Yes, it can be done.
But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't support the
ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it. Some
of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio, Nuendo and
Cubase.
I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the signal on
input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not very
popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING with
them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".



Peter Haller wrote:
>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input. There
would
>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the input
>>source.
>>
>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
PTools
>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this hardware
>>support.
>>
>>Why don't we support this?
>>
>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under Windows
>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results late. If
>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor during
>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking against.
>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played it.
>>
>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

I agree with Arthur.
This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a Sonic
Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he says that
it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But he is
lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low enogh
latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and Dynamics.
All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and there are
more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME Project
Hammerfall sound card.
In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is NOT "unacceptable"
and "useless", like Peter says.
Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO protocol.
And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as a
mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.




arthur lutz wrote:
>>Yes, it can be done.
>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't support
the
>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it. Some
>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio, Nuendo
and
>>Cubase.
>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the signal on
>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not very
>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING with
>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input. There
>>would
>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the input
>>>>source.
>>>>
>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
>>PTools
>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this hardware
>>>>support.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>
>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
Windows
>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results late.
If
>>>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor during
>>>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking against.
>>>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played it.
>>>>
>>>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

I disagree about the latency issue. I have tried it with ASIO and
found that most of the cards out there introduce too much latency for
it to be usefull. I have never tried it with the RME cards. Perhaps
they are better. 6 ms is still latency. Purists would argue this and
find it unacceptable.

I am very serious when I record, so your point is subjective.

We don't support ASIO, and there are no plans to. To say that it is
widely support - two companies - is a bit of a strech. We never
promised support and we have explained it many times.

Regardless of ASIO or not, the latency still exists. Any latency in
our opinion is too much latency. Call it a cop out. Call it arrogant.
This is a what we have chosen to do.

Peter



arthur lutz wrote:
>>Yes, it can be done.
>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't support
the
>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it. Some
>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio, Nuendo
and
>>Cubase.
>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the signal
on
>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not very
>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING with
>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>
>>
>>
>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input. There
>>would
>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the input
>>>>source.
>>>>
>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
>>PTools
>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this hardware
>>>>support.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>
>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
Windows
>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results late.
If
>>>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor
during
>>>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking
against.
>>>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played it.
>>>>
>>>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>>>
>>>>Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

Not semi truthful and I am not lying. ASIO introduces a latency when
done in software. Period. There is latency. We found it to be of no
use - i.e. useless. Others agree, others disagree.

You have a card that introduces 6 ms. I have cards with ASIO drivers
that introduce 20 ms of latency.

So we have to add a disclaimer:

"with the correct hardware and drivers you will get a small latency,
not zero, but small. However, if you are experiancing problems with
montoring recording and delays, please contact your hardware vendor
or Stienberg for support as there is nothing we can do about it."

I don't think so. We have a policy. It is truthful and states the
facts. Latency - whether 6 ms or 100 ms - is still latency and not
realtime.

What is untruthful about any of this?

Peter


Victor Harriman wrote:
>>I agree with Arthur.
>>This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a
Sonic
>>Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he says
that
>>it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But he is
>>lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low
enogh
>>latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
>>protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and
Dynamics.
>>All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and there are
>>more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME Project
>>Hammerfall sound card.
>>In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is
NOT "unacceptable"
>>and "useless", like Peter says.
>>Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO protocol.
>>And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as a
>>mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>arthur lutz wrote:
>>>>Yes, it can be done.
>>>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't support
>>the
>>>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it.
Some
>>>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio, Nuendo
>>and
>>>>Cubase.
>>>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
>>>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the signal
on
>>>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not
very
>>>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING
with
>>>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input. There
>>>>would
>>>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the
input
>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
>>>>PTools
>>>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this
hardware
>>>>>>support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
>>Windows
>>>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>>>>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results
late.
>>If
>>>>>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor
during
>>>>>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking
against.
>>>>>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played
it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

I absolutely disagree with both Arthur and Victor!

Latency should be treated with the same respect as noise: while
marginally acceptable by the end user, each and every developer and
manufacturer should strive for zero.

Sonic Foundry have, the way I see it, a very sound and pragmatic view
of audio software engineering: 'If it doesn't work 100%, we won't
include it until it does.' I admire that policy in an audio company,
since it's most definitely lacking in the competing software,
including the ones you mentioned.

And I'm still a bit put off by your nosy lecturing of what should be
called acceptable latency. 6 ms might be considered low latency, but
it is more than enough to disrupt timing and induce irritating
artefacts such as echo or some nasty feedback, and that is anything
but accetable or useful, at least not in the "pro" enviroment
everyone seems so keen on insinuating themselves to work in.

Could you imagine a hardware FX box, say the Quadraverb, with a 6 ms
latency? How useful or acceptable would that be?

Victor Harriman wrote:
>>I agree with Arthur.
>>This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a
Sonic
>>Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he says
that
>>it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But he is
>>lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low
enogh
>>latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
>>protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and
Dynamics.
>>All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and there are
>>more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME Project
>>Hammerfall sound card.
>>In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is
NOT "unacceptable"
>>and "useless", like Peter says.
>>Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO protocol.
>>And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as a
>>mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>arthur lutz wrote:
>>>>Yes, it can be done.
>>>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't support
>>the
>>>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it.
Some
>>>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio, Nuendo
>>and
>>>>Cubase.
>>>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
>>>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the signal
on
>>>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not
very
>>>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING
with
>>>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input. There
>>>>would
>>>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the
input
>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
>>>>PTools
>>>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this
hardware
>>>>>>support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
>>Windows
>>>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>>>>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results
late.
>>If
>>>>>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor
during
>>>>>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking
against.
>>>>>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played
it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

Since the issue is a little tricky, I'll just pose this questions to
Peter:
How come ProTools (with its LOW LATENCY, admitted by Peter) can
deliver the goods and have entire recordings, including mixes, on
Billboard? How come all those people recording and mixing the hits
have "overlooked" the beauty in VegasPro "ZERO LATENCY OR NOTHING"
approach? Get real!

Why are you, Peter, telling poor people like Johan that there's such
thing as ZERO LATENCY? You know better than that. It only perpetuates
ignorance. You know that EVERYTHING along the AUDIO PATH adds a little
latency. MIXERS add latency, Fx's add latency. Even a little 2-feet
long patch cable ADDS latency, for God's sake.

Don't lie to these people.

Look how foolish you make Johan look with statements like
"6 ms might be considered low latency, but it is more than enough to
disrupt timing and induce irritating artefacts such as echo or some
nasty feedback..."
'irritating artefacts' (whatever that means!) such as ECHO or SOME
NASTY FEEDBACK!!!!!!! How pathetic.
But that's your best customer. The one that knows the least.

MY POINT: No software on earth is perfect. Not ProTools, not
Nuendo, not Vegas, not Cakewalk...So, why lie? A more positive
approach would be to admit that your software, while having certain
shortcomings, is VERY GOOD in other areas, like mixing.
Why not treat your customers with respect? Inform them. Answer their
questions in an open, HONEST, direct way and they will be there for
you when the price drops!
Truthfulness would save you from being exposed like this.


Victor

PS: Sorry to burst your bubble, Johan, but your Quadraverb does
introduce some latency. Negligible, but it is there. Practically
undetectable, but it is there.
Ask Peter. He will tell you the truth.




Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>Latency should be treated with the same respect as noise: while
>>marginally acceptable by the end user, each and every developer and
>>manufacturer should strive for zero.
>>
>>Sonic Foundry have, the way I see it, a very sound and pragmatic
view
>>of audio software engineering: 'If it doesn't work 100%, we won't
>>include it until it does.' I admire that policy in an audio company,
>>since it's most definitely lacking in the competing software,
>>including the ones you mentioned.
>>
>>And I'm still a bit put off by your nosy lecturing of what should be
>>called acceptable latency. 6 ms might be considered low latency, but
>>it is more than enough to disrupt timing and induce irritating
>>artefacts such as echo or some nasty feedback, and that is anything
>>but accetable or useful, at least not in the "pro" enviroment
>>everyone seems so keen on insinuating themselves to work in.
>>
>>Could you imagine a hardware FX box, say the Quadraverb, with a 6 ms
>>latency? How useful or acceptable would that be?
>>
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>I agree with Arthur.
>>>>This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a
>>Sonic
>>>>Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he says
>>that
>>>>it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But he is
>>>>lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low
>>enogh
>>>>latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
>>>>protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and
>>Dynamics.
>>>>All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and there
are
>>>>more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME Project
>>>>Hammerfall sound card.
>>>>In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is
>>NOT "unacceptable"
>>>>and "useless", like Peter says.
>>>>Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO protocol.
>>>>And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as a
>>>>mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>arthur lutz wrote:
>>>>>>Yes, it can be done.
>>>>>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't
support
>>>>the
>>>>>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it.
>>Some
>>>>>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio,
Nuendo
>>>>and
>>>>>>Cubase.
>>>>>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
>>>>>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the
signal
>>on
>>>>>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not
>>very
>>>>>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING
>>with
>>>>>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input.
There
>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the
>>input
>>>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
>>>>>>PTools
>>>>>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this
>>hardware
>>>>>>>>support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
>>>>Windows
>>>>>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>>>>>>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results
>>late.
>>>>If
>>>>>>>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor
>>during
>>>>>>>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking
>>against.
>>>>>>>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played
>>it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>>>>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

What's untruthful about this? The simple fact that ALL recording and
mixing is done with LATENCY. You know it very well. There's not such
thing as ZERO LATENCY. You know it very well. Negligible latency, yes.
Zero latency, NO. You know it very well. Microphone cables introduce
latency. Mixers introduce latency. Latency is the natural result of
sound travelling along the signal path. You know it very well.
And yes, because of this YOU ARE LYING.
6ms, 12ms is totally ACCEPTABLE latency.
You are lying.
How else do you explain the HUNDREDS of Billboard songs RECORDED and
MIXED in Pro Tools with its "unacceptable" latency?
Yes, you are LYING.
Realtime INCLUDES latency. Doesn't it?
You are LYING.

Peter Haller wrote:
>>Not semi truthful and I am not lying. ASIO introduces a latency when
>>done in software. Period. There is latency. We found it to be of no
>>use - i.e. useless. Others agree, others disagree.
>>
>>You have a card that introduces 6 ms. I have cards with ASIO drivers
>>that introduce 20 ms of latency.
>>
>>So we have to add a disclaimer:
>>
>>"with the correct hardware and drivers you will get a small latency,
>>not zero, but small. However, if you are experiancing problems with
>>montoring recording and delays, please contact your hardware vendor
>>or Stienberg for support as there is nothing we can do about it."
>>
>>I don't think so. We have a policy. It is truthful and states the
>>facts. Latency - whether 6 ms or 100 ms - is still latency and not
>>realtime.
>>
>>What is untruthful about any of this?
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>I agree with Arthur.
>>>>This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a
>>Sonic
>>>>Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he says
>>that
>>>>it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But he is
>>>>lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low
>>enogh
>>>>latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
>>>>protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and
>>Dynamics.
>>>>All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and there
are
>>>>more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME Project
>>>>Hammerfall sound card.
>>>>In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is
>>NOT "unacceptable"
>>>>and "useless", like Peter says.
>>>>Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO protocol.
>>>>And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as a
>>>>mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>arthur lutz wrote:
>>>>>>Yes, it can be done.
>>>>>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't
support
>>>>the
>>>>>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do it.
>>Some
>>>>>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio,
Nuendo
>>>>and
>>>>>>Cubase.
>>>>>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done any
>>>>>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the
signal
>>on
>>>>>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not
>>very
>>>>>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING
>>with
>>>>>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input.
There
>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the
>>input
>>>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in hardware.
>>>>>>PTools
>>>>>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this
>>hardware
>>>>>>>>support.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
>>>>Windows
>>>>>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If we
>>>>>>>>monitored in software the input you would hear the results
>>late.
>>>>If
>>>>>>>>you were to record against existing tracks what you monitor
>>during
>>>>>>>>recording would be out of sync with what you are tracking
>>against.
>>>>>>>>Play the chord on the guitar and hear it after you have played
>>it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is unacceptable and useless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Matthias Ressler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,
>>>>>>>>>>while using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?

OK, Harriman. i have a few points to make.

First: Don't blame Peter Haller or anyone else at Sonic Foundry for
statements made by one of their customers. This discussion is between
you and me, and I'm not in any way representing Peter Haller on this
issue.

Second: Peter Haller never promised me anything about zero latency. I
just thought it to be a sound industrial philosophy to strive for
zero latency, just as outboard or cable manufacturers should strive
for zero noise. It was a statement made my me personally.

Third: What I meant to say about irritating artefacts. I was sort of
trying to explain what detectable latency can result in, and how
irritating it is. I've worked with a few cheap soundcards in Logic
Audio Platinum where you can add Direct-X plugins to live input and
monitor adjustments. It was a pure pain in the a??, and I found no
real use for it, since I always ended up recording raw audio and THEN
tuned the parameters of the plug-ins. But hey, what do I know. I'm
just a pathetic newbie who can't afford a proper system.

Nevertheless, a 6 ms latency is detectable. Period. It's not as bad
as a 20 ms or 100 ms latency, but it still sucks. If I could, I'd
still choose to work in a "virtual" zero-latency domain, which is
what Vegas still represents to me.

Yeah, would you believe it: I still think SF does the right thing! By
not adding flashy pow-wow features to their product at the cost of
performance, or, the dear old subject, LATENCY, they will, I believe,
maintain customer support among those of us who don't buy new audio
workstations every six months.

Vegas represents to me one better among several ways to replace
expensive hardware solutions with a priceworth software-based one.
It's so simple, and I still don't get what people like you, mr.
Harriman, and our dear old friend mr. Gomez get out of pestering us
about it.

Finally, I am really amazed at the tone this discussion has taken. Do
you have any idea how much it hurts to read your statements about me
being stupid, foolish, pathetic etc? I think you need to cool your
ego quite a bit, as you're constantly hurting other peoples'
feelings. Makes me wonder just how "pro" the "pro" scene really is.

Johan Althoff
Sound Designer
O3 Games AB
www.outforce.com

Victor Harriman wrote:
>>Since the issue is a little tricky, I'll just pose this questions
to
>>Peter:
>>How come ProTools (with its LOW LATENCY, admitted by Peter) can
>>deliver the goods and have entire recordings, including mixes, on
>>Billboard? How come all those people recording and mixing the hits
>>have "overlooked" the beauty in VegasPro "ZERO LATENCY OR NOTHING"
>>approach? Get real!
>>
>>Why are you, Peter, telling poor people like Johan that there's
such
>>thing as ZERO LATENCY? You know better than that. It only
perpetuates
>>ignorance. You know that EVERYTHING along the AUDIO PATH adds a
little
>>latency. MIXERS add latency, Fx's add latency. Even a little 2-feet
>>long patch cable ADDS latency, for God's sake.
>>
>>Don't lie to these people.
>>
>>Look how foolish you make Johan look with statements like
>>"6 ms might be considered low latency, but it is more than enough
to
>>disrupt timing and induce irritating artefacts such as echo or some
>>nasty feedback..."
>>'irritating artefacts' (whatever that means!) such as ECHO or SOME
>>NASTY FEEDBACK!!!!!!! How pathetic.
>>But that's your best customer. The one that knows the least.
>>
>>MY POINT: No software on earth is perfect. Not ProTools, not
>>Nuendo, not Vegas, not Cakewalk...So, why lie? A more positive
>>approach would be to admit that your software, while having certain
>>shortcomings, is VERY GOOD in other areas, like mixing.
>>Why not treat your customers with respect? Inform them. Answer
their
>>questions in an open, HONEST, direct way and they will be there for
>>you when the price drops!
>>Truthfulness would save you from being exposed like this.
>>
>>
>>Victor
>>
>>PS: Sorry to burst your bubble, Johan, but your Quadraverb does
>>introduce some latency. Negligible, but it is there. Practically
>>undetectable, but it is there.
>>Ask Peter. He will tell you the truth.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>>Latency should be treated with the same respect as noise: while
>>>>marginally acceptable by the end user, each and every developer
and
>>>>manufacturer should strive for zero.
>>>>
>>>>Sonic Foundry have, the way I see it, a very sound and pragmatic
>>view
>>>>of audio software engineering: 'If it doesn't work 100%, we won't
>>>>include it until it does.' I admire that policy in an audio
company,
>>>>since it's most definitely lacking in the competing software,
>>>>including the ones you mentioned.
>>>>
>>>>And I'm still a bit put off by your nosy lecturing of what should
be
>>>>called acceptable latency. 6 ms might be considered low latency,
but
>>>>it is more than enough to disrupt timing and induce irritating
>>>>artefacts such as echo or some nasty feedback, and that is
anything
>>>>but accetable or useful, at least not in the "pro" enviroment
>>>>everyone seems so keen on insinuating themselves to work in.
>>>>
>>>>Could you imagine a hardware FX box, say the Quadraverb, with a 6
ms
>>>>latency? How useful or acceptable would that be?
>>>>
>>>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>>>I agree with Arthur.
>>>>>>This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a
>>>>Sonic
>>>>>>Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he
says
>>>>that
>>>>>>it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But he
is
>>>>>>lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low
>>>>enogh
>>>>>>latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
>>>>>>protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and
>>>>Dynamics.
>>>>>>All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and there
>>are
>>>>>>more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME
Project
>>>>>>Hammerfall sound card.
>>>>>>In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is
>>>>NOT "unacceptable"
>>>>>>and "useless", like Peter says.
>>>>>>Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO protocol.
>>>>>>And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as
a
>>>>>>mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>arthur lutz wrote:
>>>>>>>>Yes, it can be done.
>>>>>>>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't
>>support
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do
it.
>>>>Some
>>>>>>>>of the best known apps that support ASIO are: Logic Audio,
>>Nuendo
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>Cubase.
>>>>>>>>I'm sorry to disagree with Peter, but anyone that has done
any
>>>>>>>>serious recording knows that applying Fx & dynamics to the
>>signal
>>>>on
>>>>>>>>input is highly desirable. Not RECORDING with FX (this is not
>>>>very
>>>>>>>>popular or advisable, though it can be done); just MONITORING
>>>>with
>>>>>>>>them on. This is not "UNACCEPTABLE" and "USELESS".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Peter Haller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>No. We do not permit the monitoring in software of input.
>>There
>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>>>be no way for you to monitor the fx as it is applied to the
>>>>input
>>>>>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>PTools does recording, monitoring, and fx process in
hardware.
>>>>>>>>PTools
>>>>>>>>>>can permit limited monitoring latencies because of this
>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>>>support.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why don't we support this?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>We cannot do it in realtime. The process of recording under
>>>>>>Windows
>>>>>>>>>>with _any_ driver model introduces a delay or latency. If
we
>>>>>>>>>>monitored in software the inpu

Johan:

Johan Althoff wrote:
>>OK, Harriman. i have a few points to make.
>>
>>First: Don't blame Peter Haller or anyone else at Sonic Foundry for
>>statements made by one of their customers. This discussion is
between
>>you and me, and I'm not in any way representing Peter Haller on this
>>issue.

1. WHO SAYS I BLAME PETER FOR YOUR STATEMENTS? I blame him for
PERPETUATING your ignorance.

>>Second: Peter Haller never promised me anything about zero latency.
I just thought it to be a sound industrial philosophy to strive for
>>zero latency, just as outboard or cable manufacturers should strive
>>for zero noise. It was a statement made my me personally.


2. WHO SAYS PETER PROMISED ZERO LATENCY? He only LIED to you about
low latency values, like the ones in Pro Tools, being "unacceptable"
and "useless". Don't you see he kept an "out" by saying "some agree,
others disagree..."?


>>Third: What I meant to say about irritating artefacts. I was sort of
trying to explain what detectable latency can result in, and how
irritating it is. I've worked with a few cheap soundcards in Logic
Audio Platinum where you can add Direct-X plugins to live input and
monitor adjustments. It was a pure pain in the a??, and I found no
real use for it, since I always ended up recording raw audio and
THEN tuned the parameters of the plug-ins. But hey, what do I know.
I'm just a pathetic newbie who can't afford a proper system.
Nevertheless, a 6 ms latency is detectable. Period. It's not as bad
as a 20 ms or 100 ms latency, but it still sucks. If I could, I'd
still choose to work in a "virtual" zero-latency domain, which is
what Vegas still represents to me.
Yeah, would you believe it: I still think SF does the right thing!
By not adding flashy pow-wow features to their product at the cost of
performance, or, the dear old subject, LATENCY, they will, I
believe,
maintain customer support among those of us who don't buy new audio
workstations every six months.
Vegas represents to me one better among several ways to replace
expensive hardware solutions with a priceworth software-based one.
It's so simple, and I still don't get what people like you, mr.
Harriman, and our dear old friend mr. Gomez get out of pestering us
about it.


3. WHO SAYS YOU ARE PATHETIC? You may or may not be pathetic as a
person. I don't know. But I know your statements ARE pathetic. You
decided to attack me, just like you attacked "our old friend Mr.
Gomez", entering an argument where you have no stake or knowledge.
Don't talk about things you are not familiar with.


>>Finally, I am really amazed at the tone this discussion has taken.
Do
>>you have any idea how much it hurts to read your statements about me
>>being stupid, foolish, pathetic etc? I think you need to cool your
>>ego quite a bit, as you're constantly hurting other peoples'
>>feelings. Makes me wonder just how "pro" the "pro" scene really is.
>>
>>Johan Althoff

4. WHO SAYS I NEED TO COOL MY EGO? You are hurt by my comments, but,
as sorry as I am about it (it is never my intention to hurt you or
anyone else),that's the price you pay when you make yourself an
ACCESORY to Sonic Foundry's shady marketing practices, and even
shadier tech support.


Victor


>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>Since the issue is a little tricky, I'll just pose this questions
>>to
>>>>Peter:
>>>>How come ProTools (with its LOW LATENCY, admitted by Peter) can
>>>>deliver the goods and have entire recordings, including mixes, on
>>>>Billboard? How come all those people recording and mixing the hits
>>>>have "overlooked" the beauty in VegasPro "ZERO LATENCY OR NOTHING"
>>>>approach? Get real!
>>>>
>>>>Why are you, Peter, telling poor people like Johan that there's
>>such
>>>>thing as ZERO LATENCY? You know better than that. It only
>>perpetuates
>>>>ignorance. You know that EVERYTHING along the AUDIO PATH adds a
>>little
>>>>latency. MIXERS add latency, Fx's add latency. Even a little
2-feet
>>>>long patch cable ADDS latency, for God's sake.
>>>>
>>>>Don't lie to these people.
>>>>
>>>>Look how foolish you make Johan look with statements like
>>>>"6 ms might be considered low latency, but it is more than enough
>>to
>>>>disrupt timing and induce irritating artefacts such as echo or
some
>>>>nasty feedback..."
>>>>'irritating artefacts' (whatever that means!) such as ECHO or SOME
>>>>NASTY FEEDBACK!!!!!!! How pathetic.
>>>>But that's your best customer. The one that knows the least.
>>>>
>>>>MY POINT: No software on earth is perfect. Not ProTools, not
>>>>Nuendo, not Vegas, not Cakewalk...So, why lie? A more positive
>>>>approach would be to admit that your software, while having
certain
>>>>shortcomings, is VERY GOOD in other areas, like mixing.
>>>>Why not treat your customers with respect? Inform them. Answer
>>their
>>>>questions in an open, HONEST, direct way and they will be there
for
>>>>you when the price drops!
>>>>Truthfulness would save you from being exposed like this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Victor
>>>>
>>>>PS: Sorry to burst your bubble, Johan, but your Quadraverb does
>>>>introduce some latency. Negligible, but it is there. Practically
>>>>undetectable, but it is there.
>>>>Ask Peter. He will tell you the truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Johan Althoff wrote:
>>>>>>>Latency should be treated with the same respect as noise: while
>>>>>>marginally acceptable by the end user, each and every developer
>>and
>>>>>>manufacturer should strive for zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sonic Foundry have, the way I see it, a very sound and pragmatic
>>>>view
>>>>>>of audio software engineering: 'If it doesn't work 100%, we
won't
>>>>>>include it until it does.' I admire that policy in an audio
>>company,
>>>>>>since it's most definitely lacking in the competing software,
>>>>>>including the ones you mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I'm still a bit put off by your nosy lecturing of what
should
>>be
>>>>>>called acceptable latency. 6 ms might be considered low latency,
>>but
>>>>>>it is more than enough to disrupt timing and induce irritating
>>>>>>artefacts such as echo or some nasty feedback, and that is
>>anything
>>>>>>but accetable or useful, at least not in the "pro" enviroment
>>>>>>everyone seems so keen on insinuating themselves to work in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could you imagine a hardware FX box, say the Quadraverb, with a
6
>>ms
>>>>>>latency? How useful or acceptable would that be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>>>>>>>I agree with Arthur.
>>>>>>>>This is just another instance of a "semi-truthful" answer by a
>>>>>>Sonic
>>>>>>>>Foundry technician. Yes, Peter is telling the truth when he
>>says
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>it can be done with hardware support, like in Pro Tools. But
he
>>is
>>>>>>>>lying when he says it can't be done in real time or with a low
>>>>>>enogh
>>>>>>>>latency. Apps like Logic Audio and Nuendo support the ASIO 2.0
>>>>>>>>protocol, and you can monitor the input signal with Fx and
>>>>>>Dynamics.
>>>>>>>>All you need is a sound card that also supports ASIO, and
there
>>>>are
>>>>>>>>more than 50 of them as we speak! Latency: 6 ms on my RME
>>Project
>>>>>>>>Hammerfall sound card.
>>>>>>>>In a few words: IT CAN BE DONE IN REAL TIME. It is
>>>>>>NOT "unacceptable"
>>>>>>>>and "useless", like Peter says.
>>>>>>>>Vegas can't do it because it doesn't support the ASIO
protocol.
>>>>>>>>And the final and MOST IMPORTANT reason: Vegas is EXCELLENT as
>>a
>>>>>>>>mixing tool, but is VERY BAD as a MULTITRACKER.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>arthur lutz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, it can be done.
>>>>>>>>>> But Vegas Pro doesn't have the feature, since it doesn't
>>>>support
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>ASIO 2.0 protocol. Maybe in a future upgrade Vegas will do
>>

Hallerman.

I have just as much right as you do to state my opinion in this
forum. If I want to "defend" or "attack" I can do so as I see fit,
until the point where I reach personal insults, racist, sexist or
generally political statements, or other topics not of interest to
the forum. If I do so, only SF forum regulators can delete my
messages or block me out.

If you consider my entries in this forum to be attacks, and that you
feel a need to defend yourself, I can only beg your forgiveness as
that was never my intention. I do fail to see where I might have
expressed open hostility towards you, though.

Now, back to the actual issue. Would you be so kind and tell me where
my knowledge in this subject is lacking? All I think I need to know
on the subject of latency is that the less, the better. I have no
room in my budget for expensive hardware solutions, and I really
appreciate the effort Sonic Foundry is making in keeping their target
system requirements as low as they can.

If you state an argument saying: "Vegas should have Direct-X plug-ins
on live recording input"

Peter Haller responds: "No, the latency will get too high, it's
unusable"

You say: "No, it's possible to have very low latency with the right
equipment"

I say: "Hey, I'd prefer that the SF guys try to keep the latency as
low as they can, as I can't afford the right equipment"

Then where am I lacking knowledge?

I haven't seen anything shady coming from Sonic Foundry. Just great
software and a down to earth attitude towards this relatively small
software market.

-david

Propagation time delay in a system is the amount of time it takes for
an audio signal to travel from an input to an output. Latency in
audio is generally defined as *audible* propagation time delay,
usually in excess of 1-2ms, and is basically a fact of life in all
digital audio processors. While time delay is infinitely measurable,
by definion, "latency", as a useful term in audio, requires human
perception and has therefore acquired a relatively finite measurement.

For a patch cable to exhibit "latency", or a time delay of +/- 2ms,
it would have to be roughly 300 miles long.

So no, there is no "latency" in a 2 foot patch cable, or in most
analog circuits not deliberately designed to induce a delay for that
matter. If there was, I would not have had to wait years for a way to
reasonably "delay" an audio signal without resorting to the gap
between the heads of an analog tape deck.

KAC ...


Victor Harriman wrote:

>>ignorance. You know that EVERYTHING along the AUDIO PATH adds a
little
>>latency. MIXERS add latency, Fx's add latency. Even a little 2-feet
>>long patch cable ADDS latency, for God's sake.

Johan:
It would be very convenient if the argument had gone the way you
describe it. But you can check ALL the posts on this subject, and
you'll realize the question was posed by Matthias, not me. It went:
"Are there any plans to add the possibility to record sound,while
using Direct X-FX, like you can do it in Pro-Tools?"
I took exception to Peter Haller's answer and you got involved. It is
your right to express an opinion, of course; but you don't have a
right to say something so foolish as "6ms latency sucks" within the
context of this argument, and expect people to think you actually know
what you're talking about.
You attacked me the moment you described my post as "nosy lecturing".
And yes, you can attack as you see fit, but others are going to answer
your attacks.
Your choice of equipment and your budgetary constraints are personal
matters that have no bearing on this argument; I don't understand why
you would bring them up, but then again, that's your right.


Victor.




Johan Althoff wrote:
>>Hallerman.
>>
>>I have just as much right as you do to state my opinion in this
>>forum. If I want to "defend" or "attack" I can do so as I see fit,
>>until the point where I reach personal insults, racist, sexist or
>>generally political statements, or other topics not of interest to
>>the forum. If I do so, only SF forum regulators can delete my
>>messages or block me out.
>>
>>If you consider my entries in this forum to be attacks, and that you
>>feel a need to defend yourself, I can only beg your forgiveness as
>>that was never my intention. I do fail to see where I might have
>>expressed open hostility towards you, though.
>>
>>Now, back to the actual issue. Would you be so kind and tell me
where
>>my knowledge in this subject is lacking? All I think I need to know
>>on the subject of latency is that the less, the better. I have no
>>room in my budget for expensive hardware solutions, and I really
>>appreciate the effort Sonic Foundry is making in keeping their
target
>>system requirements as low as they can.
>>
>>If you state an argument saying: "Vegas should have Direct-X
plug-ins
>>on live recording input"
>>
>>Peter Haller responds: "No, the latency will get too high, it's
>>unusable"
>>
>>You say: "No, it's possible to have very low latency with the right
>>equipment"
>>
>>I say: "Hey, I'd prefer that the SF guys try to keep the latency as
>>low as they can, as I can't afford the right equipment"
>>
>>Then where am I lacking knowledge?

Karl:
If you read carefully my post (2307), you will see that I said
"negligible" when referring to the latency introduced by different
elements along the signal path.
The text read:
"What's untruthful about this? The simple fact that ALL recording and
mixing is done with LATENCY. You know it very well. There's not such
thing as ZERO LATENCY. You know it very well. Negligible latency, yes.
Zero latency, NO. You know it very well. Microphone cables introduce
latency. Mixers introduce latency... Latency is the natural result of
sound travelling along the signal path. You know it very well.
How else do you explain the HUNDREDS of Billboard songs RECORDED and
MIXED in Pro Tools with its "unacceptable" latency?
Yes, you are LYING.
Realtime INCLUDES latency. Doesn't it?
You are LYING. "

I agree with all you say about latency. I said the same thing in a way
that could be understood by everyone. It is nowhere implied that a
patch cable could introduce +/- 2ms latency (those are YOUR numbers).
But it does delay the signal by a NEGLIGIBLE amount of time, doesn't
it? That was my point.
And while we are on this topic, I want to make a small correction to
your otherwise excellent explanation of the fundamentals of latency:
There's is not such thing as NEGATIVE (i.e. -2ms) latency.

Victor


PS: HOMEWORK FOR JOHAN. If a 300 miles long patch cable introduces 2ms
latency, what's the latency introduced by a 2-feet long one?






Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>Propagation time delay in a system is the amount of time it takes
for
>>an audio signal to travel from an input to an output. Latency in
>>audio is generally defined as *audible* propagation time delay,
>>usually in excess of 1-2ms, and is basically a fact of life in all
>>digital audio processors. While time delay is infinitely measurable,
>>by definion, "latency", as a useful term in audio, requires human
>>perception and has therefore acquired a relatively finite
measurement.
>>
>>For a patch cable to exhibit "latency", or a time delay of +/- 2ms,
>>it would have to be roughly 300 miles long.
>>
>>So no, there is no "latency" in a 2 foot patch cable, or in most
>>analog circuits not deliberately designed to induce a delay for that
>>matter. If there was, I would not have had to wait years for a way
to
>>reasonably "delay" an audio signal without resorting to the gap
>>between the heads of an analog tape deck.
>>
>>KAC ...
>>
>>
>>Victor Harriman wrote:
>>
>>>>ignorance. You know that EVERYTHING along the AUDIO PATH adds a
>>little
>>>>latency. MIXERS add latency, Fx's add latency. Even a little
2-feet
>>>>long patch cable ADDS latency, for God's sake.
>>

Enjoy your nuendo system I hope you have have great success with it.

The pen name is weak. You can change your login but your language is
all too familiar. My God you sound like the Monty Python argument
clinic. "I came here for an argument"..."NO you came here for an
argument". Give it a rest! You're harping on semantics and typos
for the sake of swinging your sack around and telling everyone you're
the keeper of truth. Good for you. I hope you sleep better at
night. You've got your Nuendo system so please go away. Suffice to
say you have no idea who reads these forums but I'm sure everyone
will remember Irvin Gomez, Victor Harriman, and Mr. Lutz (an Ice
skating trick I believe). I see many contracts that cross my desk
with many names on them...some I remember fondly and some I remember
with a bit of disgust and file accordingly.
I will concede one point. Your choice of name, allowing you to sign
every post as "Victor" is cheesy and melodramatic...but I kinda like
it.
I'm sure there will be a follow up from you about how bad my English
is or how I'm just a 2 bit wannabe but whatever.
I'll leave you with one thing I've learned in my career as a sound
engineer. The industry isn't as big as I thought and as such...never
piss people off you never know when you'll run across them again.

This is a very empty threat but then again you never know no do you...

Let It go and Move on!!!

>>You attacked me the moment you described my post as "nosy
lecturing".

My, aren't we touchy? =)

>>And yes, you can attack as you see fit, but others are going to
answer
>>your attacks.

I still think it's quite harsch to call it "attacks". Sorta hints
about your attitude towards fellow audio engineers.

>>Your choice of equipment and your budgetary constraints are
personal
>>matters that have no bearing on this argument; I don't understand
why
>>you would bring them up, but then again, that's your right.

Heh, you still haven't understood that? I bring that up since Sonic
Foundry products always have represented cost-effectiveness and low-
end system compability, totally in reversal to Digidesign, Steinberg
and other more expensive solutions. If you buy Sonic Foundry
products, you can run it on whatever system you choose. There are no
hardware requirements (except a sound card =), CPU and RAM minimums
are very modest, and the performance is rock-solid.

If users request features requiring more expensive hardware, I
personally think SF products would lose their charm. That's why I
added my entry in this topic in the first place.

I let you and other ProTools fan(atic)s argue about which $1000 audio
system has the lowest latency or the best DACs, since I don't own any
of them. I kick up Vegas, do my work, get my paycheck and get happy.
I even have time over for semi-pointless arguments in the Vegas Forum
=)

Horst:
I'm very impressed with your intelligence , Horst. I am, indeed, the
same person as Irvin Gomez.
Very insightful, bordering on ESP.
Your english is good, so I don't know why you'd expect me to criticize
it. I still don't get your point. Is this a personal attack? Is this
an attempt at diverting attention from the real issue of "latency"
that is being discussed?
How do you know I have Nuendo? I use it and it is very good. I also
use Vegas, and it is very good for certain things, like mixing radio
spots. I also use Pro Tools and Cubase VST. I am extremely lucky in
being an independent musician, just like our old friend Irvin. Maybe
that explains the difference of approach between you and us.
Enjoy your desk duties.

Victor


Horst wrote:
>>Enjoy your nuendo system I hope you have have great success with it.
>>
>>The pen name is weak. You can change your login but your language
is
>>all too familiar. My God you sound like the Monty Python argument
>>clinic. "I came here for an argument"..."NO you came here for an
>>argument". Give it a rest! You're harping on semantics and typos
>>for the sake of swinging your sack around and telling everyone
you're
>>the keeper of truth. Good for you. I hope you sleep better at
>>night. You've got your Nuendo system so please go away. Suffice to
>>say you have no idea who reads these forums but I'm sure everyone
>>will remember Irvin Gomez, Victor Harriman, and Mr. Lutz (an Ice
>>skating trick I believe). I see many contracts that cross my desk
>>with many names on them...some I remember fondly and some I remember
>>with a bit of disgust and file accordingly.
>>I will concede one point. Your choice of name, allowing you to sign
>>every post as "Victor" is cheesy and melodramatic...but I kinda like
>>it.
>>I'm sure there will be a follow up from you about how bad my English
>>is or how I'm just a 2 bit wannabe but whatever.
>>I'll leave you with one thing I've learned in my career as a sound
>>engineer. The industry isn't as big as I thought and as
such...never
>>piss people off you never know when you'll run across them again.
>>
>>This is a very empty threat but then again you never know no do
you...
>>
>>Let It go and Move on!!!

My point is that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes,
everything has latency (including light!). Peter hasn't lied to
anyone nor even stretched the truth he simply made a very general and
basic statement about latency issues for sake of brevity I'm sure. We
don't need to quatify and support every statement with a complete
background history and dissertation on the physics involved.

Ptools achieves very low latency by using dedicated hardware DSP, that
was their answer to the latency issue because at the time Ptools
debuted affordable computer processors were scarcely up to the task of
running an operating system quickly let alone advanced DSP (and still
aren't there entirely). When you run out of DSP power on Ptools you
have to buy another DSP Farm (a hardware solution) which does nothing
but process your plugins outboard of the CPU.

Latency is generated in the digital domain by the inability of current
DSP technology to quickly process the amount of data being sent to it.
Many factors are at work not the least of which is the ability of the
software and hardware to exchange data freely. Bad wav drivers and
bad ASIO drivers slow down the process and induce greater latency
hence why different cards produce different results. Steinberg has
chosen to partner with RME so that they can insure clean integration
of hardware and software and Digidesign just makes their own hardware
all together and there in lies the problem with these systems. I have
to use their hardware to get the results I want. If you check the
nuendo site you find that people who have not bought the hammerfall
card are having issues, not all, but enough. Ptools you don't have
any options at all. Yes I'm generalizing, not fleshing the argument
out fully and leaving out LOTS of details but you get the idea and I'm
not about to write a dissertion on the issue.

On to the personal crap...

>>Your english is good, so I don't know why you'd expect me to
criticize it.

It was a dig at your practice of nitpicking pointless issues for the
sake of inflamatory arguments which you attempt to use to show us all
how knowledgable you are in the way of pointless arguing (in other
words.....a joke!!!)

>>Enjoy your desk duties.

My desk is where my phone is and where I keep my paperwork and
computer. I hate sitting at it and would love to have a secretary.
It is not, however, where I make my living. That desk usually has a
Neve, SSL, or Harisson logo on it.

The argument over acceptable and unacceptable latency is more suited
to an article in mix or Pro Sound News not much is going to be
accomplished by blabbing incessently about it here. Your point has
never been to educate us about latency but to prove that Peter lied
and you're the only one who knows how it really works. Can we be any
more petty? Give it a rest we're here to help each other use Vegas
better not debate the digital revolution.

Horst:

Why do you feel the need to defend Peter? He's better qualified than
you at discussing "latency" issues.
My apologies for suggesting you enjoy your desk duties. I did it
because the way you described all the "contracts" going thru your
"desk", and you "filing" the good ones, etc., gave me the impression
you were a secretary. But now, I will take a guess: you are a
freelancing sound engineer!!! If I'm right, the score is 1-0 in my
favor and it is your turn to guess who I am!


Hint: I'm not Gomez, I'm not Swanson. But you're very close...

>>Many factors are at work not the least of which is the ability of
the
>>software and hardware to exchange data freely. Bad wav drivers and
>>bad ASIO drivers slow down the process and induce greater
latency...>>

What about GOOD asio drivers?


Second hint for you, HORST: I'm not Karl and I'm not Larry, but I'm
very close to Arthur...

>>My desk is where my phone is and where I keep my paperwork and
>>computer. I hate sitting at it and would love to have a secretary.
>>It is not, however, where I make my living. That desk usually has
>>a Neve, SSL, or Harisson logo on it...>>>


Why do you hate sitting at your OWN desk, HORST? What would you do
with a secretay, anyway?


Third and final hint: I'm not Heller and I'm not David. But you can
safely say my name begins with V...


Victor.






Horst wrote:
>>My point is that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes,
>>everything has latency (including light!). Peter hasn't lied to
>>anyone nor even stretched the truth he simply made a very general
and
>>basic statement about latency issues for sake of brevity I'm sure.
We
>>don't need to quatify and support every statement with a complete
>>background history and dissertation on the physics involved.
>>
>>Ptools achieves very low latency by using dedicated hardware DSP,
that
>>was their answer to the latency issue because at the time Ptools
>>debuted affordable computer processors were scarcely up to the task
of
>>running an operating system quickly let alone advanced DSP (and
still
>>aren't there entirely). When you run out of DSP power on Ptools you
>>have to buy another DSP Farm (a hardware solution) which does
nothing
>>but process your plugins outboard of the CPU.
>>
>>Latency is generated in the digital domain by the inability of
current
>>DSP technology to quickly process the amount of data being sent to
it.
>>Many factors are at work not the least of which is the ability of
the
>>software and hardware to exchange data freely. Bad wav drivers and
>>bad ASIO drivers slow down the process and induce greater latency
>>hence why different cards produce different results. Steinberg has
>>chosen to partner with RME so that they can insure clean integration
>>of hardware and software and Digidesign just makes their own
hardware
>>all together and there in lies the problem with these systems. I
have
>>to use their hardware to get the results I want. If you check the
>>nuendo site you find that people who have not bought the hammerfall
>>card are having issues, not all, but enough. Ptools you don't have
>>any options at all. Yes I'm generalizing, not fleshing the argument
>>out fully and leaving out LOTS of details but you get the idea and
I'm
>>not about to write a dissertion on the issue.
>>
>>On to the personal crap...
>>
>>>>Your english is good, so I don't know why you'd expect me to
>>criticize it.
>>
>>It was a dig at your practice of nitpicking pointless issues for the
>>sake of inflamatory arguments which you attempt to use to show us
all
>>how knowledgable you are in the way of pointless arguing (in other
>>words.....a joke!!!)
>>
>>>>Enjoy your desk duties.
>>
>>My desk is where my phone is and where I keep my paperwork and
>>computer. I hate sitting at it and would love to have a secretary.

>>It is not, however, where I make my living. That desk usually has a
>>Neve, SSL, or Harisson logo on it.
>>
>>The argument over acceptable and unacceptable latency is more suited
>>to an article in mix or Pro Sound News not much is going to be
>>accomplished by blabbing incessently about it here. Your point has
>>never been to educate us about latency but to prove that Peter lied
>>and you're the only one who knows how it really works. Can we be
any
>>more petty? Give it a rest we're here to help each other use Vegas
>>better not debate the digital revolution.
>>

There was much more to my post than digs at you.

You're right I'm sure Peter is more qualified than me...and you.
You're claiming that he said things that he didn't really say or imply
just for the sake of showing us all that you're soooo much more
enlightened than the rest of us. You spend more time trying to prove
that SF techs are all slaves to the corporate yoke than you do
illustrating why they and we are wrong and you are right.

Is anything I said about latency wrong?

Good ASIO drivers are a wonderful thing and so are good wav drivers.
When done well they both exhibit the same performance. If ASIO were
that much more superior I'm sure SF would pursue it (feel free to
disagree) yet they staunchly refuse to pursue any support for it which
is fine by me. I'm saying that Vegas is not entirely responsible for
the latency issues people are experiencing. The majority of blame
lies with the drivers that third party card manufacturors are
providing. This is clearly illustrated by the different results
people are having with different cards. I'm not having any problems
while others are having a lot. What accounts for this? The only
common factor is that we are all using Vegas. If the application
itself were majorly flawed than no one would be able to get anything
done yet people are and are enjoying what Vegas is offering.
The key is to have a good hardware software combination. This will
produce low latency. The same is true of any other piece of software.
Vegas runs great in NT but echo cards have crappy NT drivers. Who's
to blame for that problem...the card manufacturor not SF. So there's
one card I know not to get if I'm planning on running under NT.

Debate the arguments and lay off the smear campaign. There's nothing
to be gained by it. Help me and others climb out of the darkness of
ignorance.

Fine you're Victor....whatever!

HORST:

Horst wrote:
>>
>>Is anything I said about latency wrong?


Yes, HORST, you said and CONTINUE to say WRONG things about latency.
Just look at part of your post, below:


>>Good ASIO drivers are a wonderful thing and so are good wav drivers.
>>When done well they both exhibit the same performance. If ASIO were
>>that much more superior I'm sure SF would pursue it...

Who told you that ASIO and "WAV" drivers "exhibit the same
performance"? Go get 3 or 6ms latency with Vegas and ANY sound card.
If that were possible, Vegas would be a good multitracker, and issues
like the one that started this thread wouldn't even be discussed!
Remember the original question posed by Matthias, not me?
If you can't obtain 6ms latency with Vegas, no matter what the sound
card, but you can obtain it with software like Nuendo, then what's
your explanation? HINT: Vegas doesn't support the A_IO protocol. You
fill in the blank!.



>>The key is to have a good hardware software combination. This will
>>produce low latency. The same is true of any other piece of
software...>>

HORST: You said it. You need hardware+software. Follow me for a second
here, please. We have the HARDWARE. In the form of the 50+ sound cards
in the market that support the ASIO 2.0 protocol. Now, we need the
other part...You know what it is? HINT #2: Vegas needs to support the
AS_O protocol. You fill in the blank!.

Victor.


PS: HORST, you have been a good engineer today, so you have earned an
extra hint. HINT #3: Missing letters in answers 1 & 2 belong to the
same word: ASI_ . You fill in the blank!

You're gonna call me liar I'm sure but I'll admit that I've never run
a real test to see what my latency really is. So your challenge set
me going.

Stereo click track -> dsp factory buss outputs 1/2 -> AX44 analog out
3/4 -> 5ft mogami cable -> AX44 3/4 Input -> dspf buss 7/8 -> Vegas

Test run at 48Khz 16bit.

Ran the test 20 times and came up with the following results.

Low latency of 89 samples high of 93 samples. Or .0019 sec which
equals about 2ms. Sounds acceptable for multitracking to me.

Published AX44 specs 48Khz...A/D 670us, D/A 1330us

Oh yeah I almost forgot...the original question that was asked was
about DX FX on input which we have thouroughly departed from. Peter
stated that the huge latency of DX processes on input made them
useless. He didn't say the concept was useless just that they
couldn't be used in vegas that way.

Aside from calling me an outright liar or questioning my testing
method it seems that you're wrong about Vegas and ASIO vs. wav
drivers.

I'll try the same test on an Echo Mona card tomorrow and let you know
what I come up with.

Cheers