• Registered: 2022-11-20
  • Posts: 2

Topic: Latency with interface vs internal cards?

Hi folks,

I've upgraded my music PC recently and my (very) old HDSP card doesn't work with a modern motherboard.

I've had an interim fix but I want to get a proper long-term solution. My question is, do internal cards have inherently better latency performance compared to an interface?

I only do amateur home recording and a Babyface would work nicely for my needs, but I want the lowest latency possible when recording, particularly if I have a number of VIs in use at the time.

My old HPSP9632 was great so am just looking for something that's going to be as solid as that. Any ideas please? Will an internal card always be better or would a Babyface (or similar) interface be just as good for latency?

cheers!

2 Reply by ramses (edited by ramses 2022-11-27 11:48:27)

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,263

Re: Latency with interface vs internal cards?

USB and PCI/PCIe are on par due to interface design (FPGA doing USB I/O, not by 3rd party chip) and RME's excellent drivers.
You might have a little advantage by using devices supported by the MADIface driver, because there you can set 32 samples ASIO buffersize (instead of 48 samples with the "old" USB ASIO driver). But this is not a big difference.

In the blog article about the UFX+ I posted a picture of RTL (round trip latencies) of different RME solution that I was using.
You will notice, no big difference:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/attachme … es-v2-jpg/

I would focus more on other things
- the format of the interface
- only Babyface Pro FS supports to be powered by USB (PSU is an option)
- amount and type of I/O ports
- special features of the device like e.g.: DURec, Autoset
- amount of ADAT ports, if you need double speed (88.2/96 kHz) then you need 2x ADAT I/O for adding an external 8-Port preamp or AD/DA converter
- whether you want preamps with up to 75 dB gain range, then you need an UCX II, UFX II or an UFX+ (-successor)
- whether you need other digital ports like AES, MIDI, MADI
- whether you want a display for stand-alone operation (UCX II, UFX II, UFX+ (-successor)
- recallable config profiles for stand-alone operation (UCX II, UFX II, UFX+ (-successor)

Do not buy too small, having a little port reserve might be useful for you in the future.

For an easier comparison of available USB-/FW-based interfaces, you can use the following Excel sheet from my blog:
https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/Ent … B-MADIfac/
Direct Link to Excel: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/attachme … 9-19-xlsx/

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14
  • Muffin
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2021-12-26
  • Posts: 213

Re: Latency with interface vs internal cards?

@ramses You missed mentioning that even the UCX II has a 75 dB gain range. It's a great little device.

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,263

Re: Latency with interface vs internal cards?

+1 forgot to type, added, thanks :-)

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14
  • Registered: 2021-08-21
  • Posts: 4

Re: Latency with interface vs internal cards?

ramses wrote:

USB and PCI/PCIe are on par due to interface design (FPGA doing USB I/O, not by 3rd party chip) and RME's excellent drivers.
]

Just to say (a very belated) thank you for your detailed reply Ramses. I'm back to using my original account now rather than the temporary one that made the original post. This is really, really useful help though. Thanks very much!

  • ramses
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • From: UTC+1
  • Registered: 2012-10-14
  • Posts: 13,263

Re: Latency with interface vs internal cards?

You're welcome adriano smile

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub14