Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding about the UAD card
Re the Dante PCIe card … I could use Dante Virtual sound card with a pc that has a gigabit Ethernet port however that would be much lower RTL than if that pc had the PCIe Dante card installed? Is that right but unworkably slow for an effect on a guitar or voice say?
Thank you for your comments and experience.
Andy
NZ
We currently run the Waves Tune Realtime in our system. It consists of an Avantis with a Dante I/O card, and a computer running DVS and Reaper as our plugin manager. We run it at 48k due to the number of tracks we record and some other equipment set up on the Dante network. We get a round trip latency of 12.9ms (not including any plugin latency). This is fine for this plugin and we don’t notice any echo or reverb effect when running it in a dry vocal mix. That being said, we also run console reverbs when the singers are singing, so even if there was a slight effect, it would be covered up anyway. But 13ms is pushing the limits and we don’t use any other plugins due to this.
Dylan is running his system at 96k (so his latency will be lower than mine just because of that), but he gets round trip speeds that are about 5.6ms with the Dante PCI card. This isn’t as fast as a Waves Soundgrid Server system (which advertises round trip time of less than 1ms), but it is fast enough to allow the use of most plugins without pushing the latency limits.
I’m really interested to do a comparison between Dante & Waves in terms of RTL.
Hoping I can get a hold of a SQ Waves card in Melbourne to test it out.
It would make sense that Waves would advertise under 1ms latency, when used with a Soundgrid server likely (locking you to Waves plugs only). The Waves system is obviously built for purpose.
Hey guys,
Do you have any advice regarding laptop specs for using VSTs in Live Professor without dedicated outboard processing such as UAD or waves soundgrid?
I have been experimenting with my SQ5 and LP2 and some waves VST plugins on a MacBook Pro. I am just taking the signal into my laptop via the analog hardware inputs and return on my RME Fireface UC which seems very stable at even very small buffers. (LP reports a lower overall latency for the same buffer settings when I use the RME usb connection than when I connect it to the SQ5’s i/o via usb (though I guess I might lose any gain of the RME drivers in the SQ5’s extra DA and AD conversions of sending and returning the signal?. IDK?))
That said, as I increase the number of plug ins active in my LP chains I need to increase buffer (and therefore latency) as dropouts start to appear. I totally realise this is to be expected - I think that it is my MacBook’s ability to process the signal through the plug ins that is becoming the bottleneck- as opposed to the USB i/o connection but I’m not sure about that? All I can see is that the LP performance meter seems to be showing that the buffer is not keeping up for some reason. My MacBook is a 2019 Pro model- 1.4GHz i5 with 8GB. So it’s an entry level macbook pro but it’s not a really slow machine.
What do you guys run your LP on?
Forgive my very patchy understandings of above.
Thank you for any comments you can share.
you should use the RME for input and output
the RME drivers are much more stable than the aggregated devices
Today’s pop music is as much about electronic manipulation and creation as it is about actual SR of stage performance. The OP has provided a video that clearly covers the gear and effort made to deliver the desired effects for his audio creation to a given venue’s seats. While the subject electronic console manipulation is a bread and butter reality of todays pop music it certainly is not universally appreciated. 25 years ago, country music buyers rejected the pop styled recordings coming out of Nashville,TN and the Americana music movement was created here in The US. Given the fact that we are just a few years short of a 100 year history of recorded Country music: a rich discography of recordings exist that have become well worn pages of the great American song book. Detailed transparency of vintage instruments and vocals is the primary goal of this genre and while compression and reverb effects are generally deployed they are sparingly applied to enhance, not create, the stage performance.
Since my last post 7 months ago I have added a DX32 loaded with prime I/Os and a Waves card to deliver the unbelievable detail and transparent preamp capture of my tube mics to the Waves soundgrid, S1 DAW studio recording network. For many reasons I will continue too use the outstanding DX168 with the SQ5 for my live concert work. I have been delivering Bluegrass SR for 5 decades and the current FPGA xciv core processing when delivered with my KV2 ES FOH system and EX10 wedges, a real sonic magic exists that we could only dream of in the past.
I in no way mean to degrade the OP’s expert SR efforts to deliver the audio his audience expects. However it is important to understand his protocol is certainly not necessary for a lot of todays SR needs and requirements.
Hugh
Thanks Steffen.
Thanks Hugh.
Yep- there is certainly a whole heap of stunning tools out there in hardware and software that, when used correctly and in the right context can make the process easier and richer for all involved. That said, not everything is for everyone or nor will everything suit every circumstance. Agreed.
If anyone has any experience of hardware running LP signal chains without using such dedicated hardware as the UAD processors I would be interested in your findings of what gear specs work. Thank you