Recording to PC.... question

[YamaYairi]

My understanding is that if I set the output of Audacity (which is what I am using) to USB, I could monitor what I have already recorded through the audio interface while I record additional tracks, using the Mix control for mixing what I hear. This is where latency comes in, there may be a delay of what is played back from the already recorded tracks. Alesis claims zero latency but I don't know what that refers to or if it is processor or software dependent. I haven't tried multi tracking yet.
I have Linux so I couldn't use the software that comes with the interface.

[MikeBmusic]

I'm not familiar with Audacity, but all full-featured DAWs take care of that 'latency' of matching the recorded tracks to the new tracks. If they didn't then every time you recorded a new track, it would be delayed a little further from the last one and pretty soon you'd have a mess.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

I'm not familiar with Audacity, but all full-featured DAWs take care of that 'latency' of matching the recorded tracks to the new tracks. If they didn't then every time you recorded a new track, it would be delayed a little further from the last one and pretty soon you'd have a mess.

Yea that's not exactly true. All "native" based DAW's have some form of latency. It's steadfastly gotten better and better over the years but it's still there. Some people hear it, some don't. Some are extremely troubled by it other's just deal.

MOTU was the first to address it WAAAAY back when in the early versions of Performer with their AudioDesk software applet. The only way to truly avoid latency (altogether) is to use a separate monitoring device (usually a mixer and as I mentioned earlier it can be hardware or software) or there is of course the Digidesign HD systems that boast zero latency, of course at a grand cost, but even there certain plug-ins cause uncomfortable amounts of delay in monitoring.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Jónsi

Ok, I think I had a misconception of what latency was.

My interpretation was based on the ability of the USB interface to send the signal through to the computer consistently, reliably, and up to speed. Meaning, no missed or late notes due to lag.

What it seems you guys are saying is that latency would be noticed if I monitored the sound from the PC... vs. from the interface. Not how the signal is sent to the PC. If I am wrong, please correct me.

I think that answers another of my questions, which was that I've seen people say it's important to have a headphone jack in the interface, while I thought it would be better to hear what the PC receives... not what it's being sent.

So the USB interface will give me a mix of both signals? The interface
will receive from the guitar, and from the PC, at the same time... so that I can hear what's already recorded along with my new signal and give me the ability to blend the two for the headphones ?

Also, in reference to something you said Joseph, is there a way I can tell what interface works with what software?
Is it something listed on the software sites?
Or maybe the interface sites?
I will look and see in the meantime, but not sure I will find the answer.

Also... any thoughts on the 48kHz limitation on the Alesis/M-Audio interfaces mentioned earlier

I seriously appreciate the time you guys have offered in helping explain this.
Thank you!

There's a lot here by way of questions 😃 First in sticking with the original question and regarding latency: Latency can show up in several areas. One of course (and this was particularly egregious and almost insurmountable in the early days) was latency between the previous take and the overdub. Sometimes it was so bad it was inoperable. The second and perhaps more insidious for larger sessions was the latency introduced by instantiating a plug in on one channel and not the other. The latency of the channel with a reverb on it would get noticably wonky against a channel that didn't have a reverb.

Good drivers and fast computers along with interim mixer software has pretty much rendered latency during recording totally manageable. Some of these interim software mixers even have reverb available during recording. Some VERY efficient DAW's (like Logic) will let you use reverb from the DAW itself during recording with only a minimum of wackiness. All major DAW software also has some form of "low latency" mode that by hook or crook helps (but seldom totally solves) latency problems.

Delay compensation is a term that addresses the previously mentioned problem with having consumptive plug-ins on some channels and not the others. Things like drum kits with stereo overheads often got out of phase and just downright awful sounding when some of the overheads had processing that the kit didn't. Some DAW's deal with this much better than others. Still this is a form of latency.

Finally 48k is an absolute and utter non issue. 24 bit 44.1 is all you'll ever, ever need. Period.

[Jónsi]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

There's a lot here by way of questions ��

Lol, yeah.. just trying to get them in while people are still responding to the thread.

First in sticking with the original question and regarding latency: Latency can show up in several areas. One of course (and this was particularly egregious and almost insurmountable in the early days) was latency between the previous take and the overdub. Sometimes it was so bad it was inoperable. The second and perhaps more insidious for larger sessions was the latency introduced by instantiating a plug in on one channel and not the other. The latency of the channel with a reverb on it would get noticably wonky against a channel that didn't have a reverb.

Good drivers and fast computers along with interim mixer software has pretty much rendered latency during recording totally manageable. Some of these interim software mixers even have reverb available during recording. Some VERY efficient DAW's (like Logic) will let you use reverb from the DAW itself during recording with only a minimum of wackiness. All major DAW software also has some form of "low latency" mode that by hook or crook helps (but seldom totally solves) latency problems.

Delay compensation is a term that addresses the previously mentioned problem with having consumptive plug-ins on some channels and not the others. Things like drum kits with stereo overheads often got out of phase and just downright awful sounding when some of the overheads had processing that the kit didn't. Some DAW's deal with this much better than others. Still this is a form of latency.

That all makes sense to me. I truly appreciate the explanations.
Especially the separate channel issue you mentioned. Something I likely would have been puzzled by.

Finally 48k is an absolute and utter non issue. 24 bit 44.1 is all you'll ever, ever need. Period.

I was reading an article comparing USB interfaces and the Alesis iO2 I am interested in was mentioned as "only recording" in 48kHz, while other <$100 interfaces can do 96kHz. I couldn't imagine that being something noticeable to me but I had to ask.
So thanks for that also.

I think I'm going to go cheap at first. The Alesis iO2, and Reaper.
Although if people can recommend an easy-to-use DAW with a simple, user-friendly interface, I would love to know about it.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Jónsi

...[snip]...
I think I'm going to go cheap at first. The Alesis iO2, and Reaper.
Although if people can recommend an east-to-use DAW with a simple, user-friendly interface, I would love to know about it.

I think the Alesis iO2 will work fine for your needs. From what I see, it will provide a means for direct monitoring of what you're recording using the controls on the interface; this should give you zero latency on hearing the channel you are recording and it seems you won't have to deal with a mixer application running between your hardware interface and the DAW. This seems like the simplest way to go for PC recording of 1 or 2 channels at a time.

You could also consider the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2; there's a used one for sale in the AGF classifieds for $95. It may be higher quality than the Alesis, however it does not have the hardware knob for mix control of direct and DAW signals for monitoring (that would have to be done by controlling the level out of the DAW). For features, the Scarlett 2i4 is closer to the Alesis.

If I was you, I'd start with Audacity instead of Reaper. For doing very basic recording, mixing, and making audio files I think Audacity is a bit easier and a bit more intuitive. Audacity is also free, vs $60 for Reaper.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If I was you, I'd start with Audacity instead of Reaper. For doing very basic recording, mixing, and making audio files I think Audacity is a bit easier and a bit more intuitive. Audacity is also free, vs $60 for Reaper.

Reaper is free to download and try out, $60 to register it. But it is pretty complex, offering all the features of high-priced DAWs. The 400+ page user manual is very good to read through when getting started.

[YamaYairi]

Last night I tried some multi-tracking with the Alesis and my laptop, and Audacity. It works exactly like I thought; set the output of Audacity to Alesis iO2, and use the Mix control on the Alesis to mix the headphone output between the mic signal and the playback from the computer. No delay and it worked great. When you go to play back your recording you will have to either monitor with the iO2, or change the output on Audacity back to Default if you have an audio system connected to your computer's sound card.

[Jónsi]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

I think the Alesis iO2 will work fine for your needs. From what I see, it will provide a means for direct monitoring of what you're recording using the controls on the interface; this should give you zero latency on hearing the channel you are recording and it seems you won't have to deal with a mixer application running between your hardware interface and the DAW. This seems like the simplest way to go for PC recording of 1 or 2 channels at a time.

You could also consider the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2; there's a used one for sale in the AGF classifieds for $95. It may be higher quality than the Alesis, however it does not have the hardware knob for mix control of direct and DAW signals for monitoring (that would have to be done by controlling the level out of the DAW). For features, the Scarlett 2i4 is closer to the Alesis.

If I was you, I'd start with Audacity instead of Reaper. For doing very basic recording, mixing, and making audio files I think Audacity is a bit easier and a bit more intuitive. Audacity is also free, vs $60 for Reaper.

Reading reviews, I like what I see about the Scarlett. I would like that "blend" control though. I see a "monitor" knob along with a headphone knob. Are you saying you can't change the mix between the "new" sent signal, and the previously recorded signal?
That surprises me, considering the good reviews and price.

I have used Audacity for cutting individual songs out of complete concerts I've downloaded, or things like that. I never knew it was a multitrack recorder. For the price, I still am interested in Reaper. But also keeping in mind whatever software comes with the USB interface I end up buying. Seems it's all pretty limited, but may be plenty for my goals.

Am curious about this "Studio One Artist" DAW. In case anyone has any experience and wants to share it.

Thanks for the advice.

[Jónsi]

Originally Posted by YamaYairi

Last night I tried some multi-tracking with the Alesis and my laptop, and Audacity. It works exactly like I thought; set the output of Audacity to Alesis iO2, and use the Mix control on the Alesis to mix the headphone output between the mic signal and the playback from the computer. No delay and it worked great. When you go to play back your recording you will have to either monitor with the iO2, or change the output on Audacity back to Default if you have an audio system connected to your computer's sound card.

Thank you for the update. Like I just told someone else, I had no idea Audacity had multitracking. Any idea how plug-ins may work with it ?

[YamaYairi]

Originally Posted by Jónsi

Thank you for the update. Like I just told someone else, I had no idea Audacity had multitracking. Any idea how plug-ins may work with it ?

Not sure what you mean by plug ins. Audacity has "plug ins" that are the different effects and there are many of them. The Plate Reverb is really good and natural sounding. In addition to what comes with the Audacity install, you can download other plug ins for free.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Jónsi

Reading reviews, I like what I see about the Scarlett. I would like that "blend" control though. I see a "monitor" knob along with a headphone knob. Are you saying you can't change the mix between the "new" sent signal, and the previously recorded signal?
That surprises me, considering the good reviews and price.

...[snip]....

The Scarlett 2i2 I was refering to (in the AGF classifieds) does not seem to have a blend knob (I assume you'd have to control the blend via your DAW output level). The Scarlett 2i4 has a blend knob.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

The Scarlett 2i2 I was refering to (in the AGF classifieds) does not seem to have a blend knob

Neither does my Tascam US800, it's done in the software - there's a 'virtual mixer'.

[polarred21]

Have you considered anything like this? Anyone tried it?

http://www.amazon.com/CAD-U37-Conden...tar+microphone