- #FOCUSRITE USB ASIO NO SOUND DRIVERS#
- #FOCUSRITE USB ASIO NO SOUND PLUS#
- #FOCUSRITE USB ASIO NO SOUND SIMULATOR#
#FOCUSRITE USB ASIO NO SOUND DRIVERS#
Good point about the USB - Maybe they've gone "in-house" with their chips now? I kind of doubt it, but as long as the performance is better than the old DICE stuff with the old drivers they were using, then they should show an overall improvement (but the real-world latency seems to be much worse on the newer models?). But until then, do you have any experience that leans one way or the other? Of course when the day comes that you have a computer with no PCI slots, that will be the end of the line. He said that with this generation's computers, externally interfaced devices are likely to work better than those that plug directly into the motherboard bus. But my personal experience is pretty much limited to trailing edge technology. But I'm currently in a friendly discussion on another forum with someone about a comment I made (someone was wondering about keeping his Delta 66 interface or getting a new PreSonus USB 2 interface) that he should try the Delta in his new computer first - that in my experience internal bus cards tended to be more predictable than those using an external (Firewire or USB) interface. I have an L22 and I expect I'll probably have to keep an old computer alive in order to continue using it, but that's OK with me. I noticed your comment on dawbench about the Lynx card.
So if that's all the latency there actually was, nobody would complain. Surely you've heard the old "Well, you can play your electric guitar when you're ten feet away from the amplifier and that's 10 ms of latency" argument. Many people judge whether they can work or not simply by the latency numbers that they can get away with, I've read comments on forums along the lines that something is absolutely useless because they can't get reliable operation with buffer sizes smaller than 64 (for example) samples but don't know how much the actual source-to-monitor latency actually is.
#FOCUSRITE USB ASIO NO SOUND SIMULATOR#
People use virtual instruments that they play live when tracking, and use amplifier simulator plug-ins to get some inspiration when playing in guitar parts, and for that, being able to monitor what's coming back from the computer is essential. Though I don't work in that mode myself, this is just why I address latency at all in my reviews of this sort of gear. See here for more benchmark details from the lovely Daw-Bench forum: Just thought that should be mentioned when comparing interfaces as it can make a HUGE difference for those in my kinds of shoes (tracking + monitoring "through the DAW").
Granted those who don't monitor "wet" won't care much about the latency (aside from scaling performance which can also show HUGE discrepancies between interfaces/drivers) - but monitoing "wet" at 32-Samples of ASIO is the basis for my entire setup.
#FOCUSRITE USB ASIO NO SOUND PLUS#
Not only that, but if Focusrite is still using "off the shelf" DICE chips along with the standard "off the shelf" drivers (with some monitor mixing add-ons plus GUI eye-candy placed on top) then the RME will actually perform way better at 32-Samples of ASIO than the Focusrite would at 128-samples or even 256-Samples of ASIO Latency (and the RME would obviously clobber the round trip latency in the same breath - win-win). So where is the extra 6ms coming from? Answer? Hidden buffers.Īn RME setup will be closer to 4ms Analog-to-Analog round trip at 32-Samples (0.75ms) of ASIO latency (a Multiface is like 3.15ms analog-to-analog 32 Samples), and closer to 4.7ms Analog-to-Analog round trip at 64 Samples (1.5ms) of ASIO Latency (all at 44.1K). A 2ms buffer should net you a 4ms digital round trip plus AD/DA oversampling delays (generally around 1ms each way) - that *should* be around 6ms round trip analog-to-analog.
0 kommentar(er)
