1 Topic by russwsoper (edited by russwsoper 2011-02-20 00:33:24)

  • Registered: 2010-09-02
  • Posts: 26

Topic: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Hi,
I'm encountering slight pops / clicks when running my new fireface UFX at buffers below 512.

At 512, Sonar X1 PE 64bit reports  roundtrip latency of 12.6 msec, 1209 samples.  I've read on this forum of people getting roundtrip latency of 6msec - however am not sure if that's a measurement from within the DAW software or a loopback test. Is this performance to be expected, or do you feel I have unacceptable latency introduced somewhere in my system?

I've tried the obvious audio performance tweaks (latest drivers / firmware on everything, disabled firewall, onboard LAN, no virus protection, configured Win7 64 bit performance for 'background tasks', ensured disks are defragged, etc.).

I'm running the UFX via Firewire on a Dell T7400 w/ dual Quadcore Xeon 3.2 Ghz CPUs, 8 Gig RAM & 3 separate hard drives (1 for DAW, 1 for audio samples &  1 for project data).  For software, I'm running Win 7 64 bit & Sonar X1a PE 64 bit.

Thanks!
Russ

2 Reply by MC

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

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2010-09-02
  • Posts: 26

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Matthias - thanks for the quick reply and for sending the latency tool along - that's very helpful!  Using the tool, I see latency is fine when playing back songs until I enable plugins on my UAD-1 PCI card - then latency becomes significant on the tool.

Question - is this to be expected, given the signal needs to route through the UAD-1 PCI card & this latency would / should be handled properly by the plugin delay compensation within Sonar?  I'm using the latest drivers for the UAD-1 PCI card.

Thanks for your help.
Russ

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,779

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Yes to be expected. So, as a rule, I only use my beloved UAD1 only during mixing, not tracking/composing.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • Registered: 2011-04-03
  • Posts: 8

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

I'm having latency problems for the first time ever after buying a UFX. Its very frustrating. Never was an issue with my ancient
Digi 002 rack. Now, having taken the plunge and spent a lot of money, i'm in a world of latency problems.
I have tried various different settings on PT9, any H/W buffer size below 512 results in pops, cracks and a warning to increase H/W buffer size. I tried turning delay compensation on and off, no difference. I think i have tried everything.
Is there any way around this problem? Recording without monitoring is not an option, nor should it be with a £1500 interface.
Please help, i feel i have taken a step back, not forward.
best, steve

  • Jeff
  • Jeff
  • Moderator
  • Offline
  • From: USA
  • Registered: 2007-05-21
  • Posts: 4,667

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Hi Steve,

Sorry to hear about the trouble. In order to help, we will need more details about the system, of course. Computer, OS, peripherals, etc. Have you updated PT9 with the latest patch? Have you updated your UFX driver and firmware to the latest from the website?

Regards,
Jeff Petersen
Synthax Inc.

Jeff's Website

  • Registered: 2011-04-03
  • Posts: 8

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Hi Jeff, i have an Intel Mac Pro. 4 GB of RAM. Using the UFX with Firewire. Have not tried it with MIDI yet but the latency is pretty
bad with the analogue inputs.
Its ok if your on track one of a session with no plug-ins, but if i go back to some older and busier sessions i recorded with the 002,
its very bad.
I have updated PT with the lastest software from the AVID site and i did the same with the UFX. However a friend of mine
just noticed that a new update came out on the 1st of April which is probably the day after i went to the site! So, i'm going to
get this right now.
If you need anymore info, just let me know.
Thanks for getting back.
steve

  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Did the 002 run on the same Mac Pro? What CPU is running in that Mac?

9 Reply by stevemason (edited by stevemason 2011-04-04 17:12:17)

  • Registered: 2011-04-03
  • Posts: 8

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Timur,
yes its the same Mac i used with the 002. Only difference is i upgraded the RAM from 2 GB to 4 GB.
I am not sure the CPU, how do i find that out? Its one of the first MAC PRO's.
I installed the up to date driver from RME last night, but it has made no difference.

thanks,
steve

  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

You can find out about the CPU via "About my Mac", but if you already used the 002 successfully it should work. Does the 002 work better than the UFX with your *current* PT version on that Mac?

What round-trip latencies (preferably measured) do you get with the 002?

  • Registered: 2011-04-03
  • Posts: 8

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

I have not tried the 002 with PT 9. I got the UFX and PT 9 at the same time and installed together.
I'm afraid i dont know about the 002 latency, but with PT 8 and the 002 the latency was inaudible to me.
Do you think i should try the 002 with PT9 and see if that has developed a latency thing? Narrowing it down to
PT9 or the UFX.
Should removing as many plug ins as possible in the session reduce the latency?
thanks, steve

  • Registered: 2011-05-30
  • Posts: 6

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

I stevemason, I've the same problem with pro Tools 9 e RME Fireface UFX.. All PT versions updated, all RME driver/firmware updated but beneath the 256 samples a 20ch session with some (neither full!!) plugins doesn't work!

What's the problem?
I need Help, I'm trying a Fireface UFX befor buying it.
I hoped this interface with protools 9 would allowed me to increase channel rec input from 18 to 30 or to increase to 96khz from 8ch to 15 channel.

My computer is a powermac dual 3.05 GHZ with 4gb ram. I run session on a Lacie Rugged 500gb 7200rpm FW800 Hard Disc....
But the question is: why with the same machine does the same session work @32 sample of buffer with DIGI002 without any kind of problem and with RME FIREFACE UFX does not?

Is there any trick to do that could resolve this BIG (because it is a VERY BIG problem)? Or is it a limit we have to face?

Thanks.
Pacofonk.

  • Registered: 2011-05-30
  • Posts: 6

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

The previous question, obviously, was for RME master administrator.
Am I in the right place for this question, or have I to send a specific request of support to RME support team?

Thanks.

Pacofonk

  • Knut
  • Knut
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 1,618

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

But the question is: why with the same machine does the same session work @32 sample of buffer with DIGI002 without any kind of problem and with RME FIREFACE UFX does not?

We' ve dicussed this here before. The 002 uses a big hidden safety buffer. In the end 32 and 32 are not the same. The safety buffer in the UFX is very small. You can measure the roundtrip latency (signal out - record in = latency in ms) on both interfaces to compare the real latency.

A buffer of true 256 samples seems not to big for a Power Mac (a 5 year old model?).

best regards
Knut

  • Registered: 2011-05-30
  • Posts: 6

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Hi Knut
Are you telling me that Diggi002 32 sample buffer setting is equal to RME Fireface UFX 256 samples?

So if  I set UFX @ 256 I won't hear any difference with the 32 samples of the DIGI002?

  • isaac
  • isaac
  • S/Mux specialist
  • Offline
  • From: Auckland New Zealand
  • Registered: 2007-05-01
  • Posts: 339

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

pacofonk wrote:

Hi Knut
Are you telling me that Diggi002 32 sample buffer setting is equal to RME Fireface UFX 256 samples?

So if  I set UFX @ 256 I won't hear any difference with the 32 samples of the DIGI002?

If you have both units in front of you I would do a round trip latency test. From analogue out to analogue in. Short test tones make it easy to see the shift. From here you can work out the actual latency of each device.

Isaac P.

17 Reply by pacofonk (edited by pacofonk 2011-05-31 10:25:13)

  • Registered: 2011-05-30
  • Posts: 6

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Hi Issac

I will try just now, but while I'm nearing the gear for the test I doubt... Didn't the software compensate the latency gap between Out and In if the same software is producing and recording the signal? Ex: Pro Tools 9, signal generator, fireface out 3 , new track input 1 , trs-trs for linking channel Out 3 with channel In 1.

Right?

Than the same round trip with digi 002, right?

MY DOUBT:
Wouldn't be a automatic compensation of the software after record pass? ... I'm gonna try...

I specific thah my problem is with input source for monitoring an Instrument track played by a musician.
..Obviously..

  • Registered: 2011-05-30
  • Posts: 6

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

How I though,
All recorded new audio tracks set perfectly alligned with the source track, at whatever applied buffer setting...

So I simply have made a listening to the shift comparing the shift of the two's with an electronic drum, playing a snare drum sound on it's trigger.

I've effectively found a difference between the two units using the same buffer. At the end the 32 samples of digi002 seemed to comparable with the 128 samples of RME Fireface UFX.

I'm very happy now, I haven't yet compared the sound quality  (converters and pre) but I don't think that RME can fail on this, no?
I've already downloaded and installed the new alpha usb direct recording drivers and I'm gonna try it as the next step.. If it woudl correctly work I think RME has produced a BOMB!

Just ONE question...

At the moment with a 8 track session with few plug ins I can easly work (playback and record) with a buffer of 128 samples, no less.
If I open a 32 tracks session I've to increase the settings up to 256 samples if I would record..
Does anyone know if the buffer latency depend by the CPU power?
If I could Use a new power mac quad i7 full of ram, do I record a 30 tracks session full of plug ins and instruments with a lower latency settings or I will found the same latency problem and set it still at 256?

Thank you so mutch for the precious help!

  • Registered: 2010-07-31
  • Posts: 123

Re: Fireface UFX - Expected buffer settings and associated latency

Latency and CPU power are related in that latency allows the CPU to catch up within the latency time, and needs to be set to just longer than the worst case time for the CPU to catch up in your current configuration and song complexity.

If the CPU has too much to do, it may never catch up, which is when a hardware upgrade is required.

On music hiatus, so RMEs have gone to homes where others can enjoy them.