Discuss the new Studio 192 and Studio 192 Mobile here
37 postsPage 2 of 2
1, 2
The individual was not banned for that reason.

He was removed for repeated violation of conduct rules. If we banned everyone for speaking their mind on a subject respectfully we wouldn't have much of a forum.
User avatar
by tweeker on Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:49 pm
xzb6np wroteWell the 192 just took a bonking in Sound on Sound. Poor software and huge latency issues. I am still running an 1818vsl and you know how we got treated with the VSL boxes. Abandoned and they never got it all working right.


Yeah, it's quite a bonking. I want to hear what Presonus has to say about these real world results. I need to upgrade my interface, but this review has me leaning towards the Clarett.
Excerpts from the review:
"...when it comes to round–trip latency, the existing Studio 192 USB 3 software not only offers no improvement over USB 2 and Firewire drivers, but is actually worse than nearly all of them. At base sample rates, it is impossible to achieve a round–trip latency of less than 10ms on Mac OS or Windows...it turns out that the root cause is the UC Surface DSP mixer and its built–in Fat Channel processing. Audio routed through the mixer incurs an additional delay of 4ms or so on top of the latency caused by input and output buffering. In the current driver version, this additional latency is not reported to the host DAW, and can’t be avoided even if you eschew the delights of the Fat Channel or disable the mixer altogether. PreSonus told me that they... also hope to introduce a mode whereby bypassing the UC Surface mixer will eliminate its additional latency, though no timeframe has been provided for this development...PreSonus ..says...most users won’t want or need to monitor signals through their DAW ....However, it won’t help people who need low latency for playing soft synths or guitar-amp simulators..."

User avatar
by denissmith on Thu Sep 08, 2016 6:43 pm
Did this get addressed? Is there an updated driver?
User avatar
by dean701 on Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:20 pm
Have the latency issues been addressed yet with new drivers?
User avatar
by dean701 on Wed Oct 26, 2016 12:19 pm
Nevermind.....I went and bought an Audient id22 based on the lack of response.
User avatar
by MikeGoodwin on Tue Nov 15, 2016 4:59 pm
Just to be clear I own and am enjoying my Studio 192 here in the studio. But I would love to know what is going on with this. It would be very handy indeed to be able to disable the Fat Channel and drop down the latency when not doing recording tasks. Also did the reporting of the time get corrected in the last update? Can anyone here take us out of the dark on this topic?
User avatar
by MikeGoodwin on Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:51 am
Seriously Presonus are you even reading your own forum? This thread had been viewed almost 6000 times. People are wondering what is going on I personally give your lack of response a big :thumbdown:
User avatar
by kevindeleon on Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:15 pm
So I assume this likely hasn't been addressed yet. That's a bummer. Sweetwater has the Mobile on sale now, and I'd love to pick it up, but everything I do would be ITB except for drums (which I use a FSP for) and vocals which would be fine with the zero latency monitoring...but I worry about tracking guitars using VST amp sims and running into latency issues. Anyone been working with the 192 like this? Are you able to track/monitor amp sims reliably with the latency issues?
User avatar
by MikeGoodwin on Sat Nov 26, 2016 12:45 am
kevindeleon wroteAnyone been working with the 192 like this? Are you able to track/monitor amp sims reliably with the latency issues?


I can't say that this is my normal way of working but I would check it out for you. I opened up a session with about 12 tracks going with lots of plugins running including some UAD plugins. I set the timing in Universal Control to Low Latency with the Auto Block Size left as is. Keep in mind there is a Minimum Latency setting as well. I had to disable some of my plugins by going into the CPU monitor window (VERY handy window!) because they where adding way to much latency. So once I had things like the Slate Digital Tape and FGX disabled I was good to go. I ran my guitar into my GAP73 II, through my RME converters via the ADAT inputs and could play along with fx on with no detectable latency. It was no problem. I am not sure what the numbers where but some of the plugings I kept running in the session where adding as much as 5 ms of latency on there own (Altiverb) and I could still play. I am pretty happy about this to be honest. I just might start using virtual preamps after all.

I hope this helps.
User avatar
by michdb on Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:50 am
can you post how many RTL you get with that interface at 512 just to get a idea,
I doubt between the motu ultralite mk4 and 192 mobile,
but my main daw is studio one so i would like to get the 192 mobile but i worry about the latency due I use virtual instruments
User avatar
by MikeGoodwin on Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:18 pm
michdb wrotecan you post how many RTL you get with that interface at 512 just to get a idea,
I doubt between the motu ultralite mk4 and 192 mobile,
but my main daw is studio one so i would like to get the 192 mobile but i worry about the latency due I use virtual instruments


If you want to get all numbers about it I would read the rather extensive thread on Gearslutz that goes on and on about it. I don't have a direct link handy for you. It is the thread with a million replies. I honestly am a little over it at the moment. In real world settings I can play my guitar with amplitude running with a full session running in the background and can't detect latency. At this point in my life that is when I just keep making music. Other times of my life I would have spent two weeks running tests and reading all about it wondering if it could be improved in some way. The device is not perfect and will always have slightly higher latency due to the Fat Channel. But I bought it for the fat channels and having killer headphone mixes so people recording though headphone mixes played there best and it does that very well.
User avatar
by myronn369 on Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:58 pm
Some people have reduced latency down to RTL of ~12ms @ 288 samples with ASIO4ALL. I also gave this a try and was able to get the same results.
User avatar
by jpettit on Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:39 pm
Not sure why you would need to use ASIO4ALL
I can get a RTL of 9.38 ms with the UC drivers.

This topic is very specific to required workflows.

There is an objective side to it:
- Monitor recording acoustic sources can use Zero Latency monitoring
- Monitoring computer based software sounds as another set of latency associated with MIDI and the sound source.
- Monitoring through a soft amp.
- CPU balance between other real-time software based sources and quantity)

The subjective side:
- What latency are you comfortable with based on the instrument, typical real world latencies (distance between performers)
- Musicians anticipation of the between instrument + other performer + system reaction

So the answer always depends on the musician, the instrument, and the set of components used.

For me recording a soft synth or guitar through soft amp works fine. No issues at the lower settings ( 64-128 @ 44.1k) .

My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
SPECS:Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, StudioLive 24, Quantum, Faderport16, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Studio One Pro 4.0, Reaper 5.9, Sonar Platinum
User avatar
by jackylouposedel on Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:31 am
I just bought studio 192 mobile and if i cant get RTL below 5ms ill be very unhappy. I have a couple of old usb units like NI audio 6, saffire 24 pro, and mbox 3 fast track. They all come close to 5ms on windows 7. Studio 192 mobile just has to be better.

Could at least someone explain what is the issue and what it takes to get it fixed. If it is a software issue i can wait. If this is a hardware flaw, ill have to find another solution.

-------------------------
Mac Pro 5.3 OSX 10.12
Cubase 6
Studio One 3 pro
RME Multiface
Avalon 737
Pro Art MPA 2
Presonus FaderPort
-------------------------
Dell Precision T5500 8core w Win7 Ultimate
Pro Tools 11 w Native Instruments Komplete,
Studio One 3
RME HDSPe RayDAT
Focusrite LS 56 & Focusrite LS 56 & Profire 2626
Eleven Rack
Akai MPK 261 + 2x BFC2000
Focusrite vrm box
------------------------
User avatar
by jpettit on Fri Jan 20, 2017 9:41 am
Caveat emptor.
There have been latency tables posted here before.
You will get ~10ms RTL at the lowest settings.
The 192 models work with Universal Control which has built-in software-based Fat channels that add some latency.

I use it to track guitar playing via a soft amp with no problem.

My Website, Free Studio One Advance Training
SPECS:Win 10 64-bit, 12 Core i7: 32Gb DDR4 ram, 40" 4K monitor, StudioLive 24, Quantum, Faderport16, Central Station Plus, Sceptre 6,Temblor T10, Eris 4.5, HP60, Studio One Pro 4.0, Reaper 5.9, Sonar Platinum
User avatar
by jackylouposedel on Mon Jan 23, 2017 4:52 pm
Anything more than 8ms feels weird. Presonus should add an extra instrument or midi circuit that bypasses rest of the box adding to high RTL. I hate to switch between the devices, and I do everything in the box nowadays. I wish i could depend on one device only. I understand that there is limits and trade offs between complexity of devices and rtl, but there has to be a solution.

-------------------------
Mac Pro 5.3 OSX 10.12
Cubase 6
Studio One 3 pro
RME Multiface
Avalon 737
Pro Art MPA 2
Presonus FaderPort
-------------------------
Dell Precision T5500 8core w Win7 Ultimate
Pro Tools 11 w Native Instruments Komplete,
Studio One 3
RME HDSPe RayDAT
Focusrite LS 56 & Focusrite LS 56 & Profire 2626
Eleven Rack
Akai MPK 261 + 2x BFC2000
Focusrite vrm box
------------------------
User avatar
by louislawyer on Mon Oct 15, 2018 11:09 am
Has there been updates on this? Its OCT 2018 now... I use a lot of VI and would like to know if anyone else in this boat?

37 postsPage 2 of 2
1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests