PCI interfaces and my ignorance of 'em!

R

RustyAxe

New member
My needs are simple. I want to go from my analog mixer into Reaper. I want to be able to monitor previously recorded tracks (no more than 3 or four, I don't need 'em all usually) as I record a new track. I do most of my effects (compression, EQ, and reverb and not much else) in the analog audio path, and want to take the L/R output of the mixer to the PC.

I've not been at all happy with the latency issues with USB interfaces, and don't think Firewire will make me any happier. So ... I'm investigating PCI interfaces. 2 TRS analog inputs (l/r) are just fine, as are simple 2 outputs (l/r).

In the opinion of those who have MUCH more experience than I in these things, will the PCI card make a significant difference in latency? I realize that the playback of previous tracks will entail some overhead, I don't imagine I'd be using any DAW plug-ins until I've complete all my tracks, and would be working solely on the PC at that time. But I'm thinking that the throughput of the hardware is only one link in the chain and perhaps not the most significant one.

Am I on the right track? Or do need to reconsider how I go about things? And if I'm going in the right direction, which of the two cards I'm considering would be a better choice? M-Audio Delta 66 PCI or E-MU 1212mPCIe. Based on nothing but the form factor I'm leaning toward the Delta 66, but hey, what do I know? Thanks in advance!

- Denny
 
Low latency might have to do with the speed of the computer as well as good drivers.
Don't know really, other's i'll do you good there. I'm just joining in to ride along. :D
Everything I've had's been separates and PCI/ADAT cards (eh.. an e-mu with analog). Except for the ocasional use of input echo' I do hardware splits on my inputs for monitor and record.
You should get be able to get your live monitoring with the mixer as well, then you just need a playback path that doesn't cross you up.
So depending on the mixer, sound card, if need be you could consider doing the monitor mix on the DAW and come back with a pair to the mixer.
 
I think the computer is up to the task ... AMD Athlon II x2 at 2.70 GHz with 6 gb RAM, Win7 Home Premium x64 SP1, 750 gb system drive, 1 tb external eSATA 7200rpm drive. And yes, I would route the monitor back to the analog mixer. But ... I not only want to hear what I'm currently tracking (I can do that by hardware monitoring in the card, or even by routing in the analog mixer) but also some of the tracks I've previously recorded (and that would be through the DAW software). I'm just not sure that I'll get the (perceptible) latency-free performance I'm hoping for. But then, I wouldn't be risking a whole lot of money ... maybe I should just give it a whack. I'll wait for a few helpful responses, just in case I'm barking up the wrong tree.
 
If you are only working with one or two tracks latency should not be an issue, its more likely the pc thats holding things up - I have done big sessions with my set up and no noticable latency ie. recording 8 tracks at the same time following a pre recorded drum kit. If your recording path is as uncluttered as you say I can't see how you can be experiencing much of a delay?
 
RustyAxe said:
My needs are simple. I want to go from my analog mixer into Reaper. I want to be able to monitor previously recorded tracks (no more than 3 or four, I don't need 'em all usually) as I record a new track. I do most of my effects (compression, EQ, and reverb and not much else) in the analog audio path, and want to take the L/R output of the mixer to the PC.
Click to expand...

It sounds a little like you want to mix your digital tracks through your analog mixer. There's a bit of a trend toward analog summing, but unless your mixer and outboard gear is something really super ultra special you will get better results mixing in Reaper.

RustyAxe said:
I've not been at all happy with the latency issues with USB interfaces, and don't think Firewire will make me any happier. So ... I'm investigating PCI interfaces. 2 TRS analog inputs (l/r) are just fine, as are simple 2 outputs (l/r).

In the opinion of those who have MUCH more experience than I in these things, will the PCI card make a significant difference in latency? I realize that the playback of previous tracks will entail some overhead, I don't imagine I'd be using any DAW plug-ins until I've complete all my tracks, and would be working solely on the PC at that time. But I'm thinking that the throughput of the hardware is only one link in the chain and perhaps not the most significant one.

Am I on the right track? Or do need to reconsider how I go about things? And if I'm going in the right direction, which of the two cards I'm considering would be a better choice? M-Audio Delta 66 PCI or E-MU 1212mPCIe. Based on nothing but the form factor I'm leaning toward the Delta 66, but hey, what do I know? Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

You're on the wrong track. I think you just haven't learned how to get low-latency or true zero-latency monitoring out of whatever interfaces you've tried. Most of them have some provision for decent monitoring. Many 2-channel interfaces have simple zero-latency monitoring, usually via a knob on the front of the unit. Other 2-channel units and multi-channel units have low-latency DSP monitoring. In both cases you have to disable software input monitoring in your DAW in favor of the hardware input monitoring arrangement that the interface provides.

Clever use of an analog mixer as a recording front end can eliminate monitoring latency regardless of the type of interface, USB, Firewire or PCI. Basically, you use the board to generate a live mix of the live inputs along with a stereo reference mix from the DAW. If the board has the features you can generate a number of mixes. I do this, one stereo mix for the control room and two more stereo mixes (or up to four mono mixes) for the musicians. What board and interface do you have? I could probably tell you how to set it up for convenient tracking with zero-latency monitoring.
 
I'm not sure I've made myself clear. If I simply wanted to monitor the input it would be no issue. But I want the input, as well as the already recorded other tracks. I don't see how hardware monitoring gets me that. Is that clearer?

I'm not recording a band, I'm building songs track by track, it's all me, all the time. While I don't need every track in the monitor mix, the rhythm (bass, drums, guitar) and lead vocal is important as I lay down the vocal harmony and other instrument parts. So ... it's my understanding that I would record on one track in the DAW (and not monitor the input because I'd be able to do so in hardware) ... but the other tracks would have to be played back in the DAW. And it's there that things get dicey.

I should say that my experience with USB was a simple Tascam US144 using ASIO drivers, and the PC hardware and OS was considerably less able than what I have now. I'm thinking that the increased throughput of PCIe vs USB would be an advantage (for the two-way data movement ... the input data and the output simultaneously).
 
bouldersoundguy said:
It sounds a little like you want to mix your digital tracks through your analog mixer
Click to expand...
Nope.

I think you just haven't learned how to get low-latency or true zero-latency monitoring out of whatever interfaces you've tried.
Click to expand...
Actually, I get it. Really. I don't think I've made myself clear, or at least, I haven't done so to you.

Clever use of an analog mixer as a recording front end can eliminate monitoring latency regardless of the type of interface, USB, Firewire or PCI.
Click to expand...
Right. if I was recording a band in many simultaneous tracks, I could route everything in the analog mixer and monitor there. I get it. And I do it.
 
How much latency are you getting? I get very little (hardly noticable) even on really big sessions - I think it's down to the interface / software configuration, buffer size (which if you are not using digital effexts could be very low / direct monitoring mix I don't think you can get 0 latency even on pro systems unless u use tape!
 
RustyAxe said:
I'm not sure I've made myself clear. If I simply wanted to monitor the input it would be no issue. But I want the input, as well as the already recorded other tracks. I don't see how hardware monitoring gets me that. Is that clearer?
Click to expand...

It was perfectly clear the first time. Hardware monitoring shortens the path of the live instrument from the input of the interface to the output to reduce or eliminate latency. This hardware input monitoring function also mixes the reference mix (of the already recorded tracks) from the DAW with the live inputs so you can play to whatever you've recorded.

Using a mixer is similar, but the mixer replaces the input monitoring of the interface. You bring two channels from the interface to the board to add the reference mix from the DAW to your monitor mix. I've been doing this several days a week for years on end so I know it works.

RustyAxe said:
I'm not recording a band, I'm building songs track by track, it's all me, all the time. While I don't need every track in the monitor mix, the rhythm (bass, drums, guitar) and lead vocal is important as I lay down the vocal harmony and other instrument parts.
Click to expand...

The suggestions I've given work with a solo performer layering tracks or with a band. The reference mix from the DAW can include any number of tracks, no need to limit them to just what you can get by with.

RustyAxe said:
So ... it's my understanding that I would record on one track in the DAW (and not monitor the input because I'd be able to do so in hardware)
Click to expand...

Right, if you mean turn off the DAW's input monitoring and just use the hardware, either the interface or a mixer serving the same function.

RustyAxe said:
... but the other tracks would have to be played back in the DAW. And it's there that things get dicey.
Click to expand...

There should be nothing dicey about it. You just make a reference mix in the DAW and route it to the output of the interface, then use the provided hardware monitoring arrangement (or a mixing board properly set up) to mix that with your live inputs.

RustyAxe said:
I should say that my experience with USB was a simple Tascam US144 using ASIO drivers, and the PC hardware and OS was considerably less able than what I have now. I'm thinking that the increased throughput of PCIe vs USB would be an advantage (for the two-way data movement ... the input data and the output simultaneously).
Click to expand...

The US144 has a simple knob for input monitoring. The path is analog and incapable of causing latency. If you had latency problems then you weren't using the hardware input monitoring function correctly and were probably hearing latency from software monitoring through the DAW.

Don't overthink things. Insufficient throughput is not the cause of any of your problems.
 
RustyAxe said:
Actually, I get it. Really. I don't think I've made myself clear, or at least, I haven't done so to you.
Click to expand...

If you got it you wouldn't be here asking for help. Really.

RustyAxe said:
Right. if I was recording a band in many simultaneous tracks, I could route everything in the analog mixer and monitor there. I get it. And I do it.
Click to expand...

The point is not just the number of inputs, it's the all-analog path from the inputs to your ears.
 
@bouldersoundguy ... I hope you didn't think I was getting smart with you, I was honestly trying to clarify in case I was misunderstood. Probably managed to confuse myself in the process! I've been using a MTR for the past three years or so, and transferring the files to the DAW after tracking. I was just fed up with the problems I was having ... perhaps, as you say, due to my ignorance. Honestly I don't remember what the hell I was doing and after a week of screwing around I gave up and went back to using the MTR I had. I was under the impression that the playback of the reference mix was part of the problem, evidently that isn't the case. So, if I understand you correctly, I should have no issues caused by insufficient throughput. That's good. I'm still leaning toward a PCI interface opposed to USB, any reason why I should not? Thanks for your input!

I'm almost embarrassed that I spent 30 years working with computer systems ... and yet am intimidated by audio recording on the computer ... shame ...
 
Well, it depends on "WHAT" you're wanting to monitor. If you're just monitoring the input chain, stick a headphone preamp in there before the computer and there you go. Depending on your outputs of the mixer of course, which might have a headphone socket. But if you want to play back something from the computer and monitor your input chain mixed with it, that requires a bit more bandwidth and computation.

M-Audio Delta 44 (4 in / 4 out), M-Audio Delta 66 (6 in / 6 out), and other options. PCI interfaces on the small scale are getting pretty cheap as folks move away from noisy desktops to quieter and more convenient laptops (also lower power usage).

USBs latency is the bus bandwidth. At CD quality and only two tracks it should (in theory) be mostly negligible. Depending on what you're doing of course. If you're adding effects between the input and output stage, that burdens the CPU resources, and can add latency. These might be defaulted to on in some software. If you're inputing at high sample rates and monitoring at low sampling rates, this can also burden the CPU. It's all cumulative to mean lower resources and higher latency. A bunch of RAM can help free up some resources. But it depends on if that's your problem or not. If you have a midi input device and are outputting synthesized sounds on the same machine doing the recording, that could chew up a lot of resources. With the gratuitous latency there of.

Various configurations and optimizations to overcome, but having extra bus bandwidth (PCI) and other resources never hurts. It may not be the cure depending on your issue(s). But it can help rule out potential bottlenecks and limitations.
 
RustyAxe said:
So, if I understand you correctly, I should have no issues caused by insufficient throughput. That's good. I'm still leaning toward a PCI interface opposed to USB, any reason why I should not? Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...

Throughput doesn't matter because the interface is just passing a stereo audio stream. The heavy lifting of processing and mixing the tracks is done by the CPU and is also affected by disk access speed and RAM. Get whichever type has the features you like.

[Edit] There are USB and Firewire interfaces that can pass 8 channels in and 8 channels out at the same time. Passing 2 channels over the same connection is simply not a big deal.
 
Well... some PCI devices have built in hardware mixers. So even though it's say a 4 channel (Delta 44) interface, the computer can pass it 10 channels un-mixed and they'll mix in hardware. This can help free up resources. Assuming software that supports it, and enough tracks to need such features. You wont get some of that dark magic extras on USB and other devices. All the computer does is pass along the data and the soundcard takes care of the processing in hardware. Mainly of use if you have more tracks on playback, than the input. And conditional since you need hardware, driver, and software support of that feature. Which might be quirky, as any one broken leg, breaks all legs.
 
Shadow_7 said:
Well... some PCI devices have built in hardware mixers. So even though it's say a 4 channel (Delta 44) interface, the computer can pass it 10 channels un-mixed and they'll mix in hardware. This can help free up resources. Assuming software that supports it, and enough tracks to need such features. You wont get some of that dark magic extras on USB and other devices. All the computer does is pass along the data and the soundcard takes care of the processing in hardware. Mainly of use if you have more tracks on playback, than the input. And conditional since you need hardware, driver, and software support of that feature. Which might be quirky, as any one broken leg, breaks all legs.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes, that's what I was looking for. I've ordered a Delta 44 and will see how that goes.
 
bruiser1964 said:
How much latency are you getting? I get very little (hardly noticable) even on really big sessions - I think it's down to the interface / software configuration, buffer size (which if you are not using digital effexts could be very low / direct monitoring mix I don't think you can get 0 latency even on pro systems unless u use tape!
Click to expand...

This is the one...

check your buffer size. if it's big, make it smaller :) 128 or 256 is usually fine for me.
 
I said I'd report back when I got my M-Audio Delta 44 ... it arrived around 12:30 EDT (it's 2:12 now). Installed the card in the PC in about five minutes. Downloaded and installed the Win7 x64 driver in about five minutes. Made the cable connections (ins/outs/phones/monitors) in another five minutes (most digging through the cable bin!). Configured Reaper in less than a minute. Cut four tracks ... dry (compression and reverb from the analog mixer only). Two vocals, one acoustic guitar, one acoustic bass guitar. Beautiful. No latency no stutters. Sounds as good as the MTR I was using until today. I'll be screwing around with the Reaper VSTs, but only after tracking.

I had tried to use a Tascam US144 a couple or three years ago, on a Toshiba notebook ... and the results were terrible. Probably my ignorance, and the weak computer hardware. My current computer is a cheap Walmart EMachines ET1331-03W but it's loaded pretty well (6gb ram, 750gb 7200rpm drive) running AMD Athlon II at 2.8GHz.

My chain ... mics on acoustic guitar and vocal to a cheap ART TPSii preamp, to Yamaha MG166cx, channels routed to Group 3-4 (l/r), GRP 3/4 outs to M-Audio breakout box. Monitors and phone from M-Audio breakout box.

So ... impression after less than two hours: it's a home run.
 
Hopefully you got a used Delta 44 off of craigslist. They're like $100, and listed often. Otherwise you're out about $300-ish buying new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top