| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
agoraphobia 
Caracal
Joined: July/19/2011
Points: 10
|
 Topic: Thunderbolt card latency figures
Posted: August/26/2014 at 6:33pm |
Hi,
I'm looking to upgrade from my current LT-HD system (on PT10) and am looking at numerous options, particularly the TB card from Lynx for my aurora 16.
Is there any latency data floating about?
Cheers
|
 |
Mike N
Admin Group
Sales & Support Coordinator
Joined: November/13/2008
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Points: 2488
|
Posted: August/27/2014 at 9:58am |
|
Latency numbers are a moving target; they are not hard and fast specs. It depends on sample rate, buffer size, processor capability, plug ins, etc.'
We can tell you that Thunderbolt speed is very close to PCI Express so there should be no issues with operating at low buffer sizes and low latency.
|
|
Michael Nicoletti
Lynx Studio Technology
Sales & Support Coordinator
714-545-4700 Ext. 211
|
|
agoraphobia
Caracal
Joined: July/19/2011
Points: 10
|
Posted: August/31/2014 at 9:24pm |
Thanks Mike. What about delay compensation? I do enjoy integrating my outboard without having to worry about compensating for latency. If it's a moving target, would I not have to change the compensation figures manually each session/each instance to maintain sample accurate compensation? It could be a bit of a dealbreaker for me. Is the Lynx software capable of handling this automatically? The UA Apollo seems to handle this part fine regardless of connection.
Edited by agoraphobia - September/01/2014 at 1:26am
|
|
swinxx
Bobcat
Joined: April/17/2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Points: 42
|
Posted: September/02/2014 at 7:58am |
you will have phasing issues and problems when there is only 1ms latency. all i can tell is that with my mbp and thunderbolt connection to my aurora 16 there are no issues when using outboard connected within cubase. all works as expected (which is really nice btw)
greets.
|
|
PaulTech
Admin Group
Joined: August/13/2004
Location: United States
Points: 5495
|
Posted: September/02/2014 at 3:34pm |
|
The driver for the Aurora/TB will accurately report the delay times to your app, so there should not be any issues with setting compensation values manually
|
|
|
|
agoraphobia
Caracal
Joined: July/19/2011
Points: 10
|
Posted: September/05/2014 at 4:08pm |
|
The real question is will ProTools then automatically compensate the delayed amount or will I have to manually enter in delay figures with the LT-TB card? I know this has been an issue with 3rd party interfaces in the past and the UA Apollo was the only one in my tests that compensated automatically without having to worry about sample figures and handling it manually.
|
|
PaulTech
Admin Group
Joined: August/13/2004
Location: United States
Points: 5495
|
Posted: September/09/2014 at 3:37pm |
|
Only one value can be presented to the audio software. The analog I/O will report accurately. The digital I/O will not, but latency values will always be an issue for digital I/O (since there is always going to be some delay at the receiving device) unless the software has a ping function to automate the offset.
|
|
|
|
agoraphobia
Caracal
Joined: July/19/2011
Points: 10
|
Posted: September/14/2014 at 7:23am |
|
Thanks Paul, but I still feel my question hasn't been answered.
For instance, currently with the HD card I use outboard while mixing and and use things like Parallel compression on auxes etc and experience sample accurate delay compensation. I have concerns that I won't experience this with the thunderbolt card and may even be more of a headache than what it's worth to correct it. Can you expand on the moving target aspect? My understanding is this figure changes depending on how many channels are actually being used and increases or decreases by adding or subtracting channels. Let's say I had to set a delay of 1.82ms in the "H/W Insert Delay" menu on channel 1 and then I decided to add another bunch of hardware inserts into my session, would this figure then change and I would need to continuously update it? Or does the Aurora handle that part and the "H/W Insert Delay" figure is able to remain the same at all times once done once?
Apologies if I've made some technical oversights, I've only ever used HD and HD Native systems so I'm trying to understand what I'm to loose if I change to the LT-TB card.
Cheers
|
|
David A Hoatson
Admin Group
Forum Administrator
Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Idaho
Points: 4993
|
Posted: September/14/2014 at 9:01am |
|
When Paul said latency was a moving target, he didn't mean the latency numbers change randomly. He meant that it is more like MPG for your car. The manufacturer might claim a certain number, but your mileage may vary based on how you use it. This is why we don't want to mislead you by publishing a number.
If you set the buffer size to a specific setting, you will always get the same latency for that buffer size and sample rate, no matter what. The difference comes in when you try and load up tons of tracks and tons of effects. Then your CPU can't keep up and you have to go to a higher buffer size (and higher latency). That is the "your mileage may vary" part.
You won't lose anything going to the LT-TB card. The driver accurately reports the internal latency of the device and everything will stay in sync. Where it gets more complicated is when you try and use the digital i/o as effects send / return. That is when you must manually compensate in your software - since there is no way we can know what you are going to have connected to the digital i/o.
Does this answer your question?
|
|
Thank you,
David A. Hoatson
Lynx Studio Technology, Inc.
Co-founder, Chief Software Engineer
|
|
h4nc0
Bobcat
Joined: July/12/2014
Location: Seoul, Korea
Points: 48
|
Posted: October/31/2014 at 4:28am |
|
I am wondering if it's possible to further decrease the reported latency figure for the TB interface. I've compared Hilo TB to other recent TB audio interfaces and the numbers are lagging behind. Also, it's hard to work at lower buffer settings such as 32 and 64. (new mac pro here) I expected better performance than FW and USB interfaces.
|
|
David A Hoatson
Admin Group
Forum Administrator
Joined: October/01/2003
Location: Idaho
Points: 4993
|
Posted: October/31/2014 at 8:33am |
|
I'm afraid you will need to be more specific. What software are you using and what latency numbers are you seeing. The Hilo-TB has much better latency than when using the USB interface.
|
|
Thank you,
David A. Hoatson
Lynx Studio Technology, Inc.
Co-founder, Chief Software Engineer
|
|
h4nc0
Bobcat
Joined: July/12/2014
Location: Seoul, Korea
Points: 48
|
Posted: November/03/2014 at 7:59pm |
David,
I am talking about the reported "Round Trip Latency" of various interfaces. RTL reported from Logic X and Ableton Live from Lynx Hilo is not the best among other Thunderbolt interfaces, especially newer ones like Ensemble 2. The number is close to USB interface like ones from RME. (I can't remember exact number now) Not only that, I am having stability issue at lower buffer such as 32/64/128 samples even at the beginning of project with not a high CPU load. BTW, I don't reallly care about the RTL number, but I do care about lower, usable latency/buffer setting. I have to work at 256 samples (Ableton Live) after 30%+ CPU load without pop/crackles, and I expected much better result. I am using new Mac Pro 6 core, 32GB RAM with mostly Ableton Live and sometimes Logic X.
Edited by h4nc0 - November/03/2014 at 8:06pm
|
|
Thunderbolt card latency figures