Amplitube 2 Jimi Hendrix RELEASED this month!!!

[Watto]

Nicely done, Fritz! And this is all advertising for A2 anyway...

[zeoy]

... 5ms is 1/20th of a second. That means you need 20 of them to make a second. Nobody's reflexes and response time are THAT good.

Greg

5ms=5*10^(-3)sec=0.005 sec=1/200 sec i.e even smaller (10 times) than you said.

My experience: playing with my 2496 setup to 128 samples@44100 rate the latency is unnoticable to my ears. @256 samples same rate is still unnoticable but it feels more tight @128. BTW 128@44100 must be equal to 2.9 ms and 256@44100 equals 5.8ms. These figures must be doubled I suppose to represent total (in+out) latency

[fritzman]

Nicely veiled...

I just wento to Fritz's website. This dude means business...LOL. He is even chewing on his own guitar!

I downloaded some of the music, but i couldn't understand a word. I was laughing though because for me it sounds like a comedic sound due to the (german?) accent. Fritz, you have a nice vocals though when you really sing, not when you "rap". Nice heavy guitars riffs.

Hi A3ntar,

thanks for checking my music. Well, actually you got something right when you laughed about that accent. The accent actually is a parody on a guy who was barking loud in Germany about 70 years ago (That small megalomanic stoopit guy with the ugly moustache who f**ked up our history so badly).
Thanx for your compliments. If you would want to know what I'm singing (and barking ) about you could check out the "Texte" page which are the lyrics.


Best wishes, FRitz

[fritzman]

Nicely done, Fritz! And this is all advertising for A2 anyway...

Yes, no problem with that.

[Lunch Money]

zeoy: d'oh, of course! I should've known all that. <chuckle>

In any case, numbers are numbers and I wish people would just listen for themselves... take 2 identical tracks (guitar, anyone? ) and space them 5... 10... even 20 ms apart and see if you can perceive them as having any sort of slapback-like "delay". Sure, there will be some changes to the sonic character of the 'track' (trackS really, but it'll sound like one) when you do this, but this test is just an imitation and won't be what you actually hear when you record in realtime since the 'original' undelayed sound is just your guitar strings 'acoustically' jangling! This test makes things seem even WORSE than they really are, and it's still not noticeable.

Greg

[fritzman]

zeoy: d'oh, of course! I should've known all that. <chuckle>

In any case, numbers are numbers and I wish people would just listen for themselves... take 2 identical tracks (guitar, anyone? ) and space them 5... 10... even 20 ms apart and see if you can perceive them as having a "delay". Sure, there will be some changes to the sonic character when you do this (which is just an imitation and won't be what you actually hear when you track anyhow), but there won't be any noticeable changes to the timing.

Greg

Hey Greg,

the real deal is not the delay. What's really important is the feel you get from the delay when grooving with the music. Can you groove comfortably with the backings when you have a "higher" latency? For me it get's worse with inceased latency.


Best wishes, FRitz

[Sascha Franck]

Sorry Greg, misread something it seems.

Anyways, as far as my current experience with USB audio goes, 3ms (= 6ms in total) is possibly the lowest I've seen so far.
This is from an M-Audio Audiophile USB, so it's coming from quite an experienced company, wellknown for their fast and rock solid drivers and fast converters.
Will the pedal/interface unit of AT2 deliver the same results?

Hopefully I can at least get my hands on the GR2 thingy in a few weeks, I doubt they'll have AT2 in the local shop though.

[Watto]

zeoy: d'oh, of course! I should've known all that. <chuckle>

In any case, numbers are numbers and I wish people would just listen for themselves... take 2 identical tracks (guitar, anyone? ) and space them 5... 10... even 20 ms apart and see if you can perceive them as having any sort of slapback-like "delay". Sure, there will be some changes to the sonic character of the 'track' (trackS really, but it'll sound like one) when you do this, but this test is just an imitation and won't be what you actually hear when you record in realtime since the 'original' undelayed sound is just your guitar strings 'acoustically' jangling! This test makes things seem even WORSE than they really are, and it's still not noticeable.

Greg

Well, you could hear it in Sascha's example, right...?

[Sascha Franck]

Well, you could hear it in Sascha's example, right...?

I do however have to admit that my example was a bit extreme. Guitars usually don't have all that sharp impulses, also, I had the kick running underneath, so the snare flams were becoming quite obvious.
But then, as said above, most systems (especially mobile USB ones) would rather come along with higher latencies, plus, I hadn't taken any converter or software latencies into account either - so the final figures may as well result in twice the amount of latency on quite some mobile systems. Which will become quite noticeable for most players dealing a lot with rhythm stuff.

In a tracking situation things are even getting worse because very often you may track guitars with headphones. In such a scenario you expect a fast as light response (mic being like a few cm away from the speaker, so that's the only distance the sound has to travel through slow air).
And just like zeoy, I can pretty much "feel" the difference between 128 and 256 samples. It might not be enough to actually spoil the final result all too much, but hey, the feel while tracking is quite something, isn't it?

For those being interested in more scientific tests about total system latency, route some sharp attacking audio signal out of your DAW, reroute it into the input, add whatever your favourite realtime plugin might be and record in a way the signal is printed directly to the incoming signal (some hosts, such as Cubase, allow for this, others, such as Logic/PC, don't, it's important though as otherwise the plugin latency will be compensated for on playback).
Then compare the resulting file to the original.
This will tell you about your overall latency, including what is introduced by drivers (I/O), converters (I/O) and software.
I'm sure you'll be astonished about the final figures... at least I was, when doing a similar test on some M-Audio FW 410. Seems they have really slow A/D converters (I could even feel the latency on a Mac running at 32 samples buffersize, so it must've been something else), weird thing, especially considering that their Audiophile converters are really fast.

[fritzman]

For those being interested in more scientific tests about total system latency, route some sharp attacking audio signal out of your DAW, reroute it into the input, add whatever your favourite realtime plugin might be and record in a way the signal is printed directly to the incoming signal (some hosts, such as Cubase, allow for this, others, such as Logic/PC, don't, it's important though as otherwise the plugin latency will be compensated for on playback).
Then compare the resulting file to the original.
This will tell you about your overall latency, including what is introduced by drivers (I/O), converters (I/O) and software.
I'm sure you'll be astonished about the final figures... at least I was, when doing a similar test on some M-Audio FW 410. Seems they have really slow A/D converters (I could even feel the latency on a Mac running at 32 samples buffersize, so it must've been something else), weird thing, especially considering that their Audiophile converters are really fast.

Hi Sascha,

yes, will try that later. How much did you get with that Firewire thingy?


Best wishes, FRitz

[Sascha Franck]

I don't remember anymore, Fritz, it's been a while when a friend purchased one to use it with his Powerbook. But the latency was clearly noticeable when playing guitar through it.

[fritzman]

Thanx Sascha!

[Beardedone]

Beardedone wrote:
I hear you Dave. I do respect your experience and POV - from the production side of things the software option is miles ahaed. I am sure At2 really adds a huge pallete of sounds to the mix. Note though that I am still trying to find a really good hardware amp to play live that I can afford. 2. I am biased against the tones I heard with AT1. They were not compelling for me. At2 may turn me around but frankly I am terrified of the copy protect key. I know about 10 peopled whose systems were screwed by the Syncrosoft dongle.


Thanks. Sounds like you need a good amp to play live as your first priority. As I said, AT2 is a different animal and one that I would use for either production or getting a variety of sounds on stage (which is why I think the Stones were using it. This is what Will Alexander DID tell me was the reason because believe me I asked! They had tons of tweed Twinds and Vibro Kings, Ampegs etc. but AT is nice to have around for a customized sound when needed without lugging a lot of EXTRA gear ).

As for the key, I've been using it and it is not bad. I am already used to it because I use Cubase (and also my ProTools and Logic also have keys... at least the IK stuff fits onto the Cubase key though). At some point you'll probably try it out and see for yourself. It solves some other issues that make it worth it such as cleaning your hard drive or portability with multiple machines etc. The best part about it though is that it means there are more legit copies out there and it supports companies putting more into the product (feeling more confident on the return on investment). So, supporting protection (as much as we ALL don't like it) is actually supporting a certain level of progress in commercial software. If you choose to look at it from a that perspective.

In terms of sound, I think it may be up your alley knowing what you like. I know that I like it a lot and we have similar tastes. FWIW.

I am all for eliminating the proliferaton of illegitimate software and libraries (I work in the field as an Intellectual Property Scientist). Hell I won't let my kids use P2P and still buy CDs. Piracy makes me sick as know the margins in this business are very tight.

As I have ranted before, my concern regarding the ikey is the stability of my DAW system what with the limited time I have available to me when to work on my music projects. This is the reason I bought a Carillon PC three years back when the P4 2.4 GHz chips were quite new - the system was a ridiculously amount of money by today's standards but has been rock solid with all of my hosts - Sonar 4 PE, FL Studio 5, Live 5 and eXT. It is in fact a more reliable system than several of the G5 Mac/ProTools rigs that some of my richer buddies use . Add to that almost all of my Cubase user friends have dropped Steinberg because of major hassles with the key. There were some absolute horror stories with whole projects lost which were attributed to a problem with dongle. When I get a second PC up and running I may consider trying Miroslav or AT2 but it will be unlikely I will ever trust the iKey on any primary machine running a critical project. You may say I'm spooked and perhaps irrational given that so many high profile users use iKey on their systems. Well these dudes and ladies have engineers to deal with problems, I don't.

End of rant.

Time to plan some practice time.

Best,
Gordon

[Aural Chaos]

As said, 5ms is not 5ms. 5ms on your soundcard are (roughly) 10ms in total.
.

Depends on your host.Live reports latency in plus out,and if it says 5ms total,that is NOT 1/2 of the "real" latency.

[Lunch Money]

Well, you could hear it in Sascha's example, right...?

So what you're saying is that you didn't try for yourself.

You don't REALLY need me to post a sound file for something you can do more quickly and easily in your own host, do you?

Sascha-- yeah, internet can be a biatch, and often I ramble so much that my points get buried, anyhow, for which I am partially to blame.

Greg