You are here

Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

For anything relating to music-making on Windows computers, with lots of FAQs. Moderated by Martin Walker.

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:26 pm

Pete Kaine wrote:
TAFKAT wrote:
Has the double buffering been introduced with the new driver , or was it present with the older one as well ?

Nope, it was there last time we looked at it last year.

Thanks Pete,

Looks like it was something that totally slipped under the radar for most, even the reviewers.

After all the hoopla starting back at the run in over the OctoCapture , I was expecting better than that.

Oh well , next... :-)

V.C
TAFKAT
Regular
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Australia
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby alexis » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:28 pm

Hi Vin and Robin -

I see you have directly mentioned the UR28M, which I recently purchased, and indirectly mentioned another Steinberg unit.

Can you clarify for me please, what the issues were with those units, it sounds like they were rectified in the end? I'm happy w/ my UR28M (mainly record w/ direct monitoring/zero latency), so it's just from the point of view of learning more when I ask.

Also, Vin - I've been to your website in the past, but couldn't find the "Here's how to read these tables, and why it's important" page ... is there one of those somewhere?

Thanks much!
User avatar
alexis
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3688
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Cubase 9.0.1; i5-4570 3.2GHz,16GB RAM;W10 64bit on Samsung SSD840 Pro256GB;Seagte 1TB SATA600 Audio;UR28M;Motif8;UAD2Solo;Jamstix 3.3;BCF2K;TC Helicon VoiceOne;RevoicePro3.2

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby robinv » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:31 am

alexis wrote:Hi Vin and Robin -

I see you have directly mentioned the UR28M, which I recently purchased, and indirectly mentioned another Steinberg unit.

Can you clarify for me please, what the issues were with those units, it sounds like they were rectified in the end? I'm happy w/ my UR28M (mainly record w/ direct monitoring/zero latency), so it's just from the point of view of learning more when I ask.

Hi,
The issue was massive playback latency and poor performance - but this was a couple of years ago. If you are using current drivers and current firmware - in other words if it came with the Yamaha DSP effects in the MixFX mixer - then you are all up to date and shouldnt see any problems. Does that help?
User avatar
robinv
Frequent Poster
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:00 am
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on
Making Music on the Microsoft Surface

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby ef37a » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:38 am

robinv wrote:
alexis wrote:Hi Vin and Robin -

I see you have directly mentioned the UR28M, which I recently purchased, and indirectly mentioned another Steinberg unit.

Can you clarify for me please, what the issues were with those units, it sounds like they were rectified in the end? I'm happy w/ my UR28M (mainly record w/ direct monitoring/zero latency), so it's just from the point of view of learning more when I ask.

Hi,
The issue was massive playback latency and poor performance - but this was a couple of years ago. If you are using current drivers and current firmware - in other words if it came with the Yamaha DSP effects in the MixFX mixer - then you are all up to date and shouldnt see any problems. Does that help?

I am confused now! Surely Vin will have done all this?

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 12126
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk
#They did not listen, they are not listening still...Perhaps they never will?#

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby alexis » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:30 pm

Thank you, robinv! I figured things were all fixed now, but as a long-time Steinberg customer, I was wondering what the issues were.

Thanks!
User avatar
alexis
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3688
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Cubase 9.0.1; i5-4570 3.2GHz,16GB RAM;W10 64bit on Samsung SSD840 Pro256GB;Seagte 1TB SATA600 Audio;UR28M;Motif8;UAD2Solo;Jamstix 3.3;BCF2K;TC Helicon VoiceOne;RevoicePro3.2

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:05 pm

alexis wrote:

Also, Vin - I've been to your website in the past, but couldn't find the "Here's how to read these tables, and why it's important" page ... is there one of those somewhere?

Thanks much!


Hey Alexis,

Robin covered the UR series issues we encountered in the initial driver release, I was scathing in my summary on first testing the unit. Steinberg sorted the issues on a later driver/firmware realese, thankfully.

In regards to better understanding the data and tables, it is detailed in Part II of the Audio Interface LLP reports :

Here : http://www.dawbench.com/audio-int-lowlatency2.htm

In a nutshell, the interfaces are tested at respective latencies across 3 different benchmarks and the results are gauged % wise against the reference hardware , which is the RME HDSPe/ADI-8 combo. Those results are then placed in context by the delivered Round Trip Latency, as that is a very important variable and leveller, as there is huge variance in actual delivered latency at respective buffer settings provided by the drivers/control panels.

The LLP Rating is achieved by taking all of the data and using a formula to calculate the rating from 1-10 , 1 being worse , 10 being best

Hope that helps.

V.C
TAFKAT
Regular
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Australia
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby robinv » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:28 am

ef37a wrote:
I am confused now! Surely Vin will have done all this?

Dave.

Done all what sorry?
User avatar
robinv
Frequent Poster
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:00 am
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on
Making Music on the Microsoft Surface

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby ef37a » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:57 am

robinv wrote:
ef37a wrote:
I am confused now! Surely Vin will have done all this?

Dave.

Done all what sorry?

Used the latest drivers and firmware updates? Or are we both confused now?

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 12126
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk
#They did not listen, they are not listening still...Perhaps they never will?#

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby robinv » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:55 pm

ef37a wrote:
Used the latest drivers and firmware updates? Or are we both confused now?

Dave.

I'm sure he has - the guy was asking for an opinion, there's nothing to be confused about :)
User avatar
robinv
Frequent Poster
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:00 am
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on
Making Music on the Microsoft Surface

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby alexis » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:34 pm



Thanks, TAFKAT, I have gone to the page, whew!, but great!


TAFKAT wrote:...

Hey Alexis,

Robin covered the UR series issues we encountered in the initial driver release, I was scathing in my summary on first testing the unit. Steinberg sorted the issues on a later driver/firmware realese, thankfully.

Thanks - just wondering, since the UR28M is listed as having driver 1.1.1 on the page you linked to, would those results not necessarily be applicable to the latest driver?






TAFKAT wrote:In regards to better understanding the data and tables, it is detailed in Part II of the Audio Interface LLP reports :

Here : http://www.dawbench.com/audio-int-lowlatency2.htm

In a nutshell, the interfaces are tested at respective latencies across 3 different benchmarks and the results are gauged % wise against the reference hardware , which is the RME HDSPe/ADI-8 combo. Those results are then placed in context by the delivered Round Trip Latency, as that is a very important variable and leveller, as there is huge variance in actual delivered latency at respective buffer settings provided by the drivers/control panels.

The LLP Rating is achieved by taking all of the data and using a formula to calculate the rating from 1-10 , 1 being worse , 10 being best

Hope that helps.

V.C

Yes sir, thank you!

One question on your last column if I could - some of the RTL columns have a double " ** ", with the comment "RTL calculated via utility". What does that mean, as opposed to RTL being calculated in a different fashion?

I guess in a practical sense, for my UR28M - the numbers in your column are greater than my old Delta 44 card reported in its control panel ... 10 years ago! Do the RTL numbers in your last column reflect the "real-world" latency, regardless of what the UR28M's control panel reports?

And if I'm recording/tracking using "direct monitoring" does the actual latency become unimportant? (Or maybe it is still very important? ... For example if another application like UAD-2 looks to Cubase's Control Panel to perform latency compensation, but it is reported by Cubase incorrectly as determined by your testing, and so things go awry?)

Thanks again!
User avatar
alexis
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3688
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Cubase 9.0.1; i5-4570 3.2GHz,16GB RAM;W10 64bit on Samsung SSD840 Pro256GB;Seagte 1TB SATA600 Audio;UR28M;Motif8;UAD2Solo;Jamstix 3.3;BCF2K;TC Helicon VoiceOne;RevoicePro3.2

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby ef37a » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:38 pm

robinv wrote:
ef37a wrote:
Used the latest drivers and firmware updates? Or are we both confused now?

Dave.

I'm sure he has - the guy was asking for an opinion, there's nothing to be confused about :)

Oooo! Old, meds, easily done I assure you!

Dave.
ef37a
Jedi Poster
Posts: 12126
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 12:00 am
Location: northampton uk
#They did not listen, they are not listening still...Perhaps they never will?#

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:24 pm

alexis wrote:
Thanks - just wondering, since the UR28M is listed as having driver 1.1.1 on the page you linked to, would those results not necessarily be applicable to the latest driver?


Any driver 1.1.1 or above will have the improved performance.


One question on your last column if I could - some of the RTL columns have a double " ** ", with the comment "RTL calculated via utility". What does that mean, as opposed to RTL being calculated in a different fashion?


Some of the results are from pre the RTL Utility, those sans the RTL calculation also include the AD/DA in the I/O values , so the measured RTL would be very close , but I will amend what units I still have access to on the next update.

I guess in a practical sense, for my UR28M - the numbers in your column are greater than my old Delta 44 card reported in its control panel ... 10 years ago! Do the RTL numbers in your last column reflect the "real-world" latency, regardless of what the UR28M's control panel reports?


Can't remember that far back, sorry. The Delta may have been reporting Nominal figures back then, if so, they will have no correlation to what was actually delivered.

And if I'm recording/tracking using "direct monitoring" does the actual latency become unimportant? (Or maybe it is still very important? ... For example if another application like UAD-2 looks to Cubase's Control Panel to perform latency compensation, but it is reported by Cubase incorrectly as determined by your testing, and so things go awry?)


Direct monitoring is AD/DA + DSP/FPGA , so if you are recording dry, buffers are unimportant to that recording environment, but you cannot monitor FX. If there is a large variance between what is reported and actually delivered, it can interfere with Plugin Delay Compensation , most DAW's have a way of dialling in th values of the AD/DA if need be, but if there are hidden buffers not being reported , its more difficult. Most don't bother with the AD/DA values as they pretty small.

V.C
TAFKAT
Regular
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Australia
AAVIM Technology
DAWbench.com

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby alexis » Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:59 pm

TAFKAT wrote:
alexis wrote:
Thanks - just wondering, since the UR28M is listed as having driver 1.1.1 on the page you linked to, would those results not necessarily be applicable to the latest driver?


Any driver 1.1.1 or above will have the improved performance.


One question on your last column if I could - some of the RTL columns have a double " ** ", with the comment "RTL calculated via utility". What does that mean, as opposed to RTL being calculated in a different fashion?

Some of the results are from pre the RTL Utility, those sans the RTL calculation also include the AD/DA in the I/O values , so the measured RTL would be very close , but I will amend what units I still have access to on the next update.

I guess in a practical sense, for my UR28M - the numbers in your column are greater than my old Delta 44 card reported in its control panel ... 10 years ago! Do the RTL numbers in your last column reflect the "real-world" latency, regardless of what the UR28M's control panel reports?

Can't remember that far back, sorry. The Delta may have been reporting Nominal figures back then, if so, they will have no correlation to what was actually delivered.

And if I'm recording/tracking using "direct monitoring" does the actual latency become unimportant? (Or maybe it is still very important? ... For example if another application like UAD-2 looks to Cubase's Control Panel to perform latency compensation, but it is reported by Cubase incorrectly as determined by your testing, and so things go awry?)


Direct monitoring is AD/DA + DSP/FPGA , so if you are recording dry, buffers are unimportant to that recording environment, but you cannot monitor FX. If there is a large variance between what is reported and actually delivered, it can interfere with Plugin Delay Compensation , most DAW's have a way of dialling in th values of the AD/DA if need be, but if there are hidden buffers not being reported , its more difficult. Most don't bother with the AD/DA values as they pretty small.

V.C

Thank you,Vin, for your time in responding!

With the caveat of not knowing whether Cubase's PDC is getting accurate number from the UR28M, I think I'm in OK shape. I record zero latency/dry (actually the interface has a reverb it applies for tracking with zero latency), so the buffers aren't that important in that respect.

And I'm going to guess that since the UR28M is a Steinberg unit, it does communicate well with Cubase in terms of reporting actual latencies for PDC calculation purposes. But I won't bet the farm on it ... :)

Thanks again, TAFKAT!
User avatar
alexis
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3688
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00 am
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Cubase 9.0.1; i5-4570 3.2GHz,16GB RAM;W10 64bit on Samsung SSD840 Pro256GB;Seagte 1TB SATA600 Audio;UR28M;Motif8;UAD2Solo;Jamstix 3.3;BCF2K;TC Helicon VoiceOne;RevoicePro3.2

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby Goddard » Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:24 am

Came across another audio interface RTL database which may be of interest.

8-)
User avatar
Goddard
Frequent Poster
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:00 am

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby robinv » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:30 am

That's a nice article - the only thing missing is any kind of relative performance testing. Two interfaces with the same RTL may have vastly difference performances in terms of tracks, effects and VSTi's it can cope with at that latency. It would be cool if he could show that..... although, as we know, that's a ton of work :)
User avatar
robinv
Frequent Poster
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:00 am
Molten Music Technology - Computers for doing music on
Making Music on the Microsoft Surface

PreviousNext