Gearslutz.com - View Single Post - Direct monitoring vs. software monitoring
View Single Post
Old 13th July 2007   #13
nativeaudio
Lives for gear
 
nativeaudio's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,077

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geosync View Post
Cubase allows for panning the effect separate from the dry. In other words pan effect to the left and the dry right.
That's not something I normally need, but are you saying that you can change between monitoring the direct/wet signal from Cubase, in other words - is this:

a function that you don't need to leave Cubase to control? And, if this is the case, will you still be able to use the faders in Cubase to pan or adjust the level of the direct signal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dromedar
I have found that drummers and vocalists often are most sensitive to even small amounts of latency (128 or even 64). No latency (or a very low latency) is crucial to a good performance.
That's definitely my experience too, which is why I'm questioning if there's a good reason to make software monitoring the default, because software monitoring always means extra latency.

Maybe they have looked at a Symphony rig, @96k, with a minimum buffer setting (32), in an song not containing any softsynths, on the fastest Mac available, and concluded that software monitoring is usable for real work, forgetting that this is a setup that most likely less than 1% of the Logic user base is working on?

Life inside a testlab doesn't always reflect how things work in real life, and in this case (I've seen this example mentioned in the Symphony-ads) the test lab example - concluding that you can get 1.6 ms latency with software monitoring on - doesn't have much relevance for most Logic users.
__________________
youtube.com/nativeaudio
nativeaudio is online now   Reply With Quote