Latency?

Retrofreak wrote:
I cant see this getting better until music programs have their own stripped down OS.

Excellent point. I suspect it would be some sort of customized Linux/Linux & Wine.
I've owned hardware in the past built on this idea (Muse Receptor) and the main issue I'd see was that it would have to somehow cope with all the pc hardware combinations out there.
Z

DJ Hellfire wrote:Boy this thread moved fast. Too much to read!

elektrik_muz wrote:

DJ Hellfire wrote:When your **** 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?

Wait, what? 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 **** done!

I don't know what you're really asking, but anyone with any music software experience knows that when you load on the plugins, it hammers your system. Doesn't even have to be with production software. You could be mixing a huge record with a load of plugins and some look ahead limiters and compressors and such and your **** will start popping like popcorn, or crashing and giving buffer errors. This happens in ALL music software and it's dependent on your hardware resources.

Computers are so powerful today that you don't really need some stripped down, bare bones OS to do music. ****, I run my internet browser, itunes, and a **** of other background **** without a problem. There are tons of professionals out there using software without problems, even on stage, especially using apps with 64 bit capability and multicore support. It also helps to set the app to a decent resolution. There is no way to make music with a resolution higher than 48kHz. Even 44kHz is fine. Then when you're ready to actually track and mix, you can bump up the buffer and the resolution. It helps.

I'll state this AGAIN as no one has yet responded to this, but there is NO WAY that even a $100,000 grand piano with HUNDREDS of moving parts that have to actually MOVE before any sound is made when you press a key, will be more responsive than a properly functioning software production app. ESPECIALLY as that grand piano starts to wear!

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.

Well, I doubt there will ever be a "do it all" program that has all the functions of the best production app + all the functions of a DAW app + a dedicated hardware controller. So the demand to run multiple apps is going to be around, even if we do get this magic OS. For example, Maschine, I personally only like using it in standalone mode while making beats and only using it inside Pro Tools to track. But other people like using it as a VST in Logic, Ableton, or Pro Tools while they are composing. To me, I think this may be where a lot of people probably run into issues with resources. But even still, a beastly computer can handle it if set up properly! I mean, people are doing it. I'm not making this **** up!

I'd like to see buffer size settings and glitches be a thing of the past.

I have a 'beastly computer setup' tuned by so-called 'professionals' and it's not as tight or reliable as my hardware in operation.

I think over the years we've settled with convenience over stability and accepted poor performance as a standard for powerful computers as opposed to remedying the problem.

I've spend more money on computers and high end interfaces trying to replicate the tightness and stability of a humble MPC, but alas they are not the same IMO just different.

Computer systems are great and can do so much, but they can struggle with simple things like timing/responsiveness/freezing imo.

I have an off-the-shelf computer...a Sony Vaio, Intel Core i5 @ 2.3 Ghz, 4 GB of Ram, Windows 7, 64 bit. Absolutely no tuning or tweaks of any kind. Using it to run Mascine....and didn't even use a sound card until recently. I used my Fantom G as a USB sound card. This set-up has been very reliable. Reliable meaning 99% of the time it hasn't crashed on me while using Maschine. When programming drums on Maschine (outside of not liking Maschine's quantize/swing) I have never thought or felt I needed to use my hardware MPC to get a track tight. There is an entire forum of Maschine users that will tell you they have similar experiences.

JAH wrote:I have an off-the-shelf computer...a Sony Vaio, Intel Core i5 @ 2.3 Ghz, 4 GB of Ram, Windows 7, 64 bit. Absolutely no tuning or tweaks of any kind. Using it to run Mascine....and didn't even use a sound card until recently. I used my Fantom G as a USB sound card. This set-up has been very reliable. Reliable meaning 99% of the time it hasn't crashed on me while using Maschine. When programming drums on Maschine (outside of not liking Maschine's quantize/swing) I have never thought or felt I needed to use my hardware MPC to get a track tight. There is an entire forum of Maschine users that will tell you they have similar experiences.

I hear ya Jah,

But I'm sure if you posed the same question to a forum of beatmakers that came from a hardware background they might tell you otherwise also.

I personally thing we've accepted computer glitches and quirks as the norm.

Ask anyone who's used an Atari to sequence if they feel Maschine is as tight?

Retrofreak wrote:I'd like to see buffer size settings and glitches be a thing of the past.

I have a 'beastly computer setup' tuned by so-called 'professionals' and it's not as tight or reliable as my hardware in operation.

I think over the years we've settled with convenience over stability and accepted poor performance as a standard for powerful computers as opposed to remedying the problem.

I've spend more money on computers and high end interfaces trying to replicate the tightness and stability of a humble MPC's, but alas they are not the same IMO.

Computer systems are great and can do so much, but they can struggle with simple things like timing/responsiveness/freezing imo.

That's the thing with computers, sometimes you can get one (or build one) to the right specs and still have headaches. A lot of times it's a single component not playing well with others. Happens a lot with people building Pro Tools rigs. For the most part, people following the guidelines of other successful builds tend to also have successful builds. I myself, have always had success with Intel based systems. I notice a lot more problem threads on the Pro Tools forum with people using AMD systems. Other times it just comes down to simple system optimizations.

But that's PC's though. Mac's on the other hand, tend to just work out of the box for the most part. But like I said, in my experience, I haven't had any issues getting the same groove in software as I can in my MPC. And I've been using MPC's since 1998. Only been using software for the past 2 years for production as far as sequencing goes. And my stuff has been extremely reliable, especially Maschine; and so was Reason when I was using it. The beat in my sig was done on Maschine, which some people can't seem to believe.

But with everything moving towards 64 bit and as computers become more and more powerful for less and less money, the buffer issues are getting better. Like I said, on my studio rig, I can barely get the thing to choke. But on that one, there's no personal stuff installed on it. It's just all music stuff that I actually use. Not even anti-virus. Boots fast and runs smooth! Rarely even gets rebooted! And I also don't do many Windows updates on it. Probably haven't updated Windows 7 in almost a year!

Retrofreak wrote:I personally thing we've accepted computer glitches and quirks as the norm.

I really don't thing that's the case. I think it's just more a thing where not everyone has that problem!

DJ Hellfire wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:I'd like to see buffer size settings and glitches be a thing of the past.

I have a 'beastly computer setup' tuned by so-called 'professionals' and it's not as tight or reliable as my hardware in operation.

I think over the years we've settled with convenience over stability and accepted poor performance as a standard for powerful computers as opposed to remedying the problem.

I've spend more money on computers and high end interfaces trying to replicate the tightness and stability of a humble MPC's, but alas they are not the same IMO.

Computer systems are great and can do so much, but they can struggle with simple things like timing/responsiveness/freezing imo.

That's the thing with computers, sometimes you can get one (or build one) to the right specs and still have headaches. A lot of times it's a single component not playing well with others. Happens a lot with people building Pro Tools rigs. For the most part, people following the guidelines of other successful builds tend to also have successful builds. I myself, have always had success with Intel based systems. I notice a lot more problem threads on the Pro Tools forum with people using AMD systems. Other times it just comes down to simple system optimizations.

But that's PC's though. Mac's on the other hand, tend to just work out of the box for the most part. But like I said, in my experience, I haven't had any issues getting the same groove in software as I can in my MPC. And I've been using MPC's since 1998. Only been using software for the past 2 years for production as far as sequencing goes. And my stuff has been extremely reliable, especially Maschine; and so was Reason when I was using it.

But with everything moving towards 64 bit and as computers become more and more powerful for less and less money, the buffer issues are getting better. Like I said, on my studio rig, I can barely get the thing to choke. But on that one, there's no personal stuff installed on it. It's just all music stuff that I actually use. Not even anti-virus. Boots fast and runs smooth! Rarely even gets rebooted! And I also don't do many Windows updates on it. Probably haven't updated Windows 7 in almost a year!

Agreed.

I run both Mac and PC (Intel).

I agree with you on the Mac stability as there's less variables, so the few problems if any are easily isolated (which is my preference).
I use my MBP for everything and it's solid.

My goliath of a PC setup has been the biggest waste of money ever, although it was cheaper on paper, it's cost me more in down time, parts and engineer visits.

This ones 64 bit, 12GB, i7 980X, Intel DX58SO MB with nothing ,but music software running on it also..

It freezes once a day after 10-15 minutes from a cold boot up then runs fine after that lol.

DJ Hellfire wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:I personally thing we've accepted computer glitches and quirks as the norm.

I really don't thing that's the case. I think it's just more a thing where not everyone has that problem!

Maybe?.

Put it this way I don't have 100% faith in windows based computer rigs onstage.

Retrofreak wrote:
I hear ya Jah,

But I'm sure if you posed the same question to a forum of beatmakers that came from a hardware background they might tell you otherwise also.

I personally thing we've accepted computer glitches and quirks as the norm.

Ask anyone who's used an Atari to sequence if they feel Maschine is as tight?

I am sure the hardware guys probably will not be open to computers. I am a hardware guy. Outside of Maschine and now the Ren...everything else I use on a daily basis is hardware. I have plenty of software that I now only use once in awhile. With a product like the Ren....I am more open to software.

The most important question about latency and MIDI timing....is at what point does MIDI/Audio delay become physically noticeable to alter our playing behavior? At a buffer setting of 128 samples (*approx 2.9 ms), playing software synths work great for me. Most new computers can easily achieve this.

While reading articles on Soft Synth Latency and MIDI jitter, I found interesting results regarding hardware. The MIDI to Audio delay of a Korg M1 workstation was reported at 3.2 ms...that is the time audio is heard once a key is struck. A Roland 1080 sound module faired slight worst.

JAH wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:
I hear ya Jah,

But I'm sure if you posed the same question to a forum of beatmakers that came from a hardware background they might tell you otherwise also.

I personally thing we've accepted computer glitches and quirks as the norm.

Ask anyone who's used an Atari to sequence if they feel Maschine is as tight?

I am sure the hardware guys probably will not be open to computers. I am a hardware guy. Outside of Maschine and now the Ren...everything else I use on a daily basis is hardware. I have plenty of software that I now only use once in awhile. With a product like the Ren....I am more open to software.

The most important question about latency and MIDI timing....is at what point does MIDI/Audio delay become physically noticeable to alter our playing behavior? At a buffer setting of 128 samples (*approx 2.9 ms), playing software synths work great for me. Most new computers can easily achieve this.

While reading articles on Soft Synth Latency and MIDI jitter, I found interesting results regarding hardware. The MIDI to Audio delay of a Korg M1 workstation was reported at 3.2 ms...that is the time audio is heard once a key is struck. A Roland 1080 sound module faired slight worst.

I hear ya,

but with synth sounds its more forgiving the problem is with drums.

When you turn on hardware it responds the same for the most part, when you add plugins in software timing starts to fall apart or get glitchy under CPU load.

REN/akai will never have problems
are always problems attributable to computer/USER.
LA TEN CY

Retrofreak wrote:

I hear ya,

but with synth sounds its more forgiving the problem is with drums.

When you turn on hardware it responds the same for the most part, when you add plugins in software timing starts to fall apart or get glitchy under CPU load.

Adding too many plugins will eventually cause issues whether you use the Ren or hardware MPC. The only difference is that the Ren hosts plugins directly. Using a hardware MPC, you MIDI it to a DAW or a VST host. Adding too many plugins produce the same results; you play your hardware MPC and the VST host stops responding.

Peole tend to forget that the Ren is also a sampler. It loads sound directly to Ram. There is no latency when using the Ren's sampler. Will adding too many of the Ren's effects introduce some latency? It probably will. But you are then comparing a hardware MPC with 4 effect busses that are shared with the Ren's ability to stack 4 independent effects on each pad. If you only use 4 effects on the Ren which is the max you can have with a hardware MPC, there is no latency. The MPC 5000 has the most powerful effects processor if I recall correctly. Attempt to max out its effects and see what happens.....sluggishness and it may crash as it also has a CPU. Have you ever tried maxing out a hardware MPCs memory with samples and sequence data? Eventually, it will stop working and possibly crash...

You have to compare apples with apples.

JAH wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:

I hear ya,

but with synth sounds its more forgiving the problem is with drums.

When you turn on hardware it responds the same for the most part, when you add plugins in software timing starts to fall apart or get glitchy under CPU load.

Adding too many plugins will eventually cause issues whether you use the Ren or hardware MPC. The only difference is that the Ren hosts plugins directly. Using a hardware MPC, you MIDI it to a DAW or a VST host. Adding too many plugins produce the same results; you play your hardware MPC and the VST host stops responding.

Peole tend to forget that the Ren is also a sampler. It loads sound directly to Ram. There is no latency when using the Ren's sampler. Will adding too many of the Ren's effects introduce some latency? It probably will. But you are then comparing a hardware MPC with 4 effect busses that are shared with the Ren's ability to stack 4 independent effects on each pad. If you only use 4 effects on the Ren which is the max you can have with a hardware MPC, there is no latency. The MPC 5000 has the most powerful effects processor if I recall correctly. Attempt to max out its effects and see what happens.....sluggishness and it may crash as it also has a CPU. Have you ever tried maxing out a hardware MPCs memory with samples and sequence data? Eventually, it will stop working and possibly crash...

You have to compare apples with apples.

Well using an MPC to sequence my sound module rigs is supposed to be comparable with Maschine or Ren triggering VST instruments ITB.

Timing often falls apart after a few plugins are added, even live programming whist in loop record can make a computer act sketchy at times..they are not the same.

Maybe things will change when multicore support is more widespread?

Retrofreak wrote:
Well using an MPC to sequence my sound module rigs is supposed to be comparable with Maschine or Ren triggering VST instruments ITB.

Timing often falls apart after a few plugins are added, even live programming whist in loop record can make a computer act sketchy at times..they are not the same.

Maybe things will change when multicore support is more widespread?

Where did you get that info from?

Using your MPC to sequence your sound module rigs is comparable to Maschine or Ren sequencing your sound module rig. You should have no issues with timing (outside of MIDI jitter...which is the nature of the MIDI beast).

Using your MPC + DAW to sequence VSTs is comparable to Maschine or Ren alone sequencing VSTs. Timing can be affected using certain plugins depending on your computer or whether you are running plugins on their own processors like UAD. You face the same or similar issues using either of these platforms.

Again...you are comparing apples to organges. You are basically saying the MPC Ren better be as stable as a hardware MPC sequencing MIDI sound modules...which is...odd. The only thing you should expect is that the MPC Ren should have equal stability when sequencing MIDI sound modules as a hardware MPC. This is comparing apples to apples.

Think about what you are actually saying. You are saying to yourself..."the Ren can sequence VSTs. So I am going to load it with processor hungry plugins and effects that use 4 gigs of memory...and when it crashes....HA! Its not as stable as a hardware MPC with 128 MBs of samples sequencing an external sound module." This is not a good argument....

JAH wrote:

Retrofreak wrote:
Well using an MPC to sequence my sound module rigs is supposed to be comparable with Maschine or Ren triggering VST instruments ITB.

Timing often falls apart after a few plugins are added, even live programming whist in loop record can make a computer act sketchy at times..they are not the same.

Maybe things will change when multicore support is more widespread?

Where did you get that info from?

Using your MPC to sequence your sound module rigs is comparable to Maschine or Ren sequencing your sound module rig. You should have no issues with timing (outside of MIDI jitter...which is the nature of the MIDI beast).

Using your MPC + DAW to sequence VSTs is comparable to Maschine or Ren alone sequencing VSTs. Timing can be affected using certain plugins depending on your computer or whether you are running plugins on their own processors like UAD. You face the same or similar issues using either of these platforms.

Again...you are comparing apples to organges. You are basically saying the MPC Ren better be as stable as a hardware MPC sequencing MIDI sound modules...which is...odd. The only thing you should expect is that the MPC Ren should have equal stability when sequencing MIDI sound modules as a hardware MPC. This is comparing apples to apples.

Think about what you are actually saying. You are saying to yourself..."the Ren can sequence VSTs. So I am going to load it with processor hungry plugins and effects that use 4 gigs of memory...and when it crashes....HA! Its not as stable as a hardware MPC with 128 MBs of samples sequencing an external sound module." This is not a good argument....

Nope,

I'm saying that the whole concept of doing things in the box is that your running a virtual representation of the hardware counter part.

On paper it sounds good, but in practise it's not always the case.

An MPC is one brain and modules are independent of that.

When one thing goes down it rarely effects the other, bar stuck midi notes.

When a computer acts glitchy it takes everything else down with it as it's the sound source and sequencer.

Timing and buffer underuns have normally been the first sign of this.

Hence why I said maybe when there's more multicore support, stability might improve, "I think computers are doing too much and have too many variables (VST's being one of them)".


*Speaking on DAW's in general not just the REN as I haven't used one*