Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
X3 new feature: Record with low latency monitoring?
(from http://www.cakewalk.com/products/sonar/whats-new.aspx)
SONAR X3’s brilliant audio engine captures the clarity and elegance of your music. Its inspiring smooth sound and sonic characteristics digitize your performances with the utmost precision. You can bounce your tracks down in minutes with our 64 bit double precision engine, record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring,
Any more info or actual metrics to back that up? (And perhaps 196kHz is a typo and 192kHz was intended?) 
post edited by Goddard - 2013/10/03 17:46:46
|
jb101
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2011/12/04 05:26:10
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 16:30:19
(permalink)
AFAIK, the higher the sample rate, the lower the latency, as the buffers fill quicker.
I may have oversimplified this, though.
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 16:36:00
(permalink)
While that can be true for some audio device drivers, it is not so in cases where the buffer size expands compensatorily as sampling rate increases (even if the ADC's/DAC's filter group delay is shortened at double or quad rate). And in any case, that's the audio device driver's buffer, not the audio engine to which the above-quoted X3 blurb refers.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 16:37:16
(permalink)
Some apps allow for sample-rate as high as 384kHz Maybe X4 
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 16:40:41
(permalink)
Wanna know about about X3's touted "low latency monitoring". (although I'd welcome any other performance-related info/metrics about X3) [Edit: Have now changed topic title and the emphasized portion of quoted X3 marketing copy in my OP to (hopefully) make it clear that my inquiry relates to the advertized "low latency monitoring" feature (and not to the sampling rate).]
post edited by Goddard - 2013/10/03 16:51:34
|
Funkybot
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 796
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:32:13
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 19:55:36
(permalink)
I think they're just marketing an existing feature rather than trying to indicate any updates have been made. They're not saying "lower latency monitoring," they're just saying "Sonar has low latency monitoring at sample rates up to..." which has been true for years.
Intel i7 4790k, ASUS Z97-A mobo, 16GB Kingston DDR3 RAM, Windows 10 x64, UAD2 Duo, RME Fireface 800, Sonar X1/X2 Producer
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 20:18:11
(permalink)
The sample rate is not gated to 192K internally in SONAR except in the default values populated in the UI :)
If an audio device supports a higher sample rate it should work fine via ASIO. In WDM you can just type in the sample rate in the UI I think. As long as the driver supports it it should work.
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 22:52:31
(permalink)
Hi Noel, while that's interesting to know, thanks, it's not really the aspect/feature about which I was interested. Any info on the "record... with low latency monitoring" feature in X3's audio engine?
post edited by Goddard - 2013/10/03 23:29:13
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 23:27:59
(permalink)
I think you read too much into it. All its saying is you can record with low latency input monitoring in SONAR.
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 23:36:00
(permalink)
Noel, your post and my edit crossed.
What (how much) latency is imposed by the audio engine in X3 when monitoring inputs?
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/03 23:43:13
(permalink)
Zero - the audio engine doesn't impose any latency.
The audio interface buffer size and potentially any plugins in the project that require delay compensation are the only elements that typically induce latency.
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/06 10:13:13
(permalink)
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Zero - the audio engine doesn't impose any latency.
The audio interface buffer size and potentially any plugins in the project that require delay compensation are the only elements that typically induce latency.
I see. You're probably right, that I was reading too much into the X3 marketing blurb which I'd quoted. Now, when X2 was announced ( http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/release.aspx/Cakewalk-Annouces-SONAR-X2-Now-Shipping) it was stated: - SONAR X2 Producer includes unlimited audio and MIDI tracks with up to 384kHz audio fidelity powered by the acclaimed SONAR 64-bit double precision mix engine.
- Automatic Plugin Delay Compensation (PDC), 64-bit OS support, WDM & ASIO driver modes coupled with the extreme low latency audio engine allow for better than hardware performance of softsynths and input monitoring on effects.
384kHz? Better than hardware performance? So forgive my skepticism, but where's the performance data?
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/06 10:32:47
(permalink)
When you are dealing with software only you can have any bit depth and sample rate. Hardware can only do what the hardware allows. To date I know of no a/d converter that has a bit depth greater than 24 bits.
|
jb101
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2011/12/04 05:26:10
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/06 10:37:19
(permalink)
Goddard
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Zero - the audio engine doesn't impose any latency.
The audio interface buffer size and potentially any plugins in the project that require delay compensation are the only elements that typically induce latency.
I see.
You're probably right, that I was reading too much into the X3 marketing blurb which I'd quoted.
Now, when X2 was announced (http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/release.aspx/Cakewalk-Annouces-SONAR-X2-Now-Shipping) it was stated:
- SONAR X2 Producer includes unlimited audio and MIDI tracks with up to 384kHz audio fidelity powered by the acclaimed SONAR 64-bit double precision mix engine.
- Automatic Plugin Delay Compensation (PDC), 64-bit OS support, WDM & ASIO driver modes coupled with the extreme low latency audio engine allow for better than hardware performance of softsynths and input monitoring on effects.
384kHz?
Better than hardware performance?
So forgive my skepticism, but where's the performance data?
Can't you run some tests yourself? It wouldn't be difficult. I feel there is a hidden agenda in this thread.
|
peregrine
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 158
- Joined: 2005/11/20 10:31:27
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/06 10:55:53
(permalink)
ESS tech has 32 bit converters. I don't know anybody using them. I'd have to
look again, but I don't think the specs are that different from the 24 bit
converters I'm using now.
|
tunekicker
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1261
- Joined: 2005/10/28 14:39:50
- Location: Grand Junction, CO
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/06 23:54:35
(permalink)
32-bit converters interest me for two reasons:
1. 24-bit is already able to capture signals down to the level of noise that atoms moving in electronic components make. So 32-bit seems kind of a gimmick.
2. I think 32-bit could theoretically be used to enable more flexible dynamic range, essentially making it harder to clip the converters. Whether or not the end result would truly be a file with greater dynamic range, I doubt, but maybe?
Anyone with engineering (circuits, math, etc.) chops care to clarify?
Peace,
Tunes
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/07 02:33:13
(permalink)
jb101
Goddard
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Zero - the audio engine doesn't impose any latency.
The audio interface buffer size and potentially any plugins in the project that require delay compensation are the only elements that typically induce latency.
I see.
You're probably right, that I was reading too much into the X3 marketing blurb which I'd quoted.
Now, when X2 was announced (http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/release.aspx/Cakewalk-Annouces-SONAR-X2-Now-Shipping) it was stated:
- SONAR X2 Producer includes unlimited audio and MIDI tracks with up to 384kHz audio fidelity powered by the acclaimed SONAR 64-bit double precision mix engine.
- Automatic Plugin Delay Compensation (PDC), 64-bit OS support, WDM & ASIO driver modes coupled with the extreme low latency audio engine allow for better than hardware performance of softsynths and input monitoring on effects.
384kHz?
Better than hardware performance?
So forgive my skepticism, but where's the performance data?
Can't you run some tests yourself? It wouldn't be difficult.
I feel there is a hidden agenda in this thread.
Yikes, I've been found out!  Yes, secret agenda, for sure, eliciting test results backing up touted performance claims. How underhanded of me, not to accept the marketing hype at face value before parting with any more cash. I'd be quite happy to run some benchmark tests myself. Just as soon as CW disclose their testing regimen and make available verifiable test results. As for those bringing bit depth into this thread, wrong topic, this isn't about bit depth (even if it might somehow relate to conversion overhead affecting latency).
post edited by Goddard - 2013/10/07 02:40:25
|
garybrun
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 436
- Joined: 2005/11/03 11:15:44
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2013/10/07 05:44:11
(permalink)
Well which ever way this debate ends... Im chuffed to bits With X3.
Well done to all of the bakers.
Sonar Platinum 64bit, Win 10 64 bit, English, Intel Core i7 4960X @ 3.67GHz, ASRock Motherboard, 48GB DDR3 1600MHz, Nvidea NVS 510, Intel 750 1.2 SSD, 488GB SSD, 300GB SSD, 22TB in SATA Hardware: VS-700 set ASIO, Presonus RM32ai, Studio Live III 32, Studiolive 32R, RME Fireface 800, Matrox MX02 Rack, Roland Integra 7, Roland A-88, Edirol R-4 Pro, Focusrite Liquid Channel x 2, Jomeek Studio Channel VC1Qcs, Ultra Dyne 9024, TD30KV, Komplete 9 Ultimate, Monitors: Focal TRIO6 BE, JBL Studio Monitor 4412, SE Monroe Egg 150, Avantone x 2.
|
davehorch
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 75
- Joined: 2017/01/15 11:53:02
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2018/10/13 01:18:19
(permalink)
Bullshirt! No one can hear the diff better than 44.1/16. Stop lying.
Win-7 Professionalx64. CWBL, SONAR X3e, & most other previous versions. TASCAM US-1800 audio interface. A bunch of outboard stuff that never gets used anymore (ADAT boat anchors, smoooth LA4 comps (miss them!), etc.) Way too many instruments.
|
coolbass
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 78
- Joined: 2014/12/20 15:41:59
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2018/10/13 12:41:00
(permalink)
|
pwalpwal
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3249
- Joined: 2015/01/17 03:52:50
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2018/10/13 14:22:32
(permalink)
Goddard
jb101
Goddard
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Zero - the audio engine doesn't impose any latency.
The audio interface buffer size and potentially any plugins in the project that require delay compensation are the only elements that typically induce latency.
I see.
You're probably right, that I was reading too much into the X3 marketing blurb which I'd quoted.
Now, when X2 was announced (http://www.cakewalk.com/Press/release.aspx/Cakewalk-Annouces-SONAR-X2-Now-Shipping) it was stated:
- SONAR X2 Producer includes unlimited audio and MIDI tracks with up to 384kHz audio fidelity powered by the acclaimed SONAR 64-bit double precision mix engine.
- Automatic Plugin Delay Compensation (PDC), 64-bit OS support, WDM & ASIO driver modes coupled with the extreme low latency audio engine allow for better than hardware performance of softsynths and input monitoring on effects.
384kHz?
Better than hardware performance?
So forgive my skepticism, but where's the performance data?
Can't you run some tests yourself? It wouldn't be difficult.
I feel there is a hidden agenda in this thread.
Yikes, I've been found out!
Yes, secret agenda, for sure, eliciting test results backing up touted performance claims. How underhanded of me, not to accept the marketing hype at face value before parting with any more cash.
I'd be quite happy to run some benchmark tests myself. Just as soon as CW disclose their testing regimen and make available verifiable test results.
As for those bringing bit depth into this thread, wrong topic, this isn't about bit depth (even if it might somehow relate to conversion overhead affecting latency).
in the 20-odd years i've been using cakewalk stuff they've never backed up any of their claims with data but, true whatever, the higher your sample rate the faster **** reacts, so long as your hardware can cope
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2018/10/13 16:24:37
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby iRelevant 2018/10/16 01:10:19
Who knows, we may live long enough to see the hype on 128-bit/384KHz recording... "So precise only a cat can hear the difference!"
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.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2018/10/13 21:23:12
(permalink)
This is a very old thread.
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Record up to 196kHz with low latency monitoring? Izzat so?
2018/10/15 22:42:18
(permalink)
John
This is a very old thread.
True, but brings up a valid point: there are no "spec police" who say "Low latency monitoring means that it's under 7 ms, using ASIO drivers certified by the spec police, in a project with 18 plug-ins that each draw 4% of CPU power, with 46 tracks, running at 44.1 kHz on a system with a 3.2 GHz eight-core processor"...because every one of the numbers mentioned will affect latency. I lead a simpler life...here are my specs. ASIO = low latency ASIO on really fast computer = lower latency I'm happy monitoring through amp sims in real time = good enough latency MME = high latency WDM = who knows what latency? WASAPI = hey, really good latency for a laptop!
|