Latency when used as audio interface/Humming sounds?

[jgk]

Hello all,

I am new here and this is my first post. I am hoping someone can help me answer a few questions.

I'm awaiting an sp606 that I just bought on ebay, and I've been reading up on it while I'm waiting for it arrive. I plan to use it as a sampler, but also as an audio interface to record my Alesis qs8 keyboard through into Ableton on my PC.

I really am hoping to record everything (drums, samples, keyboard, guitar, etc.) as live audio tracks into Ableton, mainly using the sp606 as an audio interface and to trigger samples, and maybe use some of its effects/sample editing.

So, my question/concern is that I've read that some people have problems with latency even when recording pure audio through the 606 into a PC.

I've always thought that latency only existed with MIDI. I've had a Lexicon Lambda before, and when used for MIDI, I had lots of latency problems, but when used only for audio recording, I didn't notice any.

The other problem I had with the Lexicon was a slight humming/buzzing sound that was present whether I used audio or MIDI, which is what caused me to return it.

I've read some people have experienced this sound with the sp606 when using the usb cable, which is essential for me to use it as an audio interface.

Are these two concerns, latency and humming, factors with the sp606?

I got a great deal on it, $235 w/ shipping plus a 256mb CF card. I know I could get an audio interface for less, but this way I can a play my samples live from pads, and I feel like I'm actually getting an instrument for my money not just a computer chip.

Can someone please help clear up these issues? I am starting feel like maybe I made a mistake purchasing this item?

Thanks

[PHeMoX]

I have no humming issues at all, but I reckon it might be a result of bad cables for the people that do have that problem. It matters a lot more than most people seem to assume.

As for latency, in the P606 software latency is really pretty minimal actually, in fact, it's practically nothing. I do have a pretty fast PC though and that definitely helps as well.

I haven't quite got into trying out my other software programs so much yet, because I really like P606 a lot and had huge problems getting my SP-606 to be recognized in Windows XP as midi device before. I've solved this problem now though, so I'm definitely going to check out some more programs soon and will let you know.

[jgk]

Thanks,

My concern is that I have a slow computer as it is. Its a sony vaio laptop, pentium III 750mhz, w/ 128 mb ram.

I wanted to avoid including my computer in my music with my next purchase of equipment, as I cannot tolerate any latency and/or freezes, etc. that come with a computer.

Unfortunately, with my low budget, this may be the only way for me to incorporate samples and live instruments together in my music.

I had originally decided to get an mpc1000 w/ jjos, but was really more than I could afford. Then, when I found out the sp606 could be used as an audio interface w/ my laptop, I figured this might work.

I didn't know that latency was an issue as well with audio, as it is with MIDI. Now I'm not so sure this will work out for me.

The seller offers 7 day return, and its already being shipped. So, my best bet is to try it out and see for myself. If it doesn't work like I want it to, than I will return it.

The 4 track sequencer would be perfect but the low resolution of 96 ppqn is not enough for my needs.

[PHeMoX]

low resolution of 96 ppqn is not enough for my needs.

Actually I thought it wouldn't be too, but these kind of limitations are pretty easy to deal with, especially for example this 96 ppqn quantize resolution. But yeah, if it works for you, it works for you and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

Its a sony vaio laptop, pentium III 750mhz, w/ 128 mb ram.

That is rather low-spec indeed, however if you would use the laptop solely to send audio through the USB and let the SP-606 work as audio interface for playback of for example Windows Media Player, I think you would not run into that much latency issues.

If you would use P606 (or other DAW software) and the SP-606's midi functionality, you might run into trouble a lot faster, as those programs usually demand a lot more ram and reasonably faster processor to even work.

Still, and this is more my opinion than anything else as it's different for everyone depending on the work method and style, but I think that you might find out that you don't really need to use a computer so much in conjunction with the SP-606 as it does a great job as stand-alone machine as well.

I hope it's the right machine for you though.

[jgk]

low resolution of 96 ppqn is not enough for my needs.

Actually I thought it wouldn't be too, but these kind of limitations are pretty easy to deal with, especially for example this 96 ppqn quantize resolution. But yeah, if it works for you, it works for you and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

PHeMoX,

Thanks for all of your feedback. I appreciate it.

I understand some of the limitations to be easy to workaround, like resampling for extra polyphony. Except, how do you work around the resolution of the sequencer? Its pretty much concrete. It is what it is.

Can you give me some suggestions on how to get around this?

I've heard some people suggest that doubling your tempo will double your ppqn. I'm not sure that is true because 96 ppqn is the maximum amount of midi ticks the sequencer can detect within a quarter note. Just because you increased the tempo, it doesn't change the way the software was programmed.

For example, if you double your tempo from 90 bpm to 180 bpm, and you go into a microscope edit and manually input notes of 1 ppqn in length, you still will only be able to input 96 between each quarter note no matter what the tempo -- not 192.

However, maybe since the tempo is doubled, the quarter notes (or 2nd/4th counts) will actually be half notes, than that would give you 192 part per quarter note, because the quarter notes would actually be half notes, but sound like quarter notes w/ the double time.

So, in a simple, 1 bar / 4/4 beat, instead of playing the kicks on 1 & 3 and snares on 2 & 4, the kick would play on 1 and the snare on 3 in bar 1, then the kick on 1 and snare on 3 again in bar 2. The amount of bars would need to be doubled too.

lol, I think I may have answered my own question.

[PHeMoX]

What I meant to say was that I assumed the resolution would be on the low side, but in reality I don't ever need a higher resolution to make or edit the music to what I want it to be. In other words 96 ppqn might look like not that much, but we're talking about the resolution of quarter notes here. With slower paced music like hip-hop usually is, you won't likely need a higher resolution for all the 'in between' spots, it will likely just sound off anyways.

lol, I think I may have answered my own question.

Yeah, you totally just did.

[enossified]

96ppqn means the resolution is 1/96 of a quarter note....that's pretty tiny! 1/128 note triplets It's also the resolution of the MPC sequencers which seems acceptable to most people

MIDI clocking itself is only 24ppqn (1/32 note triplets).

Latency is a factor of the audio drivers and the computer power/speed, the audio interface hardware is insignificant compared to the other two factors.

[jgk]

enossified,

Thanks, my computer is pretty slow, thats what I'm worried about. If it doesn't work out, my back up plan is get a used yamaha qy70.

96ppqn is really not an issue when dealing with samples of audio recordings, like most use in sequencers like the mpc, because most of those old samples were recorded live. So the music coming out was not recorded at 96 ppqn, but the chopped up pieces are positioned within the 96 parts per quarter note. Kind of confusing, but yeah with sample based productions its not an issue.

If you were to construct an original composition in real time with no quantizing, you would find that the music sort of lacks detail, I guess. Thats the best way I can put it.

My first sequencer was 96 ppqn and I recorded in real time. I could never figure out why it sounded like I lost the "feel" that it had when I was playing it. Then I got a sequencer with 192 ppqn and it was dramatically different. Much more of the "feel" I had when playing live came through the recording.

Then, I had a fantom with 480 ppqn and I couldn't tell any difference between live and recorded. So, 480 works best for me.

[PHeMoX]

I doubt it has anything to do with the resolution of ppqn, but the differences between those machines are pretty obvious. The ppqn doesn't matter with recording, only when placing samples and it sounds a bit strange that you would really notice a 1/128 triplet difference anyways. If you chop things up to incredibly small pieces, then yes, but that's not the way the SP-606 works best anyways.