AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Best interface for logic pro x4/4/2023 ![]() ![]() Is it OS X? It has very funky behavior in general.Logic Pro X is a perfect software for you if you’re a musician. Is there no such thing? It seems like people have different experiences even running the same DAW, same Computer, same Interface? that's the part that I really find hard to believe. Is Pro Tools, PC, anything more stable in terms of interfaces issues? Interface-DAW, Interface-Mac problems are part of this field? I'm a SW developer and was a part of a team that did a big system including imbedded (like the interface), and it was pretty stable if the hardware was ok. I guarantee an rme will outdo a duet in any daw benchmark test on the same mac.You guys all seem to know a lot about this - am I understanding correctly: You do realise the OP asked for the BEST PERFORMANCE right? that means maximum amount of plugins, least crackles and pops. it doesn't mean motu interfaces aren't excellent with very good performance, it just means there driver does not report latency 100% correctly. You sort of said "take that RME" and i was just trying to explain why, "well not really". My point is to prove that the motu RTL reported is incorrect where as RME isn't. No you won't notice it in general if everything was recorded through the same interface cause everything will be subject to the same input latency. that's going to test the converter latency and nothing more. That should work right?output of the motu into the input. Im gonna pull one of the XLRs off my Tannoys and just stick it into the mic pre on the front. Never had any latency problems recording my bands, other peoples bands, or doing my solo work stuff so I never paid attention to it.Ĭrap I don't think I wired up the analog outputs to my patchbay when I moved last year and set everything up, just the inputs. I just set it to either 64 or 128 and go. Ive honestly never really paid attention to those numbers before. I'll hook up my motu and check it out on el capitan with the latest driver sometime soon.Ive honestly never really paid attention to those numbers before. RME generally report sample accurate besides a couple exceptions, that's why i used avid mbox and a c600 for a couple years till i went uad, because they reported sample accurate and i was using reason at the time which relied on the driver figure. It s easy, do a loopback test record the output into the input, see the latency between the two files in samples to line them up. I guarantee an rme will outdo a duet in any daw benchmark test on the same mac.īut the figures you are reporting are what they were back then right? They are the figures I used to get. If you want RELIABLE LOW LATENCY and apogee, you have to go thunderbolt. RME offers up to date drivers still TODAY for their early interfaces. Apogee are known to also abandon interfaces. still, i'd have that with RME's ROCK SOLID drivers over a duet any day. I'd love to see a big project with the duet set at 32 or even 64 samples without crackles and popsīabyface Pro is a better interface, but now I can see you are talking about the old babyface. Reading ms numbers is meaningless because what matters is how it PERFORMS at those numbers. ![]() No there's only a MASSIVE topic at gearslutz about how problematic duet 2's have been. Sorry to hear that you have! any need to roll your eyes? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that Duet sounds better than Old Babyface and I have also never experienced any issues with Duet FW or Duet 2. 44,1 kHz 64 samples Duet 5,8 ms, Babyface 6,1 ms -Ĥ4,1 kHz 128 samples Duet 8,7 ms, Babyface 9,0 ms. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |