What is KVR Audio? | Submit News | Advertise | Developer Account

Options (Affects News & Product results only):

OS:
Format:
Include:
Quick Search KVR

"Quick Search" KVR Audio's Product Database, News Items, Developer Listings, Forum Topics and videos here. For advanced Product Database searching please use the full product search. For the forum you can use the phpBB forum search.

To utilize the power of Google you can use the integrated Google Site Search.

Products 0

Developers 0

News 0

Forum 0

Videos 0

Search  

Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

Configure and optimize you computer for Audio.

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

User avatar
KVRist
 
277 posts since 16 Jul, 2007, from Baghdad-Iq
  

Postby phreaque; Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:12 pm Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

Hello folks,
Well I got myself a new interface UR824 and linked it to my daw but I can not make latency below 128 samples. Underruns pops occur immediately with any simple project running. Although my Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 is much powerful to handle that at lower latencies.
My setup:
Pc: i7 4770k overcloaked to 3.9 ghz
16gb rams (1800 speed)
Gigabyte mobo
FL Studio 11
:scared:
Phreaque Modi
KVRAF
 
5710 posts since 30 Dec, 2004, from London uk
 

Postby UltraJv; Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:40 pm Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

Maybe its a driver clash. Did you take off the old Focusrite drivers?
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8822 posts since 7 Dec, 2004, from Vancouver, Canada
 

Postby aciddose; Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:04 pm Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

128 at which rate?

At 96k, 128 gives you 1 + 1/3rd milliseconds.

For reference, the time it takes MIDI to transmit a note-on message:
MIDI packs bytes (8) in pairs of start/stop bits (2) and a note-on requires both the note-on command and a velocity value to be sent for a total of 20. MIDI transmits at 31250 baud, or 31250 bits per second.

20 / 31250 = 640uS.

So currently you're taking a little more than twice what it takes MIDI to actually transmit a message.

Now of course there are additional delays added by the key scanning circuit, not to mention the physical act of pressing the key and the noise present in the nervous system and the complicated feedback circuit used to smooth out and focus motion over time which make such small delays completely irrelevant when it comes to playing an instrument.

So why do you care?

Oh yeah, not to mention the fact that it takes several milliseconds for the sound to actually reach your ears from the speakers, reduced obviously if you are using ear-buds of course.

Speed of sound = 1116.437 foot per second

Say you have your monitors five feet away, which is pretty common.

5 / 1116.437 = 4.478533ms.

Or you can look at it this way, lets assume you use MIDI and monitors five feet from your head. This adds a delay of approximately 5ms.

Your audio card latency is currently 1.333ms, therefore it makes up 26 + 2/3rds percent of the total latency.

Uh, so apparently it is more important that you worry about the latency difference wearing headphones/earbuds vs. monitors and it seems you're completely wasting your time worrying about this.
KVRian
 
1163 posts since 25 Dec, 2003, from Kentucky y'all
 

Postby jcschild; Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:50 am Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

the UR series is a much better low latency unit than any focusrite.
move to a different USB port to start.
something is not right

Scott
ADK
KVRist
 
157 posts since 2 Oct, 2011, from Christchurch, New Zealand

Postby jdnz; Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:33 am Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

don't the focusrite drivers use 'hidden' double/triple buffering (so when you select 128 samples latency you're really getting a whole lot more)?

hence comparing based purely on buffer size doesn't achieve much - go see the dawbench database
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8822 posts since 7 Dec, 2004, from Vancouver, Canada
 

Postby aciddose; Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:30 pm Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

"Hidden" buffering? So you mean they lie.
User avatar
KVRist
 
277 posts since 16 Jul, 2007, from Baghdad-Iq
  

Postby phreaque; Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:37 pm Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

aciddose wrote:128 at which rate?

At 96k, 128 gives you 1 + 1/3rd milliseconds.

For reference, the time it takes MIDI to transmit a note-on message:
MIDI packs bytes (8) in pairs of start/stop bits (2) and a note-on requires both the note-on command and a velocity value to be sent for a total of 20. MIDI transmits at 31250 baud, or 31250 bits per second.

20 / 31250 = 640uS.

So currently you're taking a little more than twice what it takes MIDI to actually transmit a message.

Now of course there are additional delays added by the key scanning circuit, not to mention the physical act of pressing the key and the noise present in the nervous system and the complicated feedback circuit used to smooth out and focus motion over time which make such small delays completely irrelevant when it comes to playing an instrument.

So why do you care?

Oh yeah, not to mention the fact that it takes several milliseconds for the sound to actually reach your ears from the speakers, reduced obviously if you are using ear-buds of course.

Speed of sound = 1116.437 foot per second

Say you have your monitors five feet away, which is pretty common.

5 / 1116.437 = 4.478533ms.

Or you can look at it this way, lets assume you use MIDI and monitors five feet from your head. This adds a delay of approximately 5ms.

Your audio card latency is currently 1.333ms, therefore it makes up 26 + 2/3rds percent of the total latency.

Uh, so apparently it is more important that you worry about the latency difference wearing headphones/earbuds vs. monitors and it seems you're completely wasting your time worrying about this.


Hello mate :)
Yes forgot to mention:
Rate is: 44.1 KHz and running my samples at 16 bit..

I know about the compromise of comparing sound traveling speed when I try to convince people to take the affordable audio interface..
But I DO care for the money I spent to buy this interface!! Dude it is expensive! :ud:

The reason I decided to take such pricey interface is: When I deal with dense project, the latency roundup may reach to 100 ms, so I wanted to have a powerful engine to handle big data at faster rate so I can get lower roundup latency.

Using 64 samples now (1.5 ms) now is not giving good results at all.. while in past, my M-Audio Audiophile 2496 was handling such latency!! :dog:
Phreaque Modi
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8822 posts since 7 Dec, 2004, from Vancouver, Canada
 

Postby aciddose; Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:54 pm Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

Sure, still it's irrelevant.

If it is a simple matter of looking at process explorer and finding your network card is interfering with the audio, take out the network card, switch it for another one, whatever.

Even that is questionable, but that is a trade-off you need to decide to make yourself.

Other than that however it is ultimately going to be a waste of time. If the system already does 3ms without issue, that says it all. Without issue.
User avatar
KVRist
 
277 posts since 16 Jul, 2007, from Baghdad-Iq
  

Postby phreaque; Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:54 am Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

aciddose wrote:Sure, still it's irrelevant.

If it is a simple matter of looking at process explorer and finding your network card is interfering with the audio, take out the network card, switch it for another one, whatever.

Even that is questionable, but that is a trade-off you need to decide to make yourself.

Other than that however it is ultimately going to be a waste of time. If the system already does 3ms without issue, that says it all. Without issue.

Mate, imagine you spend a $800 for nothing, and then you find your previous $200-ish audio interface is almost better, what would you feel :cry:

Now I tried the below to solve the issue:
1. Changed the USB cable
2. Changed the USB port
3. Unplugged the attached USB devices (HDs, bluetooth, Wifi)
4. Did a deep Mobo bios configuration to give higher priority to USB ports.
5. Turned off wifi while opening FL Studio

After all that, nothing comes as good as expected. 512 samples is such high latency for an expensive audio interface folks!
Phreaque Modi
User avatar
KVRAF
 
8822 posts since 7 Dec, 2004, from Vancouver, Canada
 

Postby aciddose; Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:24 am Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

"whoops"

Anyway you can't say anything about the particular interface. The issue is with the complete system.

The interface itself handles low buffer sizes just fine given the right system configuration.

Far more important is what sort of noise for input/output it has, and how pure the i/o loop is. How many times can you process a signal in a loop while maintaining the noise below -90db?

(...based upon my experience with a few of these junk usb interfaces, zero.)
User avatar
KVRist
 
277 posts since 16 Jul, 2007, from Baghdad-Iq
  

Postby phreaque; Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:29 am Re: Steinberg UR824 unexpected performance

aciddose wrote:"whoops"

Anyway you can't say anything about the particular interface. The issue is with the complete system.

The interface itself handles low buffer sizes just fine given the right system configuration.

Don't say a word on my new PC which I carefully built :D I un-installed / re-installed the UR824 drivers and now it seems healthy, testing latency at 96 samples and it is good :party: need to push harder till I get 1.5 ms thnough :hyper:
Phreaque Modi

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to Computer Setup and System Configuration