Post your input monitoring latency here!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Swede
  • Start date Start date
Pedullist said:
And how do you install the Microsoft drivers when you've already installed the Audigy drivers once? XP will automatically find the 'right' (=Creative) drivers and install them instead of the Microsoft drivers, if you try it for a second time. Any suggestions? Do I need to throw some files away or something like that? Or change registry settings?
Click to expand...
Do a search for the driver (click Update Driver), and Microsoft will shurely be found (I hope).
 
zekthedeadcow said:
Q10 ... hardware monitoring = 0 ms :)
Click to expand...

I am a huge fan of the Q10, and am currently saving my pennies to be able to buy one myself. Yes, the monitoring is *advertised* as 0 ms, but that is just wrong, and its one of the few things about the interface that bugs me.

*NO INTERFACE OR PREAMP -- EVEN ANALOG -- IS ABLE TO MONITOR SIGNALS WITH ****ZERO**** LATENCY*!!!!

It takes some very very small amount of finite time to get in and out of the preamp, get through the mixer, and get back out. Yes, its probably less than 1/10 of one millisecond, but it takes time! Because they claim zero, they must not be having the digital to analog conversion in their monitoring path -- which is a very very good design, but dagnabit, its not ZERO.

Now, lets say you want to monitor *through* Sonar -- so you can add effects, such as reverb. What kind of latency are you getting for that? I believe the Q10 does quite well there too -- what's your buffer latency slider at?

There has been some discussion about the Q10's drivers being MME instead of WDM (they call it A|WDM) -- but to put the record straight, even Cakewalk says the Q10 drivers give latencies similar to good WDM drivers, however they do it.

It will be interesting to compare performance of the "A|WDM" drivers versus the ASIO drivers once Sonar supports them in Feb.

-lee-
 
Hey relax, man! :)

I haven't used a card yet that doesen't do hardware monitoring. Myself I prefer the Input Monitoring function in Sonar (like to know what I'm recording will sound like), but most of the cards I know of, will do hardware monitoring too.

But I see your point though: Why soundcard manufactorers makes a huge deal of "hardware monitoring with 0 ms latency" I have yet to understand...
 
moskus said:
Hey relax, man! :)
Click to expand...

Sorry -- too much caffeine! ;)

I like the interface -- I just have a hot button when it comes to overstated advertising.

-lee-
 
i also do hardware monitoring.

sonar says 2ms for the playback buffer when using my wavecenter card, but i know i can hear a longer delay than that. its fast but its not that fast.

i'm not even going to look at the numbers when i'm using my laptop with my US428. the M-Audio Duo didn't do hardware input monitoring in such a way that you could hear both the hardware monitor and the pre-recorded tracks, so the 428 was a big improvement in my laptop rig.
 
What is this setting?????? I looked an want sure it you ment to must the in channel on the card in the Control Panel Console......



acidrock said:
Sonar 2
Audiophile 2496

2.9 ms

I can get it lower(1.5) but only for about two tracks and then I have to reset the slider,so I just leave it at 2.9 which is totally usable.
It helps to mute the input on the m-audio control panel to avoid a slight "flanging' sound.

Also you must take in to account the variables such as cpu,tracks,plug ins which can effect your latency.
Click to expand...
 
If you want to use input monitoring it may help to mute the channel on the M-AUDIO DELTA control panel.
You will only hear a signal if you have input monitoring enabled and an effect assigned to the track.
This is especially helpful if you are using Revalver,if the channel is not muted in the control panel you'll get a direct/clean sound mixed with the insert effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top