Main Forums >> PC Music
        Print Thread

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1005130 - 24/08/12 04:03 AM
Thanks Vin!

FYI, you might find this review of the AB44 VSL of interest:

http://mikeriversaudio.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/presonus-audiobox_44vsl _review_mikerivers.pdf

Cheers!
=G


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1005277 - 24/08/12 09:43 PM
Thanks for the heads up, very detailed and in depth.

This guy doesn't cut any corners, pity the systems that he used to test the unit on where a little.., hmmmm, old... :-)

Definitely some interesting stuff re the CPU hit with just the mixer and VSL application on older systems. I need to have a closer look what the hit on the more current rigs I can't see why simply calling up the mixer control panel should be hitting the resources at all.

I also spotted the XMOS USB controller in one shot, which I believe is what most manufacturers are using that do not develop their own. One exception maybe MOTU who's combo units I believe are using ArchWave.

I will have acess to a VSL44 next week to retest the new drivers.. :-)

Peace

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1005299 - 25/08/12 01:21 AM
Quote TAFKAT:

Thanks for the heads up, very detailed and in depth.




Hey Vin, yer welcome! You might find some of his other reviews interesting as well:

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com/product-reviews/

Quote TAFKAT:

This guy doesn't cut any corners, pity the systems that he used to test the unit on where a little.., hmmmm, old... :-)




Yeah, not sure whether that was soley by intention (to show how the unit worked on a "modest" laptop, as he mentioned) or by necessity, but at least he did make it clear that he was using a pretty old testbed system.

Quote TAFKAT:

Definitely some interesting stuff re the CPU hit with just the mixer and VSL application on older systems. I need to have a closer look what the hit on the more current rigs I can't see why simply calling up the mixer control panel should be hitting the resources at all.




Dunno, maybe his old laptop's USB was struggling, or it could have been down to the drivers, or both.

Quote TAFKAT:

I also spotted the XMOS USB controller in one shot, which I believe is what most manufacturers are using that do not develop their own. One exception maybe MOTU who's combo units I believe are using ArchWave.




You may well be correct re Archwave on MOTU (at least on the new hybrid Track 16), as Archwave seems to be the only off-the-shelf FW/USB hybrid solution out there. I actually got the chance to play around with monitoring through a Track 16 and Microbook II recently on a Mac, and thought the Cuemix FX was actually pretty useable (hint, hint, DAWBench testing wishlist!).

Quote TAFKAT:

I will have acess to a VSL44 next week to retest the new drivers.. :-)

Peace




Interested to see what you come up with on more current systems with the current drivers!

I had been recommended to take a look at the VSL line, and had high hopes. I know that Frontier Design Group had worked with Presonus on developing their SL console/interfaces (and with Tascam on their FW console/interfaces previously) and FDG's gear had always been very good (my Tranzport still works), so was a bit taken aback to read about the feature reversion in latest PC drivers.

Really do appreciate all the work you put into this (and that reviews in SoS are critical when so deserved). I do realize that AI manufacturers are only trying to supply us with the right tools for the job at a reasonable cost, and do sympathize with them when Intel and MS and Apple keep changing the playing field and forcing them to devote their efforts and investment into adapting to new conditions rather than being able to improve and perfect their existing lines' performance. But bottom line, I just want to produce music and am not interested in paying good money to be anyone's beta tester. So, thank goodness for those like you and the SoS reviewers who try to keep the manufacturers honest.

I mean, I do understand this stuff and am interested in knowing how things work, but would not really care at all so long as things actually worked. Just tools, and it's only the music that really matters.

(feel the same way about espresso equipment and coffee roasting, know how it all works, what's good and what's not, but really only interested in a good shot, not how many Bars of pressure produced it or what kind of bean roaster was used - ok, maybe I do care what beans went into the blend, just like I do care about how a mix sounds).


Cheers!
=G


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1008136 - 12/09/12 02:57 AM
Hey All,

Latest update now including the RME UCX and Presonus Firestudio with the new V4.00 driver , as well as some amendments.

Summary below the charts.





Additions :

RME Fireface UCX : As we have come to expect from RME, exceptional performance on both Firewire and USB2. Benchmark results slightly down on the UFX results which could be due to the variation in driver which I will investigate further when I have the opportunity. Lower I/O and RTL has resulted in a better overall LLP Rating.

Presonus Firestudio Mobile : This was a very pleasant surprise with the new V4 driver/firmware delivering performance measurably better than the 3.5.x driver that has been the norm across all of the Dice powered units from numerous manufacturers the last 12-18 months. Lower overall RTL and even a 032 setting that managed a result on the RXC test.

Only bettered in the rating by the RME FW/USB interfaces.

A huge thumbs up to Presonus/TC Applied , great improvement.

I know that Focusrite are using an updated driver, ( also numbered V4) but I am unable to confirm at the moment whether it is the identical driver showing the improvement with the Presonus units.

Amended :

Presonus Audiobox 44 VSL : New driver that has removed the 032 setting that was essentialy window dressing anyway. Performance at the respective settings of 064-512 identical to the previous driver , however slightly higher measured RTL, indicating a few extra samples used in padding the buffers. Slight amendment to rating.

Removed :

SSL Nucleus : I have removed the unit from the results and rating. I have been trying to get confirmation of whether the reported I/O included the AD/DA and a measured RTL. I suspected that they were using some added padding and it would have been great to get the confirmation of the actual values. I have posted numerous polite requests to both the end users and the SSL reps , all which have been totally ignored. I have no idea why nor am I interested in pursuing it further. You guys can draw your own conclusions.

Peace

Vin Curigliano

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
robinv



Joined: 31/08/04
Posts: 784
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1008157 - 12/09/12 09:25 AM
Quote TAFKAT:



A huge thumbs up to Presonus/TC Applied , great improvement.






Wow, Presonus pulled it out of the bag - nice one.

--------------------
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: robinv]
      #1008221 - 12/09/12 03:22 PM
Quote robinv:

Wow, Presonus pulled it out of the bag - nice one.




Hey Robin,

Yeh, it was great to see the improvement.

If the new Focusrite Saffire Mix Control 3.0 / Driver 4.0 delivers the same performance improvement then I'd suggest the bigger golf clap goes to TC Applied.

I'll try and get some confirmation there ASAP.

Either way, it proves what I have always maintained that there was untapped potential of better performance using the OEM controllers if the drivers were improved. AVID/M-Audio proved that very early on.

Peace

V.

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Eef



Joined: 28/05/12
Posts: 1
Loc: The great city of Tricht down ...
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1013518 - 13/10/12 11:54 PM
Hi, I'm considering buying a Presonus 1818VSL or Focusrite Saphire pro 40, but I'm worried about the latency. Specifically because i'll be using edrums to trigger samples in the DAW, so I need a fast return latency. Am I reading these tests right by asuming this will be difficult to achieve with a Sapphire pro?

I came across this - well explained - piece of text on the Presonus site. Is this the whole story or are they leaving bits out?
http://www.presonus.com/community/Learn/The-Truth-About-Digital-Audio-Late ncy

I read about the new V4.00 driver.Do you know if these work for the Presonus 1818VSL or the Saphire pro 40?

Thanks for all this crucial work, I really apreciateit!
Eef


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Eef]
      #1013666 - 15/10/12 01:42 AM
Quote Eef:

Hi, I'm considering buying a Presonus 1818VSL or Focusrite Saphire pro 40, but I'm worried about the latency. Specifically because i'll be using edrums to trigger samples in the DAW, so I need a fast return latency. Am I reading these tests right by asuming this will be difficult to achieve with a Sapphire pro?

I came across this - well explained - piece of text on the Presonus site. Is this the whole story or are they leaving bits out?
http://www.presonus.com/community/Learn/The-Truth-About-Digi...

I read about the new V4.00 driver.Do you know if these work for the Presonus 1818VSL or the Saphire pro 40?

Thanks for all this crucial work, I really apreciateit!
Eef




Eef- did you see post #1008136 - 12/09/12 above by Vin/TAFKAT regarding the amended result for Presonus Audiobox 404 VSL? This uses same USB driver version as 1818VSL.

I'm dubious about that info on Presonus' web site - the USB 2.0 clock interval is 0.125ms, not 1ms (which is USB1.1 clock) as described there by Presonus.

Anyway, Presonus removed USB performance mode feature and the 32 buffer option from the latest drivers due to performance issues (according to driver release notes).

Also, you need to be aware, all Presonus' Audiobox VSL line are USB interfaces, not Firewire!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Eef]
      #1014554 - 20/10/12 01:15 AM
Quote Eef:

Hi, I'm considering buying a Presonus 1818VSL or Focusrite Saphire pro 40, but I'm worried about the latency. Specifically because i'll be using edrums to trigger samples in the DAW, so I need a fast return latency. Am I reading these tests right by asuming this will be difficult to achieve with a Sapphire pro?




As Goddard has pointed out, the updated LLP / RTL figures for the new Presonus VSL USB units are posted. The unit performed reasonably well and RTL's are quite good. They did drop the 032 buffer setting which is not overly surprising as it wasn't really usable.

Quote:

I came across this - well explained - piece of text on the Presonus site. Is this the whole story or are they leaving bits out?




Its a good effort in explaining some of the curves that need to be navigated. Some of the figures had me scratching my head tho. The piece is obviously focused on highlighting the VSL FX / Monitoring process , with a little lean.. :-)


Quote:

I read about the new V4.00 driver.Do you know if these work for the Presonus 1818VSL or the Saphire pro 40?




The V4.0 driver from TC Applied being used by Presonus is only only for the latest FW units , not the VSL USB units. I have a Focusrite Pro24 at the moment which I'll run up when I get some air and confirm whether they have navigated to the same driver.

Peace

V.C

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
dickiefunk



Joined: 17/06/05
Posts: 2398
Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1014568 - 20/10/12 08:49 AM
I'd be interested to know how the new v3.0 of Focusrites MixControl driver performs?

--------------------
www.richardpenrose.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
awjoe



Joined: 08/03/11
Posts: 154
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1016289 - 30/10/12 04:48 PM
The Focusrite stuff doesn't fare so well compared to the other stuff on the list. Is there any reason to suppose that their new Forte unit would be any different? Is there any way of finding out short of buying one and testing it? Hugh Robjohns' November review is very useful and includes technical performance measurements, but doesn't address latency directly, I think, unless I'm being thick about his own testing results. Entirely possible.

The reason I ask is that, on the one hand, the Forte meets my needs as far as I can tell, and on the other hand, it appears to be sex in a box. Very attractive.

--------------------
https://yousemusic.bandcamp.com/


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ef37a



Joined: 29/05/06
Posts: 7026
Loc: northampton uk
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: awjoe]
      #1016293 - 30/10/12 05:21 PM
Quote awjoe:

The Focusrite stuff doesn't fare so well compared to the other stuff on the list. Is there any reason to suppose that their new Forte unit would be any different? Is there any way of finding out short of buying one and testing it? Hugh Robjohns' November review is very useful and includes technical performance measurements, but doesn't address latency directly, I think, unless I'm being thick about his own testing results. Entirely possible.

The reason I ask is that, on the one hand, the Forte meets my needs as far as I can tell, and on the other hand, it appears to be sex in a box. Very attractive.




If you are in UK buy one from a big dealer on credit card and CAREFULLY unpack it (I like to provide my own "bits", mains leads, usb leads, batteries where approriate and keep the new stuff packed) give it a good shaking down, you have a week I think but an hour and a keyboard should tell you if the latency is good enough?

If it does not come up to snuff, ship it back and send Focusrite a swinging email!

Dave.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pete Kaine
Scan Computers


Joined: 10/07/03
Posts: 3675
Loc: Manchester
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: ef37a]
      #1016382 - 31/10/12 09:24 AM
Quote ef37a:


If you are in UK buy one from a big dealer on credit card and CAREFULLY unpack it (I like to provide my own "bits", mains leads, usb leads, batteries where approriate and keep the new stuff packed) give it a good shaking down, you have a week I think but an hour and a keyboard should tell you if the latency is good enough?





Aye, the is a 7 day rejection for any reason under distance selling regulations if you purchase via mail order as long as it is returned in pristine condition. If it isn't in pristine condition then a restocking fee may be charged on it, so Daves advice on using your own grubbings so that none of the packaging is opened is pretty sound advice.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
awjoe



Joined: 08/03/11
Posts: 154
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1016455 - 31/10/12 04:32 PM
Dave, Pete: I'm in Canada, not Britain, but I think my local stockist has a returns period policy for gear like this (I returned a mic once, no questions asked). Good advice about keeping all the little bits in their baggies. Thanks.

--------------------
https://yousemusic.bandcamp.com/


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Martin WalkerModerator
Watcher Of The Skies


Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 17805
Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Pete Kaine]
      #1016600 - 01/11/12 03:51 PM
Quote Pete Kaine:

If it isn't in pristine condition then a restocking fee may be charged on it





Hi Pete,

Is there any protocol on restocking fees? Long before I started to write for SOS I bought an Lexicon Alex reverb (that dates me ), and I found it had so much background noise that I returned it within a couple of days and bought an Alesis Midiverb 4 instead.

The dealer charged me a £50 restocking fee on the £300 Alex reverb, which I thought at the time was over the top considering it was still immaculate, in its original box, and I defy anyone to be able to tell it had been 'used'.

Any opinions anyone?


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ef37a



Joined: 29/05/06
Posts: 7026
Loc: northampton uk
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Martin Walker]
      #1016662 - 01/11/12 05:32 PM
Hi Martin.
A nifty is bloody outrageous! If companies want to trade on the infernalnet and enjoy the benefits threreof compared to people with shops they should be prepared to absorb reasonable costs.

In any event a percentage of product coming in will sometimes be superficially damaged, cartons torn or evidence of wetness, dirty marks, etc. This stuff has to be unpacked, checked and repacked so all the peripherals, leads, PSUs, handbooks etc should be available at dealers premises.

It is not all that uncommon to get a shipment minus a component, the handbook say. Nothing for it but to go thru' all the stock and check!

I have been 30 yrs in retail electronics. Manufacturing (in UK) electronics and now at the head office of a worldwide maker and shipper of amps....***t'appen. The tiny turd added by Joe Public is the price peeps pay for piling 'em high and selling 'em (a bit!)cheaper.

Naturally, if kit is sent back with bits missing or damaged, reccompence CAN be sought but in truth, the ACTUAL cost of a wall rat say is so low that you might as well keep the goodwill.

Dave.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
robinv



Joined: 31/08/04
Posts: 784
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Martin Walker]
      #1016698 - 01/11/12 09:52 PM
Quote Martin Walker:



The dealer charged me a £50 restocking fee on the £300 Alex reverb, which I thought at the time was over the top considering it was still immaculate, in its original box, and I defy anyone to be able to tell it had been 'used'.

Any opinions anyone?


Martin




Did you walk in and buy it from a shop? If so then actually you have no legs to stand on (or at least probably didn't back then). If i put my old Turnkey sales hat on then I can tell you that regularly people would buy something on Friday and then try to return it on Monday having spent the weekend using the gear - posh microphones, 4-track recorders, ADAT's you name it. The restocking fee was essentially charging for the hire of the gear - plus they were exactly the same sort of the people who would refuse a product if the box had been opened or demand some money off - so again the restock fee caters for the loss the shop is going to make through no fault of its own. If you're completely innocent then it hurts a bit, but no one is innocent in the music biz. The best thing Turnkey ever bought was a shrink wrap machine - made everything look new! So yeah, i didn't have a lot of sympathy for people returning stuff just because they didn't like it - but, if they were buying something else then provided it's in perfect nick i'm sure we can sort you out etc etc.

--------------------
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pete Kaine
Scan Computers


Joined: 10/07/03
Posts: 3675
Loc: Manchester
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: robinv]
      #1016748 - 02/11/12 10:31 AM
I think Robin summed it up. You don't get 7 day rejection over the counter as (I assume) the law in that instance takes into account that you can check the goods before you pay on the shop floor and examine the final product before you leave. In those cases they don't have to take it back and they could even say they are doing you a favour even if the's a restocking fee involved, althrough you may skip this at the companies discression by taking store credit.

Just to echo Robins experience with people borrowing kit to gig with, we have a long time customer who comes into reception on a weekly basis. He puts a lot over the counter but recently one of the returns guys noted he'd returned a number of items in a rather short period. We went through his records and I'd say perhaps 80% of the bits he's bought over the years has come back as he's returned in 7 days and asked for credit, so it was signed off automaticly. We did a quick look up online of his e-mail address and it appears he'd been trying to beat various overclocking records and basicly taking it home for the weekend, kicking the absolute hell out of it and then bringing it back with a "not quite what I want" excuse. So having clocked what's going on we check the guys e-mail and he's been trying to beat a number of overclocking records using the components!

So we're now one banned customer and a shelf full of B-Grade down due to someone using the rules to their advantage.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Martin WalkerModerator
Watcher Of The Skies


Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 17805
Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: robinv]
      #1016821 - 02/11/12 04:10 PM
Quote robinv:

Quote Martin Walker:



The dealer charged me a £50 restocking fee on the £300 Alex reverb, which I thought at the time was over the top considering it was still immaculate, in its original box, and I defy anyone to be able to tell it had been 'used'.

Any opinions anyone?


Martin




Did you walk in and buy it from a shop? If so then actually you have no legs to stand on (or at least probably didn't back then). If i put my old Turnkey sales hat on then I can tell you that regularly people would buy something on Friday and then try to return it on Monday having spent the weekend using the gear - posh microphones, 4-track recorders, ADAT's you name it. The restocking fee was essentially charging for the hire of the gear - plus they were exactly the same sort of the people who would refuse a product if the box had been opened or demand some money off - so again the restock fee caters for the loss the shop is going to make through no fault of its own.




Hi Robin!

It was almost pre-Internet (bought in March 1995) by credit card over the phone, and although I wasn't going to name the company involved I suspect from your answer that I was perhaps one of those considered to have 'borrowed' the unit for a few days and my reason for returning it wasn't believed. Yes, I bought it from Turnkey


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1017459 - 07/11/12 05:25 AM
Quote TAFKAT:

I have a Focusrite Pro24 at the moment which I'll run up when I get some air and confirm whether they have navigated to the same driver.




Hi Vin, any news on the Focusrite Pro 24?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Goddard]
      #1017997 - 10/11/12 03:10 AM
Quote Goddard:

Quote TAFKAT:

I have a Focusrite Pro24 at the moment which I'll run up when I get some air and confirm whether they have navigated to the same driver.




Hi Vin, any news on the Focusrite Pro 24?




Hey G,

Finally got some clear air to run up the Focusrite Saffire PRO 24 and I can confirm its Ground Hog Day... LOL

Version 4.0 TC Applied driver ( even lists it clearly as TC Applied on install ) , results were essentially identical to the Presonus Firestudio Mobile but tighter AD/DA which resulted in a lower RTL , so it bumped the LLP rating to 7.26.

Thats quite an impressive result , so another deserved golfclap to TC Applied and to Focusrite. Pity the drivers on the Focusrite USB units are still, hmmmmm, questionable... :-)

Peace

V.C

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1017999 - 10/11/12 04:57 AM
Hey Vin, thanks very much for that confirmation! Very much appreciated! Was really hoping it might be so, after having seen the release info:

Quote:

Saffire Mix Control 3.0 - 20/06/2012
This is an update for Windows and OSX.

Compatible with:

* OS 10.6 Snow Leopard

* OS 10.7 Lion

* Windows XP (32/64 bit)

* Windows 7 (32/64 bit)

This update includes:
• Driver updated to 4.0.0 release
• Improves performance on Windows 7 (x86/x64)
• Improves performance in Pro Tools 10 (Win and Mac)
• Updated available sample buffer sizes
• Sample buffer size now scales with sample rate (I.e. At 44.1 KHz a buffer size of 32 samples is used. Changing to 88.2 KHz increases buffer to 64 samples)
• No longer requires use of Windows legacy Firewire driver...




The only USB interface of which I'm aware (apart from RME) which is reported to actually provide 32 sample latency performance is the Roland Quad-Capture (and perhaps also the Octa-Capture and VS-100/700?) with the latest 1.5 "VS Streaming" ASIO drivers, although Roland have only ever officially claimed 48 samples at 44.1/48 kHz (1ms).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
robinv



Joined: 31/08/04
Posts: 784
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1018013 - 10/11/12 10:05 AM
Quote TAFKAT:



Thats quite an impressive result , so another deserved golfclap to TC Applied and to Focusrite. Pity the drivers on the Focusrite USB units are still, hmmmmm, questionable... :-)

Peace

V.C




Nice one Vin - i think you deserve a lot of credit for pushing makers of decent gear into improving their driver situation. Until your comparisons came along through DAWBench i don't think anyone would have realised or cared - some of us would have just struggled on without any clue that we could use a different interface and get vastly difference results - no reviewers ever talk about it. It's a long hard and often fruitless road but bloody well done sir! You're an inspiration (sniff)

--------------------
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: robinv]
      #1018154 - 11/11/12 08:53 PM
Quote robinv:


Nice one Vin - i think you deserve a lot of credit for pushing makers of decent gear into improving their driver situation. Until your comparisons came along through DAWBench i don't think anyone would have realised or cared - some of us would have just struggled on without any clue that we could use a different interface and get vastly difference results - no reviewers ever talk about it. It's a long hard and often fruitless road but bloody well done sir! You're an inspiration (sniff)




Hey Robin,

Thanks for the support, much appreciated.

We really will never know whether the DAWbench work has been the direct catalyst for TC Applied to knuckle down and improve the driver , I did contact them very early on but was dismissed . Either way, its a Win/Win for all involved, especially the end users.

Re the reviewers not talking about it, its an area that I do find frustrating as there really isn't any consistency at times. Some reviewers step up and do some detailed testing and reporting ( Martin Walker / Sam Inglis ) others just flow thru the specs like its ad copy.

I am sure its a fine balancing act politically at times, but it really isn't doing anyone any service by not reporting the respective performance of the unit. You yourself reported some issues with drivers of the Akai EIE unit , whereas reading the reviews you would have absolutely no idea , and the driver latency issues on that particular unit were extreme IMO.

I am sure I have put some noses out of joint at the manufacturers / devs , but in the end they are not my main priority, my clients are. I decided to share the work as it would be a benefit to the community as a whole , and I hope it will continue to be so.

This is how I see it , one down for the the improvement in FW performance , now to USB2. That one will be a little more of a challenge as there are multiple OEM drivers in play.




@awjoe,

The Focurite Forte uses a different Control Panel/Driver to the Scarlett series , so until we can get in front of one and do some testing there really is no way of knowing what the situation is with the unit in regards to latency/drivers. As you noted , Hughs review made no mention of the driver or respective latency.

Maybe Pete/Tom from Scan can get across one earlier than I can. They have an identical test system put aside that they have used to help me with the Data Base in the past. I'll give them a yell if they don't see this post in the meantime.

@Goddard ,

Re the Roland, I have been trying to get in front of one of those for a long time, no on wants to play ball unfortunately. If you read back in the early parts of this thread it was the cause of an interesting, hmmmm, discussion over the actual latency of the unit between myself and a reviewer.

Peace

V.C

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1018160 - 11/11/12 10:48 PM
Quote TAFKAT:


@Goddard ,

Re the Roland, I have been trying to get in front of one of those for a long time, no on wants to play ball unfortunately. If you read back in the early parts of this thread it was the cause of an interesting, hmmmm, discussion over the actual latency of the unit between myself and a reviewer.





Hey Vin, yeah I was aware of the earlier brouhaha here regarding C.A.'s Octa-Capture review on HC. Fyi, the Quad-Capture 32 sample latency result I was referring to was reported here:

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=2628147&mpage=6#2664328


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Goddard]
      #1018166 - 11/11/12 11:39 PM
Quote Goddard:


Hey Vin, yeah I was aware of the earlier brouhaha here regarding C.A.'s Octa-Capture review on HC. Fyi, the Quad-Capture 32 sample latency result I was referring to was reported here:




Hey G,

Cool, there seems to be some confusion tho, Sonar is reporting a RTL of 5.1 ms for the RTL ( including the AD/DA) while the guy is posting Centance results of 3.29 ms, something not quite right there. If anything the Host report less if the driver doesn't report the AD/DA, never higher !

I noticed you mentioned my little dust up over the latency question, well let me say if its actually 5.1 ms @ 032, that fits in comparatively with the figure CA posted , and I'll stick by my original statement... :-)

Also, as we have discovered the setting being available is only 1/2 of it, its whether the unit can actually deliver at that level.

I'll try again to get a test unit.

BTW: I saw the HPET debate and scratched my head, is the dude saying the unit will not work reliably with HPET on ?

FWIW I have never switched it off , apart from dropping the DPC into the single figure values of XP ( which did not recognise it ) , its of no benefit to disable it IMO. I am happy to be proven wrong tho. I have never had an issue with it. Yes I have had debates with EB from ADK as well.. :-)

We won't mention the CoreParking debate that seems to only effect SONAR.

I get a headache any time I navigate over there .. :-(



V.C

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
robinv



Joined: 31/08/04
Posts: 784
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1018195 - 12/11/12 10:13 AM
Quote TAFKAT:

You yourself reported some issues with drivers of the Akai EIE unit , whereas reading the reviews you would have absolutely no idea , and the driver latency issues on that particular unit were extreme IMO.





Yes indeed - my review caused some raised eyebrows at Akai ( http://youtu.be/WJq1MJU0WfU good god that's about to hit 10,000 views) and after a few days of me giving the improved but unofficial driver out to people who asked for it Akai swooped in and insisted, very nicely, that i really shouldn't be doing that - which is fair enough, it's their tech support after all. I got emails every day from users requesting the drivers i had got out of Ploytec which shaved 20ms off the RTL - Akai finally released them a couple of weeks ago - that's like 6 months after I reported how vastly improved they were.

So yeah NOW it's a half decent interface

--------------------
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ef37a



Joined: 29/05/06
Posts: 7026
Loc: northampton uk
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: robinv]
      #1018253 - 12/11/12 02:47 PM
Quote robinv:

Quote TAFKAT:

You yourself reported some issues with drivers of the Akai EIE unit , whereas reading the reviews you would have absolutely no idea , and the driver latency issues on that particular unit were extreme IMO.





Yes indeed - my review caused some raised eyebrows at Akai ( http://youtu.be/WJq1MJU0WfU good god that's about to hit 10,000 views) and after a few days of me giving the improved but unofficial driver out to people who asked for it Akai swooped in and insisted, very nicely, that i really shouldn't be doing that - which is fair enough, it's their tech support after all. I got emails every day from users requesting the drivers i had got out of Ploytec which shaved 20ms off the RTL - Akai finally released them a couple of weeks ago - that's like 6 months after I reported how vastly improved they were.


So yeah NOW it's a half decent interface


I would love to watch your review Rob but it sticks every time at 1min. 01 and then bloody Chrome crashes things then Akai poke their snout in and stop it.

Dave.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1020238 - 25/11/12 04:14 PM
Quote TAFKAT:

Quote Goddard:


Hey Vin, yeah I was aware of the earlier brouhaha here regarding C.A.'s Octa-Capture review on HC. Fyi, the Quad-Capture 32 sample latency result I was referring to was reported here:




Hey G,

Cool, there seems to be some confusion tho, Sonar is reporting a RTL of 5.1 ms for the RTL ( including the AD/DA) while the guy is posting Centance results of 3.29 ms, something not quite right there. If anything the Host report less if the driver doesn't report the AD/DA, never higher !

I noticed you mentioned my little dust up over the latency question, well let me say if its actually 5.1 ms @ 032, that fits in comparatively with the figure CA posted , and I'll stick by my original statement... :-)

Also, as we have discovered the setting being available is only 1/2 of it, its whether the unit can actually deliver at that level.

I'll try again to get a test unit.




Heya Vin, missed seeing your post until now.

Will be very interested to hear what you find with the Roland unit. FYI, Roland just released even newer drivers (which may only relate to Win8 compatibility?).

Quote TAFKAT:

BTW: I saw the HPET debate and scratched my head, is the dude saying the unit will not work reliably with HPET on ?




Yes, that's basically what he (and ADK) was claiming, that enabling HPET degraded system performance. That was with an older version of Sonar, although not sure that matters.

Quote TAFKAT:

FWIW I have never switched it off , apart from dropping the DPC into the single figure values of XP ( which did not recognise it ) , its of no benefit to disable it IMO. I am happy to be proven wrong tho. I have never had an issue with it. Yes I have had debates with EB from ADK as well.. :-)




Right, XP could not use HPET, it only became available to the kernel from Vista onward. While ASIO still relies on the older, less precise (lower rez) MM timer.

I suspect the anomalies people are seeing with HPET may be down to buggy or old code calling deprecated timing routines. Dunno.

And now, some brand new timers in Win8. Oh joy!

That whole "debate" only arose after I questioned ADK's blanket recommendation to disable HPET.

Quote TAFKAT:

We won't mention the CoreParking debate that seems to only effect SONAR.




I hadn't bothered with their discussion about core parking, which I thought irrelevant, and only became involved after HPET was brought into the mix. The core parking issue was about laptops iirc, and is old news anymore, but lingers on with the C-state and turbo stuff now. I don't think it's specific to Sonar (there have been other non-Sonar threads over on GS previously), but then, I really dunno how well Sonar actually threads, which is why I'd welcomed your recent reinstatement of Sonar into your revised DAW benchmark.

Quote TAFKAT:

I get a headache any time I navigate over there .. :-(




Yeah, CW's forum software is weird. I can browse there just fine with FF, but need to use another browser like Chrome in order for posting options to work. One would expect better compatibility from a software company, but that's the least of my concerns with CW's software since I didn't pay for their forum, only for their DAW app. Anyway, seems the little birds have been busy there since my last visit, so might be some ruffled feathers flying soon...

Ahem. Veering back onto topic, it occurs to me that interface makers might take their latency (and your benchmarking thereof) more seriously if they grasped that people do actually consider latency an an important factor when making purchasing decisions.

So, in testimony, let me just mention that I for one have just purchased a shiny new Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP based upon your recent confirmation of the Pro 24's improved peformance with the latest driver version (after having become interested in the Pro 24 DSP from earlier reviews in SOS and by your good buddy over on HC), and also, I earlier purchased a new MOTU 424 PCIe host card to replace a 424 PCI based upon your confirmation of identical low latency performance between the respective versions. So, thanks in large part to your work (for which I am very appreciative), MOTU and Focusrite just moved some product (and should thus be very grateful to you)!

Now, I would expect there must be others about who have also made purchasing decisions based at least in part upon your benchmark reports here and on DAWbench and elsewhere. So, perhaps a new topic and/or a poll/survey about that might be useful to the righteous cause?

Pax!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
ef37a



Joined: 29/05/06
Posts: 7026
Loc: northampton uk
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Goddard]
      #1020247 - 25/11/12 04:37 PM
Can't quote you Mr G because I would get The Wrap but count me in as one who bought an NI Ka6 soley on the results of the latency survey. Normally I do not buy any hardware unless SoS have run a ruler over it (Pete also confirmed it as a good'un).

My son finds that a PCI 2496 and Cubase (LE6) is just about fast enough when he is playing keys back into an existing track. He has yet to try (in France atmo) the combination of my HP i3 laptop and the Ka6 but I am sure it will work just fine.

Dave.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
TAFKAT
member


Joined: 08/01/03
Posts: 347
Loc: Australia
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Goddard]
      #1020284 - 25/11/12 09:10 PM
Quote Goddard:



Heya Vin, missed seeing your post until now.

Will be very interested to hear what you find with the Roland unit. FYI, Roland just released even newer drivers (which may only relate to Win8 compatibility?).




I'll try and get in front of a unit, but it has been hard getting the local guys to give me access :-(

Maybe Pete/Tom from Scan can run one up, as I believe they have the Roland units now. I am pretty sure the guys still have an identical test system put aside for the audio interface testing/database.

Quote:

Ahem. Veering back onto topic, it occurs to me that interface makers might take their latency (and your benchmarking thereof) more seriously if they grasped that people do actually consider latency an an important factor when making purchasing decisions.




That was always the plan , and I do think collectively that we have managed to get some positive results definitely with the TC Applied powered units. I am sure some of the devs are monitoring the work, but equally there will be some that just couldn't care less.

Quote:

So, thanks in large part to your work (for which I am very appreciative), MOTU and Focusrite just moved some product (and should thus be very grateful to you)!




Perhaps, but I am not expecting anything from them to be honest , I have had some less than complementary things said to me by certain reps.

Quote:

Now, I would expect there must be others about who have also made purchasing decisions based at least in part upon your benchmark reports here and on DAWbench and elsewhere. So, perhaps a new topic and/or a poll/survey about that might be useful to the righteous cause?




I don't think we need a new thread/poll to be honest, if end users continue to report their experiences on this thread, I think that will be fine.

Quote:

Yeah, CW's forum software is weird. I can browse there just fine with FF, but need to use another browser like Chrome in order for posting options to work. One would expect better compatibility from a software company, but that's the least of my concerns with CW's software since I didn't pay for their forum, only for their DAW app.




The Forum software is horrible IMO, as you noted FF correctly will not work for posting , I actually have to use IE at my end for the forum , and I can't work out the quoting mechanism for the life of me, and its not like I am a stranger to forums. It may not be a biggy , but to me it just adds an unnecessary level of inconvenience that makes participating there even less appealing... :-)

Quote:

Anyway, seems the little birds have been busy there since my last visit, so might be some ruffled feathers flying soon...




Not really much going on after I entered the threads, but your are welcome to ruffle away.. :-)

Peace

V.C

--------------------
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1021095 - 27/11/12 04:51 PM
Quote TAFKAT:


I don't think we need a new thread/poll to be honest, if end users continue to report their experiences on this thread, I think that will be fine.




Ok, I'll leave that to you and Martin.

Quote TAFKAT:

Not really much going on after I entered the threads, but your are welcome to ruffle away.. :-)




Different threads and different feathers (some stateside DAW vendor colleagues of yours perhaps), although I just noticed that the same bird who had posted there about your GS Sonar Win7/8 benchmark post has now also roosted on a post of mine, so maybe a nice omelette tomorrow...

Anyway, it was good (and bold!) of Martin to write up Win 8 and your benching in his latest column (and nice of SOS to make it freely readable), so let's hope you and the Sonar devs can have a meeting of the minds, er, benchmarks and some good may come of it.

BTW, it may be notable that TC still haven't yet "finalized" ;-) their updated software release for their Konnekt interface range which I would expect to include the latest DICEII drivers, although I dunno if that's down to problems with the drivers or perhaps the control panel applet. I had only become interested in the Saffire Pro 24 DSP after having had problems with a Konnekt 24D previously, so still keep a watch there in the hope that they'll get it right some day. Kinda ironic though, that TC's own updated software is still in debug beta.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Martin WalkerModerator
Watcher Of The Skies


Joined: 28/02/01
Posts: 17805
Loc: Cornwall, UK
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Goddard]
      #1021156 - 28/11/12 12:37 AM
Quote Goddard:

Anyway, it was good (and bold!) of Martin to write up Win 8 and your benching in his latest column (and nice of SOS to make it freely readable)




Glad you approved Goddard - I've used DAWbench on so many occasions over the last few years and got results that are so close to others running the same hardware that I trust it to provide me with the truth.

After all, it mimics what so many musicians end up doing in real life - run more and more of everything until their PC starts glitching, and then back off a bit


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Martin Walker]
      #1022195 - 04/12/12 12:24 AM
Quote Martin Walker:

Quote Goddard:

Anyway, it was good (and bold!) of Martin to write up Win 8 and your benching in his latest column (and nice of SOS to make it freely readable)




Glad you approved Goddard - I've used DAWbench on so many occasions over the last few years and got results that are so close to others running the same hardware that I trust it to provide me with the truth.

After all, it mimics what so many musicians end up doing in real life - run more and more of everything until their PC starts glitching, and then back off a bit


Martin




Yes, Martin, exactly! Not only you, but also well-respected DAW vendors appreciate the validity of DAWbench.

Anyways, good on you and SOS! And on Vin! Brave souls fighting the good fight.

Here's hoping the M$ goons are too busy with their Win8 fiasco to come after ya both...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pete Kaine
Scan Computers


Joined: 10/07/03
Posts: 3675
Loc: Manchester
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: TAFKAT]
      #1022281 - 04/12/12 12:38 PM
Quote TAFKAT:

Maybe Pete/Tom from Scan can get across one earlier than I can. They have an identical test system put aside that they have used to help me with the Data Base in the past. I'll give them a yell if they don't see this post in the meantime.





We're in the process of bringing in Roland now, so I dare say someone will get something on a bench before long.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
il Padrino



Joined: 29/03/05
Posts: 137
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Pete Kaine]
      #1027511 - 07/01/13 10:32 PM
Quote Pete Kaine:

Quote TAFKAT:

Maybe Pete/Tom from Scan can get across one earlier than I can. They have an identical test system put aside that they have used to help me with the Data Base in the past. I'll give them a yell if they don't see this post in the meantime.





We're in the process of bringing in Roland now, so I dare say someone will get something on a bench before long.




Any more news on that Roland Pete?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pete Kaine
Scan Computers


Joined: 10/07/03
Posts: 3675
Loc: Manchester
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: il Padrino]
      #1027569 - 08/01/13 12:57 PM
No, Dec was errr... not fun. We're preping for a couple of trade shows right now but I'll see if I can twist Toms arm over getting it on bench.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
il Padrino



Joined: 29/03/05
Posts: 137
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Pete Kaine]
      #1027586 - 08/01/13 03:03 PM
Quote Pete Kaine:

No, Dec was errr... not fun. We're preping for a couple of trade shows right now but I'll see if I can twist Toms arm over getting it on bench.




"Errr... not fun."

For some reason, that made me chuckle. Not sadistically mind you!

No worries, good luck with the shows.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pete Kaine
Scan Computers


Joined: 10/07/03
Posts: 3675
Loc: Manchester
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: il Padrino]
      #1028516 - 14/01/13 11:58 AM
Right then, I'll throw a quick comment into this thread, althrough I'll need a chat with Vin before we get them up properly.

The Octo came out at a score of 5.3.

RTL:
7.6 @ 32
12.09 @ 64
20.75 @ 256

So perfectly usable at 32 althrough real time monitoring might become a little questionable at 64 and above.

--------------------
ScanProAudio & 3XS Audio Systems
ScanProAudio Blog


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Goddard



Joined: 04/04/12
Posts: 960
Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base : new [Re: Pete Kaine]
      #1028568 - 14/01/13 03:27 PM
Hi Pete, thanks for those numbers.

Was that using the version 1.50 driver under Win7, or the current v1.51 (under Win8?)?

I'm curious, because I've seen a report of very low latency at 32 samples, although afaik Roland only ever claimed 48 samples (~1ms) as smallest "VS Streaming" buffer size, at least prior to releasing the v1.50 driver.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator     Back to top
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)

Rate this thread

Jump to

Extra Information
1 registered and 9 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  David Etheridge, James Perrett, zenguitar, Martin Walker, Forum Admin, Hugh Robjohns, Zukan, Frank Eleveld, SOS News Editor,  
Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled
Rating: ****
Thread views: 384777

December 2014
On sale now at main newsagents and bookstores (or buy direct from the
SOS Web Shop)
SOS current Print Magazine: click here for FULL Contents list
Click image for December 2014
DAW Tips from SOS

 

Home | Search | News | Current Issue | Tablet Mag | Articles | Forum | Blog | Subscribe | Shop | Readers Ads

Advertise | Information | Privacy Policy | Support | Login Help

 

Email: Contact SOS

Telephone: +44 (0)1954 789888

Fax: +44 (0)1954 789895

Registered Office: Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge, CB23 8SQ, United Kingdom.

Sound On Sound Ltd is registered in England and Wales.

Company number: 3015516 VAT number: GB 638 5307 26

         

All contents copyright © SOS Publications Group and/or its licensors, 1985-2014. All rights reserved.
The contents of this article are subject to worldwide copyright protection and reproduction in whole or part, whether mechanical or electronic, is expressly forbidden without the prior written consent of the Publishers. Great care has been taken to ensure accuracy in the preparation of this article but neither Sound On Sound Limited nor the publishers can be held responsible for its contents. The views expressed are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of the publishers.

Web site designed & maintained by PB Associates | SOS | Relative Media