|
What kind of performance boost can I expect with this upgrade? (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox
So wait, are you trying to argue that the quantize functions in DAWs have no purpose? Isn't this why they were made? |
What does that have to do with latency? The quantize function straightens the notes to a certain beat level, such as every note, every half note, every quarter note etc etc... And that happens when the user messes up. Has nothing to do with latency. Latency only effects the sound not the midi information.
Personally Ive never had to use it. |
|
|
| RichieV |
instead of discussing the benifits of low latency which you obviouslt don't see as pertinent, what are the benifits of high latency ?
You've already accepted that it has no effect on the CPU and you know from my account of telling you that most cards can handle 256-512 with no problem( no pops or clicks )
name one benifit |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
What does that have to do with latency? The quantize function straightens the notes to a certain beat level, such as every note, every half note, every quarter note etc etc... And that happens when the user messes up. Has nothing to do with latency. Latency only effects the sound not the midi information.
Personally Ive never had to use it. |
I don't record enough to have actually realized that.(that a gap is created between midi and sound information after pressing a key) Even though I use my midi keyboard to find note progressions I still always click them in with the mouse.
Ok, so no big deal. I'm sure theres pro's and cons to both sides of this debate, but I still would veer to say that most people prefer the lowest latency they can get.
And I'm still not 100% sure what you're saying though about sound quality and latency.
If I have a low latency, sure my sound quality can go to in real time. But when I render the track its not affecting anything and is still rendered at the same quality a high latency setting would (speaking in terms of softsynths)
So you're saying a higher latency is better when someones experiencing underuns?
Because thats common knowledge and I don't see what this actual debate is about.
Are you saying AFTER the underun/click/pop point, that theres still an improvement in sound quality?
Like if I'm getting underuns hitting 85% cpu at x latency setting, then I increase my latency and underuns stop, and CPU may drop a few percent, are you saying a further increase after the underun point is gonna make the sound quality better?
Because I've never noticed anything like that in my life.
I'm not trying to argue as much as I'm trying to understand specifically what you're actual arguement is and what you're refering to. |
|
|
| RichieV |
i hope this doesn't make cronodir too angry but i use a latency of 128 or 256 at 96 khz.
the biggest benifit of all, after all the ones already mentioned is that i am one impatient SOB. When i hit play, i want it to play right now. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
i hope this doesn't make cronodir too angry but i use a latency of 128 |
I never understood how people stick to a certain number.
I always start my tracks as low as I can go. Then I'll add a synth, underuns start and I adjust it again.
Add another synth, adjust it again.
So I'm changing my latency all the way up till I'm done with the track.
Thats prob also cause I have a ty pentium D and HAVE to do that.
When my core comes if I can add synths w/out needing to compensate literally every instance I add, that would be cool. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| never had a need to increase it. I use the lowest stable setting and that happens to be 128. I do change it when mixing to 256 because i mix at a higher sample rate. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
never had a need to increase it. I use the lowest stable setting and that happens to be 128. I do change it when mixing to 256 because i mix at a higher sample rate. |
Thats crazy, a lot of times my latency needs to be so high I'll scrap the track because I can't work with the delay anymore.
I also don't bounce because I depend too much on automating parameters within the vst that I lose control over if I render it to wav. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| i have lynx sound cards.I also use parallel processing so nothing ever gets too overloaded. I use a mac for synths and sampler and mix on a pc. Everything is sent via Adat. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Higher latency lowers the chance of popping, regardless of sound card. Course on new cards it may not matter. But for me there is no benefit of going low so I just max it and forget about it.
I can go down to 512 samples without pops....but why? Its like palcing my drink on the right of my plate instead of the left...either way, there is no benefit, 512 or 2048. Same thing. |
|
|
| RichieV |
for me there is a benefit to use lower latency and there is absolutely no benefit to using a high latency. As i mentioned, i use 128 with no pops or clicks. Why would i use 2048. I have absolutely nothing to gain.
Your situation might be different but to assume everyone has your workflow is ridiculous. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
I can go down to 512 samples without pops....but why? Its like palcing my drink on the right of my plate instead of the left...either way, there is no benefit, 512 or 2048. Same thing. |
No, dumbass, with lower latencies your MIDI keyboard for once is more responsive, you dont have to wait 40 millisecond each time you press a note to hear the sound.
Hence there is a difference. |
|
|
| RichieV |
he already mentioned how he uses the onboard sounds of his keyboard.
this is rediculous. You guys just keep going in circles. |
|
|
|
|
