15 Sep
2011
15 Sep
'11
12:51 a.m.
Hi,
I have a medium-sized Ardour session with a couple of plugins on most
tracks, in which I'd like to record some additional tracks. Due to the
number of tracks and plugins, it's not possible to run Ardour/JACK at
very low latencies.
The same machine (and the same sound cards) is also used for monitoring
for the whole band, using a huge instance of JackMix. This needs to be
run with as little latency as possible (128 frames per period, tops).
How can I solve this dilemma? Ardour's latency doesn't really matter to
me, as long as newly recorded regions are properly aligned with existing
material.
It might also be an option to run Ardour on a different machine via
netjack, but as far as I can see the period size of a netjack slave is
tied to that of the netjack master. It also seems doubtful that Ardour
would be able to do correct latency compensation in this scenario...
Any suggestions? Is there any way to run run a second, high-latency JACK
server piggy-back on a low-latency server?
Thanks,
Dominic
15 Sep
15 Sep
1:04 a.m.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:48:39 +0200
Dominic Sacré <dominic.sacre(a)gmx.de> wrote:
I have a medium-sized Ardour session with a couple of
plugins on most
tracks, in which I'd like to record some additional tracks. Due to
the number of tracks and plugins, it's not possible to run
Ardour/JACK at very low latencies.
The same machine (and the same sound cards) is also used for
monitoring for the whole band, using a huge instance of JackMix. This
needs to be run with as little latency as possible (128 frames per
period, tops).
How can I solve this dilemma? Ardour's latency doesn't really matter
to me, as long as newly recorded regions are properly aligned with
existing material.
Bounce a temporary mix of your already recorded tracks and temporarily
inactivate those tracks (Track menu or right-click menu on the strip) to
make room for the new ones. Use the bounce as the only track playing and
active while you record the rest. Maybe this will save enough
horsepower so that your system deals with the load. At mix time, relax
the latency constraint and reactivate all the tracks.
HTH, have fun.
-- David
17 Sep
17 Sep
12:56 a.m.
On Thursday 15 September 2011 01:05:44 David wrote:
Dominic Sacré <dominic.sacre(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Thanks, that seems like a good workaround, although it's not quite the
kind of solution I was hoping for. But at least it'll allow me to finish
the recording.
Cheers,
Dominic
I have a medium-sized Ardour session with a
couple of plugins on
most tracks, in which I'd like to record some additional tracks.
Due to the number of tracks and plugins, it's not possible to run
Ardour/JACK at very low latencies.
The same machine (and the same sound cards) is also used for
monitoring for the whole band, using a huge instance of JackMix.
This needs to be run with as little latency as possible (128
frames per period, tops).
How can I solve this dilemma? Ardour's latency doesn't really
matter to me, as long as newly recorded regions are properly
aligned with existing material.
Bounce a temporary mix of your already recorded tracks and
temporarily inactivate those tracks (Track menu or right-click menu
on the strip) to make room for the new ones. Use the bounce as the
only track playing and active while you record the rest. Maybe this
will save enough horsepower so that your system deals with the load.
At mix time, relax the latency constraint and reactivate all the
tracks. 
15 Sep
15 Sep
1:06 a.m.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:48:39AM +0200, Dominic Sacré wrote:
Hi,
I have a medium-sized Ardour session with a couple of plugins on most
tracks, in which I'd like to record some additional tracks. Due to the
number of tracks and plugins, it's not possible to run Ardour/JACK at
very low latencies.
The same machine (and the same sound cards) is also used for monitoring
for the whole band, using a huge instance of JackMix. This needs to be
run with as little latency as possible (128 frames per period, tops).
How can I solve this dilemma? Ardour's latency doesn't really matter to
me, as long as newly recorded regions are properly aligned with existing
material.
It might also be an option to run Ardour on a different machine via
netjack, but as far as I can see the period size of a netjack slave is
tied to that of the netjack master. It also seems doubtful that Ardour
would be able to do correct latency compensation in this scenario...
Any suggestions? Is there any way to run run a second, high-latency JACK
server piggy-back on a low-latency server?
If you can't decrease the period size, the the only option
is do the monitoring *for the new tracks being recorded*
in hardware, using either a 'real' mixer or the one that
may be provided by your sound card. If you have RME gear
hdspmixer is the solution - this use case is why it exists.
If the number of new tracks being recorded simultanuously
is not too high you don't need a big mixer: one channel
for each 'live' input, and on or two for the mix of
existing tracks that you make either in Ardour or using
a separate SW mixer. Doing punch-in/out will require
some attention, but otherwise things should just work.
The really hairy case is a new track created on the PC
using a soft synth or similar - this requires a short
period for acceptable monitoring. But with external
sources there shouln't be a problem.
The latest Ardour 2 should take care of latencies - see
Paul's post of today.
--
FA
17 Sep
17 Sep
12:56 a.m.
On Thursday 15 September 2011 01:06:13 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:48:39AM +0200, Dominic
Sacré wrote:
The sound cards are a pair of M-Audio Delta 1010, and their hardware
monitoring capabilities are quite limited.
We used to have a 'real' 24-channel mixer for all our monitoring, but
decided to basically replace it with a PC running JACK, which is not
just cheaper, but also much more flexible. And the whole setup actually
worked surprisingly well until now...
A very small hardware mixer just for monitoring the tracks being
recorded is an interesting idea...
I have a medium-sized Ardour session with a
couple of plugins on
most tracks, in which I'd like to record some additional tracks.
Due to the number of tracks and plugins, it's not possible to run
Ardour/JACK at very low latencies.
The same machine (and the same sound cards) is also used for
monitoring for the whole band, using a huge instance of JackMix.
This needs to be run with as little latency as possible (128
frames per period, tops).
How can I solve this dilemma? Ardour's latency doesn't really
matter to me, as long as newly recorded regions are properly
aligned with existing material.
It might also be an option to run Ardour on a different machine via
netjack, but as far as I can see the period size of a netjack slave
is tied to that of the netjack master. It also seems doubtful that
Ardour would be able to do correct latency compensation in this
scenario...
Any suggestions? Is there any way to run run a second, high-latency
JACK server piggy-back on a low-latency server?
If you can't decrease the period size, the the only option
is do the monitoring *for the new tracks being recorded*
in hardware, using either a 'real' mixer or the one that
may be provided by your sound card. If you have RME gear
hdspmixer is the solution - this use case is why it exists. The latest Ardour 2 should take care of latencies -
see
Paul's post of today.
Thanks for mentioning this, I probably would have missed it otherwise. I
*think* latency correction worked correctly for me in Ardour 2.8.11, but
I'll definitely give the latest SVN a try.
Cheers,
Dominic
4:47 a.m.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Dominic Sacré <dominic.sacre(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Thanks for mentioning this, I probably would have
missed it otherwise. I
*think* latency correction worked correctly for me in Ardour 2.8.11, but
I'll definitely give the latest SVN a try.
it worked correctly with the *old* JACK latency API. it did not work
with the new JACK latency API. and still doesn't in some subtle way
that i'm in the middle of trying to solve.
5006
days inactive
5009
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
David -
Dominic Sacré -
Fons Adriaensen -
Paul Davis