Weird 2013 Macbook Retina Latency Issue

[beats me]

Sounds like some people need to brush up on their tape splicing skills.

[hipdeejay]

16.7 at 512 here, though since you can just change the latency if needed, not sure why this is an issue for some people.

Because that's really high compared to what it should be. Last year's model had much lower latency with the same settings. Regardless of how high or low you set the buffer, the latency is unusually high for this machine. Considering how much this machine costs and how it's supposed to have a much faster processor, this shouldn't be.

Something with the new hardware or software is causing these issues. I don't see how high latency is not an issue for anyone. But for me and many others it's not acceptable.

[Moosebear]

I bought a new MacBook Pro last week but returned it because the one I got had the freezing issue. Which has yet to be resolved.

What freezing issues?
What led you to take back the computer?

Thanks,
Prem

I mentioned this issue in several threads where I saw people struggling in the dark.

http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/28/own ... ll-issues/

Because my new MBP froze several times, and I read online that this was a known issue, but without a resolution from Apple (still, now 2 weeks later) , I didn't want to start building up a faulty machine, so I just returned it. Apple has not yet confirmed whether it's soft or hard issue, but it seems likely it's software.

I'll be watching this thread: I want to know about this latency thing. I started finally switching to Mac, to avoid such things! Maybe I need to re-think that.

[Tarekith]

16.7 at 512 here, though since you can just change the latency if needed, not sure why this is an issue for some people.

Because that's really high compared to what it should be. Last year's model had much lower latency with the same settings. Regardless of how high or low you set the buffer, the latency is unusually high for this machine. Considering how much this machine costs and how it's supposed to have a much faster processor, this shouldn't be.

Something with the new hardware or software is causing these issues. I don't see how high latency is not an issue for anyone. But for me and many others it's not acceptable.

I guess my point is, who cares what the new default is, you can still lower it to whatever you want.

[dolomick]

I guess my point is, who cares what the new default is, you can still lower it to whatever you want.

Wrong. If everything has 10 ms more latency than it used to, one cannot lower it to *whatever* they want. They may be able to lower it to "what they want + 10ms", but no lower.

[hipdeejay]

I guess my point is, who cares what the new default is, you can still lower it to whatever you want.

Wrong. If everything has 10 ms more latency than it used to, one cannot lower it to *whatever* they want. They may be able to lower it to "what they want + 10ms", but no lower.

Exactly. This guy knows what I'm talking about. You can't just lower it. It's all bad, regardless

[Tarekith]

I have the same laptop you guys are talking about, with the default soundcard I can lower the latency to a rediculous 32 samples and get a latency of 7.82 ms. That's WAY lower than you need to write music, use guitar effects, DJ, you name it. That's how long it takes sound to reach your ears from a speaker 7 feet away.

Surely that's low enough for you?

[dolomick]

Once you load a few soft synths or large sample libraries that small a buffer will start to produce crackles, pops, etc.

On a side note, I don't know why people are so quick to defend a $3K laptop having higher latency than its predecessor. As audio people we should not let Apple or other companies neglect our needs on the audio side of things. Lower latency should always be a goal.

[hipdeejay]

I have the same laptop you guys are talking about, with the default soundcard I can lower the latency to a rediculous 32 samples and get a latency of 7.82 ms. That's WAY lower than you need to write music, use guitar effects, DJ, you name it. That's how long it takes sound to reach your ears from a speaker 7 feet away.

Surely that's low enough for you?

If I lower the BUFFER on the last gen retina to 32 samples I get a 1.32ms OVERALL LATENCY. Of course it sounds like shit and is unplayable. That's very very good latency, on a machine that works how it's supposed to. The problem is with these new machines the latency is very very high, for a $3,000+ machine this is not acceptable. Something is obviously wrong with the hardware, software or both.

These new machines with their faster processors and improved software should have at least SLIGHTLY better latency than it's predecessor, or even the same. But it's the opposite which is not good at all. Regardless of how high or low you set the buffer, these machines are worse than LAST YEAR'S model. Do you understand the problem now?

There's no excuse here. Something is very wrong with these machines. If you're happy with a slower computer than last year's model, enjoy.

[hipdeejay]

double post, my bad.

[Tarekith]

These new machines with their faster processors and improved software should have at least SLIGHTLY better latency than it's predecessor, or even the same. But it's the opposite which is not good at all. Regardless of how high or low you set the buffer, these machines are worse than LAST YEAR'S model. Do you understand the problem now?

Nope, sorry, not seeing the problem at all. Forget the numbers, forget which year is "faster", can your current laptop provide you with a latency setting that is fast enough to use for professional audio in ANY setting?

Yes.

There's never been correlation that newer computers have to give you lower latencies, especially when we're talking about the built in soundcard. Apple might have change vendors, maybe there's some other software change that's adding the slightly higher latencies you're seeing on the new machine. Regardless of what's causing it, what the numbers are, or what you had before, the machine you have now will do the same job just fine. More than fine really, these are extremely low latencies we're talking about, well below what most producers would ever want to run their laptops at anyway.

You taking something completely minor and blowing it way out of proportion. It's not a showstopper, it's DEFINITELY NOT a reason to not get that same laptop, and there's nothing keeping you from using your laptop the same way as before.

[dolomick]

These new machines with their faster processors and improved software should have at least SLIGHTLY better latency than it's predecessor, or even the same. But it's the opposite which is not good at all. Regardless of how high or low you set the buffer, these machines are worse than LAST YEAR'S model. Do you understand the problem now?

Nope, sorry, not seeing the problem at all. Forget the numbers, forget which year is "faster", can your current laptop provide you with a latency setting that is fast enough to use for professional audio in ANY setting?

Yes.

There's never been correlation that newer computers have to give you lower latencies, especially when we're talking about the built in soundcard. Apple might have change vendors, maybe there's some other software change that's adding the slightly higher latencies you're seeing on the new machine. Regardless of what's causing it, what the numbers are, or what you had before, the machine you have now will do the same job just fine. More than fine really, these are extremely low latencies we're talking about, well below what most producers would ever want to run their laptops at anyway.

You taking something completely minor and blowing it way out of proportion. It's not a showstopper, it's DEFINITELY NOT a reason to not get that same laptop, and there's nothing keeping you from using your laptop the same way as before.

Well the Apple rep I spoke to today was definitely concerned about it. So in my book, that pretty much refutes everything you just said Tarekith. You have no idea how mobile certain producers might be, how many soft synths or sample libraries they might be using, and bringing a soundcard on a transatlantic flight for the sole purpose of lowering latency is not an option. Please go away now since you are only acting trollish.

[pencilrocket]

People say "it's not resonable that the brand new Mac performs worse than the old one. Does your new mac work the same way as mine?"

Machead says "it's enough fast to get my job done with my brand new beloved mac. What are you smoking?".

They can't understand each other.

[hipdeejay]

These new machines with their faster processors and improved software should have at least SLIGHTLY better latency than it's predecessor, or even the same. But it's the opposite which is not good at all. Regardless of how high or low you set the buffer, these machines are worse than LAST YEAR'S model. Do you understand the problem now?

Nope, sorry, not seeing the problem at all. Forget the numbers, forget which year is "faster", can your current laptop provide you with a latency setting that is fast enough to use for professional audio in ANY setting?

Yes.

There's never been correlation that newer computers have to give you lower latencies, especially when we're talking about the built in soundcard. Apple might have change vendors, maybe there's some other software change that's adding the slightly higher latencies you're seeing on the new machine. Regardless of what's causing it, what the numbers are, or what you had before, the machine you have now will do the same job just fine. More than fine really, these are extremely low latencies we're talking about, well below what most producers would ever want to run their laptops at anyway.

You taking something completely minor and blowing it way out of proportion. It's not a showstopper, it's DEFINITELY NOT a reason to not get that same laptop, and there's nothing keeping you from using your laptop the same way as before.

Forget it. I'm done arguing with you. Have fun with that. To the rest of us (in the real world) it's a problem.

[Tarekith]

I'm not trying to argue, I'm not trying to troll, and I'm not being an Apple faboi, I'm seriously trying to help. I'm portable all the time, I work with just my laptop and the onboard soundcard out and about while travelling or just to get away from the studio very often. I use my MBP to DJ, to process my guitar, to play live, and to run a professional mastering studio day in and day out. The exact same MBP you guys have.

I just don't understand how this is such an issue for you, if you can still lower the latency enough to be workable. In what kind of situation do you NEED less than 7ms latency like you can get by dialing down the soundcard all the way? That's the part I don't understand. I can't think of a single instance where you NEED to go lower than that.

I understand why people are curious that the latency is higher in the newer laptops, I GET that. It's a little weird, I completely agree. But at the end of the day, if you can still reliably turn down the latency in Live to well below what the vast majority of professionals consider workable levels, so what? It's like saying you can no longer make music because the noise floor of the new soundcard is now -89dBFS, when the the old one was -90dBFS. I mean, yeah it's a little odd, but it's not something that's really going to get anywhere close to being an issue.

What are you guys doing that this is such a showstopper? How does something like this become an issue when making music on an airplane?