Audiophile 2496 , DMA BUFFER SIZE/Latency Sample #???

> > > Audiophile 2496 , DMA BUFFER SIZE/Latency Sample #???

Posted on

Member Since: Feb 22, 2003

I'm running the M-audio 2496 card and was wondering what DMA BUFFER SIZE/Latency Sample number should be used to record vocals. Actually wondering what the heck it means and how it effects things on computers and recording quality. It seems to automatically set itself on 1056 latency sample but has a range of 336-2688....What does this do and what number should I use and why???? I know this question may be tough to explain to someone with limited knowledge as myself but gosh if someone has the know and the time to help I'd appreciate it.

roughneck

[ Back to Top ]


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Mar 26, 2003 04:06 am

The application you use sets these settings based on your sound card performance, CPU size, which drivers the app supports, amount of RAM and other factors. Therefore it's really impossible to give a clear cut number for each. I use the same card and my latency is at 8.7 in Sonar, so your does seem VERY high. But, I generally work with what the program sets it up as. Sometimes messing with the settings works, but sometimes it leads to instability, dropouts and other probs.

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002

Mar 26, 2003 09:51 am

Bruno.

as dB said there is no "right or wrong" setting for buffer sizes - you basically want to get the buffer as small as possible before clicks and pops are introduced into your recordings.

I own Delta 410's and I run them with 4ms latency (thats very, very ickle buffers in ASIO mode) which is great - but it took a bit of tweaking to get there.

jues.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Mar 26, 2003 06:34 pm

Just out of curiosity, what do you have your buffers set at jues?

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002

Mar 26, 2003 07:19 pm

My Asio settings are set to "Lowest Latency" and I've set the Thread Priority to "Above Normal". The Cubase Disc buffers are set to 3 buffers of 32k.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Mar 26, 2003 09:37 pm

Thats good. I know Sonar sets their buffers up a bit differant. I just DLd another set of beta drivers for the Delta. They are stripped down version for Pro level studio use, and they wont work with the run of the mill windows apps. but the first beta drivers I tested got my effective latency down to 2.7ms but it was a bit unstable and would lock up at about 12 tracks in both Sonar and Cubase. They hopefully will have it stable now. The ASIO drivers offer so much lower latency then the WDM drivers. I am so glad Sonar platformed for ASIO now.

Thanx again jues, I think I will try those buffer settings and see if I can get latency down before I pop in those beta drivers.

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002

Mar 27, 2003 07:03 am

I do believe I am currently running afformention beta drivers - hold on let me check my driver version:

5.10.00.0029x12

God, why do they make their driver versions so long - whats wrong with 5.39.12?! :)

Also, it can be a bit dependant on what rig you are running - if you're still using that Coppermine 633 then that may also be a factor.

jues.

Contributor
Since: Sep 09, 2002

Mar 27, 2003 11:49 am

Quote:
jues: if you're still using that Coppermine 633 then that may also be a factor.

i'm running the chip, the 698Mhz one, what's wrong with it?

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Mar 27, 2003 08:53 pm

Its the model 8 667 coppermine. The best its ever run latency wise is 6.4ms. Im getting ready to crank up a new system as soon as dB gets his running, I want to see if the onboard crap is going to be a headache or not. And I will be switching to AMD for this next one, since I had absolutly no trouble with and older AMD box I ran, and it had latency running down at 4.2ms with a K62 450.

And yes those are the beta drivers I ma running. I will let you know when I get the newest rev on it. Yes they do have the longest rev numbers I have ever seen. I suppose because they build new drivers so frequantly to keep up with everything that changes, they figure they will give themselves plenty of room for expansion.

The Quiet Minded
Member
Since: Jan 01, 2003

Mar 28, 2003 04:10 pm

didnt get it. what is better, a low buffer size or a high buffer size? As the buffer size increases the latency increases too. Is it good or bad to have a high latency?

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002

Mar 28, 2003 07:25 pm

I'll have a pop at explaining for you Bruno.

Latency is the delay that occurs between the user (you) performing an action and the device (eg: your soundcard) responding to that action.

For example - say you have a MIDI keyboard hooked up to a MIDI input on the PC - which is in turn linked to a VSTi (A softsynth). The time it takes between when you press a key on the MIDI keyboard and the VSTi (softsynth) creating a noise is the amount of latency you have.

Now obviously you want the latency to be as low as possible, so that (continuing the example) when you press a key on your MIDI keyboard, the VSTi (softsynth) responds almost instantly. It is best to have a latency of under 18ms - otherwise you start to notice a slight delay. (In worst case scenarios, the latency can be well over a second or two, which is obviously not gonna be much fun.)

Latency also applies to visual display elements, eg: VU meters on screen and the actual "position" in the the arrangment window.

Now here is where buffer sizes come into play. When the soundcard is doing something (eg: making a sound) - the data fist has to be buffered so that it arrives at the sound card in an orderly fashion and does not become corrupt. Buffer sizes are set in "samples" (or sometimes Killobytes (Kb) which in turn reflects the number of samples at a given bit-rate). Obviously, the bigger the buffer, the easier it is for the computer to ensure everything reaches the soundcard correctly (and thus no errors or "drop-outs" occur) - however, the bigger the buffer, the longer it takes for the "sound" to reach the soundcard and actually be outputted.

Eg:

VSTi --> Buffer --> Output.

As a result, in order to get the lowest latency, you need to have the smallest buffer your system can maintain - the lower the buffer, the quicker the sound will reach the ouput of your soundcard

Hope that clears things up a bit for ya.
jues.

> > > Audiophile 2496 , DMA BUFFER SIZE/Latency Sample #???

Related Forum Topics:


If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.