Old 10-03-2017, 09:39 AM   #1
randall7
Human being with feelings
 
randall7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 35
Default Latency : where can I see its value in ms? (SOLVED)

I feel stupid asking this, but I just can not see the latency value in Reaper. I have an AKAI MPK mini midi controller attached via USB and I would like to see the latency value in ms as I adjust the buffer samples value for ASIO (asio4all); but as I adjust the buffer size I do not see any latency values anywhere.
__________________
Registered Reaper 5.x, AMD Ryzen 7 cpu, 32GB RAM, Windows 10 x64, Sibelius 7, Various VST libraries.

Last edited by randall7; 10-03-2017 at 10:33 AM. Reason: Solved
randall7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 09:46 AM   #2
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,159
Default

Not sure it will help but what Reaper knows about the latency will be listed in the top-right of Reapers Arrange window.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 10:02 AM   #3
Stella645
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 892
Default

If you don't see it there right click in that location and choose to show audio devece info.

Stella645 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 10:30 AM   #4
randall7
Human being with feelings
 
randall7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stella645 View Post
If you don't see it there right click in that location and choose to show audio devece info.
Well I feel pretty stupid, wow, it was there all the time. I was too focused on the left side of the screen, and in the Settings: Audio, etc! It was there in the upper right all along!

Thank you!!!
__________________
Registered Reaper 5.x, AMD Ryzen 7 cpu, 32GB RAM, Windows 10 x64, Sibelius 7, Various VST libraries.
randall7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 11:24 AM   #5
Jimmy James
Human being with feelings
 
Jimmy James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 312
Default

Just wondering, how many ms are you guys showing in the upper right?
Jimmy James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 11:33 AM   #6
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,159
Default

It depends on where I have my sound card buffers set. I can get it down to 1.5/2.4 ms with a 48 sample buffer but I rarely need that. I usually use 96 samples when I'm recording AND need to monitor what I'm recording through reaper - that's also rare since 90% of my recording is via microphone and I use my sound card mixer for monitoring and monitoring FX and leave my buffer higher as I don't need it lower.

When I'm mixing, I use 2048 samples (~43ms) because I'm not monitoring a live signal and the latency doesn't matter which is the preferred method - aka running a super-low latency when only mixing is just burning CPU cycles for no good reason - there is a single exception to this and that is automation. If you need extremely tight reaction time to automation then that would be affected but I never need less that 40ms reaction time for automaton.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 12:12 PM   #7
randall7
Human being with feelings
 
randall7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy James View Post
Just wondering, how many ms are you guys showing in the upper right?

10 ms with ASIO buffer set at 256 samples; that is with my AKAI MPK mini connected by USB 2 to my computer; if I use my Axiom midi keyboard controller connected by midi cabling to a Audiobox Presonus then via usb, i can get the latency down to about 7 ms easily. But for tinkering I like the little AKAI MPK mini
__________________
Registered Reaper 5.x, AMD Ryzen 7 cpu, 32GB RAM, Windows 10 x64, Sibelius 7, Various VST libraries.
randall7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 12:16 PM   #8
randall7
Human being with feelings
 
randall7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy James View Post
Just wondering, how many ms are you guys showing in the upper right?

Kinda related... like Indiana Jones, we all are in search of the holy grail of low latency... and I have another thread I started today on this forum about if I should upgrade to a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU, if that would make for lower latency and fewer crackles during recording and playback.
__________________
Registered Reaper 5.x, AMD Ryzen 7 cpu, 32GB RAM, Windows 10 x64, Sibelius 7, Various VST libraries.
randall7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 12:25 PM   #9
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randall7 View Post
Kinda related... like Indiana Jones, we all are in search of the holy grail of low latency... and I have another thread I started today on this forum about if I should upgrade to a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU, if that would make for lower latency and fewer crackles during recording and playback.
As noted earlier, for playback, low latency is rarely needed, only for recording when you need to monitor playback through reaper such as a VST or SIM or you need very, very tight reaction times to automation (aka sub buffer size).
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 12:57 PM   #10
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,292
Default

A lot of the forum comments I see on latency...

I just know there are a lot of people out there under the misconception that low latency is some kind of holy grail to chase after when they aren't even doing any real time live monitoring work. (As karbomusic described above.) Running fairly healthy beasts of computers at redline for low latency when you only are trying to mix. Whereas you'd have miles of headroom and never max out even half the spec of a machine with proper settings.

The car analogy would be trying to drive on the highway in first gear. Then you tell the dealer you just need a faster car while refusing to listen to any talk about some mysterious "gear shifter".

Aside:
I don't bother recording automation moves in real time either. Tried it a few times. Then spent more time cleaning it up editing it than if I would have just grabbed the mouse in the first place and drawn it! The mouse is more direct for me. Save the occasional dub delay style fx work anyway.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 01:09 PM   #11
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
Aside:
I don't bother recording automation moves in real time either. Tried it a few times. Then spent more time cleaning it up editing it than if I would have just grabbed the mouse in the first place and drawn it! The mouse is more direct for me. Save the occasional dub delay style fx work anyway.
I could be very wrong but I thought the problem with automation is it uses the block size so even if playing it back, you are bound to the latency but don't quote me as I'm working from memory of a thread from 5 or 6 years ago.

That being said, I simply will never need any automation (reading or writing) to be faster than my largest buffer size of 40 or so ms assuming I'm thinking of this correctly.

Quote:
Then spent more time cleaning it up editing it than if I would have just grabbed the mouse in the first place and drawn it!
The new VCA feature that allows you to write a VCA volume envelope then merge that with the slave's existing volume automation is pretty slick.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 01:13 PM   #12
randall7
Human being with feelings
 
randall7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by serr View Post
A lot of the forum comments I see on latency... I just know there are a lot of people out there under the misconception that low latency is some kind of holy grail to chase after when they aren't even doing any real time live monitoring work. ,,,
In my case I am striving for low latency (without crackles) for live monitoring, live recording, as I play tracks live with a midi keyboard controller.
__________________
Registered Reaper 5.x, AMD Ryzen 7 cpu, 32GB RAM, Windows 10 x64, Sibelius 7, Various VST libraries.
randall7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 02:03 PM   #13
Jimmy James
Human being with feelings
 
Jimmy James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 312
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randall7 View Post
Kinda related... like Indiana Jones, we all are in search of the holy grail of low latency... and I have another thread I started today on this forum about if I should upgrade to a Ryzen 7 1700 CPU, if that would make for lower latency and fewer crackles during recording and playback.
Dunno if it would or not. I can say I have a i74790k (Devils Canyon). And I don't have any latency or crackle. I don't think I have ran my latency below 10ms though. But I am pretty sure it would handle it.
Jimmy James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 02:07 PM   #14
Jimmy James
Human being with feelings
 
Jimmy James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 312
Default

Why does Reasper show a higher ms than what I set my buffer to? I am using a Focusrite 18i20.
It has direct monitor, but I don't know if I am using that and if I should be using that mode.
Jimmy James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 02:54 PM   #15
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy James View Post
Why does Reasper show a higher ms than what I set my buffer to? I am using a Focusrite 18i20.
It has direct monitor, but I don't know if I am using that and if I should be using that mode.
I believe it's reporting what is reported to it and both directions aka round trip. However, the best way to know true latency is a loopback test where you run a cable from an output to an input and use two tracks (source + destination) to record a square wave sample or similar from one track over to the other. That will give you the true latency since it's not unusual for any individual component to not know actual latency that is occurring end-to-end.

There may be an app out there that measures this now but I tend to trust the loopback out of habit.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 03:42 PM   #16
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,621
Default

reainsert is good for checking this, beware of latency changing at each session for some soundcards.
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040,etc. :)
Jack Winter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 05:01 PM   #17
serr
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randall7 View Post
In my case I am striving for low latency (without crackles) for live monitoring, live recording, as I play tracks live with a midi keyboard controller.
That is actual live performance so you would genuinely need to run a DAW at < the threshold of perception of a lag to perform.

Just throwing the earlier comment out there to get people thinking. Hopefully on that end there might be a couple people that slap their foreheads, put their wallet back away and finally get to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I could be very wrong but I thought the problem with automation is it uses the block size so even if playing it back, you are bound to the latency but don't quote me as I'm working from memory of a thread from 5 or 6 years ago.

That being said, I simply will never need any automation (reading or writing) to be faster than my largest buffer size of 40 or so ms assuming I'm thinking of this correctly.
I can tell you that Reaper handles tight automation with no artifacts where Protools with the same would be spitting and sputtering with artifacts but that was another lifetime ago. I've written some tight automation before but nothing down to a couple ms resolution. That would be sample editing territory for me (ie. slicing things up). I wouldn't think the automation would arbitrarily follow system latency settings but I haven't measured it. (Guess that means I'm assuming...) That would be a bug scenario right? But recording automation from using a control surface would have no choice but to lag at your block size value.

Last edited by serr; 10-03-2017 at 05:10 PM.
serr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2017, 05:18 PM   #18
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,159
Default

@Serr, I could be completely misstating, I just remember being corrected about there being zero reason to not mix with larger block sizes so that seems like a fairly finite set of choices. Then again, I can't think of any reason that would ever affect me personally and the vast majority should still mix at higher latencies and not waste CPU unnecessarily as we both agree.
karbomusic is online now   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 02:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.