Topic: 4096 latency
hello all, i was wondering if there's a reason why there's no 4096 latency on the babyface pro, and curious if it would be such a bummer to implement it and why.
Check the TotalMix forum!
Pages 1
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RoomEQ now available for Fireface 802 FS and HDSPe MADI FX!
4096 latency
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → 4096 latency
Posts: 10
1 2019-11-29 05:26:49 (edited by iliasboufidis 2019-11-29 05:27:20)
Re: 4096 latency
If you raise the ASIO buffersize, then the Round Trip Latency (RTL) between recording interface and pc increases.
People usually want to have the opposite, low latency.
A buffer of 2048 is fair enough for sample rates of 44.1/48 kHz.
Increase the sample rate to double or quad speed (96 / 192 kHz) and you will see that the ASIO buffer size doubles as well.
In which cases do you feel limited, the reason why you ask ?
BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
Re: 4096 latency
ramses wrote:
If you raise the ASIO buffersize, then the Round Trip Latency (RTL) between recording interface and pc increases.
People usually want to have the opposite, low latency.
A buffer of 2048 is fair enough for sample rates of 44.1/48 kHz.
Increase the sample rate to double or quad speed (96 / 192 kHz) and you will see that the ASIO buffer size doubles as well.In which cases do you feel limited, the reason why you ask ?
i use my babyface as D/A for mastering purposes until i manage to get some money for the flagship. so it would be helpful to me to give it more processing space.
mind you when i mix it's with mixbus 32c which draws a lot, and that's the first time i felt babyface 2048 wasn't enough. of course when i record it's another issue, but that's not what i was on about.
Re: 4096 latency
When performing mastering, then you (should) do this in a separate DAW project, where you have the rendered wave file from the mixing stage.
Where you see any limitation to playback a stereo file with an ASIO buffersize of 2048 samples ?
Even if you perform this task not in the "cleanest way", more "quick and dirty" using the final mix
with all of its VST and potentially VSTi still active ...
If you could record with it then you can also master / playback this way using the same ASIO buffersize.
Got my point ?
If not please explain more in detail, how you are mastering and in which situation you had an issue with ASIO buffersize.
Maybe also some details about the project, what/how many tracks/VST/VSTi and infos about your PC.
BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
Re: 4096 latency
ramses wrote:
When performing mastering, then you (should) do this in a separate DAW project, where you have the rendered wave file from the mixing stage.
Where you see any limitation to playback a stereo file with an ASIO buffersize of 2048 samples ?
Even if you perform this task not in the "cleanest way", more "quick and dirty" using the final mix
with all of its VST and potentially VSTi still active ...If you could record with it then you can also master / playback this way using the same ASIO buffersize.
Got my point ?If not please explain more in detail, how you are mastering and in which situation you had an issue with ASIO buffersize.
Maybe also some details about the project, what/how many tracks/VST/VSTi and infos about your PC.
of course i get your point, i just want more leeway in general and i was wondering if it can be implemented somehow. in general i want to be very comfortable oversampling etc
Re: 4096 latency
There is a big performance increase going from 32 all the way up to 512 buffers, but beyond that ???? IMHO you would not gain anything going from 2048 to 4096. Lower buffers are harder on the cpu because of more interrupt requests., but this diminishes fast with rising buffers.
Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
Re: 4096 latency
vinark wrote:
There is a big performance increase going from 32 all the way up to 512 buffers, but beyond that ???? IMHO you would not gain anything going from 2048 to 4096. Lower buffers are harder on the cpu because of more interrupt requests., but this diminishes fast with rising buffers.
thank you for your answer, in my experience i have gained a lot from 2048 to 4096 in how much i can push stuff regarding my cpus and processes, so i 'll have to insist that i want it.
8 2019-11-29 14:49:33 (edited by ramses 2019-11-29 14:52:33)
Re: 4096 latency
If you wish this very much, then I would provide more information in your place, so that everyone can clearly see what the benefit of such a change is.
But this also means that you have to describe your setup clearly, gather the corresponding times and set it up in such a way that everyone can easily understand and repeat it. It would be practical to use a DAW that anyone can easily install without much effort, e.g. Reaper.
It could also be the case that you simply overlooked something and that you only think there are benefits.
This description and the gathered values would also help you, to validate your own statement.
At the moment it looks more, that everybody is fine with the current buffersizes and RME certainly also did own measurements, how to size ASIO buffers for the different sample rates.
From what I read in other forums too large buffers can also create issues.
Once RME implements this, its out of their control how user are using these ASIO buffers.
So maybe there is a reason to implement them this way as they are.
BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
Re: 4096 latency
iliasboufidis wrote:
vinark wrote:There is a big performance increase going from 32 all the way up to 512 buffers, but beyond that ???? IMHO you would not gain anything going from 2048 to 4096. Lower buffers are harder on the cpu because of more interrupt requests., but this diminishes fast with rising buffers.
thank you for your answer, in my experience i have gained a lot from 2048 to 4096 in how much i can push stuff regarding my cpus and processes, so i 'll have to insist that i want it.
Was that with a different brand going from 2048 to 4096? If yes that explains it. I have had simmilar experiences with other brands. But not with RME. Their drivers are much better then others. How much increase do you get going from 1024 to 2048?
Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
10 2019-11-29 17:38:08 (edited by ramses 2019-11-30 09:25:57)
Re: 4096 latency
iliasboufidis wrote:
ramses wrote:When performing mastering, then you (should) do this in a separate DAW project, where you have the rendered wave file from the mixing stage.
Where you see any limitation to playback a stereo file with an ASIO buffersize of 2048 samples ?
Even if you perform this task not in the "cleanest way", more "quick and dirty" using the final mix
with all of its VST and potentially VSTi still active ...If you could record with it then you can also master / playback this way using the same ASIO buffersize.
Got my point ?If not please explain more in detail, how you are mastering and in which situation you had an issue with ASIO buffersize.
Maybe also some details about the project, what/how many tracks/VST/VSTi and infos about your PC.Of course i get your point, i just want more leeway in general and i was wondering if it can be implemented somehow. in general i want to be very comfortable oversampling etc
As Vinark already mentioned, I see no demand for bigger ASIO buffersizes.
In terms of RTL the RME drivers are also excellent:
BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13
Posts: 10
RME User Forum → FireWire & USB series → 4096 latency
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.