Old 05-20-2009, 10:00 PM   #1
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 11,257
Default Soundcards and Latency

Since this comes up so much I thought I'd make a sticky and hopefully that will help for buying cards and such

If you want to help, download the Latency Test Utility from CEntrance

http://www.centrance.com/downloads/ltu

Remember to turn off any monitoring so as not to skew the results. Please also check to see if the value changes every time you hit test. State Stable/Unstable according to whether it changes or not

Here's the list, Ill add to it as it grows:

LTU results(in msec) @44.1khz
32/64/128/256 sample buffer size

**NA/12.56/15.46/25.54 - Stable Echo Audiofire 12

**NA/ 7.35/13.15/24.76 - Stable Egosys Wami Rack PCI

**NA/***NA/18.44/27.14 - Unstable Line6 KB37 *

**NA/ 3.06/***NA/***NA - Stable Maudio Delta 44 PCI

**NA/ 3.20/ 6.10/11.88 - Stable Maudio Delta TDIF PCI

**NA/ 5.06/ 7.91/13.72 - stable within .05 msec M-Audio Fast Track Ultra USB

2.04/ 3.85/ 6.76/12.54 - Stable MOTU 896 (measuring digital I/O)
3.79/ 5.24/ 8.14/13.95 - Stable MOTU 896 (measuring analog I/O)

2.49ms/ 3.95ms/ 8.46ms/ 14.26 ms - Stable MOTU traveler driver rev 3.6.7.4 (measuring analog I/O)

3.61/ 5.06/ 7.96/13.76 - Stable RME Multiface

N/A / 6.10/ 9.00/14.81 - Stable RME FF800

* The line6 drivers are acting very screwy and reporting thruput without anything plugged in. In 16 bit mode the measurment appears accurate. In 24 bit mode, there is some internal passthru fudging the numbers
__________________
REAPER Shirts are Back! - http://reapermerch.com
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 10:42 PM   #2
sstillwell
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 1,542
Default

M-Audio Fast Track Ultra: NA / 5.06 / 7.91 / 13.72

Scott
__________________
http://www.stillwellaudio.com/
sstillwell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 10:58 PM   #3
beatbybit
Human being with feelings
 
beatbybit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hungary
Posts: 3,129
Default

RME FF800, analog

(Gigabyte EP45-DQ6 MoBo FW)

@ 32 : N/A
@ 64 : 6.10 (269 samples)
@128 : 9.00 (397 samples)
@256 : 14.81 (653 samples)

exactly the same results everytime i press "Measure!"
__________________
panda in the desert

Last edited by beatbybit; 05-21-2009 at 04:07 PM.
beatbybit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 11:15 PM   #4
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,160
Default

MOTU traveler, driver rev 3.6.7.4

32: 110 samples / 2.49ms
64: 174 samples / 3.95ms
128: 373 samples / 8.46ms
256: 629 samples / 14.26 ms
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 06:03 AM   #5
antiClick
Human being with feelings
 
antiClick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mediterrenean Sea
Posts: 902
Default

RME HDSP9632 PCI

@44.1KHz
32 (156 samples): 3.54 ms
64 (220 samples): 4.99 ms
128 (348 samples): 7.89 ms
256 (604 samples): 13.70 ms

[EDIT]
Always exact same results.
use 64 for recording and 512 for mixing. Usually audio only projects larger than 50 chanels, 24 tracks playin at once. CPU raises to 80-90% when full of fx. Very reliable.

P4 4GigRam
winxp sp3 nlited by dux
Reaper v2.58
[/EDIT]

Last edited by antiClick; 06-11-2009 at 01:24 AM.
antiClick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 03:29 PM   #6
iamamonkeysoareyou
Human being with feelings
 
iamamonkeysoareyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Default

Line6 POD Studio UX1

32 : NA
64 : NA
128: 159 samples / 3.61 ms
256: 281 samples / 6.37 ms
512: 543 samples / 12.31 ms
512: 1061 samples / 24.06 ms

Rather unstable Results keep changing eveytime i click on Measure.
__________________
My music www.reverbnation.com/iamamonkey and www.myspace.com/danlaimusic. Tracks can be purchased at danlaimusic.bandcamp.com

Gear: AMD Athlon 3200 / M-Audio Oxygen 64 / Line6 POD Studio UX1 / M-Audio Studiophine AV40 / Korg PadKONTROL / Novation Nocturn / Ibanez Universe UV777 / Epiphone Les Paul Custom Plus / REAPER!!!!!!
iamamonkeysoareyou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 03:39 PM   #7
themensch
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 153
Default

Focusrite Saffire ASIO Control Panel Says:
ASIO Buffer Size: 2.0ms
Firewire Buffer Size: 1.0ms
Input Latency: 3.6ms
Output Latency: 5.5ms (this is what is reported by the soundcard)

Centrance says:
88 samples @ 44.1k
Measurement results: 475 samples / 10.77 ms
192 samples @96k:
Measurement results: 924 samples / 9.63 ms

All values are stable.


I realize that this isn't done in 32/64/128/254 samples, but I don't see an option to change the buffer based on size, only on time... (and I tried to make that work to no avail.)

Hardware: Dell 630 laptop w/4G RAM, SIIG Firewire card w/TI Chipset running winxpsp3

Like Syd says below, I also run at 2.0ms/1.0ms settings for very responsive recording. I've never noticed latency recording to it, nor has anyone I've recorded with. It's not as fancy as my old motu 24IO, but since I don't do this for a living anymore, this is completely acceptable.

Last edited by themensch; 02-01-2010 at 11:23 AM. Reason: include hardware/os specs
themensch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2009, 09:51 PM   #8
Syd Masters
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: gently scraping your delicate sensibilities with a potato peeler
Posts: 6,791
Default

Saffire Pro 26
Driver version 2.3.8467
Dux WinXP32 SP3
Abit IP35 Pro on-board TI Firewire
Q6600 4gb

@44.1k
32 samples = 5.87ms
66 samples = 8.16ms
132 samples = 11.66ms
264 samples = 17.64ms

all measurements were stable under Centrance LTU

The first two however have not been tested under practical applications, ie- jamming.

I've currently been using ASIO 88 sample (2.0ms) buffer with fw 1.0ms buffer:
88 samples = 9.66ms
This setting is very responsive with guitar/bass/vsti so 9.66 seems a little misleading especially when compared to some of the measurements posted here.

I'd be curious to know more details from everyone regarding OS (XP32/64/ vs Vista32/64) and firewire PCI vs on-board. As always with these things, the more data the better.

Last edited by Syd Masters; 05-28-2009 at 10:35 PM. Reason: driver shit
Syd Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 10:37 PM   #9
Finnish
Human being with feelings
 
Finnish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Finland, Kuopio
Posts: 848
Default

M-Audio FW1814

32 samples N/A

Every result was unstable. What does that mean? Result did not change every time, sometimes 5-6 times the same.





__________________
REGISTERED USER
My music, studio and bands

Last edited by Finnish; 05-26-2009 at 10:39 PM.
Finnish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:10 PM   #10
TexasFury
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Born and raised in the Great Republic of Texas!!!
Posts: 203
Default

Very odd, on my TonePort DI-G, I consistently get lower latency at 128/96K (12.16ms) than with 128/44.1K (15.37ms).
TexasFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:27 PM   #11
LCipher
Human being with feelings
 
LCipher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default M-Audio Delta 44

M-Audio Delta 44

44.1K

buffers: 64 195 samples / 4.42 ms
buffers: 128 323 samples / 7.32 ms
buffers: 256 579 samples / 13.13 ms
buffers: 384 835 samples / 18.93 ms
buffers: 512 1091 samples / 24.74 ms

(all stable readings)

Last edited by LCipher; 05-27-2009 at 03:33 PM.
LCipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:25 AM   #12
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

on my echo audiofire12, the results change every time as well. what should i be looking for to correct this?
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 02:58 PM   #13
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d. gauss View Post
on my echo audiofire12, the results change every time as well. what should i be looking for to correct this?
I'd like to know as well
__________________
REAPER Shirts are Back! - http://reapermerch.com
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 09:41 PM   #14
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

pipe, are you having the same issues?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
I'd like to know as well
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2009, 10:01 PM   #15
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 11,257
Default

On certain setups I am. What Im not sure about yet is whether the same card goes from stable to unstable on different pc's
__________________
REAPER Shirts are Back! - http://reapermerch.com
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2009, 06:14 AM   #16
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

i can't figure it out. at buffer of 256 it varies from 23 to 25 ms with every test --1018 to 1160 samples. i've gone through and shut down every device and service until the computer was totally crippled and still it has no effect.

even tried on 3 different computers all with similar results.

Last edited by d. gauss; 05-30-2009 at 04:36 PM.
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:44 AM   #17
Finnish
Human being with feelings
 
Finnish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Finland, Kuopio
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d. gauss View Post
i can't figure it out. at buffer of 256 it varies from 23 to 25 ms with every test --1018 to 1160 samples. i've gone through and shut down every device and service until the computer was totally crippled and still it has no effect.

even tried on 3 different computers all with similar results.
Is this somehow interface-related? Some are giving "stable" results and others don't, but they still work "as expected"?
__________________
REGISTERED USER
My music, studio and bands
Finnish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:29 AM   #18
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

exactly that's what i'm asking, as i have no idea what causes this.
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 08:54 AM   #19
hannebambel
Human being with feelings
 
hannebambel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 100
Default ST-Audio DSP2000 C-Port

ok, here the values from my ST-Audio DSP2000 C-Port (bought in 2003 !!)
http://www.st-audio.de/products/dsp2000.html
Driver: dsp24ewdm 8.4.1021

LTU results(in msec) @44.1khz all stable
48: 2.20 ms
64: 2:95 ms
128: 5.85 ms
256: 11.63 ms

Win XP SP3 Dux's version
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4400 @ 2.00GHz
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3
4GB Kingston 2G-UDIMM

cheers, hb
__________________
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 @ 2 GHz, 4 GB Ram
ST Audio DSP2000 C-Port w/V 8.4
hannebambel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 10:12 AM   #20
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hannebambel View Post

LTU results(in msec) @44.1khz all stable
48: 2.20 ms
64: 2:95 ms
128: 5.85 ms
256: 11.63 ms
just curious, by stable, do you mean you get EXACTLY 11.63ms @256 EVERY single time you do the test?
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 10:53 AM   #21
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,026
Default

Almost ashamed of the following, given the results of others, but what the heck...

Lexicon Lambda with LambdaASIO driver
@32: not possible, couldn't set it that low
@64: not applicable, CEntrance couldn't detect its own pulse (I guess)
@128: 17.5 ms (rather unstable but mainly around that)
@256: 35 ms (rather unstable but mainly around that)

Lexicon Lambda with ASIO4ALL 2.9
@32: not possible
@64: not applicable
@128: 17.53 ms (much more stable than LamdaASIO)
@256: 23.33 ms (much more stable than LambdaASIO)

Dell Vostro 1510, Intel Core 2 DUO T5870 2GHz, 3GB 667MHz DDR2, 250GB WD Scorpio Black 7200SATA
DuX' audio optimised XPsp3
__________________
// MVHMF
Vote for the Starter Marker FR here http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=4371
Let's finally get rid of those ugly odd time measures.
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 11:14 AM   #22
hannebambel
Human being with feelings
 
hannebambel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by d. gauss View Post
just curious, by stable, do you mean you get EXACTLY 11.63ms @256 EVERY single time you do the test?
yeah, i measured it about 30 times in a row, with random breaks in between and allways get 11,63 ms @ 256 samples. wanna tell me why you are curious ?

cheers,
hb.
__________________
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 @ 2 GHz, 4 GB Ram
ST Audio DSP2000 C-Port w/V 8.4
hannebambel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:58 PM   #23
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hannebambel View Post
yeah, i measured it about 30 times in a row, with random breaks in between and allways get 11,63 ms @ 256 samples. wanna tell me why you are curious ?
thanks. just trying to get to the bottom of why my results waiver a ms or so every time. i.e. close, not always the same.
still can't figure it out.
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 03:09 PM   #24
GuitarKeyes
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: US
Posts: 255
Default

Not to be a bother but i don't see how this is helpful. Doesn't latency change on everyone's system and even at different sample rates?
Heck I've even gotten varying latencies at the same sample rate. Is this just to give people a rough idea of the latency that you might get with that soundcard?
GuitarKeyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 03:14 PM   #25
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 11,257
Default

It should be pretty consistent between pc's

It changes per sample rate but again, should be pretty consistent when measuring the same rate
__________________
REAPER Shirts are Back! - http://reapermerch.com
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 03:15 PM   #26
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
brainwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The 90's
Posts: 17,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarKeyes View Post
Not to be a bother but i don't see how this is helpful. Doesn't latency change on everyone's system and even at different sample rates?
Heck I've even gotten varying latencies at the same sample rate. Is this just to give people a rough idea of the latency that you might get with that soundcard?
not only the latency but the stability of the latency and consistency of the same interface in different systems. i'm wondering how daw's (reaper included) handle latency compensation for unstable interfaces.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 04:16 PM   #27
GuitarKeyes
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: US
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainwreck View Post
not only the latency but the stability of the latency and consistency of the same interface in different systems. i'm wondering how daw's (reaper included) handle latency compensation for unstable interfaces.
I'm guessing that the asio drivers would have to keep reporting the new latency to the host. Not sure if the asio reported latency remains fixed or changes. To me if this is not the way asio drivers work currently then I think adding this would be a good way to make sure that the correct latency is properly compensated for even in unstable interfaces. Anybody in the know wanna chime in?
GuitarKeyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 04:23 PM   #28
reapercurious
Human being with feelings
 
reapercurious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,610
Default laptops versus desktops, latency will differ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Since this comes up so much I thought I'd make a sticky and hopefully that will help for buying cards and such
it is perhaps also good to know that latency and other issues will differ depending on whether you are using a laptop or not. (esp. with pc's) >>>laptops use acpi to check the battery and that service causes dropouts as well as added latency. also, having wifi enabled adds latency. i have found that users' desktops almost always coast in comparison to what their laptops do.

if you are using a laptop, run your latency checking program (such as dcplat.exe) and go into your devices and disable acpi battery method and study the difference.

this may not work for everyone, but give it a try if you haven't already.

peace.
__________________
a legitimate question is one that the asker does not know the answer to.
reapercurious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 04:43 PM   #29
Ollie
Super Moderator (no feelings)
 
Ollie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On or near a dike
Posts: 9,619
Default

You are maybe confusing DPC latency with audio latency. There is only a faint connection between these two as in "raising ASIO buffers may or may not help avoiding dropouts due to DPC related usurpation of the CPU".

Quote:
Originally Posted by reapercurious View Post
>>>laptops use acpi to check the battery and that service causes dropouts as well as added latency.
Not laptops in general. Some models suffer from this, others don't. It's also not always the ACPI battery services causing DPC problems in laptops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reapercurious View Post
also, having wifi enabled adds latency.
These problems are not confined to Laptops, some desktop PCs have problems with DPC latency as well. This is a rather complex issue and generalizations are not possible since the culprit can be a lot of things from faulty hardware to bad BIOS implementations and of course drivers.
Ollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 05:17 PM   #30
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

this is what i get:
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 10:32 PM   #31
hannebambel
Human being with feelings
 
hannebambel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 100
Default

d.gaus,
on my tests the sample size is allways the same. maybe there is a driver issue with your device since your sample size seems to be oddly high varying from 1066 to 1114 @ 256 samples where on my system it reports constantly 513 samples. In all the tests at any sample size and sample rate the measured sample size is allways close to twice the tested sample size where yours is allmost four times the sample size ... how are your dcp latency results ?

cheers,
hb
__________________
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 @ 2 GHz, 4 GB Ram
ST Audio DSP2000 C-Port w/V 8.4
hannebambel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 07:37 AM   #32
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hannebambel View Post
on my tests the sample size is allways the same. maybe there is a driver issue with your device since your sample size seems to be oddly high varying from 1066 to 1114 @ 256 samples where on my system it reports constantly 513 samples.
yeah, this isn't good. i hooked up a mackie onyx firewire mixer and the results were rock solid (see below). echo hasn't been much help yet. and all this time, i thought the audiofire was stable/reliable?

anybody else have an audiofire 8 or 12 that they've tested?

d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 09:51 AM   #33
d. gauss
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,347
Default

update -- just got this from echo:

<<Hi - Our Q.A department has confirmed the problem and looking for a solution...>>

fingers crossed.
d. gauss is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 12:56 AM   #34
pro77
Human being with feelings
 
pro77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 18
Default

Asio Roland Sonic Cell

Buffer size/Latency: 96 sample (2.18ms)
Sample Rate: 44100Hz

Measure:
640 sample / 14.51 ms
641 sample / 14.54 ms
638 sample / 14.47 ms
639 sample / 14.49 ms


Buffer size/Latency: 192 sample (4.35ms)
Sample Rate: 44100Hz

Measure:
832 sample / 18.87 ms
833 sample / 18.89 ms
834 sample / 18.91 ms
831 sample / 18.84 ms


Result: Unstable
pro77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 01:21 AM   #35
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro77 View Post
Result: Unstable
Well, it varies between 0.02267 and 0.02268 ms/sample.
Is that not stable enough?
__________________
// MVHMF
Vote for the Starter Marker FR here http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=4371
Let's finally get rid of those ugly odd time measures.
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 01:51 AM   #36
pro77
Human being with feelings
 
pro77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
Well, it varies between 0.02267 and 0.02268 ms/sample.
Is that not stable enough?
Yes, it is.

How did you get these numbers 0.02267/8?

I'm sorry, I'm not so technical
pro77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 03:48 AM   #37
Fabian
Human being with feelings
 
Fabian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro77 View Post
Yes, it is.

How did you get these numbers 0.02267/8?

I'm sorry, I'm not so technical
That's ms/sample.
I just divided 14.51/640 = 0.02267 ms/sample, etc

EDIT:
BTW, those numbers (ms/sample) multiplied by the sample rate (sample/sec) should give 1000 (ms/sec), and they come close enough, 0.02267 * 44100 = 999,75, and 0.02268 * 44100 = 1000.19
__________________
// MVHMF
Vote for the Starter Marker FR here http://forum.cockos.com/project.php?issueid=4371
Let's finally get rid of those ugly odd time measures.

Last edited by Fabian; 06-04-2009 at 04:45 AM.
Fabian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 03:57 AM   #38
pro77
Human being with feelings
 
pro77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabian View Post
That's ms/sample.
I just divided 14.51/640 = 0.02267 ms/sample, etc
Ok, thank you Fabian
pro77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 04:52 AM   #39
Highlander
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 35
Default

Results on Line 6 Toneport Ux 2 with 3.4.3.6 Driver:

@44.100 hz,32 bit
stable 1024/23.22 ms
stable 512/11.61 ms
stable 256/5.8 ms
stable 128/2.90 ms

But in Reaper I get different latencies, for example at 256 samples I Have 17ms of output latency... What are the right values?

Last edited by Highlander; 06-04-2009 at 04:55 AM.
Highlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 08:24 AM   #40
Finnish
Human being with feelings
 
Finnish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Finland, Kuopio
Posts: 848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander View Post
Results on Line 6 Toneport Ux 2 with 3.4.3.6 Driver:

@44.100 hz,32 bit
stable 1024/23.22 ms
stable 512/11.61 ms
stable 256/5.8 ms
stable 128/2.90 ms
Are you absolute sure you got those values as final values? Seems quite low...
__________________
REGISTERED USER
My music, studio and bands
Finnish is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.