# What is Your Input\Output latency (pc) ?



## eraio (Feb 12, 2022)

Hi, Iam just wandering what latency You guys are commonly at. I guess we are mostly trying to get the lowest, but some samples are more Hw consuming, so its like searching the golden mid. Can I ask, what is Your latency and PC setup, so I can have some idea ? 

I'm mostly on on 5ms, with i9900k, 32gb ram 4266mhz

Thank you.. 
r


----------



## chillbot (Feb 12, 2022)

Not sure which number is the one here... 2.7 or 3.1 or 6.3. This is MOTU 2408mkIII x3 running at 128 which I do 95% of the time when possible. There's a couple of libraries (Taiko Creator, SCS, etc) that force me to raise the buffer to 256 or even 512 but I tend to bounce them as audio as quick as I can and go back to 128. I hate latency so much.


----------



## eraio (Feb 12, 2022)

chillbot said:


> Not sure which number is the one here... 2.7 or 3.1 or 6.3. This is MOTU 2408mkIII x3 running at 128 which I do 95% of the time when possible. There's a couple of libraries (Taiko Creator, SCS, etc) that force me to raise the buffer to 256 or even 512 but I tend to bounce them as audio as quick as I can and go back to 128. I hate latency so much.


That is great latency, I can imagine You can play a lot of libr. on 1~ms, live recording heaven. Iam on Komplete Audio 6 MK2, maybe CPU overclock can push it to ~2ms for many librs. This is what Iam searching for kinda. Now I can play maybe just some piano librs. on 1,5~ms. Thats probably all. Thx for reply Sir.


----------



## rgames (Feb 12, 2022)

eraio said:


> That is great latency, I can imagine You can play a lot of libr. on 1~ms, live recording heaven. Iam on Komplete Audio 6 MK2, maybe CPU overclock can push it to ~2ms for many librs. This is what Iam searching for kinda. Now I can play maybe just some piano librs. on 1,5~ms. Thats probably all. Thx for reply Sir.


Remember that "fast" acoustic instruments like flutes and clarinets have 20 - 50 ms latency. Acoustic pianos are 10 - 30 ms depending on register and dynamic.

Tubas and Double Basses can be 200 - 300 ms in their lowest registers.

So... I wouldn't worry about it too much 

DAW latency was an issue 20 years ago when it was hundreds of ms. It's not an issue any more. People forgot to stop worrying about it.

rgames


----------



## StefanoM (Feb 12, 2022)

rgames said:


> Remember that "fast" acoustic instruments like flutes and clarinets have 20 - 50 ms latency. Acoustic pianos are 10 - 30 ms depending on register and dynamic.
> 
> Tubas and Double Basses can be 200 - 300 ms in their lowest registers.
> 
> ...


I'm Agree.

I work with a buffer size of 512 samples, about 21ms of RT to have great performance on big templates, and for Libraries or VST that requires a lot of CPU.

No problem at all, I Can play everything without big problems.


----------



## CATDAD (Feb 12, 2022)

I’m with @chillbot on this one. Sample libraries may already have latency built in to the attack of the samples and additional latency can be frustrating! It’s also nice to keep it fast if you are working with hardware synths or guitars with software fx and don’t have to direct monitor.

That being said, peoples’ experiences with latency seem to vary greatly. The closer you start from 0ms, the more you can feel even small additional latency. But at the same time, being able to feel 10ms latency doesn’t suddenly make something unplayable either! If you are say, playing through a guitar amp that isn’t right next to you, you’ve already got a ton of latency on your hands!


I have similar latency to @chillbot, with a MOTU M4 running at 48khz/128. CPU is a Ryzen 3700X. MOTU’s Windows drivers are quite fast and I would likely stick to them (or RME) for the foreseeable future.


----------



## chillbot (Feb 12, 2022)

rgames said:


> DAW latency was an issue 20 years ago when it was hundreds of ms. It's not an issue any more. People forgot to stop worrying about it.


I know what you mean but in some ways it's almost worse now because it's become accepted and acceptable as we've gotten used to it. I will not give up the fight!


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 12, 2022)

chillbot said:


> I hate latency so much.


As a joke I wanted to recommend that you use headphones because of the sound travel speed being so unbearably slow. But it turns out it IS slow enough that you might notice the difference if your monitors are 1 meter or more away from your ears. It's almost 3ms per meter.


----------



## chillbot (Feb 12, 2022)

Of people of a certain age who grew up with hardware and hardware synths, 25ms of latency still feels completely MASSIVE, pretty much unplayable. Of people who grew up with software and soft synths, 25ms of latency is just sort of... "meh"... not very concerning. Or so I've been told. Not saying it's an age thing, probably should leave that part out of it. But it's what you are accustomed to. As @rgames points out, latency in soft synths is actually significantly better than it was 15-20 years ago, so if you started working in a DAW less than twenty years ago and never had much hardware you probably think the current latency situation is just peachy keen.

And as @MartinH points out latency is everywhere, including your monitors I guess (never thought about this). Latency is added at every step along the way though I find the biggest offender is latency baked into the samples by poor, lazy, and/or intentional sample trimming. (Talking about piano and other percussive sounds including pizz/spiccato, obviously doesn't apply to samples with slow attacks.) Which is why all my go-to libraries are chosen by "playability" and why I want to eliminate every other bit of latency I can every step of the way, it adds up!


----------



## eraio (Feb 12, 2022)

I think the point is to find a way, to get the best from our hw, to be able to play -> record as accurate, as possible, without automation etc. If we can realy record flute part with feeling and groove, then we are kind of making a new step in virtual symphonic programming in my eyes. Isn't it tempting guys ?

I dunno if I'm naive, probably :D But Id like to feel what I'm playing, and try to combine "standart automation workflow" with carefully, precise recorded parts. (Not only) For these purposes, I'm, as some others here, tyring to hunt the best results, as I possibly can.

In the end, yes, we can do great music with 15ms, even more, but its new etape, we got great hw with 3ms possibilities, that can open some doors, I hope at least.


----------



## rgames (Feb 12, 2022)

chillbot said:


> including your monitors I guess (never thought about this)


Sound moves at about 1 foot per ms. So if your monitors at your desk are 5 feet away, that's 5 ms latency *after* the signal gets to your monitors. Any latency in your DAW adds to that value.

And unless you keep your head perfectly still, the latency is changing because the distance to the monitors is changing. Also 1 ms per foot you move your head. So the amount you move your head actually changes latency more than your DAW.

Ever seen someone walk around on stage playing electric guitar through a monitor waaaay far away? There's one ms latency for every foot. They adapt just fine. They even go wireless, which adds even more latency. Again, still fine.

Latency gets a lot of attention because it's easy to benchmark. And people LOVE benchmarks for computers.

The truth is it really doesn't matter any more.

rgames


----------



## chillbot (Feb 12, 2022)

rgames said:


> The truth is it really doesn't matter any more.


Says you. Disagree.

Also sign my latency petition?


----------



## CATDAD (Feb 12, 2022)

chillbot said:


> Says you. Disagree.
> 
> Also sign my latency petition?


He can, but it’s gonna take awhile…


----------



## Collywobbles (Feb 12, 2022)

It also depends whether you record live guitar/bass through amp sims. Anything above 10ms makes me feel disconnected from the instrument and negatively affects my playing.

In terms of instruments already having "natural" latency, I feel that it definitely still matters since you're adding even more latency in addition to what's already there. Some are definitely more sensitive to it than others though.

To answer the original question, I'm currently running at 7.6ms roundtrip and have no complaints or issues with that whatsoever.


----------



## rgames (Feb 12, 2022)

Collywobbles said:


> It also depends whether you record live guitar/bass through amp sims. Anything above 10ms makes me feel disconnected from the instrument and negatively affects my playing.


Here's EVH on stage. His speakers are at least 20 feet behind him. That's at least 20 ms latency. You think EVH wasn't connected to his guitar?


----------



## Collywobbles (Feb 12, 2022)

@rgames as someone who has played on stage quite a bit, if your only sound source (amp, monitor etc) is far enough away, it most definitely affects your ability to play.

A blanket statement of "it doesn't matter anymore" seems a little oversimplified imo, since in many cases, it still does. I agree that audio/midi interface latency has definitely improved over the years, so it's definitely _less_ of an issue than it used to be.


----------



## Collywobbles (Feb 12, 2022)

rgames said:


> Here's EVH on stage. His speakers are at least 20 feet behind him. That's at least 20 ms latency. You think EVH wasn't connected to his guitar?


Again with the oversimplification... I have been playing and recording more than half of my life, and have done so with varying amounts of latency. You adapt when you need to, but when you're setting up your ideal situation at home/studio obviously you'd want it somewhat optimised. 

If you want to record yourself or another musician via input echo with 20ms+ latency, more power to you.


----------



## eraio (Feb 13, 2022)

rgames said:


> You think EVH wasn't connected to his guitar?


I think good e.guitar set is very sensitive thing, body connection is very different here and complex, at home setting, with VST libraries and Midi keyboard, its far more harder to "feel connected", so low latency can really contribute here i feel.


----------



## muratkayi (Feb 13, 2022)

Guys, if you wanna have a bit of fun, try to talk into a microphone over FOH standing roughly 25 meters away from stage. It's hilarious. Basically undoable. There used to be a fun interview format on German TV where they all wore headphones and tried to talk with their own voices being played back with enough latency into their headphones. Good times.

Hang on. Found it.


----------



## rgames (Feb 13, 2022)

muratkayi said:


> if you wanna have a bit of fun, try to talk into a microphone over FOH standing roughly 25 meters away from stage. It's hilarious. Basically undoable


Yes - that's around 80 ms latency and is definitely both noticeable and distracting for something like speech that requires timing that gets close to those time scales.

It's like playing pedal tones on a tuba: you can hit them for sustained notes but they're tough to do when you need tight rhythms because they can have 100+ ms latency. Not only do they take a long time to respond (long attack) but keeping synch is hard if you need to repeat them.

rgames


----------



## Rob (Feb 13, 2022)

do you play tuba Richard?


----------



## davidson (Mar 4, 2022)

Stupid question time, but are softsynths as affected by input latency as recording audio? I always believed output latency was the big one to look out for with softsynths, and input + roundtrip was more an incoming audio related value?


----------

