[LUG] Re: Ivory Latency

Nick Batzdorf <recordingearthlink.net>

>> 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?

Posted by: "Zip Boterbloem" zip@knoware.nl   boter083
Mon Nov 5, 2007 3:29 am (PST)

> This is a great idea. I've had the opposite experiences as Nick, some
> FW interfaces I own/tried work flawless at a significantly higher
> CPU load than others. MOTU & MH are great in this respect, RME much
> less so. All this with the same buffer size. My G5's with MOTU
> interfaces/drivers are quite usable @ 128(I can run a Logic song with
> an EVB3 organ with moderate polyphony, 2 GAPs, a small EXS piano, 1
> instance of Altiverb and some small fry), my FF800 will glitch &
> crackle with the exact same setup.
>
> Another factor; Intel based Macs perform better than Motorola(Gx)
> ones. It would be interesting to run the same test on G5's and Intel
> Mac's.

The FF800, which I haven't used, uses FW800. That may have something  
to do with it.

Which other ones glitch, just out of interest? I ran the same session  
with a whole bunch of FW interfaces at the same buffer size (128),  
and there was no difference in the CPU % on my G5.

Nick Batzdorf, editor/publisher
Virtual Instruments Magazine
www.Virtualinstrumentsmag.com
1-877 VImagzn (846-2496)
+1818/905-9101, cell 590-9101