The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Presonus Studio 192 Review:First Impressions
Old 31st October 2015
  #31
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesnat View Post
Then you have much better ears than I do Sir, or for that matter most people as its common belief that less than 10ms is not discernable by most people.
My ears are apparently better than yours as well. Its a common misconception that the auditory discernment is the same as the physical manifestation with regards to feeling it. If I am playing a VSTi its def noticeable for sure.
10ms is roughly 10 feet in distance.



**So what does this new acronym you guys have created stand for RTL? Real Time Loop? We used to call it Input/Output latency

Last edited by Deleted User; 31st October 2015 at 03:55 PM..
Old 31st October 2015
  #32
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shanabit View Post
My ears are apparently better than yours as well. Its a common misconception that the auditory discernment is the same as the physical manifestation with regards to feeling it. If I am playing a VSTi its def noticeable for sure.
10ms is roughly 10 feet in distance.



**So what does this new acronym you guys have created stand for RTL? Real Time Loop? We used to call it Input/Output latency
RTL = Round Trip Latency. I'm used to calling it Input/Output latency as well but I think RTL is better because it implies the latency through the DAW.
Old 31st October 2015
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loopy View Post
RTL = Round Trip Latency. I'm used to calling it Input/Output latency as well but I think RTL is better because it implies the latency through the DAW.
So how would you compare the studio 192 to your motu? Would you recommend the studio 192? I can't find any reviews other than studio one expert? Wondering how the latency is when using VST's.
Old 31st October 2015
  #34
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sopre View Post
So how would you compare the studio 192 to your motu? Would you recommend the studio 192? I can't find any reviews other than studio one expert? Wondering how the latency is when using VST's.
That's the $1000 question. A lot of people are asking the same thing regarding latency with VSTi and Presonus seems to be silent on it. I don't own the 192 but am looking to purchase one but ONLY if the round trip latency is super low and it is actually usable at that low latency.
Old 31st October 2015
  #35
Lives for gear
 
once a roadie's Avatar
 

I am a bit confused on the latency with virtual synths. If I play a midi keyboard which triggers a synth virtual instrument in the computer, all the interface has to do is send the sound out the d/a...if that process is slow, is it the computer cpu or the interface at fault...? Thanks
Old 2nd November 2015
  #36
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by once a roadie View Post
I am a bit confused on the latency with virtual synths. If I play a midi keyboard which triggers a synth virtual instrument in the computer, all the interface has to do is send the sound out the d/a...if that process is slow, is it the computer cpu or the interface at fault...? Thanks
It's more about analog input to DAW and its plugins and then back out to headphones or speakers. Very applicable to someone playing a guitar through an amp sim VST.
Old 2nd November 2015
  #37
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thuneau View Post
It's more about analog input to DAW and its plugins and then back out to headphones or speakers. Very applicable to someone playing a guitar through an amp sim VST.
Right.
Or someone playing a VSTi along with already recorded audio or a VSTI playing and someone adding a guitar to it.

If you are doing everything outside the box, IOW real instruments, you can use the "zero latency" features of any audio interface to overcome this.
Old 2nd November 2015
  #38
Here for the gear
OK, So follow up, This thread appears to have exploded overnight. I will Get you guys some REALTIME, VSTi RTL Roundtrip #s ASAP. I apologize for the wait, was out in Arizona at Primus/ Tool( you know, the promise land so got a little sidetracked, back to work today, and will run some tests

Benji
Old 2nd November 2015
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crudden Hood View Post
OK, So follow up, This thread appears to have exploded overnight. I will Get you guys some REALTIME, VSTi RTL Roundtrip #s ASAP. I apologize for the wait, was out in Arizona at Primus/ Tool( you know, the promise land so got a little sidetracked, back to work today, and will run some tests

Benji
Thanks. Some have been put on ebay already lol.
Old 2nd November 2015
  #40
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by once a roadie View Post
I am a bit confused on the latency with virtual synths. If I play a midi keyboard which triggers a synth virtual instrument in the computer, all the interface has to do is send the sound out the d/a...if that process is slow, is it the computer cpu or the interface at fault...? Thanks
A combination of both.

The computer CPU is most important. But the audio drivers are what allow the DAW to communicate with the CPU in an efficient manner. The audio drivers are different per interface. Some are very good and are written from the ground up by the developer. Others are based on a standard code and tailored to the interface. Presonus is in the latter group, they don't really have a good history w/ audio driver code, which has been why people historically complain about performance. RME and a few other companies write their own drivers and get praise for their performance. Driver writing isn't a presonus expertise. Presonus's expertise is with providing high quality audio at a lower price point.

So... that's why I'm curious about the performance w/ virtual instruments. The interface does a big part in determining how low of a block size you can trigger midi at while running your session. For example... w/ my current interface I can do any entire session start to finish (produce a track w/ VSTi's, record vocals/instruments, full mix) without touching block size. Everything works smoothly with low real-world latency. But w/ other interfaces.. I found myself having to bump to 256 or even as high as 512 to finish projects. Can be annoying. Kinda spoiled by working at low latency and not thinking about it. But when something comes on the market like this w/ superior sound at a very good price, and is made by the same company as your DAW, it makes you hope that it's a superior performer too lol.

It's like a car... I'm sure the engine under the hood is ridiculous, but how smooth is the transmission when I'm shifting gears?
Old 2nd November 2015
  #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenix View Post
A combination of both. It's like a car... I'm sure the engine under the hood is ridiculous, but how smooth is the transmission when I'm shifting gears?
Couldn't have put it better myself! A very good breakdown.
Old 2nd November 2015
  #42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopre View Post
Thanks. Some have been put on ebay already lol.
I definitely sent mine back. After telling them my results on different computers, they still insisted on my usb ports being at fault for the high latency. Meanwhile other usb 3 and usb 2 devices work fine on my system. Still waiting for other users to post their results.
Old 3rd November 2015
  #43
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Just to be clear , RTL - Round Trip Latency is important when monitoring via software with FX's, perfect example is Guitar Amp Simulators * , playing VI's only the output buffer comes into play.

* Just noticed Thuneau mentioned that in an earlier post :-)

The amount of latency that is comfortable or manageable for the individual artist will vary, but many will feel a disconnect above 5ms , and before anyone wants to start dismissing that in regards to distance travelled, etc, they need to understand that the distance from the monitoring source is added to the interface playback latency , so that needs to be taken into account. Also, as mentioned already, being able to dial in a low latency setting on an interface means little if the driver is not efficient at those lower latencies.

I will have a 192 shortly to run through its paces , I'll report back when I have some qualified numbers.

Old 3rd November 2015
  #44
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
Just to be clear , RTL - Round Trip Latency is important when monitoring via software with FX's, perfect example is Guitar Amp Simulators * , playing VI's only the output buffer comes into play.

* Just noticed Thuneau mentioned that in an earlier post :-)

The amount of latency that is comfortable or manageable for the individual artist will vary, but many will feel a disconnect above 5ms , and before anyone wants to start dismissing that in regards to distance travelled, etc, they need to understand that the distance from the monitoring source is added to the interface playback latency , so that needs to be taken into account. Also, as mentioned already, being able to dial in a low latency setting on an interface means little if the driver is not efficient at those lower latencies.

I will have a 192 shortly to run through its paces , I'll report back when I have some qualified numbers.

Great explanation! Unfortunately I'm one of those 5msec folks as I easily can detect it when playing keyboards.

One interesting thing I've noticed is that the "wall" if you will, seems to be about 4.9ms RTL for USB devices with the best of them getting figures around that value.

Is this some kind of limitation of the hardware/software that is being reached using current technology?
Just wondering.

BTW Lawrence just posted some values over in the Presonus forums.

https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopi...p=74459#p74459
Old 3rd November 2015
  #45
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by loopy View Post
Great explanation! Unfortunately I'm one of those 5msec folks as I easily can detect it when playing keyboards.
Thats two of us for sure
Old 3rd November 2015
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reesnat View Post
Then you have much better ears than I do Sir, or for that matter most people as its common belief that less than 10ms is not discernable by most people.
Then "most people" must live with different ears than the ones I've got.

Low latency and stability is consistently the most important aspect of conversion for me. Why manufacturers continue to ignore this aspect of their product is beyond me.

In any event, round trip latency begins to bother me at about 7ms and steadily becomes a problem above that. This becomes even more problematic if you want to overdub VST's with a larger project that is already pushing the boundaries. There is simply no reason for the lazy drivers that are produced by most companies to accompany their otherwise well designed products.

It's frustrating because the problem has grown steadily worse, not better, as time goes on. Ever since manufacturers started designing for the least common denominator for typical I/O the products have become dual purpose for laptop and desktop use. That's the crux of the issue. There are a few that have explored PCIe, Ethernet based protocols (AVB/DAnte), and others but the majority are still putting out crappy drivers for USB 2.0, etc.

We have been, by and large, moving backwards on this topic instead of forward as I would expect given the bandwidth of later communication types.

Latency matters to some of us. If it doesn't matter to you that's great. I've heard that argument before - usually from a manufacturer. It continues to outline the fact that they just don't get it...
Old 3rd November 2015
  #47
Lives for gear
 
TAFKAT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by loopy View Post
Great explanation! Unfortunately I'm one of those 5msec folks as I easily can detect it when playing keyboards.

One interesting thing I've noticed is that the "wall" if you will, seems to be about 4.9ms RTL for USB devices with the best of them getting figures around that value.]

Is this some kind of limitation of the hardware/software that is being reached using current technology?
Just wondering.
From my understanding there is a technical limitation to the USB buffering that cannot go below 2ms ( Pete Brown might be able to give a technical explanation to that specific value ) , so even at its absolute theoretical best , 4ms will be the best RTL for a USB device. That is never achieved as AD/DA's and safety buffers will pad that out. ( On a side note I just realised I had a typo on the last DAWbench LLP chart showing the UCX having an RTL of 5.565 where it is actual 4.565, I'll amend that when I next update the chart )

Quote:
BTW Lawrence just posted some values over in the Presonus forums.

https://forums.presonus.com/viewtopi...p=74459#p74459
That is just the reported value, its not the measured, what needs to be confirmed is if the AD/DA and safety buffers are represented in those figures. An example is the current Presonus AudioBox VSL range that have 2.449 values listed at 064/44.1 for both I/O, but the actual measured RTL is 7.323.

Judging by those reported values I already have a fair idea which 3rd party driver Presonus have employed again.


Last edited by TAFKAT; 3rd November 2015 at 10:09 PM..
Old 3rd November 2015
  #48
Lives for gear
 
loopy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TAFKAT View Post
From my understanding there is a technical limitation to the USB buffering that cannot go below 2ms ( Pete might be able to give a technical explanation to that specific value ) , so even at its absolute theoretical best , 4ms will be the best RTL for a USB device. That is never achieved as AD/DA's and safety buffers will pad that out. ( On a side note I just realised I had a typo on the last DAWbench LLP chart showing the UCX having an RTL of 5.565 where it is actual 4.565, I'll amend that when I next update the chart )



That is just the reported value, its not the measured, what needs to be confirmed is if the AD/DA and safety buffers are represented in those figures. An example is the current Presonus AudioBox VSL range that have 2.449 values listed at 064/44.1 for both I/O, but the actual measured RTL is 7.323.

Judging by those reported values I already have a fair idea which 3rd party driver Presonus have employed again.

Right. I realize that it's not measured. So far it's the best we have been able to find though. The other question is usability. If it can measure but can't perform without clicks and pops and thus requiring the buffer to be increased, it's useless to us folks needing low latency through the DAW. It's like having a car with a speedometer that goes to 240 mph but the car will barely hit 100 mph.

Looking forward to your report.

Just for grins and giggles here is what I get with my MOTU Ultralite AVB using Oblique:
All 64 samples and lowest buffer setting, MOTU calls it "Minimum Latency".

44.1k 5.21ms 231 Samples
48k 4.979ms 239 Samples
96k 2.302ms 221 Samples

All can easily run demanding VSTi like Ivory with no lag and no crackles or pops.
I don't have a state of the art system board by any means but my supporting peripherals are good ones like SSD, WD Black drives etc.

Last edited by loopy; 3rd November 2015 at 10:47 PM..
Old 3rd November 2015
  #49
Deleted User
Guest
For those of us ignorant to the RTL testing, what is the procedure to do this on a Mac?
Old 11th November 2015
  #50
Gear Nut
 
Ben01930's Avatar
Geeesh. I just ordered one of these. Sooooo hoping that the RTL Is useable with vst's. I use Amplitube for everything !!! I have W10, i7, 32GB Ram so there will be no blaming my PC if latency is bad. This unit has a DSP chip so maybe they'll add guitar Sims to it like Steinberg just did with the UR.
Old 11th November 2015
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben01930 View Post
Geeesh. I just ordered one of these. Sooooo hoping that the RTL Is useable with vst's. I use Amplitube for everything !!! I have W10, i7, 32GB Ram so there will be no blaming my PC if latency is bad. This unit has a DSP chip so maybe they'll add guitar Sims to it like Steinberg just did with the UR.
Please report back and let us know.

I have been shopping interfaces for quite some time (several years) but apart from the Dante PCIe acceleration route, which is very pricey, I just have not seen much advancement in this area. It's frustrating.

It seems only a few companies, such as RME, put the attention into the drivers that should be a logical requirement for new interfaces.

Cheers,
Brock
Old 3rd December 2015
  #52
Gear Nut
 

For those that haven ordered one, what its like in use? how's the RTL? and sound quality?
Old 3rd December 2015
  #53
Lives for gear
 
yosemitesam's Avatar
 

I went ahead and bought one. I'll post a more complete review when I've evaluated it more fully. I can return it for cash within a 15 day window which is ending soon, and I'm trying to put it through the wringer before then to make sure I want it. That said I'm really happy with it so far. It sounds great and I have not noticed the latency issues. When just using audio through fat channel presets the lack of latency is shocking, it's sometimes hard to tell if signal is even passing through my headphones because it's literally simultaneous with the sound of my voice in the room, even after all the processing you want.

If I had to sum up my feelings about it so far, I'd say it sounds like an interface that should cost at least twice as much per channel, if not more, and it comes with 90% of the functionality and 75% of the convenience of a much more expensive interface. If you want an interface that sounds like a $2200 8-channel interface and comes with 100% of the functionality and convenience of a $2200 interface, buy a $2200 interface. I don't think you can really complain about this interface at the price.
Old 3rd December 2015
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Monitoring audio is one thing, especially if using onboard zero latency monitoring of input.

Using such a device for resource intensive VSTi's is an entirely different ball of wax and with poor performance due to crappy drivers would certainly give me something to complain about for the price. I would have purchased one of these weeks ago but can't pull the trigger until I know how it truly operates for my requirements.

Add in the fact that Presonus supposedly discontinued all of the VSL series interfaces and my confidence is not strong. For live tracking, tracking audio - they have it down. For a combination of those tasks with low latency monitoring of VSTi's they have yet to prove themselves capable of acceptable performance.

Cheers,
Brock
Old 3rd December 2015
  #55
Deleted User
Guest
Is there any reason to believe this unit has any worse RTL w/ VSTis than any similar interface? I'm in the market for one and I've read one or two possible reports of high latency, but it seemed like it could probably be chalked up to people running Windows 10 and pushing the limits of compatibility at this point.
Old 3rd December 2015
  #56
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

To clarify - Presonus just discontinued the VSL software, not the hardware.

This is not a Windows 10 issue. This is a lack of resources dedicated to driver development issue.

This is not the statement that you would see from competing companies successfully deploying full featured control software successfully:

AudioBox VSL Software Discontinuation Notice : PreSonus Audio Electronics
Old 3rd December 2015
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deleted User View Post
Is there any reason to believe this unit has any worse RTL w/ VSTis than any similar interface? I'm in the market for one and I've read one or two possible reports of high latency, but it seemed like it could probably be chalked up to people running Windows 10 and pushing the limits of compatibility at this point.
There is every reason to believe it is this unit vs. competing interfaces if you have been following the evolution of TAFKAT's testing - going on many years now. It is not OS related. It is not related to "pusing to the limits" unless you mean expecting an eq curve to change simultaneously as you move the graphic...

The numbers don't like and they separate the men from the boys in respect to driver development. Would love to be wrong about the Studio 192 because it is exactly what I need, but I'm pretty sure I won't be wrong and I'll have to look in a different direction.
Old 3rd December 2015
  #58
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
There is every reason to believe it is this unit vs. competing interfaces if you have been following the evolution of TAFKAT's testing - going on many years now. It is not OS related. It is not related to "pusing to the limits" unless you mean expecting an eq curve to change simultaneously as you move the graphic...

The numbers don't like and they separate the men from the boys in respect to driver development. Would love to be wrong about the Studio 192 because it is exactly what I need, but I'm pretty sure I won't be wrong and I'll have to look in a different direction.
But I've only seen one or two reports of high latency and they seemed to come from Windows 10 envelope-pushers (I could be wrong.)

What actual evidence of high latency do we have at this point?

Would of course be great to get more users to chip in with info...
Old 3rd December 2015
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

I'm definitely looking for user input. I have no actual evidence of high latency other than the history of every other interface Presonus has released since their entrance into the interface market and their historically low performance compared to their peers.

Maybe it is different this time! Or maybe they are again using generic drivers and will continue to be behind in this area. Again - great products for live tracking, tracking and overdubbing audio.

You can see this history by researching TAFKAT's DAW Bench Forum and the associated RTL latency comparisons between devices which he has diligently compiled and updated over the years.

I want to believe. I want to hope that this time it is different. This would be the perfect interface for me in respect to feature set and overall design. So I will hold out hope that someone shows up here and starts whooping and hollering about the amazing low latency they are seeing with this device.

Cheers,
Brock
Old 3rd December 2015
  #60
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
I'm definitely looking for user input. I have no actual evidence of high latency other than the history of every other interface Presonus has released since their entrance into the interface market and their historically low performance compared to their peers.

Maybe it is different this time! Or maybe they are again using generic drivers and will continue to be behind in this area. Again - great products for live tracking, tracking and overdubbing audio.

You can see this history by researching TAFKAT's DAW Bench Forum and the associated RTL latency comparisons between devices which he has diligently compiled and updated over the years.

I want to believe. I want to hope that this time it is different. This would be the perfect interface for me in respect to feature set and overall design. So I will hold out hope that someone shows up here and starts whooping and hollering about the amazing low latency they are seeing with this device.

Cheers,
Brock
As best as I can tell from just checking TAFKAT's DAW Bench Forum, he measured past Presonus interfaces as having the same RTL latency as their competitors, within 1 ms or so. Certainly don't see any reason to suspect the Studio 192 would have any latency problems, but I'm interested and all ears.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump