View Single Post
Old 11-25-2009, 05:04 PM   #33
Chris Ihao
Human being with feelings
 
Chris Ihao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 323
Default

Its rather a lack of latency compensation in the built in metronome in that case.

Btw, I measured the ahead "negative latency" on the synthesized metronome, and I found the notes to be on average around 40 ms ahead of the correct bar. This certainly fit the conclusions of both EricM and DarkStar further up in this thread, especially considering I didnt even have this figure in mind when I was testing. Its very unlikely that this merely is a weird coincident imo. Its also interesting to note that this seems almost totally independent of the asio latency, as EricM was using a totally different latency than myself. Additionally, I had already tried to lower my asio latency to around 2.6 ms before starting on this, with no noticable effect.

I think I will proceed to follow your advice Baard, especially if nothing comes out of this. Adding samples with 40 ms of silence at the beginning should work out.

What about this idea. Under the metronome and pre-roll settings, why not add a manual "latency skewer" (slider and number input) where you can calibrate your midi input by ms and eventually samples? I think this would be a great compromise for us who are picky about this.

Edit: I tried samples again just to be sure I didnt mess up yesterday. Still ahead. I cut the samples very finely for starting right away though.

Edit 2: Finally.

1) I edited two metronome samples by first finely cutting them to start right away.

2) I started with inserting 35 ms and tested while I worked my way down.

3) Conclusion: A silence of exactly 25 ms. With this compensation I pretty much hit the bar as well as can be expected. There is a tiny tendency of notes getting placed some very few samples behind the bar, while a few notes hit just before the bar. This is preferable, as I cant expect to play perfectly and this is more natural than having everything placed ahead. Also the first note more often than not will be recorded. Audibly the playback sounds very good and in time with the metronome, as well as any drum pattern I create. Its a remarkable difference in my opinion.

This is something I can live with I guess. Its not entirely comfortable though, as I have no idea how audio will react to this "self made latency".

It would be interesting to see what results some of you guys get if you try the metronome sounds I created, so I added a zip file with the two clicks as an attachment. Please humor me someone, so that I can get a comparison. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, I am presently using an exact asio buffer of 5.3 ms.

Anyways, now I hopefully can go back to enjoying making music in Reaper again.

Cheers!
Attached Files
File Type: zip Metronome clicks 25 ms compensation.zip (18.0 KB, 147 views)

Last edited by Chris Ihao; 11-25-2009 at 08:37 PM. Reason: Added note of coincidental finding of ms latency
Chris Ihao is offline   Reply With Quote