Where is the latency o meter on the Ren?

I have never claimed that setting the buffer to 512 samples is near zero latency.

What I stated in related threads is that I have my buffer setting at 256-512 samples. This is perfectly fine for sequencing. I can take my buffer settings down to 64 samples...but not feel it is necessary.

When the Ren/Studio were announced their was so many skeptics that said Akai couldn't duplicate the timing of hardware MPCs. They were wrong.

This normally quiets the naysayers:

Sure if you want to not to take advantage of what your boasting about, 256-512 go ahead.... You must of bought the UAD to boast about it then, because that's just burning money to not use the interface at the lower latency settings it's capable of.

Yeah 256-512 is perfectly fine for sequencing...with a mouse. Or if you don't want to be near a hardware MPC's low latency.

And don't forget over a year ago when you started this nonsense with me, it was based on me saying, "they better write a custom driver from the ground up". That's all it took to make you contest everything I post for over a year. By the end of that original thread you were trying to imply a hardware MPC isn't low latency.

Whatever man, any $150 interface can do what your paid spokesman is on about. And ones that aren't the Ren's mediocre off the shelf Chinese EIE with an off the shelf driver adapted from 2005 are gonna allow you to utilize 32-128 buffers for a lot longer at equal CPU loads.

But this thread already shows you're best off to not engage me or anyone with proper knowledge of how computers work. But I will expose whatever technical errors you try to pass off as truth. You aren't doing anybody any favors pretending to be an authority on how modern computers actually operate and posting or implying things that are flat out not true.

Again why you wouldn't use the UAD to it's capabilities is beyond me, but little about you makes any sense. And why you get upset that I tell people correct info about RAM, 64 bit, CPU's/multi core when they want to know and you're giving wrong information even baiting arguments you will lose like

"So you believe multicore support will improve latency?"

You'll say oh I was just starting off a convo, because I knew it would, but it's clear you didn't know and were ready to argue it wouldn't.

Metatron72 wrote:Sure if you want to not to take advantage of what your boasting about, 256-512 go ahead.... You must of bought the UAD to boast....

Simply stating how I use the Ren and what audio interface I use. If I owned a $150 interface...I would be talking about that.

256 - 512 samples is what I use whether I use the UAD audio driver or the Ren audio driver. It is perfectly fine for sequencing using the Ren's pads. What I do is not to stop anyone from using the lowest buffer setting possible with their computers..obviously Ren/Studio users can decide their own settings. But IMO...going from 64 samples to 256 samples.....the difference is negligble. In simpler terms....it is not necessary to use the lowest setting possible. If you used the Ren or computer applications...you would know the reason why you wouldn't always use the lowest setting anyway.

In summary....from my 1 year plus experience with the Ren, and 16 years experience with hardware MPCs......the Ren/Studio at least equals hardware MPC in latency/timing/pad responsiveness. Thus the video I posted above showing off the Studio.

64 vs 256 buffers differences are not negligible or unnoticeable, but par for the course with you to think so.

If I had used Ren? Oh sure there's something special about it compared to any other interface or driver, only in your mind.

"If you used the Ren or computer applications...you would know the reason why you wouldn't always use the lowest setting anyway."

Yeah sure I've never used computer applications...

You're missing the point as always, although I'm sure you do see the point and are just pretending not to. The point is you don't want to go to 256-512 sample buffers until you have to. And many of us that don't have a cheap off the rack Chinese USB interface and don't have to contend with single core Pentium 4 2004 level performance don't have to until the very end of the process.

Again why you wouldn't use a UAD at a 64 buffer when it has DSP chips and it own quality plugs running off the DSP chips with no added load to your CPU, just shows how lost you are.

The Ren interface probably yeah you need to go to a 256-512MB real soon in the process. And don't bother with the 'I don't have one" stuff, I've seen the EIE's.

Again if you can't tell the difference between 256/512 sample buffers compared to 14/32/64/128 and hardware MPC's you are lacking in the most basic elements of perception.

You not being to tell the difference when everyone else on the planet can and science and mathematical measurement bears it out...well enjoy your fantasy and don't forget to fill the EIE's fairy dust tank....

You do realize these last few weeks you are just relentlessly arguing against actual facts and real world computer data processing facts?

Oops had a typo. I say what I mean the first time.

Shows over Fobe. Just another thread of Jerome vs. all recorded technical facts in the DAW world. He'll lose every time.

Metatron72 wrote:Just for the sake of clarity that 1.5ms @64 buffer would have to be only the input latency being reported, a lot of software doesn't give the total round trip latency number of input latency+processing+output latency.

you right about this, ableton live in preference shows total latency, it even breaks it down to what your input and output separately is. I'd be curious to see what ren actually get.