Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> From: Rainer Thelonius Balthasar Straschill > say you have a fixed computer system (same installation, same > application), and use two different interfaces. Then you reduce > the latency (of the driver, as you point out) up to the point > where you get artifacts. If the setting of one interface is > considerably lower than that of the other one, it's in my eyes > safe to say that "the interface has lower latency" True. My claim is that this is usually not the case for most mid to high range audio interfaces designed for musicians. If they're both using the same physical interface (USB, FW, PCI) and there is still a big difference in the lowest buffer size, it means the device driver is poorly written. It isn't that hard to write an ASIO device driver. If there is a problem in a driver, it tends to get fixed quickly because this is a very competitive market. > From: Jeff Kaiser [mailto:loopersdelight@pfmentum.com] > But I can honestly state my experience, which is, and remains: > On the same system, same settings, same software: latency is > different between the m-audio I used and the motu. This can only be because the buffer sizes were different. Did you specifically set the ASIO buffer sizes (or whatever the equivalent is on the Mac) after swapping devices? Installing a new audio device can sometimes change the default ASIO buffer size. Some drivers may be more conservative than others. If you had never manually changed your buffer size, then my belief is that the MOTU install lowered your buffer size without you knowing it. This then wouldn't be a fair comparison. You would have to return to the M-Audio with the new lower buffer size and see if it works without clicks. If it does then the latencies are effectively the same. If you are claiming that the buffer sizes were the same and you can detect the minute differences between the digital/analog converters, well congratulations because you're one of the very few people on the planet that can do that. :-) Jeff