I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm oversimplifying
things here.

It is my understanding that most of the latency problems are not due
99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in the latency
inherent in the Windows 9x multimedia subsystem.

I believe the reason the ASIO drivers have lower latency is that they
bypass Microsoft's multimedia hadrware abstraction and deal (more)
directly with the audio hardware.

Are you suggesting that ASIO is somehow an easier driver standard to
write to so lazy developers spend all there time on it then write
crap code for DirectX drivers five minutes before their product
ships? That would go a long way towards explaining the differences I
see in latency between my ASIO and DirectX apps.

Peter Haller wrote:
>>
>>There is no plans on support ASIO in the future. We are pushing to
>>get vendors to fix thier Wave drivers, which is 99% of the problem.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Matt Furniss wrote:
>>>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>>>
>>>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>>>recording multi-track audio.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe Sonic Foundry could add an option to shift newly
>>>>recorded tracks back a user-defined number of milliseconds?
>>>>I imagine some kind of record latency adjustment on the
>>>>options page? This would fix the problem.
>>>>
>>>>-Matt Furniss.
>>>>
>>>>

Cubase / ASIO has the same problem. The solution is to avoid
monitoring on a software level and to use hardware monitoring
on the card. If you use effects during recording you will not
be able to hear them, unless your card has built in DSP effects.

Alex

Matt Furniss wrote:
>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>
>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>recording multi-track audio.
>>
>>Maybe Sonic Foundry could add an option to shift newly
>>recorded tracks back a user-defined number of milliseconds?
>>I imagine some kind of record latency adjustment on the
>>options page? This would fix the problem.
>>
>>-Matt Furniss.
>>
>>

Hey Matt - For what it's worth, I use the 1224 as well. While I did
experience some latency when I first installed Vegas, I found my
problem pretty quickly. After removing my 5400RPM IDE, I bought a
7200 RPM IDE for my apps, and a 10000RPM SCSI LVD for my audio.

A fresh Win98 install on top of that, and now weekly defrag sessions
keeps me running with no problems.

Now, I have no idea how *you* use Vegas, but so far I've been able to
play 30+ tracks of audio at the same time, record a guitar on top of
that, add a bass, etc. I haven't had any problems yet. I imagine I
can do more than 30, but I could care less. 6 or 8 at a time is
enough for me. ( I should add this is without effects processing. )

Regardless, I can't stress enough the difference fast drives and
properly-tweaked buffers make. It's expensive, but hey, you didn't
buy that 1224 because it looked pretty....

If you already have a full-blown system, nevermind.

Justin



Matt Furniss wrote:
>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>
>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>recording multi-track audio.

I am not suggesting anything about the work ethics of driver
developers. I am merely telling you my experiance after dealing with
all the major hardware and drivers available.

FWIW: We don't use DirectSound, we use the WAVE API strictly. Again,
nothing about DirectSound that makes it superior to Wave. Wave
drivers are what I was discussing.

We get very good latencies - depending on how you are applying the
word latency - with standard Wave drivers.

Many if not all of the problems we see with latency are due to driver
implementations and assumptions that the driver makes about how the
software will use the driver. There are always limitation that the
hardware can introduce latencies as well, but I have seen little to
make me believe that a properly implemented Wave driver is going to
make things worse.

The driver deals with the hardware at the same level regardless of
Wave or ASIO. It has to be. The MM layer is just a standard - just
like ASIO. Yes, it is more cumbersome, has limitations, and can cause
things to be more difficult, but in all honesty, the difficulties
from the app side are that we have to develope very "safe" code to
deal with the problems we find in many wave drivers.

I am not judging the realitive merits of ASIO, I just know what I
have seen. The WAVE API is fine for doing streaming media as long as
the drivers are correct.

The biggest limitation of Wave drivers under 9X is that it all
funnels down to 16 bit land. This can be time consuming, but not a
killer if the drivers do the right thing and don't make bad
assumptions on how the application will move data back and forth.

I have seen nothing to indicate that all the blame belongs to Win9X.
Everytime we discover a driver that has some buffering problem, and
it is repaired/corrected by the vendor, the problem goes away.

This is my experiance.

Peter




Tim Golden wrote:
>>I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm oversimplifying
>>things here.
>>
>>It is my understanding that most of the latency problems are not
due
>>99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in the latency
>>inherent in the Windows 9x multimedia subsystem.
>>
>>I believe the reason the ASIO drivers have lower latency is that
they
>>bypass Microsoft's multimedia hadrware abstraction and deal (more)
>>directly with the audio hardware.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that ASIO is somehow an easier driver standard
to
>>write to so lazy developers spend all there time on it then write
>>crap code for DirectX drivers five minutes before their product
>>ships? That would go a long way towards explaining the differences
I
>>see in latency between my ASIO and DirectX apps.
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>There is no plans on support ASIO in the future. We are pushing
to
>>>>get vendors to fix thier Wave drivers, which is 99% of the
problem.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt Furniss wrote:
>>>>>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>>>>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>>>>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>>>>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>>>>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>>>>>recording multi-track audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe Sonic Foundry could add an option to shift newly
>>>>>>recorded tracks back a user-defined number of milliseconds?
>>>>>>I imagine some kind of record latency adjustment on the
>>>>>>options page? This would fix the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-Matt Furniss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the MOTU 2408,
and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync with the
orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a powerful system,
and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.

I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had this
problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an bigtime
audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has ever tried
it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).

This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems so it could
be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by these
products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help themselves
and us out by contacting them about this.

techsupport@motu.com

It seems quite obvious that most of you guys refer to a different
interpretation of "Latency". Most people seem to talk about the delay
that is introduced when you monitor thru your computer while
overdubbing (realtime!). Peter Haller seems to refer to the time that
the system needs to react on slider moves etc. That's something
different... My Beta Version of Vegas Pro has expired so I cannot
verify this: Does Vegas support monitoring the input signal while
recording at all? Maybe this depends on the driver...

Anyway - for realtime monitoring my experience is that with a
wavedriver on win9x the system needs a few hundred milliseconds to
run a signal thru it until you can hear it again; and of course at
this point Asio is a much faster driver model. A whole roundtrip thru
the system with the Motu 2408 can be done in about 20 Milliseconds
with default settings. But: 20 milliseconds are still too much for
overdubbing.
So when you want to overdub to existing tracks I'd use the signal
before it is sent to the computer to monitor.

But still I am not sure to understand why there are no plans to
support Asio. As far as I know Asio was developed to have a driver
model with very low latencies (for overdubbing purposes). And this
really works. Try to use Cubase with the wavedriver and compare it to
the Asio driver and you know what I mean.
With Asio 2.0 you have even more: direct monitoring thru the hardware
(almost not latencies, like the cuemix conole with the Motu 2408) and
sample accurate positioning of the audio files in the application.
Again - wouldn't it be good?

Cheers,

Axel Gutzler

Peter Haller wrote:
>>I am not suggesting anything about the work ethics of driver
>>developers. I am merely telling you my experiance after dealing
with
>>all the major hardware and drivers available.
>>
>>FWIW: We don't use DirectSound, we use the WAVE API strictly.
Again,
>>nothing about DirectSound that makes it superior to Wave. Wave
>>drivers are what I was discussing.
>>
>>We get very good latencies - depending on how you are applying the
>>word latency - with standard Wave drivers.
>>
>>Many if not all of the problems we see with latency are due to
driver
>>implementations and assumptions that the driver makes about how the
>>software will use the driver. There are always limitation that the
>>hardware can introduce latencies as well, but I have seen little to
>>make me believe that a properly implemented Wave driver is going to
>>make things worse.
>>
>>The driver deals with the hardware at the same level regardless of
>>Wave or ASIO. It has to be. The MM layer is just a standard - just
>>like ASIO. Yes, it is more cumbersome, has limitations, and can
cause
>>things to be more difficult, but in all honesty, the difficulties
>>from the app side are that we have to develope very "safe" code to
>>deal with the problems we find in many wave drivers.
>>
>>I am not judging the realitive merits of ASIO, I just know what I
>>have seen. The WAVE API is fine for doing streaming media as long
as
>>the drivers are correct.
>>
>>The biggest limitation of Wave drivers under 9X is that it all
>>funnels down to 16 bit land. This can be time consuming, but not a
>>killer if the drivers do the right thing and don't make bad
>>assumptions on how the application will move data back and forth.
>>
>>I have seen nothing to indicate that all the blame belongs to
Win9X.
>>Everytime we discover a driver that has some buffering problem, and
>>it is repaired/corrected by the vendor, the problem goes away.
>>
>>This is my experiance.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Tim Golden wrote:
>>>>I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm oversimplifying
>>>>things here.
>>>>
>>>>It is my understanding that most of the latency problems are not
>>due
>>>>99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in the
latency
>>>>inherent in the Windows 9x multimedia subsystem.
>>>>
>>>>I believe the reason the ASIO drivers have lower latency is that
>>they
>>>>bypass Microsoft's multimedia hadrware abstraction and deal
(more)
>>>>directly with the audio hardware.
>>>>
>>>>Are you suggesting that ASIO is somehow an easier driver standard
>>to
>>>>write to so lazy developers spend all there time on it then write
>>>>crap code for DirectX drivers five minutes before their product
>>>>ships? That would go a long way towards explaining the
differences
>>I
>>>>see in latency between my ASIO and DirectX apps.
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no plans on support ASIO in the future. We are pushing
>>to
>>>>>>get vendors to fix thier Wave drivers, which is 99% of the
>>problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matt Furniss wrote:
>>>>>>>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>>>>>>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>>>>>>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>>>>>>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>>>>>>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>>>>>>>recording multi-track audio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Maybe Sonic Foundry could add an option to shift newly
>>>>>>>>recorded tracks back a user-defined number of milliseconds?
>>>>>>>>I imagine some kind of record latency adjustment on the
>>>>>>>>options page? This would fix the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-Matt Furniss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

You describe my definition of latency correctly.

Monitoring what is being recorded is - as far as Sonic Foundry
products go - a hardware problem.

Why?

For the exact reason you state - the time it takes to take the
recorded audio buffer and stream it back out. Can't be done in
realtime with software under Windows. Even ASIO does not accomplish
this. (Read the Cubase manual.)

The way ASIO accomplishes this is by supporting hardware monitoring.

Most hardware that supports hardware montitoring provide interfaces
and tools to control this. We rely on the hardware vendor to do the
right thing. When WDM arrives and vendors develope drivers, there
will be a standard for hardware control that all can use with out
relying on proprietary solutions.

We are getting outstanding performance from wave drivers and our
technologies. Other technologies that are open standards will make up
for the short commings of the wave API in the future.

Peter


Axel Gutzler wrote:
>>It seems quite obvious that most of you guys refer to a different
>>interpretation of "Latency". Most people seem to talk about the
delay
>>that is introduced when you monitor thru your computer while
>>overdubbing (realtime!). Peter Haller seems to refer to the time
that
>>the system needs to react on slider moves etc. That's something
>>different... My Beta Version of Vegas Pro has expired so I cannot
>>verify this: Does Vegas support monitoring the input signal while
>>recording at all? Maybe this depends on the driver...
>>
>>Anyway - for realtime monitoring my experience is that with a
>>wavedriver on win9x the system needs a few hundred milliseconds to
>>run a signal thru it until you can hear it again; and of course at
>>this point Asio is a much faster driver model. A whole roundtrip
thru
>>the system with the Motu 2408 can be done in about 20 Milliseconds
>>with default settings. But: 20 milliseconds are still too much for
>>overdubbing.
>>So when you want to overdub to existing tracks I'd use the signal
>>before it is sent to the computer to monitor.
>>
>>But still I am not sure to understand why there are no plans to
>>support Asio. As far as I know Asio was developed to have a driver
>>model with very low latencies (for overdubbing purposes). And this
>>really works. Try to use Cubase with the wavedriver and compare it
to
>>the Asio driver and you know what I mean.
>>With Asio 2.0 you have even more: direct monitoring thru the
hardware
>>(almost not latencies, like the cuemix conole with the Motu 2408)
and
>>sample accurate positioning of the audio files in the application.
>>Again - wouldn't it be good?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Axel Gutzler
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>I am not suggesting anything about the work ethics of driver
>>>>developers. I am merely telling you my experiance after dealing
>>with
>>>>all the major hardware and drivers available.
>>>>
>>>>FWIW: We don't use DirectSound, we use the WAVE API strictly.
>>Again,
>>>>nothing about DirectSound that makes it superior to Wave. Wave
>>>>drivers are what I was discussing.
>>>>
>>>>We get very good latencies - depending on how you are applying
the
>>>>word latency - with standard Wave drivers.
>>>>
>>>>Many if not all of the problems we see with latency are due to
>>driver
>>>>implementations and assumptions that the driver makes about how
the
>>>>software will use the driver. There are always limitation that
the
>>>>hardware can introduce latencies as well, but I have seen little
to
>>>>make me believe that a properly implemented Wave driver is going
to
>>>>make things worse.
>>>>
>>>>The driver deals with the hardware at the same level regardless
of
>>>>Wave or ASIO. It has to be. The MM layer is just a standard -
just
>>>>like ASIO. Yes, it is more cumbersome, has limitations, and can
>>cause
>>>>things to be more difficult, but in all honesty, the difficulties
>>>>from the app side are that we have to develope very "safe" code
to
>>>>deal with the problems we find in many wave drivers.
>>>>
>>>>I am not judging the realitive merits of ASIO, I just know what I
>>>>have seen. The WAVE API is fine for doing streaming media as long
>>as
>>>>the drivers are correct.
>>>>
>>>>The biggest limitation of Wave drivers under 9X is that it all
>>>>funnels down to 16 bit land. This can be time consuming, but not
a
>>>>killer if the drivers do the right thing and don't make bad
>>>>assumptions on how the application will move data back and forth.
>>>>
>>>>I have seen nothing to indicate that all the blame belongs to
>>Win9X.
>>>>Everytime we discover a driver that has some buffering problem,
and
>>>>it is repaired/corrected by the vendor, the problem goes away.
>>>>
>>>>This is my experiance.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tim Golden wrote:
>>>>>>I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm
oversimplifying
>>>>>>things here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is my understanding that most of the latency problems are
not
>>>>due
>>>>>>99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in the
>>latency
>>>>>>inherent in the Windows 9x multimedia subsystem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I believe the reason the ASIO drivers have lower latency is
that
>>>>they
>>>>>>bypass Microsoft's multimedia hadrware abstraction and deal
>>(more)
>>>>>>directly with the audio hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you suggesting that ASIO is somehow an easier driver
standard
>>>>to
>>>>>>write to so lazy developers spend all there time on it then
write
>>>>>>crap code for DirectX drivers five minutes before their product
>>>>>>ships? That would go a long way towards explaining the
>>differences
>>>>I
>>>>>>see in latency between my ASIO and DirectX apps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is no plans on support ASIO in the future. We are
pushing
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>get vendors to fix thier Wave drivers, which is 99% of the
>>>>problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Matt Furniss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>>>>>>>>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>>>>>>>>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>>>>>>>>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>>>>>>>>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>>>>>>>>>recording multi-track audio.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Maybe Sonic Foundry could add an option to shift newly
>>>>>>>>>>recorded tracks back a user-defined number of milliseconds?
>>>>>>>>>>I imagine some kind of record latency adjustment on the
>>>>>>>>>>options page? This would fix the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>-Matt Furniss.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, we tested with the 2408. No problems as you describe.

Do you have sync start enabled for the MOTU 2408 drivers? With out
this, you will never achieve sync between what you play and what you
record using the 2408.

I guess what I would need to know is how you have things set up and
how are you monitoring.

Vegas does not support software monitoring of input - for reasons
that I have discussed else where in this forum.

Peter





Chris Milne wrote:
>>I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the MOTU
2408,
>>and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync with
the
>>orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a powerful
system,
>>and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.
>>
>>I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had this
>>problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an bigtime
>>audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has ever tried
>>it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).
>>
>>This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems so it
could
>>be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by these
>>products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help
themselves
>>and us out by contacting them about this.
>>
>>techsupport@motu.com
>>
>>

I have to check on the sync start (never looked for it because it
worked since day one with cubase).

As far as monitoring goes, i have a 16 channel Allen & Heath mixer,
and 2 of the MOTU 2408 channels are routing the outputs of vegas to
my mixer, and that is what i am playing along with (the mix on vegas
(stereo) and my live playing in my mixer. Everything sounds fine
when i am recording, but is very late when i play it back.

I haven't messed around with the cue mix on the MOTU 2408, because
the way i am monitoring shouldn't require me to do so.

Everything sound correct so far? How did you guys use the MOTU 2408
when you tested it?

Thank you.

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Yes, we tested with the 2408. No problems as you describe.
>>
>>Do you have sync start enabled for the MOTU 2408 drivers? With out
>>this, you will never achieve sync between what you play and what
you
>>record using the 2408.
>>
>>I guess what I would need to know is how you have things set up and
>>how are you monitoring.
>>
>>Vegas does not support software monitoring of input - for reasons
>>that I have discussed else where in this forum.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the MOTU
>>2408,
>>>>and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync with
>>the
>>>>orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a powerful
>>system,
>>>>and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.
>>>>
>>>>I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had this
>>>>problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an bigtime
>>>>audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has ever
tried
>>>>it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).
>>>>
>>>>This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems so it
>>could
>>>>be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by these
>>>>products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help
>>themselves
>>>>and us out by contacting them about this.
>>>>
>>>>techsupport@motu.com
>>>>
>>>>

Peter,

excuse me - what is WDM? Is it a new driver model? Sounds like a
standard a lot of people are waiting for... and sounds a little like
politics why this standard should not be Asio.
Am I missing something?

Axel

Peter Haller wrote:
>>You describe my definition of latency correctly.
>>
>>Monitoring what is being recorded is - as far as Sonic Foundry
>>products go - a hardware problem.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>For the exact reason you state - the time it takes to take the
>>recorded audio buffer and stream it back out. Can't be done in
>>realtime with software under Windows. Even ASIO does not accomplish
>>this. (Read the Cubase manual.)
>>
>>The way ASIO accomplishes this is by supporting hardware
monitoring.
>>
>>Most hardware that supports hardware montitoring provide interfaces
>>and tools to control this. We rely on the hardware vendor to do the
>>right thing. When WDM arrives and vendors develope drivers, there
>>will be a standard for hardware control that all can use with out
>>relying on proprietary solutions.
>>
>>We are getting outstanding performance from wave drivers and our
>>technologies. Other technologies that are open standards will make
up
>>for the short commings of the wave API in the future.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Axel Gutzler wrote:
>>>>It seems quite obvious that most of you guys refer to a different
>>>>interpretation of "Latency". Most people seem to talk about the
>>delay
>>>>that is introduced when you monitor thru your computer while
>>>>overdubbing (realtime!). Peter Haller seems to refer to the time
>>that
>>>>the system needs to react on slider moves etc. That's something
>>>>different... My Beta Version of Vegas Pro has expired so I cannot
>>>>verify this: Does Vegas support monitoring the input signal while
>>>>recording at all? Maybe this depends on the driver...
>>>>
>>>>Anyway - for realtime monitoring my experience is that with a
>>>>wavedriver on win9x the system needs a few hundred milliseconds
to
>>>>run a signal thru it until you can hear it again; and of course
at
>>>>this point Asio is a much faster driver model. A whole roundtrip
>>thru
>>>>the system with the Motu 2408 can be done in about 20
Milliseconds
>>>>with default settings. But: 20 milliseconds are still too much
for
>>>>overdubbing.
>>>>So when you want to overdub to existing tracks I'd use the signal
>>>>before it is sent to the computer to monitor.
>>>>
>>>>But still I am not sure to understand why there are no plans to
>>>>support Asio. As far as I know Asio was developed to have a
driver
>>>>model with very low latencies (for overdubbing purposes). And
this
>>>>really works. Try to use Cubase with the wavedriver and compare
it
>>to
>>>>the Asio driver and you know what I mean.
>>>>With Asio 2.0 you have even more: direct monitoring thru the
>>hardware
>>>>(almost not latencies, like the cuemix conole with the Motu 2408)
>>and
>>>>sample accurate positioning of the audio files in the
application.
>>>>Again - wouldn't it be good?
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Axel Gutzler
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>I am not suggesting anything about the work ethics of driver
>>>>>>developers. I am merely telling you my experiance after dealing
>>>>with
>>>>>>all the major hardware and drivers available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FWIW: We don't use DirectSound, we use the WAVE API strictly.
>>>>Again,
>>>>>>nothing about DirectSound that makes it superior to Wave. Wave
>>>>>>drivers are what I was discussing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We get very good latencies - depending on how you are applying
>>the
>>>>>>word latency - with standard Wave drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Many if not all of the problems we see with latency are due to
>>>>driver
>>>>>>implementations and assumptions that the driver makes about how
>>the
>>>>>>software will use the driver. There are always limitation that
>>the
>>>>>>hardware can introduce latencies as well, but I have seen
little
>>to
>>>>>>make me believe that a properly implemented Wave driver is
going
>>to
>>>>>>make things worse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The driver deals with the hardware at the same level regardless
>>of
>>>>>>Wave or ASIO. It has to be. The MM layer is just a standard -
>>just
>>>>>>like ASIO. Yes, it is more cumbersome, has limitations, and can
>>>>cause
>>>>>>things to be more difficult, but in all honesty, the
difficulties
>>>>>>from the app side are that we have to develope very "safe" code
>>to
>>>>>>deal with the problems we find in many wave drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not judging the realitive merits of ASIO, I just know what
I
>>>>>>have seen. The WAVE API is fine for doing streaming media as
long
>>>>as
>>>>>>the drivers are correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The biggest limitation of Wave drivers under 9X is that it all
>>>>>>funnels down to 16 bit land. This can be time consuming, but
not
>>a
>>>>>>killer if the drivers do the right thing and don't make bad
>>>>>>assumptions on how the application will move data back and
forth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have seen nothing to indicate that all the blame belongs to
>>>>Win9X.
>>>>>>Everytime we discover a driver that has some buffering problem,
>>and
>>>>>>it is repaired/corrected by the vendor, the problem goes away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is my experiance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Golden wrote:
>>>>>>>>I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm
>>oversimplifying
>>>>>>>>things here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It is my understanding that most of the latency problems are
>>not
>>>>>>due
>>>>>>>>99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in the
>>>>latency
>>>>>>>>inherent in the Windows 9x multimedia subsystem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I believe the reason the ASIO drivers have lower latency is
>>that
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>bypass Microsoft's multimedia hadrware abstraction and deal
>>>>(more)
>>>>>>>>directly with the audio hardware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Are you suggesting that ASIO is somehow an easier driver
>>standard
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>write to so lazy developers spend all there time on it then
>>write
>>>>>>>>crap code for DirectX drivers five minutes before their
product
>>>>>>>>ships? That would go a long way towards explaining the
>>>>differences
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>see in latency between my ASIO and DirectX apps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There is no plans on support ASIO in the future. We are
>>pushing
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>get vendors to fix thier Wave drivers, which is 99% of the
>>>>>>problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Matt Furniss wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>I hope Sonic Foundry will support ASIO in the near future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Using the Wav drivers and my MOTU 1224 the latency is way
>>>>>>>>>>>>too high, even with my MOTU buffer set at the lowest
>>>>>>>>>>>>settings. The causes my new recorded track(s) to play
>>>>>>>>>>>>behind the existing one. I believe this latency problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>seriously downgrades the usefulness of Vegas Pro for
>>>>>>>>>>>>recording multi-track audio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Maybe Sonic Foundry could add an option to shift newly
>>>>>>>>>>>>recorded tracks back a user-defined number of
milliseconds?
>>>>>>>>>>>>I imagine some kind of record latency adjustment on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>options page? This would fix the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>-Matt Furniss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Your setup sounds typical.

We didn't do anything fancy with the MOTU. Recorded Multiple tracks
both Mono and Stereo from the Analog and ADAT inputs. Did this both
with playback and with out. Mixed and matched analog and ADAT inputs
on record and playback.

If sync start is turned off, then this would explain why the recorded
tracks are out of sync. The reason Cubase does not exhibit this
behavior is that ASIO uses sync start between record and playback.

Peter

Chris Milne wrote:
>>I have to check on the sync start (never looked for it because it
>>worked since day one with cubase).
>>
>>As far as monitoring goes, i have a 16 channel Allen & Heath mixer,
>>and 2 of the MOTU 2408 channels are routing the outputs of vegas to
>>my mixer, and that is what i am playing along with (the mix on
vegas
>>(stereo) and my live playing in my mixer. Everything sounds fine
>>when i am recording, but is very late when i play it back.
>>
>>I haven't messed around with the cue mix on the MOTU 2408, because
>>the way i am monitoring shouldn't require me to do so.
>>
>>Everything sound correct so far? How did you guys use the MOTU
2408
>>when you tested it?
>>
>>Thank you.
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>Yes, we tested with the 2408. No problems as you describe.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have sync start enabled for the MOTU 2408 drivers? With
out
>>>>this, you will never achieve sync between what you play and what
>>you
>>>>record using the 2408.
>>>>
>>>>I guess what I would need to know is how you have things set up
and
>>>>how are you monitoring.
>>>>
>>>>Vegas does not support software monitoring of input - for reasons
>>>>that I have discussed else where in this forum.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>>>I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the MOTU
>>>>2408,
>>>>>>and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync
with
>>>>the
>>>>>>orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a powerful
>>>>system,
>>>>>>and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had this
>>>>>>problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an
bigtime
>>>>>>audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has ever
>>tried
>>>>>>it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems so it
>>>>could
>>>>>>be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by these
>>>>>>products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help
>>>>themselves
>>>>>>and us out by contacting them about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>techsupport@motu.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

WDM - Windows Driver Model. This is a Microsoft defined standard for
Win98 and Win2000 device drivers. Has been around for a while. One of
the goals of WDM is a single driver model for both NT and 98.

Politics? I doubt it. ASIO is proprietary, WDM while owned by MS, is
and open standard based on the OS. Cakewalk modeled its AudioX
interfaces around WDM for future compatability with WDM.

WDM is very powerful and extensible by anybody while ASIO is the
property of a company that is a competitor of other vendors in the
industry. ASIO is fast because it is all 32 bit and does not have the
overhead of the 16 bit MME in Win9x. WDM is also 32 bit, so the
problem goes away. Also, one WDM driver supports all the variants
under Windows - Wave, DirectSound, etc. No need for proprietary stuff.

I am not saying that this is happening or would happen, but we cannot
be dependent on one of our competitors for core technology.

If ASIO were truely and open standard, then why is there an NDA and
technology licensing aggreements required?

Just makes sense to stick with the open standards that allow us to
provide input on future development and enhancements.

Peter


Axel Gutzler wrote:
>>Peter,
>>
>>excuse me - what is WDM? Is it a new driver model? Sounds like a
>>standard a lot of people are waiting for... and sounds a little
like
>>politics why this standard should not be Asio.
>>Am I missing something?
>>
>>Axel
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>You describe my definition of latency correctly.
>>>>
>>>>Monitoring what is being recorded is - as far as Sonic Foundry
>>>>products go - a hardware problem.
>>>>
>>>>Why?
>>>>
>>>>For the exact reason you state - the time it takes to take the
>>>>recorded audio buffer and stream it back out. Can't be done in
>>>>realtime with software under Windows. Even ASIO does not
accomplish
>>>>this. (Read the Cubase manual.)
>>>>
>>>>The way ASIO accomplishes this is by supporting hardware
>>monitoring.
>>>>
>>>>Most hardware that supports hardware montitoring provide
interfaces
>>>>and tools to control this. We rely on the hardware vendor to do
the
>>>>right thing. When WDM arrives and vendors develope drivers, there
>>>>will be a standard for hardware control that all can use with out
>>>>relying on proprietary solutions.
>>>>
>>>>We are getting outstanding performance from wave drivers and our
>>>>technologies. Other technologies that are open standards will
make
>>up
>>>>for the short commings of the wave API in the future.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Axel Gutzler wrote:
>>>>>>It seems quite obvious that most of you guys refer to a
different
>>>>>>interpretation of "Latency". Most people seem to talk about the
>>>>delay
>>>>>>that is introduced when you monitor thru your computer while
>>>>>>overdubbing (realtime!). Peter Haller seems to refer to the
time
>>>>that
>>>>>>the system needs to react on slider moves etc. That's something
>>>>>>different... My Beta Version of Vegas Pro has expired so I
cannot
>>>>>>verify this: Does Vegas support monitoring the input signal
while
>>>>>>recording at all? Maybe this depends on the driver...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway - for realtime monitoring my experience is that with a
>>>>>>wavedriver on win9x the system needs a few hundred milliseconds
>>to
>>>>>>run a signal thru it until you can hear it again; and of course
>>at
>>>>>>this point Asio is a much faster driver model. A whole
roundtrip
>>>>thru
>>>>>>the system with the Motu 2408 can be done in about 20
>>Milliseconds
>>>>>>with default settings. But: 20 milliseconds are still too much
>>for
>>>>>>overdubbing.
>>>>>>So when you want to overdub to existing tracks I'd use the
signal
>>>>>>before it is sent to the computer to monitor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But still I am not sure to understand why there are no plans to
>>>>>>support Asio. As far as I know Asio was developed to have a
>>driver
>>>>>>model with very low latencies (for overdubbing purposes). And
>>this
>>>>>>really works. Try to use Cubase with the wavedriver and compare
>>it
>>>>to
>>>>>>the Asio driver and you know what I mean.
>>>>>>With Asio 2.0 you have even more: direct monitoring thru the
>>>>hardware
>>>>>>(almost not latencies, like the cuemix conole with the Motu
2408)
>>>>and
>>>>>>sample accurate positioning of the audio files in the
>>application.
>>>>>>Again - wouldn't it be good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Axel Gutzler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>I am not suggesting anything about the work ethics of driver
>>>>>>>>developers. I am merely telling you my experiance after
dealing
>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>all the major hardware and drivers available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>FWIW: We don't use DirectSound, we use the WAVE API strictly.
>>>>>>Again,
>>>>>>>>nothing about DirectSound that makes it superior to Wave.
Wave
>>>>>>>>drivers are what I was discussing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We get very good latencies - depending on how you are
applying
>>>>the
>>>>>>>>word latency - with standard Wave drivers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Many if not all of the problems we see with latency are due
to
>>>>>>driver
>>>>>>>>implementations and assumptions that the driver makes about
how
>>>>the
>>>>>>>>software will use the driver. There are always limitation
that
>>>>the
>>>>>>>>hardware can introduce latencies as well, but I have seen
>>little
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>make me believe that a properly implemented Wave driver is
>>going
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>make things worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The driver deals with the hardware at the same level
regardless
>>>>of
>>>>>>>>Wave or ASIO. It has to be. The MM layer is just a standard -
>>>>just
>>>>>>>>like ASIO. Yes, it is more cumbersome, has limitations, and
can
>>>>>>cause
>>>>>>>>things to be more difficult, but in all honesty, the
>>difficulties
>>>>>>>>from the app side are that we have to develope very "safe"
code
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>deal with the problems we find in many wave drivers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am not judging the realitive merits of ASIO, I just know
what
>>I
>>>>>>>>have seen. The WAVE API is fine for doing streaming media as
>>long
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>the drivers are correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The biggest limitation of Wave drivers under 9X is that it
all
>>>>>>>>funnels down to 16 bit land. This can be time consuming, but
>>not
>>>>a
>>>>>>>>killer if the drivers do the right thing and don't make bad
>>>>>>>>assumptions on how the application will move data back and
>>forth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have seen nothing to indicate that all the blame belongs to
>>>>>>Win9X.
>>>>>>>>Everytime we discover a driver that has some buffering
problem,
>>>>and
>>>>>>>>it is repaired/corrected by the vendor, the problem goes away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is my experiance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tim Golden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm
>>>>oversimplifying
>>>>>>>>>>things here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It is my understanding that most of the latency problems
are
>>>>not
>>>>>>>>due
>>>>>>>>>>99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in the
>>>>>>latency
>>>>>>>>>>inherent in the Windows 9x multimedia subsystem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I believe the reason the ASIO drivers have lower latency is
>>>>that
>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>>>bypass Microsoft's multimedia hadrware abstraction and deal
>>>>>>(more)
>>>>>>>>>>directly with the audio hardware.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Are you suggesting that ASIO is somehow an easier driver
>>>>standard
>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>write to so lazy developers spend all there time on it then
>>>>write
>>>>>>>>>>crap code for DirectX drivers five minutes before their
>>product
>>>>>>>>>

Peter,

thanks for the info. It's interesting to look behind the curtain...

Axel

Peter Haller wrote:
>>WDM - Windows Driver Model. This is a Microsoft defined standard
for
>>Win98 and Win2000 device drivers. Has been around for a while. One
of
>>the goals of WDM is a single driver model for both NT and 98.
>>
>>Politics? I doubt it. ASIO is proprietary, WDM while owned by MS,
is
>>and open standard based on the OS. Cakewalk modeled its AudioX
>>interfaces around WDM for future compatability with WDM.
>>
>>WDM is very powerful and extensible by anybody while ASIO is the
>>property of a company that is a competitor of other vendors in the
>>industry. ASIO is fast because it is all 32 bit and does not have
the
>>overhead of the 16 bit MME in Win9x. WDM is also 32 bit, so the
>>problem goes away. Also, one WDM driver supports all the variants
>>under Windows - Wave, DirectSound, etc. No need for proprietary
stuff.
>>
>>I am not saying that this is happening or would happen, but we
cannot
>>be dependent on one of our competitors for core technology.
>>
>>If ASIO were truely and open standard, then why is there an NDA and
>>technology licensing aggreements required?
>>
>>Just makes sense to stick with the open standards that allow us to
>>provide input on future development and enhancements.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Axel Gutzler wrote:
>>>>Peter,
>>>>
>>>>excuse me - what is WDM? Is it a new driver model? Sounds like a
>>>>standard a lot of people are waiting for... and sounds a little
>>like
>>>>politics why this standard should not be Asio.
>>>>Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>>Axel
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>You describe my definition of latency correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Monitoring what is being recorded is - as far as Sonic Foundry
>>>>>>products go - a hardware problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For the exact reason you state - the time it takes to take the
>>>>>>recorded audio buffer and stream it back out. Can't be done in
>>>>>>realtime with software under Windows. Even ASIO does not
>>accomplish
>>>>>>this. (Read the Cubase manual.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The way ASIO accomplishes this is by supporting hardware
>>>>monitoring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most hardware that supports hardware montitoring provide
>>interfaces
>>>>>>and tools to control this. We rely on the hardware vendor to do
>>the
>>>>>>right thing. When WDM arrives and vendors develope drivers,
there
>>>>>>will be a standard for hardware control that all can use with
out
>>>>>>relying on proprietary solutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We are getting outstanding performance from wave drivers and
our
>>>>>>technologies. Other technologies that are open standards will
>>make
>>>>up
>>>>>>for the short commings of the wave API in the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Axel Gutzler wrote:
>>>>>>>>It seems quite obvious that most of you guys refer to a
>>different
>>>>>>>>interpretation of "Latency". Most people seem to talk about
the
>>>>>>delay
>>>>>>>>that is introduced when you monitor thru your computer while
>>>>>>>>overdubbing (realtime!). Peter Haller seems to refer to the
>>time
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>the system needs to react on slider moves etc. That's
something
>>>>>>>>different... My Beta Version of Vegas Pro has expired so I
>>cannot
>>>>>>>>verify this: Does Vegas support monitoring the input signal
>>while
>>>>>>>>recording at all? Maybe this depends on the driver...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyway - for realtime monitoring my experience is that with a
>>>>>>>>wavedriver on win9x the system needs a few hundred
milliseconds
>>>>to
>>>>>>>>run a signal thru it until you can hear it again; and of
course
>>>>at
>>>>>>>>this point Asio is a much faster driver model. A whole
>>roundtrip
>>>>>>thru
>>>>>>>>the system with the Motu 2408 can be done in about 20
>>>>Milliseconds
>>>>>>>>with default settings. But: 20 milliseconds are still too
much
>>>>for
>>>>>>>>overdubbing.
>>>>>>>>So when you want to overdub to existing tracks I'd use the
>>signal
>>>>>>>>before it is sent to the computer to monitor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But still I am not sure to understand why there are no plans
to
>>>>>>>>support Asio. As far as I know Asio was developed to have a
>>>>driver
>>>>>>>>model with very low latencies (for overdubbing purposes). And
>>>>this
>>>>>>>>really works. Try to use Cubase with the wavedriver and
compare
>>>>it
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>the Asio driver and you know what I mean.
>>>>>>>>With Asio 2.0 you have even more: direct monitoring thru the
>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>(almost not latencies, like the cuemix conole with the Motu
>>2408)
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>sample accurate positioning of the audio files in the
>>>>application.
>>>>>>>>Again - wouldn't it be good?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Axel Gutzler
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I am not suggesting anything about the work ethics of
driver
>>>>>>>>>>developers. I am merely telling you my experiance after
>>dealing
>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>>>all the major hardware and drivers available.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>FWIW: We don't use DirectSound, we use the WAVE API
strictly.
>>>>>>>>Again,
>>>>>>>>>>nothing about DirectSound that makes it superior to Wave.
>>Wave
>>>>>>>>>>drivers are what I was discussing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We get very good latencies - depending on how you are
>>applying
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>word latency - with standard Wave drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Many if not all of the problems we see with latency are due
>>to
>>>>>>>>driver
>>>>>>>>>>implementations and assumptions that the driver makes about
>>how
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>software will use the driver. There are always limitation
>>that
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>hardware can introduce latencies as well, but I have seen
>>>>little
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>make me believe that a properly implemented Wave driver is
>>>>going
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>make things worse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The driver deals with the hardware at the same level
>>regardless
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>Wave or ASIO. It has to be. The MM layer is just a
standard -
>>>>>>just
>>>>>>>>>>like ASIO. Yes, it is more cumbersome, has limitations, and
>>can
>>>>>>>>cause
>>>>>>>>>>things to be more difficult, but in all honesty, the
>>>>difficulties
>>>>>>>>>>from the app side are that we have to develope very "safe"
>>code
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>deal with the problems we find in many wave drivers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am not judging the realitive merits of ASIO, I just know
>>what
>>>>I
>>>>>>>>>>have seen. The WAVE API is fine for doing streaming media
as
>>>>long
>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>the drivers are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The biggest limitation of Wave drivers under 9X is that it
>>all
>>>>>>>>>>funnels down to 16 bit land. This can be time consuming,
but
>>>>not
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>killer if the drivers do the right thing and don't make bad
>>>>>>>>>>assumptions on how the application will move data back and
>>>>forth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I have seen nothing to indicate that all the blame belongs
to
>>>>>>>>Win9X.
>>>>>>>>>>Everytime we discover a driver that has some buffering
>>problem,
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>it is repaired/corrected by the vendor, the problem goes
away.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is my experiance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tim Golden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not a programmer, so please excuse me if I'm
>>>>>>oversimplifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>things here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It is my understanding that most of the latency problems
>>are
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>due
>>>>>>>>>>>>99% to poorly written drivers but are instead based in
the
>>>>>>>

Where is this sync start feature? I have looked everywhere and can't
find it.

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Your setup sounds typical.
>>
>>We didn't do anything fancy with the MOTU. Recorded Multiple tracks
>>both Mono and Stereo from the Analog and ADAT inputs. Did this both
>>with playback and with out. Mixed and matched analog and ADAT
inputs
>>on record and playback.
>>
>>If sync start is turned off, then this would explain why the
recorded
>>tracks are out of sync. The reason Cubase does not exhibit this
>>behavior is that ASIO uses sync start between record and playback.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>I have to check on the sync start (never looked for it because it
>>>>worked since day one with cubase).
>>>>
>>>>As far as monitoring goes, i have a 16 channel Allen & Heath
mixer,
>>>>and 2 of the MOTU 2408 channels are routing the outputs of vegas
to
>>>>my mixer, and that is what i am playing along with (the mix on
>>vegas
>>>>(stereo) and my live playing in my mixer. Everything sounds fine
>>>>when i am recording, but is very late when i play it back.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't messed around with the cue mix on the MOTU 2408,
because
>>>>the way i am monitoring shouldn't require me to do so.
>>>>
>>>>Everything sound correct so far? How did you guys use the MOTU
>>2408
>>>>when you tested it?
>>>>
>>>>Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>Yes, we tested with the 2408. No problems as you describe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you have sync start enabled for the MOTU 2408 drivers? With
>>out
>>>>>>this, you will never achieve sync between what you play and
what
>>>>you
>>>>>>record using the 2408.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I guess what I would need to know is how you have things set up
>>and
>>>>>>how are you monitoring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegas does not support software monitoring of input - for
reasons
>>>>>>that I have discussed else where in this forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>>>>>I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the
MOTU
>>>>>>2408,
>>>>>>>>and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync
>>with
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a powerful
>>>>>>system,
>>>>>>>>and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had this
>>>>>>>>problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an
>>bigtime
>>>>>>>>audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has ever
>>>>tried
>>>>>>>>it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems so
it
>>>>>>could
>>>>>>>>be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by
these
>>>>>>>>products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help
>>>>>>themselves
>>>>>>>>and us out by contacting them about this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>techsupport@motu.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

I am still confused what "sync start" is...now i'm assuming it is in
Vegas and not in my MOTU setup panel. The only thing i see close to
this is in the audio/advanced tab...the

interpolate position
and
do not preroll before starting playback...

what should i do to "enable" this sync start?


Peter Haller wrote:
>>Yes, we tested with the 2408. No problems as you describe.
>>
>>Do you have sync start enabled for the MOTU 2408 drivers? With out
>>this, you will never achieve sync between what you play and what
you
>>record using the 2408.
>>
>>I guess what I would need to know is how you have things set up and
>>how are you monitoring.
>>
>>Vegas does not support software monitoring of input - for reasons
>>that I have discussed else where in this forum.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the MOTU
>>2408,
>>>>and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync with
>>the
>>>>orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a powerful
>>system,
>>>>and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.
>>>>
>>>>I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had this
>>>>problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an bigtime
>>>>audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has ever
tried
>>>>it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).
>>>>
>>>>This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems so it
>>could
>>>>be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by these
>>>>products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help
>>themselves
>>>>and us out by contacting them about this.
>>>>
>>>>techsupport@motu.com
>>>>
>>>>

- Open Control Panel
- Double Click Multimedia
- Select the Devices tab
- Locate the Audio group, expand to locate the MOTU hardware
- Select the MOTU item and double click
- Click the 'Settings' button

Peter


Chris Milne wrote:
>>Where is this sync start feature? I have looked everywhere and
can't
>>find it.
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>Your setup sounds typical.
>>>>
>>>>We didn't do anything fancy with the MOTU. Recorded Multiple
tracks
>>>>both Mono and Stereo from the Analog and ADAT inputs. Did this
both
>>>>with playback and with out. Mixed and matched analog and ADAT
>>inputs
>>>>on record and playback.
>>>>
>>>>If sync start is turned off, then this would explain why the
>>recorded
>>>>tracks are out of sync. The reason Cubase does not exhibit this
>>>>behavior is that ASIO uses sync start between record and playback.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>>>I have to check on the sync start (never looked for it because
it
>>>>>>worked since day one with cubase).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As far as monitoring goes, i have a 16 channel Allen & Heath
>>mixer,
>>>>>>and 2 of the MOTU 2408 channels are routing the outputs of
vegas
>>to
>>>>>>my mixer, and that is what i am playing along with (the mix on
>>>>vegas
>>>>>>(stereo) and my live playing in my mixer. Everything sounds
fine
>>>>>>when i am recording, but is very late when i play it back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I haven't messed around with the cue mix on the MOTU 2408,
>>because
>>>>>>the way i am monitoring shouldn't require me to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Everything sound correct so far? How did you guys use the MOTU
>>>>2408
>>>>>>when you tested it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>Yes, we tested with the 2408. No problems as you describe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do you have sync start enabled for the MOTU 2408 drivers?
With
>>>>out
>>>>>>>>this, you will never achieve sync between what you play and
>>what
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>record using the 2408.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I guess what I would need to know is how you have things set
up
>>>>and
>>>>>>>>how are you monitoring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Vegas does not support software monitoring of input - for
>>reasons
>>>>>>>>that I have discussed else where in this forum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Chris Milne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>I posted the exact message a few days ago, i am using the
>>MOTU
>>>>>>>>2408,
>>>>>>>>>>and i can't do one overdub without it being way out of sync
>>>>with
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>orignal track. No effects, nothing else open...on a
powerful
>>>>>>>>system,
>>>>>>>>>>and i can't record 2 tracks that are in time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I have strictly been a cubase user and i have never had
this
>>>>>>>>>>problem,so i don't know if it is MOTU or SF. MOTU is an
>>>>bigtime
>>>>>>>>>>audio interface company, are you saying no one at SF has
ever
>>>>>>tried
>>>>>>>>>>it with Vegas (either the 2408 or 1224).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is rediculous, however MOTU has many driver problems
so
>>it
>>>>>>>>could
>>>>>>>>>>be on their side. Either way both companies will lose by
>>these
>>>>>>>>>>products not being compatible, so i would suggest SF help
>>>>>>>>themselves
>>>>>>>>>>and us out by contacting them about this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>techsupport@motu.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>