Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

29947840

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Anderton,



    I am new at the forum, and also to recording so it is really nice to have a place where one can read a good review. I would like to ask if the octa capture is the right choice for my project. I want to record 8 individual microphones on individual wav files using Windows 7 and Sound Analyis Pro (http://ofer.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/sound_analysis_pro).

    I have asked Roland if the could test or tell me if this software would be compatible with the octa capture, their answer was "The UA-1010 supports all major DAW platforms through ASIO 2.0, WDM (Windows) and Core Audio (Mac) drivers. The Sound Analysis Pro website states it is compatible with "most standard and ASIO sound cards"--the UA-1010 fall into this category. This would indicate a compatibility with our product. You may want to contact Sound Analysis Pro to verify."



    Would you be so kind to tell if I undestand correctly and just with a PC and the octa capture I could get 8 individual files one for each mic? What do you think about the M-Audio fast track Ultra 8R, I now its compatible with Sound Pro, but I seems to me that Octa would be a better choice.



    Thanks in advance to you or anyone who can help me with this doubts.



    pd: I apologize if this is not the rigth place to put this question:

    Comment








    • Quote Originally Posted by DinoMorrison
      View Post

      Can you use other preamps with the Octacapture via SPDIF?




      Yes!








      This will allow me to have 1o inputs total right? The MPA II won't just be substituting any preamps from the Octacapture if connected via SPDIF correct?



      Correct.
      _____________________________________________
      There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

      Comment








      • Quote Originally Posted by Alliende
        View Post

        Hi Anderton,



        I am new at the forum, and also to recording so it is really nice to have a place where one can read a good review. I would like to ask if the octa capture is the right choice for my project. I want to record 8 individual microphones on individual wav files using Windows 7 and Sound Analyis Pro (http://ofer.sci.ccny.cuny.edu/sound_analysis_pro).

        I have asked Roland if the could test or tell me if this software would be compatible with the octa capture, their answer was "The UA-1010 supports all major DAW platforms through ASIO 2.0, WDM (Windows) and Core Audio (Mac) drivers. The Sound Analysis Pro website states it is compatible with "most standard and ASIO sound cards"--the UA-1010 fall into this category. This would indicate a compatibility with our product. You may want to contact Sound Analysis Pro to verify."



        Would you be so kind to tell if I undestand correctly and just with a PC and the octa capture I could get 8 individual files one for each mic? What do you think about the M-Audio fast track Ultra 8R, I now its compatible with Sound Pro, but I seems to me that Octa would be a better choice.



        Thanks in advance to you or anyone who can help me with this doubts.



        pd: I apologize if this is not the rigth place to put this question:




        This is absolutely the right place to ask the question



        Yes, you can get 8 individual audio streams from microphones with the Octa-Capture, and there are 8 XLR connectors.



        I haven't used the Fast Track Ultra 8R so can't comment on how it might compare.
        _____________________________________________
        There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

        Comment


        • Hello!



          I'm part of a fledgling band who're quite tech-savvy, and we're looking for an interface like the Octa-Capture to suit our needs. I've read quite a few reviews for different products around the place, and the Octa-Capture, and the Phonic Firefly 808 both sound like they could do what we want.



          Our band is currently a 4-piece, with Drums, 1 Guitar, 1 Bass, with a lead vocalist, and the 3 of us doing backing vocalists. What we'd like is an interface we can use both for performances, and home studio recording, with support for separate monitors for the guitar & bass. The idea of live recording separate stems (plus before/after DAW effects) is also very appealing.



          ie; 4 Mics in, 1 Guitar in, 1 Bass in, with separate outs for Guitar monitor, Bass monitor, and the front sound-stage final mix. The lead vocalist may want his own monitor eventually, as well, plus there's potential for adding another Guitar and/or Keyboard to the mix later on.



          Our guitarist likes using Guitar Rig (and I may succumb myself - I'm the bassist), so the idea is the guitar goes directly into an interface, through to a DAW, processed, with the output also going back out a monitor.



          Does this sound like something the Octa-Capture and/or Firefly 808 would comfortably do? From my reading, the inputs & outputs cover our requirements, although more instruments would require DI/preamp interfacing as they both have only 2 Instrument ins.



          Given the In->Effects->Out->Monitor, and that we want to use this for performance, I'm guessing low latency is an important feature that is hard to judge solely from specs & reviews (although your detailed reviews have been fantastic and enlightening).



          Cost is a factor - and living in Australia, it's either get stiffed extra for living here, or take our chances on importing. I do prefer the Octa-capture from reading the reviews, but I'm trying to evaluate if the extra cost is worth the extra functionality. The auto-level stuff sounds very convenient - but not critical for a setup that'll remain largely static. The added transparent compression options sound very useful, and doing that in the interface, rather than the DAW, would be quite an advantage, I think.



          What do you think? Are there any other interfaces that might better suit our requirements & budget?



          Thanks.

          Comment


          • I have a problems with octa-capture but can't understand the reason.



            Mac OS X 10.7.3, 2TB hard, Intel core i7, 16GB ram.



            On channels 3,4,5 of octa-capture there are 3 condenser mics input. Mics on channels 3 and 4 get phantom power from octa-capture, mic on ch5 is already input powered through another preamp.

            Monitors are connected to main outs 1 and 2.



            When I click on direct mixer tab in Octa-capture control panel, system dumps. Does anybody know solving this problem?



            Here is the video:

            http://youtu.be/VvIbVMRaG-Y



            Here is the system report:



            Fri Mar 9 20:54:43 2012

            panic(cpu 2 caller 0xffffff80002c266d): Kernel trap at 0xffffff7f808ab691, type 14=page fault, registers:

            CR0: 0x000000008001003b, CR2: 0x0000000000020002, CR3: 0x0000000000100000, CR4: 0x00000000000606e0

            RAX: 0x0000000000000001, RBX: 0x0000000000021a02, RCX: 0xffffff81fa175708, RDX: 0x000000000000000c

            RSP: 0xffffff81e6a0bc80, RBP: 0xffffff81e6a0bcf0, RSI: 0x000000000000000a, RDI: 0x0000000000020002

            R8: 0x000000000000000a, R9: 0x000000000000000a, R10: 0x0000000000000000, R11: 0xffffff800063d444

            R12: 0xffffff81fa1756e0, R13: 0x000000000000000a, R14: 0x0000000000000060, R15: 0x0000000000004091

            RFL: 0x0000000000010202, RIP: 0xffffff7f808ab691, CS: 0x0000000000000008, SS: 0x0000000000000000

            CR2: 0x0000000000020002, Error code: 0x0000000000000002, Faulting CPU: 0x2



            Backtrace (CPU 2), Frame : Return Address

            0xffffff81e6a0b940 : 0xffffff8000220702

            0xffffff81e6a0b9c0 : 0xffffff80002c266d

            0xffffff81e6a0bb60 : 0xffffff80002d7a1d

            0xffffff81e6a0bb80 : 0xffffff7f808ab691

            0xffffff81e6a0bcf0 : 0xffffff7f808abd57

            0xffffff81e6a0bd60 : 0xffffff7f808ac111

            0xffffff81e6a0bdb0 : 0xffffff7f80832754

            0xffffff81e6a0be00 : 0xffffff7f80848da2

            0xffffff81e6a0be50 : 0xffffff7f80b8de20

            0xffffff81e6a0be70 : 0xffffff7f80b8aabd

            0xffffff81e6a0beb0 : 0xffffff7f80b8c75b

            0xffffff81e6a0bed0 : 0xffffff7f80b837da

            0xffffff81e6a0bef0 : 0xffffff8000639946

            0xffffff81e6a0bf30 : 0xffffff80006386c0

            0xffffff81e6a0bf70 : 0xffffff8000638564

            0xffffff81e6a0bfb0 : 0xffffff8000820057

            Kernel Extensions in backtrace:

            com.apple.iokit.IOUSBFamily(4.5.8)[1FEB88C1-AD15-3AEF-8379-CA51810FD38E]@0xffffff7f80830000->0xffffff7f8087efff

            dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOPCIFamily(2.6.8)[F63D4ABE-42DA-33EF-BADD-3415B0CB0179]@0xffffff7f80812000

            com.apple.driver.AppleUSBEHCI(4.5.8)[6EE5E214-3967-3FBA-989D-1F6A62D52EE4]@0xffffff7f80b80000->0xffffff7f80b96fff

            dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOUSBFamily(4.5.8)[1FEB88C1-AD15-3AEF-8379-CA51810FD38E]@0xffffff7f80830000

            dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOPCIFamily(2.6.8)[F63D4ABE-42DA-33EF-BADD-3415B0CB0179]@0xffffff7f80812000

            jp.co.roland.RDUSB0120Dev(1.5)[2562EA8D-78D4-A332-53CA-3D6F2AAFE88C]@0xffffff7f8087f000->0xffffff7f808bffff

            dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOAudioFamily(1.8.6fc6)[345E325F-3E96-3FEB-8C50-E446305F4ED8]@0xffffff7f807e8000

            dependency: com.apple.iokit.IOUSBFamily(4.5.8)[1FEB88C1-AD15-3AEF-8379-CA51810FD38E]@0xffffff7f80830000



            BSD process name corresponding to current thread: kernel_task

            Comment


            • Here's a heads-up for those using the OC to expand a VS-700: You need to download the 2.0.1 driver for the VS-700. If you're still on 2.0.0, then trying to do expand will give a "version does not match" error message. Also note that in Preferences, Sonar does not show the words "Octa-Capture." The OC I/O is referred to as "VS-700 EXP" so if you just glance at preferences, you might not think the OC is there.



              Finally, remember the VS-700 and OC USB need to feed off the same USB contoller.
              _____________________________________________
              There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

              Comment


              • Hi there, this is my first time on this forum and I'm desperately in need of some help! Ive just recently bought an iMAC running on osx 10.7.3.. Im trying to install my Roland Octa-capture. The control panel has installed and so is the driver so i believe. The octal-capture is being picked up under system information (USB tab), however it says not configured. Also when run the octal-capture control panel, it just says device not found. Obviously I've connected it and its switched on etc. Ive tried uninstalling and re-installing but no joy. Can you someone help me please??



                Thanks in advance

                Comment


                • Hello everyone. Unlike others I am having a lot of trouble with latency with the Octa-Capture. Before, I used the M-Audio Fast Track 8R at 256samples and had no noticeable latency. The Octa-Capture SHOULD be just as good or better I assumed (especially for the price tag). If anyone could help with a suggestion I would appreciate it.



                  To get more specific: Some background - I run a Dell Studio XPS 9000, Windows 7 Professional 64-bit, I7 chip, 24GB's of RAM. I use Reaper 64-Bit for mixing and Ableton 32-bit for creative. I was having terrible latency with the initial install in Reaper so I thought in troubleshooting that maybe it was the particular driver I installed (64-bit vs 32-bit) needed to be like my 64-bit system (there is a generic install in the driver folder plus specific ones for the various versions of windows and bit rates as you know, I had installed the generic one). So after installing the Windows 7 64-bit driver the latency was gone in Reaper 64...phew problem solved! Wrong!



                  Now when I use Ableton IT has the terrible latency. Even with much lower sample rates. It seems it might look like I need the driver to match my DAW? If that is so, can I have the 32-bit and 64-bit Octa-Capture drivers installed at the same time? And if so, how do I choose between them depending my DAW choice (if this is even the problem at all).



                  I have to admit SO FAR I am pretty bummed with the Octa-Capture. It was $579 plus Cali tax making it over $600. I'm no noob with home production, but this thing has me on every forum there is. Can anyone help me not have to put this on EBAY and try to salvage what I can to get a MOTU ULTRALITE or even the crappy M-Audio I used to have lol!



                  I appreciate any suggestions or wisdom, thanks!

                  Comment


                  • I've used the Octa-Capture with Live using 64-bit Windows 7 and have no issues at all with latency. I'm using the 64-bit drivers. Have you tried driver protocols other than ASIO to see what happens? Are you sure it isn't something like Live's latency resetting itself to some default or something? It definitely does work, so there's got to be something misset somewhere...



                    Also, are you using the 1.5 drivers, or the ones that shipped with it originally? There have been some updates.
                    _____________________________________________
                    There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

                    Comment


                    • there's one thing you could try, install a second windows OS (without graphics or any other drivers) and see if you get the same problem.

                      Comment


                      • I'm actually recording with a Konnekt 24D. I had a lot of problems in the past (driver troubles), but now, it works fine.

                        I´m thinking in an upgrade (Roland opta capture or RME Foreface 800)

                        My OS is Windows Xp.

                        How the Roland and RME compares with the K24 in sound quality, preamps and driver stability?



                        Thanks in advance for your advice













                        Quote Originally Posted by Anderton
                        View Post

                        First, the standard disclaimer – this doesn’t mean the review is over, just that I think I know the unit well enough to provide some conclusions. I still want to try cascading it with the V-Studio 700 just to make sure it works as expected, but aside from that, I think we’ve covered pretty much everything that’s important. However, if anyone has any questions or comments (particularly from those who own the unit), please continue to post.



                        Also for those wondering about Roland’s participation in the latter part of this thread (or lack thereof), unfortunately their Product Manager was in Japan during the recent earthquake. He’s safe, and we wish him well; fortunately, reports are that Roland, being located in a more southern part of Japan, has not suffered serious damage. But I can certainly understand that there are far more pressing issues right now then checking in on a pro review. Hopefully when the situation settles down, he’ll be able to add some comments.



                        Now, about the Octa-Capture.



                        The primary characteristic that stands out to me is cost-effectiveness. For under $600, you’re getting eight high-quality mic pres, onboard DSP, a very nice mixer application, Auto-Sens level setting, and a relatively intuitive front-panel user interface. That’s quite a deal.



                        Here are what I consider the main limitations:

                        • Only one headphone out. Granted, I don’t know where they would have been able to fit another one on the front panel, but sometimes it helps to be able to have someone else listen on phones while tracking. Of course you can do this, but you’d need to add a headphone amp to a couple of the monitor outs.

                        • No optical I/O, either S/PDIF or ADAT. There is coaxial S/PDIF, so you’re not totally lacking for digital I/O. The ADAT input is perhaps less of an issue than it appears at first, because the main reason for adding ADAT I/O is to provide expansion - being able to cascade Octa-Captures is a mitigating factor.

                        • The reverb works only with Direct Mix A, and you can’t record with it. Actually this is kind of a flattering limitation, because I wouldn’t care if it weren’t for the fact that the reverb sounds very good.

                        • The compressor can’t go in front of the A/D converter to prevent overloads. However, see below for my comments on Auto-Sens.



                        And now, what I consider the main strengths.

                        • Eight combo jack inputs for line inputs or XLR mics. Even better, four are on the front panel and two of these can serve as high-Z instrument inputs. A lot of interfaces have one or two front-panel ins, but having four is really convenient, as is having eight really good mic pres.

                        • Auto-Sens. Why doesn’t every interface have this? This is a really useful and time-saving feature that’s easy to use and effective. Big props.

                        • Compact size. This could definitely work for mobile, laptop-based recording applications. It’s not tiny, but I don’t see how it could be any smaller and still provide equivalent functionality.

                        • Individual +48V phantom power for each input. I think this is very important, and otherwise surprisingly rare in the world of interfaces – most let you enable phantom power for all mics or none, or particular groups of mics (e.g., one group of four and another group of four, or for a couple inputs but not for the others).

                        • Front-panel programmability. Of course the mixer application is much easier to use, but you can do everything you need to do from the front panel. Although pushing buttons and turning dials can be tedious, the Octa-Capture “operating system” isn’t hard to deal with.

                        • Universal (100-240V) “line lump” power supply. It only takes up one space on a barrier strip, and works anywhere with the right plug.

                        • Cascadable. I like that you can add another eight mics if needed, while staying within the same interface context.

                        • MIDI in and out. I’m always surprised at how many audio interfaces don’t include MIDI. It’s still a part of my studio, that’s for sure...

                        • Stable, trouble-free drivers. Installation was totally painless, and the performance is exceptional. I attribute part of that to Windows 7, but Roland shares in the credit.



                        I feel that at this point, there’s a certain level of “interface fatigue” - there are so many of them out there, with such varied feature sets, that there really is something for everybody. Roland is entering a crowded market at what are still sketchy economic times, but it would be a shame if the Octa-Capture got “lost in the noise.” This is a really solid interface, with some unique features, at a righteous price.



                        I’m sure many will look at the Octa-Capture and say “nice, but I already have an interface.” However, when you get your hands on one, the Octa-Capture solves a lot of problems faced during typical recording situations – from being able to handle multiple mics, to giving the singer some really nice reverb in the headphones, to adding light compression on the inputs, to automatic level-setting. Roland definitely did their homework with the Octa-Capture. For their first foray into pro-level interfaces, they’ve made the right moves.




                        Comment


                        • After using my Quadcapture for some months, I have an update to my initial glowing report.



                          I have no complaints at all about the audio quality – except for the strong tendency in my system for what is probably ground loop noise (hard drive chatter, etc.). I'll need to experiment with a dedicated ground strap, as others have suggested. And the auto sense feature is indeed way cool. My only disappointment has been in its latency performance – which, unfortunately, is why I bought it.



                          I went so far as to buy a new computer to try to achieve the claimed "1 ms" latency specs, but after extensive tweaking, troubleshooting, and overclocking, I've achieved nowhere near that. It seems that in a totally tricked out system, I'm only able to get a stable 64 sample buffer – i.e. 10 ms. Craig initially stated that he was getting stable playback at 48, but then later in the thread it seems that he too ended up using the 64 setting. Then there was some debate elsewhere about whether 10 ms is "good", which boils down to a matter of opinion. But, for me, there's a huge difference between 2 or 3 ms and 10. 10 ms I can hear...



                          So this is just a little heads up for anyone considering this interface. In retrospect, because latency is important to me, I should have bought a Babyface or Mbox Pro.



                          Strangely, I was able to use the 48 buffer in XP. A tech support person at Roland strongly encouraged me to move to Win 7, but since doing so I get nothing but ASIO errors at 48 – and this on three different machines, with, as I said, all kinds of tweaking. I may end up reinstalling XP just to use the Quadcapture.



                          If there's some magic tweak we should know about, I'd love for a Roland representative to explain to us exactly how we can get "as low as 1 ms" latency from this box (and I'd gladly settle for five times that). Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that this was, sadly, not honest marketing...

                          Comment








                          • Quote Originally Posted by etunity
                            View Post

                            After using my Quadcapture for some months, I have an update to my initial glowing report.



                            I have no complaints at all about the audio quality – except for the strong tendency in my system for what is probably ground loop noise (hard drive chatter, etc.). I'll need to experiment with a dedicated ground strap, as others have suggested. And the auto sense feature is indeed way cool. My only disappointment has been in its latency performance – which, unfortunately, is why I bought it.



                            I went so far as to buy a new computer to try to achieve the claimed "1 ms" latency specs, but after extensive tweaking, troubleshooting, and overclocking, I've achieved nowhere near that. It seems that in a totally tricked out system, I'm only able to get a stable 64 sample buffer – i.e. 10 ms. Craig initially stated that he was getting stable playback at 48, but then later in the thread it seems that he too ended up using the 64 setting. Then there was some debate elsewhere about whether 10 ms is "good", which boils down to a matter of opinion. But, for me, there's a huge difference between 2 or 3 ms and 10. 10 ms I can hear...



                            So this is just a little heads up for anyone considering this interface. In retrospect, because latency is important to me, I should have bought a Babyface or Mbox Pro.



                            Strangely, I was able to use the 48 buffer in XP. A tech support person at Roland strongly encouraged me to move to Win 7, but since doing so I get nothing but ASIO errors at 48 – and this on three different machines, with, as I said, all kinds of tweaking. I may end up reinstalling XP just to use the Quadcapture.



                            If there's some magic tweak we should know about, I'd love for a Roland representative to explain to us exactly how we can get "as low as 1 ms" latency from this box (and I'd gladly settle for five times that). Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude that this was, sadly, not honest marketing...




                            We don't need a Roland rep, I can handle that for you and this is a great chance to provide some basic education about how latency works.



                            First of all, I'd be willing to bet you're not using 192kHz. The ONLY way to achieve the lowest possible latency is at higher sample rates. This is because you're clocking through the buffers faster, which speeds up the time it takes for the signal to go through the sample buffers. See the Octa-Capture settings below, and Sonar recording in the background.







                            Unfortunately I couldn't include the Sonar preferences screen as you have to close it before you can record, but it confirms that there are 192 samples, which translates to 1ms at 192kHz.



                            I played back the file...no clicks or pops



                            However, everything involving latency is a tradeoff. You can have speed or stability, but not both. I'm sure if I loaded up this project with some virtual instruments (assuming I can find some that work at 192kHz, LOL) and a bunch of tracks, I would probably have to increase the latency.



                            Also remember that buffer size isn't the sole determinant of latency. There's hardware latency through the A/D and D/A converters (typically around 1.2ms) and additional buffer latencies with USB. At 192kHz, the input latency is 4.1ms, and the output is 2.6ms, for a total "roundtrip" latency of 6.7ms.



                            As a reality check, sound travels at 1 ft per millisecond, so this latency is what you experience being 6ft away from speakers. Having used an Mbox Pro, I can verify that it too is subject to the laws of physics. I think it's almost a certainty you would not get better performance, and while the guys at RME are pretty bright, I don't think they've figured out how to violate the laws of physics either. This is why interfaces have direct monitoring - for people who require the lowest possible latency when recording.



                            The Windows 7 thing is a little more puzzling. Since moving from XP to 7 the latency at which I could do complex projects went down considerably - I can't give you a direct before and after comparison as I'm now full-time on 7, but performance was definitely superior to XP. For example tonight I was working on a project with eight audio tracks, MOTU's MachFive 3 sampler, and the XILS Synthix and recording additional tracks with 48 samples - no pops, clicks, or other problems. Now, maybe when I add a few more instruments, and automation, and some convolution reverbs I'll have to increase it, but for tracking I have zero issues.



                            Have you upgraded to the 1.5 software and drivers for the Octa-Capture? You should definitely be able to run at 48 samples on at least small projects without problems. At 44.1kHz that gives me 48 samples (1.1ms buffer size) with a total roundtrip of 7.5ms (5.6ms in, 1.8ms out). That's really very good.
                            _____________________________________________
                            There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

                            Comment


                            • Thanks, Craig, for clearing that up for me. I'm a longtime Roland fan, and want to give them the benefit of a doubt; but frankly, they should leave off their claim of 1ms, because apparently the fastest round-trip you'll ever get out of this box is 6.7ms.



                              Back in the real world, no, I'm not planning to run my studio at 192kHz any time soon. But I'd be happy to be able to run the Quadcapture at 48 kHz and 48 samples, for a round trip of 7ms. And if you're able to do that without problems, then there's still something wrong with my computer. Which is weird, cause I've really done a lot of troubleshooting now (I even unplugged my USB keyboard and mouse during playback to see if the ASIO errors would stop). The only thing I haven't tried is a dedicated USB card, which you recommended. So that's next.



                              A little silver lining: as a result of all this effort, my old Mackie Onyx firewire (which the Roland was supposed to replace) is now working flawlessly at 32 samples. So I can get back to being a musician instead of a computer tech -- thank God!





                              I don't really want to break the laws of physics, which would probably get me into serious trouble -- all I'm trying for is to record a single VSTi at superlow latency, all other tracks being frozen or bounced.



                              And I realize that different people have different tolerances for these delays. My main instrument is acoustic guitar, which has a "latency" of about 1ms, so I tend to want that kind of immediacy in all the instruments I play.



                              If you think about it, this whole latency problem has been going on for centuries. The modern drum kit was a brilliant solution to the age-old problem of how to synchronize a bunch of instruments. Works way better than a conductor...

                              Comment








                              • Quote Originally Posted by etunity
                                View Post

                                Thanks, Craig, for clearing that up for me. I'm a longtime Roland fan, and want to give them the benefit of a doubt; but frankly, they should leave off their claim of 1ms, because apparently the fastest round-trip you'll ever get out of this box is 6.7ms.




                                The reason for that claim is because round-trip latency is system dependent. So, they could quote a round-trip of 6.7ms, but it might be 5ms on another system and 30ms on someone else's. As a result, manufacturers have more or less standardized on quoting the sample buffer spec, as that's the only one that's consistent from system to system.



                                The fact that Firewire isn't a problem while USB is an issue is an important clue. Try a different USB port, try a USB card (but NOT a combo USB/Firewire card) - and also make sure you're going into a true 2.0 port, most computers have more than one flavor of USB. The main thing is you want a USB audio interface to have the USB controller all to itself, not shared with a bunch of other peripherals.
                                _____________________________________________
                                There are now 14 music videos posted on my YouTube channel, including four songs by Mark Longworth. Watch the music video playlist, subscribe, and spread the links! Check back often, because there's more to come...

                                Comment













                                Working...
                                X