Audio track

Metatron72 wrote:The thing is you all did get a Ploytec adapted driver. Given that and the low quality interface in the Ren I bet you do have to run a lot of 512 sample buffers to do much. I would guess that the Apollo Jerome has next to the Ren if used over the internal would win in any 1:1 test.

No 512 sample will feel like an MPC or a hardware synth. 128 is very nice but 64, 32 are needed to get extremely close to hardware feel. So I also wonder how much the Ren's interface can take at low latencies.

I find the Ren's timing equal to or better than any hardware MPC. And I keep my buffer set between 128 to 512. Plus the sensitivity of the Ren's pads is better than any MPC I have ever used. I feel this also plays an important part to timing.

The Ploytec driver you speak so foundly of? I go back and forth using it and the Apollo running Thunderbolt. I see no apparent differences in performance.

If you are 'wondering' something about the Ren....then your comments have very little meaning until you actually use it and then report back. Go look through the Ren forum. It is telling you don't see any threads regarding latency timing.....no feture requests for improved timing......so I am not just making this up.

I will create a thread about the Ren's timing....

JAH wrote:The Ploytec driver you speak so foundly of? I go back and forth using it and the Apollo running Thunderbolt. I see no apparent differences in performance.

I will create a thread about the Ren's timing....

I'm sure a properly run ASIO/Core Audio stress test (which you would be the last person on Earth to entrust to) would have the Apollo win. If you honestly believe a $200 USB interface will match performance with a $2000 one you are insane.

And please DON'T make a thread on the Ren's timing. It will just probably make more work for the objective people here to try and make sense of your next circular and illogical "proof".

And I'm sure in general usage the interface is fine as are most $200-$300 interfaces. If you haven't used enough of all that stuff you buy to really tax that interface and then see the Apollo would be able to run more at a lower buffer that's not really anything I care about.

I'll tell you right out, no test necessary, that if you are running 128-512 sample buffers your round trip latency, the real latency number; input+processing, not just input is at least 7.5-10ms. A 14 buffer (Core Audio if allowed by the app) or a 32 (lowest ASIO buffer value possible) is needed to clock a latency number as low as a hardware MPC.

Again I'm not saying the 128 or even 256 doesn't feel alright to use. Like many I can use those settings fine, but the lower values are noticeably better and again obviously needed for RTL latency numbers under 6ms.

As ever twist these real world facts into whatever nonsense you want.

Metatron72 wrote:
As ever twist these real world facts into whatever nonsense you want.

Sometimes you have to just stop running your mouth and actually use the products.



Dave said " with all that bs!"

JAH wrote:

Metatron72 wrote:
As ever twist these real world facts into whatever nonsense you want.

Sometimes you have to just stop running your mouth and actually use the products.

Dave said " with all that bs!"

Why even bother quoting me and follow with this...

Don't even come back saying that the performance "proves" your 128-512 sample buffers are the same latency as hardware MPC's. Many. many people can play off 128-512 buffers. That's not the original point.

You have to willfully ignore the factual latency info I posted as you simply have nothing to back up this -

"I find the Ren's timing equal to or better than any hardware MPC. And I keep my buffer set between 128 to 512. "

The loudest most agenda driven troll shill here says I'm running my mouth...