Latency question for firewire users

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like
to know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing
more outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the
mixer temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW
410 will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency
it gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my
desktop, will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
410, and use Sonar.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phoenix" <gtr_phoenix@killerrabbit.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Mt6ge.584$1f5.340@trndny01...
> I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like
> to know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing
> more outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the
> mixer temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW
> 410 will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency
> it gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my
> desktop, will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
> So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
> 410, and use Sonar.

I don't know about the M-Audio adapter, but I have an RME Fireface and can
use 2.x ms latency even on somewhat large projects.

--
http/www.bobsavage.net

 

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Savage wrote:
> "Phoenix" <gtr_phoenix@killerrabbit.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Mt6ge.584$1f5.340@trndny01...
>
>>I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like
>>to know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing
>>more outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the
>>mixer temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW
>>410 will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency
>> it gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my
>>desktop, will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
>>So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
>>410, and use Sonar.
>
>
> I don't know about the M-Audio adapter, but I have an RME Fireface and can
> use 2.x ms latency even on somewhat large projects.
>
Is that WDM or ASIO?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Phoenix" <gtr_phoenix@killerrabbit.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hZ6ge.589$1f5.580@trndny01...
> Is that WDM or ASIO?

ASIO. I haven't done much/any testing with WDM.

--
http/www.bobsavage.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Uzytkownik "Phoenix" <gtr_phoenix@killerrabbit.verizon.net> napisal w
wiadomosci news:Mt6ge.584$1f5.340@trndny01...
> I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like
> to know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing
> more outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the
> mixer temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW
> 410 will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency
> it gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my
> desktop, will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
> So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
> 410, and use Sonar.

* As low as on M-Audio delta (PCI) on Mackie Onyx. Can be set (and its
working excellent)
even lower.

kisses

 

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hefalump wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Phoenix" <gtr_phoenix@killerrabbit.verizon.net> napisal w
> wiadomosci news:Mt6ge.584$1f5.340@trndny01...
>
>>I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like
>>to know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing
>>more outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the
>>mixer temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW
>>410 will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency
>> it gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my
>>desktop, will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
>>So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
>>410, and use Sonar.
>
>
> * As low as on M-Audio delta (PCI) on Mackie Onyx. Can be set (and its
> working excellent)
> even lower.
>
> kisses
>
>
Thankz, Hef. M-Audio informs me that I can sync it to my Audiophile
2496 via S/PDIF, so it should do the job, if I understand them correctly.

 

[Vinny]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Phoenix wrote:
> I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like
> to know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing
> more outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the
> mixer temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW
> 410 will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency
> it gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my
> desktop, will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
> So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
> 410, and use Sonar.

MOTU 828mkII, not FW410... but I'm reliable @ sub 5.8ms latency with it
on my desktop DAW. Works pretty good on the laptop too, but I never
stress it then because I'm not using any effects.

 

[Vinny]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>
> MOTU 828mkII, not FW410... but I'm reliable @ sub 5.8ms latency with it
> on my desktop DAW. Works pretty good on the laptop too, but I never
> stress it then because I'm not using any effects.

.... on Sonar 4.02, both machines.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm doing a live recording where I'm mixing FOH as well (with SONAR).
I'm using two 828mkII units with Input Monitoring so I can EQ and compress a
little.

My system (Dell Inspiron 5100 2.4Ghz) wasn't able to handle the task of
monitor sends so they are sent via QueMix and routed to a pre amp with EQ.

14 tracks, one main. latency around 4ms. CPU sits around 30%.

Steven

"Vinny" <yourself@nowhere.cc> wrote in message
news:SBNge.1722$Y81.1477@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Phoenix wrote:
>> I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like to
>> know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing more
>> outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the mixer
>> temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW 410
>> will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency it
>> gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my desktop,
>> will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
>> So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
>> 410, and use Sonar.
>
> MOTU 828mkII, not FW410... but I'm reliable @ sub 5.8ms latency with it on
> my desktop DAW. Works pretty good on the laptop too, but I never stress
> it then because I'm not using any effects.

 

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steven Bell wrote:
> I'm doing a live recording where I'm mixing FOH as well (with SONAR).
> I'm using two 828mkII units with Input Monitoring so I can EQ and compress a
> little.
>
> My system (Dell Inspiron 5100 2.4Ghz) wasn't able to handle the task of
> monitor sends so they are sent via QueMix and routed to a pre amp with EQ.
>
> 14 tracks, one main. latency around 4ms. CPU sits around 30%.
>
> Steven
>
> "Vinny" <yourself@nowhere.cc> wrote in message
> news:SBNge.1722$Y81.1477@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Phoenix wrote:
>>
>>>I'm going to get an M-Audio Firewire 410 for my laptop, and would like to
>>>know if it will solve my desktop issues as well, which is needing more
>>>outputs for my mixer, so I can adjust different channels in the mixer
>>>temporarily without having to alter them in Sonar. I know the FW 410
>>>will give me the outputs; what I don't know is what kind of latency it
>>>gets. On my laptop any change will be an improvement, but on my desktop,
>>>will using the 410 mean I have to raise the latency?
>>>So I'd like to hear from firewire users, particularly if you have the FW
>>>410, and use Sonar.
>>
>>MOTU 828mkII, not FW410... but I'm reliable @ sub 5.8ms latency with it on
>>my desktop DAW. Works pretty good on the laptop too, but I never stress
>>it then because I'm not using any effects.
>
>
>
OK, that answers that question. Thanks, guys. Now I just have to sort
out whether the FW 410 will be reliable. The Guitar Center guy rattled
me when he told me recently people have been returning them.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

A lot of people returned them at first. Their drivers were not ready for
prime time.
I haven't heard anything lately.

Steven
> OK, that answers that question. Thanks, guys. Now I just have to sort
> out whether the FW 410 will be reliable. The Guitar Center guy rattled me
> when he told me recently people have been returning them.

 

[phoenix]

Archived from groups: cakewalk.audio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Steven Bell wrote:
> A lot of people returned them at first. Their drivers were not ready for
> prime time.
> I haven't heard anything lately.
>
> Steven
>
>>OK, that answers that question. Thanks, guys. Now I just have to sort
>>out whether the FW 410 will be reliable. The Guitar Center guy rattled me
>>when he told me recently people have been returning them.
>
>
>
Thanks, Steven. That jibes with the reviews I read on Musicians'
Friend's site. The few negative reviews there were fairly early on. I
guess the GC guys wouldn't have known just when the units came back. I
am hoping the 410 will work because it would be the most cost-effective
and versatile solution.