PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Having read the discussion about Protools + Scope latency here :

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33821

I decided to do my own test. I am using Reason to mix, and Scope (XITE-1D) to Master, therefore using only 2 ASIO channels, with a single round trip (when recording Scope mastered signal back to Reason) or half a trip when just recording / mixing a track (pre mastering stage). System is an i7 4790 @ approx 3GHz & 16GB Ram.

From these test results, mixing 65 channels at 1ms @96KHz, there is very little noticable effect. I may have to start playback later than usual after a song load whilst reason loads its samplers, but after that its fine doing a complete mixdown with no dropouts.

I note I never would have achieved this kind of result using Rewire and Cubase - rewiring multiple channels and then multiple ASIO to Scope. Anything less than 23MHZ (at 48Khz) would have created dropoiuts on the same system even with AsioGuard.

So to me brings into question the latency overheads of using multiple audio pipes (ASIO / Rewire) as opposed to - a single round trip on just a single stereo pair !

of course.
every stream requires resources on all sides.

Yep - and one of those resources is Host CPU - hence latency. No latency from the XITE-1D at least in this application / test, and if you spin multiple I/O through it, I would guess the XITE wouldn't be the bottleneck anywhere near as much as the host plumbing (PCIe bus, ASIO etc).

Although the XITE would have some limits of its own, they tend to manifest at load time - not run time.

Once those DSP's are loaded, they're ready to hunt @ good hardware speed.

dante wrote:Having read the discussion about Protools + Scope latency here :

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33821

I decided to do my own test. I am using Reason to mix, and Scope (XITE-1D) to Master, therefore using only 2 ASIO channels, with a single round trip (when recording Scope mastered signal back to Reason) or half a trip when just recording / mixing a track (pre mastering stage). System is an i7 4790 @ approx 3GHz & 16GB Ram.

From these test results, mixing 65 channels at 1ms @96KHz, there is very little noticable effect. I may have to start playback later than usual after a song load whilst reason loads its samplers, but after that its fine doing a complete mixdown with no dropouts.

I note I never would have achieved this kind of result using Rewire and Cubase - rewiring multiple channels and then multiple ASIO to Scope. Anything less than 23MHZ (at 48Khz) would have created dropoiuts on the same system even with AsioGuard.

So to me brings into question the latency overheads of using multiple audio pipes (ASIO / Rewire) as opposed to - a single round trip on just a single stereo pair !

ScopeAndReasonPerformanceTest.jpg

i don't understand eveything but when i worked with cubase i have to adjust the latency of my system with this methode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCY3e7i4IDQ
but the problem is that i always have different value and i cannot adjust as fine as protools the latency delay in samples.
after if you don't find the right value you can make it manually:
put a vst drum player on a track1 at 110 tempo.
harm the track 2 and play a 16/4 chord with a guitard or a bass .(folk guitard play you see)
record with cubase monitoring without "asio direct monitoring".
go on the recording offset in samples of cubase and put the value as soon as you obtain the same result that you play when you hear the record you make.
4 mesure is enough.
because you have to remenber what you have playing when you hear the recording result.
anyways....
forget cubase...
-the equivalent of vst plugins (rtas) in protools work with free latency after fix the right value in the insert hw.
-the midi streaming is more stable in protools....
-the recording quality is far more than cubase (even with cheap converter)
-rewire compatible.
-this specification exist also in protools LE (test on maudio with protools express).

m.my91 wrote:

dante wrote:Having read the discussion about Protools + Scope latency here :

http://forums.planetz.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=33821

I decided to do my own test. I am using Reason to mix, and Scope (XITE-1D) to Master, therefore using only 2 ASIO channels, with a single round trip (when recording Scope mastered signal back to Reason) or half a trip when just recording / mixing a track (pre mastering stage). System is an i7 4790 @ approx 3GHz & 16GB Ram.

From these test results, mixing 65 channels at 1ms @96KHz, there is very little noticable effect. I may have to start playback later than usual after a song load whilst reason loads its samplers, but after that its fine doing a complete mixdown with no dropouts.

I note I never would have achieved this kind of result using Rewire and Cubase - rewiring multiple channels and then multiple ASIO to Scope. Anything less than 23MHZ (at 48Khz) would have created dropoiuts on the same system even with AsioGuard.

So to me brings into question the latency overheads of using multiple audio pipes (ASIO / Rewire) as opposed to - a single round trip on just a single stereo pair !

ScopeAndReasonPerformanceTest.jpg

i don't understand eveything but when i worked with cubase i have to adjust the latency of my system with this methode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCY3e7i4IDQ
but the problem is that i always have different value and i cannot adjust as fine as protools the latency delay in samples.
after if you don't find the right value you can make it manually:
put a vst drum player on a track1 at 110 tempo.
harm the track 2 and play a 16/4 chord with a guitard or a bass .(folk guitard play you see)
record with cubase monitoring without "asio direct monitoring".
go on the recording offset in samples of cubase and put the value as soon as you obtain the same result that you play when you hear the record you make.
4 mesure is enough.
because you have to remenber what you have playing when you hear the recording result.
anyways....
forget cubase...
-the equivalent of vst plugins (rtas) in protools work with free latency after fix the right value in the insert hw.
-the midi streaming is more stable in protools....
-the recording quality is far more than cubase (even with cheap converter)
-rewire compatible.
-this specification exist also in protools LE (test on maudio with protools express).

after fixing the latency problem i see that i use just few creamware plugins (vinco for comp before recording in protools.
my system is at 256 buffer at 96 khz 2.6 ms far awways from your 64 samples 1 ms .
but it works in perfect time ...
now i can forget latency when i play and having a free felling.(no need to make 10 record for having one good).

Thank goodness!

crazy...

never had that problem, ever...

If I had to do all that shit to my system I'd never get any music done. Maybe some people prefer fretting over 192kHz and 2sampkes of latency. I'm guessing most people just get on with it. I get latency with my guitar when I stand 10 feet from my guitar amp. Who gives a monkey's? I just set my ULLI once and leave it, I never slip any tracks.

wish i could keep time within 2.6ms. My drummer does it real ez, but of course eez not real.

My91 glad you found a way to improve your rig ! That's what it's all about.

Recording is also latency free 4 me at 2ms - as you can see on pic I have extra inputs from XITE to reason to record love guitars, vocals and ProWave.

Input mic signal can be mixed straight to XITE output as well as Reason so latency free monitoring

dante wrote:My91 glad you found a way to improve your rig ! That's what it's all about.

Recording is also latency free 4 me at 2ms - as you can see on pic I have extra inputs from XITE to reason to record love guitars, vocals and ProWave.

Input mic signal can be mixed straight to XITE output as well as Reason so latency free monitoring

thanks
protools hd and scope 5.0 work very well together.
especially when i insert a scope compressor (vinco) on protools track before recording all on an other track via a bus routing.
but before putting the 2.55 ms value in the (hw)insert delay of protools i cannot have a good groove in regards of the tempo.
(the result of the recording was not exactly the same as i play)...
putting 2.55 ms in the (hw)inert delay of protools resolve all my harware and software latency(mixer+protools+scope+da converter).
the all make 2.55 ms.
so running with 2.55 ms of latency "is not" a free latency environment.
the problem is that native executable doesn't offer a good tools for compensate latency....
scope doesn't have tools for compensate asio source and dest and is own plugins (dev).
protools is far more precise than any native or even dsp system (like uad).
the only system better than protools is the "CC1 XYNERGI FAIRLIGHT":
http://fairlightinstruments.com.au/cc1.pdf
26 samples of latency with 6 vst plugins insert on a same track!
this card had also latency compensate tools.
work with the XYNERGI control and all the audio exe : cubase,protools,logic....
it's perhaps possible to find one for 2000-3000 euros on ebay.
fairlight make a new card the crystal core cc2:
http://www.media-logic.de/produkte/fair ... -cc-2.aspx
a monster!

Crystal core boasts 230 channels @48 KHz on one card at a cost of approx 5k. That's just the processing power with no DAW. Looks to be my combo of XITE-1D plus Host is of similar cost but includes DAW running so far 80 channel mix @ 96 kHz.

I'm running up to 5 plugins on individual tracks, with some subgroups, and negligible latency.

Maybe a bit like comparing apples to oranges technologically, but still happy in terms of outcome !