Topic: Which will result in a lower latency?

I have and RME HDSPe AIO connected through AES to a Behringer Ultracurve DEQ2496 but I have a question about latency. Why would result in a lower latency?

1. HDSPe AIO > AES cable > Behringer EQ > Behringer DAC > Speakers

or

2. HDSPe AIO > AES cable > Behringer EQ > AES Cable > HDSPe AIO DAC > Speakers


Thank you

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

No significant difference, if you route signal through Totalmix.

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Regards
Daniel Fuchs
RME

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

Ok, thank you

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

Matter of taste whether you prefer Behringer or RME D/A converters.
I would eventually leave out the Behringer EQ completely and try to use a DAW insert.
Or is there a special feature that you really require ?

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

I'm using it to eq the whole system audio coming to the speakers, not any major moves but helps to reduce some modes 4 or  5 dB around 40hz.

Ideally It would be great if I could have a parametric eq inside Totalmix, but this is the only way I've found to it with the lowest latency (I can do it inside the DAW but it's not systemwide), and I was asking because I'm not sure which has the fastest DA converters, and if moving the signal back a forth between the HDSP and the EQ through AES could generate some latency.

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

Could that eventually be an alternative ? I dont know the solution, maybe you can save some equipment.
Eventually also useful to adjust phones.
https://www.gearnews.de/sonarworks-refe … timierung/

BR Ramses - UFX III, 12Mic, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, RayDAT, X10SRi-F, E5-1680v4, Win10Pro22H2, Cub13

7 (edited by Almondcazvind 2017-07-24 15:00:29)

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

Yeah, I've tried that program but it introduces a lot of latency.

No the eq itself as it can be set to minimum phase, but the "virtual pipe" it creates to feed everything into the eq uses some kind of buffer. I only use 32 samples as my buffer so I can notice it and is a very big difference, maybe not a problem for mixing or mastering but for recording live midi it is.

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

For my room correction I use IK Multimedia ARC via Bidule. Because the RME drivers are multiclient, I can use Bidule and Cubase at the same time. There is some latency but it's the same as using Cubase and monitoring is available all the time.

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

Interesting, please can you elaborate how that works? Is it mac compatible?

Thanks

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

I am not sure how he set that up, but you can do the room correction with any vst EQ you own in Bidule, no ARC needed, so you can try right away.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
Babyface pro fs, HDSP9652+ADI-8AE, HDSP9632

Re: Which will result in a lower latency?

Almondcazvind wrote:

Interesting, please can you elaborate how that works? Is it mac compatible?

Thanks

I'm using a Digiface and in Bidule I route 2 channels from the main output in Totalmix (loopback enabled) to ARC (or any eq plugin) and the return that to 2 channels in Totalmix which I send to my monitors. I have a pretty elaborate Totalmix setup in which I can send any of the the four independent phones mixes to my speakers via midi control (an Ipad running Lemur).