sublunar wrote: ↑06 Jan 2024
You say you have "low latency" but also say you can "still feel it".. so it must not be all that low.
You also haven't said what your settings are so it's difficult to say what the specific issue is, but the first thing you should check is, obviously, your Audio settings Buffer Size.
Incidentially, you have the same audio interface (1824c) that I'm using. Most of what I record is live instruments but I also use Arturia (and Jiggery Pokery) virtual organs/synths. And I've never had a latency issue that wasn't fixed by keeping the buffer size as low as possible.
For reference, all of my projects using the 1824c are:
48K @ 64 samples resulting in 4ms input and 2ms output latency. Which is for all intents and purposes, "zero" latency.
I'll record a guitar track over some MIDI drums one minute and the next I'll record new MIDI drums via my E-drum kit which is controlling Superior Drummer inside of Reason and it all works seamlessly without any noticeable latency.
-
While we're on this topic.. (and I've made this argument before in the relevant "Reason Benchmark" threads):
If you use those Reason Benchmark threads as your project settings, you're going to have a bad time with latency. I have no idea why anyone would use 44.1 @ 1024 samples with 25ms latency as any sort of "Benchmark".
I've gone through numerous audio interfaces over the years and what I've found is that basically ANY crappy soundcard/interface can record/playback reasonably well at 44.1 with 1024 samples. Pretty sure I was achieving that back in the turtle beach sound cards days. Those settings are in no way taxing to modern systems. As a result, the person who made those benchmark files had to make them CRAZY HUGE (which are themselves taxing on a system just to even open them). Those settings are a very poor measuring stick to use. IMHO.
In my opinion: zero latency is "the Benchmark" to strive for. Specifically: <10ms latency at 48K.
The side effect of using a higher sampling rate with lower latency means that it wouldn't require anywhere near the size of those previous benchmark files to get results in the form of actionable data.
I realize most Reason users seem to fall under the umbrella of "electronic" music involving primarily virtual instruments/synths etc so maybe latency doesn't affect those types of projects nearly as much? Maybe 44.1 @ 1024 samples was chosen because most systems can be thus configured and it's more guaranteed that more users can at least use that as a common starting point? IDK. But for those of us who record live instruments primarily,
my systems live or die based on their latency and 1024 samples/25ms of latency is completely useless and tells me nothing about how that system will perform at the levels necessary to facilitate recording/jamming along with live instruments.
Yes, I realize I could make my own Benchmark thread and specify my own settings as above, instead of just b!tching about it from afar, but like.. that sounds like a lot of work, man. And I also choose to discuss it this way because I don't know everything and maybe I'm missing something obvious so like... why go through that much work if I'm just an idiot?
Either way: zero latency or bust!
I know your interface can do it because it's what I use. The only caveat is maybe you have some weird chipset/driver issue going on. That happened to me on my last system; no matter what I did, the audio performance was not great and that was with a current CPU/Motherboard. Once I tried everything including pulling my hair out and curling up in the fetal position crying on the floor, I got a different CPU/MOBO and voila! Same interface but significantly better results.