Hardware Monitoring vs Software Monitoring

themdla

themdla

New member
so i've been recording for a few years and have occasionally had problems with latency on different systems and different DAW software packages.

i've noticed that my performace suffers the higher the latecy and have often done everything inside the box (amplitube, ezdrummer, DI bass, effects, etc...)

i recently read about Hardware monitoring as a possible solution to no or very low latency monitoring.

my questions are:

on a system that reports 10ms of latency (combined in and out) via software monitoring... (on cubase)

how much could this latency really affect my recordings?
(as in will i see a benefit from hardware monitoring)

How do you monitor? (hardware or software and how do you have it setup)


thx in advance!!!!!!!!:D
 
10ms Is like standing an extra 10 feet from your speaker.

It also depends on the instrument. Most DAW auto time correct by adjusting the playing signal to play ealier by whatever the round trip latency is.

Where and how bad you get bit depends on what instrument you play, Some instrument require lower latency for things not to feel akward. Drums and super tight lead will feel odd at somewhere greater that 10-13ms. If it get up to about 20-30ms then your average musican will be able to tell.

The worst offenders are VSTi and Amp simulators. Unfortunately you can't hardware monitor these. For this reason 90% of my tracking's sound is done out side my box.

Racherik
 
ok so how are you monitoring the live instument during your tracking?

thru the software?

ala: guitaramp>mic>preamp>(a/d)>software>(d/a)>monitors

or hardware?

guitaramp>mic>mixer>monitors (with playback of other tracks thru the mixer to the monitors)
 
I monitor the live instrument through my hardware...some (most) support zero latency monitoring. I use logic and there is a mode that you can use called low latency mode, which deactivates cpu-heavy plugins. Maybe there is something like that?

Tyler
 
when you say "the live insturment through my hardware" do you mean...

you monitor through logic? as in "software monitoring"?

ala: live instument>mic>interface in>logic>interface out>monitors?
 
I use a Phonic Helix 18 Universal.

99% I set the interface to record prefader/prestrip so that the raw signal goes straight from the mic preamp straight to the A/D firewire interface chip. I like to keep my recording signal chain short as possible. I find that this keeps noise super low. I then route a feed through the main bus and/or an aux bus and then send/mix that to the PA for monitoring. The downside is things can't be done this way you use VSTi or Amp Sims.

I don't know if this is important but I usually record at 24bits/88.2khz So that resampling to CD rate is a simple math operation. This gives me plenty of headroom.

My chain is Motif Keyboard > mixer board split to PA and Computer
or
Guitar > Pod X3 Live > Mixerboard split to PA and Computer

Racherik
 
themdla said:
when you say "the live insturment through my hardware" do you mean...

you monitor through logic? as in "software monitoring"?

ala: live instument>mic>interface in>logic>interface out>monitors?
Click to expand...

Here are the various ways of doing it, from worst to best (in my view):

Software monitoring. The slowest path from your instrument to your ears. It goes through the A/D converter, hard disk/CPU/software, and back out the D/A converter.

Digital hardware monitoring. It goes through converters, but skips the trip to the computer itself. This is pretty fast and can qualify as near-zero-latency. Many interfaces work like this, including Digidesign's 001/002/003 units.

Analog hardware monitoring. This skips the converters entirely, passing back to the monitoring output by an entirely analog path with simple mixing ability. This is true zero-latency monitoring. It seems some of the Pro Tools "M-Powered" interfaces do this.

Outboard analog mixer. Using a mixer you can get zero-latency monitoring and produce multiple monitor mixes of multiple inputs. This is my preferred method.
 
Currently i'm using a digi 002r and the lack of ADC kills me.

The moment i started using cubase i could tell a big difference in the sound.

what i'm mainly concerned with is the amount of latency of a playback source (drum tracks in DAW) and tracking to it via software monitoring (DI instrument to plugin AKA amplitube).

the problem is obvious...

whatever playback tracks i hear via software have latency. plus the latency of the newly recorded tracks going in and coming out. since protools doesn't compensate for this whatever is newly tracked always a few ms latent of the actual "grid" even if i perform it perfectly to another track or click.

this problem then becomes cummulative over the course of several tracks until the whole mix is phasey, messy, thin poop.

i'm thinking i need to split my signal in, one for monitoring and one for tracking, in the way you guys have suggested.

i just wonder if i'll have the same issues either way considering that i'm sending my main mix out of protools into an outboard mixer for monitoring and using another channel on the mixer for monitoring the incoming track pre-interface.

wont the newly recorded track still have the inherent latency despite where and when i'm monitoring?

also i'm assuming that since cubase has ADC it will automatically correct this input latency and that monitoring via an analouge mixer is just to help relieve the audible tracking latency not the actual latency.

but the $64,000 question is....

will improving my conceptual latency with ADC and "hardware monitoring" help me get the tight takes i want?
 
Wow, I feel your pain.

I'm no expert in this particular area - I'm still learning myself. I'm wondering how you're running into such a problem though.

I guess to help, I can give you some data to compare. For reference, I have a Dualcore 6750, 4G Ram (which isn't really "fast" by todays standards), and en external sound card,

I can run Addictive Drums, VST instruments, VST effects on all instruments, and can still monitor through the longer path; say Guitar -> preamp -> external soundcard -> Cubase -> VST instrument/effect -> headphones. There is a slight and i mean (slight) noticable delay when doing this, as opposed to monitoring directly from the external sound card before it hits the PC, but the delay is totally accaptable for recording purposes.

My limited unserstanding: As far as Cubase is concerned, I was told that Cubase, or your sound card (or both) knows what latency you're dealing with. So if it takes 500ms for the PC to spit out sound to your head phones on beat 1, and you then pluck a guitar note on this beat 1, the system knows to place it 500ms ealier - there just seems to be no latency issues to manually have to deal with. You hear the output, you play the instrument, it goes on the track, the world is a happy place.

So,

"on a system that reports 10ms of latency (combined in and out) via software monitoring... (on cubase)"

10ms is nothing. I could record from direct hardware monitoring (~0ms delay) or with 10ms, there'd be barely any difference yeah?

"how much could this latency really affect my recordings? " , like I said above, it shouldn't affect you at all (If I understand it correctly)

"How do you monitor?" - my EMU 0404 USB has a button that allows direct monitoring, so that whatever you've plugged into the inputs is produced in your headphones *before* it is sent to the PC. But like I said, with 10ms, or even more, I can record without direct monitoring.

Perhaps you could kill one VST instrument/effect at a time and see if there is one culprit (like Racherik said about Amp Sims), or if there is still an issue, perhaps drivers are a problem, or just plain PC grunt. When I was installing my external soundcard, I didn't have teh correct ASIO drivers loaded and this resulted in large delays.

Hope this helps.

FM
 
themdla said:
Currently i'm using a digi 002r and the lack of ADC kills me.

The moment i started using cubase i could tell a big difference in the sound.

what i'm mainly concerned with is the amount of latency of a playback source (drum tracks in DAW) and tracking to it via software monitoring (DI instrument to plugin AKA amplitube).

the problem is obvious...

whatever playback tracks i hear via software have latency. plus the latency of the newly recorded tracks going in and coming out. since protools doesn't compensate for this whatever is newly tracked always a few ms latent of the actual "grid" even if i perform it perfectly to another track or click.

this problem then becomes cummulative over the course of several tracks until the whole mix is phasey, messy, thin poop.

i'm thinking i need to split my signal in, one for monitoring and one for tracking, in the way you guys have suggested.

i just wonder if i'll have the same issues either way considering that i'm sending my main mix out of protools into an outboard mixer for monitoring and using another channel on the mixer for monitoring the incoming track pre-interface.

wont the newly recorded track still have the inherent latency despite where and when i'm monitoring?

also i'm assuming that since cubase has ADC it will automatically correct this input latency and that monitoring via an analouge mixer is just to help relieve the audible tracking latency not the actual latency.

but the $64,000 question is....

will improving my conceptual latency with ADC and "hardware monitoring" help me get the tight takes i want?
Click to expand...

Now, don't confuse record offset with monitoring latency. They are similar but separate issues.

Monitoring latency is the time between when you play/sing something and the time you hear it back as you perform. This will affect your performance if it gets too long. Using the Low Latency Monitoring option in Pro Tools with the 002R is a passable solution. You will be monitoring strictly through the interface without going through the computer. Plugins will not be available on inputs. Analog monitoring will have no latency.

Record offset is the relationship between the tracks you are monitoring and the tracks you are recording. What you are tracking should be recorded to the timeline exactly in sync with the existing tracks you are hearing. The DAW has to be able to account for the D/A and A/D conversions etc. and place the new audio slightly ahead on the timeline.

[Edit] To answer your question, anything that makes monitoring latency less noticeable will help you perform better.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Now, don't confuse record offset with monitoring latency. They are similar but separate issues.

Monitoring latency is the time between when you play/sing something and the time you hear it back as you perform. This will affect your performance if it gets too long. Using the Low Latency Monitoring option in Pro Tools with the 002R is a passable solution. You will be monitoring strictly through the interface without going through the computer. Plugins will not be available on inputs. Analog monitoring will have no latency.

Record offset is the relationship between the tracks you are monitoring and the tracks you are recording. What you are tracking should be recorded to the timeline exactly in sync with the existing tracks you are hearing. The DAW has to be able to account for the D/A and A/D conversions etc. and place the new audio slightly ahead on the timeline.

[Edit] To answer your question, anything that makes monitoring latency less noticeable will help you perform better.
Click to expand...

Yup....

I have used the low latency monitoring mode in protools and it is fairly effective...

The biggest problem is that I’ve been using plug-ins (amplitube, etc...) to get my sound. The tracking latency through the plug-in coupled with the recording offset (which as far as I can tell is not automatically compensated for in protools, but I could be wrong) is just a bit much for me.

When I’m tracking simple and or sparse arrangements it's not so bad, noticeable, but not a total deal breaker.

However when I started to track a friend of mine doing a fast, tight, complicated metal/hardcore song it became too much. the lack of ADC meant that every take was an additional 5 to 10 ms off (recording offset) and once we started doubling and adding 2nd guitar parts each successive take created more problems... the guy was playing tight and in time but the playback never sounded like the performance.

so I figure if I can track real amps or process my sounds before going in that will help...coupled with a lower latency interface (2-3ms) and hardware monitoring I think I’ll be in the money.

I guess my standards are a bit high though... I want to get professional sounding recordings on a budget lol (although if this forum has taught me anything that is an impossibility haha j/k)

Even if the sound quality isn't perfect I’d at least like to get the takes I am putting in.

Noticed right away a big difference in the "sound" of cubase with ADC (ala ProTools HD) and Protools LE using the same interface, digi 002r, with both DAW's on the same computer, hell I even gave reaper a shot! (Which was ok but not great).

Mostly I was hoping to hear from some guys who had similar experiences and found hardware monitoring and ADC to be the solution but I am very appreciative of all the responses so far...

Thanks for taking the time to help a noob :D
 
themdla said:
However when I started to track a friend of mine doing a fast, tight, complicated metal/hardcore song it became too much. the lack of ADC meant that every take was an additional 5 to 10 ms off (recording offset) and once we started doubling and adding 2nd guitar parts each successive take created more problems... the guy was playing tight and in time but the playback never sounded like the performance.
Click to expand...

I had a similar issue tracking bass to some drum loops. The bass player would lock with the drums during tracking, but on playback it would sound ever so slightly late. It turns out there was a 46 sample (at 48kHz) offset that we definitely heard.

You can measure and compensate for record offset. Make a new project and place a bit of audio with some good HF content in a track (like a snare hit), then loop the output back to an input and re-record the bit of audio. Zoom in to see how much offset there is. Some DAWs will let you enter a manual record offset compensation value in the options. If yours doesn't you can still slide tracks over manually by the appropriate amount after each take.

I deal with monitoring latency by monitoring in analog, via a patchbay that splits the signal to the interface and to an analog mixer.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I had a similar issue tracking bass to some drum loops. The bass player would lock with the drums during tracking, but on playback it would sound ever so slightly late. It turns out there was a 46 sample (at 48kHz) offset that we definitely heard.

You can measure and compensate for record offset. Make a new project and place a bit of audio with some good HF content in a track (like a snare hit), then loop the output back to an input and re-record the bit of audio. Zoom in to see how much offset there is. Some DAWs will let you enter a manual record offset compensation value in the options. If yours doesn't you can still slide tracks over manually by the appropriate amount after each take.

I deal with monitoring latency by monitoring in analog, via a patchbay that splits the signal to the interface and to an analog mixer.
Click to expand...

+10,000

yes! this is exactly what i'm talking about!

in protools i'm sure there is a way, like you said, to adjust a recording offset or adjust manually by moving the wavform in the timeline.

I prefer if the DAW just does this automatically....

where you using ProTools LE when you tracked and had that issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top