Question about Latency and use as an audio interface

Forums Forums Qu Forums Qu general discussions Question about Latency and use as an audio interface

This topic contains 6 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of goatofneptune goatofneptune 5 years ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #54912
    Profile photo of goatofneptune
    goatofneptune
    Participant

    Hi there,
    Im interested in buying a Qu Pac and use it also as an audio interface in my studio. But Im not quite sure, how well the USB Interface works with a daw. Can you look up the buffer size you are running your Qu-Mixer and how long the roundtrip latency is (under 48 and 96 kHz)? How are the FX of the Qu Series affecting latency?

    Would you recommend using the Qu Pac as an USB Audio interface?

    Cheers,
    Goat

    #54913
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    If you’re looking for a pure studio audio interface I’d probably won’t choose a mixer. You may want to have digital ins and outs or, depending on project, record on 44.1, 88.2 or 96kHz. The Qu series does not offer anything from these.
    My latest post regarding turnaround latency was in this thread. Sure, loopback latency depends on your buffer settings, as always, the Qu (and its converters) does not (significantly) add more or less latency than any other mixers/interfaces do. Stepping away from your speakers usually adds more latency (1mSec/ft, 3mSec/m).

    #55492
    Profile photo of goatofneptune
    goatofneptune
    Participant

    Hi Andreas,
    thanks 🙂
    so its not possible to use the ins and outs from the qu series directly from a daw? it wouldnt be possible to record and output multiple channels via usb? So whats then possible via usb? or am i missing something? i thought, the qu-pac could be used as an multichannel usb interface as well.

    Cheers
    Goat

    #55493
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    Sure you can record+playback multiple channel concurrently using a DAW via USB, but additional channels from USB does not increase total channel count on your Qu.
    Each channel (including ST inputs) can be configured to take audio from a local input, from dSnake or from USB (either DAW or QuDrive). If all channels are occupied with mics and instruments there is no channel left to take a signal from your DAW.
    On the other hand, if all Qu channels are fed from the DAW, there’s nothing (except Mix busses, of course) you can record.
    Of course you’re free to play back a couple of tracks from your DAW and record additional instruments.
    All I said was, that if you are looking for a pure audio interface (that was your initial question), I wouldn’t recommend a Qu. You asked for 96kHz, the Qu operates at 48kHz only.
    It highly depends on your workflow and if you already have a desk in your studio.
    If you’re looking for a new Mixer with integrated, multichannel audio interface functionality, the Qu may be a perfect fit for you.

    #55538
    Profile photo of goatofneptune
    goatofneptune
    Participant

    Dear Andreas,
    thanks for pointing this out. I didnt realize this before. So the USB-DAW is handled via the Qu-Pack as just another “instrument” with separate in- and outputs, isnt it? So it wouldnt be possible to record 16 Inputs with the daw and route them to external outboard gear at the same time, or would it?

    For my setup (3 analog Synths, 2 drum machines, 5 outboard fx that I want to use in conjunction with my daw in the studio and take the hardware sometimes to a gig) it might be a better solution to go for an RME 802 with one or two additional ADAT converters. There I can access all channels with the DAW and route them to any output at the same time. USB Recording is not that important, as I can bring my laptop. I have a small Audio Interface (apollo Twin) at the moment, but I can only extend it with 8 inputs, but no further outputs, so the decision is now to go for a qu-pac or the rme 802 with adat extensions (I already have one in my rig). 48 kHz might do the trick, as 96 kHz is quite demanding in terms of cpu-power, I normally only use it in the final mastering stage.

    #55542
    Profile photo of Andreas
    Andreas
    Moderator

    Well, it all depends… 😉
    Assuming your gear is all stereo, that will occupy (3+2+5)*2= 20 Channels, maybe 16 regular channels + ST1+ST2. On the QuPac you then still have 16 channels to route back from DAW and do something with them on the Qu.
    If you connect your drum machines with separate outputs, you could easily run out of local channels even on a Qu32 (or QuPac+dSnake or FireFace 802, which only has 30 inputs).
    I can see benefits to have a large desk in studio to mix with real faders, but a QuPac?
    Routing between inputs to outputs totally depends on the capabilities of your DAW. Sure, you could record all 16+6 local inputs and feed channels 17..32 from the DAW. On the QuPac you then can downmix those return channels as they would be inputs. But don’t forget that the QuPac does not have faders and you probably mix from an iPad then. Is this your plan?
    Not sure how many feeds you really need, if all your external FX have stereo inputs you’ll need 10 channels. While the QuPac provides 10 mix output sockets, only three of them are stereo. You still could connect an AR84 to get additional two stereo mixes after converting groups to mixes.
    Low latency monitoring (signals not going through the DAW) can be done with TotalMix FX on the RME as well, you don’t need a physical mixer for that purpose.
    So, if connecting studio gear to a DAW is the primary goal, I’d vote for a good interface.
    Live would be a totally different story and the QuPac may be able to even do some automated routings using Scenes…

    #55568
    Profile photo of goatofneptune
    goatofneptune
    Participant

    I would love to have a large desk with faders, but I dont have the space, so I just mix in software (with ableton). The iPad would be ok, i guess. I even thought about getting a motu 16a, but was let down by their browser-mixer, where its real slow to switch from one screen to another. so a dedicated mixer software is a must.

    but I think you’re right, for my purpose the 802 with adat extensions might be the better solution, as the use in the studio is the main thing and live a plus. With the arc its also usable as a standalone-mixer, if I just want to call up presets. Ill come back to a larger digital mixer when I move to a larger flat sometime …

    Cheers,
    Goat

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.