DAW Tracking with Xite - 1

[crae]

Hi - can someone answer a naive question:
Do Xite-1 DSP chips improve latency of audio recording to a DAW via mike inputs (similar to Protools hardware) - or is it just the Synths and FX modules that use the DSP's to reduce latency (compared to VST's).

Cheers ......

[garyb]

neither is really true.

latency occurs when a processor has to do many jobs. the processor has to do a bit of each job at a time. latency is the time needed to do the processes. a dsp is a dedicated processor, so the latency is minimal, the same latency as analog gear, more or less(pretty much unhearable, in the several samples range).

the Scope synths are just realtime instruments, so the latency is negligible.
going from Scope to an app in the computer(Scope processes don't occur in the computer, only the gui is in the computer) there will be normal ASIO latency, 2-4ms typically.

if you monitor in Scope instead of in the sequencer(Cubase or whatever), then you won't hear latency in an overdub or any other situation where you mix playback and live material.

[crae]

Hi,

That makes sense - I use Scope for recording and monitoring plus effects so minimise latency - great!

[m.my91]

YES!
XITE will make latency.
and this latency will grow if you use many plugins....
with protools you can fix this latency with the ADC and insert hw i/o at 0.1 ms precision.
you have to mesure your latency with a microphone placed in front of your speaker.
-you put a wav clic on track 1
-track one signal go on "in scope" (use xite as monitoring with your speaker plug to Xite)
-track 2 (protools microphone input) record the sound going out of your xite and speaker (take care of larsen route protools to 3/4 instead of 1/2 !)
your will see that track 2 will be after the track one.
mesure the difference in millisecond between the two track in protools.
put the value in the hw insert i/o in protools.
after, when you record, you have to put the insert in a track.
after you chose your scope or rtas or tdm plugins.
routing this track to a bus.
record the bus to an other track.
JUST LIKE A DREAM "FREE FROM LATENCY"
Commentaires
HALLELUYA!

[m.my91]

neither is really true.

latency occurs when a processor has to do many jobs. the processor has to do a bit of each job at a time. latency is the time needed to do the processes. a dsp is a dedicated processor, so the latency is minimal, the same latency as analog gear, more or less(pretty much unhearable, in the several samples range).

the Scope synths are just realtime instruments, so the latency is negligible.
going from Scope to an app in the computer(Scope processes don't occur in the computer, only the gui is in the computer) there will be normal ASIO latency, 2-4ms typically.

if you monitor in Scope instead of in the sequencer(Cubase or whatever), then you won't hear latency in an overdub or any other situation where you mix playback and live material.

yes gary but even a minimum latency can destroyed all the groove of a recording.
(witch is very frustrated for a musician who cannot record what he heard!)
scope don't offer latency tools.
but you can mesure it with protools and ADC and insert delay.
i mesure 0.27 ms with spdif in+vinco+spdif out.on 96 khz scope.
(i don't make the test of creamware pulsar AD/DA).
but i read that the "group delay" of pulsar converter chips is 96 fs.(96 samples) or 1 ms at 96 khz or 2.1 at 44 khz.
is it possible for soniccore to give all the plugins and hardware latency list in samples or milliseconde?

[ronnie]

Generally speaking, it's mostly effects in native VSTs and also DSP plug-in chains particularly things like look-ahead limiters, transient designers, phase neutral EQs and impulse reverbs that add significant latency. This is of course only a problem in live performance or real-time studio monitoring. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem when tracking. It's obvious that Scope DSP plug-ins are much better than native. Latency compensation can never be fully achieved because it would have to see into the future, which is impossible on any platform. Buffering will only "move" things forward in time by delaying everything else. That is the so called latency compensation of DAW buffering. The buffers used in DAW latency compensation for VSTs only works on playback. Rendering VST tracks (freezing) will sync them up but unfortunately there is nothing that could be done otherwise except hoping that the total combined latency is not noticeable to a player or vocalist. Keeping the chain to a minimum, splitting input to parallel buses with independent effects or using effects as inserts helps. This is of course assuming that the DAW's audio engine is worthy and a most powerful processor is running at top-speed and all unnecessary processes are killed as well as all the audio optimization tweaks have been implemented at the hardware and OS levels. This becomes even more critical at higher sample rates (where there's lower latency but more processing). More memory will help for samplers and of course good ASIO drivers are best. MIDI latency may also pop-up, but not so much with today's VSTs. Of course you can always use bare metal boxes and tape or VDAT! Here is a great article from Sound-On-Sound (2005) that addresses the issue and is still applicable.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan05/a ... sician.htm

[garyb]

if you have a layer of 10 bass drum samples, you may find slight phase errors due to processing.

in a real studio with wires, you will find the same latencies as it does take time for audio to run up and down cables. this never stopped phenomenal productions in the past and it has never been compensated for, ever.

yes, if a couple of samples is unbearable then you will have to compensate. again, a hardware digital delay's AD/DA will produce a few samples latency and then the processor in the delay itself will add another sample or so. this is never an issue, in the real world. Scope's latencies are similar to hardware, as i said.

[m.my91]

Generally speaking, it's mostly effects in native VSTs and also DSP plug-in chains particularly things like look-ahead limiters, transient designers, phase neutral EQs and impulse reverbs that add significant latency. This is of course only a problem in live performance or real-time studio monitoring. That's not to say it isn't a huge problem when tracking. It's obvious that Scope DSP plug-ins are much better than native. Latency compensation can never be fully achieved because it would have to see into the future, which is impossible on any platform. Buffering will only "move" things forward in time by delaying everything else. That is the so called latency compensation of DAW buffering. The buffers used in DAW latency compensation for VSTs only works on playback. Rendering VST tracks (freezing) will sync them up but unfortunately there is nothing that could be done otherwise except hoping that the total combined latency is not noticeable to a player or vocalist. Keeping the chain to a minimum, splitting input to parallel buses with independent effects or using effects as inserts helps. This is of course assuming that the DAW's audio engine is worthy and a most powerful processor is running at top-speed and all unnecessary processes are killed as well as all the audio optimization tweaks have been implemented at the hardware and OS levels. This becomes even more critical at higher sample rates (where there's lower latency but more processing). More memory will help for samplers and of course good ASIO drivers are best. MIDI latency may also pop-up, but not so much with today's VSTs. Of course you can always use bare metal boxes and tape or VDAT! Here is a great article from Sound-On-Sound (2005) that addresses the issue and is still applicable.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan05/a ... sician.htm

pfffff always the same songs "latency buffer asio pop and click processor cpu overcloking computer breakers"
NO!
asio is really not a stable audio engime.....
perhaps Vdat but you forget midi and use MTC witch is really not a good midi synchro engine....
soundonsound is really not a good reference....
so what else?
scope?
scope plugins also do latency not as long as vst but it do...
but thre no soniccore latency chart?
you have to measure it with protools adc insert methode.

[m.my91]

if you have a layer of 10 bass drum samples, you may find slight phase errors due to processing.

in a real studio with wires, you will find the same latencies as it does take time for audio to run up and down cables. this never stopped phenomenal productions in the past and it has never been compensated for, ever.

yes, if a couple of samples is unbearable then you will have to compensate. again, a hardware digital delay's AD/DA will produce a few samples latency and then the processor in the delay itself will add another sample or so. this is never an issue, in the real world. Scope's latencies are similar to hardware, as i said.

yes it's true ..
the latency of scope plugins is equivalent to an hardware but.
the hardware user guide tell what is this latency (in samples or ms).
and when your chain many hardware 2 or 3 you will have more latency.
and this is what happen when you use differente module in the scope project.
a vinco alone do 0.2 ms a t 96 khz.
but a vinco with a 4pole eq make a little more latency.
what i need is a soniccore plugins chart latency.
it will be usefull to knows how much ms to put in the insert hw delay in protools.

[hubird]

As long as you life playing don't experience problems from the latency there is no problem.

You can correct the startpoint of the recording.
If I do a recording roundtrip to a new track I do that always, so be sure to keep the groove, as that IS important indeed, especially when it's about swing time.

Do you notice a latency of say 5 ms?

[Sounddesigner]

scope?
scope plugins also do latency not as long as vst but it do...
but thre no soniccore latency chart?
you have to measure it with protools adc insert methode.

There is no need for Sonic Core to provide a latency chart for all the software devices (hardware might be a good idea, but there are literally hundreds of SCOPE plugins, the stock plugins alone are too many to bother with. Man-hours are costly.). One of the reasons there is no need for Sonic Core to make a latency chart for devices is because someone already addressed this concern with SCOPE. If I'm not mistaken GOST created a device called Latency-Checker wich is a SCOPE device that allows you to check the latency amount of other devices. Just ask someone to give you a link to it. I've never used it so I can't say much about it I just remember it and believe it's the answer to your problem.

If SCOPE latency is too much for you at 96khz samplerate then Digital systems just may not work for you because SCOPE's latency is about as good as it gets.

EDITED

[ronnie]

Like I said, you first of all need to have a reliable clock sync between your ProTools HD card and Scope (X-ITE or otherwise). Your SP/DIF as a clock is practically useless and you will chase lock your tail trying to figure out sync/latency issues as long as you keep using it. Good for audio but not with clock. I would bet your issues are clock sync related and not actual latency.

[m.my91]

As long as you life playing don't experience problems from the latency there is no problem.

You can correct the startpoint of the recording.
If I do a recording roundtrip to a new track I do that always, so be sure to keep the groove, as that IS important indeed, especially when it's about swing time.

Do you notice a latency of say 5 ms?

5 ms make an huge difference in regard of latency