Jump to content
ossianott

Disable "hardware" monitoring?

Recommended Posts

Hello, I'm using the HX stomp as an interface for recording, when I want to use the amp modelling but not the onboard reverb/delays for lets say solo/leads, I want to disable hardware monitoring but listen to the wet signal on the HX Stomp (Not channel 5/6 which is totally clean), but routed through reaper with VST delay/reverb on, is this possible? The only way I can turn off hardware monitoring is by lowering the main l/r block fully but then reaper won't receive signal on channel 1/2.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off: You want hardware monitoring, at least for the amp sounds. Latency of the Helix family used as audio interfaces is anything but shiny. Of course, YMMV, but I can't (or at least don't want to) deal with 10ms of latency when using headphones.

So, my advice would be to keep your sounds as they are and switch off all effects you'd like to be coming from Reaper (delay/reverb). Which is a pretty good idea of course, as any editing and mixing becomes a lot easier when dealing with dry core tones.

Now, I don't know how this is dealt with in Reaper, but in Logic I simply drag my channel fader down and use pre fader sends to feed Logics FX (which are on busses, obviously set to 100% wet). Well, I even have a specialized input channel for these tasks, but that might not be possible in Reaper. Anyway, this way I'm getting the best of both worlds: Hardware monitoring with pretty much no latency (ok, around 2ms caused by the Helix hardware - which is pretty damn good) and software effects for monitoring pleasure only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create a Path B at the end of your signal chain (requires a block).

Zero the Output on Path A.

Set the Input on the Reaper Track to 3/4.

As Sascha mentioned, you will have to deal with the latency, but if you've got a good, properly optimized computer you should get <10ms @ 64spls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said, I would likely stick with hardware monitoring as long as possible - one of *the* great aspects of the Helix btw, being able to monitor without having to deal with latency issues while still having all re-amping options, even better in case you also own Helix Native.

I could run things at 64 samples all throughout, but there's still the occasional plugin raising roundtrip latency, and while Logic has a low latency recording mode (which automatically bypasses all plugins adding more than a user-definable amount of additional latency) which is working pretty well, it still isn't too desirable pretty often. Using hardware monitoring through the Helix solves all these issues just nicely.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies, I tried your method rd2rk and it worked good, was playable up to 128 samples, then at 256 it got a bit messy. There was a very slight difference from 64 compared to direct monitoring from the unit, it's nice to have both available if I wish to use VST effects! Will most likely stick with hardware monitoring most of the time.

 

Sascha, do you mean it's possible to play and record using hardware monitoring to a song with very heavy latency, and still the recorded tracks come out in sync with the song? Or do you have to physically align the tracks for reamping after they are recorded, and then reamp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ossianott said:

Sascha, do you mean it's possible to play and record using hardware monitoring to a song with very heavy latency, and still the recorded tracks come out in sync with the song? Or do you have to physically align the tracks for reamping after they are recorded, and then reamp?

 

I have no idea how things are in Reaper land, using Logic the answer is yes, it's all fine. But I'd think it'd work just as well in Reaper. After all, latency hasn't got anything to do with the correct placement of your recordings.

Fwiw, in Logic, there's one scenario when this won't work, but I'm considering it a bug (and a very longstanding one at that): Once you have any latency introducing plugin on your master bus, recordings will be placed with an offset as large as the latency introduced by these plugins, even if you bypass them. Quite ridiculous that they haven't fixed that after years. I'm mentioning this because other sequencers might have issues with that, too (Cubase however doesn't, from all I know). In a nutshell, you should rather check out these things.

In general, I can record into stuffed projects just fine, even if I raise my buffersize to the maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rd2rk said:

Create a Path B at the end of your signal chain (requires a block).

Zero the Output on Path A.

Set the Input on the Reaper Track to 3/4.

As Sascha mentioned, you will have to deal with the latency, but if you've got a good, properly optimized computer you should get <10ms @ 64spls.

 

FYI, the Helix / HX Stomp cannot get below 10ms on any setting regardless of computer. I own both and have measured with RTL. It *should* be lower based on the buffer size, but it's ~2x latency of my other audio device at the same sample rate/buffer (Presonus 22VSL). Yes, I am running the latest firmware. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mark_gamache said:

 

FYI, the Helix / HX Stomp cannot get below 10ms on any setting regardless of computer. I own both and have measured with RTL. It *should* be lower based on the buffer size, but it's ~2x latency of my other audio device at the same sample rate/buffer (Presonus 22VSL). Yes, I am running the latest firmware. 

 

You may be right. The best I can get with Helix is 12.5ms. I'm using a 7th gen i7 laptop that could be better optimized if all I used it for was audio, so I've always assumed that a properly configured latest gen i7 or i9 desktop could do better. My 2nd gen Scarlett 18i20 at 16spls gets 3.6ms (DAW reported - RTL reports better, but I don't remember exactly what it was). Unfortunately, the laptop won't run that sample rate without noise.

 

I assume you've got (or have tested on) an i9?

I'm jealous. I want one!

Even if it won't make Helix latency less.

As stated above, direct monitoring is always best anyway.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rd2rk said:

 

You may be right. The best I can get with Helix is 12.5ms. I'm using a 7th gen i7 laptop that could be better optimized if all I used it for was audio, so I've always assumed that a properly configured latest gen i7 or i9 desktop could do better. My 2nd gen Scarlett 18i20 at 16spls gets 3.6ms (DAW reported - RTL reports better, but I don't remember exactly what it was). Unfortunately, the laptop won't run that sample rate without noise.

 

I assume you've got (or have tested on) an i9?

I'm jealous. I want one!

Even if it won't make Helix latency less.

As stated above, direct monitoring is always best anyway.

 

 

Same for me. The Helix is great for recording via hardware monitoring, but if you're using it to play other VST plugins live, it's pretty poor for it due to the latency. I have a verrry old NI Rig Kontrol 2 with ancient drivers that has half the latency of my Helix. I don't get why the Helix has such ridiculous latency as an interface--anyone know? Is it just the driver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, qwerty42 said:

Same for me. The Helix is great for recording via hardware monitoring, but if you're using it to play other VST plugins live, it's pretty poor for it due to the latency. I have a verrry old NI Rig Kontrol 2 with ancient drivers that has half the latency of my Helix. I don't get why the Helix has such ridiculous latency as an interface--anyone know? Is it just the driver?

 

I just ran the RTL Utility on my Helix Floor. at 96k/64samples the RTL was 10.402ms.

I'm going to post that over on TGP and see if DI responds.

I'll report back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, qwerty42 said:

I don't get why the Helix has such ridiculous latency as an interface--anyone know? Is it just the driver?

 

I'd say it's a mixture of the used hardware and the drivers. And pretty unlikely to be improved, as otherwise that would've likely happened already. Given that quite some of the other "not too relevant" hardware things aren't any better than average (and in some cases not even that), I'd suspect a rather low level interface to work under the Helix' hood. Works fine for plain recordings but it's defenitely way behind pretty much all plain/dedicated interfaces.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SaschaFranck said:

 

I'd say it's a mixture of the used hardware and the drivers. And pretty unlikely to be improved, as otherwise that would've likely happened already. Given that quite some of the other "not too relevant" hardware things aren't any better than average (and in some cases not even that), I'd suspect a rather low level interface to work under the Helix' hood. Works fine for plain recordings but it's defenitely way behind pretty much all plain/dedicated interfaces.
 

 

I suspect it might be due to the latency compensation Helix uses for it's loops. Because Helix has to sync external loops (that each have a A/D latency) it delays the whole signal equal to the max delay 4 loops). Let's say this is ~1.8 ms per loop the total would be at least ~8-9ms added to the latency.  I don't know the exact amount. Now that I am thinking, it's testable by routing through each loop and seeing if the latency is higher. Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mark_gamache said:

 

I suspect it might be due to the latency compensation Helix uses for it's loops. Because Helix has to sync external loops (that each have a A/D latency) it delays the whole signal equal to the max delay 4 loops). Let's say this is ~1.8 ms per loop the total would be at least ~8-9ms added to the latency.  I don't know the exact amount. Now that I am thinking, it's testable by routing through each loop and seeing if the latency is higher. Just a thought...

 

Nah, the latemcy added by the loops comes on top in any scenario, regardless whether you're using it standalone or as an audio interface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...