• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: RME & latency discussion
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RME & latency discussion


  • Subject: Re: RME & latency discussion
  • From: Dennis Gunn <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:57:29 +0900


On Oct 16, 2004, at 12:29 AM, John Stiles wrote:

On Oct 15, 2004, at 8:09 AM, Dennis Gunn wrote:

The ONLY way to deal with monitoring in a way that will keep anybody happy is to use an analog mixer for the monitoring.

I guess you me "everybody" but, that way is no good either. The market is moving relentlessly toward plugin processing and there are things I use on live inputs that I don't think are even available analog devices.


The way to make DAW users happy is to get the latency right.

By "right," do you really mean "zero" here? Don't hold your breath--the digital path will always have some latency. It may be down to a handful of samples for each connection, but it will never go away entirely, no matter how fast computers get and how smart the software engineers are.

I mean what William said he believed was possible I guess and get it down to the single digit range.


From the very beginning of this thread I have been totally consistent in what I have asked for and that is that the safety offset be reduced. So I don't really know why you would ask that.

I never said anything like I thought it had to be "absolutely zero or else" which is what it looks like you think I have said somewhere.

The way it is right now this aspect of performance just plain awful compared to the competition on the windows side and that is not a very good situation to be in when you are fighting to regain a market share from a competitor that is basically blowing you away in sales. I mean one has to face the rather bleak reality for apple that there are about 250000 logic users world wide up against (I have been told) about 2.5 million cubase users on windows world wide. With those kind of numbers you do not want to be trailing in such a fundamental performance area as latency by a huge margin.

If latency on a Windows machine is 190 samples and 198 on an Apple who cares?

But if it is 190 on a windows and 322 on an Apple with the same setting, it is quite likely it will cost you sales.

In any case William has acknowledged the problem and has indicated that he seems to think resolution is feasible. That makes me happy.

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Coreaudio-api mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden


References: 
 >I/O Latency (Was: Layman with a mission) (From: William Stewart <email@hidden>)
 >Re: I/O Latency (Was: Layman with a mission) (From: Philippe Wicker <email@hidden>)
 >Re: RME & latency discussion (From: Herbie Robinson <email@hidden>)
 >Re: RME & latency discussion (From: Dennis Gunn <email@hidden>)
 >Re: RME & latency discussion (From: John Stiles <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: Coreaudio-api Digest, Vol 1, Issue 43
  • Next by Date: Re: Coreaudio-api Digest, Vol 1, Issue 43
  • Previous by thread: Re: RME & latency discussion
  • Next by thread: SampleEffectUnit and auval
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread