• Registered: 2010-01-07
  • Posts: 54

Topic: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

Hello,

I usually work with UC in ASIO 256 sample buffer.

Today I had to record live and tried setting sample buffer to 64.

There were no stability problems but REAPER (3.672) took more time to start playback and record at 64 samples than at 256 - talk about something like 0.5 seconds more, no biggie but a bit annoying.

Can it be that at lower latency the driver takes a little more time to respond because it needs time to estabilish a steady connection through USB?

The driver panel reports no USB errors.

- Mario

i7700k@4.2GHz/16GB RAM/RME FFUC/1.25TB SSD/4TB HD/Win10x64
http://www.reverbnation.com/errepici

2 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,599

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

No. Driver and firmware version?

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2010-01-07
  • Posts: 54

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

Sorry, forgot to mention the most important details for you:

Firmware 111, driver 0.938.

Windows XP SP3.

- Mario

i7700k@4.2GHz/16GB RAM/RME FFUC/1.25TB SSD/4TB HD/Win10x64
http://www.reverbnation.com/errepici

4 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,599

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

Try the Babyface driver 0.954.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2010-01-07
  • Posts: 54

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

Will do, thank you for answering on sunday smile

Should I expect some limitations or is the Babyface driver fully compatible with UC?

- Mario

i7700k@4.2GHz/16GB RAM/RME FFUC/1.25TB SSD/4TB HD/Win10x64
http://www.reverbnation.com/errepici
  • Registered: 2010-04-01
  • Posts: 65

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

mabian wrote:

Will do, thank you for answering on sunday smile

Should I expect some limitations or is the Babyface driver fully compatible with UC?

- Mario

+2

7 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,599

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

It's the next generation UC (!) driver with TotalMix FX.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2010-01-07
  • Posts: 54

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

Ok, tried with 0.954 driver (Totalmix FX is totally awesome btw, I found a little bug but will post in the proper thread).

Same behaviour: 48 and 64 samples take a bit more time to make playback start compared to 128 or 256 samples.

Tried updating REAPER to the latest 3.68 but it's still the same.

Thanks,
   Mario

i7700k@4.2GHz/16GB RAM/RME FFUC/1.25TB SSD/4TB HD/Win10x64
http://www.reverbnation.com/errepici

9 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 25,599

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

I don't see this with other programs, but we will check that later.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2010-01-07
  • Posts: 54

Re: Lower latency = more time needed to start playback in sequencer?

Can you see the problem in REAPER?

- Mario

i7700k@4.2GHz/16GB RAM/RME FFUC/1.25TB SSD/4TB HD/Win10x64
http://www.reverbnation.com/errepici