(05-09-2020, 03:03 PM)Moose Hofer Wrote: Jim,
I run an older MacBook Air with the UMC 404HD On initial setup, latency will be around 10 with the core audio. Changing the frame size,( I think it was that setting name)to 1ms experimental and I get 7.4. I have been happy there. I’ve made a few other tweaks, etc. And it’s been stable.
I’m pretty sure the 202, and 204 would do about the same. The biggest advantage to the 404 is the number of inputs. With one mic you probably don’t need 4 inputs for JK?
Let me know if I can help. Hi Moose and Hans - thanks for all the good information. I bit the bullet and bought the Behringer UMC404HD (202 not available anymore & I hope sometime to do 4 part simultaneous recording). The result is that I can't get the 4.0 ms audio latency that Hans reports on his Windows machine. But I can get close 6.3
The other variable I've just been playing with is the clock rate - go to Applications-Utilities-AudioMidiSetup - and I change this from the default of 192,000 down to 48,000Hz. Then did the same as you did, adjusting the Frame Size to the 1ms experimental option. At the 192,000 clock (sample rate?) it resulted in very high latency - 35ms. At the 48,000Hz setting I got the Audio Latency down to 6.3ms. A friend using the Behringer UMC404 on a Windows 10 machine (with the custom Behringer driver) reports an audio latency on JamKazam of 4.0ms I don't know if this difference is because the Windows 10 machine is newer,bigger, faster - or if it is the operating system - Core Audio differences.
On a related note, Focusrite that makes the Scarlet USB audio interface, has a "small program" that reduces the size of the Mac Core Audio buffer. https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/a...ces-on-Mac
They claim it can shave 1 ms off the audio latency. Has anyone used this ?
05-19-2020, 02:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2020, 04:20 PM by Hans Peter Augustesen.)
Well - my gear latency 4.2ms in Behringer UMC 404 is on a Windows 7 machine from the year 2009 or 2010. It is (or rather was) a powerful gamer machine, but you know ...
So I dont think it is "because the Windows 10 machine is newer,bigger, faster"
Thanks for that speedy reply Hans!
My pleasure, too - thanks, Dave B
(05-19-2020, 06:35 AM)JiminSalmonArm Wrote: (05-09-2020, 03:03 PM)Moose Hofer Wrote: Jim,
I run an older MacBook Air with the UMC 404HD On initial setup, latency will be around 10 with the core audio. Changing the frame size,( I think it was that setting name)to 1ms experimental and I get 7.4. I have been happy there. I’ve made a few other tweaks, etc. And it’s been stable.
I’m pretty sure the 202, and 204 would do about the same. The biggest advantage to the 404 is the number of inputs. With one mic you probably don’t need 4 inputs for JK?
Let me know if I can help. Hi Moose and Hans - thanks for all the good information. I bit the bullet and bought the Behringer UMC404HD (202 not available anymore & I hope sometime to do 4 part simultaneous recording). The result is that I can't get the 4.0 ms audio latency that Hans reports on his Windows machine. But I can get close 6.3
The other variable I've just been playing with is the clock rate - go to Applications-Utilities-AudioMidiSetup - and I change this from the default of 192,000 down to 48,000Hz. Then did the same as you did, adjusting the Frame Size to the 1ms experimental option. At the 192,000 clock (sample rate?) it resulted in very high latency - 35ms. At the 48,000Hz setting I got the Audio Latency down to 6.3ms. A friend using the Behringer UMC404 on a Windows 10 machine (with the custom Behringer driver) reports an audio latency on JamKazam of 4.0ms I don't know if this difference is because the Windows 10 machine is newer,bigger, faster - or if it is the operating system - Core Audio differences.
On a related note, Focusrite that makes the Scarlet USB audio interface, has a "small program" that reduces the size of the Mac Core Audio buffer. https://support.focusrite.com/hc/en-gb/a...ces-on-Mac
They claim it can shave 1 ms off the audio latency. Has anyone used this ? Hi Moose. I have installed that Focusrite 'small program' and it has indeed shaved about 2 ms off the latency showing for my Scarlett 2i4 (down to 7.8ms).. I'm still experiencing glitchy audio problems on JK, Can't say for sure but I don't think the update you mentioned has made it any worse (it's a clicking noise on long notes from my jam partners which they also hear from me. It's not present on the .ogg files in the recordings. Still investigating and looking elsewhere on the forum as it may not be a latency issue).
the popping or clicking you hear is caused by timing errors/buffer under-runs. You don't hear it in the recordings because of the caching algorithms used in the disk-writing process (different buffers).
yes, it is related to latency. It might be completely beyond your control, unfortunately.
I've noticed it gets worse the more people there are in a session.....
In a quick solo session, I'm getting 6.8 ms latency, with acceptable jitter and a 2.5 ms frame rate.
Using a Roland HS-5 Session Mixer as the interface for guitar and mic. I've had one successful duet session with a buddy. I think that session was with a higher frame rate and latency in the 9-10 range. I'll find out tomorrow if these settings hold up with another actual player on the session.
Hard wired to Centurylink DSL router.
Using Line 6 Helix or Roland Session Mixer as audio interface
more fuel for the fire:
https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/blo...fferbloat/
So while pinging 8.8.8.8 (google DNS) & running a speed test from dslreports.com, I see my ping times go from 16ms to 126ms!
looking for solutions now - my router is several years old, so I'm starting with a firmware update
yeah, if you're not into this LAN/WAN stuff, it can get very frustrating
lots of parts to this system....
Hi WandaHerrick.
Welcome to the forum. Nobody has replied to your original question so I shall have a go, though I’m no expert.
I don’t think there are any prescriptive rules. People here seem to get on ok without having to be told how to behave and I would say that the overall approach is to treat one another with the same respect and tolerance as we would to our neighbours in real life.
There are several forums covering topics such as network issues, audio interfaces, etc. It is good practice to post to the most appropriate forum for your topic of interest. (Here perhaps I could gently point out that your current post is not in the best place, as it is posted as a reply to a thread concerning latency—it might have been better to start a new thread). It is also requested that, before posting, people use the search engine to check if their question has already been asked. Some complex technical questions are common to many users and you can often find that a question has already been answered.
In terms of the scope, the forum really is specific to matters of using the JamKazam app for playing music online. If you want to discuss more general topics, there are probably better places to do it. But particularly if you have any technical questions about setting up and using JamKazam, there is a wealth of knowledge available from some of the experts here, and they usually seem very willing to help anyone to sort out problems and get the best out of the app.
These are just my personal observations and others may disagree. As I say, I don’t think there is a definitive set of written rules. But if you’ve got a burning issue you want to discuss, and it is broadly relevant to JamKazam and is nothing offensive, then why don’t you go ahead and post it—probably in a new thread.
Regards
Steve
I'm just getting started with Jamkazam and have terrible total latency, as observed by others. I've been thinking of switching ISPs to the same one as my neighbor down the block and was wondering if I could use ping to compare my network latency to his. To take that further, several cohorts are also new and troubleshooting latency issues, and i would like to compare pings with them as well.
So, my question is: Would it be a useful comparison if different computers all ping jamkazam.com and report their results back to me? Or, is there perhaps a different host at Jamkazam that would be more appropriate (considering that the machine answering to "jamkazam.com" might be strictly a webserver and relatively slow)?
I do realize that pings also include latency introduced by home routers, but I think the comparison would be interesting nonetheless.
(If there's another thread that answers this question, please, somebody, point me to it.)
Thanks,
Nate
|
