The Top 10 Most Requested Features

[bayswater]

Live does this, the record enabled plug in can have it's own buffer setting.

Logic does something along these lines as well. Can't say it results in any noticeable improvement in usability.

[monkey man]

I mentioned this years ago and haven't been around to push the idea:

If DP could provide a "tunnel" through / around the MAS for a single, "floating" channel (mono or stereo), determined by which VI the currently record-enabled MIDI track is routed to, one could conceivably maintain, say, a 512 or 1024 buffer for the duration of the project.

Live does this, the record enabled plug in can have it's own buffer setting. This is also the first thing tech support asks you to uncheck in preferences if you call them with issues. Doesn't mean I don't think it's a great feature, just it must be some seriously hard code.

Not so sure about that, Michael. Seems to me a "simple" matter of tunnelling through (low buffer) MAS or around it and then mathematically re-aligning the channel by re-applying the overall MAS buffer for playback, unless I'm missing something, and I probably am.

Obviously the CPU drain would be immense for that single channel when compared to all the others, but the fact that it's only a single channel ameliorates this to a huge extent I imagine. I mean, that's the whole idea.

[bayswater]

MOTU has generally focussed on the hardware to deal with latency, and built converters to allow zero latency monitoring while recording. Now, even with VIs, they might point out that the round trip latency in their newest line of converters is about 1 ms. You'd get more latency sitting two feet from your monitors. Little comfort to those with racks of old converters, but MOTU has told us they are looking at ways of getting new customers as much as improving workflow for the customers they already have.

I'm also hoping they'll apply the new technology to other units -- in particular something smaller, maybe 4x4 with ADAT. But which converters? Apparently, as someone said in another thread, not all the new AVBs use the same converters?

[monkey man]

That latency is, as far as I'm aware, unrelated to what I'm talking about, Stoiv; It's the delay added to whatever processing delay DP and the MAS engine imposes.

DP's audio-buffer settings are the issue, or more to the point, the inability to bypass them for a single, super-small-buffered channel (bad English, I know). Playing VIs in real time or, say, guitar through a plug-laden channel would both be obvious examples of what I had in mind.

[bayswater]

That latency is, as far as I'm aware, unrelated to what I'm talking about, Stoiv; It's the delay added to whatever processing delay DP and the MAS engine imposes.

Of course you're right that other DAWs have come up with ways of making the buffer very small, although not zero, for the channel being recorded or monitored while leaving it larger for everything else.

It would be useful to get an overview of all the things that contribute to latency and see how important each is. With GHz cycle processors, the delay contributed by DP itself without buffers must be trivial. We can get buffers in DP to 16 samples, and that is less than a millisecond. MOTU is promising about a millisecond for the hardware piece with the new boxes. So it must be mostly VIs and FX, and I can't see how you could tunnel through those. They take a certain amount of time to do what they do, so bypassing them is the only option.

[HobbyCore]

There appears to be some good news...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10811376-post32.html

[bayswater]

There appears to be some good news...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10811376-post32.html

Nice catch. Will be useful to those of us who stare at the MIDI editor and wonder "did I play that?"

[monkey man]

That latency is, as far as I'm aware, unrelated to what I'm talking about, Stoiv; It's the delay added to whatever processing delay DP and the MAS engine imposes.

Of course you're right that other DAWs have come up with ways of making the buffer very small, although not zero, for the channel being recorded or monitored while leaving it larger for everything else.

It would be useful to get an overview of all the things that contribute to latency and see how important each is. With GHz cycle processors, the delay contributed by DP itself without buffers must be trivial. We can get buffers in DP to 16 samples, and that is less than a millisecond. MOTU is promising about a millisecond for the hardware piece with the new boxes. So it must be mostly VIs and FX, and I can't see how you could tunnel through those. They take a certain amount of time to do what they do, so bypassing them is the only option.

All but the channel concerned would run with their "normal" buffer settings, Stoivo. DP would simply take the discrepancy into account when placing the recorded MIDI / audio on the timeline for playback.

This is what happens now anyway except that it calculates it for all channels / VIs etc. It's a "what you hear is what you get" scenario, unless I'm missing something. That is, regardless of buffer settings, one plays in-time with what one hears whilst recording and DP takes care of the rest, even 'though one might be monitoring, as I do, from a desk sans latency.

[Shooshie]

There appears to be some good news...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10811376-post32.html

Nice catch. Will be useful to those of us who stare at the MIDI editor and wonder "did I play that?"

Check the link. Is that the post to which you two were referring? I don't see any solid information in the two quotes that appear with the linked post. Going to the thread didn't make much difference. Was there another post present? What did it say?

Or are you inferring from the statement that there is more to come? (which we knew anyway, but without any specifics.) Is Mr.Miller at Gearslutz by any chance a fellow named Jim?

Shooshie

[bayswater]

I think the Miller there is the one from MOTU who was answering all the AVB questions at GS (with clarity and grace, btw). I take it from the smilies or winks, etc that MIDI note muting is planned for V9. If that's not what he's hinting at, what would the point of the post be?

[Shooshie]

I think the Miller there is the one from MOTU who was answering all the AVB questions at GS (with clarity and grace, btw). I take it from the smilies or winks, etc that MIDI note muting is planned for V9. If that's not what he's hinting at, what would the point of the post be?

Well, after I realized that MrMiller might be THE Mr. Miller, it made more sense. At first, I just thought he was another forum member. Still, it's a hint, not a positive statement, so I'll look forward to the possibility of being surprised with MIDI mutes, but I won't be surprised if they aren't there.

Hmmm... I wonder what else might be on that list?


Shooshie

[HobbyCore]

There appears to be some good news...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10811376-post32.html

Nice catch. Will be useful to those of us who stare at the MIDI editor and wonder "did I play that?"

Check the link. Is that the post to which you two were referring? I don't see any solid information in the two quotes that appear with the linked post. Going to the thread didn't make much difference. Was there another post present? What did it say?

Or are you inferring from the statement that there is more to come? (which we knew anyway, but without any specifics.) Is Mr.Miller at Gearslutz by any chance a fellow named Jim?

Shooshie

He choose to quote the 2 posts about MIDI mute. He specifically truncated the posts to that detail.

It seems you've by now learned who mrmiller is as well.

[HobbyCore]

More info!

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/10822981-post35.html

[bayswater]

Magic Dave Miller

[Michael Canavan]

Magic Dave Miller

No, Dave is a product specialist from what I can tell. This guy is a lead developer at MOTU. Hopefully people don't scare him away, but that will probably happen eventually.

Full discloser, I'm machinesworking, the guy bothering him with questions at Gearslutz.