Latency and Core Audio Issues with DP

kassonica · Post by **kassonica** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:06 pm

Sure P strat

There really arn't that many and remember i'm running an old system by these standards PB 1.25 & 4.61 running on panther but i did an album which took over 350 hours work and i didn't have 1 single crash so i've left upgrading DP n tiger till it was sorted and now i'll upgrade to a intel tower so i'm just saving my pennys. Still with my system i can get 30 + audio tracks and 25 plugs at 48/24 so thats plenty for me and i don't run VI's except for reason.

the couple of limitations are mainly in the plugin dept. A really nice reverb would be on my list (although the plate is awesome in my opinion and much underated) eVerb n reverb are useless i don't really know why their even in there. A better preamp would be nice and some kind of tape simulation.

My wife has logic and yes it is so optimised and the soft syths are really good but the sampler is damm good. Makes the nano look childish also a it's drum machine is excelent

The Drum programing tool in DP for me and the way i work seems clunky and hard to use, also buggy so i always just use a normal MIDI track (but this could be my limited understanding of it's functions but it does come up a bit on these forums)

Oh a better sample and bit depth conversion process would be high on the list as well but thats bee knees stuff but i can allways hear it's artifacts

Most of my other concerns have been dealt with in 5.11 and i used a friends for a bit and i can't really wait to get it.

All my other concerns are my limited knowledge of DP which is why i'm here everyday learning, and learning is something i can never get enough of. It is such a complex program but almost perfect for the way i work and i do really love it and i like the company (despite some of there faults of which i've never encountered) because there small and independant.

It really is horses for courses and I'm 95% happy with the pony i'm riding and one more thing and i'll be shot down maybe here for saying it BUT I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDS, it just sounds better to me than the rest. I came from logic and the first thing i noticed was that and so did my clients

Best

Kassonica

PeterMcCStrat · Post by **PeterMcCStrat** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:11 am

kassonica wrote:Sure P strat

The Drum programing tool in DP for me and the way i work seems clunky and hard to use, also buggy so i always just use a normal MIDI track (but this could be my limited understanding of it's functions but it does come up a bit on these forums)

Kassonica

Hmmn.
This might be a stop for me,. I usually use a MIDI track that allows a drum map for BFD/DFH.
Are you saying this is not possible without trouble?
not sure what you mean by "drum programming tool"

We can use drum maps for different drum modules right?
are their bugs in this?

sorry for the 3rd degree.

it's very helpful.

Best-

PmcC

grimepoch · Post by **grimepoch** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:40 am

I do everything at 64 on my MacPro Quad 2.66 until mastering time, then I jump to 1024. I seem to get a pretty good count of effects and tracks, and VI's.

HOWEVER

Having used some other DAWs, I have to agree with bigcityrecording, DP could use with a bit of optimization. The difference can be THAT much, especially with logic.

Don't get me wrong, I love and use DP solely, but it's not to say I don't know what negative aspects I accept with the positive. I'm hoping with the changes coming in leopard in CoreAudio that the systems will start to converge more.

magicd · Post by **magicd** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:09 am

Two notes to add here.

DP 5.11 includes many optimizations not found in earlier versions.

But reading through the posts on this subject I notice the complaint that the musicians hear phasing or chorusing in the monitored signal and that is destracting.
This could well be because of double monitoring.

A guitarist stands 7 feet from his amp and plays. Thats a 7ms delay (about what you get when you patch through the CPU at a buffer setting of 64). The guitarist does not complain about delay. You generally need at least 12ms or more before you can hear a delay in the signal.

However, if you monitor the direct signal (1.6ms through a MOTU interface) and combine that with a delayed signal, there will be cancellation between those two signals. Even if the delay is 6-7ms, the combination of the two signals will be audible and not pleasant. If the direct signal is not present and all you hear is a signal delayed by 7,ms, I don't think the musician will notice any delay and they will definitely not hear phasing or chorusing.

Here's how to check: Do you hear a monitored signal if DP is quit or no tracks are set up to patch a signal through? If you do, that means you have direct hardware monitoring of that signal. If you now set up a CPU route of that signal you will double monitor and you will absolutely hear a phasing/chorusing problem.

Magic Dave

grimepoch · Post by **grimepoch** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:26 am

I should have stated that DP5.11 really does show that it has been optimized compared to earlier versions.

To clarify even further, I seem to see the most issues with virtual instruments. When compared to Logic at the same settings it seems that DP requires a bit more overhead than Logic. However, that gap continues to decrease over time.

Going to a quad 2.66, I got SO MUCH MORE power that because I understand what to expect from DP using it on a G4 for many years, I'm, for the most part, extremely satisfied with the performance. It's only on the most demanding of synth tracks that I use a lot of VI's that I have trouble. I don't hit this as often, but I still hit it.

Of course, the one thing that would speed up DP for me is the currently selected tracks i the TO be highlighted in the mixer!

But that just has to do with user latency ;P

bigcityrecording · Post by **bigcityrecording** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:04 pm

magicd wrote:I notice the complaint that the musicians hear phasing or chorusing in the monitored signal and that is destracting.
This could well be because of double monitoring.

It could be for some cases, but not mine... The phasing/chorusing/delay aspect mostly comes from vocalists - they're hearing their voice through their bones plus what I send them in the phones... hey, that rhymes! sorry....

Also, steel players notice the smallest of latencies because they are so physically attached to their instruments - they're feeling the vibrations compared to their phone mix.

magicd wrote:You generally need at least 12ms or more before you can hear a delay in the signal.

I'd go as far as to say 18-20ms before one perceives a "delay". Anything less is more of a timbre change (phasey, chorusy, etc). Very small latencies can drastically change the timbre of an instrument especially if it's a very fine instrument - like a $20,000 violin.... These people are sensitive - that's why they make the big bucks!!!

magicd wrote:If the direct signal is not present and all you hear is a signal delayed by 7,ms, I don't think the musician will notice any delay and they will definitely not hear phasing or chorusing.

See above...

In my system, there is only one signal passing through. Anyway, at this point, I'm still using Cue Mix with a mackie d8b...

bigcityrecording · Post by **bigcityrecording** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:07 pm

grimepoch wrote:Going to a quad 2.66, I got SO MUCH MORE power...

As a side question: Do you think there would be much difference between the 2.66 vs the 3.0? esp considering the $$ diff?

grimepoch · Post by **grimepoch** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:50 pm

Personally, as been noted by others doing the comparisons, no, I do not think it is worth it going to the quad 3. I think that money is better spent on more ram, more hard disk space, and maybe a UAD 1e card

The Quad2.66 is the best for the buck. VI performance wise, it is 3 times faster than my G5 Dual1.8 in every test I could throw at it.

waxman · Post by **waxman** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:16 pm

It is all solved with a mixer and Aviom or Hear Technology.

A few cat 5 cables and a simple small mixer. total cost $2500. Not to mention you have great pre amps so the recorded sound is better. That alone is worth it.

My rig is all very portable. I do it every week. It is easier then setting up cue mixes and head phone boxes and being limited to a few headphone mixes and the distraction of the musicians asking for more or less of something. The biggest hidden benifit is the musicians play much better when they hear what they want. It is impossible to get them a better mix then the one they tune in themselves. Trying to get MOTU to fix the latency so you can buffer down to 64 so is a waste of time. That will never work as well as a mixer and headphone system not to mention the any mac hates running at that buffer level and makes the whole system completley unreliable. What you are asking for does not exist. Even in Logic.

bigcityrecording · Post by **bigcityrecording** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:15 pm

waxman wrote:It is all solved with a mixer and Aviom or Hear Technology. any mac hates running at that buffer level and makes the whole system completley unreliable. What you are asking for does not exist. Even in Logic.

What are you basing that statement on?

I have observed as well as tested firsthand running a mac at 32 buffer setting with Logic w/ 24 tracks in simultaneous record with multiple plug-ins at 48k AND 96k. That was with a G5 dual 2.5ghz machine.

It's off the charts with a macpro - including using gtr amp modeling while recording and little to no processor hit....