evansmalley
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 715
- Joined: 2005/06/07 08:25:15
- Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/07 16:28:21
(permalink)
dear bapu-
from what I'm seeing on this, you must ping for yourself in about every dang situation.
welcome to the jungle
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/07 20:59:58
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: evansmalley
dear bapu-
from what I'm seeing on this, you must ping for yourself in about every dang situation.
welcome to the jungle
This is the only way I can see around it all. Tune by tune. hit by hit. at least until you have some sort of journal to keep track of everything that might work in the next similiar situation. ----------- Bitflipper. Also keep in mind that anything from your outboard synths will differ in relation to tempo and synth and patch and what day of the month it is. I checked my Korg TR-Rack synth today and the kik was off around 700 samples and the snare like 600 samples. It wasn't that bad last time I checked. As, you said earlier back in the midi only days, everything was equally (more or less) out of time so it didn't matter. Getting those midi tracks integrated into a project with all the new stuff is a nightmare. this was basically a bump.....
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/07 21:23:53
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bapu
To get back on Audio-only topic for a moment.
I have the Tascam FW-1884 with 8 mic inputs. Eventually I want to add another 8 channel preamp with lightpipe (patched into the FW-1884 ADAT-In). Will that introduce a secondary calculated latency different than the FW-1884?
Should I consider another Firewire 8 mic preamp or will that even present it's own problems?
BTW, I understood that once the sample offset was calculated it would not need to be changed when sample buffers change. I found that not to be true with my FW-1884. At 128 sample buffers I got a calculated 30 buffers offset. At 64 sample buffers I got a calculated 60 buffers offset (both using Jose's ASIO only proceedure).
You do need another calculation whenever you add a piece of hardware to your setup (i.e. pre-amps, FX, external converters, etc). But, ususally, you do NOT have to change the manual offset when changing buffers sizes since Sonar automatically compensates when using ASIO drivers. Just make sure you do have ASIO auto-compensation enabled in Sonar. My friend who owns a FW-1884 uses an external pre-amp via ADAT so he usues two offsets (one for Analog inputs and one for ADAT inputs). But, if memory serves right, the offset remains the same no matter what buffer size he uses (although he uses WDM drivers instead). Which FW-1884 drivers are you using?
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/07 22:55:45
(permalink)
Which FW-1884 drivers are you using? Jose, I use the Tascam 1.60f Driver and the Beta (1.22) SONAR driver. FWIW I have the machinator preamp mods on all channels.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 14:40:25
(permalink)
But, ususally, you do NOT have to change the manual offset when changing buffers sizes since Sonar automatically compensates when using ASIO drivers Yeh, you'd think. But refer to my previous screenshot, where lag times clearly change when nothing other than ASIO buffer size was changed. Jose, where is "ASIO auto-compensation" enabled? I can't recall having seen that anywhere. (To avoid confusion, anybody following this thread should note that two different latencies have been discussed: audio and MIDI-to-audio.)
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 15:51:44
(permalink)
Jose, where is "ASIO auto-compensation" enabled? I can't recall having seen that anywhere.
It's a checkbox called IIRC "ASIO reported latency", right next to the manual offset field. Can't miss it.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 18:47:56
(permalink)
I'm having trouble getting my head wrapped around what to do with any latency numbers I figure out.
For simplicity's sake let's say I have recorded (as midi) a bunch of outboard midi. And say that a loop back of a midi kik is 600 samples behind in relation to where it should line up on the grid. And, My digital mixer loop back is off 95 samples (roundtrip) . I would assume that the 95 samples is part of the 600 sample midi lag since the midi synths go thru the mixer. Yes?
Then, Say I play a guitar part while listening to the midi. Do I nudge my guitar back 95 samples to match the offness of the midi and then if I record the midi to audio, nudge everything back 600 samples? But, then, what about the fact that what I am seeing on the grid as a 600 sample discrepancy, is not including the extra time it takes to actually hear what is playing, which I guess would be half of the 95 samples (so 47). so in fact I would need to nudge the guitar or any other added part an additional 47 samples?
Thanks
Tim
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 19:01:39
(permalink)
And say that a loop back of a midi kik is 600 samples behind in relation to where it should line up on the grid. Are you saying that you have 600/44.1 = 13.6ms MIDI round trip time? That's a pretty bad MIDI loopback performance. Or is this where the audio from the MIDI-driven external synth falls relative to the MIDI? Did you ever get your audio latency compensation dialed in... I can't remember where we left off last time. Not sure I have time to get into it this time, but you are going to need to clarify all the configuration details in any case. Might be a good idea to start another thread, too.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 20:42:49
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bapu
Which FW-1884 drivers are you using?
Jose,
I use the Tascam 1.60f Driver and the Beta (1.22) SONAR driver. FWIW I have the machinator preamp mods on all channels.
Hmmm...he uses those same drivers too. I'll have to test this out again next time I meet with him (probably next week). But, again, he uses WDM which we found to be more efficient on the FW-1884 than ASIO so you might wanna give them a try. We used the Sonar Benchmark test to arrive to that conclusion by the way. Let me know how WDM worked for you though. Take care!
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 20:48:02
(permalink)
Prior to this test I was running WDM. For the purposes of the "multiple" tests I only used ASIO.
I will retest the WDM process with 64 and 128 Sample Buffers.
What Sample Buffers does your friend use?
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 20:51:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
But, ususally, you do NOT have to change the manual offset when changing buffers sizes since Sonar automatically compensates when using ASIO drivers
Yeh, you'd think. But refer to my previous screenshot, where lag times clearly change when nothing other than ASIO buffer size was changed. I knew I had done this before so I went to the beginning of this thread and found that, at least on the FF400, I do not have to change the manual offset regardless of buffer size or sampling rate (at least between 44.1 and 48 KHz). Post #47: http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=1305647 Jose, where is "ASIO auto-compensation" enabled? I can't recall having seen that anywhere.
(To avoid confusion, anybody following this thread should note that two different latencies have been discussed: audio and MIDI-to-audio.)
Brundlefly got it right. I just couldn't remember what it was called, my bad  .
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 20:52:09
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: brundlefly
And say that a loop back of a midi kik is 600 samples behind in relation to where it should line up on the grid.
Are you saying that you have 600/44.1 = 13.6ms MIDI round trip time? That's a pretty bad MIDI loopback performance. Or is this where the audio from the MIDI-driven external synth falls relative to the MIDI? Did you ever get your audio latency compensation dialed in... I can't remember where we left off last time. Not sure I have time to get into it this time, but you are going to need to clarify all the configuration details in any case. Might be a good idea to start another thread, too.
I am talking about the difference between where a midi note lays on the grid and where recorded audio of that midi note lays. 600 sample difference at 256 buffer. and yes. My midi latency is terrible. "Did you ever get your audio latency compensation dialed in..?" Not really. I know some numbers that change from time to time. I don't know how to use those numbers. The round trip audio latency in and out of the DA7 digital mixer was 124 last time we spoke according to my loop back test. Now it's 95. The Centrance tests are a lot worse ie: buffer 512 1147 samples 26.01ms delay buffer 256 635 samples 14.40 ms delay buffer 128 379 samples 8.59 ms delay buffer 64 146 samples 3.31 ms delay I don't understand the difference in the Centrance results and my own. And, when I do my own audio loop back test, I see no difference in latency when changing buffer size. I think Centrance may assume that it is an analog audio card and an analog mixer or something. I don't know what config details you would like to know. I'm on S4. DA7 digital mixer, RME lightpipe to/from the mixer/computer, Opcode 128x midi interface (old). I tried a new Edirol and not much changed. Thanks Tim
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/08 20:53:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bapu
Prior to this test I was running WDM. For the purposes of the "multiple" tests I only used ASIO.
I will retest the WDM process with 64 and 128 Sample Buffers.
What Sample Buffers does your friend use?
I can't remember. I know it was a low number, maybe 48 or something like that. I'll give him a call in a sec, brb. EDIT: Sorry, I couldn't get a hold of him. I left a message on his cell-phone so I'll get back at you when he calls back. But I think we used the lowest buffer the FW-1884 could do in order to have the lowest latency available and then use the latency slider in Sonar if a higher latency was needed. It was most likely 64 or 128 at the highest (48 is actually the lowest buffer in the FF400 not the FW-1884, I got confused :-P). Take care!
post edited by Jose7822 - 2008/07/08 22:43:51
|
Superfly76
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 234
- Joined: 2007/12/19 01:29:57
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 01:12:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: ttoz
I guess it's going to bug the hell out of me that I will never know what my true roundtrip wdm latency is, that's the thing that will never be answered and can't be unless sonar itself adds an inbuilt measuring tool similar to ceentrance, but for wdm also.
But thanks everyone!
You can if you do the manual latency test.
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 13:02:23
(permalink)
I don't understand the difference in the Centrance results and my own.
And, when I do my own audio loop back test, I see no difference in latency when changing buffer size. This would be the first thing to figure out. Your manual loopback tests and Centrance results should agree to within a sample or two. If they don't, something is likely wrong with your test configuration or procedure. The two keys to getting comparable results are to make sure that all latency compensation is disabled (both ASIO-reported and Manual Offset) when doing the manual loopback test, and that SONAR and Centrance are using the same loopback path (SONAR should be closed while running Centrance and vice versa, of course). It sounds to me like you are comparing partially-compensated (i.e. with ASIO-reported latency compensation enabled) loopback times from the manual test with uncompensated (true) loopback times from Centrance. Am I remembering correctly that you have SONAR 4, which has no Manual Offset setting?
post edited by brundlefly - 2008/07/09 13:28:05
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 13:08:59
(permalink)
quote:
ORIGINAL: ttoz
I guess it's going to bug the hell out of me that I will never know what my true roundtrip wdm latency is, that's the thing that will never be answered and can't be unless sonar itself adds an inbuilt measuring tool similar to ceentrance, but for wdm also.
But thanks everyone!
You can if you do the manual latency test. He's using WDM driver mode. You can't disable automatic latency compensation with WDM drivers, so a manual test won't reveal the true total latency.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 13:18:36
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: brundlefly
quote:
ORIGINAL: ttoz
I guess it's going to bug the hell out of me that I will never know what my true roundtrip wdm latency is, that's the thing that will never be answered and can't be unless sonar itself adds an inbuilt measuring tool similar to ceentrance, but for wdm also.
But thanks everyone!
You can if you do the manual latency test.
He's using WDM driver mode. You can't disable automatic latency compensation with WDM drivers, so a manual test won't reveal the true total latency.
I'm thinking a "manual" test is what Jose refers to as the "WDM and ASIO:" testing process in POST # 20 of this thread. What are you interpreting a manual test to mean/be?
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 13:27:32
(permalink)
What are you interpreting a manual test to mean/be? To me, a manual test just means you are looping back an audio track and manually measuring the alignment error between the new track and original track. If you are in WDM mode or ASIO mode with ASIO-reported latency compensation enabled, this error is you Manual Offset. If ASIO-reported latency compensation is disabled when you test, then you need to do the calculation as described in Jose's post. Both methods should give you the same Manual Offset, but the calculation method is only possible using ASIO mode.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 20:01:41
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: brundlefly
I don't understand the difference in the Centrance results and my own.
And, when I do my own audio loop back test, I see no difference in latency when changing buffer size.
This would be the first thing to figure out. Your manual loopback tests and Centrance results should agree to within a sample or two. If they don't, something is likely wrong with your test configuration or procedure. The two keys to getting comparable results are to make sure that all latency compensation is disabled (both ASIO-reported and Manual Offset) when doing the manual loopback test, and that SONAR and Centrance are using the same loopback path (SONAR should be closed while running Centrance and vice versa, of course). It sounds to me like you are comparing partially-compensated (i.e. with ASIO-reported latency compensation enabled) loopback times from the manual test with uncompensated (true) loopback times from Centrance.
Am I remembering correctly that you have SONAR 4, which has no Manual Offset setting?
Yes. I'm on S4. I don't know of any latency compensation. There is none for the mixer and none as far as I know for the card or for Sonar 4. my system: ASUS A8V AMD64 3800x2 RME Hammerfall 9652 Matrox G400 millenium XP home sp2 Sonar 4 Producer Thanks Tim
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 20:30:07
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bapu
I'm thinking a "manual" test is what Jose refers to as the "WDM and ASIO:" testing process in POST # 20 of this thread.
What are you interpreting a manual test to mean/be?
The "WDM and ASIO" test is indeed the manual test while the "ASIO Only" is the calculated one (or "automatic" if you will).
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/09 20:38:38
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: timidi
Yes. I'm on S4. I don't know of any latency compensation. There is none for the mixer and none as far as I know for the card or for Sonar 4.
my system:
ASUS A8V
AMD64 3800x2
RME Hammerfall 9652
Matrox G400 millenium
XP home sp2
Sonar 4 Producer
Thanks
Tim
In that case you can only use the 'Nudge' function set to the correct sample offset and move each track by this amount since there's no latency compensation in pre-Sonar 6 versions. Ideally, you'll want to upgrade Sonar if you want to gain this feature (which is definitely worth the upgrade alone), but that's totally up to you of course. Take care!
|
Treefight
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 868
- Joined: 2007/11/23 15:57:41
- Location: Boston
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/16 12:20:25
(permalink)
Jose - thanks for such a great post. I used on one interface perfectly, but on my Mackie 1200f it won't work. CEntrance, that is. I keep getting an error message in CE telling me it can't take the measurement, make sure the input and output match or something to that effect. I've tried using various in/out combinations, but nothing works.
Do you - or does anyone - have any idea why this might be happening? Since I successfully used it with my other interface, I'm pretty sure I'm doing it correctly, but obviously missing something specific to the Mackie.
ALSO - the Mackie has it's own "Asio Analyzer," which seems like it might do something similar, though I can't interpret in such a way as to do the calculations I would do with the CE measurement.
Thanks very much in advance.
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/16 12:26:00
(permalink)
I keep getting an error message in CE telling me it can't take the measurement, make sure the input and output match or something to that effect. I've tried using various in/out combinations, but nothing works. Can you do a manual loopback recording with SONAR? That would confirm whether the loopback path is valid, and whether there might be some sort of signal level issue that is preventing CEtrance from detecting the return.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
Ranietz
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 88
- Joined: 2004/03/17 09:43:35
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/16 19:16:54
(permalink)
I did the test with my Audiotrak Maya44 MKII in ASIO mode and when I used the formula (CEntrance roundtrip latency) - (ASIO Reported Latency) - (Buffer Size/Latency) = Manual Offset, I realized that ASIO Reported Latency and Buffer Size/Latency have the same number. Is this normal or did I look at the wrong place when I found the numbers? EDIT: not an old post after all. 
post edited by Ranietz - 2008/07/16 19:40:08
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/16 20:56:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Treefight
Jose - thanks for such a great post. I used on one interface perfectly, but on my Mackie 1200f it won't work. CEntrance, that is. I keep getting an error message in CE telling me it can't take the measurement, make sure the input and output match or something to that effect. I've tried using various in/out combinations, but nothing works.
Do you - or does anyone - have any idea why this might be happening? Since I successfully used it with my other interface, I'm pretty sure I'm doing it correctly, but obviously missing something specific to the Mackie.
ALSO - the Mackie has it's own "Asio Analyzer," which seems like it might do something similar, though I can't interpret in such a way as to do the calculations I would do with the CE measurement.
Thanks very much in advance.
You can always do the manual latency test (a.k.a. "WDM and ASIO") which will give you the same results (as suggested).
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/16 21:06:49
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ranietz
I did the test with my Audiotrak Maya44 MKII in ASIO mode and when I used the formula (CEntrance roundtrip latency) - (ASIO Reported Latency) - (Buffer Size/Latency) = Manual Offset, I realized that ASIO Reported Latency and Buffer Size/Latency have the same number. Is this normal or did I look at the wrong place when I found the numbers?
EDIT: not an old post after all.
I guess it's possible for them to have the same value, but make sure to double-check just in case. The CEntrance roundtrip latency will be the number in the box as shown below:  Except you're gonna use the number in samples to the left of it. (everything needs to be of the same unit for the formula to work). The ASIO Reported Latency number is found in Sonar under Options::Audio::Advanced Tab and the buffer size can be found in CEntrance next to "Buffer Size/Latency" (also as shown in the picture above). HTH
post edited by Jose7822 - 2008/07/16 21:30:12
|
Ranietz
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 88
- Joined: 2004/03/17 09:43:35
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/17 07:21:33
(permalink)
Thanks for the reply Jose.
I checked again and ASIO Reported Latency (the one found in Sonar) and Buffer Size/Latency are still the same. I don't remember what the CEntrance roundtrip latency was but after the calculation I got an offset of 51.
One more question: should the ASIO Reported Latency checkbox in Sonar be checked or unchecked?
|
brundlefly
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14250
- Joined: 2007/09/14 14:57:59
- Location: Manitou Spgs, Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/17 13:31:59
(permalink)
One more question: should the ASIO Reported Latency checkbox in Sonar be checked or unchecked? It should be checked. The calculation for finding the manual offset assumes that reported ASIO latency compensation is enabled.
SONAR Platinum x64, 2x MOTU 2408/PCIe-424 (24-bit, 48kHz) Win10, I7-6700K @ 4.0GHz, 24GB DDR4, 2TB HDD, 32GB SSD Cache, GeForce GTX 750Ti, 2x 24" 16:10 IPS Monitors
|
Ranietz
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 88
- Joined: 2004/03/17 09:43:35
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/17 16:29:17
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: brundlefly
One more question: should the ASIO Reported Latency checkbox in Sonar be checked or unchecked?
It should be checked. The calculation for finding the manual offset assumes that reported ASIO latency compensation is enabled.
Ok. Thanks. 
|
bapu
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 86000
- Joined: 2006/11/25 21:23:28
- Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
- Status: offline
RE: WTF, what's with my timing?: SOLVED
2008/07/17 16:37:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jose7822
ORIGINAL: bapu
Prior to this test I was running WDM. For the purposes of the "multiple" tests I only used ASIO.
I will retest the WDM process with 64 and 128 Sample Buffers.
What Sample Buffers does your friend use?
I can't remember. I know it was a low number, maybe 48 or something like that. I'll give him a call in a sec, brb.
EDIT: Sorry, I couldn't get a hold of him. I left a message on his cell-phone so I'll get back at you when he calls back. But I think we used the lowest buffer the FW-1884 could do in order to have the lowest latency available and then use the latency slider in Sonar if a higher latency was needed. It was most likely 64 or 128 at the highest (48 is actually the lowest buffer in the FF400 not the FW-1884, I got confused :-P).
Take care!
Jose, Did you friend ever get back to you?
|