12th November 2010
|
#1 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter  | Pro Tools 9 and 32 buffers
I have an RME FF800 and it looks like the lowest Pro Tools 9 will allow the RME to go down to is 64. Major bummer for my setup. In Logic I can track at 32 buffers with no problem.
So here is my question. What can I do about this? Get a Digi 003 and send my RME conversion to the ADAT in on the 003? Or would you get an analog mixer instead and record away?
BTW - Does anybody else have the "no 32 buffers" issue with just PT9 and a third party interface?
Your help is much appreciated  | 
|  | |
12th November 2010
|
#2 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 741
|
I don't think you will get lower latencies with the 003....
anyways, I cant think of a situation where the difference between 64 samples ( 1.45ms one way) and 32 samples ( 0.7ms) would be that important. thats about 23cm, so every time you wip back in your chair there is more latency :-)
you could always use total mix and get near-zero-latency pretty like monitoring with an analog console...
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#3 | | Lives for gear
Joined: May 2009 Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 1,017
|
My MR816 does 32 in PT9 with no problems :/
This is in Win7 64 bit.
__________________ Quote: |
Originally Posted by Frank Zappa Talking about music is like dancing about architecture | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Chris Lago I spend more time fixing my hair than playing guitar | Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman  Shall we post up some images of Picasso's now so that we can criticize color choices and the inaccurate placement of body parts? | | |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#4 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by DaVogi I don't think you will get lower latencies with the 003....
anyways, I cant think of a situation where the difference between 64 samples ( 1.45ms one way) and 32 samples ( 0.7ms) would be that important. thats about 23cm, so every time you wip back in your chair there is more latency :-)
you could always use total mix and get near-zero-latency pretty like monitoring with an analog console... | You can't use TotalMix because you can not shut off PT9 software monitoring. The difference you speak of may scientifically look small, but my drummer and I can "feel" the difference.
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#5 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieTheRed My MR816 does 32 in PT9 with no problems :/
This is in Win7 64 bit. | I would love to know if that is a Windows or hardware reason.
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#6 | | 70% Coffee, 30% Beer
Joined: Dec 2006 Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 9,135
| Quote:
Originally Posted by stresstour You can't use TotalMix because you can not shut off PT9 software monitoring. The difference you speak of may scientifically look small, but my drummer and I can "feel" the difference. | Now, I haven't had my paws on PT9 to say either way - but why can you not just mute the input channel in Pro Tools while its in record, and feed your drummer an input mix with Total Mix?
__________________ Adam Brass adam@dspdoctor.com  DSPdoctor.com "Where High End is Still King" 
__________________ "Any opinions above are worth exactly what you paid for them." Anonymous "If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward. Thomas Edison
RTFM
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#7 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell Now, I haven't had my paws on PT9 to say either way - but why can you not just mute the input channel in Pro Tools while its in record, and feed your drummer an input mix with Total Mix? | Well if I follow you right, that will work from top of the song to the bottom of one, but what about punch ins?
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#8 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 741
|
you could always press the mute-button the second you punch in... not the nicest solution but if the drumer is worth his money you should not have to use it that often in a song...
very interesting btw because I hardly know anybody complaining about the pro tools hd latency and with 64 samples you get less or the same latency than pt hd depending on the conversion rate you use!
have you tried to lower the buffer-size in the rme-driver?
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#9 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by DaVogi
very interesting btw because I hardly know anybody complaining about the pro tools hd latency and with 64 samples you get less or the same latency than pt hd depending on the conversion rate you use!
|
Well after working with 32 buffers in Logic, I guess I'm spoiled. Quote:
Originally Posted by DaVogi ..have you tried to lower the buffer-size in the rme-driver? |
What you are talking about must be a Windows option or older option. I don't have such a setting. That gets set from the DAW.
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#10 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 741
| Quote:
Originally Posted by stresstour What you are talking about must be a Windows option or older option. I don't have such a setting. That gets set from the DAW. | I'm afraid your're right and thats an asio-thing on windows-daws...
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#11 | | Gear maniac
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 210
| Quote:
Originally Posted by stresstour You can't use TotalMix because you can not shut off PT9 software monitoring. The difference you speak of may scientifically look small, but my drummer and I can "feel" the difference. | I also run a FF800 and agree Totalmix would be a hard thing to give up for PT9. I'm just too used to monitoring latency down below 2ms, and with my Apogee Rosetta ADAT off the RME it's even a little faster at 1.6ms total loop latency through Totalmix. I currently run Sonar, and Reaper, but just also got PT9. Obviously Sonar and Reaper both allow input monitoring off, so no problems there. One workaround I'm starting to use in regards to the monitoring issues in PT9 is to use my Tranzport wireless remote to access the buttons. On that unit I can fairly easily hit mute AND record at the same time with two fingers. However I wanted something even better so I added a 9 pin d-sub connector to my Tranzport (connections tapping into some of the controller's buttons) and I now have footpedal hooked up with two ganged internal switches that are on the same button. So, one kick of this foot pedal and I'm punched in AND the mutes also on. By grouping mutes I can make it also work with say a full drum kit punch. Get's rid of the loop through monitoring in PT (and the extra latency there) so I can then monitor with my FF800 in Totalmix.
I measured the latency I was getting with my FF800 at 64 buffers (about 4.6ms) and it's about 3 times what Totalmix can provide. Pehaps someone can come up with a plugin to deal with this issue in PT9, or maybe, just maybe PT will put in an "input monitor OFF" option when the patches come out.
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#12 | | Gear nut
Joined: Dec 2006 Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 82
|
Just tested this on OS X with a MadiXtreme. I can get 32 samples in Logic with the MadiXtreme, but PT 9 only goes down to 64. With my 002 I can go down to 32 samples in PT 9.
With what you're saying, that would make it a software limitation of PT 9, not the operation system, drivers, or hardware.
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#13 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by Geetarpicker I also run a FF800 and agree Totalmix would be a hard thing to give up for PT9. I'm just too used to monitoring latency down below 2ms, and with my Apogee Rosetta ADAT off the RME it's even a little faster at 1.6ms total loop latency through Totalmix. I currently run Sonar, and Reaper, but just also got PT9. Obviously Sonar and Reaper both allow input monitoring off, so no problems there. One workaround I'm starting to use in regards to the monitoring issues in PT9 is to use my Tranzport wireless remote to access the buttons. On that unit I can fairly easily hit mute AND record at the same time with two fingers. However I wanted something even better so I added a 9 pin d-sub connector to my Tranzport (connections tapping into some of the controller's buttons) and I now have footpedal hooked up with two ganged internal switches that are on the same button. So, one kick of this foot pedal and I'm punched in AND the mutes also on. By grouping mutes I can make it also work with say a full drum kit punch. Get's rid of the loop through monitoring in PT (and the extra latency there) so I can then monitor with my FF800 in Totalmix | Sounds cool man. May have to do that. Or maybe PT9 will get with the program and create an option for shutting off the software monitoring in the next upgrade.
| |
| | |
12th November 2010
|
#14 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Weaver Just tested this on OS X with a MadiXtreme. I can get 32 samples in Logic with the MadiXtreme, but PT 9 only goes down to 64. With my 002 I can go down to 32 samples in PT 9.
With what you're saying, that would make it a software limitation of PT 9, not the operation system, drivers, or hardware. | Yep, has to be!
| |
| | |
13th November 2010
|
#15 | | Church of UAD
Joined: May 2003 Location: USA
Posts: 2,088
 | Pro Tools 9 and 32 buffers
Can't you just unlink the record and playback faders like previous versions?
I have PTHD 9, so I haven't tried.
Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app
__________________
Affordable Reamping Service | Rock, Heavy Rock, and Metal | ENGL, Mesa, Peavey, Marshall, etc.
Email me - matt AT studionu DOT com
Here's the 1073PreKey!
| |
| | |
13th November 2010
|
#16 | | Church of UAD
Joined: May 2003 Location: USA
Posts: 2,088
| Pro Tools 9 and 32 buffers
Quote: |
Originally Posted by DaVogi
very interesting btw because I hardly know anybody complaining about the pro tools hd latency and with 64 samples you get less or the same latency than pt hd depending on the conversion rate you use!
| 64 samples round trip vs 64 in, then 64 out is a huge difference. I have a FF800 and PTHD and TotalMix is comparable in latency, but at the lowest latency setting it's still a noticeable delay vs PTHD when using software monitoring. PTHD has no noticeable latency.
I understand the FF800 may have a built in 48 sample buffer "pad" adding to latency as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Gearslutz
| |
| | |
24th June 2011
|
#17 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 527
Thread Starter | 32 buffers!!!!!!!!
Well it looks like the latest update to 9.0.3 has PT9 going down to 32 buffers. Well at least for my FF800. So stoked! | |
| | |
24th June 2011
|
#18 | | Gear addict
Joined: Feb 2011 Location: New York, NY | Same here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by stresstour Well it looks like the latest update to 9.0.3 has PT9 going down to 32 buffers. Well at least for my FF800. So stoked! | Got a Lightbridge and noticed that a couple of weeks ago. Finally...
| |
| | |
24th June 2011
|
#19 | | Lives for gear
Joined: May 2006 Location: new hampshire | Quote:
Originally Posted by stresstour Well it looks like the latest update to 9.0.3 has PT9 going down to 32 buffers. Well at least for my FF800. So stoked! | just installed the u/g yesterday and noticed that. YEE HA!
| |
| | |
24th June 2011
|
#20 | | Gear interested
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 22
|
9.0.3 has finally let me use my focusrite pro 40 with a 32 sample buffer as well so i imagine 32 sample buffers are now possible with any audio interface
| |
| | | |
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
