Login / Register
 
expert sleepers es-4
New Reply
Subscribe
itege
Thread Starter
#1
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #1
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 252

Thread Starter
itege is offline
expert sleepers es-4

Hi, has anyone here had experience with this module? Been looking at it recently and noticed the voltages ranges look a bit lacking compared to the ES-3(which I can't use). Noticed this because it says it can only put out the voltage to support 5 octaves.
#2
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #2
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 22,300

chrisso is offline
Yes.
It works OK, but is a slight compromise compared to the ES3.
I probably only get about two or three octaves out of mine.
__________________
Chris Whitten
itege
Thread Starter
#3
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #3
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 252

Thread Starter
itege is offline
Man... That's what I was thinking about getting to control my modular sometime in the future.... Can't use the es3 so I guess that leaves the es1(or whatever the 1/4 to 1/8 one is) and I didn't really want to go that route...
itege
Thread Starter
#4
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #4
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 252

Thread Starter
itege is offline
If I were to get an ES1 is there a chance that I will overload my USB port(using a motu ultralite mk3) as I have several inputs being used and would probably end up using most of the outputs(other than the spdif if I go this route).
#5
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 678

Alekto is offline
If you have a MOTU Ultralite, why not use Silent Way directly? It's DC-Coupled and doesn't need the Eurorack interface.
Quote
1
itege
Thread Starter
#6
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #6
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 252

Thread Starter
itege is offline
Hm, do I still have to buy those floating ring cables or whatever?
#7
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 678

Alekto is offline
#8
15th August 2013
Old 15th August 2013
  #8
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 22,300

chrisso is offline
I also wouldn't discount the ES4.
Do you really need 5 octaves or more?
Almost all my melodic lines exists in a two octave range. I just tune my oscillators up or down so I get bass parts or high melody parts, even though the ES4 spits out the same medium range.
It works fine, and is much better than hardware midi.
#9
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
bil_g's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 582

bil_g is offline
The ES-4 will give you more voltage than the Ultralite, alone.

You could get more overall voltage range with the ES-1 and you won't need special cables or the AC Encoder since it's a Motu. It will cost you analog outs, though. The ES-4 will just cost you the spdif out. No worries about the usb port.

Expert Sleepers has the floating ring cables as well, if you want to go that way.
itege
Thread Starter
#10
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #10
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 252

Thread Starter
itege is offline
Hmm so you guys are leaning more towards the es4 then?
#11
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #11
Lives for gear
 
bil_g's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 582

bil_g is offline
Sure, and there's room for expansion.
#12
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 678

Alekto is offline
Im using the MOTU Ultralite with some tip top drum modules and Reason 7 via the expert sleepers RE.

At the moment I have, let's say, a Matrix pattern sequencer firing a kick drum and then I'm feeding the output of the module back into an audio track. I have noticed a bit of input latency, so after I'm done recording I have to go in there and align the tracks so they sit right. Is this a feature of the MOTU interfaces? If so, I'm considering going the es-1 way and using a different audio interface.
#13
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 819

DanRand is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alekto View Post
Im using the MOTU Ultralite with some tip top drum modules and Reason 7 via the expert sleepers RE.

At the moment I have, let's say, a Matrix pattern sequencer firing a kick drum and then I'm feeding the output of the module back into an audio track. I have noticed a bit of input latency, so after I'm done recording I have to go in there and align the tracks so they sit right. Is this a feature of the MOTU interfaces? If so, I'm considering going the es-1 way and using a different audio interface.

How are you monitoring your Tip Top modules? Software, direct, or via a console/mixer?
__________________
.
Converters x 24, Valve summing + 2Bus, Roland, Pulse, DX11 < back on sig., Sync Lock + ES-4

Mac Mini 2 GHz i7, Logic 9 + Lion
#14
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 678

Alekto is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
How are you monitoring your Tip Top modules? Software, direct, or via a console/mixer?
Hey there, thanks for answering. The tip top modules are coming straight into the Ultralite's inputs and then directly into an audio track in Reason. I'm not utilising the Ultralite's internal mixing capabilities in any way.


I have heard it mentioned that Reason doesn't compensate for input latency correctly. I have no idea if that is true or not.
#15
16th August 2013
Old 16th August 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 819

DanRand is offline
Sounds like you're software monitoring like me.

I have to send MIDI to my ES-4 EARLY. That's one whole round-trip + average MIDI device latency. In my case that's around 600+ samples @ 48k (12.5+ ms) early.

You're using it for Pitch CV and Gates presumably? So you need to send trigger/cv signals early, by one whole round-trip (due to software monitoring) plus any Tip Top device latency (if any).

Software monitoring means you have to send MIDI/Pitch/CV/Din Sync to the ES-4 at least one whole round-trip early (plus any device latency).
itege
Thread Starter
#16
19th August 2013
Old 19th August 2013
  #16
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 252

Thread Starter
itege is offline
Sorry, been busy, didn't mean to abandon this thread. Are you saying that there is a ton of latency with the ES4?
#17
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 819

DanRand is offline
No. In fact the ES-4 will probably get it's SPDIF encoded audio/data slightly earlier than than audio going through your DACS from your DAW. My ES-4 gets it's data 20 samples earlier than audio coming out of my analogue outputs.

All MIDI and Din Sync devices have latency. For MIDI devices this latency is the time the MIDI device takes to spit out audio in response to a MIDI note on message. My Waldorf Pulse takes around 2.5 ms to respond to a MIDI note on message. My 303 takes about 3-3.5 ms to respond to a Din Sync/Clock Pulse. This means I need to delay the audio coming from the Pulse by 1.5-2 ms so that it lines up exactly with audio from my 303.

The latency I was referring to was for software monitoring only. If you're software monitoring you have output latency (DAW to ES-4) + synth/device latency + input latency (the audio coming from device/synth triggered by the ES-4 going into your ADCs) + output latency again (final monitoring). That's one whole round-trip more than audio coming straight from your DAWs soft synths etc.

My point was you can safely line up your synths at your DAWs inputs using a combination of MIDI track delays and then fine tune with a Sample Delay plugin. Of course, to be this precise you'll need to figure out the average latency of your synths!

Last edited by DanRand; 20th August 2013 at 12:58 AM.. Reason: Thinking of different thread
#18
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #18
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 22,300

chrisso is offline
To be honest, I don't really understand any of the above.
I use an ES4 with Ableton, Logic and Pro Tools.
I send on an SPDIF output (from UA Apollo).
I record my hardware synths being controlled by the ES4 and everything is perfectly in time. Much better than midi.
I combine hardware modular with software instruments such as Maschine, Kontakt and Massive.
Using the ES4 I never have to retime my hardware.
There are YouTube videos showing how to use an ES4 in various DAWs.
#19
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 
bil_g's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 582

bil_g is offline
The negative offset is something I compensate for, as well. It's mentioned in the manual for the Fireface 400. It says there will be will be about 3ms of negative offset in a digital loopback if your analog outs are perfectly compensated. I would assume the DACs on the ES-3/4 account for the difference.

I have to delay the ES-4 by 25 samples. The ES-3s on both my Firefaces need 10 samples.
#20
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: A big island - i am an Island
Posts: 2,535

dogma is offline
So chrisso has no delay from es4 and you do? I'm trying to decide which route to go myself - I have a mh 2882. I'm confused - would I need to align or not? I'm unsure of whether to go es3 or es4. Whichever is the most flexible. I'm not using any of my digital io so I was thinking es4?
__________________
You're entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts
#21
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
 
bil_g's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 582

bil_g is offline
I can't speak for chrisso but I wouldn't worry. It's simple to test and compensate for. Whether you will have to compensate and how much will probably depend on the interface. It could be as simple as the negative offset on his Apollo is equivalent to the ES-4 DAC latency.

If you have adat, I would go ES-3, especially if you are looking for flexibility. Nothing wrong with the ES-4. I use it all the time. I can just do a lot more varied duties with the ES-3.
#22
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #22
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 22,300

chrisso is offline
ES3 seems superior to ES4.
Can't say I've noticed any delay recording with the ES4 and Apollo, even looking at the grid. That's the point isn't it? Sample accurate performance, no correction necessary.
#23
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 819

DanRand is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanRand View Post
No. In fact the ES-4 will probably get it's SPDIF encoded audio/data slightly earlier than than audio going through your DACS from your DAW. My ES-4 gets it's data 20 samples earlier than audio coming out of my analogue outputs.

All MIDI and Din Sync devices have latency. For MIDI devices this latency is the time the MIDI device takes to spit out audio in response to a MIDI note on message. My Waldorf Pulse takes around 2.5 ms to respond to a MIDI note on message. My 303 takes about 3-3.5 ms to respond to a Din Sync/Clock Pulse. This means I need to delay the audio coming from the Pulse by 1.5-2 ms so that it lines up exactly with audio from my 303.

The latency I was referring to was for software monitoring only. If you're software monitoring you have output latency (DAW to ES-4) + synth/device latency + input latency (the audio coming from device/synth triggered by the ES-4 going into your ADCs) + output latency again (final monitoring). That's one whole round-trip more than audio coming straight from your DAWs soft synths etc.

My point was you can safely line up your synths at your DAWs inputs using a combination of MIDI track delays and then fine tune with a Sample Delay plugin. Of course, to be this precise you'll need to figure out the average latency of your synths!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
To be honest, I don't really understand any of the above.
I use an ES4 with Ableton, Logic and Pro Tools.
I send on an SPDIF output (from UA Apollo).
I record my hardware synths being controlled by the ES4 and everything is perfectly in time. Much better than midi.
I combine hardware modular with software instruments such as Maschine, Kontakt and Massive.
Using the ES4 I never have to retime my hardware.
There are YouTube videos showing how to use an ES4 in various DAWs.

Like I said, the round-trip compensation is for software monitoring. If you're hardware or direct monitoring you don't need to compensate for an extra round-trip, but you do need to take account of the lower latency of the ES-4's SPDIF stream (usually) and the response time (note-on latency) of your hardware synths (if you're trying to be as precise as possible).

If you're software monitoring synths triggered by the ES-4, you need to send the MIDI/Sync one round-trip earlier. Think about it, the data to the ES-4 arrives at roughly the same time as other audio at the same position on your DAWs timing grid. Software monitoring a synth triggered by the ES-4 means you have to compensate for the synths/device's latency, come into your DAW (ADC & input buffer latency) and come back out again (DAC latency & output buffer latency). That's one extra round-trip due to software monitoring synths triggered by the ES-4.

There is no extra latency added by the ES-4 that I know of. Also, unless, you state how you intend to monitor your external synths, I can't say whether or not you'll incur this extra round-trip caused by using the ES-4 with software monitoring.

So this all boils down to how you monitor your synths. I like the flexibility of software monitoring so I have to put up with another round-trip. For example, my Pulse has a negative track delay of -13.0 ms; I then use a Sample/Buffer Delay to delay my Pulse's audio by 6 samples (to fine tune) at the inputs to the DAW so that it lines up with all my other gear.
#24
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 678

Alekto is offline
DanRand.

Thanks for the extremely comprehensive reply. A lot of info to take on. I'm sure some of it went over my tiny noggin. From perusing the Propellerheads forum, seems most of the people there are in agreement that Reason doesn't use input latency compensation. I also use pro tools, which most likely does.

Since it's getting a bit tiresome for me, I mean, I have only a few hours in a day that I can make music and I'd rather not spend it all dragging notes across a flippin' grid, I bought a Sync-Gen IILS and a tip top Trigger Riot.
#25
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 819

DanRand is offline


You'll be pleased. No more wonky clocky!


Some of the above still applies for Sync Gen as well though. If you're software monitoring you get another round-trip (this is monitoring latency, NOT recording latency by the way).

My 303 is my slowest device (highest average latency of ~3.5 ms), and it's latency is used in the calculation of the clock Advance in Sync Gen's options, and is added to my round-trip latency for a Sync Gen Advance of 611 samples (~12.7 ms).

If you're direct or hardware/console monitoring there is no extra round-trip.
#26
20th August 2013
Old 20th August 2013
  #26
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 22,300

chrisso is offline
The IILS is excellent. I use it every day alongside my ES4.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.