How does OSX handle direct monitoring?

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by strauss

So now I've heard OSX doesn't support Asio direct monitoring.

True, there's no ASIO in OSX, and no feature like Direct Monitoring so far...


Daniel

[strauss]

that sucks big time!

[walter]

I am still setting up my system, but so far= Macbook pro, cubase SE, M-audio lightbridge, ADA8000. In the few recordings I have done, there is no noticable latency. Overdubs, no problem. I still need to test the system more, get a closer look.

[Lorddiagram]

I'll second that.

On a regular MacBook/GarageBand and a SoundTech LightSnake, I can record guitar and monitor with effects and it's amazingly good.

Very low latency using Apple's drivers.

lD

[strauss]

Sure, but as the session builds up I usually end setting the latency higher.
Also if you have latency compensation on and you use a plugin with latency like a linear phase EQ, the monitoring latency also becomes bigger.

[Geert van den Berg]

I use an RME interface, which has direct-monitoring via its Totalmix software... basically a mixer inside the computer.

Since I don't use a lot of Virtual Instruments I've my buffers always set to 1024 and I don't change them when I start tracking, I am not bothered by latency caused by the buffers, because of Totalmix.

When I record I disable listening to the tracks in record from the software (luckily this is possible in Digital Performer, I don't have to mute the tracks), but I'll listen to the source routed directly via Totalmix, this way I can punch in like if I'd use a standalone recorder/tape-machine, because on playback the tracks will be heard.

[strauss]

Originally Posted by Geert van den Berg

When I record I disable listening to the tracks in record from the software (luckily this is possible in Digital Performer, I don't have to mute the tracks), but I'll listen to the source routed directly via Totalmix, this way I can punch in like if I'd use a standalone recorder/tape-machine, because on playback the tracks will be heard.

The way you describe this it's like you have direct monitoring.
If you can overdub while listening to the playback track and hear the recording signal without latency as soon as you punch in, then it's like direct monitoring!

Can you also control the Totalmix faders from DP?
I know this is possible with Cubase and Samplitude on Win XP!

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Geert van den Berg

I use an RME interface, which has direct-monitoring via its Totalmix software... basically a mixer inside the computer.

Since I don't use a lot of Virtual Instruments I've my buffers always set to 1024 and I don't change them when I start tracking, I am not bothered by latency caused by the buffers, because of Totalmix.

When I record I disable listening to the tracks in record from the software (luckily this is possible in Digital Performer, I don't have to mute the tracks), but I'll listen to the source routed directly via Totalmix, this way I can punch in like if I'd use a standalone recorder/tape-machine, because on playback the tracks will be heard.

When you said, "...basically a mixer inside the computer..." I think you probably meant to say a mixer "inside the interface" (the RME). Many interfaces have a digital mixer onboard for mirroring the analog input of the unit to the analog output without a round trip to the computer (which takes a long time, particularly with FW and USB interfaces [ok, actually, it's not the trip that takes the time, it's filling the i/o buffers, but you know what I mean]).

While my MOTU 828mkII can have a round trip latency to the computer and back of 8 ms and up (depending on monitoring latency [buffer] settings), the MOTU's "DSP CueMix" onboard four bus-pair digital mixer [for sending four different cue mixes, I guess] has a turnaround more on the lines of 2 ms or possibly less. (All that's at 44.1 kHz.)

I still prefer mixing with no latency, monitoring through my analog board, nonetheless.

[strauss]

Originally Posted by theblue1

When you said, "...basically a mixer inside the computer..." I think you probably meant to say a mixer "inside the interface" (the RME). Many interfaces have a digital mixer onboard for mirroring the analog input of the unit to the analog output without a round trip to the computer (which takes a long time, particularly with FW and USB interfaces [ok, actually, it's not the trip that takes the time, it's filling the i/o buffers, but you know what I mean]).

If it's only 'mirroring' the analog input then you still have to mute the track in the DAW, otherwise you hear them both. This is the case with the MBOX for example, but this is NOT direct monitoring! Doing lots of punch-ins this way is a real bitch!

I'm really curious if it is possible with Core Audio in OSX, cause I've heard it isn't.
I'm really tempted by the new Mac's, but without direct mointoring it's a bit useless to me.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by strauss

If it's only 'mirroring' the analog input then you still have to mute the track in the DAW, otherwise you hear them both. This is the case with the MBOX for example, but this is NOT direct monitoring! Doing lots of punch-ins this way is a real bitch!

I'm really curious if it is possible with Core Audio in OSX, cause I've heard it isn't.
I'm really tempted by the new Mac's, but without direct mointoring it's a bit useless to me.

Yeah, you're NOT listening through the DAW -- so the latency is minimal. You CAN minimize the roundtrip through-the-DAW latency by using the right PCI interface and drivers -- but as far as I can tell, you're never going to get very low latency with FW or USB interfaces. (I can work with the internal DSP CueMix monitoring on my MOTU FW box -- though even that gives me an odd sense when going D.I. with solidbody guitar -- but even once any monitoring latency gets up around 5 ms, there's no way I can record myself with that much latency. Others apparently can, more power to them.)

But I'm not tracking why punches are a problem. I punch all the time. Seems like monitoring through the box would be where monitoring latency would lead to timing problems.

[Geert van den Berg]

Originally Posted by strauss

The way you describe this it's like you have direct monitoring.
If you can overdub while listening to the playback track and hear the recording signal without latency as soon as you punch in, then it's like direct monitoring!

Can you also control the Totalmix faders from DP?
I know this is possible with Cubase and Samplitude on Win XP!

Yes it's sortof like direct-monitoring, with one exception I hear the performer all the time. I can punch, luckily I don't have to mute/unmute tracks, but the performer can hear himself before the punch too. with some instruments it might be difficult to hear if the punch went allright, but usually there's never a problem since you can easily edit every punch nowadays. (some DAW's even record a little extra ahead of the punch which gives extra room for editting).

Blue1 is right, that there are more manufacturers having DSP mixers onboard, with these interfaces it would work completely the same, but I think that RME's Totalmix is the most flexible.

IMHO this has a slight advantage over monitoring via an analog console because you exactly hear how it is going to sound once it is captured by the DAW.

I cannot control Totalmix from DP, I might try, maybe I can setup some sort of MIDI control from DP to Totalmix, but it's not really necessary. I just switch, just like it's a seperate mixer window.

[theblue1]

Yeah... it would not surprise me at all if RME's TotalMix was more flexible than MOTU's DSP CueMix in routing, etc. The cool thing is that CueMix DOES give you four alternate, simultaneous cue mixes (so you could, presumably, send four different 'tailored' cue mixes to your tracking musicians) -- but they are cue mixes of your inputs folded into whatever your DAW is sending out to the designated output. CueMix is NOT a substitute for a DAW mixer but rather a near zero latency onboard cue [live input] mixer that you use in combo with your DAW mixer -- which will be responsible, of course, for mixing previously recorded tracks and routing them to the chosen output -- where the CueMix will fold its mix in with the DAW output.) [And, if your DAW is sufficiently flexible, of course, you COULD ALSO use separate sends from your DAW tracks to create different playback mixes at different outputs of a multichannel interface which CueMix would then fold together with any live input mixes it had routed to those hardware outputs.]