Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates) (Page 1) - Pianoteq user forum

1 Topic by mdkgr 18-02-2024 14:04

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Topic: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Hello,

Let me first say that I tried to find an answer to my question before posting here, but I didn't really find a specific answer or I couldn't really interpret the often technically advanced answers given on this forum.

I want to buy Pianoteq just for practicing/playing but I can't decide which version of the software to get. I am a new pianist with 6-month experience and I'm looking for ways to improve my experience as I improve as a player. Here is my setup:

- Roland FP-30X
- Audio Interface: Chord Mojo DAC (768kHz/32-bit Capable Input)
- AMD Ryzen 3600 CPU, 16 GB RAM, fast NVMe SSDs (don't know which other PC part should be mentioned)
- Windows 11
- DAW: Reaper

My goal is to practice with as little latency as possible and ideally completely eliminate it. I am not an audio-tech nerd but If I'm not mistaken, I have to achieve a low latency in my DAW.

I read that the Pro version offers a higher sample rate (192 kHz) which my audio interface/system could support (hopefully I’m correct) and which could lower the latency. At the same time, the Pro feels overkill to get but if it's the only way to get a "zero" latency experience, then I'll have to strongly consider it.

Will the Pro version offer a more "tactile" experience? Or the Stage version would be enough for me?

Hopefully I haven't completely misunderstood the terms latency, sample rate etc.

Thanks in advance!

Konstantinos M.

Last edited by mdkgr (18-02-2024 14:13)

2 Reply by stamkorg 18-02-2024 14:33

stamkorg
Member
Offline

Registered: 05-04-2014
Posts: 452

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Hello and welcome onboard,

I would recommend that you start with the Stage version and then evolve according to your needs.

Your pc should be ok to play Pianoteq.
Usually, at 44100Hz and 128 samples of buffer, the playing experience is ok latency wize.
I prefer 64 samples, but I am very sensitive to latency.

In my experience, there is no need to increase the sample frequency. I just don't hear any difference.

You should see whether your DAC is suitable for computer-assisted music and especially if it comes with an ASIO driver for low latency.
If not, you could invest in a dedicated sound card for that.

Also, it is necessary to make some adjustments to optimize the PC and have more stability. There are many topics on this.

Good luck,

1

3 Reply by hillcow 18-02-2024 15:53

hillcow
Member
Offline

Registered: 01-02-2024
Posts: 17

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Hi,

I am going through this, too. With my Raspberry Pi 5.

On my MacBook Pro M1 Max, I can choose 64 samples. But on the Raspberry Pi the lowest it goes is 128. Even though I have connected my audio interface (Behringer Uphoria 204 HD) and choose it as output.

Regarding the sample rate - it does make a difference. The higher, the more CPU you need. But also, the higher, the lower the latency.

On my Raspberry Pi I have chosen 128 buffer and 96.000hz sample rate (1.3ms). My MacBook manages 0.7ms. 1.3 is fine, but the problem is that I get audio cracks here and there. With 256 buffer or 48.000hz sample rate it is way too much latency, though.

I used this script to setup my Pi: https://github.com/Hillcow/pianoteq-pi/...n/setup.py

Last edited by hillcow (18-02-2024 16:39)

Casio GP-300

1

4 Reply by Topher 18-02-2024 17:16

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

If you do end up having to buy an audio interface, (I think you may need to) consider the Presonus Quantum 2626, if you can accommodate thunderbolt 3 connection.
The only caveat is that it requires a DAW or similar to play Pianoteq through (no standalone possible).
This is because there is no onboard DSP mixing as dispensing with that allows for incredibly low latency.
Very reasonably priced and highly recommended.

5 Reply by mdkgr 18-02-2024 17:21

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Bought the Stage and I'm currently experimenting in Reaper.

My Chord Mojo DAC has an ASIO driver (ASIO Chord specifically) and I can set the sample rate to 768 kHz but can't set the buffer size (or block size in Reaper). It's stuck at 1024.

Reaper indicates that I play with a 1.3ms latency at 1024spls, 768 kHz 24 bit WAV.

On the Roland, I do feel the delay compared to it's normal playing latency (without a plugin I mean).

Tried to install ASIO4All, if perhaps that driver would allow me to reduce the buffer size but it doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

Will experiment more, till I get to a point where I can't do anything more without buying a new audio interface...

Would appreciate any input and thanks for all the replies so far...

Last edited by mdkgr (18-02-2024 17:22)

6 Reply by mdkgr 18-02-2024 18:30

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Topher wrote:

If you do end up having to buy an audio interface, (I think you may need to) consider the Presonus Quantum 2626, if you can accommodate thunderbolt 3 connection.
The only caveat is that it requires a DAW or similar to play Pianoteq through (no standalone possible).
This is because there is no onboard DSP mixing as dispensing with that allows for incredibly low latency.
Very reasonably priced and highly recommended.

Thank you for the answer but this audio interface costs like another Roland FP30 (around 600 euros).

Is this the minimum to get a seamless, latency-free experience?

7 Reply by Topher 18-02-2024 19:17

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

Thank you for the answer but this audio interface costs like another Roland FP30 (around 600 euros).
Is this the minimum to get a seamless, latency-free experience?

It’s actually pretty cheap for that level of performance (you can get a better price if you search a bit) but you can get decent performance with something like a smaller Focusrite Scarlett. I’m not sure what their latency figures are but I’m sure they’re respectable and Focusrite are an excellent company.

I’ve had what get touted as low latency interfaces before and while most people were okay with their level of latency, it bothered me and made playing feel awkward and unpleasant.
It depends how sensitive you are to a little latency, if you do feel it in your playing you’re pretty much guaranteed to never get that with something like the Quantum but may be just as happy with a Scarlett.

1

8 Reply by mdkgr 18-02-2024 19:38

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Thank you for informing me that probably it'd cost thousands to eliminate the latency. It makes the search for answers easier.

This is where I'm at at the moment and I can get used to the delay after some time but if you have played with no delay, it's hard to go to something else.

I can't get that buffer size down because the DAC doesn't have an interface for that (and thus no option to change) and I also can't find a way to force the buffer size (maybe Windows-wise). Into the DAW I also can't change anything...

I wonder how different would my experience be with a Focusrite Scarlett.

Last edited by mdkgr (18-02-2024 19:47)

9 Reply by Luc Henrion 18-02-2024 19:57

Luc Henrion
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 897

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

Thank you for informing me that probably it'd cost thousands to eliminate the latency. It makes the search for answers easier.
This is where I'm at at the moment and I can get used to the delay after some time but if you have played with no delay, it's hard to go to something else.
I can't get that buffer size down because the DAC doesn't have an interface for that (and thus no option to change) and I also can't find a way to force the buffer size (maybe Windows-wise). Into the DAW I also can't change anything...
I wonder how different would my experience be with a Focusrite Scarlett.

32 bit is useless, 24 is fine, 768 KHz is useless, 96 or less is more than enough. BUT latency is to be avoided, and it doesn't cost thousands. Just my opinion, but based on some experience you might say. ;-) All these "hifi" interfaces like your Chord Mojo DAC don't care about latency at all: they're there to play recorded music where real time isn't the least bit important.

Last edited by Luc Henrion (18-02-2024 20:03)

Luc Henrion's Website

1

10 Reply by mdkgr 18-02-2024 20:01

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Luc Henrion wrote:

mdkgr wrote:
Thank you for informing me that probably it'd cost thousands to eliminate the latency. It makes the search for answers easier.
This is where I'm at at the moment and I can get used to the delay after some time but if you have played with no delay, it's hard to go to something else.
I can't get that buffer size down because the DAC doesn't have an interface for that (and thus no option to change) and I also can't find a way to force the buffer size (maybe Windows-wise). Into the DAW I also can't change anything...
I wonder how different would my experience be with a Focusrite Scarlett.
32 bit is useless, 24 is fine, 768 KHz is useless, 96 or less is more than enough. BUT latency is to be avoided, and it doesn't cost thousands. Just my opinion, but based on some experience you might say. ;-)

32 or 24 bit doesn't seem to make a difference in latency but 96 or 768 kHz really does make a very noticeable difference. But as I said, I am not an expert or anything close to it.

11 Reply by Luc Henrion 18-02-2024 20:05

Luc Henrion
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 897

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

Luc Henrion wrote:
mdkgr wrote:
Thank you for informing me that probably it'd cost thousands to eliminate the latency. It makes the search for answers easier.
This is where I'm at at the moment and I can get used to the delay after some time but if you have played with no delay, it's hard to go to something else.
I can't get that buffer size down because the DAC doesn't have an interface for that (and thus no option to change) and I also can't find a way to force the buffer size (maybe Windows-wise). Into the DAW I also can't change anything...
I wonder how different would my experience be with a Focusrite Scarlett.
32 bit is useless, 24 is fine, 768 KHz is useless, 96 or less is more than enough. BUT latency is to be avoided, and it doesn't cost thousands. Just my opinion, but based on some experience you might say. ;-)
32 or 24 bit doesn't seem to make a difference in latency but 96 or 768 kHz really does make a very noticeable difference. But as I said, I am not an expert or anything close to it.

Sure it does, but there are other (less expensive) ways to get it...What's more, 1.5 to 2 ms is roughly equivalent to the distance between your ears and the nearest hammers on a (real) piano...

Last edited by Luc Henrion (18-02-2024 20:14)

Luc Henrion's Website

2

12 Reply by Topher 18-02-2024 20:09

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

The smallest Scarlett costs less than 100.
An audio interface made for this purpose will be much more helpful in your low latency endeavour.

1

13 Reply by Luc Henrion 18-02-2024 20:23

Luc Henrion
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 897

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Let me make a comparison: there are speakers designed for hifi, where fidelity is paramount, to the detriment of efficiency (less than 90 dB for 1W/1m), and PA speakers where the opposite is true (sometimes more than 100 dB for 1W/1m). It's a bit the same here: your DAC is undoubtedly of excellent audio quality, but the drivers are not designed for very low latency, unlike the small Focusrite interfaces.

Luc Henrion's Website

1

14 Reply by dikrek 18-02-2024 20:25

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Topher wrote:

The smallest Scarlett costs less than 100.
An audio interface made for this purpose will be much more helpful in your low latency endeavour.

A decent interface will help a lot. Something that has OK headphone outs too. Without breaking the bank you can look at MOTU M2, SSL 2, Audient ID4. Maybe United audio Volt.

After that the sky is the limit.

I personally use an RME interface. They have by far the lowest latency for PC users, longest support (you’ll have it 20 years) and in general are amazing. But expensive.

The reason I’m not recommending the generally popular Focusrite Gen4 Scarlett is the headphone out has too high output impedance unless you go for the 4i4 model. Very weird.

In general, headphone out impedance needs to be small or at least smaller than your headphone impedance divided by 8 to avoid bass response issues.

So 50 ohm output impedance means you’d need headphones over 400 ohm, which most people don’t use.

The vast majority of headphone outs are 20 ohm impedance or less (good for 160 Ohm headphones or higher). Most interfaces will be 10 or less.

For good latency you’ll be installing the ASIO driver of whichever vendor you end up with, and go with 128 or less samples buffer.

The choices I’m recommending all are overall offering decent headphone amps, mic preamps and D/A stages.

If money is no object then there are better choices than the quantum (because you need to think about compatibility with your PC and long-term supportability if you’re spending a lot more).

Last edited by dikrek (18-02-2024 23:33)

2

15 Reply by Topher 18-02-2024 21:03

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

dikrek wrote:

MOTU M2, SSL 2, Audient ID4.
.

Had no idea these guys were making budget friendly interfaces now …definitely worth a look.

2

16 Reply by dikrek 18-02-2024 21:05

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Topher wrote:

dikrek wrote:
MOTU M2, SSL 2, Audient ID4.
.
Had no idea these guys were making budget friendly interfaces now …definitely worth a look.

Yeah I’d go there first before Focusrite. Mostly because of the recent Scarletts only being decent regarding headphone out impedance if you do the 4i4 model. At which price point you can now look at higher end versions of the ones I mentioned.

At the time of writing, Thomann shows the Scarlett 4i4 at £239, MOTU M4 £249, SSL 2+ £220, UAD Volt 276 £225.

So if you're OK spending a bit more to get the better Scarlett, then that also opens up the possibilities for the other vendors too.

So around the £220-250 level you have some solid options.

If you want to spend less then probably go with the ones I mentioned originally.

Last edited by dikrek (19-02-2024 17:14)

1

17 Reply by marcos daniel 19-02-2024 02:35

marcos daniel
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-09-2014
Posts: 266

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

32 or 24 bit doesn't seem to make a difference in latency but 96 or 768 kHz really does make a very noticeable difference. But as I said, I am not an expert or anything close to it.

It's just placebo effect. No human can hear above 20 kHz (that's why 44.1 kHz was chosen for CDs). In fact, most people over 40 probably will not distinguish between 48 and 32 kHz in blind tests. 44 or 48 kHz are enough fot humans.

The latencies informed by PT and other programs are not accurate, in this post there was some discussion about this:
https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?id=8170

Pianoteq Pro - Bechstein - Blüthner - Grotrian - K2 - Kremsegg 1 & 2 - Petrof - Steingraeber - Steinway B & D - YC5
Kawai CL35 & MP11

1

18 Reply by larrycalame 19-02-2024 03:27

larrycalame
Member
Offline

Registered: 05-03-2019
Posts: 35

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

I have no technical expertise on the matter, but I'd like to add two points that might be useful:

1. Given the USB Audio built in to the FP-30, you do not actually NEED an audio interface at all. I have an FP-90 and connect it directly to my Windows laptop, and use Windows audio low latency mode. with a latency of 10 ms. I could reduce it to 4.4 ms with Windows exclusive mode, but I cannot hear the difference, and I enjoy playing along with Youtube videos and the like.
2. Given the mechanical nature of an acoustic piano, zero latency is impossible. I've read that a latency of 20ms or so is common.

1

19 Reply by mdkgr 19-02-2024 06:10

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Thank you all for the answers! Great inputs!

dikrek wrote:

A decent interface will help a lot. Something that has OK headphone outs too. Without breaking the bank you can look at MOTU M2, SSL 2, Audient ID4. Maybe United audio Volt.

Will probably buy one of the interfaces mentioned on dikrek's post. Don't really want to break the bank just yet...

20 Reply by dikrek 19-02-2024 08:58

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

larrycalame wrote:

I have no technical expertise on the matter, but I'd like to add two points that might be useful:
1. Given the USB Audio built in to the FP-30, you do not actually NEED an audio interface at all. I have an FP-90 and connect it directly to my Windows laptop, and use Windows audio low latency mode. with a latency of 10 ms. I could reduce it to 4.4 ms with Windows exclusive mode, but I cannot hear the difference, and I enjoy playing along with Youtube videos and the like.
2. Given the mechanical nature of an acoustic piano, zero latency is impossible. I've read that a latency of 20ms or so is common.

The FP series doesn’t have the low latency drivers (ASIO), some other Roland keyboards do (Fantom for example).

20ms latency isn’t common and most people would find it unacceptable.

For the OP - try and see if your FP30 shows up as an audio output in Pianoteq standalone, and if you can set it to exclusive mode. I wouldn’t assume the entire series works the same way (the 90 has a totally different engine and internals, for example).

The 30X has it, this guy shows how to do it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6S-XHfab84Y

Then it will be up to you to see if it’s fast enough.

For me the Windows audio, even in exclusive mode, is too slow.

Last edited by dikrek (19-02-2024 09:04)

21 Reply by mdkgr 19-02-2024 09:04

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

dikrek wrote:

larrycalame wrote:
I have no technical expertise on the matter, but I'd like to add two points that might be useful:
1. Given the USB Audio built in to the FP-30, you do not actually NEED an audio interface at all. I have an FP-90 and connect it directly to my Windows laptop, and use Windows audio low latency mode. with a latency of 10 ms. I could reduce it to 4.4 ms with Windows exclusive mode, but I cannot hear the difference, and I enjoy playing along with Youtube videos and the like.
2. Given the mechanical nature of an acoustic piano, zero latency is impossible. I've read that a latency of 20ms or so is common.
The FP series doesn’t have the low latency drivers (ASIO), some other Roland keyboards do (Fantom for example).
20ms latency isn’t common and most people would find it unacceptable.
For the OP - try and see if your FP30X shows up as an audio output in Pianoteq standalone, and if you can set it to exclusive mode. I wouldn’t assume the entire series works the same way (the 90 has a totally different engine and internals, for example).

Here's what I get:

I don't remember if there is more to it (but I don't think so)...

Will experiment when I'll get back from work (I took that screenshot remotely with TeamViewer with the FP-30 disconnected). But yesterday when I experimented, my DAC's ASIO driver was the one with the least latency.

Thank you again for the interest.

Last edited by mdkgr (19-02-2024 09:07)

22 Reply by dikrek 19-02-2024 09:36

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

dikrek wrote:
larrycalame wrote:
I have no technical expertise on the matter, but I'd like to add two points that might be useful:
1. Given the USB Audio built in to the FP-30, you do not actually NEED an audio interface at all. I have an FP-90 and connect it directly to my Windows laptop, and use Windows audio low latency mode. with a latency of 10 ms. I could reduce it to 4.4 ms with Windows exclusive mode, but I cannot hear the difference, and I enjoy playing along with Youtube videos and the like.
2. Given the mechanical nature of an acoustic piano, zero latency is impossible. I've read that a latency of 20ms or so is common.
The FP series doesn’t have the low latency drivers (ASIO), some other Roland keyboards do (Fantom for example).
20ms latency isn’t common and most people would find it unacceptable.
For the OP - try and see if your FP30X shows up as an audio output in Pianoteq standalone, and if you can set it to exclusive mode. I wouldn’t assume the entire series works the same way (the 90 has a totally different engine and internals, for example).
Here's what I get:
I don't remember if there is more to it (but I don't think so)...
Will experiment when I'll get back from work (I took that screenshot remotely with TeamViewer with the FP-30 disconnected). But yesterday when I experimented, my DAC's ASIO driver was the one with the least latency.
Thank you again for the interest.

No, change the device first to the Roland.

Also your DAC can’t have low latency if it’s stuck to 1024 samples. And you don’t want to be playing back at 700KHz.

Last edited by dikrek (19-02-2024 09:37)

23 Reply by miiindbullets 19-02-2024 17:06

miiindbullets
Member
Offline

From: Idaho, USA
Registered: 31-03-2022
Posts: 221

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

larrycalame wrote:

1. Given the USB Audio built in to the FP-30, you do not actually NEED an audio interface at all.

Are you sure the FP30 has it? I thought that was only recently added to the "X" models (FP30X, etc.)

YouTube

miiindbullets's Website

24 Reply by dikrek 19-02-2024 17:09

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

miiindbullets wrote:

larrycalame wrote:
1. Given the USB Audio built in to the FP-30, you do not actually NEED an audio interface at all.
Are you sure the FP30 has it? I thought that was only recently added to the "X" models (FP30X, etc.)

We will soon see when OP tests it when he gets home

If it doesn't show up in the devices menu, then it doesn't have the interface. There's no extra driver for any of the FP line BTW, so either it has a generic class-compliant interface or it doesn't.

25 Reply by mdkgr 19-02-2024 21:41

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

I'm sorry for the delay (difficult day). By the way, I have the FP-30X model.

So, I get this:

But I'm kind of confused with what is happening with the output sound. When I have selected the Roland audio output and open Pianoteq, it's like it adds another sound layer on top of piano's onboard sound. So I need to see how I can turn off the onboard sound. I have experimented with the Function key trying to isolate the Pianoteq sound but couldn't figure it out just yet. Or maybe I have understood it all wrong, maybe I'm tired. It felt fast however, even if I couldn't discern clearly the two sounds.

Tomorrow I'll try to watch the video that dikrek mentioned above, maybe it'll be helpful. Skimming through it, I think it'll help me. Hopefully I'll find time tomorrow...

I really appreciate all your help so far.

Last edited by mdkgr (19-02-2024 21:46)

26 Reply by dikrek 19-02-2024 22:03

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

I'm sorry for the delay (difficult day). By the way, I have the FP-30X model.
So, I get this:
But I'm kind of confused with what is happening with the output sound. When I have selected the Roland audio output and open Pianoteq, it's like it adds another sound layer on top of piano's onboard sound. So I need to see how I can turn off the onboard sound. I have experimented with the Function key trying to isolate the Pianoteq sound but couldn't figure it out just yet. Or maybe I have understood it all wrong, maybe I'm tired. It felt fast however, even if I couldn't discern clearly the two sounds.
Tomorrow I'll try to watch the video that dikrek mentioned above, maybe it'll be helpful. Skimming through it, I think it'll help me. Hopefully I'll find time tomorrow...
I really appreciate all your help so far.

The video shows exactly what button to press to disable the local audio.

27 Reply by Amen Ptah Ra 20-02-2024 14:19

Amen Ptah Ra
Member
Offline

From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: 12-05-2017
Posts: 1,810

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

I'm sorry for the delay (difficult day). By the way, I have the FP-30X model.
So, I get this:
But I'm kind of confused with what is happening with the output sound. When I have selected the Roland audio output and open Pianoteq, it's like it adds another sound layer on top of piano's onboard sound. So I need to see how I can turn off the onboard sound. I have experimented with the Function key trying to isolate the Pianoteq sound but couldn't figure it out just yet. Or maybe I have understood it all wrong, maybe I'm tired. It felt fast however, even if I couldn't discern clearly the two sounds.
Tomorrow I'll try to watch the video that dikrek mentioned above, maybe it'll be helpful. Skimming through it, I think it'll help me. Hopefully I'll find time tomorrow...
I really appreciate all your help so far.

Probably somewhere within all your MIDI settings on the Roland itself, you've the specific setting that can allow you to switch off "Local Control."

When used, the local control setting both enables and disables the piano's onboard sound engine though it simultaneously permits MIDI events to pass thru a USB cable onto the computer —and of course directly to PIANOTEQ software.

Pianoteq 8 Studio Bundle, Pearl malletSTATION EM1, Roland (DRUM SOUND MODULE TD-30, HandSonic 10, AX-1), Akai EWI USB, Yamaha DIGITAL PIANO P-95, M-Audio STUDIOPHILE BX5, Focusrite Saffire PRO 24 DSP.

28 Reply by mdkgr 20-02-2024 14:28

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Amen Ptah Ra wrote:

mdkgr wrote:
I'm sorry for the delay (difficult day). By the way, I have the FP-30X model.
So, I get this:
But I'm kind of confused with what is happening with the output sound. When I have selected the Roland audio output and open Pianoteq, it's like it adds another sound layer on top of piano's onboard sound. So I need to see how I can turn off the onboard sound. I have experimented with the Function key trying to isolate the Pianoteq sound but couldn't figure it out just yet. Or maybe I have understood it all wrong, maybe I'm tired. It felt fast however, even if I couldn't discern clearly the two sounds.
Tomorrow I'll try to watch the video that dikrek mentioned above, maybe it'll be helpful. Skimming through it, I think it'll help me. Hopefully I'll find time tomorrow...
I really appreciate all your help so far.
Probably somewhere within all your MIDI settings on the Roland itself, you've the specific setting that can allow you to switch off "Local Control."
When used, the local control setting both enables and disables the piano's onboard sound engine though it simultaneously permits MIDI events to pass thru a USB cable onto the computer —and of course directly to PIANOTEQ software.

Yeah, found the option from the video that dikrek mentioned.

Currently experimenting with all the available options.

I want to find out which option offers the best experience.

But I think I can't avoid the dedicated audio interface.

Thanks again for all the inputs. You guys were SO helpful!

Last edited by mdkgr (20-02-2024 14:28)

29 Reply by dikrek 20-02-2024 14:34

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

Amen Ptah Ra wrote:
mdkgr wrote:
I'm sorry for the delay (difficult day). By the way, I have the FP-30X model.
So, I get this:
But I'm kind of confused with what is happening with the output sound. When I have selected the Roland audio output and open Pianoteq, it's like it adds another sound layer on top of piano's onboard sound. So I need to see how I can turn off the onboard sound. I have experimented with the Function key trying to isolate the Pianoteq sound but couldn't figure it out just yet. Or maybe I have understood it all wrong, maybe I'm tired. It felt fast however, even if I couldn't discern clearly the two sounds.
Tomorrow I'll try to watch the video that dikrek mentioned above, maybe it'll be helpful. Skimming through it, I think it'll help me. Hopefully I'll find time tomorrow...
I really appreciate all your help so far.
Probably somewhere within all your MIDI settings on the Roland itself, you've the specific setting that can allow you to switch off "Local Control."
When used, the local control setting both enables and disables the piano's onboard sound engine though it simultaneously permits MIDI events to pass thru a USB cable onto the computer —and of course directly to PIANOTEQ software.
Yeah, found the option from the video that dikrek mentioned.
Currently experimenting with all the available options.
I want to find out which option offers the best experience.
But I think I can't avoid the dedicated audio interface.
Thanks again for all the inputs. You guys were SO helpful!

See how it feels - if exclusive mode, 48KHz and the smallest sample buffer is too slow, then probably go for a MOTU M2 (M4 if you can swing the extra cash, it’s only a tiny bit more).

If you’re very latency-sensitive then it has the best of the less expensive interfaces (and great overall performance).

Otherwise you’re going to much more expensive territory.

30 Reply by mdkgr 20-02-2024 14:40

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

dikrek wrote:

mdkgr wrote:
Amen Ptah Ra wrote:
Probably somewhere within all your MIDI settings on the Roland itself, you've the specific setting that can allow you to switch off "Local Control."
When used, the local control setting both enables and disables the piano's onboard sound engine though it simultaneously permits MIDI events to pass thru a USB cable onto the computer —and of course directly to PIANOTEQ software.
Yeah, found the option from the video that dikrek mentioned.
Currently experimenting with all the available options.
I want to find out which option offers the best experience.
But I think I can't avoid the dedicated audio interface.
Thanks again for all the inputs. You guys were SO helpful!
See how it feels - if exclusive mode, 48KHz and the smallest sample buffer is too slow, then probably go for a MOTU M2 (M4 if you can swing the extra cash, it’s only a tiny bit more).
If you’re very latency-sensitive then it has the best of the less expensive interfaces (and great overall performance).
Otherwise you’re going to much more expensive territory.

I'm very latency-sensitive but I can convince myself to get over it because the sound is that much better. That's what I think at the moment, at least. On long practice sessions I will have a better view...

I don't mind spending another 250. The problem is that I can't be sure what I'm getting, how different will the experience be. It's all speculative. But I feel like that I'd be satisfied.

Will try to see if I can live with what I got and then make a decision.

Last edited by mdkgr (20-02-2024 14:41)

31 Reply by Topher 20-02-2024 17:10

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

I don't mind spending another 250. The problem is that I can't be sure what I'm getting, how different will the experience be. It's all speculative. But I feel like that I'd be satisfied.
Will try to see if I can live with what I got and then make a decision.

If the round trip latency is as MOTU state you likely won’t feel any latency with the M2.
If it doesn’t deliver you could return it and save up some extra cash for something as fast as the Quantum.

Last edited by Topher (20-02-2024 17:10)

1

32 Reply by levinite 21-02-2024 02:44

levinite
Member
Offline

Registered: 07-08-2020
Posts: 104

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

marcos daniel wrote:

mdkgr wrote:
32 or 24 bit doesn't seem to make a difference in latency but 96 or 768 kHz really does make a very noticeable difference. But as I said, I am not an expert or anything close to it.
It's just placebo effect. No human can hear above 20 kHz (that's why 44.1 kHz was chosen for CDs). In fact, most people over 40 probably will not distinguish between 48 and 32 kHz in blind tests. 44 or 48 kHz are enough fot humans.
The latencies informed by PT and other programs are not accurate, in this post there was some discussion about this:
https://forum.modartt.com/viewtopic.php?id=8170

Without regard to latency, in theory, yes but there is a bit more than just placebo because the conversion from digital to analog determines much of the audio quality and there are a lot of reasons (filtering quality cost etc) to convert the higher sample rate signals. That conversion process involves much more than whether we hear the highest frequencies and is why we may want to spend so much on it.

33 Reply by Topher 21-02-2024 11:41

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

levinite wrote:

Without regard to latency, in theory, yes but there is a bit more than just placebo because the conversion from digital to analog determines much of the audio quality and there are a lot of reasons (filtering quality cost etc) to convert the higher sample rate signals. That conversion process involves much more than whether we hear the highest frequencies and is why we may want to spend so much on it.

Yes. When I got my first music computer, I recorded at all the different available sample rates and bit depths and while going up in sample rate produced nothing like the increase in sound quality as higher bit depth, there was a discernible difference, though nowhere near enough to justify the CPU hit and bloated file size.

34 Reply by Luc Henrion 21-02-2024 15:20

Luc Henrion
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 897

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

There have been many blind tests with different sampling frequencies, and almost all have come to one obvious conclusion: even "golden ears" don't pass the test. Personally, after recording in 96 KHz for a few years, I've gone back to 44.1 or 48 KHz - in 24-bit, of course, and all my customers are satisfied. This is just my opinion, but try it for yourself.

Luc Henrion's Website

35 Reply by Topher 21-02-2024 17:21

Topher
Member
Offline

Registered: 13-02-2024
Posts: 20

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Luc Henrion wrote:

There have been many blind tests with different sampling frequencies, and almost all have come to one obvious conclusion: even "golden ears" don't pass the test. Personally, after recording in 96 KHz for a few years, I've gone back to 44.1 or 48 KHz - in 24-bit, of course, and all my customers are satisfied. This is just my opinion, but try it for yourself.

I did try it for myself and there was a difference.
Many proclaiming their ears to be golden may be mistaken and test processes can be botched.
The only test you can rely on is one that you conduct and even then, for reasons touched on by levinite, the system you test on may or may not expose differences.

36 Reply by dikrek 21-02-2024 20:47

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Topher wrote:

Luc Henrion wrote:
There have been many blind tests with different sampling frequencies, and almost all have come to one obvious conclusion: even "golden ears" don't pass the test. Personally, after recording in 96 KHz for a few years, I've gone back to 44.1 or 48 KHz - in 24-bit, of course, and all my customers are satisfied. This is just my opinion, but try it for yourself.

I did try it for myself and there was a difference.
Many proclaiming their ears to be golden may be mistaken and test processes can be botched.
The only test you can rely on is one that you conduct and even then, for reasons touched on by levinite, the system you test on may or may not expose differences.

There are also aliasing issues with many plugins at 40-something KHz.

Switching to 96KHz gets rid of all those problems.

So it’s not just the frequencies you can hear, it’s about artifacts audibly damaging to audio that can be avoided by going to a higher sample rate.

You can then convert the final mix from 96 to 44.1KHz and that will work great.

But the intermediate working space is 96KHz/24 bit.

37 Reply by Luc Henrion 22-02-2024 10:00

Luc Henrion
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 897

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

In my experience (yet another personal opinion!), aliasing occurs more often with DA converters (poorly designed filters) than with plug-ins (unless the design is poor, here too), and, what's more, conversion from 96 to 44.1 is not free of artifacts either. Switching from 96 to 48 is of course no problem.
2 cents again :-)

Luc Henrion's Website

38 Reply by dikrek 22-02-2024 12:03

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Luc Henrion wrote:

In my experience (yet another personal opinion!), aliasing occurs more often with DA converters (poorly designed filters) than with plug-ins (unless the design is poor, here too), and, what's more, conversion from 96 to 44.1 is not free of artifacts either. Switching from 96 to 48 is of course no problem.
2 cents again :-)

Tons of plugins have horrible aliasing. Very commonly seen at 44.1. It’s just safer overall to work higher (88.2 if you want to easily convert to 44.1 even with poor converters, though any modern good converter does a perfect job converting from 96 to 44.1).

39 Reply by dikrek 24-02-2024 10:44

dikrek
Member
Offline

Registered: 06-02-2023
Posts: 92

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

dikrek wrote:
mdkgr wrote:
Yeah, found the option from the video that dikrek mentioned.
Currently experimenting with all the available options.
I want to find out which option offers the best experience.
But I think I can't avoid the dedicated audio interface.
Thanks again for all the inputs. You guys were SO helpful!
See how it feels - if exclusive mode, 48KHz and the smallest sample buffer is too slow, then probably go for a MOTU M2 (M4 if you can swing the extra cash, it’s only a tiny bit more).
If you’re very latency-sensitive then it has the best of the less expensive interfaces (and great overall performance).
Otherwise you’re going to much more expensive territory.
I'm very latency-sensitive but I can convince myself to get over it because the sound is that much better. That's what I think at the moment, at least. On long practice sessions I will have a better view...
I don't mind spending another 250. The problem is that I can't be sure what I'm getting, how different will the experience be. It's all speculative. But I feel like that I'd be satisfied.
Will try to see if I can live with what I got and then make a decision.

Try the low latency mode for windows audio. The exclusive mode for me felt higher latency. Ensure you’re at the lowest possible audio buffer size too.

40 Reply by mdkgr 24-02-2024 10:56

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

dikrek wrote:

mdkgr wrote:
dikrek wrote:
See how it feels - if exclusive mode, 48KHz and the smallest sample buffer is too slow, then probably go for a MOTU M2 (M4 if you can swing the extra cash, it’s only a tiny bit more).
If you’re very latency-sensitive then it has the best of the less expensive interfaces (and great overall performance).
Otherwise you’re going to much more expensive territory.
I'm very latency-sensitive but I can convince myself to get over it because the sound is that much better. That's what I think at the moment, at least. On long practice sessions I will have a better view...
I don't mind spending another 250. The problem is that I can't be sure what I'm getting, how different will the experience be. It's all speculative. But I feel like that I'd be satisfied.
Will try to see if I can live with what I got and then make a decision.
Try the low latency mode for windows audio. The exclusive mode for me felt higher latency. Ensure you’re at the lowest possible audio buffer size too.

So, I got three options:

The fastest is the Roland one with the exclusive audio selection. I can get used to it for sure... The low latency is the slowest amongst the three. The ASIO Chord driver is in the middle but sounds the best. I wonder how much faster would a dedicated audio interface be (like the MOTU M2).

41 Reply by mdkgr 24-02-2024 14:59

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Found a "fast" setup through ASIO4ALL also:

42 Reply by Luc Henrion 24-02-2024 20:01

Luc Henrion
Member
Offline

Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 897

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

mdkgr wrote:

Found a "fast" setup through ASIO4ALL also:

Try it out, but personally I've had problems with ASIO4all...

Luc Henrion's Website

43 Reply by mdkgr 24-02-2024 20:05

mdkgr
Member
Offline

Registered: 08-02-2023
Posts: 13

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Luc Henrion wrote:

mdkgr wrote:
Found a "fast" setup through ASIO4ALL also:
Try it out, but personally I've had problems with ASIO4all...

Am trying it atm. It feels the fastest (if I'm not fooling myself). No audio dropouts etc. So for now, this seems the best option before I buy a MOTU M4 or something similar. It feels kind of overkill to get a 300€ interface just to play Pianoteq but I might change my mind as the time goes on.

44 Reply by brundlefly 24-02-2024 20:40

brundlefly
Member
Offline

Registered: 31-03-2022
Posts: 136

Re: Pianoteq for Playing (Latency - Sample Rates)

Glancing through this thread, I see no mention of these three significant contibutors (in additiion to buffer size) to overall latency between a key press on your MIDI controller and audio reaching your ears:

1. MIDI keyboard scan/transmission/buffering latency (typically 2-3ms, but can easily be more with a cheap USB interface)

2. Hidden/Unreported hardware/firmware/bus output latency of the audio interface (also typically 2-3ms and can easily be more with a cheap USB interface).

3. Speed of sound from your monitors to your ears (likely 3-4 ms unless you're wearing headphones) Of course this is no different from a real piano so can be ignored for our purposes. And if you use headphones, that can actually compensate for some of the digital latencies.

Bottom line is you can't just divide the buffer size by the sample rate and say you're getting, for example, 1.3ms of latency with a 64-sample buffer at 48kHz (or 1024 at 768kHz). In reality, the total latency from the time you press a key to the time you hear the sound is probably at least 6ms if you use headphones and 9ms if you use nearfield monitors.

If you really want to know what you're getting for latency in the digital realm, you need to do MIDI and Audio loopback tests to measure the round-trip latency of both and divide that by two (since you're only dealing with MIDI input and Audio output in the case of a soft synth).

The free CEntrance latency tester can hep with measuring ASIO round-trip latency:

https://centrance.com/driverfolder/CE_LTU_37.zip

Measuring MIDI latency requires a DAW.

2