Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:27 am
by Enrique
Umm, because I can't hear any latency while tracking? I haven't measured it, but this isn't anything new. Just look at the specs of the product and you'll see... There is a 1024 samples latency option for less CPU usage though...
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:30 am
by Robert Henke
Interesting. Was indeed not aware of that. Magic world of science and technological progress!
Robert
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:51 am
by Enrique
BTW: I just found out that Altiverb also offers zero-latency! Seems to be the standard for quite some time now... I haven't used convolution since my Wizooverb days and the latency back then was already minimal, so this doesn't really blow my socks off...
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:54 am
by leedsquietman
altiverb offers zero latency monitoring at a cost of up to 60% CPU on mono tracks according to Sound on Sound magazine. They were not able to run 2 instances of it in stereo without CPU meltdown.
They found the best performance using it at 16000 plus samples of latency when mixing.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:11 am
by Enrique
Ok, now it gets embarrassing for Robert: Even Wizooverb was already latency-free back then!!!
leedsquietman wrote:altiverb offers zero latency monitoring at a cost of up to 60% CPU on mono tracks according to Sound on Sound magazine. They were not able to run 2 instances of it in stereo without CPU meltdown.
They found the best performance using it at 16000 plus samples of latency when mixing.
That's heavy, but of course it depends on many factors how it will affect CPU consumption. Wizooverb and SIR2 are quite CPU efficient (for convolution reverbs) though, even on slower machines...