Hi all,
I got my MKII running on a win xp pentium with cubase se 3 (I know, se sucks).
Basically all is fine except that I can't seem to get the motu running with less than 11 milsec latency.
I know I could use cuemix, but I think that with a (semi)profesional audio interface like the mkII it should be no problem at all to run some 2 - 5 milsec latency.
setting buffers to 500 something results in 25 milsecs, setting it to 190 something brings about the 11 milsecs.
my old crappy audiophile (I know, pci being faster and stuff) had only 3 milsecs...
Is it because I bought the cheaper usb version?
cheers,
b.
828 MK II USB latency
Moderator: James Steele
Forum rules
Discussion related to installation, configuration and use of MOTU hardware such as MIDI interfaces, audio interfaces, etc. with Windows
Discussion related to installation, configuration and use of MOTU hardware such as MIDI interfaces, audio interfaces, etc. with Windows
-
dangerblane
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:27 am
- Primary DAW OS: Unspecified
-
yapweiliang
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 2:03 am
- Primary DAW OS: MacOS
- Location: United Kingdom
- Contact:
Aha finally someone else seems to be in the same boat as me 
Also using the USB2 version,
and on the same computer,
with 64bit vista, can get 512 samples per buffer
with windows XP, can get 256 samples per buffer
(at 44100 sample rate)
and on another computer (laptop, windows XP) can get 256 samples per buffer.
And I do NOT have the option of trying anything smaller, even to see whether or not it works.
Have tried to get a sensible answer from the tech helpline, but they ask me to try this or that with the firewire, and I say but I am using USB2. And they tell me firewire is faster than USB2 - well yes maybe it has a faster constant throughput (400mbps, but USB2 is actually 480mbps).
They've marketed the USB2 version as being identical to the FW version except for the USB/FW socket, hence I suspect they are not going to admit that - yes there is another difference.
Or maybe I am wrong - maybe it is my (and your) combination of motherboard / USB2 hardware?
I believe other people (using firewire version) have reported better latencies.
Also using the USB2 version,
and on the same computer,
with 64bit vista, can get 512 samples per buffer
with windows XP, can get 256 samples per buffer
(at 44100 sample rate)
and on another computer (laptop, windows XP) can get 256 samples per buffer.
And I do NOT have the option of trying anything smaller, even to see whether or not it works.
Have tried to get a sensible answer from the tech helpline, but they ask me to try this or that with the firewire, and I say but I am using USB2. And they tell me firewire is faster than USB2 - well yes maybe it has a faster constant throughput (400mbps, but USB2 is actually 480mbps).
They've marketed the USB2 version as being identical to the FW version except for the USB/FW socket, hence I suspect they are not going to admit that - yes there is another difference.
Or maybe I am wrong - maybe it is my (and your) combination of motherboard / USB2 hardware?
I believe other people (using firewire version) have reported better latencies.