Reverse latency using hardware compression? - Gearslutz.com Gearslutz.com
 


All Advertisers
Services Directory Reviews Jobs Deal Zone Merchandise Marketplace Music Biz Articles Video Vault Tips & Techniques
Go Back   Gearslutz.com > The Forums > So much gear, so little time!
Reload this Page Reverse latency using hardware compression?
Register Posting Guidelines Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Chat Room [4]

Reverse latency using hardware compression?
Topic: New Reply New Reply Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 4th August 2012   #1
Gear interested
 
thecircleh's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2

Thread Starter
Reverse latency using hardware compression?
Bizarre. After finally getting the FMR RNC (compressor) connected to my Rack 003 I decided it best to determine the hardware latency. Using pro tools 10.2 on a Mac book pro , I set up 2 mono tracks. The first track I put a dry wav drum loop. Set the output to analog 5 and on the 2nd track set the input to input 5. That's the left channel of the RNC. Rerecorded the drum loop to the 2nd track thru the RNC hardware compressor. Sounded fantastic btw. I then checked the sample value of the 2nd transient in the loop on track 1 and track 2. I used tab to transient. Result: the compressed signal had a sample value of 7 less than the dry loop!

As I write this I realize it's probably a result of the increased signal on the compressed track throwing off the tab to transient function.

Anyone see anything like this?
thecircleh is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 2012   #2
Gear addict
 
basmartin's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 398

I have the same issue, but with another system. It was told to me that the firewire protocol sometimes messes up the latency figures that the interface reports. Hopefully someone that knows more than me can chime in.
basmartin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 2012   #3
Gear interested
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 18

Seems odd to me, i'm no scientist though. Perhaps your RNC is shaping the transient in a way that causes PT to detect the transient earlier. Just a guess IDK. 7 samples seems rather insignificant anyway, not to write it off but about .16ms off doesn't seem to far, assuming your at 44.1khz, if your running at 48 or more that value would be even less.
Kingsofsleep is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th August 2012   #4
Gear interested
 
thecircleh's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2

Thread Starter
Yes at 44.1. May not seem significant but when I played both tracks together you could certainly hear they were off beat with each other. I think you aright about reshaping the transient though. I'll try again with a longer attack setting.
thecircleh is offline  
Reply With Quote
New Reply New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread starter Forum Replies Last Post
Small/cheap polarity reverse? Kyle S So much gear, so little time! 3 15th June 2007 01:06 PM
ITB Vocal Compressor - what do you use? KrisNY So much gear, so little time! 34 4th March 2007 07:32 PM
Going Mixerless?? AKA Using Preamps as channels... illacov Low End Theory 30 15th February 2007 04:19 PM
Using outboard effects with Pro Tools BreakonThru5 Music Computers 1 13th January 2007 07:52 AM
POLL: CAN YOU TELL?? DID I USE SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE SAMPLES CareerTech1 So much gear, so little time! 15 27th November 2006 11:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Home - Search Forum - Contact Us - Terms Of Use / Privacy Policy - Advertise on Gearslutz - All Advertisers - Top
 
 
Powered by vBulletin®
Gearslutz.com LTD - UK Company Number 7597610.
Registered Office - 35 Ballards Lane, London, N3 1XW.
Hosted by Nimbus Hosting.

By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.