016/11/18 13:48:03 (permalink)

Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ?

Just hoping someone checked if upgrading to Platinum reduced the roundtrip latency or not, compared to X3 ?
Happy with X3 and I just hate the upgrading work....the only thing making it worthwile for me is a lower latency really.
Thanks, appreciate any report about this subject.
 
 
#1
scook
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 24146
  • Joined: 2005/07/27 13:43:57
  • Location: TX
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/18 13:50:58 (permalink)
Latency is a function of your audio interface, its driver settings and the plug-ins used in a project. To the extent that the new SONAR may run better on your hardware, it might be possible to reduce the driver buffer settings but that would be the only way SONAR might affect latency.
#2
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/18 14:06:16 (permalink)
Thanks Scook, was thinking the Sonar software/audio engine etc needs a number of samples (latency) to get music out of Sonar (simular to a plugins/VST using a number of samples latency).
I do expect software and latency are connected, today I was reading about the Universal Audio new Thunderbolt 3 interfaces (Apollo), that are available for Windows now (one needs a new PC with Thunderbolt 3 port).
They have an accelarator Box you can connect that gives you even more power, and lower latency, so they claim.
Not that I'm gonna spend 5000 on a new computer, Apollo interface and accelartor box....no way.
This PC thunderbolt 3 news however makes me think about maybe not joining Sonar Mac...
If say RME will launch a more affordable Thunderbolt 3 windows interface, I might upgrade.
#3
scook
Forum Host
  • Total Posts : 24146
  • Joined: 2005/07/27 13:43:57
  • Location: TX
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/18 14:22:36 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/18 14:38:14
Obviously the software takes some time to process data but it is insignificant compared to the buffering needed for the interface and plug-ins which must know what the data looks like a 100ms or so in the future.
#4
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/18 14:38:41 (permalink)
thanks Scook
#5
chuckebaby
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 13146
  • Joined: 2011/01/04 14:55:28
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/18 20:09:54 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/19 10:32:30
I just built a PC with the built in Thunderbolt option in the MOBO. Not really that expensive actually.
Its really the Interface your paying for. And im not sure Platinum is that much different from Sonar X3.
As Steve said, its really all about your AI when it comes to latency.. or a matter of if you even have one.

Windows 8.1 X64 Sonar Platinum x64
Custom built: Asrock z97 1150 - Intel I7 4790k - 16GB corsair DDR3 1600 - PNY SSD 220GB
Focusrite Saffire 18I8 - Mackie Control
   
#6
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/18 23:32:30 (permalink)
Thanks Chuck, that Thunderbolt PC defenitely seems a great idea.
So far from what I understand Apple/Mac software is superior (faster) handling audio than Microsoft, but now the superior outboard gear (Thunderbolt3 and accelerator boxes) becomes available to Windows machines..
Damn I just got an RME UC and new backup Windows 7 PC not even a year ago 
So after the motorcycle probably now the car has to go 
Guess X3 and Platinum latency are equal if not the same...but a reduction of 20% or so would make me upgrade.
#7
BobF
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8124
  • Joined: 2003/11/05 18:43:11
  • Location: Missouri - USA
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/19 05:40:08 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/19 10:32:22
I noticed no difference in the measured RT latency going from X3 to Platinum.  However, overall performance and resulting ability to have higher track/FX counts has improved considerably in Plat compared to X3(e).  I've always been happy with RTL in the 7-10ms range though, which I realize everybody isn't able to tolerate for live IM.
 
Additionally, I find the overall responsiveness (snappy feel?) of Platinum to be superior to X3.  I still have X3 installed and fire it up from time to time.  I do notice the positive difference when I return to Platinum.

Bob  --
Angels are crying because truth has died ...
Illegitimi non carborundum
--
Studio One Pro / i7-6700@3.80GHZ, 32GB Win 10 Pro x64
Roland FA06, LX61+, Fishman Tripleplay, FaderPort, US-16x08 + ARC2.5/Event PS8s 
Waves Gold/IKM Max/Nomad Factory IS3/K11U

#8
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/19 10:32:14 (permalink)
hey Bob, thanks for this information / your nice report...appreciate sharing your experience on the updgrade.
thanks !
#9
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3873
  • Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 04:13:58 (permalink)
RME has some of the best drivers on the market. Some benchmarks show them reaching lower latency on Windows actually. They just really know their business. With my new laptop and my UCX, I run relatively busy projects at 128 samples buffersize. I can go down to 32 samples at the start of the project if I want to but it makes no sense as the total roundtrip is already like 6/7ms at 128 samples and half that for softsynths. Are you having any issues or is this a theoretical exercise?
#10
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2567
  • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 06:21:00 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/20 06:26:50
MacOS doesn't produce a lower latency than a well set-up Windows PC attached to an interface with good drivers. My UFX returns pretty much the same latency on PC and Mac, give or take a millisecond or so. Both can produce under 5ms round-trip latency depending in how hard the DAW is pudhing the cpu.

What the Mac's Core Audio system does is make setting up for low latency much more simple. E.g. many Windows PCs suffer from serious PCI bus/dpc latency caused by the wi-fi driver. Which makes running wi-fi and low audio latency at the same time impossible. Hence the common advice to turn off the wi-fi on a Windows PC. Macs generally don't suffer from that problem.

Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
#11
chuckebaby
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 13146
  • Joined: 2011/01/04 14:55:28
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 06:31:30 (permalink)
BobF
-However, overall performance and resulting ability to have higher track/FX counts has improved considerably in Plat compared to X3(e). 
 
-I find the overall responsiveness (snappy feel?) of Platinum to be superior to X3. 



This is a good point. He is 100% correct on these things. I feel the same way.

Windows 8.1 X64 Sonar Platinum x64
Custom built: Asrock z97 1150 - Intel I7 4790k - 16GB corsair DDR3 1600 - PNY SSD 220GB
Focusrite Saffire 18I8 - Mackie Control
   
#12
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 06:47:42 (permalink)
thanks TLW for sharing your experience / knowlegde.
also great you wrote about the Wi-fi ! Knew about it and had it disabled but really forgot so you remembered me to check it on next computer, saved me a headache then.
thank you !
#13
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3873
  • Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 06:52:51 (permalink)
I just checked and with my UCX I can go to 48 samples at 44.1KHz or 96 samples at 96KHz, both resulting in about 3ms total roundtrip latency. That is with a current PC but I really don't see how a ms more or less matters at that point. I'm fine with 128 samples at 44.1KHz which gives 7.4 total roundtrip (assuming I'm not even using the UCX direct monitoring) and less than 4ms for softsynths.

Do you have more significant latency?
#14
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 06:53:14 (permalink)
Chuck, thanks for confirming / sharing your experience.
Seems the core software running Platinum is a better version of X3, from what a lot of people write.
Thanks for your report.
 
#15
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 07:05:55 (permalink)
Hi Sander, thanks for your updates/experience. (I don't have high latency / probs with X3 and RME UC).
Just trying to get it as low as possible.
Iic remember a pro mastering engineer advised to keep latency under 10ms (or so) and he said a mix with 20ms latency is a problem.
So according to him, your roundtrip would still be ok but only just....maybe lower the buffer when your exporting/printing or finishing your mix ?
Can I ask you how you measure or get the VST latency ? 
#16
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3873
  • Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 08:46:51 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby John 2016/11/20 14:41:00
I'm sorry but it sounds like you're basing your concerns on a lot of hearsay and don't have a lot of personal understanding of how latency affects your process. Excuse me sincerely if I'm misjudging.

You may have been listening to an old fashioned ProTools engineer. For the longest time, PT did not have automatic plugin latency compensation. That means that if you put a plugin on a track and it generates, say, 20ms of latency, that track will be 20ms out of sync with the other tracks. Modern DAWs (including the last few versions of PT) automatically compensate for plugin latency and make sure all your tracks are in sync. Moreover, unless you're streaming live audio into your inputs, this has nothing whatsoever to so with I/O latency which is practically irrelevant for mixing. Sure it is annoying when you move an EQ knob and you hear the change half a second or a second later, but you would be hard pressed to notice even 100ms in such a case.

When you're bouncing a mix, most DAWs (with PT again being late to the game) include an "offline bounce" function which means the computer doesn't stream live audio but simply maximizes CPU use to calculate your final mixdown as quickly as possible. Neither kind of latency comes into play here at all.

If you consider my figures "barely ok" I would suggest doing a good search online and see how many ms you can shave off. I believe it's pretty cutting edge already. Certainly that professional mastering engineer you spoke to worked with worse.

I'm finding my figures from the reported figures in the Sonar driver setup window by the way. Technically I should measure it manually but RME reports pretty reliable figures. The softsynth latency is just the output latency without the input latency, although if you're playing a controller there will be some minimal latency from the midi input, depending on which controller you use.
#17
BobF
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8124
  • Joined: 2003/11/05 18:43:11
  • Location: Missouri - USA
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 09:22:35 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/20 14:11:12
Sheanes
Hi Sander, thanks for your updates/experience. (I don't have high latency / probs with X3 and RME UC).
Just trying to get it as low as possible.
Iic remember a pro mastering engineer advised to keep latency under 10ms (or so) and he said a mix with 20ms latency is a problem.
So according to him, your roundtrip would still be ok but only just....maybe lower the buffer when your exporting/printing or finishing your mix ?
Can I ask you how you measure or get the VST latency ? 




Latency is not a practical consideration for mixing.  SONAR and most other modern DAWs compensate for FX latency automatically.
 
VST latency can be measured by turning off all compensation and recording a VSTi track from a MIDI clip.  Measure the diff between the start of the MIDI note and the start of the resulting audio.

Bob  --
Angels are crying because truth has died ...
Illegitimi non carborundum
--
Studio One Pro / i7-6700@3.80GHZ, 32GB Win 10 Pro x64
Roland FA06, LX61+, Fishman Tripleplay, FaderPort, US-16x08 + ARC2.5/Event PS8s 
Waves Gold/IKM Max/Nomad Factory IS3/K11U

#18
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2567
  • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 09:45:22 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/20 14:02:12
Sheanes
Iic remember a pro mastering engineer advised to keep latency under 10ms (or so) and he said a mix with 20ms latency is a problem.
So according to him, your roundtrip would still be ok but only just....maybe lower the buffer when your exporting/printing or finishing your mix ?
Can I ask you how you measure or get the VST latency ? 


The thing about latency is it only matters when it causes you a problem. Round-trip latency only matters if you are monotoring an audio source through the DAW. For example, using Sonar's track echo function to play a guitar through an amp emulating plugin. "One way" outgoing latency matters if the gap between pressing a controller key and a software synth emiting the resulting sound is a problem.

How much latency causes a problem varies from person to person. There's a general "rule" that under 10ms round trip plus the time it takes for sound to keave nearfield monitors and arrive at their ears probably isn't an issue for most people. Sound travels about one foot/33cm per second, so 10ms round-trip latency plus say three feet monitor to ear distance totals 13ms, or put another way like playing guitar 13 feet from an amp's speakers.

Some find that a problem, others don't.

Chasing the lowest possible latency often isn't the best way to go. Once you get to a latency low enough not to be noticable or affect your playing getting the latency any lower will make little or no difference in the real world. What pushing the latency as low as possible will do is limit the track and plugin count because the lower the latency the harder the cpu and the rest of the system has to work to keep up.

One solution if monitoring through the DAW (which is how I usually do things) is to keep the latency in the "doesn't affect me" range while tracking and use low-cpu usage plugins only at that stage and freeze tracks once they're recorded. Then when ready to mix increase the latency to whatever it takes, within reason, to get a stable result with no pops, clicks or dropouts when you add in more resource-demanding plugins. Some plugins add quite a lot of latency because of how they work, most plugin makers don't tell you how much latency their plugs add (Waves does tell you) but in general watch put for convolution reverbs and anything that "looks ahead" - compressors and limiters often do this.

As for measuring latency, the only accurate test is to connect a patch cable between an interface output and input then set up a track containing a "ping" or percussive noise with a very obvious beginning. Play the pong and record the return ping from the interface on a new track. The DAW timeline will show you how long it took the signal to make the round trip. Make sure you disable any latency compensation in the DAW first though or the DAW will shift the incoming ping to where it thinks it ought to be.

Many ASIO drivers report latency and Sonar's preferences will tell you what they report. Unfortunately many interfaces contain a built-in 'safety buffer' that the driver doesn't report which contributes to latency. Which interfaces have such a buffer I don't know, but one reason I chose to go with RME is that they do say what the minimum possible latency is due to the time it takes their hardware and firmware to do its thing, while most interface makers don't.

I forget what RME say that figure is, other than it's very small. In practice I find I can handle round-trips of around 10ms OK, but by 12ms (or 16 if we include nearfields to ear distance) it starts to feel like I pick a note...pause....sound which is off-putting

Just for completeness, another factor in latency is that external MIDI-controlled hardware also has a built in latency because it takes a certain amount of time for hardware to process MIDI. And if the hardware is a digital synth (or "virtual analogue" which is code for "not actually analogue at all, but digital), the synth will take some milliseconds to do the sums and make a noise. And that time varies from synth to synth.

So my advice is don't fret over latency unless it's causing you a problem. :-)

And if you think this is complicated just be grateful you don't have to pay for then regularly clean, demagnetise and bias a 24 track tape recorder, respool tapes from time to time to reduce print-through and all the other fun and expensive things multi-track recording required 25 years ago :-)

Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
#19
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 14:02:08 (permalink)
Hey TLW, thanks again for your reply, really enjoyed reading it !
Like to read and see vids about the 'old analog recording' days, those techs were incredible.
The workflows back then....and no/little 'recall' options, stunning how they made some records that still sound great today.
 
I'll be fretting myself about latency for a while probably 
So far I think what happens is like how you described it, latency moves the audio away from you.
Was thinking the Sonar roundtrip + plugin latency is then printed inside the music you export.
So if the music before you import it, is say 5 feet away.....after mixing/exporting it's say 10 ft away. 
(nicely synced/alligned by the DAW latency compensation, that is not actually 'removing' or 'erasing' latency like I thought at first, that would be impossible iic and would take the universe to stand still for some ms).
 
My RME UC does not let me lower buffers all the way, whenever I have a project open.
(I can before opening a project).
I could/want to lower them more as my projects are small/light on a strong computer.
Guess RME built in a safety feature to prevent crashes.
 
My projects are mostly 'wet' remix tracks, samples and stems and they allready come with quite some latency IIC.
That's why I'm still fretting a while.
 
Again, thanks for your post / reply....much appreciated.
 
 
post edited by Sheanes - 2016/11/20 14:32:21
#20
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3873
  • Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 14:58:09 (permalink)
Again, modern DAWs compensate for plugin latency automatically. You will not get any latency "inside the mix". If you really think about it, the very idea makes no sense. I'm sorry to say but you're just chasing a red herring here. Anyway, you'll do what you need to do, happy music making none the less!
#21
tlw
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2567
  • Joined: 2008/10/11 22:06:32
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 15:43:42 (permalink)
Sanderxpander's right.
 
Sonar, like most DAWs, asks the ASIO driver, Core Audio, whatever, what the set latency is, plus you have the option of adjusting that figure in Sonar's preferences if it's noticeably incorrect, which doesn't happen very often.
 
What this means is that Sonar then automatically corrects for latency when placing audio on the time-line. It also compensates for a plugin's own latency as well, and usually gets it right unless the plugin is really badly written. All done automatically.
 
Latency affects the time when we hear something while we are playing or mixing. It almost never* affects where the audio is placed in time or what the mix sounds like after the pass the automation was written, the fader moved etc. other than if there are plugins that require say 50ms to do their thing Sonar will delay commencing playback by 50ms to give that plugin a chance to get up to speed before everything happens. You probably won't notice even that, especially as Sonar has a default start delay of 250ms so it can read and process the first chunks of MIDI tracks.
 
*there are times a DAW gets it wrong, but mostly that's when you're using MIDI to drive external hardware synths and the software doesn't know how long it takes that synth to produce a sound after it gets the MIDI. But even then it's a matter of a few milliseconds at most.
 
Edited to add - in response to your original question, Platinum feels "snappier" than X3 to me, but there's no audio latency difference I've noticed. I just leave the UFX at 64 samples at 44.1KHz and pretty much forget about it. I could run X3 or Plat at the lowest latency the UFX driver allows, but all that results in is having to start increasing the latency a bit as the project grows. So I might as well start where I will end up anyway.

Sonar Platinum 64bit, Windows 8.1 Pro 64bit, I7 3770K Ivybridge, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte Z77-D3H m/board,
ATI 7750 graphics+ 1GB RAM, 2xIntel 520 series 220GB SSDs, 1 TB Samsung F3 + 1 TB WD HDDs, Seasonic fanless 460W psu, RME Fireface UFX, Focusrite Octopre.
Assorted real synths, guitars, mandolins, diatonic accordions, percussion, fx and other stuff.
#22
Klaus
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 320
  • Joined: 2009/07/14 07:34:02
  • Location: Cologne, Germany
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 16:27:18 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/20 16:55:22
Sheanes
My RME UC does not let me lower buffers all the way, whenever I have a project open.
(I can before opening a project).
I could/want to lower them more as my projects are small/light on a strong computer.
Guess RME built in a safety feature to prevent crashes.
 



You have to change the buffers settings of your RME UC from inside SONAR.
 
Preferences>Audio>Driver>Settings:
 
Click on the ASIO Panel button, this will launch RME's own Driver Settings panel.
 
Now you can change the buffer settings, close RME's Driver Settings window and accept the changes in SONAR.
You don't have to restart SONAR.
 
I do this all the time and never had a problem.
 
Edit to add:
This is not a "could work or not" solution. It's intended to work this way.

SONAR Platinum 
RME HDSPe AIO - Windows 10 64bit - Intel i7 2600K - 16 GB RAM
 
 
 
 
#23
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 16:55:14 (permalink)
Hi Klaus, thanks for your help and workinstruction how to change the buffer settings.
I think RME somehow set a minimum buffer size for high sample rates, and therefore I cannot get it lower.
But it's ok.
Appreciate your reply, thanks
#24
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 17:04:49 (permalink)
Hi TLW / Sander, thanks for all your replies / explaining etc....much appreciated.
 
 
 
 
#25
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3873
  • Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 19:06:28 (permalink)
Minimum buffer size for my UCX at 96KHz is 96 samples which results in just 3ms total roundtrip latency. Which is a ridiculously low figure, I find it hard to think of a practical situation where you'd need it to be lower, especially since TotalMix has the most flexible direct monitoring in the business.
#26
joyof60
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 283
  • Joined: 2013/10/08 09:13:28
  • Location: Louisiana
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 19:55:17 (permalink)
TLW, I have no idea how ya'll did it in 'the day', very glad ya'll did though, and today I feel so ashamed we complained about the price....

Joyof60
 
Sonar Plat., Windows 10 Pro  (64bit), Custom Build,  AMD Rizen 5 @3.95GHz, Assorted HDDs, 32 Gb G.Skill RAM. Focusrite Scarlett 18i20, Roland FA08, coupla guitars and misc. mics, cans,  and gadgetry.
#27
Sheanes
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 684
  • Joined: 2013/01/30 10:31:11
  • Location: Zjwame, Netherlands
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/20 20:08:03 (permalink)
I think there is no such thing as latency compensation.
That is just my opinion and I understand you think otherwise.
In my opinion any latency is applied to the music, and even if you sync /correct the timeline a 100%...that does not remove the latency (at least that's how I see it at this point).
Fe, if you have a drumtrack and put 3 reverbs and 5 limiters and some multibands on it.....that drumtrack will sound a bit lamer/duller/not as beefy anymore.....I think.
Even if you line up everything else and move that drumtrack to 0 on the timeline, it's not gonna sound as good again as it was before all the effects.
Anyway, we can (and probably will) disagree about it, that's fine.
A situation IN MY OPINION where you'd need a rediculous low latency as you say, would be if you work with stems that have been mixed and mastered allready before you import them into your remix project
#28
Sanderxpander
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3873
  • Joined: 2013/09/30 10:08:24
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/21 00:18:47 (permalink)
Then all further discussion on this topic is useless. Let's get back to making music, everyone! :)
#29
elsongs
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 306
  • Joined: 2010/03/02 16:16:02
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Status: offline
Re: Question: Platinum lower latency than X3 or not ? 2016/11/21 00:27:44 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Sheanes 2016/11/21 03:35:47
Sheanes
Just hoping someone checked if upgrading to Platinum reduced the roundtrip latency or not, compared to X3 ?
Happy with X3 and I just hate the upgrading work....the only thing making it worthwile for me is a lower latency really.
Thanks, appreciate any report about this subject.
 
 




Can't really give an accurate answer to this, as when I upgraded to Platinum, I also upgraded to Windows 10 and a brand new audio interface...

Elson Trinidad Los Angeles, CA, USA
Web: www.elsongs.com
Twitter: twitter.com/elsongs

DAWs: Cakewalk by Bandlab, Cakewalk Sonar Platinum x64, Propellerhead Reason 9, Presonus Studio One v3
OS: Windows 10 Professional 
CPU: Intel i7 3820 3.6MHz 
MB: ASRock X79 Xtreme4
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 16GB DDR3
Audio: Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 2nd Generation
MIDI: MOTU Microlite & Novation Impulse 61
#30
Jump to:
© 2025 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1