How To Change Buffer Size Us 1641

04-eighteen-2014, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoW View Post

I tin can avoid latency by monitoring straight from the Tascam but I'd adopt to monitor through Reaper. There's some latency when doing this while monitoring through the Tascam headphone Jack. No surprise. I experimented with running a pair of line-outs from the Tascam into a small headphone amp, monitoring through Reaper. This way there seems to exist no noticeable latency. Does this brand sense? I'm bold this routing results in something very much like Straight Monitoring while allowing me to monitor through Reaper. Thanks.

Hi fellow 1641 user.
I just went through a long process - some information there might exist of interest to you.

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=136610
It is a long read, however, my terminal solution is about the finish of the thread.

Monitoring through reaper, even with 128 buffers was not usable for me, using the line outs.
I discovered after using centrace loopback test, measuring latency round trip from input to output, my latency was 43ms. That number did not include latency inside reaper. That was an unusable corporeality of filibuster for my drummer. Your results may be unlike.

Yous have non stated which bone... I have successfully used asio4all, on winxp, to combine devices. I suggest you try using your onboard sound device for merely output.

Restated - use the asio4all driver. Select 1641 as input and output, fix buffers to everyman usable latency (no surprise in that location). Once that is working, add your onboard audio device, or another old interface yous have laying about, past enabling OUTPUT simply. Not sure if this is critical, but gear up buffers the same for both devices. Confirm yous can actually hear output from the second device by calculation that output to your master or carve up headphone cue track.

You may find that monitoring thru reaper to the 2d device output only your monitoring latency volition exist acceptable.

04-18-2014, xi:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flipotto View Post

Hullo beau 1641 user.
I just went through a long process - some information in that location might exist of interest to you.

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=136610
Information technology is a long read, all the same, my concluding solution is virtually the end of the thread.

Monitoring through reaper, even with 128 buffers was non usable for me, using the line outs.
I discovered after using centrace loopback test, measuring latency round trip from input to output, my latency was 43ms. That number did non include latency inside reaper. That was an unusable amount of filibuster for my drummer. Your results may be different.

You have non stated which os... I have successfully used asio4all, on winxp, to combine devices. I advise you try using your onboard sound device for but output.

Restated - use the asio4all driver. Select 1641 every bit input and output, ready buffers to lowest usable latency (no surprise there). In one case that is working, add your onboard sound device, or some other old interface y'all have laying about, past enabling OUTPUT only. Not sure if this is critical, but set buffers the same for both devices. Ostend you can really hear output from the second device by adding that output to your primary or separate headphone cue track.

You may detect that monitoring thru reaper to the second device output only your monitoring latency will be acceptable.

Cheers. I read through your thread before posting. Helpful but a good bargain of it was over my head. My setup and recording process is very basic... Windows 7, Tascam 1641, rarely more than three tracks, usually just guitar and vocal. I run a RNP Preamp from FMR Sound into the Tascam line inputs, bypassing it'southward preamps entirely and using the unit as picayune more than an interface. As I mentioned when tracking and monitoring through Reaper and the Tascam headphone output the latency is quite noticeable, simply when using the Tascam line outputs to a headphone amp information technology seems fine. I'm guessing that this is because I'grand hearing the input directly from the Tascam. Thanks again.

04-19-2014, 09:33 PM

I take a like setup...Win7 and US-1641. I've used the Tascam driver and the ASIO4ALL driver. The latter worked a flake meliorate, just the manufacturers commuter did acceptable.

Check a few things.
Plug in your headphones the the front panel jack and play some prerecorded audio. Turn the headphone "mix" knob from one side to the other. One way gives you lot nothing. That spot monitors directly from the preamps. You want information technology ALL the style to the other side when monitoring THROUGH Reaper.

When Reaper is open become to the upper right corner where your audio properties are located. Double click and yous should get the screen that tells your audio settings. You tin can click y'all ASIO driver setup button and the Tascam driver control thingy should pop upward. Slide the lower bar to the LEFT for fewer samples/less latency. The eye is "normal" and it works pretty good on my organisation for anything that's not as well fast and rhythmic.

Make sure that any FX are bypassed so you tin dominion out that as a source of latency.

I'g working on a different setup to eliminate latency as I mentioned in the linked thread that you've read. I'm mostly doing it for speedy cue mixes and to integrate with live sound mixers. Monitoring through Reaper works well enough for small projects and overdubs. I fix my "record monitoring" to "auto" most of the time. When a runway is "armed" I just utilize Reapers mixer to adjust the book of the tracks I'm playing along with what I'm recording. This usually ends upwardly with the recorded tracks slider being mode down, like -25db, and the rail I'm currently recording be way upwardly near 0db.

04-19-2014, 10:14 PM

recently got a tascam u.s.a.-1641 and dear it so far.
oasis't done a lot of recording only i have no noticable latency.
I'm sure there is some --- but how canni find out what the bodily latency reading is?

my system is a dell laptop; Intel Cadre i3-2350M cpu @ 2.30GHz; 6GB RAM; Windows 7 64-chip.
although, i take Reaper 32-bit because i read some issues some folks werenhaving with some.older 32-fleck plugins and since i use some i figured it would save me some headaches. so far, it has.

even so...i would like to know how to find the latency reading.

thanks...

rotm

04-xx-2014, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightonthemark View Post

recently got a tascam u.s.-1641 and love it and then far.
haven't done a lot of recording but i have no noticable latency.
I'm sure at that place is some --- just how canni find out what the actual latency reading is?

my system is a dell laptop; Intel Core i3-2350M cpu @ ii.30GHz; 6GB RAM; Windows 7 64-bit.
although, i have Reaper 32-bit considering i read some issues some folks werenhaving with some.older 32-chip plugins and since i use some i figured information technology would save me some headaches. so far, it has.

still...i would like to know how to notice the latency reading.

thanks...

rotm

Link is in this thread
http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.p...low-cal=centrace

04-20-2014, 02:00 PM

Reaper does not have hardware monitoring.

It is a feature from Protools,Cubase,Nuendo,Wavelab, Studio One, Pyramix yada yada..

It allows you to see use the tracks to monitor the hardware inputs, but without going all the mode inside Reaper.

Information technology is called ASIO Directly MONITORING

I use this feature heavily in Studio One 2.6, it was added as too many pro's have large interfaces and desire to see their signals without using the separate app to do it.

The interface must support information technology also of grade ( which multi input firewire interfaces all back up)

This is a killer feature to have .

It was requested years ago for Reaper, I guess information technology vicious on decease ears....

It should of been default selection since Reaper 1.0

04-20-2014, 05:03 PM

thanks.
only i'k skeptical of the results.
tascam u.s.-1641 = nineteen.78ms
tascam u.s.-600 = 17.82ms
roland ua-1g = 19.73ms
both tascams are usb2.0 while the roland is usb powered and usb1.1
plus the tascams i had to go from normal latency to depression latency to become these results --- much higher at normal latency. peradventure xxx or 31ms.
i don't recall the samples --- i'd accept to plug back in.
just all the same, i recently recorded a ring with the us-600 with bass & guitar direct using amplitube & the normal latency setting without any issues. no ane in the band complained of a delayed or echoed signal.
something tells me 19ms of latency would be enough to get some complaints from the ring; & especially 30ms.
is in that location another way for me to check against this system?
http://www.centrance.com/downloads/ltu/

thank you...

rotm

04-21-2014, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted past rightonthemark View Post

thanks.
but i'one thousand skeptical of the results.
tascam the states-1641 = 19.78ms
tascam us-600 = 17.82ms
roland ua-1g = 19.73ms
both tascams are usb2.0 while the roland is usb powered and usb1.1
plus the tascams i had to go from normal latency to low latency to get these results --- much college at normal latency. maybe 30 or 31ms.
i don't recollect the samples --- i'd have to plug dorsum in.
merely nonetheless, i recently recorded a ring with the united states of america-600 with bass & guitar direct using amplitube & the normal latency setting without any problems. no one in the band complained of a delayed or echoed point.
something tells me 19ms of latency would exist plenty to go some complaints from the band; & especially 30ms.
is at that place another way for me to check against this system?
http://www.centrance.com/downloads/ltu/

thank you...

rotm

When y'all recorded them did y'all requite them directly from input to monitor equally you lot recorded?

The other thing I tried, equally an experiment to proceeds an sensation of this filibuster, was to apply a metronome app on my telephone. I put a mic up to the telephone (about 3 feet away from my left hear), set the volume high plenty to hear it through the air, gear up up track in reaper rec enabled, monitoring on, and so I just listened. I did not play or record in reaper. On my interface (1641/1800) I set the "mix" knob all the fashion to figurer. So I panned that track hard right and slid the left earphone off my ear. The delay between my left ear hearing the metronome app on the prison cell phone and hearing it on the correct ear with headphone coming out through reaper was apparent.
I know that test seems a bit simplistic and does not effect in measurable data, still, the metronome audio most apps have is a sharp attack/abrupt decay/percussive sound. This sound was perfect to reveal what had been apparent to my drummer.

Peradventure in that location were no complaints because they are used to dealing with latency, peculiarly when using amp simulators. No complaints doesn't hateful the latency was not perceived.
Every bit stated in other thread, my solution is to monitor output to a different interface, using asio4all to brand a blended interface.

04-21-2014, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted past flipotto View Post

When you lot recorded them did you requite them straight from input to monitor every bit you recorded?

The other matter I tried, equally an experiment to gain an awareness of this filibuster, was to use a metronome app on my telephone. I put a mic up to the phone (about 3 feet away from my left hear), fix the book high enough to hear it through the air, prepare rails in reaper rec enabled, monitoring on, then I only listened. I did non play or record in reaper. On my interface (1641/1800) I set the "mix" knob all the style to computer. So I panned that track hard right and slid the left earphone off my ear. The filibuster between my left ear hearing the metronome app on the cell phone and hearing it on the right ear with headphone coming out through reaper was apparent.
I know that test seems a bit simplistic and does not event in measurable data, however, the metronome audio most apps have is a precipitous attack/abrupt decay/percussive sound. This sound was perfect to reveal what had been apparent to my drummer.

Perhaps there were no complaints because they are used to dealing with latency, particularly when using amp simulators. No complaints doesn't mean the latency was non perceived.
As stated in other thread, my solution is to monitor output to a unlike interface, using asio4all to make a composite interface.

i came off the headphone jack into a headphone amp so they all could have phones on with a simple mix.
monitored thru reaper so the guitarist could hear the wet amp sim sound.
the band not used to this type of affair --- they are a local live act that had not done directly recording earlier. merely a few mics in their jam room.
me pseronally, I've non had any latency issues either when doing my own recording (guitar, bass and vocals --- individually). hhhmmm...i guess as long equally information technology works i won't business organization myself with the actual latency.

04-18-2014, xi:01 AM	#3
Human being with feelings Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: New Jersey Posts: 32	Quote: Originally Posted by flipotto Hullo beau 1641 user. I just went through a long process - some information in that location might exist of interest to you. http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=136610 Information technology is a long read, all the same, my concluding solution is virtually the end of the thread. Monitoring through reaper, even with 128 buffers was non usable for me, using the line outs. I discovered after using centrace loopback test, measuring latency round trip from input to output, my latency was 43ms. That number did non include latency inside reaper. That was an unusable amount of filibuster for my drummer. Your results may be different. You have non stated which os... I have successfully used asio4all, on winxp, to combine devices. I advise you try using your onboard sound device for but output. Restated - use the asio4all driver. Select 1641 every bit input and output, ready buffers to lowest usable latency (no surprise there). In one case that is working, add your onboard sound device, or some other old interface y'all have laying about, past enabling OUTPUT only. Not sure if this is critical, but set buffers the same for both devices. Ostend you can really hear output from the second device by adding that output to your primary or separate headphone cue track. You may detect that monitoring thru reaper to the second device output only your monitoring latency will be acceptable. Cheers. I read through your thread before posting. Helpful but a good bargain of it was over my head. My setup and recording process is very basic... Windows 7, Tascam 1641, rarely more than three tracks, usually just guitar and vocal. I run a RNP Preamp from FMR Sound into the Tascam line inputs, bypassing it'southward preamps entirely and using the unit as picayune more than an interface. As I mentioned when tracking and monitoring through Reaper and the Tascam headphone output the latency is quite noticeable, simply when using the Tascam line outputs to a headphone amp information technology seems fine. I'm guessing that this is because I'grand hearing the input directly from the Tascam. Thanks again.

04-21-2014, 01:35 PM	#11
Human being with feelings Bring together Appointment: Jun 2013 Posts: 319	Quote: Originally Posted past flipotto When you lot recorded them did you requite them straight from input to monitor every bit you recorded? The other matter I tried, equally an experiment to gain an awareness of this filibuster, was to use a metronome app on my telephone. I put a mic up to the phone (about 3 feet away from my left hear), fix the book high enough to hear it through the air, prepare rails in reaper rec enabled, monitoring on, then I only listened. I did non play or record in reaper. On my interface (1641/1800) I set the "mix" knob all the style to computer. So I panned that track hard right and slid the left earphone off my ear. The filibuster between my left ear hearing the metronome app on the cell phone and hearing it on the right ear with headphone coming out through reaper was apparent. I know that test seems a bit simplistic and does not event in measurable data, however, the metronome audio most apps have is a precipitous attack/abrupt decay/percussive sound. This sound was perfect to reveal what had been apparent to my drummer. Perhaps there were no complaints because they are used to dealing with latency, particularly when using amp simulators. No complaints doesn't mean the latency was non perceived. As stated in other thread, my solution is to monitor output to a unlike interface, using asio4all to make a composite interface. i came off the headphone jack into a headphone amp so they all could have phones on with a simple mix. monitored thru reaper so the guitarist could hear the wet amp sim sound. the band not used to this type of affair --- they are a local live act that had not done directly recording earlier. merely a few mics in their jam room. me pseronally, I've non had any latency issues either when doing my own recording (guitar, bass and vocals --- individually). hhhmmm...i guess as long equally information technology works i won't business organization myself with the actual latency.

How To Change Buffer Size Us 1641

0 Response to "How To Change Buffer Size Us 1641"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel

04-19-2014, 10:14 PM	#v
Homo being with feelings Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 319	recently got a tascam u.s.a.-1641 and dear it so far. oasis't done a lot of recording only i have no noticable latency. I'm sure there is some --- but how canni find out what the bodily latency reading is? my system is a dell laptop; Intel Cadre i3-2350M cpu @ 2.30GHz; 6GB RAM; Windows 7 64-chip. although, i take Reaper 32-bit because i read some issues some folks werenhaving with some.older 32-fleck plugins and since i use some i figured it would save me some headaches. so far, it has. even so...i would like to know how to find the latency reading. thanks... rotm

04-20-2014, 02:00 PM	#vii
Human being being with feelings Bring together Engagement: Mar 2014 Posts: 232	Reaper does not have hardware monitoring. It is a feature from Protools,Cubase,Nuendo,Wavelab, Studio One, Pyramix yada yada.. It allows you to see use the tracks to monitor the hardware inputs, but without going all the mode inside Reaper. Information technology is called ASIO Directly MONITORING I use this feature heavily in Studio One 2.6, it was added as too many pro's have large interfaces and desire to see their signals without using the separate app to do it. The interface must support information technology also of grade ( which multi input firewire interfaces all back up) This is a killer feature to have . It was requested years ago for Reaper, I guess information technology vicious on decease ears.... It should of been default selection since Reaper 1.0

04-20-2014, 05:03 PM	#9
Homo existence with feelings Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 319	thanks. only i'k skeptical of the results. tascam u.s.-1641 = nineteen.78ms tascam u.s.-600 = 17.82ms roland ua-1g = 19.73ms both tascams are usb2.0 while the roland is usb powered and usb1.1 plus the tascams i had to go from normal latency to depression latency to become these results --- much higher at normal latency. peradventure xxx or 31ms. i don't recall the samples --- i'd accept to plug back in. just all the same, i recently recorded a ring with the us-600 with bass & guitar direct using amplitube & the normal latency setting without any issues. no ane in the band complained of a delayed or echoed signal. something tells me 19ms of latency would be enough to get some complaints from the ring; & especially 30ms. is in that location another way for me to check against this system? http://www.centrance.com/downloads/ltu/ thank you... rotm