Discuss Quantum Series Interfaces Here
6 posts
Page 1 of 1
|
Been wondering if it would be worth it to switch. I don't seem to currently have any latency issues and that's the only benefit I'm aware of.
|
|
You will be missing direct monitoring and I am not sure that the 2626 is still available unless you have one used in mind…
Great interface however! |
|
Ok but, and maybe this is a dumb question, wouldn't that be a non issue with TB3? I see new ones available everywhere.
|
daveallanm wroteOk but, and maybe this is a dumb question, wouldn't that be a non issue with TB3? I see new ones available everywhere. Indeed a non issue as you use a DAW to monitor at low latencies (64, maybe 32 for really light projects). In my case, using my computer (Gigabyte Z390 i7 9700K, 32 gb RAM, hackintoshed with Mojave) with Reaper or Studio One 6, non issue for me. It's around 3-4 ms round trip latency but my DAW machine is used as a glorified tape deck: one or two Kontakt patches, one track for bass, 4-5 for my acoustic drumset and minimal FX's. If I want to use the computer for practice monitoring only, I use AuLab or Kushview Elements as AU/VST hosts... There is no direct monitoring unless you fire some DAW but I understand you already know. With S1, you have the opportunity to use the dropout protection feature using an hybrid buffering system. Me, I've disabled it as I find it adds safety buffers increasing latency. Surprised to learn that new Quantum 2626 are still available as there was a period (last year or in 2021) where none were to be found. |
|
Ok so there's actually quite a bit about this stuff I don't understand so please feel free to explain things and for sure don't assume I know things because it's likely I don't. I honestly don't know what the lack of direct monitoring is going to cause for me. I also don't know if there's any benefit whatsoever of upgrading my interface. You mentioned VSTs. I use quite a bit. Does that make a difference in this context?
|
daveallanm wroteOk so there's actually quite a bit about this stuff I don't understand so please feel free to explain things and for sure don't assume I know things because it's likely I don't. I honestly don't know what the lack of direct monitoring is going to cause for me. I also don't know if there's any benefit whatsoever of upgrading my interface. You mentioned VSTs. I use quite a bit. Does that make a difference in this context? Ok, as an example: If I use my Focusrite Scarlett 18i20, I can turn off « monitor » in my DAW (S1, Reaper, whatever) but use instead the built in direct monitor in the audio interface. This way, even if I have 1024 buffer, I get dry (no fx, obviously) and I can monitor the inputs only for audio (drums, voice, guitar, bass, hardware synth). However, a software instrument (Kontakt, VSTi synth) will be heard sluggish as the latency will be very high. With the 2626, there is no built in monitoring facility. You absolutely must go through the DAW and tick « software monitoring ». Thus, if you have a big buffer, it’ll be sluggish, be it audio inputs or VST’s/VSTi’s. Reading the 192 manual, it has direct monitoring with DSP effects so you can bypass the DAW software monitoring. However, the 192 has one of the worst performance in Round Trip Latency if you wish to use VST fx’s or VSTi’s: https://gearspace.com/board/music-compu ... -base.html The Quantum line is in 9th position regarding Low Latency Performance rating (a mix of real Round Trip Latency and driver efficiency at measured latencies (number of fx’s or Kontakt voices/whatever). The Studio Pro 192 is at the bottom of the list… @64 buffer, your Studio Pro 192 has 8.9 ms of Round Trip Latency on the reference system and can handle 82 RXC multiband compressors, 0 Kontakt instances with or without convolution reverb before choking (crackles in the audio) @64 buffer, the Quantum series has 3.5 ms of Round Trip Latency and can handle 125 RXC’s, 160 Kontakt instances with convolution and 180 without… before dropouts occurs. ***Please note that YOUR system will probably give higher results than with the reference computer but the Quantum 2626 wil still keep its relative performance higher compared to the Studio 192. Round Trip Latency, however, will be the same on a Windows system with the same drivers versions tested. ***MacOS results should be comparable, at least on the RTL side. They are maybe a tad lower in the RXC or Kontakt instance numbers on a similar Mac computer, maybe…! https://dawbench.com/images/DAWbench%20LLP%20Database-December-2022.pdf   Hope it helps  . |
6 posts
Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests