Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Speaking of Firewire.. I need help
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Speaking of Firewire.. I need help [message #80118 is a reply to message #80108] |
Thu, 15 February 2007 12:20   |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Brandon,
All computer based recording systems will introduce some kind of latency.
PCI based systems may have an edge on Firewire based systems, but far more
latency is introduced during the AD/DA process, and during any heavy
processing of the signal. FWIW, I use a MOTU 828MkII Firewire interface on
a dual 2GHz Mac G5, and using the built-in Firewire interface, record all
the time with the buffers set at 128 or 256. I regularly record 10 tracks
simultaneously and at 128 I can't really detect any latency. Even at 256, I
can barely detect the latency, and what is there is low enough it doesn't
seem to affect my performance. I know there are some "golden ears" out there
who will have problems with even this low level of latency. How low you can
set the buffers is dependent a lot on your computers processor speed. As
LaMont will testify, the Mac G5 is a slow, piece of crap computer, and yet I
seem to get reasonable performance from mine. I would think any newer PC,
with a good Firewire interface and a fast processor should be able to easily
run at low buffer settings. If you're a Mac person, the new Intel boxes
should be burners. My two cents.
Tony
"Brandon" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:45d4a615@linux...
> Well now...
> What kind of problems can I expect If I am using an external firewire
> audio card for
> all my audio needs?
> Other than latency?
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Brandon
>
> "Mike Audet" <mike@mike....> wrote in message news:45d4a527$1@linux...
>>
>> Yea, it's not the length of the firewire cable that introduces the
>> latency,
>> it's using firewire at all that adds it.
>>
>> It just wasn't designed for audio recording.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>There would be no noticeable latency introduced by the Firewire cable.
>>>The
>>
>>>electrical signal travels at close to the speed of light! Any audio
>>>latency
>>
>>>would come from the processing before or after the Firewire. There may be
>> a
>>>limit on reliable signal cable length, but that would have to do with the
>>
>>>increasing cable capacitance.
>>>
>>>Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45d2161c$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> David (or anyone) what's the latency per foot for Firewire
>>>> cable... anyone know?
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> EK Sound <askme@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>Solution #1 will provide the lowest latency. You will also find that
>>>>>monitoring from a different interface than the one you are recording
>>>>>through will create some problems, if it works at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>David.
>>>>>
>>>>>Brandon wrote:
>>>>>> Given the opportunity which signal chain would you prefer and why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> source------------mic pre/ analog to digi converter -------------ADAT
>>>>
>>>>>> lightpipe--------------------PCI sound card--------monitor outs from
>> PCI
>>>>
>>>>>> sound card
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> source------------mic pre/ analog to digi converter
>>>>>> -------------Firewire--------------------(i dont know where the
>>>>>> signal
>>>>
>>>>>> goes after this????)-----------monitor outs from PCI sound card
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Speaking of Firewire.. I need help [message #80119 is a reply to message #80118] |
Thu, 15 February 2007 12:29 |
brandon[2]
Messages: 380
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well it look s like my built in firewire chipset is realtek.
Motu recommends Texas instruments for least problems.
So I will pick up a PCI expansion card for a firewire port that has a ti
chipset.
So the lower the buffer the less latency you will have?
--
Thanks,
Brandon
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:45d4c0d2@linux...
> Brandon,
>
> All computer based recording systems will introduce some kind of latency.
> PCI based systems may have an edge on Firewire based systems, but far more
> latency is introduced during the AD/DA process, and during any heavy
> processing of the signal. FWIW, I use a MOTU 828MkII Firewire interface
> on a dual 2GHz Mac G5, and using the built-in Firewire interface, record
> all the time with the buffers set at 128 or 256. I regularly record 10
> tracks simultaneously and at 128 I can't really detect any latency. Even
> at 256, I can barely detect the latency, and what is there is low enough
> it doesn't seem to affect my performance. I know there are some "golden
> ears" out there who will have problems with even this low level of
> latency. How low you can set the buffers is dependent a lot on your
> computers processor speed. As LaMont will testify, the Mac G5 is a slow,
> piece of crap computer, and yet I seem to get reasonable performance from
> mine. I would think any newer PC, with a good Firewire interface and a
> fast processor should be able to easily run at low buffer settings. If
> you're a Mac person, the new Intel boxes should be burners. My two cents.
>
> Tony
>
>
> "Brandon" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:45d4a615@linux...
>> Well now...
>> What kind of problems can I expect If I am using an external firewire
>> audio card for
>> all my audio needs?
>> Other than latency?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brandon
>>
>> "Mike Audet" <mike@mike....> wrote in message news:45d4a527$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Yea, it's not the length of the firewire cable that introduces the
>>> latency,
>>> it's using firewire at all that adds it.
>>>
>>> It just wasn't designed for audio recording.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>>There would be no noticeable latency introduced by the Firewire cable.
>>>>The
>>>
>>>>electrical signal travels at close to the speed of light! Any audio
>>>>latency
>>>
>>>>would come from the processing before or after the Firewire. There may
>>>>be
>>> a
>>>>limit on reliable signal cable length, but that would have to do with
>>>>the
>>>
>>>>increasing cable capacitance.
>>>>
>>>>Tony
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45d2161c$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> David (or anyone) what's the latency per foot for Firewire
>>>>> cable... anyone know?
>>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> EK Sound <askme@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Solution #1 will provide the lowest latency. You will also find that
>>>>>>monitoring from a different interface than the one you are recording
>>>>>>through will create some problems, if it works at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brandon wrote:
>>>>>>> Given the opportunity which signal chain would you prefer and why?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> source------------mic pre/ analog to digi
>>>>>>> converter -------------ADAT
>>>>>
>>>>>>> lightpipe--------------------PCI sound card--------monitor outs from
>>> PCI
>>>>>
>>>>>>> sound card
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> source------------mic pre/ analog to digi converter
>>>>>>> -------------Firewire--------------------(i dont know where the
>>>>>>> signal
>>>>>
>>>>>>> goes after this????)-----------monitor outs from PCI sound card
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Speaking of Firewire.. I need help [message #80126 is a reply to message #80119] |
Thu, 15 February 2007 14:21 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yes, lower buffer equals lower latency, but higher processor load.
Basically, it's best to record using the lowest buffer setting you can,
without your computer choking. Then, when everything's recorded, set the
buffer higher, and you'll have more processor overhead available for
plug-ins, more playback tracks, VSTi's, etc. during mixing. The only thing
the higher buffer does on playback is maybe add a few hundred milliseconds
to the responsiveness of starting and stopping. So when you hit "play" you
have to wait a whole 1/3 of a second before sound starts coming out. Not a
big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Tony
"Brandon" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:45d4c30e$1@linux...
> Well it look s like my built in firewire chipset is realtek.
> Motu recommends Texas instruments for least problems.
> So I will pick up a PCI expansion card for a firewire port that has a ti
> chipset.
>
> So the lower the buffer the less latency you will have?
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Brandon
>
>
> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
> news:45d4c0d2@linux...
>> Brandon,
>>
>> All computer based recording systems will introduce some kind of latency.
>> PCI based systems may have an edge on Firewire based systems, but far
>> more latency is introduced during the AD/DA process, and during any heavy
>> processing of the signal. FWIW, I use a MOTU 828MkII Firewire interface
>> on a dual 2GHz Mac G5, and using the built-in Firewire interface, record
>> all the time with the buffers set at 128 or 256. I regularly record 10
>> tracks simultaneously and at 128 I can't really detect any latency. Even
>> at 256, I can barely detect the latency, and what is there is low enough
>> it doesn't seem to affect my performance. I know there are some "golden
>> ears" out there who will have problems with even this low level of
>> latency. How low you can set the buffers is dependent a lot on your
>> computers processor speed. As LaMont will testify, the Mac G5 is a slow,
>> piece of crap computer, and yet I seem to get reasonable performance from
>> mine. I would think any newer PC, with a good Firewire interface and a
>> fast processor should be able to easily run at low buffer settings. If
>> you're a Mac person, the new Intel boxes should be burners. My two cents.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> "Brandon" <a@a.com> wrote in message news:45d4a615@linux...
>>> Well now...
>>> What kind of problems can I expect If I am using an external firewire
>>> audio card for
>>> all my audio needs?
>>> Other than latency?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Brandon
>>>
>>> "Mike Audet" <mike@mike....> wrote in message news:45d4a527$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> Yea, it's not the length of the firewire cable that introduces the
>>>> latency,
>>>> it's using firewire at all that adds it.
>>>>
>>>> It just wasn't designed for audio recording.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote:
>>>>>There would be no noticeable latency introduced by the Firewire cable.
>>>>>The
>>>>
>>>>>electrical signal travels at close to the speed of light! Any audio
>>>>>latency
>>>>
>>>>>would come from the processing before or after the Firewire. There may
>>>>>be
>>>> a
>>>>>limit on reliable signal cable length, but that would have to do with
>>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>>increasing cable capacitance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:45d2161c$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David (or anyone) what's the latency per foot for Firewire
>>>>>> cable... anyone know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EK Sound <askme@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Solution #1 will provide the lowest latency. You will also find that
>>>>>>>monitoring from a different interface than the one you are recording
>>>>>>>through will create some problems, if it works at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Brandon wrote:
>>>>>>>> Given the opportunity which signal chain would you prefer and why?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> source------------mic pre/ analog to digi
>>>>>>>> converter -------------ADAT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lightpipe--------------------PCI sound card--------monitor outs
>>>>>>>> from
>>>> PCI
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sound card
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> source------------mic pre/ analog to digi converter
>>>>>>>> -------------Firewire--------------------(i dont know where the
>>>>>>>> signal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> goes after this????)-----------monitor outs from PCI sound card
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Dec 28 01:29:08 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03680 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
