latency and an 002... question.

HeavyHand · Post by **HeavyHand** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:42 pm

i recently got a BLA 002 after my presonus rig got stolen out of my car on christmas night. BONERS! anyway...

i went to run the new set up with all 8 channels running and trying to monitor a guitar and the latency was terrible. the one thing the presonus had going for it was dealing with latency for the purposes of monitoring while you are cutting. im not at my computer right now so i dont recall the specs but the processor is an AMD x64 dual core. (ill report which one when i get back home tomorrow) my question is... what kind of computers are you guys using that can get down to reasonable latency times? this stuff is killing me. i tried running in low latency mode but it didn't help enough. thanks squad.

A.David.MacKinnon · Post by **A.David.MacKinnon** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:55 am

Open prefs. Click on Playback Engine and then set the buffer size as low as you can.

John Jeffers · Post by **John Jeffers** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:52 am

I never use low-latency monitoring, I just set the buffer at 64 when tracking. I've tried 32, but I get errors at that setting, so 64 it is for me. It's rare that people complain about (or notice) latency at that setting. I can tell, but it's low enough that it doesn't bother me. I'm running a stock 002 Rack and a BLA-modded MOTU 896HD on a 2008 Mac Pro (8-core).

Another thing (assuming you're using Pro Tools 9) is to make sure Delay Compensation is turned off during tracking. This setting is also in the Playback Engine window.

Oh, and don't forget to set the buffer back to a much higher value at mix time, when latency doesn't matter. If you leave it at a low setting, you'll start getting errors as you add plugins and automation.

HeavyHand · Post by **HeavyHand** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:58 am

i've set the buffers as low as i can (dont remember how low) it was was terrible. also run it in low latency record mode... still no good.

i think my pc just isn't powerful enough and im wondering how strong of a machine i need. im broke (like everyone) and dont want to shell out a ton of $$$ when i don't need all the computing power. i currently have a a 1.99 Ghz with an AMD 64 x2 duel core 3800+. 3g of ram which is maxed out i believe. any suggestions?

Bro Shark · Post by **Bro Shark** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:42 am

HeavyHand wrote:i've set the buffers as low as i can (dont remember how low) it was was terrible. also run it in low latency record mode... still no good.

Can you elaborate on "still no good" ?

I've used this Low Latency Monitoring mode on a piece of shit old laptop for years, with no problems. As long as you're not relying on plugins while tracking everything should be 100% fine. (the mode disables all plugins while recording is active)

HeavyHand · Post by **HeavyHand** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:15 pm

i dont think i could get the buffer below 512 and it may have even been 1024. the guitarist was saying that it was unbearable to play. i agree. i just ended up having him bring his amp into the live room so they wouldnt have to use headphones.

my rig isn't setup to record at the moment because it so impossible to record using headphones. i need to see how low i can get the buffer and such. i was using protools 8 that day and also reaper and was have the same problems on both.

Snarl 12/8 · Post by **Snarl 12/8** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:18 pm

You're trying to monitor, through the computer, in a live setting? Can you monitor in the analog realm and then send the tracks off to the computer.

HeavyHand · Post by **HeavyHand** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:56 pm

ahhh... interesting. i hadn't thought of that. maybe some sort of splitter to my computer and to my little alesis board for a monitor mix. good call dude. thanks.

Snarl 12/8 · Post by **Snarl 12/8** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:21 am

You still might have some latency when you're doing overdubs. But it tends to even out. If you bring the computer output to the mixer and monitor it there while you monitor whatever you're adding through the mixer, but, in my view, the latencies even out. It takes some time for the audio to get from the hard drive to the mixer, but it also takes some time for the audio to get from the mixer to the hard drive. You might have to fuck with buffer settings to find the balance. I'm not sure about PT, but I always get the best results recording and playing back everything dry. No plugins anywhere until mix down.

HeavyHand · Post by **HeavyHand** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:29 pm

im mostly thinking that i want to stay as mobile as possible. a shitty mixing board, an isolated 8chan. splitter (or y cables) and my usual mic pre's just makes everything much more complicated. bummer.
... enter my main squeeze. i'm getting married in a a few weeks and she said we should get a rippin laptop (she does lots of photoshop and CAD stuff) after the wedding using our loot. problem solved. i didn't even have t trick her into it! What the fuck is that shit? and now i dont have to bring around my desktop computer (which is a horrible idea). total bonus!

palinilap · Post by **palinilap** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:54 am

I'm wondering if the Low Latency Monitoring was actually activated. I've had instances when it was checked, but wasn't working. Try toggling it on and off and see if that changes anything.

I've never had any problem with latency when that setting's on, and the buffer's at 256, and my machine is pretty old and obsolete.

Bro Shark · Post by **Bro Shark** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:16 am

palinilap wrote:I'm wondering if the Low Latency Monitoring was actually activated. I've had instances when it was checked, but wasn't working. Try toggling it on and off and see if that changes anything.

I've never had any problem with latency when that setting's on, and the buffer's at 256, and my machine is pretty old and obsolete.

Yeah... when you're using LLM on the 002R, you can have whatever buffer size you want. That's what's cool about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's a digitally-controlled hardware setting -- that is, the software tells the interface to monitor the input signal pre-conversion, so there literally is no latency on that signal.

HeavyHand · Post by **HeavyHand** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:49 am

hmmm. i'll try it again.

digitaldrummer · Post by **digitaldrummer** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:45 pm

I also have a BLA tweakhead 002r and I'm using LLM with PT9 and it works pretty good for me. I can definitely tell the difference if I have it over 64 samples or forget to check LLM. big difference!

Mike

Message Board

latency and an 002... question.

latency and an 002... question.

Who is online