Delta WDM - Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter bdemenil
  • Start date Start date
They haven't even fixed the issue with two D-1010's in one computer running 2k/xp yet, so I'm not surprised...

Why can't the industry make drivers that work???
 
1. Good R&D costs money, which is better spent on marketing and therefore profit.

2. Windows is a shitty operating system

3. Intel processors really aren't that audio "clever"

......there may be more reasons -- the duality and waste inherent in the capitalist system, for instance -- but I got sad thinking about it.........
 
If I buy a product I want to work! We're talking 'bout a lot of money here (well, for me it is), and if the drivers don't work, I'm paying for a product that don't work!

I didn't get the Delta 1010 because of the drivers... They've lost one customer. I'm saving up for something bigger and better!
 
I've been using the Audiophile for about 6 months now in XP with the most current WDM drivers M-Audio posts on their site. Never noticed a problem...
 
It's a problem that easily goes unnoticed - especially if you don't use high buffers - but it will affect your music adversely.

As Slackmaster put it :
If you use WDM and low buffer settings, you might not hear a delay. An audible "delay" is not what you'd hear anyways in most cases. If every track you record following a drum track is 20ms late, you won't notice a delay, but it can be the difference between having something that sounds decent and something that sounds like you nailed it.
Click to expand...
 
I upgraded to XP from 98 to use the wdm drivers and currently have 2.9ms delay.
Worth every penny.:)
 
i think its the way u guys set everything up...no problems over here
 
acidrock - 2.9 ms track offset on newly recorded tracks is actually not so good. How are you measuring this, and what buffer size are you using?
A quote from Teacher on the original thread :
I know what u meant i just mentioned i changed it to 256 cuz previously i said it was at 512 but anyway I did zoom in, in sonar their is a lag I listen... its not audible except when looping u'll hear a slight pop
Click to expand...
Teacher -
How can you say you don't have the problem when you have not tested your system properly. From your response to the other thread, I gather that you ran the test with 256 sample and 512 sample buffer settings and compared the two. First of all since the two buffer settings are very close, the difference between the two would be very small. Secondly, you stated that you did notice an offset, but you never quantified it (other than to say it wasn't audible). At the buffer size you are using it would not be obvious. But if it is more than 2ms, you definitely have a problem. The best way to measure is to import the two files (original and duplicate) into wavelab or cooledit and zoom in- they are pretty accurate.
and i have no reason to put my buffer settings to 2000+ cuz'll they'll never ever be that high if its a problem wit buffer settings that high that is something thats irrelevant cuz it won't be that high
Click to expand...
Finally, Teacher, you refuse to run the test under highest buffer settings where the bug would become most obvious. You say it is irrelevent because you never use those buffer settings, but it is relevent because it would expose a problem that you may very well have to a lesser extent with the smaller buffers you use. It is also relevent to those of us who need to use larger buffers.

This problem has been verified on 3 systems with very different configurations - running 2K and Xp - AMD and Intel Procs - ACPI enabled and disabled. Under the circumstances, it is worth looking into, because it could be f@#*ing up your mixes even if you don't realize it.
 
2.9ms???? Thats .003 seconds - if you can actually pick that out, you should probably officiate a track meet rather than be recording music.

C'mon people - this is getting kind of ridiculous. This is music we're talking about - its all about imperfection and a human feel. At 120 bpm, 2.9 ms is MUCH less than a 64th of a note. I DARE you to find a drummer with that kind of accuracy!

Stop worrying about little details and start making music!
 
its all about imperfection and a human feel
Click to expand...
Exactly - a human feel - a consistent lag does not lend to that feel.

In any case 3ms is on the low end of what's being measured. With ordinary to high buffer settings, the offset could be anything from 10ms to 50ms - definitely within the audible range.

If the driver is working correctly the offset should be 1.5ms or less. A 3ms offset is an indication that something is not working correctly.
 
Ive been using the delta, xp, and sonar for some time now, and never noticed a problem. The thing is, if I don't notice it, its not a problem. 3 thousands of a second. Give me a break....Nobody can hear that, and if you cant hear it, then who cares.
 
The thing is, if I don't notice it, its not a problem
Click to expand...
Damn right! I have a effective latency (says Sonar) at 2.2 ms. I use Input Monitoring, and I love to play DXi's.

I (and the others in the studio) doesen't notice it, so there is no problem.

I really don't care how it works, as long as it works!
 
I ripped out a SB Live and put in a Audiphile 2496.
I flushed 98 down the drain and installed 2000.
My latency dropped to 7.6ms.
Bottom line: Who gives a rat's ass!
The sound quality is a huge improvement and I still don't notice the latency. Hey geeks, stop worrying about tech bs and practice your instrument, if you even have one...
 
Yeah! It's dumb to expect something you paid hundreds of dollars to work correctly! Suck it up and be a man!

All these dumbasses are right!
 
Lame Thrower said:
Yeah! It's dumb to expect something you paid hundreds of dollars to work correctly! Suck it up and be a man!

All these dumbasses are right!
Click to expand...

I agree that this is not so much a nitpicking issue as an expectation of a large company with lots of R&D money and good programmers to deliver a product that has no problems.
 
I guess if someone is happy with a product that you are'nt that makes them a dumbass.
The fact is I was happy with my audiophile card before I had wdm drivers and to get down to 2.9 ms latency is just iceing on the cake.No one I know has noticed or complained about the latency but seeing as we're all just a bunch of dumbasses I guess we just don't know any better.
If you want to split hairs,or atoms for that matter,my suggestion to you is buy your soundcard from a different manufacturer.
Latency,even impeceivable only effects dxi's and input monitoring.
It has no effect on playback or direct monitoring.
My plate is too full to worry about that which I cannot notice.If 2.9ms latency is keeping you from making good or great music you have bigger fish to fry than your soundcards drivers.
I would reccomend a delta product to anyone and you have the right to discourage them from buying one,but I don't think namecalling adds any weight to your argument, it probably takes away from it.
 
As far as the measuring of offset,I'm not going to waste my time looking for things that don't affect me,I'd rather spend it making music.
 
acidrock said:
I guess if someone is happy with a product that you are'nt that makes them a dumbass.The fact is I was happy with my audiophile card before I had wdm drivers and to get down to 2.9 ms latency is just iceing on the cake.No one I know has noticed or complained about the latency but seeing as we're all just a bunch of dumbasses I guess we just don't know any better.If you want to split hairs,or atoms for that matter,my suggestion to you is buy your soundcard from a different manufacturer.
Latency,even impeceivable only effects dxi's and input monitoring.
It has no effect on playback or direct monitoring.
My plate is too full to worry about that which I cannot notice.If 2.9ms latency is keeping you from making good or great music you have bigger fish to fry than your soundcards drivers.
I would reccomend a delta product to anyone and you have the right to discourage them from buying one,but I don't think namecalling adds any weight to your argument, it probably takes away from it.
Click to expand...

I was going to construct a lengthy reply to this, but then I realized that you haven't read anything else in this thread anyway, so why bother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top