Metatron72 wrote:It's explained here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency
crossings wrote:..that goes without saying... but someone needs to point out the obvious here.
Metatron72 wrote:Honestly this is the one thing I am most curious about on the Renaissance. I have never seen an interface priced below $800USD match an MPC in terms of properly calculated real time round trip latency. They said they are writing a highly customized driver for the interface portion of the Ren which is the way to do it. But then I remember this is the company that repaints $40 chinese guitar pedals and calls them "boutique" level construction and components...
Metatron72 wrote: I have merely pointed out that target of low latency is difficult to achieve and I hope Akai does and would be curious how if they are successful. Only you Jah could manufacture an "argument" out of that.
Metatron72 wrote:One last time. Ultra low latency is in the neighborhood of 1.5-2.7ms real time, true round trip. We all know hardware MPC's are around that without measuring.
sally wrote:.pure.
.wave.
Here the picture of the file
perfect/clean wave, in my MPC ( by Sally ).
in trim mode, make zoom in and see the wave.
https://rapidshare.com/files/4061880107 ... I_DOWN.rar
y aqui el archivo de la foto ( pueden cargarlo y comprobarlo desde su mpc, si es así, gracias, si tu no lo quieres hacer, gracias tambien).
Thanks for your attention, by Sally.
Greetings.
crossings wrote:..that goes without saying... but someone needs to point out the obvious here.
JAH wrote:Metatron72 wrote:Honestly this is the one thing I am most curious about on the Renaissance. I have never seen an interface priced below $800USD match an MPC in terms of properly calculated real time round trip latency. They said they are writing a highly customized driver for the interface portion of the Ren which is the way to do it. But then I remember this is the company that repaints $40 chinese guitar pedals and calls them "boutique" level construction and components...Metatron72 wrote: I have merely pointed out that target of low latency is difficult to achieve and I hope Akai does and would be curious how if they are successful. Only you Jah could manufacture an "argument" out of that.Metatron72 wrote:One last time. Ultra low latency is in the neighborhood of 1.5-2.7ms real time, true round trip. We all know hardware MPC's are around that without measuring.
You wrote numerous statements in this thread that basically say its difficult for other manufacturers to create low latency drivers....and tie that in to your doubts about Akai being able to produce an ultra low latency driver (sub 2.7 ms).....and you want to know how if they can pull it off.
Dan said in another thread sub 5 ms was their goal for the Ren's custom driver...and have actually achieved about 2 ms on Mac Pro. Based upon your expectations you outlined here, the Ren will meet your ultra low latency requirement which should satisfy you. Also...seeing that the Ren/Studio can also use 3rd party soundcard and audio drivers...you can use an RME, Apogee, Motu, etc..and my preference..a Universal Audio interface. ALL of these companies have achieved ultra low latency with their products. How? Who the hell cares as long as it works...
Metatron72 wrote:I said low latency takes work on the part of manufacturer and wondered if Akai was gonna hit the mark. I'm sure this is clear to most everyone who read my posts, except obviously you.
I personally don't need to see their code. You will never see their code. As long as the products work....you should be satisfied.JAH wrote:If you used the Search function (something I rarely tell people to do)...you would find this info written in multiple threads...and I believe there is a video somewhere that touches briefly on it.
I haven't and don't need to twist this topic in anyway. You made a statement and I asked your questions. If you answered them....I would have pointed out all the info you needed in my second response. Now that you have it...cool.
elektrik_muz wrote:DJ Hellfire wrote:When your shit starts popping an clicking, that's just your computer being pushed. But that's a limitation of the computer hardware, not a problem with the latency of the music hardware or software.
How do you know that for sure without trying it against a different system/OS?
The very purpose of being able to increase the hardware buffer setting is to ease the load on your system to prevent pops and clicks at the expense of added latency. This is a known common characteristic of software music recording and production. The more powerful your system, the more stuff you can run at a lower buffer. For example in my studio, I run an overclocked quad Q6600 at 3.4Ghz with 16GB ram and can't get the thing to hiccup at 64MB buffer unless I'm mixing a 60+ track in Pro Tools. And in my living room I have a Dell with a Q8500 at 2.6GHz and only 4GB of ram and can get that one to hiccup under a decent load before having to raise the buffer, but it still performs great. Even my 13" Macbook performs great. And so did the other 2 laptops I've owned as well as the various other computers I've built and help friends setup. However, when I tried running my old Pentium 4 starting out, I couldn't get shit done! elektrik_muz wrote:Iif you are running in single-app mode, you would need a program with all the functions you need so you don't need to run 20 apps at once with a bunch of buffering between them. Simple as that. After all, we're going for efficency here.
Retrofreak wrote:
With respect,
I think operating systems are doing too much these days and future music programs could do with a dedicated tuned/ stripped down OS specifically for music.
JAH wrote:If you used the Search function (something I rarely tell people to do)...you would find this info written in multiple threads...and I believe there is a video somewhere that touches briefly on it.
Metatron72 wrote:JAH wrote:If you used the Search function (something I rarely tell people to do)...you would find this info written in multiple threads...and I believe there is a video somewhere that touches briefly on it.
I haven't and don't need to twist this topic in anyway. You made a statement and I asked your questions. If you answered them....I would have pointed out all the info you needed in my second response. Now that you have it...cool.
Again, just cut your shtick. People have to earn your answers that you could just simply state to move the discussion along? Asking for exact measurements on something universally accepted (hardware MPC low latency)? Whatever. If you knew the answer to your own questions and refused to divulge information that expanded the discussion what are you even trying to accomplish?
"Low latency has been confirmed". Next time do everyone a favor and if a discussion can be summed up with a sentence that small, then type that sentence.
Well...in turn....if you had responded to my questions with "2.7 ms of latency is what I would expect from the Ren in order to satisfy me and/or compete with the solid timing of hardware MPCs"...then I would have immediately wrote that Dan achieved about 2 ms which is talked about in at least 2 other threads. I would have then pointed out that you can use any sound card that you like when using the Ren making latency issues a non-factor for many of us.DJ Hellfire wrote:JAH wrote:If you used the Search function (something I rarely tell people to do)...you would find this info written in multiple threads...and I believe there is a video somewhere that touches briefly on it.
Actually, I don't know why, but they took down the video you are referring to! I believe they set it to private or some ****!
