Hello....I'm in the process of upgrading my PT setup. Currently using an older MacBook Pro and Firewire 1814. Getting a newer Imac with FW 800 and Thunderbolt ports. I'm assuming I can use my FW1814 interface that I currently have (with a FW800 to 400 adapter) but want to upgrade to an interface that has 800 or faster capacity. The ones I've seen only have 4 inputs, and I'm used to having 8 that I can run simultaneously, mainly so I can record drums. Any recommendations for interfaces?
Upgrading my Pro Tools setup...help!
- Thread starter fris9
- Start date
Steenamaroo
...
I believe you can.
Why so? It won't make any difference to the interface.
My motu interface is 400. As far as I know I can daisy chain up to four of them before I hit problems.
That's 48 ins and outs unless I've forgotten something!
Steenamaroo
...
Hmm. I can't flat out say no, but I'm not aware of that being the case.
Is latency an issue for you?
I expect if would be a product of the computer processing power and drivers.
Latency is not an issue for me at all. I'm running an i5 Macbook Pro with a motu 828 mk2.
Is latency an issue for you?
I expect if would be a product of the computer processing power and drivers.
Latency is not an issue for me at all. I'm running an i5 Macbook Pro with a motu 828 mk2.
I wouldn't say it's an issue, I've recorded lots of things successfully with it, but there's a tiny bit that's noticeable. Not enough really to throw anyone or anything off, but enough to where guys recording with it the first time notice it. Dunno, it's not the end of the world, but if I could fix it to where there was absolutely none I'd love to. Figure it makes sense that it would have to do with how fast the data is being transmitted, but could be wrong.
Steenamaroo
...
Hmm. It'd be worthy of research, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Are you aware of the option to adjust your buffer size, and therefore reduce latency?
This is where computer power comes in. An old machine might struggle with buffer size at, say, 32 or 64, whereas a new machine will breeze along.
Unless you use direct hardware monitoring (ie, you hear dry input before it gets to the computer), there will always be some degree of latency.
It's just one of those things. Whether it's 1ms or 1000ms, computer processing takes time.
The 1814 actually has a direct monitoring option, as far as I know.
Are you aware of the option to adjust your buffer size, and therefore reduce latency?
This is where computer power comes in. An old machine might struggle with buffer size at, say, 32 or 64, whereas a new machine will breeze along.
Unless you use direct hardware monitoring (ie, you hear dry input before it gets to the computer), there will always be some degree of latency.
It's just one of those things. Whether it's 1ms or 1000ms, computer processing takes time.
The 1814 actually has a direct monitoring option, as far as I know.
Steenamaroo
...
Good points, and you're probably right about the buffer size with what I'm doing now, although I thought I had it on the largest setting I could. You may be right about the 1814 and direct monitoring too, I'll have to check in to thatThanks for the help!
Ah, good news.
If you had it on the largest possible setting, which is probably 1024, you'd get pretty bad latency.
People used to set the buffer high for mixing because it eased the load on the computer and latency doesn't matter for mixing.
If you're trying to recording and overdub you want the buffer as small as possible.
That means hard work for the computer, but minimal latency.
Steenamaroo
...
An easy way to know if latency will be a problem is to arm a track with a mic and pop your headphones on.
Make sure you can hear yourself and just talk.
If you trip over yourself, it's a problem.
Make sure you can hear yourself and just talk.
If you trip over yourself, it's a problem.