743 samples!!!!!! GRRRRHHHHHH!!!!

Time to redo some parts . . .

CRAP! This changes everytime I change my buffer size?

ORIGINAL: DH123

743 samples!!!!!! GRRRRHHHHHH!!!!

Time to redo some parts . . .

CRAP! This changes everytime I change my buffer size?

Yeah, I believe it does, specially if you're using WDM since it doesn't have latency compensation like ASIO. Just calculate the buffer size(s) you use for recording and write it down somewhere. Input the one you need in the buffers offset box and you're done. You don't need to calculate all of them since this doesn't apply to playback.

HTH

I had Vintage Warmer on the Master bus, the delay changed to 283 in the other direction when I took it off!.

That's about 6 ms, or sitting 6 feet away from the speaker. Never noticed it before.

The bad news is my timing still sucks!! I need another month to woodshed . . .

ORIGINAL: DH123

I had Vintage Warmer on the Master bus, the delay changed to 283 in the other direction when I took it off!.

That's about 6 ms, or sitting 6 feet away from the speaker. Never noticed it before.

The bad news is my timing still sucks!! I need another month to woodshed . . .

PSP VW 2.x was a problem for me, I stopped using it, went back to version 1.85.

<deleted by user>

ORIGINAL: bbdude

This was mentioned several posts back -- The audio metronome : Is there a confirmed bug with it? Is there a recipe to make it act-up?

I have experienced some timing strangeness when using the metronome in the past, but I have never gone through the timing offset adjustment -- so I guess I'll do that soon. Could it be that the complaints others have made against the metronome are all due to improperly compensated delays in the audio interface, or is there something else going on with it?

I'm not personally convinced there's a timing problem with the metronome that isn't directly related to the loopback offset.

ORIGINAL: zapotec

instead of doing this "test/calibration" each time there is a change; could it not be added to the logic within the program? this might be a concideration for Sonar 8?

Sonar already has this, but only with ASIO drivers. The problem is in how your audio interface reports latency to the application (Sonar in this case). If your interfaces has hidden buffers, like many do, then there's no way Sonar is gonna know about them. That's why you still have to do it manually, even with ASIO.


HTH (Not my name )

ORIGINAL: DaveT

Checked my audio setup last night and Sonar reports an offset of 334 using ASIO Lynx drivers.
DaveT

Right, my FF400 reports an ASIO latency of 301 samples but then I had to perform the loopback test in order to figure out the extra latency of my hidden buffers. In my case, that extra latency was of 98 samples which I inputed in the "Manual Offset" box. Is this what you did?

Jose,
I didn't run the test you outlined. I don' think I'm suffering from timing issues, but I'll probably run the test just for grins.

My response to the thread was just to confirm that good ASIO drivers (Lynx) will report the offset.

DaveT

i used the centrance latency test utility to get these numbers for an emu 1212m.

latency set at 2 ms/ asio reported at 159/ round trip latency at 182 samples (4.13ms)

Ru,

First of all I don't understand your table. Maybe you could explain what's going on in there?

Second, why didn't I think of this before? You're a genius! It's way easier to do this with CEntrance. All that's left, after calculating roundtrip latency, is to do some simple math and voila! You've got your offset number.

Let me explain what I mean:

After taking your measurements using CEntrance, you take the number of samples and substract the ASIO Reported Latency number from it. Now take your buffer size/latency number and substrack that from the remainder. For example, if I set my latency to 256 buffers @ 44.1 KHz in Sonar, it tells me I have an ASIO Reported Latency of 301 samples. My measurement from CEntrance says I have a rountrip latency of 655 samples. So what I'd need to do is take my roundtrip latency number and substract my ASIO Reported latency number from it (655 - 301 = 354). Now I take 354 and substract my buffer size/latency in Sonar, so 354 - 256 = 98!!! If you remember from my previous posts (posts #46) I said I offseted my latency by 98 samples. Cool huh? This way is easier and involves less steps. I will update the latency post to include steps for this.

Thanks!


P.S. Again, the offset number is always the same no matter what buffer size or sampling rate is used. I will develope a formula for WDM driver users as well. This will make things easier for both.

Latency Test Steps have been updated. Check here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=1302373


HTH

ORIGINAL: DaveT

Jose,
I didn't run the test you outlined. I don' think I'm suffering from timing issues, but I'll probably run the test just for grins.

DaveT

Please do. I would like to hear about your findings.


Take care!


OK, ran the test. After about 6 interations, I found that a manual offset at 105 lined up both tracks. The automatic setting from my Lynx L22 driver was 322, so significant difference. Played back and recorded with a couple of tunes I've been working on. Everything seems to sound OK, might even sound a bit brighter. You always hope that small tweaks might do something good. Maybe wishfull thinking.

Anyway, interesting test. I wonder if anyone else noticed a difference in sound?

DaveT

ORIGINAL: Jose7822

Ru,

You don't wanna change the number of buffers, only their size. The more buffers you introduce, the higher the latency will be (this is on top of raising the buffer size/latency). The default of 2 buffers is just fine. The number you need to change is the buffer size/latency found in your audio interface's Control Panel. You change them different ways depending on the drivers you use. For example, with WDM, each time you change the buffer size on your interface's Control Panel you need to run the Wave Profiler in Sonar so that it reads the correct latency. Otherwise changes won't apply. With ASIO, on the other hand, you can open your audio interface's Control Panel from the Audio dialog window in Sonar by clicking the "ASIO Panel" button. Then, after changing the latency, you click "OK". Next time you open the Audio dialog you will see that changes have applied.

also, when you say something like 'latency to 256 buffers', are you referring to record latency alone?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but when I talk about latency I'm talking about buffer size (not number of buffers).

Hope this clears it up, if not don't be affraid to ask.


Take care!

no no...i understand what's being talked about...my use of the term 'buffers' is just a short way of indicating the playback and record i/o buffer size...i know how to set latency (how do you think i got those test numbers? i mentioned using sonar's asio box in the last comment). i'm not doing anything with the buffers in playback queue.

1] so what i'm wondering is why playback and record buffer size settings of 256 and 256 respectively, gets the same results as 512 and 512. in other words, if a playback is at 512, and record is raised from 256 to 512, the latency increases, as i would expect. but i'd also expect a setting of 256 and 256 to get a lower response than 512 and 512.
do you see what i mean?

2]

...I'm talking about buffer size (not number of buffers)

are you speaking strictly of record i/o buffer size?

3] how will this affect previously recorded material?

Latency Test



Alright guys! These are the updated steps to get sample accurate recordings:


ASIO only:


1- Snip
HTH

< Message edited by Jose7822 -- 2/15/2008 7:41:02 PM >

Thanks Jose This would be a great utility that shold be included in Sonar I really like the latest version of sonar but I was tweaking with my aardvark 24/96 interface trying to get a lower latency . I suspect I mad eit worse not better so hopefully at least I can measure what I am doing