RME Hammerfall question

[NL5]

I am switching from MOTU 828 MKII's that had "zero" latency recording, to an Apogee/Hamerfall system. Will their be latency isuues? Bad enough I will have to manually "slide" tracks into time?

I can only set the Hamerfall latency to the 12-23 ms range.

Thanks in advance.

G-

 

[Raw-Tracks]

I am switching from MOTU 828 MKII's that had "zero" latency recording, to an Apogee/Hamerfall system. Will their be latency isuues? Bad enough I will have to manually "slide" tracks into time?

I can only set the Hamerfall latency to the 12-23 ms range.

Thanks in advance.

G-

When the term "latency" is used, it is in reference to latency in the monitored signal going through the computer. The track being recording is always going to be in time. You don't have to worry about sliding a track back in time due to latency. Latency is basically the time it takes for a sound to go into your microphone, through the computer and back out of your speakers. Even if the latency value is 512ms, your track will be recorded in time.

When a product's specs state that it has "zero latency", they are referring to the ability of the hardware to, in effect, split the signal and send it to the computer to be recorded and take the split signal back into the monitoring chain before it goes through the comupter, so you hear it time. (I'm probably not making myself too clear there.) That way you don't hear the delayed signal going throught he computer.

 

[xstatic]

If you have one of the newer HDSP cards it will allow you zero latency monitoring. Like Eric said above though, you will certainly not have to slide any tracks. If you do, something else is set wrong somewhere.

 

[Raw-Tracks]

If you have one of the newer HDSP cards it will allow you zero latency monitoring.

The older, now discontinued, Digi-96/52 and 96/36 both have zero latency capability as well.

 

[xstatic]

And how is it that the old ones acheive that? I have a 9652 and I have never been able to make it do that

 

[Raw-Tracks]

And how is it that the old ones acheive that? I have a 9652 and I have never been able to make it do that

From RME's Web site.
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/hammer/d9652.htm

Scroll down to where it lists: "UNIQUE TECHNOLOGIES IN DIGI9636/52"

Click on "Zero Latency Monitoring - ZLM®":


"Zero Latency Monitoring (ZLM®)

ZLM brings real tape machine feeling to the PC. Each cassette recorder and tape machine passes the input signal of the track in record to the output when record starts. On the PC such a kind of track dependent pass through wasn't available. Often all channels are put in monitoring or pass through mode all together. Or the monitoring is handled by the software, resulting in a big delay (latency) between the signal at the input and the output. After all the pass through mode is activated at record, not at Punch-in. ZLM now solves all these problems with a simple technique. At Punch-in the corresponding track is switched into bypass directly in the hardware, at Punch-out it switches back to playback. Thus the PC behaves exactly like a 'normal' tape machine. ZLM is already available with SEKD's Samplitude and Sequoia, and SAWStudio. It is included as ASIO Direct Monitoring in ASIO 2.0."

 

[xstatic]

Sorry, what I meant was HOW do I make it do that? I have read the manual a couple of times, but have never been able to achieve 0 latency in the real world. Maybe it's because on the 9652 it is all digital so I would have to have another 24 channels of conversion. One more good reason for me to switch to outboard converters I know how to do it on the HDSP cards though. Total Mix is a little overbearing for many at first, but it is certainly what I would consider the most capable and advanced monitoring I have seen in a sound card. Much more advanced than the MOTU Cuemix.