Acceptable Latency Settings For Live Performace

[kingrhythm]

What latency settings do most people find to be acceptable for live vocals?
256 or do I need to go even lower?

Thanks

[timothyallan]

I like 64, it won't make any difference if you are using high latency inducing plugins though.

[kingrhythm]

Could you explain this? I thought live compensates for plugins?

[timothyallan]

Live is the same as any other DAW in that respect. If you have a plugin that incurs 250ms of latency because of oversampling or whatnot, Live can't magically make that disappear.

Why don't you just try it and see if it works for you, or is this a pre-purchase question?


edit: even if it's pre-purchase, get the demo and try it.

[luddy]

Inserting a 250ms latency plug on a live audio path (i.e., input -> plug -> output) during a show is pretty questionable IMO...

I find I can get away with 128 samples without anyone in the band seeming to notice it.

-Luddy

[timothyallan]

I wouldn't think it would be smart to insert any kind of plugin during a show? I'd set up beforehand to avoid glitches.

[Tarekith]

I always use 256 here.

[kingrhythm]

I'm just wanting to put a little echo and some compression on my vocals, that's all.
I couldn't really hear much of a lag at 256 so that's why I was asking. Obviously the lower the latency the more cpu needed and if you're running a lot of effects/ instruments you have to make a compromise... I was just curious what other settings people were happy with.

In cubase I can go the plugin menu and it will tell me what the latency is on each plugin, any way to find out in live?

Thanks guys

[luddy]

I wouldn't think it would be smart to insert any kind of plugin during a show? I'd set up beforehand to avoid glitches.

oh, I worded my post badly. I mean to say that having a plugin (inserted beforehand) with 250ms latency on an audio path that goes from input through the plug and to the output is really asking for problems. That's 1/4 second latency on the audio going through the plug-in! I mean, unless it's a delay plug or something that is intended to cause 1/4 lag...

-Luddy

[LeifonMars]

I couldn't really hear much of a lag at 256 so that's why I was asking.

Then why ask in the first place (I mean just rhetorically, don't upset, conversation is nice and of course you're entitled to ask)? If it doesn't bother you and you can compensate the lag by yourself, then it's all the same isn't it. Of course people always aim for lowest latency possible without risking the stability.

[3dot...]

256 buffer will give you a noticeable delay..fo sho...
32 64 are great ! but your set better be ultra-light...

128 is the great compromise...

[JuanSOLO]

Yeah I am on that 128 too.

[Illiac]

128, or (preferably) lower.

[kryz]

So I'm trying to setup a live set for playing mainly bass, drums and synths live on 6 individual tracks with six loopers (so i can manipulate individual parts after recording). I feel like I'm getting close to a working configuration.
The main problem though besides the complexity of the midi routing of my nanokontrol based foot controller is the latency when recording audio.
I think I could probably get lower latency by upgrading to a new i7 quad or 6 core processor.
Right now I'm using a C2 duo 3.06 GHz Macbook pro with a motu ultralite fw interface and I can get the buffer as low as 64 with acceptable quality as long as I don't use amplitube or GR. But still I'd like to get it lower and still have some headroom left for GR and plugins. What buffer values could I expect to get from an upgrade to an i7 2600K (quad 3.4 GHz) or even a i7 980 (6 core 3.33 GHz)? Anybody running something like that care to chime in? Also, would there be a faster audio interface than the ultralite?