Helpful ReplyTest results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me

Author
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8424
  • Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
  • Status: offline
2017/06/04 21:08:19 (permalink)

Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me

The results are found here, not sure if they took all results and averaged them as many submitted for the same interfaces. Prety unscientific test eh..  Just made me think we could do something like it here. 
http://www.kailuamusicschool.com/tech/round-trip-latency-roundup/
 
This is the GS thread. Steveo42 posted the link in another thread so I found myself reading most of it out of curiosity. Problem I have with it is it shows pretty similar results for most interfaces which blows the doors off the "buy a RME for low latency" quote we often read on forums.   http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=174445&page=4
 
 
I think to make it more scientific and easier to read we would need a baseline of only a few settings. 
Like there's no point comparing a digital loopback to analog.  
And stick to one clock rate like 48 hz as we all understand it makes the figures go down a little as you go up. 
I'd think if we just did all at 48hz and only 32, 64, 128 and 256  that would give enough info 
And we could use Sonars report or this tool  http://www.oblique-audio.com/free/rtlutility
 
Anybody interested or should we just use asio4all and be done with it! :)
 

Johnny V  
Cakelab  
Focusrite 6i61st - Tascam us1641. 
3 Desktops and 3 Laptops W7 and W10
 http://www.cactusmusic.ca/
 
 
#1
Rob[at]Sound-Rehab
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 2819
  • Joined: 2011/02/03 04:31:35
  • Location: Sound-Rehab, Austria
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 08:01:22 (permalink)
If you want to do this accurately, you need to do the loop back, record the transient, split the clip at the transient, read the length in samples and convert to ms because tools like Sonar's reported RTL not always give you correct results e.g. in case with the latest MOTU AVB it misses 82 samples (independent of sample rate) which the unit needs to do its internal DSP stuff ... still RTLs obtained are lower than what is listed in above threads

BTW I have the MOTU measurements and I believe I also posted them in some thread about a year ago.

GOOD TUNES LAST FOREVER
  +++   Visit the Rehab   +++
 
DAW: Platinum/X3e, win10 64 bit, i7-3930K (6x3.2GHz), Asus Sabertooth X79, 32 GB DDR3 1600MHz, ATI HD 5450, 120 GB SSD OCZ Agility3, 2x 1TB WD HDD SATA 600
Audio-Interface: 2x MOTU 1248 AVB, Focusrite OctoPre, (Roland Octa-Capture)   Control-Surface: VS-700C 
VSTi: WAVES, NI K10u, FabFilter, IK, ... (too many really) 
#2
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8424
  • Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 15:25:03 (permalink)
Well this is just it, seems these figures are all over the map. 

Johnny V  
Cakelab  
Focusrite 6i61st - Tascam us1641. 
3 Desktops and 3 Laptops W7 and W10
 http://www.cactusmusic.ca/
 
 
#3
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5321
  • Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 16:47:45 (permalink)
Didn't we do a chunk of this in that loopback thread a year or so ago? Some units did seem optimized at specific sample rates, but a lot of data was started in that thread too (on a cell, so will never find it).

ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
#4
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
  • Total Posts : 26036
  • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
  • Location: Everett, WA USA
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 17:48:57 (permalink)
Whoever did those tests should have looked at the results and immediately asked himself "what am I doing wrong?".
 
That there are variances is not at all surprising. Hardware-wise, the differences won't be huge (e.g. 0.5 ms best-case vs. 2 ms worst-case), but drivers can exhibit greater or lesser efficiencies. That's the case with any two pieces of software that do the exact same thing. It comes down to how much effort the coders put into optimization. That said, a nearly 2:1 variance seems to more likely reflect an error in methodology.


All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

My Stuff
#5
azslow3
Max Output Level: -42.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3297
  • Joined: 2012/06/22 19:27:51
  • Location: Germany
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 17:56:39 (permalink)
Cactus Music
The results are found here, not sure if they took all results and averaged them as many submitted for the same interfaces. Prety unscientific test eh..  Just made me think we could do something like it here. 
http://www.kailuamusicschool.com/tech/round-trip-latency-roundup/
 
This is the GS thread. Steveo42 posted the link in another thread so I found myself reading most of it out of curiosity. Problem I have with it is it shows pretty similar results for most interfaces which blows the doors off the "buy a RME for low latency" quote we often read on forums.   http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=174445&page=4
 
 
I think to make it more scientific and easier to read we would need a baseline of only a few settings. 
Like there's no point comparing a digital loopback to analog.  
And stick to one clock rate like 48 hz as we all understand it makes the figures go down a little as you go up. 
I'd think if we just did all at 48hz and only 32, 64, 128 and 256  that would give enough info 
And we could use Sonars report or this tool  http://www.oblique-audio.com/free/rtlutility
 
Anybody interested or should we just use asio4all and be done with it! :)

From what I have observed in the Internet before that table look accurate. RTL for Interface/Driver version/Frequency/Bit depth/Buffer size is a constant. Particular computer should not influence it at all. So one single measurement (assuming done with real loopback test) is scientific.
 
Sonar reported latency is not scientific. It trust the information provided by the interface. Some of them do not report truth.
RTLUtility is a "hardware prove". That result you can trust (at least one "small man" DAW has such thing build in, easy to use and accurate by definition for any interface/mode/driver/etc.)
 
The problem, all that RTL numbers say nothing about which column is usable, especially not for particular system. Here statistic is required, so for which users/interface combination particular buffer size has no problem. Unfortunately that is all aspects dependent, from hardware up to VSTs in use. And that is the reason for "buy a RME for low latency" quote. Most users have confirmed so far that IF particular system CAN run with 64 samples buffer, THEN RME can be used with 64 samples. Reversed, if RME can not work with 64 samples NO OTHER INTERFACE (with the same bus type) can work with 64 samples on that system/environment (I have not seen any single report breaking that statement). It can happened some other interfaces can be used with the same settings as well, but they can not go lower, so they are just "not worse". I must admit that Internet claim modern MOTU and ZOOM are comparable in terms of stability and RTL. But that can be proved by time only (and taking the number of reports about broken MOTU units, it can take quite some time).
 
I do not have "hi end" interfaces, but I have observed that I can not use my VS-20 with the same buffer size as my M-Audio, on physically and in software the same system. Especially on low end, manufacturers not only return garbage about latency but also allow setting which then know can not be used in practice.
 
Users see 1ms in advertisement, see 5ms in software (wonder why... but then read small text in advertisement...) and looking that other work with over 10ms, think they are working with the best interface in the world. Not many then start RTL, but if they do, they set 64 samples and that returns 16ms "something is wrong here, bug Internet claims that is still not so bad for my purpose". When DAW is constantly crashing with 64, they tend to blame computer/software, set it to 128/256 and live with that.
It can happened the same user could happily use RME with 64sample and 6ms RTL. So people recommend to try. Sound logical for me.
 
 

Sonar 8LE -> Platinum infinity, REAPER, Windows 10 pro
GA-EP35-DS3L, E7500, 4GB, GTX 1050 Ti, 2x500GB
RME Babyface Pro (M-Audio Audiophile Firewire/410, VS-20), Kawai CN43, TD-11, Roland A500S, Akai MPK Mini, Keystation Pro, etc.
www.azslow.com - Control Surface Integration Platform for SONAR, ReaCWP, AOSC and other accessibility tools
#6
Soundwise
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 1419
  • Joined: 2015/01/25 17:11:34
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 19:02:54 (permalink)
Low latency is overrated. Since I started using outboard gear for direct monitoring, latency has become unimportant.

Anderton
We are all unique and have our own contributions to make to this planet.

SoundCloud
YouTube
BandLab
#7
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8424
  • Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 19:31:47 (permalink)
It ( RTL)  only matters when playing live VST's and using in the box guitar sims. My usable RTL as reported by both the RTL loopback and Sonar is the same @ 6.5 ms for both my Tascam and my Scarlett. And these figures do not change enough to matter when I use different computers be it W7 or W10. I experience no latency issues unless I have certain plug ins active which we all understand very clearly why this happens. 
The reason I'm curious is my plan was to purchase a Motu for live playback based on people stating better RTL performance. Those test results show I would not gain anything but I figure that is not true. 

Johnny V  
Cakelab  
Focusrite 6i61st - Tascam us1641. 
3 Desktops and 3 Laptops W7 and W10
 http://www.cactusmusic.ca/
 
 
#8
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 5321
  • Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
  • Location: Maryland, USA
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/05 22:07:51 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby Soundwise 2017/06/06 12:03:10
Soundwise
Low latency is overrated.




I tend to adhere to this camp as well, and think a good part of it is people being able to adapt (or not) to their environment. I run amp sims through a PA quite a bit, and the speakers are 18' away (18' / 1.125'/ms) = 16ms from PA speaker placement alone).
 
Taken to even more extremes... you do not see orchestras huddled into a space the size of a car, or see a violinist stop off stage because they cannot sync to the tuba. If people cannot readily adapt to their environment, church hymns would have been a done deal eons ago.

ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
#9
steveo42
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 90
  • Joined: 2015/11/14 18:18:04
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/06 02:44:41 (permalink)
Wrong thread. Sorry.
 
 
 
 
 
 
post edited by steveo42 - 2017/06/06 13:11:01
#10
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 9871
  • Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
  • Location: Ohio
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/06 14:05:53 (permalink)
The beauty of "lowest possible latency" is in the eye of the beholder.  
If you're monitoring via hardware... and that's the extent of your needs (low latency monitoring), then you're set.
However, if you're trying to do something like trigger drum samples from an electronic kit (and have them feel as immediate/responsive as possible), having lowest possible latency is a much bigger deal.
 
Playing live:
When you get fairly distant from a monitor speaker or the mains (say going well out into the audience without wearing in-ear-monitors), the latency can be huge/distracting.
Can you compensate?  Yes
Is it comfortable?  No
 
All audio interface drivers are NOT created equal.
ie: Presonus Audio Box and RME Fireface UFX can both be set to a 64-sample ASIO buffer size.  
Reported latency will indeed be similar.
Guess which one allows running heavier loads glitch-free?  
That's part of what you're paying for when buying an RME audio interface.
 
I know Aaron (spear-headed pooling the round-trip latency information in the link above).
He's a good guy... and certainly means well (to help other folks).
 
 

Best Regards,

Jim Roseberry
jim@studiocat.com
www.studiocat.com
#11
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 8424
  • Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/06 15:17:34 (permalink)
Thanks for that Jim. So I guess those figures are more or less accurate but they don't tell the whole story. 
Many were using Reapers report and just like Sonar they can only report what the driver tells them. 
 
I do play a digital drum kit and even at my lowest buffer setting ( 2ms Scarlett what ever that means) I can hear a digital delay if I monitor both the Brain and the VST. So I monitor the brain while tracking because fighting latency sucks. The odd thing is I have never noticed this while tracking Keyboard parts. I guess I'd hear it if my keyboard generated sound too. 
 
So maybe the lesson learned is RTL can be workable with most name brands of interfaces. How stable that is at low buffers is driver and CPU dependant. The top performers are more stable using the same CPU.
 
Low latency is not necessarily a sign of a good driver. 

Johnny V  
Cakelab  
Focusrite 6i61st - Tascam us1641. 
3 Desktops and 3 Laptops W7 and W10
 http://www.cactusmusic.ca/
 
 
#12
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 10037
  • Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
  • Location: SL,UT
  • Status: offline
Re: Test results on a Reaper forum - seem inaccurate to me 2017/06/06 15:24:23 (permalink)
Jim Roseberry
The beauty of "lowest possible latency" is in the eye of the beholder.  
If you're monitoring via hardware... and that's the extent of your needs (low latency monitoring), then you're set.
However, if you're trying to do something like trigger drum samples from an electronic kit (and have them feel as immediate/responsive as possible), having lowest possible latency is a much bigger deal.
 
Playing live:
When you get fairly distant from a monitor speaker or the mains (say going well out into the audience without wearing in-ear-monitors), the latency can be huge/distracting.
Can you compensate?  Yes
Is it comfortable?  No
 
All audio interface drivers are NOT created equal.
ie: Presonus Audio Box and RME Fireface UFX can both be set to a 64-sample ASIO buffer size.  
Reported latency will indeed be similar.
Guess which one allows running heavier loads glitch-free?  
That's part of what you're paying for when buying an RME audio interface.
 
I know Aaron (spear-headed pooling the round-trip latency information in the link above).
He's a good guy... and certainly means well (to help other folks).
 
 


THIS ^^^

Bats Brew music Streaming
Bats Brew albums:
"Trouble"
"Stay"
"The Time is Magic"
--
Sonar 6 PE>Bandlab Cakewalk>Studio One 3.5>RME BFP>i7-7700 3.6GHz>MSI B250M>G.Skill Ripjaws 4 series 16GB>Samsung 960 EVO m.2ssd>W 10 Pro
 
#13
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1