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 Jez Corbett » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:43 pm

Remeniz wrote:Mmm...

Any results for the Steinberg MR816?

I was working at 32 sample buffer setting until I realized that I was running @ 96Khz sample rate and went into the MR editor to go back down to 44.1Khz.


Being the user of an MR816 I doubt the results for it will be terribly good. With anything other than the most simple of projects I find it starts crapping out at anything below 192 samples - and I believe it's actually using double that.

Fortunately I find that acceptable for my needs. Unfortunately there are other issues with the device that make it somewhat of a pain in the arse - the big one being the way it zeros all it's monitor inputs when you quit Cubase/Nuendo and I have to manually load a preset to bring them back up every time or I get silence from the gaming card I have routed through it.

Steinberg have been aware of this issue for over two years but you know what Steinberg are like for fixing bugs with their hardware!
User avatar
Jez Corbett
Frequent Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland
http://www.jeremycorbett.co.uk

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:16 am

Some results from the latest testing of the current batch of audio interfaces across both DAWbench DSP and DAWbench VI :

DAWbench DSP - RXC

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

AVID MBox Pro 3 : Driver : 1.0.11

064 - 134 RXC : I/O - 2.517/2.517: RTL - 5.034

128 - 148 RXC : I/O - 3.968/3.968 : RTL - 7.936

256 - 152 RXC : I/O - 6.871/6.81 : RTL - 13.742

----------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - CV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

AVID MBox Pro 3 : Driver : 1.0.11

064 - 140 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 2.517/2.517: RTL - 5.034

128 - 280 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.968/3.968 : RTL - 7.936

256 - 500 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 6.871/6.81 : RTL - 13.742

512 - 620 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 12.676/12.676 : RTL - 25.534

-----------------------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - NCV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

AVID MBox Pro 3 : Driver : 1.0.11

064 - 200 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 2.517/2.517: RTL - 5.034

128 - 300 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.968/3.968 : RTL - 7.936

256 - 520 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 6.871/6.81 : RTL - 13.742

512 - 620 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 12.676/12.676 : RTL - 25.534

-------------------------------------------------------------------

DAWbench DSP - RXC

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

M-Audio Profire 610 : Driver 5.10.0.5082 - 1.0.8.1

064 - 126 RXC : I/O - 3.152/3.152: RTL - 6.304

128 - 148 RXC : I/O - 4.603/4.603 : RTL - 9.206

256 - 152 RXC : I/O - 7.506/7.506 : RTL - 15.012

----------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - CV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

M-Audio Profire 610 : Driver 5.10.0.5082 - 1.0.8.1

064 - 160 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.152/3.152: RTL - 6.304

128 - 280 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 4.603/4.603 : RTL - 9.206

256 - 500 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 7.506/7.506 : RTL - 15.02

512 - 620 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 13.311/13.311 : RTL - 26.622

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - NCV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

M-Audio Profire 610 : Driver 5.10.0.5082 - 1.0.8.1

064 - 200 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.152/3.152: RTL - 6.304

128 - 300 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 4.603/4.603 : RTL - 9.206

256 - 520 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 7.506/7.506 : RTL - 15.02

512 - 620 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 13.311/13.311 : RTL - 26.622

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Good results for both the MBox Pro 3 and Profire 610 , near identical in performance and very similar pattern of reported latency values per respective buffers with both In/Out having equal value. From the data I would suggest they are using the same FW controller ( Dice - Not Dice II ) and the variance in the added buffers on the Profire 610 is down to the inherent latencies of the AD/DA being slightly higher.

O.K Onto the Focusrite Sapphire Liquid 56

DAWbench DSP - RXC

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

Focusrite Sapphire Liquid 56: Driver : MixControl 2.2

064 - 058 RXC : I/O - 1.905/3.900 : RTL - 5.805

128 - 105 RXC : I/O - 3.356/5.351 : RTL - 8.707

256 - 127 RXC : I/O - 6.259/8.254 : RTL - 14.513

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Results were down from the first round of testing with version 2.0 of the MixControl / Driver , so its actually going backwards.

There is no point sugar coating this this , the Dice II FW controller and accompanying drivers are comparatively not even on the same ball park as the AVID/MAido offerings on the DSP test.

Just to drive home the point even further, check out the DAWbench VI results.

--------------------------------------------------------------
DAWbench VI - CV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

Focusrite Sapphire Liquid 56: Driver : MixControl 2.2

064 - 000 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 1.905/3.900 : RTL - 5.805

128 - 180 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.356/5.351 : RTL - 8.707

256 - 260 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 6.259/8.254 : RTL - 14.513

512 - 560 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 12.063/14.059 : RTL - 26.122

---------------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - NCV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

Focusrite Sapphire Liquid 56: Driver : MixControl 2.2

064 - 000 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 1.905/3.900 : RTL - 5.805

128 - 180 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.356/5.351 : RTL - 8.707

256 - 260 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 6.259/8.254 : RTL - 14.513

512 - 580 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 12.063/14.059 : RTL - 26.122

---------------------------------------------------------

The drivers collapsed even further in the VI testing, I really have to question anyone using these Dice II interfaces for working environments utilising sample based virtual instruments , you could easily be loosing 50% of your potential system overhead at the preferred tracking/working latencies of 256 and below.

More results as I finalise them.

Peace

V:
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 Spangler » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:37 am

Interesting results Vin - this is exactly what I want to know about any interface.
Spangler
Regular
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Newcastle
clicky

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:35 am

RME Fireface 800 numbers..

DAWbench DSP - RXC

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

RME Fireface 800 : Driver 3.034 : FW Legacy Mode

064 - 140 RXC : I/O - 2.472/3.628: RTL - 6.100

128 - 145 RXC : I/O - 3.923/5.079 : RTL - 9.002

256 - 148 RXC : I/O - 6.825/7.892 : RTL - 14.717

----------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - CV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

RME Fireface 800 : Driver 3.034 : FW Legacy Mode

064 - 160 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 2.472/3.628: RTL - 6.100

128 - 280 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.923/5.079 : RTL - 9.002

256 - 500 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 6.825/7.892 : RTL - 14.717

512 - 620 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 12.630/13.787 : RTL - 26.417

--------------------------------------------------------------------

DAWbench VI - NCV

Cubase 6.0.0

i7 920 @ 2.66 GHZ:

6GB PC12800 DDR 3

Windows 7 x64 Pro

RME Fireface 800 : Driver 3.034 : FW Legacy Mode

064 - 220 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 2.472/3.628: RTL - 6.100

128 - 300 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 3.923/5.079 : RTL - 9.002

256 - 520 Notes Of Polyphony : I/O - 6.825/7.892 : RTL - 14.717

512 - 620 Notes of Polyphony : I/O - 12.630/13.787 : RTL - 26.417

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The results for the earlier 2.992 driver were near identical except on DAWbench DSP @ 064 samples where the results were down a touch at 130 RXC over 140 on the newer 3.034 driver. However I should point out that the newer driver under the Native TI FW driver, the results for DAWbench DSP were down about 8-10% across the board , the results for DAWbench VI under Native were down around 20 notes of poly at each setting, so I definitely would recommend using the legacy driver as it shows no disadvantage to do so, and a touch more headroom.

On a side note Cubase 6 is proving a little hungrier than its predecessor.

P.S: I'll get some tables / graphs up shortly that will make reading and comparing the data easier.

Peace

V:
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 johnny h » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:17 am

Any chance of you doing win7 / cubase vs OSX / logic. Or renoise win7 / OSX?

thanks
johnny h
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby Martin Walker » Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:42 pm

Hi johnny!

Vin has already posted considerable amounts of data re the relative performance of Cubase on OSX and Windows 7.

However, I can’t really see the point of comparing Win7/Cubase with OSX/Logic - you’re not going to change anyone’s mind about their choice of sequencer, and you also run the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions about whether any performance differences are due to the operating system or the sequencer :beamup:


Martin
User avatar
Martin Walker
Moderator
Posts: 14828
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:44 am
Location: Cornwall, UK

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby johnny h » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:10 pm

Martin Walker wrote:Hi johnny!

Vin has already posted considerable amounts of data re the relative performance of Cubase on OSX and Windows 7.

However, I can’t really see the point of comparing Win7/Cubase with OSX/Logic - you’re not going to change anyone’s mind about their choice of sequencer, and you also run the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions about whether any performance differences are due to the operating system or the sequencer :beamup:


Martin
Certainly useful for those people who are thinking of switching sequencers, or starting from scratch. It really doesn't matter to the end user what specific part of the system is slowing down the whole experience! I don't care if its Logic, windows, OSX or the neighbour's cat that is the culprit - its how the whole thing works together when its in front of me that matters.

If the choice is between PC or Mac, a lot of people will choose logic if they go for a Mac, which obviously isn't possible under Windows. Therefore I think comparing Logic's Mac performance to Cubase/Cakewalk/etc's PC performance can help people make the right decision.
johnny h
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby mjfe2 » Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:42 pm

James Perrett wrote:As a user I'd offer a different perspective - I want stability more than absolute low latency.

Ditto
User avatar
mjfe2
Frequent Poster
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:00 am
Location: London, UK

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:39 pm

johnny h wrote: I think comparing Logic's Mac performance to Cubase/Cakewalk/etc's PC performance can help people make the right decision.


Hey J,

I have covered this numerous times in my other dedicated threads covering DAWbench DSP/VI , firstly my main focus is on testing the cross platform Hosts first and foremost , Logic and Sonar being platform specific are less of a priority for that very reason.

The Logic subject keeps coming up because it is the only Host on OSX that has any chance of giving comparable performance to say Cubase/Reaper on Windows , but Logic in itself is very difficult to do a head to head comparative with using my methodologies because it uses a Hybrid playback engine where despite the input latency setting, playback is always a lot higher - 1024 at default. What that means is what ever buffer setting, the results are the same on my tests - well at least the DAWbench DSP , I haven't ported DAWbench VI as yet.

I may get around to porting the tests across eventually, but to be honest the Logic community is not one that I have ever felt warmed by , so the incentive is pretty low.

Re Sonar, my interest waned a few years back after the numerous encounters with development over the reported issues with an inbalance in thread/core loadings that was repeatedly dismissed by development as a non event. As its still an issue to this day which can compromise the available resources when running at lower latencies, my apathy level is in line with numerous power users that I had worked with in the past, in short , couldn't care less about Sonar.. :-)

I Digress,

For those wondering why I haven't also done an OSX Audio interface performance comparative , well that was the original plan until I discovered we we comparing Apples to Peaches..

Windows 7 x64 Pro / OSX 10.62

Presonus Firestudio Mobile : Driver 3.5.2 :

032 : I/O - Win7 - N/A : OSX 10.6.2 - 4.807/4.807

064 : I/O - Win7 - 1.905/3.900 : OSX 10.6.2 - 5.533/5.533

128 : I/O - Win7 - 3.356/5.351 : OSX 10.6.2 - 6.984/6.984

256 : I/O - Win7 - 6.259/8.254 : OSX 10.6.2 - 9.887/9.887

Say No More......

mjfe2 wrote:
James Perrett wrote:As a user I'd offer a different perspective - I want stability more than absolute low latency.


Ditto


I don't see the argument unless I missed something in the mix.

If there is no instability for those requiring and using the lower latencies with the better interfaces , the question of stability is not even on the table , nor has it been in any of my testing.

Peace

V:
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 johnny h » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:00 pm

TAFKAT wrote:
johnny h wrote: I think comparing Logic's Mac performance to Cubase/Cakewalk/etc's PC performance can help people make the right decision.

Hey J,

I have covered this numerous times in my other dedicated threads covering DAWbench DSP/VI , firstly my main focus is on testing the cross platform Hosts first and foremost , Logic and Sonar being platform specific are less of a priority for that very reason.

The Logic subject keeps coming up because it is the only Host on OSX that has any chance of giving comparable performance to say Cubase/Reaper on Windows , but Logic in itself is very difficult to do a head to head comparative with using my methodologies because it uses a Hybrid playback engine where despite the input latency setting, playback is always a lot higher - 1024 at default. What that means is what ever buffer setting, the results are the same on my tests - well at least the DAWbench DSP , I haven't ported DAWbench VI as yet.

I may get around to porting the tests across eventually, but to be honest the Logic community is not one that I have ever felt warmed by , so the incentive is pretty low.
So logic has a much more efficient way of handling low latency audio than anything on Windows.. yet you have little incentive to test it! For someone deciding between logic on OSX and Cubase on PC, this is very useful information! It makes no difference whether the optimisations are in the audio driver or the host itself; its the end result to the user that should count.
johnny h
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:52 pm

johnny h wrote:
So logic has a much more efficient way of handling low latency audio than anything on Windows.. yet you have little incentive to test it! For someone deciding between logic on OSX and Cubase on PC, this is very useful information!


Hmmm, its not as simple as saying its more efficient, there are caveats attached to the whole core audio / audio units paradigm, lets say it was a clever way to circumvent some of the them. Samplitude has the same principle employed on Windows, and I don't see anyone falling over themselves to copy it.. :-)

Firstly, this is not the thread to take this up , there are other dedicated threads where this topic has already been covered at other forums

Secondly, this is not a Logic v the Rest of the world thread, which I am sure could be of interest to some and no doubt will get a lively debate , but just to be clear, I said I have no incentive in focusing on Logic - that isn't stopping you or anyone else, knock yourself out.. :-)

Now where were we...
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 Jorge » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:17 am

Has anyone around here subjected the Roland Octacapture USB2 interface to these latency performance tests? A review on Harmony Central suggest that the low latency performance is very good but I have not seen other test based reviews.
Jorge
Regular
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 1:00 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby johnny h » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:41 am

TAFKAT wrote:
johnny h wrote:
So logic has a much more efficient way of handling low latency audio than anything on Windows.. yet you have little incentive to test it! For someone deciding between logic on OSX and Cubase on PC, this is very useful information!

Hmmm, its not as simple as saying its more efficient, there are caveats attached to the whole core audio / audio units paradigm, lets say it was a clever way to circumvent some of the them. Samplitude has the same principle employed on Windows, and I don't see anyone falling over themselves to copy it.. :-)
Well why not? By not optimising their software in such a way, Steinberg is getting poor performance on OSX. Its easy to say 'oh but its OSX's fault', but that argument is null and void if Logic works absolutely fine on it! Each platform has its strengths and weaknesses and it appears Steinberg appears to be doing very little to optimise its products for OSX.

Firstly, this is not the thread to take this up , there are other dedicated threads where this topic has already been covered at other forums
Really, where? Not everyone on this forum is also a regular reader of every other audio forum in the world. If you have no interest yourself in discussing this issue yourself, perhaps you could point us to someone who has?
johnny h
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:40 am

johnny h wrote:If you have no interest yourself in discussing this issue yourself, perhaps you could point us to someone who has?


Heres an idea, try using a search function or even better yet , start another thread yourself.

While you are at it, add Protools, Studio One, Reaper and Ableton Live to your list of cross platform applications that perform measurably better on Windows. Your Steinberg isn't great at optimising for OSX mantra doesn't really hold much water , unless of course every other developer is equally as inept.

O.K, lets now try again to get back on topic.. !

Do you have any comparable performance data for respective audio interfaces , or even any interest on the actual subject being discussed on this thread , if not, then leave it those that do.

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 The Red Bladder » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:28 am

And whilst silly people are discussing the number of angels that are getting down wid da groove on the head of a pin -

iZ-Tech Radar, 1.2 to 2ms (depending on setting and model).
The Red Bladder
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:00 am
Location: . . .
 

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby Tombot » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:48 am

The thing about dice ii is that it is a complete solution. The manufacturers dont write the drivers, tc applied technologies do. Its tc who need to sort thier drivers out, unless the drivers are pushing the chips to the limit and there's sonething in the design thats limiting them. I dont think anyone apart from tc knows.
Tombot
Regular
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:00 am
Location: Scan Pro Audio

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby johnny h » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:55 am

TAFKAT wrote:
johnny h wrote:If you have no interest yourself in discussing this issue yourself, perhaps you could point us to someone who has?

Heres an idea, try using a search function or even better yet , start another thread yourself.
As you have set yourself up as such an expert I thought such a question would be trivial for you. I don't have any inclination to trawl through horrible geek fest sites like Gearslutz.

While you are at it, add Protools, Studio One, Reaper and Ableton Live to your list of cross platform applications that perform measurably better on Windows. Your Steinberg isn't great at optimising for OSX mantra doesn't really hold much water , unless of course every other developer is equally as inept.
They are inept. Protools has measurably worse performance on both Windows and OSX than other DAWs. The fact that Logic performs so well proves that greater performance is possible. The only 'mantra' going on here is your desperation to 'prove' that OSX is always inferior the Windows by ignoring the huge elephant in the room (logic) which disproves your claims.

Do you have any comparable performance data for respective audio interfaces , or even any interest on the actual subject being discussed on this thread , if not, then leave it those that do.
If you want to 'prove' to use the superiority of Windows, fine, I have no problem with that. But don't flake out of the logic question, as it seriously undermines all your claims and makes it seem like you have an anti-mac agenda.
johnny h
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby TAFKAT » Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:47 am

johnny h wrote:
If you want to 'prove' to use the superiority of Windows, fine, I have no problem with that. But don't flake out of the logic question, as it seriously undermines all your claims and makes it seem like you have an anti-mac agenda.


The only one who seems to have an agenda here is you, by again derailing another thread into a B.S MAC v PC debate , where this thread had absolutely nothing to do with platform wars.

I have volumes of data that is all in the public domain , all of the data and "claims" are easily quantifiable by anyone who takes the time and energy to actually do the tests , I am not interested in spoon feeding the info to someone with your attitude, as I have learned over the years that no matter what data is brought to the table, you will find your own truth.

Re the elephant in the room , the onus isn't on me to prove anything , if you are so Hell bent on proving the superiority of Logic over any of the DAW hosts on Windows , roll your sleeves and bring something to the table instead of sitting back in the arm chair spitting out ad hominem attacks. Also be sure to bring the empirical data to prove that OSX is not a contributing factor to the performance variables of the other Hosts, be extra sure you include your explanation of why the AU plugin format is so superior as well with its 16 channel limit over VST's 512, and of course why Core Audio with anything but Logic is significantly less efficient due to needing to make 5 calls to the kernel per sample buffer over ASIO's 3, but of course you already know all of that I'm sure.

To the rest reading in,

I apologise but it looks like this thread is derailed for the time being , I really have no interest in continuing with a pointless and irrelevant cyclic debate with the resident under bridge dweller. I'll drop back when I have some final numbers on the current audio interface test pool I have at my disposal..

Till then

Peace

V:
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 Will_m » Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:07 pm

johnny h wrote:
So logic has a much more efficient way of handling low latency audio than anything on Windows.. yet you have little incentive to test it! For someone deciding between logic on OSX and Cubase on PC, this is very useful information!

As martin has said I'm not sure there will be many people using these numbers to decide on whether to go for cubase on pc or logic on a mac, that's quite a big difference to base on differences in low latency performance handling. I imagine more what you're looking for is a defence for OSX and it's poor results in cross platform benchmarks. It's just a little difficult to believe that someone as outspoken as yourself on the platform debate would be considering buying a windows machine.

The purpose of this thread is examining the differences in performance of various audio interfaces on Windows. If you would like to challenge the benchmarks then please by all means conduct your own research.
User avatar
Will_m
Regular
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Manchester
williammorrismusic.com

Re: Audio Interface - Low Latency Performance Data Base :

Postby johnny h » Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:24 pm

Will_m wrote:
johnny h wrote:
So logic has a much more efficient way of handling low latency audio than anything on Windows.. yet you have little incentive to test it! For someone deciding between logic on OSX and Cubase on PC, this is very useful information!

As martin has said I'm not sure there will be many people using these numbers to decide on whether to go for cubase on pc or logic on a mac, that's quite a big difference to base on differences in low latency performance handling. I imagine more what you're looking for is a defence for OSX and it's poor results in cross platform benchmarks. It's just a little difficult to believe that someone as outspoken as yourself on the platform debate would be considering buying a windows machine.

The purpose of this thread is examining the differences in performance of various audio interfaces on Windows. If you would like to challenge the benchmarks then please by all means conduct your own research.
I use windows right now. I am considering a switch to OSX but I am not happy with the Cubase / OSX numbers. I really didn't mean to cause such grief here. All I asked was for the logic numbers, and also to address the issue of why Steinberg is unable to perform as well on OSX as Logic.
johnny h
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3948
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:00 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users