Does Sonar compensate for latency recording?

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:33:43 GMT

ORIGINAL: sani

Thank you Patrice Brousseau again for the link.

The conclusion would be: wdm drivers have some sort of "standard" latency, depending how you set up the card; in most cases it can be done in a suitable way to work without any remarkable latency.

Asio drivers are, how Ron told it "a gray area", but I guess mostly for the Cakewalk stuff. I preffered asio drivers because with wdm drivers for the terratec card, sonar didn't show me all inputs/outputs and I had to choose them from the audiocards mixer, so I wanted to work with asiodrivers but this is obviously not possible as UnderTow made the test with his terratec card:

ASIO drivers with 1024 buffer (effective 23.2 ms) ==> offset 2110 samples.
ASIO drivers with 2048 buffer (effective 46.4 ms) ==> offset 4158 samples.

There must be a lot of variation in ASIO driver implementations,
as I saw the same number of samples of skew regardless of what
latency I selected with the RME drivers, and regardless of whether
I sued ASIO or MME drivers (RME doesn't do WDM/KS). Now, as
it happens, RME sells cards/converters to Steinberg that are resold
under Steinberg's name, which is one reason they're well tweaked.
But there's nothing about ASIO, nor even about Sonar's ASIO support,
that *necessarily* causes long delays, nor delays equivalent to the
buffer latency (which is what UnderTow was reporting for the Terrtec).

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:45 GMT

Thank you Patrice Brousseau again for the link.

The conclusion would be: wdm drivers have some sort of "standard" latency, depending how you set up the card; in most cases it can be done in a suitable way to work without any remarkable latency.

Asio drivers are, how Ron told it "a gray area", but I guess mostly for the Cakewalk stuff. I preffered asio drivers because with wdm drivers for the terratec card, sonar didn't show me all inputs/outputs and I had to choose them from the audiocards mixer, so I wanted to work with asiodrivers but this is obviously not possible as UnderTow made the test with his terratec card:

ASIO drivers with 1024 buffer (effective 23.2 ms) ==> offset 2110 samples.
ASIO drivers with 2048 buffer (effective 46.4 ms) ==> offset 4158 samples.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (Patrice Brousseau)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:14:24 GMT

I ran a similar test a month ago and I discovered that with WDM on my Echo Mia, the result was the same, whatever latency settings in Audio Options. For the record, it was 129 samples.

There was this topic on the subject: http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=130201

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:12:46 GMT

It is difficult to make an identic enviroment for all users. We are using different comps, audiocards, some have better drivers, some worse, some cards work better with wdm drivers, other better asio drivers. I do not expect absolute synchronisation but anything above 15-20 miliseconds is IMO not acceptable. Thank you Billy for making a downloadable test, but generally any wave will do it.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (billkath)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:58:42 GMT

Very interesting.
What I think I'll do is have a scootch around to find my old copy of cubase. As I said- I don't use ASIO-WDM seems to behave a lot better with Layla24 and Gina24 than ASIO.

For everyone- I do think that if we are going to test, then we should all test the same way-otherwise we may all get different results. What do you think? Can anyone devise a better, more accurate test, or do you think that little file i put up is OK for now?

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:57:46 GMT

60 samples is about 1.3ms, or the difference between moving
a musican or monotor 4 feet further away - measurable, but not
musically problematic, and certaily not something that the ear
percieves as a delay

True, 1.3 ms is either musically problematic, nor can a singer or a live recorded drumplayer play tighter. But I hear a delay. Well, I'm at my office computer so I cannot tell you how large delay is in ms or samples, but it is intolerable. You will definitely not hear 1.3 ms latency as delay, would you?

UnderTow is right: the terratec as a fixed latency in sonar with wdm drivers, but with the asio drivers selected the latency depends on the setting for the audiocard.

UnderTow didn't say how he calibrates the card and what is his latency setting. My terratec can work only with 10 ms for the dma buffer. If I try a higher or lower setting, the sound is distorted.

And finally: if Sonar is asiocompatible it must not have problems with asiodrivers that are proven to work good with other sequencers. What happens if someone only has asiodrivers?

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:44:06 GMT

ORIGINAL: sani

Are you *sure* about what you just said?

I didn't run Bill's experiment on audition, a took some guitar part that I recorded on one of my previous sessions. I also didn't zoom in up to the individual samples, I can do it later this day. To be honest, I have to say that I'm not sure if the new recording in Audition was sampleaccurate. I don't use audition, so maybe I didn't set the apropriate drivers (I guess it does not work with asio).

On Cubase, I have to say: yes, it was sample accurate. I zoomed in and the samples were (slightly differen, I guess due to the a/d conversion) but the sample points were on the same place.

I didn't look in audition if the recording was exactly sample accurate, because visualy the recording seems to be on the right place. The same goes for vegas/acid. I zoomed in to see the beats a little better, but not to the sample level. The difference to Sonar is that in sonar I saw immediately that the record is late, without the need to zoom in. Another thing: when I play it: in Cubase you don't hear any change. The mix output is just louder until the recorded track ends. In audition and acid/vegas it sounded chorused, but in sonar it was a mess: a delayed sound, like two guitarplayers playing out of sync.

OK, but note that if the delay is less than 60 or so samples, you
do have to zoom in pretty close to notice the skew. At 44.1KHz,
60 samples is about 1.3ms, or the difference between moving
a musican or monotor 4 feet further away - measurable, but not
musically problematic, and certaily not something that the ear
percieves as a delay.

The observed skew with Audition was invariant with whether or
not I set the "sample accurate sync" option, by the way.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:16:53 GMT

Are you *sure* about what you just said?

I didn't run Bill's experiment on audition, a took some guitar part that I recorded on one of my previous sessions. I also didn't zoom in up to the individual samples, I can do it later this day. To be honest, I have to say that I'm not sure if the new recording in Audition was sampleaccurate. I don't use audition, so maybe I didn't set the apropriate drivers (I guess it does not work with asio).

On Cubase, I have to say: yes, it was sample accurate. I zoomed in and the samples were (slightly differen, I guess due to the a/d conversion) but the sample points were on the same place.

I didn't look in audition if the recording was exactly sample accurate, because visualy the recording seems to be on the right place. The same goes for vegas/acid. I zoomed in to see the beats a little better, but not to the sample level. The difference to Sonar is that in sonar I saw immediately that the record is late, without the need to zoom in. Another thing: when I play it: in Cubase you don't hear any change. The mix output is just louder until the recorded track ends. In audition and acid/vegas it sounded chorused, but in sonar it was a mess: a delayed sound, like two guitarplayers playing out of sync.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (UnderTow)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:12:43 GMT

ORIGINAL: sani

Thanks Kevin for trying to help.

While trying both programs to do the same thing, I didn't change the asio settings for the audiocards. I'm glad to hear that your system behaves as it should. My both programs are set to use the clock of the audiocard. In Cubase it doesn't matter how high or low I set the latency. I could set the latency for hundreds of miliseconds and the record would still be sample accurate, but not in Sonar.

But at the end, if cubase works well with the asiodrivers of the card and sonar not, it still means to me, that sonar is not quite asio compatible as it should be.

I did some tests with my Terratec EWS88MT and I have a fixed loop-back latency when using WDM drivers (66 samples) and a much larger variable one when using ASIO. I have never liked the way this sound card interacts with Sonar in ASIO mode. Things get out of sync. Especially as I increase the latency settings to compensate for the CPU demands of large projects. I have always stuck to WDM.

UnderTow

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:44:18 GMT

ORIGINAL: sani
I'm not a technician, I'm a musician. I can accept what is possible and what is not (yet) possible. Read my posts again: I tested Cubase (which I own) and demoversions of adobe audition, sony vegas/acid and only Sonar has this problem! So the conclusion!?

I don't have Cubase, nor Vegas, but I do have Adobe Audition, so I ran
Bill's experiment there (or a slight variant). I see the same 50-odd sample
skew in Audition as I do in Sonar. Are you *sure* about what you just said?

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:40:58 GMT

I cannot see any way in which Cubase or Sonar can rectify this properly although things could be made tighter by using basic compensation (certain data is known when you run wave profiler) This basic compensation should also be able to work with differing soundcards as they are seperately profiled and the software DOES know which card you are using.

Still, basic compensation would be the first step and maybe Cubase has done this. Anyone know??

I'm not a technician, I'm a musician. I can accept what is possible and what is not (yet) possible. Read my posts again: I tested Cubase (which I own) and demoversions of adobe audition, sony vegas/acid and only Sonar has this problem! So the conclusion!?

If I remember right I saw the same problem with Sonar2 which I demoed, but I thought it was a problem of my soundcard. I'm wondering that there are not more people active in this topic. I'd like to see if this applies only to some people or if this is a general sonar problem. I stil don't have words to express my feelings about this situation. I mean, whose computer was able to play and record at 2-4 ms latency 2-3 years ago? I have a P4 at 1.8 gHz and I'm able to record and add some effects in Cubase without any problem. If I don't record virtual instruments, I don't need a low latency setting. Cubase conpensates everything very fine. In Sonar it is like adding an echo to individual waves that are recorded in!

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (billkath)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:27:23 GMT

Very wierd Kev,
Here was me hoping that this was going to be consistent samples. I've tried it dozens of times with Layla24 and got exactly the same results. I had hoped that this was going to be the same (not the numbers, but the consistency of the numbers) on every sound card, and thus the fix would have been easy. My own method of a fix is very easy.
The first track is fine- I leave that where it is.
I just turn the time bar to samples and zoom in.
For subsequent tracks that are looped through an effect I slip edit the tracks by 135 samples, apply trimming, then drag the track over by 135 samples.
If its digital in and out to effects i do it by 67 samples.
It only takes seconds.

What I'm going to try on my next project is also doing this for tracks that are not on a loop (in other words for normally recorded digital and analog tracks.)
Also I'm going to work out, according to what my mixing latency is set at, samples/ms.
and then for any soft synths that need rendering I'll slip edit and slide them as well.

Hopefully this is the right way to go.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Thu, 22 Jul 2004 03:32:16 GMT

ORIGINAL: billkath
I've put a little hep up on my site. It's called testlatency.zip
http://www.heartbeatstudios.net/testlatency.zip

Thanks a lot, Bill. Different experiments turn up different results,
as I've observed looking at this phenomenon off and on over the
past few days. And even for the same experiment (yours), in the case
of my RME 9632 rig, there seems to be some kind of synchronization
or calibration that occurs at power-up or reset, because I get very
consistent results, down to the sample, across a range of latencies
and driver models on a given set of runs, but if I reboot my machine,
it will shift a bit. The values I observed this morning with your test
project were 51, 60, and 54 samples.

I'm pretty darned certain that I wasn't hallucinating last night
when I repeatedly observed negative skew, or when I observed
essentially zero skew (the signal didn't have as good a signature
as your test wav, so there could have been +/- 10 samples and I
would not have been certain) two days ago, but I don't have time to
do the set of 20 or so reboots that it might take to see those again.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (Mr. Ease)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:41:17 GMT

In reply to Billy's question regarding delays on digital outputs that he did'nt expect.

There are effectively three elements to the latency delays every soundcard has. The first is the latency of the software drivers - I guess we have all seen variations in the performance of different drivers as well as different DAW software. The second element is the time it takes to send a single sample. Each sample is sent in serial form (usually nowadays 24 bits) there are also some timing bits and most usually two channels are sent at once (stereo!). When the soundcard "knows" the data, it starts to send it - the receiver does'nt know what that data is until it is complete. OK this is done fairly quickly but it still takes time... The third element is when you add the D-A-D chain as again this takes a little more time.

In essence we cannot get to discriminate between the first two and we see this as a fixed delay say 70 samples or so - this is mainly the software dirvers and interfaces but does include the serial delay. This goes up when we add the D-A-D process to say 130 or so samples.

The bottom line is that the D-A-D process and the drivers will always take time and the ONLY way to remove it is to compensate for the delay. This is not so easy and could lead to errors. How is the software to know whether you are doing a digital transfer or using D-A-D process? Whichever compensation is used could be wrong. Remember that many soundcards mixer software does'nt even know what route your audio is taking and it is easily possible to run digital and analogue at the same time so what compensation should you use.

I cannot see any way in which Cubase or Sonar can rectify this properly although things could be made tighter by using basic compensation (certain data is known when you run wave profiler) This basic compensation should also be able to work with differing soundcards as they are seperately profiled and the software DOES know which card you are using.

Although better I cannot currently see how this could be made perfect. Maybe future soundcard hardware design could address this issue by recognising which I/O is active and knowing their own inherent delays to be passed to the DAW software. I am not aware of any soundcards that are doing this as yet.

Still, basic compensation would be the first step and maybe Cubase has done this. Anyone know??

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (billkath)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:59:50 GMT

I've put a little hep up on my site. It's called testlatency.zip
http://www.heartbeatstudios.net/testlatency.zip

This comprises a Cpw panel and a sample of a drum hit- total size less that 18Kb. (not too big.)
The panel is at 24/44.1

track one contains a drum hit. Make sure input for this track is set to none. Set output to 1+2 analog out on whatever card you have.

Track 2 is record readied. Set input to 1+2 analog in (or just 1 left analog in if you want).
Set output to none.

Simply loop a balanced patch lead (supposing you use balanced in's and out's) between the first out and first in.

Hit arm, then hit record for a second.

You will now be able toeasily measure exactly your latency. Simply mouse over the beginning of the wave on track one-the first up sample is easy to see. Write it down (mine was sample 5.) Then go to the same place on track 2 and mouse over (mine was 140) 140-5 = 135 135 samples latency.

Hope that's helpful.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:49:57 GMT

It may seem like I have nothing better to do all day than to post
here, but other matters *do* intrude!

Anyway, I just ran a couple more experiments, and I am seeing
some odd stuff, though nothing musically nasty. If I just do audio
"pinging" via analog loopback, I can see that the copy is actually being
recorded some 60 samples *before* the original, regardless of the
buffer latency (from 1.5 ms to 46ms). As far as softsynth bounce
timing is concerned, depending on the soft synth, I would sometimes
see the bounced audio ahead of the recorded audio, sometimes after,
depending on the source, and the skew would vary from -30 to +150
samples.

The measurements were made looking at the second upward zero
crossing of the recorded signals, which were low frequency sine waves
from the cheezy Dreamstation DXi. I started out looking at percussion
samples from DR-008 (which is where I saw the negative skew on
"bounce" rendering), but those waveforms are complex and rather hard
to track reliably. With the sine waves, the initial attack and decay are
treacherous to track, due to the impedence of the wires on the attack
and a residual "ringing" on the decay, so I measured the distance
between the second upward zero crossing of a note.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:42:36 GMT

KevinK,

just set a high latency and send a 3-4 bar drumbeat out and back into sonar. I don't think that it would take to much time when you are in front of your audiocomputer.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:35:25 GMT

ORIGINAL: jlgrimes
What about you guys? Does this problem (timing problems between different recorded/bounced audio tracks) only occur when softsynths are added to the equation, or if you record each track at different latencies?

I do mixed softsynth/audio projects, and haven't noticed any problems,
but then again, I don't see the delay on audio-only loopback recording
with my RME cards/drivers. I'll try some more exacting experiments
when I have the time...

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (billkath)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:15:11 GMT

It's not just an ASIO problem. I use WDM exclusively.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (jlgrimes)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:06:13 GMT

I wonder if Live records "sample accurate". This could be an ASIO driver interpretation problem which would require an update. I don't even know if Sonar 4 would address this issue.

All I know that it is a pain multitracking softsynths and audio with Sonar. If I'm recording straight audio, then I don't have a problem.

What about you guys? Does this problem (timing problems between different recorded/bounced audio tracks) only occur when softsynths are added to the equation, or if you record each track at different latencies?

I know each recorded/bounce track is offset a little late but this is not a problem if every track plays at the same offset.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:11:06 GMT

I made further investigation yesterday and here are my results:

I downloaded the demos audition (former cool edit), sony vegas, sony acid 4 (I guess). I have forgotten to download samplitude.
Before I started I set my terratec soundcard to 1024 samples latency. I just wanted to try how the programs would or would not compensate.
I set the drivers in every program, loaded a audiofile and made the test: from audio output thru the mixer and back into the soundcard.
The result: audition, vegas, acid doesn't have any latency!!! In Sonar I don't even need to zoom in, I see the late recording.

One more thing: terratec says on their site that the drivers are absolutely sample accurate in the input/output recording.

My conclusion is that it is not the fault of badly written drivers, that Cubase is not the only program able to compensate (it seems that most other software do this as well) and that Sonar has a problem.

People with a very fast computer can set their latency down to 2-4 ms and maybe they don't see this problem, but at this time I will not use Sonar anymore for anything else but making some loops. BTW, waiting for Sonar4 to handle this is IMHO silly. Sonar is dedicated to record and track music. Accurate recording is the most important feature above all other things we want to see in the next version. Music happens in a linear time and Sonar should support it and not destroy it. If a non-dedicated multitracking program like Acid can do this better than it is a shame. I have done everything I could to see where the problem is and it seems that it is not the fault of my soundcard.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (jlgrimes)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:24:14 GMT

Indeed, Sonar and/or the drivers of just about all audio cards
manage to compensate for that sort of buffering latency just fine.

I'm not sure about that one. I know my layla 24 records or bounces at a number that is approximately the same as the specified latency setting. I wonder could we get a sort of list of cards that work and ones that don't work.

And I only have this problem if I record different tracks a differenct latencies.

For example track 1 was bounced at 2.9ms. While track 2 was recorded at 23.2. Track 2 would be about 20ms late.

I'll bet most people who use Sonar for just recording audio rarely if ever experienced this problem. I think the root of this problem is playing softsynths at low latencies then bouncing them at those low latencies, then deciding to add guitar and realize your drivers can record audio at 2.9ms, so when you turn up the latency to 23.2 ms you have a delay.

Matter of fact if I am just audio multitracking, I rarely run into problems.
I also bet the people who test this out on Cubase probably don't recreate the whole Sonar environment, which is bouncing at low latencies then record at high latencies.

This is a problem even noticable in Pro Tools. Most professional Pro Tools users don't experience this problem because most Pro Tools users don't use softsynths and therefore don't have the need to change the audio latency.

I believe Sonar 4 should address this problem. Even if it is just coming up with an easier way to move audio like the +/- buttons in Pro Tools.

"I wouldn't call this just a recording latency problem. Bouncing audio also seems to be affected."

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 06:35:05 GMT

ORIGINAL: sani
While trying both programs to do the same thing, I didn't change the asio settings for the audiocards. I'm glad to hear that your system behaves as it should. My both programs are set to use the clock of the audiocard. In Cubase it doesn't matter how high or low I set the latency. I could set the latency for hundreds of miliseconds and the record would still be sample accurate, but not in Sonar.

My synchronization does not seem to be dependent on the configured record
latency, either. Indeed, Sonar and/or the drivers of just about all audio cards
manage to compensate for that sort of buffering latency just fine. You have
not actually posted what delays you are seeing with sonar, but I doubt that
it's tracking the record latency (and if it is, I suspect you've got a configuration
problem elsewhere).

It's unfortunate that the old Cakewalk NNTP server newsgroup Product.Sonar
is gone and was never archived, because a bunch of us went through this
exercise last year. It does seem to vary with the hardware and the driver.
My recollection is that the driver is supposed to communicate to the host
program (Sonar in this case) how much delay is in the output and input
paths, so that the program can act accordingly. Some drivers are calibrated
very carefully (as RME's seem to be), while others, most notoriously the
Creative cards, provide nothing useful. If I recall correctly, Sonar trusts
the driver to provide the right information. Cubase may do something
different, like have a table of values for different leading cards that were
measured by Steinberg, or perform some sort of automated measurement.
I don't know that that's true, but it would be a smart thing to do if you know
you're going to be selling to a lot of people with consumer-grade sound cards.
This could create a vicious circle, where because Cubase doesn't require
the drivers to do the right thing, driver writers stop bothering to do it.

But at the end, if cubase works well with the asiodrivers of the card and sonar not, it still means to me, that sonar is not quite asio compatible as it should be.

Cakewalk doesn't like to admit it, but Steinberg defines ASIO, and it's
tough for anyone else to be quite as compatible. The only real Cakewalk
ASIO bug that I know of in the current product is the off-by-one-buffer-latency
MIDI timing thing that can be worked around easily in the Audio settings,
but this could be another one. Cakewalk's engineers are really great guys
when it comes to fixing a real bug. The problem is that there are so many
cases of operator error and/or third party components causing false alarms
that it can be difficult to get them to accept a bug as real.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (planist)

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 05:51:12 GMT

hi sani,

if you still have problems. try the demo of tracktion and test your in/output iwht the drivers/cards within their optionsmenu.
there is a option that allows to calibrate the input to the playback.

you could test your equipment just to see if that option would help.

Jeff

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (jlgrimes)

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:49:38 GMT

My Layla 24 plays back late as well. I know digi 001 also have this problem when used with Pro Tools, but I hear Cubase doesn't have this problem. Sonar 4 needs to address this.

My only workaround is to record/bounce everything at the same latency setting. This usually mean choosing a high enough latency to record as many tracks as you want (not really a painful workaround to me). Another thing is to stay minimal on the softsynths or cope with the high latency or play the synths in a non real-time manner (AGONY!).

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (DaveT)

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:13:08 GMT

It doesn't in 1.3.1 w/Echo Gina24, 6.08 drivers. I've been sliding the tracks back to compensate for the delay. There ought to be some type of calibration tool in the next release.

DaveT

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (billkath)

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:37:34 GMT

Here's the big worry for me-
If the loop test shows up this latency- That means that after your original click track is down, any recordings/overdubs made using that track as a guide will be the 135 samples (or whatever your soundcard is showing) behind. Now, that's less than 2 ms but it's still enough to ruin a groove. I'd really love everybody to do this loop test with a hi-hat and post their findings.
What I'm saying is that not only is this a problem when looping. Logic will tell you it's also happening when you track-affecting everyone, not just external effects users.

Like I said- if I knew this was just a fact of life (it used to be a fact of life with ProTools) I'd just slide it over by 135 samples. It wasn't a big problem then and it wouldn't be a big problem to do now. All I really want to know-from Cakewalk or EchoAudio- is if this is the way it is-a fact. I have a tech support e-mail in with EchoAudio, so I'll also post their reply here.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (sani)

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:19:27 GMT

Thanks Kevin for trying to help.

While trying both programs to do the same thing, I didn't change the asio settings for the audiocards. I'm glad to hear that your system behaves as it should. My both programs are set to use the clock of the audiocard. In Cubase it doesn't matter how high or low I set the latency. I could set the latency for hundreds of miliseconds and the record would still be sample accurate, but not in Sonar.

BTW, Terratec dmx6fire is not a pro soundcard that can be compared to rme, but Cakewalk lists the soundcard as one that was tested with Cakewalks software and approved as a usable soundcard...but they tested also soundblaster, so it probably doesn't mean much.

But at the end, if cubase works well with the asiodrivers of the card and sonar not, it still means to me, that sonar is not quite asio compatible as it should be.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:55:45 GMT

Out of curiousity, sani, are you using *exaclty* the same driver settings
for clocks, timing, etc, between Cubase and Sonar? The two programs
may have different defaults, and Sonar's may be suboptimal for your
driver. I think that's at least as likely as my previous theory about
different drivers having different compensation techniques - though
one can't rule that out, either.

RE: Does Sonar compensate for latency recording? (KevinK)

Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:27:09 GMT

ORIGINAL: sani
I regret what I will say, but if Sonar really doesn't conpensate the latency while recording (like the other program that I use), than we cannot talk about it as a sequencer. It is a disaster. I'm absolutely ready to excuse me for my words if somebody tells me or explains that the opposite is true.

The opposite is true. With good hardware and a good driver I get
essentially cycle-accurate sync of output looped back to input for
recording.

I would hypothesize that your drivers compensate in a way that
works for Cubase, but not for Sonar. It's something in favor of
Cubase that it is more tolerant of different driver latency compensation
schemes, but that doesn't make Sonar "not a sequencer" or "a disaster".