Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

29947840

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts







  • Quote Originally Posted by zephonic
    View Post

    Have you tried it with OSX yet, Craig? I read in the MBoxPro thread that you installed SnowLeopard so I thought I'd ask.




    Sorry, no. I sort of have Octa-Capture wired into my Windows computer and it's been getting a huge amount of use. Guess I need to take a break and check it on the Mac, though. Is there anything specific you want me to check?
    CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

    Subscribe, like, and share the links!

    Comment


    • Craig,



      Thanks for the review. Loving the unit, preamp is good even with a ribbon 9Beyer M260). It's so good it's my permanent solution...only problem is I need to turn on the power separately every time I turn on my studio power bar. Is there a way to toggle the power on default?

      Comment








      • Quote Originally Posted by agatsuma
        View Post

        Craig,



        Thanks for the review. Loving the unit, preamp is good even with a ribbon 9Beyer M260). It's so good it's my permanent solution...only problem is I need to turn on the power separately every time I turn on my studio power bar. Is there a way to toggle the power on default?




        Sorry, not that I know of...guess you'll just have to push that on-off button.
        CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

        Subscribe, like, and share the links!

        Comment


        • Does anybody know if the OC preamps are likely to be noticeably better than the xenyx preamps that come on cheap behringer boards? For what it's worth, I primarily record vocals and guitar through an sm81, sm57 and studio b1, and do direct input guitar and bass.



          Thanks for all your great work with the review and fielding questions, Craig; this thread has been tremendously useful.

          Comment








          • Quote Originally Posted by whatadisaster
            View Post

            Does anybody know if the OC preamps are likely to be noticeably better than the xenyx preamps that come on cheap behringer boards?




            I haven't had an opportunity to check out the Xenyx preamps. However, based on my experience with other mixers that include preamps with good specs, the main difference I hear is that the Octa-Capture preamps have a slightly smoother high end. I think that may be what people are reacting to subjectively when they say they like the OC preamps. It's not like they're "dull" or "warm" - the highs are still there - but they don't have any kind of "brittle" quality.
            CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

            Subscribe, like, and share the links!

            Comment


            • Gotcha. Thanks.

              Comment


              • One more question for you, if you don't mind! How are the hi-Z's? Anything of note?

                Comment








                • Quote Originally Posted by whatadisaster
                  View Post

                  One more question for you, if you don't mind! How are the hi-Z's? Anything of note?




                  There are two hi-Z inputs for channels 1 and 2. Like all inputs, these have combo jacks that accommodate XLR and 1/4" balanced lines; but only 1 and 2 are designed specifically to handle instrument inputs.



                  When doing projects with amp sims, I use these inputs but also usually patch a MOTU Zbox between the guitar and hi-Z inputs to add just a bit of "drag," as the guitar would see with an amp like a Fender Twin.
                  CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                  Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                  Comment


                  • Thanks again.

                    Comment


                    • What actual latency values are reported by the DAW software for the Octa-capture? I ask because this is currently a subject of great debate on the PC Music forum of a well-known recording magazine. It would appear that buffers of the same nominal size (in samples) can produce significantly varied reported latencies.



                      Thanks.

                      Comment








                      • Quote Originally Posted by robertsj
                        View Post

                        What actual latency values are reported by the DAW software for the Octa-capture? I ask because this is currently a subject of great debate on the SOS PC Music forum. It would appear that buffers of the same nominal size (in samples) can produce significantly varied reported latencies.



                        http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/sh...=365&fpart=all



                        Thanks.




                        Reported latency values vary depending on the DAW you use. Some report one-way, some round-trip, but also bear in mind that not all cards report accurate latency values, for a variety of reasons. As a result, I've come to the conclusion that fulfillment of real-world recording requirements is more important than seeing that the Octa-Capture, for example, reports approximately 10ms of latency at 64 samples. Other interfaces report other amounts of latency for an equivalent number of samples, if they can achieve 64-sample buffers.



                        I gave a detailed response in the thread to which you refer, but here's my attitude in nutshell, which I'm quoting from my response:



                        I don't care what absolute latency values are, whether double- (or octuple, for that matter) buffering is involved, or what the card reports as latency because these figures are not guaranteed to be accurate due to a variety of reasons. What I care about is the following:



                        * My primary instrument is guitar. Guitar is a percussive instrument. I use amp sims. Can I set the latency low enough that there is no perceptible delay that would annoy me during the recording process?



                        * Same with electronic drums and percussive keyboard patches. I absolutely need to monitor through the computer due to the extent to which plug-ins influence the final sound and performance, so the inclusion of "zero-latency" monitoring is not sufficient for 90% of my needs.



                        * If I can set latency low enough to accomplish comfortable real-time recording - can I do this in the context of a real-world project, with effects, virtual instruments, at least dozens of tracks, etc.? If not, do I need to raise the latency? If so, by how much? Subjectively speaking, I find *total* latencies - regardless of how they're accomplished - of under 10ms to be perfectly acceptable. I monitor about 3 ft away from my speakers, resulting in my "default" latency being 3ms. If I put on headphones, my "default" latency compared to normal monitoring therefore becomes 7ms. I do not have a problem with that. I play concerts all the time where I'm 15 to 20 feet away from monitors or amps, but am not the kind of person who will pout in a corner because the latency is not under 10ms.



                        I have evaluated numerous interfaces over the past few decades. My primary concern is audio fidelity. The second is stability. The third is functionality. The fourth is lowest possible latency, although there is an exception where this is a gating issue: if I cannot obtain stable operation using real-world projects without objectionable delay, then the other characteristics become moot.
                        CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                        Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                        Comment


                        • Follow-up: Despite my caveat that latency figures aren't always reported accurately, it seems Roland did their homework.



                          However, I stand corrected. Previously, I said the roundtrip latency is 10ms with a 64 sample setting (don't know if I specified 44.1kHz or not, but if not, that's what it was), and that in my opinion, that's "pretty darn good." But it's actually a little under 10ms. And as I've said before, as far as I'm concerned roundtrip latencies of 10ms and below are acceptable for real-time monitoring through the computer while recording (unless, of course, you throw in signal processors with huge look-aheads or something equally problematic that increases the latency).







                          Referring to the screen shot, the upper waveform is the original input signal. The lower waveform is offset in time by going through an additional input buffer and output buffer (i.e., "roundtrip"). It also includes the latency caused by electrons going at close the speed of light, but I think we can agree to ignore that. The red block represents the time difference between the first positive-going transient of each waveform, and is broken out separately for measuring.



                          Referring to the Clip Properties, the timebase for the clip is in seconds. The clip length measures 9.467ms. So yes, it's under 10ms.



                          Now, referring to the mixing latency panel which I cut and pasted from Preferences, Roland represents that there are two sample buffers, and reports a roundtrip latency of 9.5 milliseconds. As that's within about 0.003% of the figure I came up with, and given that I may not have hit the transients EXACTLY, I think it's safe to say that Roland has accurately described the round-trip latency, and I have accurately summarized the level of performance as it relates to real-world recording applications.



                          If anyone feels 9.5ms is too much, then monitor through headphones. With near-field monitors, most people monitor about 3 feet away from the speakers. So, wearing headphones cuts the latency to 6.5ms. In large studios, it's not uncommon to monitor six feet or more away from the speakers. Wear headphones, and now the latency is cut to 3.5ms or less.



                          To put things in perspective, if you're playing an acoustic instrument with a mic 18 inches from the sound source, you've already added 1.5ms of latency in the recording chain. If you go through a digital processor before going into an interface's analog input, you've added another 1.2ms of latency (about 600 microseconds for A/D conversion and another 600 microseconds for D/A conversion); cut that in half if you're going into the interface digitally. So you're already at a minimum of 1.5ms of latency, and as much as 2.7ms of latency, before you even hit the computer.



                          Bottom line: Roland reports latency accurately at 64 samples, which is the lowest setting I can use with reasonably-sized projects while retaining full stability.
                          CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                          Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                          Comment


                          • mine gets the around same, on an el-cheapo lenovo G470 laptop with 5400rpm hdd. really drivers with mojo

                            Comment


                            • Using the Octa-capture at 96k with Propellerhead Record 1.5.1 and the buffer set to 64 samples, the program "reports" the total round-trip time at 3ms. It jumps up to 5 ms if I set the buffer to 128 samples.
                              Don Boomer

                              Comment








                              • Quote Originally Posted by dboomer
                                View Post

                                Using the Octa-capture at 96k with Propellerhead Record 1.5.1 and the buffer set to 64 samples, the program "reports" the total round-trip time at 3ms. It jumps up to 5 ms if I set the buffer to 128 samples.




                                That sounds about right, you should be getting lower latencies with higher sample rates.
                                CHECK IT OUT: Lilianna!, my latest song, is now streamable from YouTube.

                                Subscribe, like, and share the links!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X