Modartt user forum - Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (feline1) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:50:03 +0000

I remember being in York Minster and it has something like a 9 second reverb time. The pipe organ is at one end of a big trancept and the choirs usually sing at the other end. The organist has a mirror mounted on the console and I was told the trick is that he watches the choir in the mirror and tries to play about a bar behind them so that they're both in time for people listening in the middle! lol

I thought "ah yes, I remember trying to record overdubs in Steinberg Cubasis on a Pentium II like that ... "

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (Cellomangler) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 21:44:52 +0000

curt wrote:

For what it's worth, the typical "latency" of an acoustic piano (time from keypress to hammer strike of the string) is in the neighborhood of 30ms so your original time of 14ms is twice as fast as a real piano... Curt

Isn't that interesting. It's like... we just don't feel the same mechanical thing going on with most keyboard controllers and so we are expecting a more instantaneous response. Take a pipe organ synth/sample patch and it will have much less latency than the real thing (unless programmed with latency via envelope, etc.). Does it feel better to be able to play it with less latency, or if the latency is not there, does it feel wrong? I've only hit a couple of notes on a pipe organ -though I've played a bit more on an old pump organ. Personally, I prefer the snappier response of a synthetic version. If a piano controller was designed a bit differently so that the note-on occurred at the moment of escapement (I'm hoping I'm saying this right) and then there was further travel to the final "bounce", then this would feel tighter. Kinda like the Marimba Lumina. I'm supposing that most controllers' note-on occurs at the end of travel upon contact with a contact switch.

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (curt) — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:33:51 +0000

For what it's worth, the typical "latency" of an acoustic piano (time from keypress to hammer strike of the string) is in the neighborhood of 30ms so your original time of 14ms is twice as fast as a real piano...

Curt

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (Hobo2999) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 01:47:32 +0000

Okay, I tried with my Windows 7 Netbook and IT WORKS LIKE A CHARM.
Thank you guys... didn't know Windows 7 would make such a difference

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (skip) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:29:12 +0000

I use 128 samples on Windows XP with no glitches and full 256-note polyphony, altough I have an audio interface that has a native ASIO driver. Processor is a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo P8600 (laptop) and when 256 voices are sounding CPU utilisation is a bit under 60% total.

Greg.

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (vjau) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:58:20 +0000

I had the same problem with windows xp, windows vista and an integrated soundcard, on the motherboard (el cheapo HDA or whatever). I had to set the latency very high to have a sound without problems.
I went looking for the hardware solution. I read multiples threads on differents forums on each expensive soundcard i was considering, to find everytime that no brand was free from theses latency problems.
I think i read a message from the Asio4all developer saying that everything was much better with windows 7.
Finally i gave windows 7 a try for other matters not music related.
But today i can positively say that my latencies problems are a thing of the past. Now my asio4all driver is set at 256 samples (5.8ms) with no problems on Windows 7 64 bits on a relatively modest core 2 Duo. I only use Pianoteq for solo play, so i can't say if that would still work in a more complicated setup. I'm still with my integrated soundcard with Windows integrated drivers and Asio4all...

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (Hobo2999) — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:21:49 +0000

horatiu665 wrote:

I believe a big part of latency consists of CPU power (your processor).
Pianoteq seems to require multicore computers for optimal performance. What processor does your computer have? maybe that is your problem.
RAM shouldn't matter for pianoteq.
asio4all with any modern soundcard works fine.

S'cuse me... I forgot to post the processor.
It's 3800+ AMD Athlon 64 x2 processor.

Re: Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (horatiu665) — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:33:41 +0000

I believe a big part of latency consists of CPU power (your processor).
Pianoteq seems to require multicore computers for optimal performance. What processor does your computer have? maybe that is your problem.
RAM shouldn't matter for pianoteq.
asio4all with any modern soundcard works fine.

Really close from buying Pianoteq.... but latency problems.

null@example.com (Hobo2999) — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 03:11:32 +0000

Yes, I am fully aware of the numerous threads about ''latency'' but bear with me a little xD

I've got a Yamaha P155 hooked up with a Cakewalk USB midi interface (UM-1G). Using Asio4all.
Best latency I can get (with clear sound) is roughly 14 ms.

Computer: Running on 1.7GB RAM with Windows XP SP3.

From what I've read, the only solution to get better latency is to get a better sound card.... if so, can anyone show me an example of a sound card I should get? Or is it something else I should get? (I just want to confirm the one I should get)

Thanks!