Hi to all from Italy,
thinking about upgrading my pc hardware but have some questions to ask to who is much more expert than I am.
 
first my rig: win xp 64 bit
4 gb ram
sonar 7
cpu dual core E7400 @ 2.8 ghz
edirol fa101 firewire
 
what I thought about is, for now, getting a better CPU, if any. I mean, there are many out there which are better but for my mobo the highest I can go is a quad core Q9650.
 
now, I have found it used in various places but beofre buying it I need to be sure: will the quad core get me a better performance compared to what I have now?
have to admit that my system works pretty nicely. the only issue, to say so, I have is the latency which sonar tells me it is at 9 ms. by the way: I work at 44.1 khz. I have seen that if the system is set at 48khz, the latency gets a bit better. just a bit though.
 
the problem is that all my project have been recorded at 44.1 khz. now if I go to 48khz they won't play.
 
do you think that a quad core cpu can make my latency better?
 
another fact is that with the very same system but at 32 bit the latency is at 8 ms but I can only use 2 gb of ram, pretty useless with thinks like Omnisphere.
 
another thing I was thinking about is getting a new audio module. I was thinking about the focusrite pro 14 FireWire because I suspect the latency is due to my actual audio board.
 
thanks for all the help you can give me.
 
michael
 

Yes, a quad-core CPU will allow you to achieve lower latency. Your current latency won't be cut in half, but it will be reduced. Or at least allow you to reduce it by reducing buffer size. It will also allow you to have more tracks and more plugins in a project.
 
Don't forget to ask yourself whether reduced latency is worth the cost of the upgrade. If you don't play virtual instruments in real time, your 9ms RTL might be just fine. It's the equivalent of playing through an amplifier that's 9 feet away from you.
 
And yes, recording at higher sample rates does lower latency. But again, how important is lower latency to you? For myself, I do everything at high latency and it's never a problem. If I were to upgrade my CPU it would be to support more tracks, instruments and effects without having to freeze them. But not for reducing latency.

hi bitflipper....uhm....your answer makes me think.
 
fist off, thank you for your quick reply.
 
I have found the most expensive quad core available on ebay for something around 250 euros, finding some used at 100 euros.
 
to be honest, you're right about the 9 ms latency. I do play several real time instruments (like hammonds and pads) and of course my main one, guitar, hooked to a kemper profiling amplifier. it is really hard to tell that the 9 ms latency is disturbing the playing. maybe, sometimes is more psychological than physical. I mean: you know it is 9 ms and your brain tells you there is a latency which must be heard. Instead it is virtually impossible to hear it.
 
if it goes to 100 euros it might be worth the expense. more money on it  I think you're right. what about changing audio board? found a saffire pro 14 FireWire at 185 euros. but as you said, if I have to just getting at 8 ms latency compared to what I have now, 185 euros is a no no Worth, guess even 50 euros won't be worth......
 
again, thanks for your precious help
 
michael

Don't get your latency mixed up. There is system latency and Round trip latency ( RTL).
My old Tascam system had 40 -60 ms of reported ( system) latency, but there is actually 0 seconds ( .05ms?)  of latency as far as tracking goes using direct monitoring. You should hear no latency if monitoring at your interface. Any interface and computer for that matter unless it's a POS.  
 
Sonar adjusts for the system latency and what your hearing at your interface via monitors or headphones. Unless the interface drivers are crap it will be bang on. And Tascams drivers are so so.. My Scarlett 6i6 has way better latency performance than the Tascam, but there is no difference in the 2 devices as far as monitoring goes.
 
Round trip latency is another matter and you'll only notice this if you try and use real time plug ins and monitor the back end of your system Input echo on etc.
It will add up no matter what computer or interface you are using, there's no way out of it.
Latency is introduced at your A/D converters.
USB/ firewire chips can introduce latency too, this is why PCIe cards are better at RTL performance.  
Then your software will introduce latency and this goes way up when you run the signal though a bunch of processors. Number crunching takes CPU cycles, only here can you cut down on some latency with more horsepower.
Insert the output through USB again--more latency here
Then you interface adds more latency as the signal goes back through the D/A converters.
 
So theres more to it than just a few pieces of your system.
But like I said, the worst round trip latency performance in the world will not be noticed by those who are not using real time processing and use direct monitoring of the input.
Only time I hear latency is if I record midi and forget to turn off certain efxs like the LP64 multi band.
 
Most important to your system I think is good fast hard drives.
Then comes RAM for all those plug ins.
Then comes CPU horsepower for running more stuff than would be possible 10 years ago.
Then comes a good power supply for all those hard drives!
 
You can certainly do a lot with 2 cores @ 3.5 and 4 Gigs of RAM,,, that's all I have but I'm 80% Audio.
 
PS I use 44.1 because I'm not a world class studio. Makes life easier all round if your burning CD's.
Higher sample rates do not make music sound better, performance and recording technique does.

thanks cactus music for your help too. so how do I tell what's the latency story on my system? as of now I can only see the latency result by accesing the audio setting window on sonar. I wouldn't know where to look for additional latency info.
 
so you say I might read 9 ms latency but virtually there is none?
 
another doubt for me as still a beginner: my audio board manual says I should use WDM drivers (referring to sonar 3 though). do youy think they are right or should I give asio a chance? what are you guys advicing?
 
michael

It's important to have currant drivers that match your operating system, Is there ASIO drivers for the Edrol for W 7 or 8 64 bit? Or are you planing on staying with XP?
Nothing wrong with WDM drivers, ASIO is usually better latency performance, that's all. 
 
As I said , don't worry about latency unless your actually hearing it. If you are using the direct monitoring yes, you will hear none. Turn on input echo and you should hear a 9ms delay.
 
You can run the Centrance ASIO test for RTL, there's another utility as well but I'm not at home Google - "Round Trip Latency test"
It involves patching a cable from your output to your input. It sends a short burst of sound and analyzes the latency.
This test will say for my Tascam = 32ms RTL, at the lowest buffer setting which is unstable so it really  ends up around 40+ms RTL before it is stable (no dropouts).
My Scarlett does better @ 32ms R T latency at a stable buffer setting. ( 9 ) I can lower to (2) it and it stays stable which is why the Scarlett is a much better interface, But I leave it in it's default safe zone because I don't ever use input echo on audio.
So this test gives you  a better view, I'm not exactly sure what Sonars results really mean,
Sonar reports the Tascam @ 9ms and the Scarlett @ 5 ms. So those figures seem to be what you 'hear' if using INPUT ECHO and absolutely no efxs in the bins. But I'm pretty sure those are not the actual RTL figures.
 
While you have the cable patched, play a drum track, like a snare or kick, and re- record it to a new audio track. It can be the output of a soft synth or an audio track. Now put the 2 tracks together and zoom way in and observe the transient spikes. They should line up perfectly if Sonar and your audio drivers are working correctly.

oh...great reply, man! many thanks.
 
as a matter of fact I'm using direct monitor with my edirol and you're right, if I stop using direct monitoring and use the input echo from sonar I hear the latency.
 
as for OS I plan on staying with XP 64 bit for now, at least with this pc set up. the audio board drivers have been released for every OS, comprised xp 64 bit.
 
I have been using WDM up until the beginning but might give a chance to ASIO to see what's going on. in fact I always sticked to edirol manual, which advocated the use of WDM drivers but they explained no reason why the ASIO wouldn't have to be used.
 
michael

ASIO versus WDM usually doesn't make a great deal of difference in terms of latency. For that matter, the interface isn't the primary determinator of latency, either. Rather, it's the buffer size that accounts for 90% of the latency. Reduce the buffer size and you reduce latency.
 
However, smaller buffers give the CPU less time to process data, so there is a limit to how small you can shrink the buffers. At some point the CPU won't be able to keep up. That's why a faster CPU lets you make the buffers smaller and thereby reduce latency.
 
Zero-latency monitoring exists so that you don't have to worry about latency while recording audio such as guitar or voice. You only have to deal with latency when playing software synthesizers in real time. 
 
I get around that problem by using a hardware ROMpler to record my MIDI parts. That way, I'm listening to the synthesizer in real time just like I do with guitars and voice, using my interface's zero-latency monitoring. After the MIDI has been recorded, I can then redirect it to a software instrument such as a soft synth or sampler. Even though my computer is ancient (3.4 GHz Pentium D), latency is almost never an issue.
 
As for upgrading the interface, the main benefit would be getting more inputs and outputs. Focusrite is not known for especially low latency, but they are solid products and the manufacturer's customer support is excellent. I recently moved to a Focusrite interface and am pretty happy with it.

thanks again for your help: you and cactus music have been such a great source of info, and exacly what I was looking for.
 
while I was writing to you guys, in these couple of days, I found a guy which claimed he was able to modify a registry entry of the audio board I have, the edirol FireWire fa101. with this mod he was able to get very low latency.
 
I have a guide for this and will see to it later. it looks like it is a non invasive registry modification. so, I'll be able not to mess my system up and if I see this is not easy I'll pull the plug.
 
but after you have explained all these things to me, I doubt a registry modification can better the thing. if my cpu can handle a determined buffer size, I don't think the registry can help him handle different things.
 
michael

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base-20.html
 
The bookmark is the end of the thread your welcome to start at the beginning,,, everything you wanted to know about RTL ( latency) and were afraid to ask. Reading this thread , or the important parts, was a real education for me. It is of note that Roland has refused to send these people a unit to test for latency.