Audio latency? The killer of recording shredders?!?

dark_void86 · #1 09-26-2008, 05:06 PM

Not too long ago i posted a thread on interfaces. I was a total noob at the time and now I'm a little better, with the idea of purchasing an RME Fireface 400 which on most acounts is jut damn awesome and has totally exlucsive features in it's price bracket. HOWEVER i recently did a load of research on external hard drives and accordingly bought a newertech guardian maximus. With my research on external hard drive enclosures i looked into inputs, e.g. esata, firewire and usb. At the time i had NO IDEA that firewire came in two versions, that being firewire 400 and 800!!!! Firewire is apparently awesome and with the new wave of firewire 800, its now twice as fast and obviously leaves USB totally in the dust. I know esata is obviously the best with you having speeds matching a pci audio interface.............

But what i was wondering was.......... is the latency between these technologies a big deal? (by that i mean firewire 400, 800 and esata) I am doing a degree on the guitar to become a more proficient player, and i will hopefully be producing tracks with fast guitar lines on them. I read a very heated discussion on humanly being able to hear the difference between firewire latency and 0 latency. I just want to know people's thoughts on this and whether it should now effect my choice on buying the fireface 400? And is it possible to buy audio interfaces with esata connections? Its quite common on alot of external hard drives so.............. ?

Foulacy · #2 09-26-2008, 05:16 PM

My friend has a digirack with firewire 400 and when we record, if the speakers are on there's a good 30ms delay. reallllly F'ng annoying. but, it could be something else causing it, not the firewire.

Bowie · #3 09-26-2008, 05:28 PM

Honestly, if you're buying an RME, don't worry too much about the latency. So long as you have a decent, dedicated computer, you won't have any real issues. Your PC might introduce more latency than the firewire.
I think that Lynx via PCI card is the best thing going though. I've got a lot of high-end gear (UA, Chandler, Neumann, etc) that goes through an old Lynx One and I couldn't be happier.
I recommend getting a cheap, straight-forward card and using outboard Analog to Digital converters. The converters are where the cards always fall short.

jb4674 · #4 09-27-2008, 08:39 AM

Latency will be a problem introduced by your computer instead of your audio interface. If you're going to venture into pc recording, it is best to have a pc that's dedicated to the task, one that has 2 separate hardware profiles, or one that's equipped with 2 separate OS's in separate partitions, with one being xp completely stripped down to the bare minimum so that it's optimized for recording and the other one can be vista (to watch porn on

)

Also keep in mind that, while latency can be a culprit that starts at your computer, because it's trying to convert audio, you have to pay especial attention to what is running in the backgroud as well. For example, a computer that is used for daily tasks such as reading email and word processing and has a wireless connection would be a computer that would have to be "tweaked" before using it for recording purposes because it more than likely has many services running that don't need to be.

Jimmy

GazTop · #5 09-27-2008, 10:09 AM

I record using a program that allows me to set the pc's latency into the program so it cancels it.

Result = in time guitars once you figure out the latency. I keep forgetting the magic number when i format.

dark_void86 · #6 09-27-2008, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb4674

Latency will be a problem introduced by your computer instead of your audio interface. If you're going to venture into pc recording, it is best to have a pc that's dedicated to the task, one that has 2 separate hardware profiles, or one that's equipped with 2 separate OS's in separate partitions, with one being xp completely stripped down to the bare minimum so that it's optimized for recording and the other one can be vista (to watch porn on

)

Also keep in mind that, while latency can be a culprit that starts at your computer, because it's trying to convert audio, you have to pay especial attention to what is running in the backgroud as well. For example, a computer that is used for daily tasks such as reading email and word processing and has a wireless connection would be a computer that would have to be "tweaked" before using it for recording purposes because it more than likely has many services running that don't need to be.

Jimmy

Okay that all makes sense. So the connection whether its firewire 400, 800 or esata really doesnt make much difference, but the computer itself?

dark_void86 · #7 09-27-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GazTop

I record using a program that allows me to set the pc's latency into the program so it cancels it.

Result = in time guitars once you figure out the latency. I keep forgetting the magic number when i format.

That sounds like an easy solution to everyone's problems concerning latency and i haven't heard it mentioned anywhere.......... everyone seems to complain about their interface.....

You wouldn't mind mentioning what this actual program is and how you work out the "magic number" inputed to help the computer cope with achieving zero latency?

rvai · #8 09-27-2008, 10:04 PM

you can set the latency levels as you wish with asio4all

CalledToArms · #9 09-28-2008, 12:57 AM

i asked a similar question in another thread. Im looking at getting a line 6 toneport ux2. Im wondering, if I mic a guitar cabinet, run the mic into the toneport, and connect the toneport via USB into something like audacity or cakewalk etc...will there be any latency? Ill be recording the backtrack first and wont need the monitor but when I record the 2nd and 3rd tracks on top of my rhythm track Ill need to be able to hear the rhythm as well as hear the live input that I am playing - without noticeable latency.

does this sound possible? I havent tried the toneport yet and would like to have an idea before I buy one.

Bowie · #10 09-28-2008, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledToArms

Ill be recording the backtrack first and wont need the monitor but when I record the 2nd and 3rd tracks on top of my rhythm track Ill need to be able to hear the rhythm as well as hear the live input that I am playing - without noticeable latency.
does this sound possible? I havent tried the toneport yet and would like to have an idea before I buy one.

The thing to look for is "zero latency monitoring". It means that you are listening to a delayed signal that compensates for the latency. If it doesn't, you should be able to adjust for it in the editing stage by examiningthe waveform and chopping off a few fractions of a milisecond. Most products these day don't have serious latency issues so I wouldn't worry too much.

Rip · #11 10-02-2008, 10:52 AM

what are you recording through?
A simple external mixer, giving you a direct monitoring feed (before it hits the comp) will
fix all of that.

If you're using guitar software then thats a different story.

Jamie · #12 10-02-2008, 11:52 AM

Yeah don't the firefaces have direct outs for zero latency monitoring?

Thats absolutely how you should do it. I have the fireface 800 and it does.

GazTop · #13 10-02-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dark_void86

That sounds like an easy solution to everyone's problems concerning latency and i haven't heard it mentioned anywhere.......... everyone seems to complain about their interface.....

You wouldn't mind mentioning what this actual program is and how you work out the "magic number" inputed to help the computer cope with achieving zero latency?

I use Cool edit pro 2.1 which is rather simple but it does the job.

as for working it out. I record myself playing quarter hits to a metronome doing the same and zoom right in and work out the difference in milleseconds.

Input that into the preferances and bingo. You're off.

Although i must add i only use the pc to record demo's. I don't do any sort of studio style recording.

axemanrio · #14 10-02-2008, 01:43 PM

No matter what interface, device or sequencer you use there are a couple things you can do that will potentially eliminate all latency.

1. Modify processor scheduling in Windows XP or Vista to adjust best performance for "background services". Default is "applications".

2. Create a separate user login for recording and make sure only your security app is running (other than your recording tools)

3. Get a Mac

While #1 and 2 will guarantee much better realtime monitoring, if you load too many effects and plugins into memory, things could slow down - but performance will be way better than if you were monitoring/recording with 10 other apps running in the background.

Jamie · #15 10-06-2008, 06:56 AM

To the poster above and the OP.

AFAIK there is nothing that will reduce your latency to zero. Even an inaudible value of latency requires such great processor tax that you might well get a glitch on that 'perfect take'. Its generally a trade-off that I don't care to make and I'm not sure why its being suggested to you.

Investment in a great computer system and dual boots and the suchlike are all very well, but unless you are recording with in-the-box effects, which in itself is so limiting that it would be at odds with your desired result of quality guitar recording, then you should find a way to monitor without monitoring through the computer.

Its very simple. The computer should act like a tapedeck acts - it plays back the backing while you record onto another track. In this fictional scenario you could have a 3rd tapehead reading & playing back the just-recorded track, just after its been laid. But there will still be 'latency'. Much simpler to monitor through the amp you are using.