Yes, this could be due to asio. I do not use asio.

 

Ableton can only do buffer size 32. By the way Buffer size 16 and 96KHz (on the Quantum) is an unworkable setting for all. No way you can do anything constructive without clicks and pops on that setting. It is just a number not a workable situation. I can also get those numbers when I use Cubase which accept buffer size 16, but like I said it is not an workable setting. Maybe you can do one wave file without plugins and that it.
Anyways Presonus Quantum is the fastest audio interface in the world when it comes to RTL. I usually do real time live takes while triggering multiple plugins around 3.0 ms RTL without any clicks and pops. That is more than good enough to not notice any latency. No point in going much lower than that. Then you have to freeze tracks all the time. I usually don't have to freeze tracks.

That being said no pc/audio interface in the world can run big projects with alot of plugins on 1.0 ms RTL like you are asking about. Then you must freeze tracks. If anybody saying anything else they are lying. The technology is not there yet.

 

Last edited: Jul 31, 2023

Yep, I use a Quantum and can track real-time with no noticeable latency/doubling on vocals- with many plugins (around 5ms). But there are also many plugins which will introduce noticable latency that just can't be used to track but must wait for the mixing phase.

 

Last edited: Jul 31, 2023

The moon rover did run a real time OS. Some unix I think. Windows and MacOS are not.

How much RAM and so on doesn't even matter that much. What you want is just a fast system. Even with a cheap Behringer interface you can get remarkable latency by the way. I'd go with a really fast Mac or Win PC, a high end interface, probably RME, disable the inputs and optimize everything hardcore for Audio only. If you have 32 or 64 GB RAM doesn't really change your latency. But you need enough juice to go with a very high samplerate and very low buffer.

 

Last edited: Jul 31, 2023

Also, you have to use headphones. Audio takes a lot longer then 1ms to reach your ears otherwise.

 

Btw, there are pipe organs I've played with a full second of latency and I know there's worse out there. A piano with 150ms latency feels fine. It really is vocals, guitar and percussion where it becomes an issue.

 

Have you used HWinfo and checked your thunderbolt PCIe lanes for band with? You should have more band with than I do since your mb has more PCIe lanes.

 

I think it has to do with both more on the Thunderbolt bandwidth.
As Daskeladden has said it's has pop at that low of latency. But say 32 or 64 or even 128 buffer all is good. and the latency is quite low.
CPU is not even taxed. My normal stetting are 48 /Htz 64, 128 or 256 buffer which is very acceptable.
Hopefully he will respond to my question as if he used HWinfo to see his PCIe lane dedicated to his Thunderbolt port. MY Chip set is a Z490
his is newer and from what I read it has more PCIe lanes so his speed might be even better. Or worse depending on what else he has on his PCIE buss and his PCIe lanes devoted to his thunderbolt port.

 

It's a myth that hardware doesn't have latency. That's chasing an illusion. For latency like in the old days, just get a fast PC or Mac, a good interface and that's it. If it's 3ms or 6ms doesn't matter, probably still faster then in the old days, especially if you had a lot of synths with long midi and audio cables, sitting further away from the speakers and so on. Even most hardware has a certain latency in itself. 5ms isn't so bad after all.

 

Last edited: Jul 31, 2023

I'm not sure what you mean about band with. I have two native thunderbolt ports. Ableton has a little bit higher RTL latency if that is what you mean. Here is my Cubase numbers:
Buffer size 16 with 96KHz = 0.66 ms RTL . But again not a workable setting.

 

You need something like an RME HDSPE RAYDAT pcie card connected to your audio interface with ADAT. You can get a 2ms latency on a big project.
A comment from a happy user from sweetwater.

"This device took my home studio to a whole new level. I now have my UAD 4-710d, and X32rack (with x-ADAT card) direct to my computer via ADAT. My main studio monitor feed comes right off the card, via SPIDF.

This thing is rock solid. I now have my studio setup with 30 input channels and 14 outputs. All digital. No firewire, no USB, and no issues.

Cubase Pro 8 runs totally stable. I have RT latency as low as 2.1 ms! I actually tend to run at 128 samples and still get right around 6 ms RT latency in Cubase."

 

You guys clearly have a lot more money then I do. Certainly I'd not be willing to pay thousands of dollars for 3 or 5ms better latency.

 

Hey, another quantum user here.
You can get it to workable settings by overclocking the cpu and disabling c states , which adds around 15 degrees of temp to your CPU , but if you’ve got a cooler, it should be able to handle it.
I’ve got my 10 core CPU overclocked to 4.8ghz and with the C states turned off and it usually peaks around 85c which isn’t too bad. This only works on windows and you need to download this tool, be careful though as it will raise temps by at least 15 degrees. The software is called PPM panel. You can find more info by Presonus here:
https://support.presonus.com/hc/en-...m-Disabling-C-States-on-a-Windows-10-computer

I would also advise to get a temp measuring tool go like HWinfo to keep an eye on your CPU.

I’m able to get at least 20 or so tracks going with some plugins at 32 buffer and 96k in ableton.

 

Well to be honest the Quantum 2626 is way cheaper than the RME. MOTU or others. That is the price in the U.S.

So I don't know how you are saying thousands of dollars to get a Quantum 2626.

Also if you search the Audiosex threads another guy and I did a DAC test. The Quantum was almost as good as the MOTU. What I mean is the IHD was a little more noisy. the 2626 came out very good the Motu came out excellent other than that both units reported Excellent.

 

Bandwidth has to do with the thunderbolt PCIe lanes that are assigned to the Thunderbolt ports.
If you get HWinfo and google search how to check your thunderbolt port band with assignment.
With HWinfo you can see how many lanes and what is your band with.

I have 2 Thunderbolt ports also but I have a separate card yours in onboard thunderbolt.

 

bullshit aside,
zero latency means no computer, so your question makes zero sense,

for low latency, you want good interface with good drivers, so preferably ASIO-hardware-accelerated driver-optimized RME interface (sorry Apple folks, facts),

with plugins and instruments, it really depends on parallel processing capability of your plugin host or DAW, with recent launch of crippled performance/efficiency cores mix by both Intel and Apple, it's become a rather uneasy challenge to schedule audio workloads across weaker and stronger cpu cores,

if you want low latency, then find plugins that introduce zero latency to the overall plugin FX chain,

if you want low latency, stick headphones or speakers to your ears, because listening to speakers at distance can introduce 10's of miliseconds latency on its own,

if you want low latency, freeze/bounce tracks you're not actively recording

 

I probably can do that to. But I always work with a lot of heavy plugins. By the way I'm very pleased with my set up. I'm just saying there is no point on working on 1.0 ms RTL for me. Much better and suitable for me to work around 3.0 ms when tracking real time. I seldom have to freeze tracks even on big projects and I cannot notice any latency. So why go lower?

 

I agree with that.

 

True I think he should have said low Latency since everything has latency.

 

I agree with the rest of your post but that's not true. Measure your hardware synth and it's always a delay. People did measure their synths and for example the Korg M1 measured at 3.2ms, Roland's JV1080 4.4ms from midi signal in to output. Even a big chord is spread out over several ms by definition in midi cables.

Quoting the article on sos: "These figures may surprise some of you who expect hardware to respond instantaneously, but in most cases digital synths are themselves driven by microprocessors, and although their operating system are obviously fine-tuned for real-time playing, it still takes a finite time to process everything."
But I guess you're right if its a 100% analogue synth it should be faster (??)

I'd argue that the signal traveling through midi cables and trs cables it's also a lot slower then the digital signal in a computer.

Maybe a fast PC with only a digital output (no analogue in) going directly to digital in ear monitors (do they exist?) would be the second fastest thing after an imaginary analogue Studio with infinitely short cables?

Edit: OP didn't mention recording anything, RTL doesn't matter in this case. Can't we get much better times when disabling all inputs? ( I think I never tried)

 

Last edited: Jul 31, 2023