Jump to content

azslow3

Members
  • Content Count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by azslow3


  1. Windows 10 can influence the DAW performance and some not ASIO aspects of audio.  But as long as the device and the driver are the same, you can expect the same latency. Also as I have mentioned the first post in that thread does bot contain everything, people was measuring interfaces on Windows 10 and not only with 44.1kHz.

    For Scarlett, in one of the posts it is mentioned that "64" setting is probably 128 samples per buffer internally. All interfaces have some "extra" latency settings, some of them can expose a part of these settings in some form to the user.

    The latency is a sum of many delays: AD + transfer to computer + driver + transfer from computer + DA. The buffer size is just a chunk size in which audio is processed in the DAW. That directly influence the latency, f.e. if a DAW works with 48kHz/128 the "buffer length" in time is 2.8ms. Since the DAW becomes the whole buffer, that theoretically can not happened before 2.8ms since the first sample is digitized. But all other processes are not instant, f.e. the DAW should have time to process the buffer. The difference between measured latency and the buffer size latency is what the interface+driver have to do the rest. F.e. 7.3ms - 2.8ms = 4.5ms. The smaller the buffer own length (f.e. 96kHz/64  - 0.6ms) the smaller total latency can be, with the same "overhead" (4.5ms + 0.6ms = 5.1ms). In practice, not all components of the overhead are constant.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  2. 10 hours ago, Twisted Fingers said:

    I have a 1st gen 18i8 and agree 1st gen USB hardware, firmware & drivers were not up to par. My ancient MOTU 828 mill firewire has lower latency.  I wish there was some way to know that before you buy. 

    https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/618474-audio-interface-low-latency-performance-data-base.html

    Note that many interfaces/conditions are not in the first post, googe the thread for almost all interfaces RTL tables. Note that not all posts there have equal "quality". And "traps" are not only numbers taken from "some DAW", but also RTL screenshots when the interface has some build-in route and so the "loopback" was performed without DA-AD conversion. Also these numbers should be interpreted as "the best you can get". So, if you are able to use some mode (like 96kHz/32), you will get the same numbers. But it can happened the particular mode with particular interface/driver is not usable (on particular computer, DAW, project, etc.).

    It took me a while to understand that many (most?) people are not interested in low latency. They do not use in DAW monitoring, except may be MIDI for which latency is less important. So even some "high end" devices have big latency.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2

  3. * https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=12352524&postcount=1163

    So according to that post, there can be somehow wrongly labeled settings for 6i6. So "64" is more "128". So the next thing to check is why you can not go lower. That is computer related. It can be that nothing can be done (as f.e. with my 8 years old Celeron class desktop), but with relatively powerful computer, even 6 years old, it should be possible to reduce the buffer size after tweaking.

    * your original 7.3ms is  good. In fact too good for that Presonus. All reports indicate around 10ms for the same settings. Note that this interface can report wrong numbers to the DAW. Make a loopback check, manual or with RTL, to get real latency.

    ------

    UAC according to all tests it has very good latency. Is is a bit more expensive then other and definitively bring better latency for that money.

    But it can not do 7.3ms under 48kHz/128, so I could not resist from "trolling" a bit. UAC owners could prevent that by "wait... 7.3ms? even my good latency UAC can not do that with such settings".  And it was "7.3ms? its too high... my UAC is better". 😉

     

    • Like 1

  4. 1 hour ago, Rico Belled said:

    I own one and it's AWESOME! It actually gets me as low as my PCI based systems, and no 7.3ms for someone with a good sense of time is not low enough in my opinion.

    Do you  mean "not high enough"? All published results I could find show that UAC-2 has 7.7ms under the same conditions.

    I can not judge the interface because I do not have it, but all "ultra super under 2ms" RTL for UAC spammed across the Internet are about "96kHz/24 samples per buffer", normally commented with "with a 50 tracks full of heavy effects". I guess they have borrowed computer from aliens (or they have done the test with REAPER in playback mode and anticipative processing on, in other words not running anything in realtime).


  5. I hope your problem is solved by new audio interface.

    7.3ms is not bad, the best you can get at 48kHz/128 is 6.6ms. That is not great improvement for 6x price. And so the question is why you could not use 64. Can be the interface, but can be something else. You will know soon 😉

    • Like 1

  6. No hosts? 😂

    And for the topic... Common, the only big country which has tried to calculate what is real price for everything and attempted to use such prices is not there last 25 years.

    Is someone still think that producing a product and selling it IS the way to make BIG money in THIS world? LOL.


  7. While many things can be tweaked so Sonar/CbB can run fine, expecting it can work as most performance optimized DAW to the date (I mean REAPER) is hopeless. One responsible for fluent operations with small buffers feature, the anticipative processing,  simply does not exist in the Cakewalk engine.

    But it should be possible to make CbB working. With bigger buffer size and less plug-ins, but still. When I think I have troubles, I normally start with my personal list: http://www.azslow.com/index.php?topic=395.0

     

    • Thanks 2

  8. 17 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

    I record high res also, but honestly is it usually just a waste of disc space.  You will hear far more difference in the way audio is processed by various plugins and techniques than you will strictly based on the bit depth and sample frequency.  Focus more on things that matter.  How many people do you know that have a playback rig that even supports higher than 44.1 16bit?

    As the original question is about "recording", it is different from intermediate format (which better keep 32bit FP) and the final format (which can be 16bit).

    Each bit is ~6dB (SNR, DNR, etc... just a approximation, but it works well in all math). When you record without some hardware compressor/limiter and let say set the gain to result -18dB average and record into 16bit,  your average resolution will be 13bits. And not so loud section can easily be recorded with just 10bits. During mixing and mastering, you will level this signal (with compressors, EQ, etc.). Try bitcrash something to 10bit, that is easy to notice even with $1 headphones on $1 Realtek built-in interface. And if you record close to 0dB, a part of signal is going to be digitally clipped. That you can also hear on low end equipment. So 24bit for recording is a good idea.

    15 hours ago, AB3 said:

    I do not think it is as simple as dynamic range and frequency response.   As I mentioned before, there is the latency issue.

    I will add one more issue - samples per second.  If 32 samples per second provided great dynamic range and frequency response it would still sound very unrealistic as one can hear the "grains" of the sample.

    So how many samples per second does the ear actually transmit to the brain?  What is the sample rate of analog?  Is there a limit?  Just curious?  Anyone have an idea?

    With 32 samples per second you can get up to 16Hz frequency. So the frequency response it not good by definition 😉

     

    4 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

    While a song is going "full-tilt" (especially if it's been peak-limited for high average level), you'll not notice the difference between 24Bit and 16Bit audio.

    Listen to an isolated long reverb decay at 16Bits with no dither...

    The end of the decay breaks up and sounds awful.

    That same long reverb decay at 24Bits sounds smooth.

    I believe that 16bits dithering make sense.   I am sure there is better equipment then my and way more advanced listeners, I can hear the difference only starting from 14bit downwards.

    But is such examples I think it is important to mention was it with unusual amplification or not. Was you playing already mastered track and at the very end could hear the difference in reverb, or was it just reverb sound and the signal was amplified +12 dB or more. Because with sufficient amplification it is possible to hear the difference of 24bit dithering on notebook speaker. I had to amplify more then 60dB + max all other volumes to achieve that, so it make no sense but  possible 🙃


  9. I do not think disabling updates can be perceived as a hack.

    When I have installed Windows 8, 8.1 and then 10, I had to agree they are going to collect information and push updates by default. And I have not switching off anything.

    With 8, 8.1 and at the beginning with 10 there was no problems. But at some point my system has started to reboot when I was about to work, and not some quick reboot since my computer is old. So at the middle of the day I had to wait an hour till it finish something. Also telemetry is taking longer and longer to collect, also it does not wait till the system is idle, it runs at its own wish, with 100% system consumption.

    During the last year I had to connect to many friends remotely to fix "automagically installed" problems.

    While I have agreed that MS does something on my system and what they do is "legit",  in practice that means I no longer can use my own computer when I want. Someone can say "your own fault". But I was born in the USSR: if someone fool you, fool him. I am sure most people here do not understand that, but the whole capitalistic world is based on fooling each other. USSR was an attempt to change that, but that attempt was unsuccessful  😀

     


  10. 3 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

    Go legit... and there's no worries about broken Group Policy Editor.

    At some point, your time and potential frustration is worth something.

    • If you're loading from scratch, the OEM version of Win10 Pro is an additional $40.
    • The in-place upgrade from Win10 Home to Pro is $100. 

     

    If I remember correctly, I have paid around $40 (to MS directly, so absolute legit) for XP to Win8 upgrade. XP was pro, so I have Win 10 Pro. That is about the "inflation" in the Windows world 😉

    Whatever I have tried with editor, I could not prevent Windows to contact MS. And I am not alone. Yes, I could disable these stupid "windows is restarted" thing, as well as crashing working system during drivers updates. But every time I see some unexpected disk activity, that is MS. That can be partially disabled in the services and scheduler, but many things are reverted after updates (or prevent updates running smoothly).

    And for "go legit". Why someone need to pay money to get LESS service? That make no big sense for me.

    For the topic. Well, I am prepared for whatever happens with Sonar Platinum+/Cakelab, 32bit, etc. I have a backup DAW which runs on all currently available platforms, has no online authorization nor dongles and can load CW projects with most plug-ins (including DX). The only worry is about DimPro, which has CCC authorization and is not "Bandlab". The rest can go to hell without troubles for me. But as long as it is working, why not enjoy the live 😁

    PS. For mentioned thread with authorization... My conclusion is that Bandlab should work fine 6 month after update, for any "offline" work. Using it without Internet in the near, especially live, is "no go".  For that I have X3 and "another DAW".


  11. 3 hours ago, msmcleod said:

    Whilst what you say is largely true, it's worth pointing out that at 96Khz the analog signal can only produce a square wave at 48Khz.

    Even at 96Khz, the approximation of a 12Khz sine wave will only have 4 steps from zero to peak. That goes down to 2 steps at 48Khz.

    So the argument for using a higher sampling frequency is more to do with getting better accuracy of the audible high frequencies... i.e. ones that will look less like tetris blocks.

    Sorry man, but you describe a common mistake of sample rate interpretation. Yes, with 96kHz you have just 2 reference points to build 48kHz wave. But that is sufficient to reconstruct it (and all lower frequencies) perfectly.

    Note that sampling (and corresponding reverse conversion) is using the fact that any audio is a combination of waves. There is no "square wave" in audio. Think about your speaker... to reproduce perfect square wave, it has to move instantly. That is not possible (the speed of light limit...).

    A "square wave" and other jumping forms (really approximations of them) are used in subtractive synthesizers since from the frequency spectrum perspective they have "all frequencies".

     


  12. I forgot to mention a trap with 88/96kHz. When an audio interface DAC is capable to use at least part of extra frequencies, the analog output signal can contain hi frequencies (up to 48kHz). The problem is with monitors, so what they are going to do with that frequencies. Theoretically they should cut everything they can not reproduce, but practically they can output some distortion in lower frequencies.  More detailed explanation can be googled (and that is one of most plausible explanation what audiophiles "hear" from 96kHz recordings... they hear the difference, and taking the price into account think it is always "better"). 


  13. 1 hour ago, John said:

    I don't know what is truly available. However it may be that 32 bit DACs are here.  https://www.themasterswitch.com/best-dacs

    I have read that Yamaha has a 32 bit audio interface. I have not checked it out. Nor can I swear such a thing is on offer. Its just what I have read. 

    "Hi-end"  devices and related sites are more about believe then about technic. And sure they do all possible that an average person has no chance to find any usable information to prove something is a science fiction... But in some cases rough estimation is possible. Examples from your link:

    (number one) "DAC Chip: Xilinx Artix 7".  "Extremely informative" (means no information at all).  While Xilinx publish very detailed specification for all own chips (including ready to use DACs), "Artix 7" is a FPGA seria, which in general has no DAC(s). So no characteristics what they really use can be found.

    (number two) "DAC Chip: ESS 9028PRO". Better. At least ESS 9028PRO has some DAC inside, with some characteristic. But sure, it is an ... audiophile chip. That means public specification is "the whole 2 pages" long, more with words then with numbers. Fortunately there is a hint:  "feature 129 dB DNR". What will be DNR or real 24bit DAC? 144dB. You can guess what it should be for real 32bits... And since they have powerful "processing" before, that can be "perceived" DNR (which can be 120dB with 16bits).

    Also note that FP is not mentioned. I have seen that in advertisements of some LG mobile phones, sure not on LG site 😀

    And in case they mean 32bit precision, 64bit FP format should be used with such ADC/DACs (32bit FP has max 24bit precision).


  14. Google articles from Craig about sample rate and plug-ins. By itself  44.1 capture all details a human and equipment can deliver, but some processing needs 96kHz to sound right and you can avoid continuous up/down sampling in this case if you stay 96 all the time. Also some interfaces have lower latency on higher rates, useful when you need throw the DAW monitoring (has such interface and your system can handle related extra load). Final down-sampling is not absolute precise science since it requires LPF and all known algorithms have some tiny pitfalls. But if you need high rate for processing, it is better to do down-sampling one time at the end where you can control it and re-do easily instead of hopping all implicit or explicit oversampling up/down conversions are good. Also note that not all DAWs support automatic oversampling (relevant only in case you use several and transfer the content between).

    4 hours ago, John said:

    However, there are now audio interfaces that can record at 32 bits FP.  If you have one of these I would record at 32 bits. 

    Till there is  hardware processing inside the same interface (and that processing is done in FP) or I have missed a revolution in ADC technologies (around 20bit meaningful precision without any dynamic gain following the signal in real time) , I do not see a reason to do so. Except saving CPU cycles on 24->32 conversion for the price of recording garbage into 1/4 of used space (with the consequence of increased IO load).


  15. I suggest you spend some time learning Totalmix. RME interfaces are Digital Mixers, with "software" inputs and outputs in addition to the hardware IO.

    The last is what confuse you, f.e. "Outputs 1/2" as seen by Cakewalk (or any other software) are NOT hardware outputs. That are just software output channels which can be mixed to any hardware outputs.


  16. 11 hours ago, Mike Balzarini said:

    Hey azslow- I don't think there's an argument on Noel's part. Some users have asked why bother authing a free product. If we didn't have that auth, CbB would likely be posted on other sites that are much more susceptible to any of the bad things. To reduce the chance of CbB being illegally distributed, the program auths via BandLab Assistant...

    Authorizing  with BandLab assistant was not my question. Your product, your rules. I just want to understand these rules.

    11 hours ago, Mike Balzarini said:

    ... there are checks after a period of time, etc. ...

    So:

    • "a period of time" means 6 months.
    • If the period is over, Cakewalk instantly reverts into demo without a warning
    • these dates are no shown

    Am I right so far?

    • just starting Assistant is not sufficient to reset the period

    I am almost sure I was running Assistant during last 6 months, but without updating anything. So what exactly is required to avoid "demo" next day?

     

    11 hours ago, Mike Balzarini said:

     

    • Confused 1

  17. Thank you for the clarification. Have I understood that right that if I start BandLab Assistant and it goes online, Cakewalk will not revert to the demo mode during next month? I mean is that "6 months" are counted from the last contact with the service or there are some "fixed dates"?

    In case the later is the case, please display that magic date somewhere. So if I want the computer offline let say tomorrow, I can be sure it will not revert to the demo. With pushed Windows updates I prefer to switch off the internet and check that everything I need is working before doing something important next day. And I guess I am not alone.

    PS. @Mike. Some of my servers have uptime more then a year, I also have servers running OS more then 8 years without updates.  Old CCC had an option to revert. I have not found such in the Bandlab Assistant. I keep up to date my home computer and online computer games on it, but I am not so quick with at least partially serious staff.

    @Noel. I am a bit confused by your second argument... If I have installed Cakewalk using Assistant and it has authorized what I have installed, how can I get a virus from some mirror? If someone manage to initially authorize without Bandlab service and you catch him half a year later, I think it is "too late" for virus injection prevention.

     

    • Confused 1

  18. I do not know current situation with "A".

    "S MK1" works with Mackie compatible plug-ins.

    "S MK2" does not work with Mackie, current implementation (for other DAWs) are OSC based.

    It is known that NI has unlocked "switch to NKS in the current track" method. That is working in other DAWs and possible to make for Cakewalk.

     


  19. That is good in theory, from http://www.aatranslator.com.au/

    Quote

    Huge variations in implementation between AAF files means many NLEs/DAWs are unable to read each other's files.

    So at the moment reasonable results can be achieved using:

    Cakewalk -> OMF -> (AATranslator) -> AAF (or target program own format)

    or

    Cakewalk -> CWP -> (REAPER) -> RPP -> (AATranslator) ->AAF (or target program own format)

    The second approach can preserve more information.

    REAPER has free demo and AATranslator provides test conversion service. So anyone can try how good or bad that works.


  20. In your original screenshots, you set the interface to "WASAPI Shared".  That gives worse latency possible, even on lower settings.

    Some interfaces have good latency in "WASAPI Exclusive" and/or "WDM/KS". The only problem is that you can not get Windows audio (Youtube, etc.) when the DAW is running.

    Many interfaces have best latency in ASIO mode. For example latest Realtek chips (I do not know if your notebook has such). Note that I had to install Realtek original driver first and DELL specific on top of it to make my XPS work correctly while showing Realtek ASIO panel (somehow DELL has forgotten to include required module). These chips in ASIO mode beat in latency many low end interfaces. I have not measured reported 6ms RTL, but the latency is definitively lower then with VS-20.

    Note that ASIO not always gives lowest latency. F.e. latest Behringer interfaces do better with WDM/KS. My old M-Audio Firewire has approximately the same latency with both, but "WASAPI Exclusive" is worse.  At the same time a cheap tablet rocks with "WASAPI", can not work with "WDM/KS" and hardly usable with ASIO4ALL. So the best mode is particular interface dependent.

    Periodically I get huge MIDI (!) latency from different devices (e-drums, DP). Interesting that I had no such problem with MPK Mini. Rebooting the system was helping. The reason is still unknown (that problem is rarely reported, but people hit it from time to time).

    PS. What can not influence the latency is the File System buffer size. Under some condition it can produce cracks/pops, but it is technically completely unrelated to the latency.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...