Is it realistic to expect no latency issues using Ivory and L7 or L8 on a G5 dual 2.3 with 5 GB ram if am only recording piano and vocals and there are no other VI's being used? In other words can i expect to be able to use a maximum of 256 buffer size? Thanks-Joel ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

On 02/11/2007, at 11:00 AM, PrjStd@aol.com wrote: > Is it realistic to expect no latency issues using Ivory and L7 or > L8 on a G5 > dual 2.3 with 5 GB ram if am only recording piano and vocals and > there are no > other VI's being used? In other words can i expect to be able to > use a > maximum of 256 buffer size? I record/ playback Ivory and track some/ many audio tracks all the time at 128/ 64 sample buffer on a G5 2 x 2.0 with 4GB ram. You don't mention which audio interface you're using. Mine is a RME Multiface PCI. You interface WILL have a bearing on the performance you can achieve in this way. Also since Logic 8 we get the choice to turn off the safety I/O buffer which I have off and this speeds up things a bit if your computer/ interface combo can cope with it. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

PrjStd@aol.com wrote: > Is it realistic to expect no latency issues using Ivory > and L7 or L8 on a G5 dual 2.3 with 5 GB ram if am only > recording piano and vocals and there are no other VI's > being used? This is also partially dependent on audio interface, but in virtually all cases latency could be minimal enough to not encumber your recording, especially in Logic8 with its new "Low Latency Mode" (read the manual). PrjStd@aol.com wrote: > In other words can i expect to be able to use a > maximum of 256 buffer size? ... does not compute.... I don't understand this sentence. The lower the buffer, the smaller the latency and the bigger the burden on the CPU. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" <http://home.goodmedia.com/~zerobeat>

Zeroeat@goodmedia.com wrote: >... does not compute.... >I don't understand this sentence. >The lower the buffer, the smaller the latency and the bigger >the burden on the CPU. Thanks for your response.I had already read the manual. Was looking for others experience to verify what I read before purchasing Ivory.(In fact i generally deal in large Orchestral pieces with many vocal tracks and have found the "Low Latency Mode" to be less than perfect.) Hence the first part of the original question.Also-I know about the relationship between buffer size and CPU hit,hence the second part of the original question . My deepest apologies for not being clearer. I meant to say can I use a buffer size of 256 or less to accomplish the task?If this still doesn't compute perhaps you might want to try turning on your own "Low Latency Mode" :-)

On 04/11/2007, at 7:50 AM, Nick Batzdorf wrote: > > You may have a point about drivers vs. class-compliant drivers in > > some cases, in fact that's something I didn't think about. > > Interestingly, Apogee touts their "driverless operation" as a > feature. Posted by: "Paul Najar" pnajar@bigpond.net.au paulnajar Sat Nov 3, 2007 9:11 pm (PST) >> From memory this aspect was not mentioned in your big shootout >> recently? It would be great when new interfaces were reviewed that >> there was some kind of defacto test run to measure this aspect of >> performance - like "round trip" latency at specific buffer settings >> while measuring CPU load. Unless my thinking is somehow flawed this >> would be a pretty decent measure of a device's performance? > I certainly mentioned the performance - in some detail, actually - but I think this is going to have to wait a little while. Right now I'm a little burned out on audio interfaces. :) (And I already have a couple more to cover...) Nick Batzdorf, editor/publisher Virtual Instruments Magazine www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com 1-877 VImagzn (846-2496) +1818/905-9101, cell 590-9101

On 05/11/2007, at 3:49 PM, Nick Batzdorf wrote: > >>> From memory this aspect was not mentioned in your big shootout >>> recently? It would be great when new interfaces were reviewed that >>> there was some kind of defacto test run to measure this aspect of >>> performance - like "round trip" latency at specific buffer settings >>> while measuring CPU load. Unless my thinking is somehow flawed this >>> would be a pretty decent measure of a device's performance? >> > > I certainly mentioned the performance - in some detail, actually - > but I think this is going to have to wait a little while. Right now > I'm a little burned out on audio interfaces. :) > > (And I already have a couple more to cover...) Nick, I didn't mean that you that you made no mention of performance, I was more coming from the POV of assessing it in a more tangible empirical way. Actually establishing some kind of standardised measurement of such matters. More audio interfaces you mention? Mr Thorough! ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Paul Najar Jaminajar Music Production www.jaminajar.com

PrjStd@aol.com wrote: > can I use a buffer size of 256 or less to accomplish the task? I definitely notice latency with a 256 buffer setting. But it's not a big deal in EVERYTHING I might play (especially not stuff with slow attacks, like some strings). 128 is my minimum tolerance for "good enough". f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" <http://home.goodmedia.com/~zerobeat>