salvadorl wrote:I could revise that if I had a good USB3 hub but those are like 4 times the price of USB2 hubs.
I've been using these USB 3 hubs, which cost < $20 US. I wouldn't go mess with USB2.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B083XTKV8VFWIW I've been using these (USB 3) hubs for all kinds of music scenarios, live gigs, rehearsals, recording. The powered hub lets me power the keyboard, the audio interface, and any other devices which need USB power. I've never noticed that the hub introduced any latency or issues compared to without the hub.
Thanks for confirming what I suspected would be the case. USB3 is not only faster but technically better on many aspects. Unfortunately the US prices have not hit here in Brasil and USB3 hubs are still not cheap compared to USB2 ones. I had to buy my Scarlett 2i2 interface when I visited in the US: taking currency conversion into account, its retail price in Brasil was 4.5 times that in the US...
]]>salvadorl wrote:USB share a single USB port. If you have a multi-channels audio interface with a low latency setting and midi on the same hub, at some point there is going to be some arbitration needed to decide which one gets first, delaying the "loser". In other words it adds randomness to the flow. On my computer, I even use USB ports that are on separate chips on the motherboard. I could revise that if I had a good USB3 hub but those are like 4 times the price of USB2 hubs.
Yeah, but isn't that randomness in the nano/micro-second range? I agree with you on the theoretical latency, but was trying to get an idea of how perceptible it was, if at all. Mostly curious if anyone has measured the latency of a USB hub and isolated that latency to the hub itself.
It would be interesting to measure the latency. I guess it's related to the number and types of peripherals. But as SharpNine mentionned later in this thread, I would definitely choose a USB3 hub which is significantly faster and has, if I remember well, a better arbitration protocol.
]]>I could revise that if I had a good USB3 hub but those are like 4 times the price of USB2 hubs.
I've been using these USB 3 hubs, which cost < $20 US. I wouldn't go mess with USB2.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B083XTKV8V
FWIW I've been using these (USB 3) hubs for all kinds of music scenarios, live gigs, rehearsals, recording. The powered hub lets me power the keyboard, the audio interface, and any other devices which need USB power. I've never noticed that the hub introduced any latency or issues compared to without the hub.
]]>USB share a single USB port. If you have a multi-channels audio interface with a low latency setting and midi on the same hub, at some point there is going to be some arbitration needed to decide which one gets first, delaying the "loser". In other words it adds randomness to the flow. On my computer, I even use USB ports that are on separate chips on the motherboard. I could revise that if I had a good USB3 hub but those are like 4 times the price of USB2 hubs.
Yeah, but isn't that randomness in the nano/micro-second range? I agree with you on the theoretical latency, but was trying to get an idea of how perceptible it was, if at all. Mostly curious if anyone has measured the latency of a USB hub and isolated that latency to the hub itself.
]]>dazric wrote:I dare say you're right, I'm sure you can get something decent below that price point, but I haven't researched the current market to know what's worth having. FWIW I've had an Audient iD4 for a number of years and I'm really happy with it.
I, too, have an Audient iD4 (version 1). I'm thinking of upgrading to Mk2 version, although I'm very happy with v.1.
Mk2 is available from Studiospares (cheapest price) in the United Kingdom. It was £105 over Black Friday week. I'll check and see what it is now and update post...
It's still on offer at £104.50
Warmest regards,
Chris
]]>I dare say you're right, I'm sure you can get something decent below that price point, but I haven't researched the current market to know what's worth having. FWIW I've had an Audient iD4 for a number of years and I'm really happy with it.
I, too, have an Audient iD4 (version 1). I'm thinking of upgrading to Mk2 version, although I'm very happy with v.1.
Mk2 is available from Studiospares (cheapest price) in the United Kingdom. It was £105 over Black Friday week. I'll check and see what it is now and update post...
]]>Mal wrote:connected it directly to the computer (do not use a USB hub)
Did you get latency with a USB hub? I was under the impression that USB hubs don't typically add measurable latency, but could certainly be mistaken.
USB share a single USB port. If you have a multi-channels audio interface with a low latency setting and midi on the same hub, at some point there is going to be some arbitration needed to decide which one gets first, delaying the "loser". In other words it adds randomness to the flow. On my computer, I even use USB ports that are on separate chips on the motherboard. I could revise that if I had a good USB3 hub but those are like 4 times the price of USB2 hubs.
]]>connected it directly to the computer (do not use a USB hub)
Did you get latency with a USB hub? I was under the impression that USB hubs don't typically add measurable latency, but could certainly be mistaken.
]]>Your motherboard might do the trick, depends.
I guess you are right Joseph. But, on my other laptop (from 2019) with Intel i3 I have a latency of 1,5 ms with the old Tascam soundcard. Still very good ;-). Regards, @b
]]>When I started reducing latency in my system, I first measured the latency from key press to sound at the speaker. It was in the 50 ms - 140 ms range. I bought a MOTU M2 audio interface for $199 and connected it directly to the computer (do not use a USB hub). Also, the Roland A-88 MKII keyboard connects directly to the computer via USB. After these changes the latency dropped to about 5 ms - 10 ms at 48000 Hz and 256 buffer. Make sure that the Motu driver is installed, ASIO is selected for the Audio Device Type, and the Device is MOTU M Series.
Hi everybody. I still use and old Tascam soundcard US-366 (bought some years ago second hand for 50 euros). Has a perfect sound quality with Pianoteq. Has also balanced TRS outputs L+R. Works with a Windows 10 driver (USB 2.0). Pianoteq measures a latency of 0,5 ms with 88.200 HZ sample rate (also internal) and with a very small buffersize of 64 (32 bit depth). When I switch back to 48000 HZ (for the users of Pianoteq STAGE or STANDARD Pianoteq latency becomes an even unnoticeable 1,3 Ms. So, look for the Tascam US-366 in the second hand apps! Regards, @b PS: using an old Asus laptop (from 2016) with Windows 10, Intel i7, 12 Gb internal memory and SSD disk.
]]>johanibraaten wrote:joannchr wrote:midi data from keyboard must be processed by Pianoteq on the computer , so the lowest latency for midi data transport is to have no hops between the keyboard and the computer, so connect them directly . There is no point sending the midi to the scarlet as this data has to be sent back to the computer so Pianoteq can process it, so there would a slight additional latency if you do that ( negligible though) . The best option is to connect the keyboard on one USB port on the computer and to connect another USB port of the computer to the scarlet to act as an audio interface.
Some time ago someone here at the forum made a quite ambitious measurement where he/she compared MIDI latency between 1. USB-MIDI, 2. DIN-USB adapter and 3. MIDI through external audio interface. The result was that there is very little difference in performance between the three options but with a slight edge to the external audio interface having the least amount of latency. But the difference was so small so it doesn’t really have any practical meaning. I couldn’t find that thread now but it is here somewhere.
I would understand it slighly better is there was a native DIN Out on the piano, but apparently this is not the case in this particular setup as the piano has only USB out.
Ah, now I see what you mean. If the piano only have USB-MIDI the most reasonable thing to do is probably to plug it straight in to the computer. The measurement I mentioned was with a native DIN-connection from the piano to a DIN-connection on the audio interface ( I think...).
]]>joannchr wrote:BlueFish42 wrote:I notice the Scarlett box has midi inputs and line inputs, and a USB to connect to the computer. My digital piano has only USB output, no midi or line output. What is the preferred, lowest latency way to connect the three things together? The simplest thing is to connect both the keyboard and the box to the computer via separate usb ports. Or does it make sense to find an adapter to connect the piano to the box directly? There are usb to midi adapters.
midi data from keyboard must be processed by Pianoteq on the computer , so the lowest latency for midi data transport is to have no hops between the keyboard and the computer, so connect them directly . There is no point sending the midi to the scarlet as this data has to be sent back to the computer so Pianoteq can process it, so there would a slight additional latency if you do that ( negligible though) . The best option is to connect the keyboard on one USB port on the computer and to connect another USB port of the computer to the scarlet to act as an audio interface.
Some time ago someone here at the forum made a quite ambitious measurement where he/she compared MIDI latency between 1. USB-MIDI, 2. DIN-USB adapter and 3. MIDI through external audio interface. The result was that there is very little difference in performance between the three options but with a slight edge to the external audio interface having the least amount of latency. But the difference was so small so it doesn’t really have any practical meaning. I couldn’t find that thread now but it is here somewhere.
Yes I think I remember reading a similar post , but that left me perplex , given it is not native DIN - USB, so the midi data follows the following path : (1) USB out piano - > (2) Conversion to DIN - Scarlet -> (3) USB computer and I am struggling to understand why it would faster than (1) USB out piano -> (2) USB Computer in normal situation. Maybe I am missing something and there is a slight advantage in transport with abnormally long cables between the piano and the combo scarlet/computer . I would understand it slighly better is there was a native DIN Out on the piano, but apparently this is not the case in this particular setup as the piano has only USB out. In all cases I agree with you that the difference in latency is absolutely infinitesimal here.
]]>BlueFish42 wrote:I notice the Scarlett box has midi inputs and line inputs, and a USB to connect to the computer. My digital piano has only USB output, no midi or line output. What is the preferred, lowest latency way to connect the three things together? The simplest thing is to connect both the keyboard and the box to the computer via separate usb ports. Or does it make sense to find an adapter to connect the piano to the box directly? There are usb to midi adapters.
midi data from keyboard must be processed by Pianoteq on the computer , so the lowest latency for midi data transport is to have no hops between the keyboard and the computer, so connect them directly . There is no point sending the midi to the scarlet as this data has to be sent back to the computer so Pianoteq can process it, so there would a slight additional latency if you do that ( negligible though) . The best option is to connect the keyboard on one USB port on the computer and to connect another USB port of the computer to the scarlet to act as an audio interface.
Some time ago someone here at the forum made a quite ambitious measurement where he/she compared MIDI latency between 1. USB-MIDI, 2. DIN-USB adapter and 3. MIDI through external audio interface. The result was that there is very little difference in performance between the three options but with a slight edge to the external audio interface having the least amount of latency. But the difference was so small so it doesn’t really have any practical meaning. I couldn’t find that thread now but it is here somewhere.
]]>