Latency

[cheddatom]

This is something I should know about but would like to hear how everyone else copes. I use an analogue desk for direct monitoring in the studio, and this works really well. I have some outboard if people want reverb etc. Anyway, the other day someone asked me to give them a monitor mix from the computer, so that they could hear the exact same reverb as it would be in the mix. This is something I've always shied away from because of latency. I can get near 0 latency with a tiny buffer, but then this compromises CPU performance, especially if I've got a fancy reverb on the go.

So,what do you all do? Keep a tiny buffer size and use low-powered plugins?

In case it's relevant I'm using a MOTU 24 IO. My PC is running windows 7, has an Athlon chip 3.5GHz 8 cores, and 16Gb RAM

[lurksalot]

how do you adjust the buffer , I have small latency issues just overdubbing stuff , though I understand the latest generation focusright kit does a great job of reducing this ,

[cheddatom]

just on the control panel for the interface you can set the buffer size. The lower the buffer size, the lower the latency

[lurksalot]

Cheers I'll try that

[cheddatom]

no problem, happy to help!

...now can anyone help me?!!

I figured it was standard practise for most people to monitor inputs on their DAW these days (as opposed to an analogue desk), so you must have near 0 latency? If so maybe you keep your plug-ins down to the very basics during the tracking stages? Or maybe your computers are far better than mine?

[crez5150]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1476266702' post='3152778']
no problem, happy to help!

...now can anyone help me?!!

I figured it was standard practise for most people to monitor inputs on their DAW these days (as opposed to an analogue desk), so you must have near 0 latency? If so maybe you keep your plug-ins down to the very basics during the tracking stages? Or maybe your computers are far better than mine?
[/quote]

Seen a lot of people with multiple plug ins per channel..... if you have a lot of the same types of signals using the same effects create a bus (backing vox for example) where you can use less effects for more tracks. If you do this already ignore me ;o)

[ras52]

I use a super-basic 2-channel interface but it has a "direct monitoring" button which I use when tracking, so I don't put any of the recorded-to track back into the monitor mix - but I send some to a reverb bus and crank that up: latency isn't really an issue monitoring the reverb bus for me (it's delayed anyway), but you could always reduce the reverb pre-delay to compensate!

[cheddatom]

the specific situation I recently came across was like this... I started with a guy and his guitar. I added drums and bass to the track, and he added backing vocals and the load vocal. At this point the session is fairly simple. I have one reverb for the whole session (IE sending from all vox, drums, and a bit of guitar). We then built up the song more and more, adding loads of different instruments, percussion etc, and effects on individual instruments, including two new reverbs, one for lead vox, one for backing.

After all this, he wasn't happy with the lead vox and came back to re-do it. However, he wasn't happy to hear the dry mic, or just any old reverb. He wanted the exact sound I had in the mix, in his headphones. I couldn't do it without enough latency to put him off. It's an unusual situation, and perhaps there's a better way to handle it rather than say "sorry mate, I can't figure out how to do it", but I figured there must be studios out there where this is possible?

I guess long term it'd be better to get some decent dedicated outboard reverb which I can leave permanently patched in

[Dad3353]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1476269061' post='3152817']
the specific situation I recently came across was like this...
[/quote]

Could you render the track(s) that the fellow requires in his monitoring to one stereo track, then use only [i]that [/i]for recording his new stuff..? There's be no latency from processing that way...
Just my tuppence-worth.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Dad3353

[cheddatom]

yes, good suggestion, didn't even consider it. It'd be a bit of a faff but would have given him what he wanted. I should have thought of that, I used to do it loads when I was a kid because my computer couldn't handle processing the effects "live"

...but I imagine the fancy studios don't do this

[Mornats]

I've hit the latency issue with a 27 track song with around 12GB of instruments and effects on it. I put Izotope's Neutron on around 16 of the tracks and hit over 110% CPU usage on a 4ghz i7! To listen back to the track when mixing I just increase the buffer to 512 samples on my Focusrite Forte and it plays fine. If I need to record a new piece into it then I have to render down several tracks, lower the buffer to 32 or 64 samples and it'll record fine with little latency.

You'll probably always have a latency issue if you're playing multiple tracks whilst recording another especially if you have CPU hungry reverbs on there. So best bet is to render down all tracks but the one you're recording, set the buffer to as low as you can before topping out your CPU and you should be good. You can always un-render the tracks when you're done recording in case you need to tweak them.

Which DAW are you using? I can point out the exact option you need to select in Reaper if you use that.

[cheddatom]

I'm using Cubase 6, I don't think it has an easy "render effect" option, but obviously I could just export the tracks I want and bring them into the project.

Probably the quickest way to achieve what I want is to export the entire song without the lead vocal, then use that as the backing track to record to, then import the new vocal into the original project. A bit of a PITA but it sonds like there's no easy workaround

I'm regularly running projects with more than 50 tracks of audio

[BigRedX]

Is this reverb on the vocal or instrument that is being recorded or just the reverb that they intend to use on the tracks already recorded?

[6v6]

I think this will always be tricky - with a powerful computer and the right interface you can get pretty low latency but it will never be zero and you're taking a risk when recording if you run with really tiny buffers.

I think most studios asked to do this would probably patch in the reverb on the desk via an outboard processor, or perhaps be using recording interfaces with dedicated DSP for effects (such as some RME devices), which amounts to the same thing with less boxes.

[cheddatom]

We found a reverb for the vocal, which we both liked, but it was pretty CPU intensive. This coupled with reverbs on other tracks, plus drum triggers, some VSTs, and a lot of audio, meant the CPU load was quite high. This was fine with a large buffer size, but unusable with a small buffer

The artist wanted to re-do his vocal, and listen to his mic monitored through the actual channel in the project with all the effect on it.

I think I'll save up for some nice outboard reverb, that'll solve it

[BigRedX]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1476778396' post='3157071']
We found a reverb for the vocal, which we both liked, but it was pretty CPU intensive. This coupled with reverbs on other tracks, plus drum triggers, some VSTs, and a lot of audio, meant the CPU load was quite high. This was fine with a large buffer size, but unusable with a small buffer

The artist wanted to re-do his vocal, and listen to his mic monitored through the actual channel in the project with all the effect on it.

I think I'll save up for some nice outboard reverb, that'll solve it
[/quote]

You should be able to get something fairly tasty for a decent price second hand if you don't mind it not being the very latest and best.

The only way you'd get the latency down to acceptable levels would be by mixing down all the other tracks to stereo and just running the plug-ins on the track being recorded. Of course that don't make things easy if the artist wants to tweak the mix they are listening to...

[cheddatom]

yeh, that's what I'll do in the meantime

I've never bothered much with outboard. I do have a couple of multi-effects racks I use for reverb occasionally, but because the reverbs on the PC are so much better I always go back to them. Right, time to research some reverb units!

[BigRedX]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1476804537' post='3157417']
yeh, that's what I'll do in the meantime

I've never bothered much with outboard. I do have a couple of multi-effects racks I use for reverb occasionally, but because the reverbs on the PC are so much better I always go back to them. Right, time to research some reverb units!
[/quote]

Names to check out are: Eventide, Lexicon and TC Electronic.

[cheddatom]

Cheers, already got plenty of ideas, it's the value for money I need to research!

[Huge Hands]

Hi Tom,

I'm reading this, and I can't help keep asking myself "he can't sing it unless he can hear reverb on his voice?"

I get that you're trying to give him good customer service/what he wants and keep him comfortable, but it seems like you're doing a heck of a lot that probably wouldn't even be a thought for most singers?

I get it if it's a special effect so he needs to get timing right to trigger a delay or something, but just a bit of reverb? Surely he can listen to what he wasn't so keen on and get an idea of what he needs to sing for his next take to be right?

Not trying to be dismissive of what you're doing, it just seems like it is leading you down a road full of pain and money for something that isn't that important or will be required that often?

Just my ten penneth of course! You do it how you like!

[cheddatom]

It's important that the performer is as comfortable as possible. Sometimes that means acquiescing to some difficult requests, particularly when they're spending money. Furthermore for a lot of people, reverb helps pitching. This is true for most non-fixed-pitch instruments (IE fretless bass) as well as vocals