Receptor
- Thread starter Shovel
- Start date
krushing
Moderator
Yep...you could buy a dedicated laptop for half the price. Their answer to "So, why shouldn't I just get a laptop?" seems like an ignorant dismissal with some half-truths. Also, the whole scheme of "receptorized" plugins seems somewhat hazy...and there's not really a good explanation on how the different GUIs of plugins adapt to the Receptors interface. Real knobs are nice alright, but a lot of interfaces depend a lot on the visuals nowadays, instead of just being virtual representations of hardware. I'd see myself having a hard time adjusting the envelope breakpoints in Absynth or going through all the knobs on Arturia Moog Modular...sure, a patch-tweakery show can be boring, but it seems it's aimed at a 'preset' audience...
K
kborman
Guest
Hi krushing,
I've seen a lot of your posts on FP. Good stuff- you obviously know a ton about music technology, and deserve respect.
I work with Muse Research, the folks that make Receptor.
There were a couple of things you said in your post about Receptor that lead me to believe that you might not have completely understood how Receptor works. Our bad- we obviously need to make the site better.
>Yep...you could buy a dedicated laptop for half >the price.
I know price is the make it or break it on a lot of instrument buying decisions.
Just to be clear, our MAP price is $1399 (that's the lowest price stores are allowed to advertise). We include a very high quality sound card, midi interface, adat lightpipe out, analog in and out, spdif in and out, a high z guitar input, lots and losts of pre-loaded software, plug-ins, samples, presets, and of other goodies including about $400 in premium stuff. All this comes in an integrated system that just plain works. We might be closer to the right price point than you might first think.
>Their answer to "So, why shouldn't I just get a >laptop?" seems like an ignorant dismissal with >some half-truths.
Sorry if our FAQ response was flippant or dismissive of laptops. I've got an iBook G4 and a Sony Vaio, love'em both. I've also made (in my admittedly deeply prejudiced viewpoint) some pretty damn good music with them. The point of the FAQ was that laptops were not designed to deal with life on the road, don't like to be dropped, etc. It was NOT meant to be an "ignorant dismissal with some half truths". Apologies if that's how it came across.
>Real knobs are nice alright, but a lot of interfaces >depend a lot on the visuals nowadays, instead of >just being virtual representations of hardware.
Couldn't agree with you more. Developers have come up with some insanely great ways of dealing with sound within their GUI front ends. Fortunately, you don't lose any of that with Receptor. You can utilize the graphic front end of plug-ins within Receptor in two ways:
a) simply plug in a VGA monitor and mouse directly into Receptor, or
b) connect your host computer to Receptor via ethernet. You can then view the developer GUI from the comfort of your host computer screen, and edit to your heart's content.
Knobs and buttons have their own strengths. The immediacy of a knob is a beautiful thing. Among other things, Receptor has four assignable soft knobs, perfect for changing stuff fast.
>I'd see myself having a hard time adjusting the >envelope breakpoints in Absynth or going through >all the knobs on Arturia Moog Modular...
Me too. I'd use the GUI features of Receptor before the show to get my multi plug patch tweaked just so, and then use soft knobs if I wanted to tweak on the fly during the gig itself.
Then I'd get on stage, change dozens of plug-ins at a time with single MIDI patch changes, lower the sample buffer size to 32 samples for blazing fast keyboard response time, and jam like a wild man... or so I would like to believe ;-)
Conceptually, I like to think of Receptor as a "super sound module" that allows for a very wide palette, and the flexibility to very easily (and quickly!) recall unique blends of multiple plug-ins.
Bottom line: I know you can cobble together a regular computer to approximate a lot of the things that Receptor can do. You can obviously add on a lot of hardware to approximate what Receptor has. No doubt about it. This kind of "put the pieces together" approach is all that lots of musicians will ever want or need, an there ain't nuthin wrong with that. Some spectacular music has been made that way. At the same time Receptor does some pretty cool stuff that a normal computer can't. There is room for both. Check it out.
Again, thanks for the feedback on the site- coming to NAMM? Drop by our booth #1101. It would be great to meet ya.
Keith
I've seen a lot of your posts on FP. Good stuff- you obviously know a ton about music technology, and deserve respect.
I work with Muse Research, the folks that make Receptor.
There were a couple of things you said in your post about Receptor that lead me to believe that you might not have completely understood how Receptor works. Our bad- we obviously need to make the site better.
>Yep...you could buy a dedicated laptop for half >the price.
I know price is the make it or break it on a lot of instrument buying decisions.
Just to be clear, our MAP price is $1399 (that's the lowest price stores are allowed to advertise). We include a very high quality sound card, midi interface, adat lightpipe out, analog in and out, spdif in and out, a high z guitar input, lots and losts of pre-loaded software, plug-ins, samples, presets, and of other goodies including about $400 in premium stuff. All this comes in an integrated system that just plain works. We might be closer to the right price point than you might first think.
>Their answer to "So, why shouldn't I just get a >laptop?" seems like an ignorant dismissal with >some half-truths.
Sorry if our FAQ response was flippant or dismissive of laptops. I've got an iBook G4 and a Sony Vaio, love'em both. I've also made (in my admittedly deeply prejudiced viewpoint) some pretty damn good music with them. The point of the FAQ was that laptops were not designed to deal with life on the road, don't like to be dropped, etc. It was NOT meant to be an "ignorant dismissal with some half truths". Apologies if that's how it came across.
>Real knobs are nice alright, but a lot of interfaces >depend a lot on the visuals nowadays, instead of >just being virtual representations of hardware.
Couldn't agree with you more. Developers have come up with some insanely great ways of dealing with sound within their GUI front ends. Fortunately, you don't lose any of that with Receptor. You can utilize the graphic front end of plug-ins within Receptor in two ways:
a) simply plug in a VGA monitor and mouse directly into Receptor, or
b) connect your host computer to Receptor via ethernet. You can then view the developer GUI from the comfort of your host computer screen, and edit to your heart's content.
Knobs and buttons have their own strengths. The immediacy of a knob is a beautiful thing. Among other things, Receptor has four assignable soft knobs, perfect for changing stuff fast.
>I'd see myself having a hard time adjusting the >envelope breakpoints in Absynth or going through >all the knobs on Arturia Moog Modular...
Me too. I'd use the GUI features of Receptor before the show to get my multi plug patch tweaked just so, and then use soft knobs if I wanted to tweak on the fly during the gig itself.
Then I'd get on stage, change dozens of plug-ins at a time with single MIDI patch changes, lower the sample buffer size to 32 samples for blazing fast keyboard response time, and jam like a wild man... or so I would like to believe ;-)
Conceptually, I like to think of Receptor as a "super sound module" that allows for a very wide palette, and the flexibility to very easily (and quickly!) recall unique blends of multiple plug-ins.
Bottom line: I know you can cobble together a regular computer to approximate a lot of the things that Receptor can do. You can obviously add on a lot of hardware to approximate what Receptor has. No doubt about it. This kind of "put the pieces together" approach is all that lots of musicians will ever want or need, an there ain't nuthin wrong with that. Some spectacular music has been made that way. At the same time Receptor does some pretty cool stuff that a normal computer can't. There is room for both. Check it out.
Again, thanks for the feedback on the site- coming to NAMM? Drop by our booth #1101. It would be great to meet ya.
Keith
krushing
Moderator
Thanks for taking the time to answer my jabs at the thing 
I'm just a bit sensitive to marketing-talk , that's all. I'm also sure that the Receptor will find it's market share, if it really is as good as advertised. As for the laptop thing, the FAQ says:
"Designed to do word processing and spreadsheets, not music" sounds more like a comment from the ubiquitous 'old studio guy' rather than a valid argument. And "you end up with all sorts of doodads hanging off the various ports" is just as redundant - by the time you've hooked all the outputs and inputs, a monitor and a mouse to the Receptor, you'll a helluva lot of "doodads" hanging off it as well.
So basically - I'm not really put off what the machine has to offer, but rather how it's presented. Most of the text on the site gives you the impression of a discussion with the dismissive salesman:
-"Nahhh...the Receptor's hella lot better than whatcha got there. Just buy it, son!"
-"Why is it better?"
-"Because."
Get my drift? Anyways, I'm hoping to see this in action at some point. I won't be coming to NAMM - I live in Finland, it's a bit of a long way
I'm just a bit sensitive to marketing-talk , that's all. I'm also sure that the Receptor will find it's market share, if it really is as good as advertised. As for the laptop thing, the FAQ says:
"Designed to do word processing and spreadsheets, not music" sounds more like a comment from the ubiquitous 'old studio guy' rather than a valid argument. And "you end up with all sorts of doodads hanging off the various ports" is just as redundant - by the time you've hooked all the outputs and inputs, a monitor and a mouse to the Receptor, you'll a helluva lot of "doodads" hanging off it as well.
So basically - I'm not really put off what the machine has to offer, but rather how it's presented. Most of the text on the site gives you the impression of a discussion with the dismissive salesman:
-"Nahhh...the Receptor's hella lot better than whatcha got there. Just buy it, son!"
-"Why is it better?"
-"Because."
Get my drift? Anyways, I'm hoping to see this in action at some point. I won't be coming to NAMM - I live in Finland, it's a bit of a long way
Shovel
Member of Project Mayhem
To kborman
It's great to see the industry guys post on this forum. Support like this will likely get you plenty of customers. I do agree with krushing, the site really speaks to me as if I were a totally naive newbie. Hopefully, it will be cleared up soon.
Since I did bring the Receptor to the attention of FP, do I get a free one?
I'm just kidding.
It's great to see the industry guys post on this forum. Support like this will likely get you plenty of customers. I do agree with krushing, the site really speaks to me as if I were a totally naive newbie. Hopefully, it will be cleared up soon.
Since I did bring the Receptor to the attention of FP, do I get a free one?
I'm just kidding.
K
kborman
Guest
Thanks for the feedback.
>"Designed to do word processing and >spreadsheets, not music" sounds more like a >comment from the ubiquitous 'old studio guy' >rather than a valid argument.
Given that tons of great music has already been created on computers, I agree that it is persumptuous of us to make that kind of statement. I apologize.
IMHO the FAQ was attempting (albeit not very well- sigh) to get across a deeper issue:
The Mac OS and Windows OS are created by companies who's revenues are driven primarily by business applications. The ability to accomodate multimedia plays a role within the way the systems are built, but it ain't the main revenue engine by any means.
That means (for example) running printer diagnostics on boot up is important to them because it's important to their mainstream user. I on the other hand don't give a flying jump about printer diagnostics when I'm up on stage in front of people not so patiently waiting for my computer to reboot.
Don't get me wrong: Computers are awesome Computers are awesome, Computers are awesome Computers are awesome Computers are awesome Computers are awesome Computers are awesome
.. but every once in a while (like the above situation) a standard computer can learn a little from old school dedicated hardware times.
Hopefully Receptor solves some of these kinds of problems. One cool thing about Receptor is that we are Linux based, our OS footprint is small, and it is music dedicated. We control whether or not there is an upgrade, we care about latency. You don't have to worry about printer diagnostics on boot up, or potential conflicts. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, Receptor even automatically boots back to your last patch, just like a hardware synth.
Sorry, for my long winded explanation. Again, the FAQ itself needs deep revisions, and a different tone- you nailed it. Me thinks there is much work to do on the site... ;-)
Keith
>"Designed to do word processing and >spreadsheets, not music" sounds more like a >comment from the ubiquitous 'old studio guy' >rather than a valid argument.
Given that tons of great music has already been created on computers, I agree that it is persumptuous of us to make that kind of statement. I apologize.
IMHO the FAQ was attempting (albeit not very well- sigh) to get across a deeper issue:
The Mac OS and Windows OS are created by companies who's revenues are driven primarily by business applications. The ability to accomodate multimedia plays a role within the way the systems are built, but it ain't the main revenue engine by any means.
That means (for example) running printer diagnostics on boot up is important to them because it's important to their mainstream user. I on the other hand don't give a flying jump about printer diagnostics when I'm up on stage in front of people not so patiently waiting for my computer to reboot.
Don't get me wrong: Computers are awesome Computers are awesome, Computers are awesome Computers are awesome Computers are awesome Computers are awesome Computers are awesome
.. but every once in a while (like the above situation) a standard computer can learn a little from old school dedicated hardware times.
Hopefully Receptor solves some of these kinds of problems. One cool thing about Receptor is that we are Linux based, our OS footprint is small, and it is music dedicated. We control whether or not there is an upgrade, we care about latency. You don't have to worry about printer diagnostics on boot up, or potential conflicts. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, Receptor even automatically boots back to your last patch, just like a hardware synth.
Sorry, for my long winded explanation. Again, the FAQ itself needs deep revisions, and a different tone- you nailed it. Me thinks there is much work to do on the site... ;-)
Keith
krushing
Moderator
It's always muy cool when someone actually listens to feedback. I apologize if I came across hostile at first...I too think it's great that developers come "among the people" and discuss things. Who knows, maybe I'll get a Receptor myself one day
edit: damn, I just checked and the dealers selling 'em around here have ridiculously high prices at the moment...over 2K Euros
edit: damn, I just checked and the dealers selling 'em around here have ridiculously high prices at the moment...over 2K Euros
Last edited:
Guenon
New member
It's nice to see a product like this! Commenting the posts above, I'd just like to say it's quite dangerous for a system like this to be introduced by generalizing and emphasizing the deficits of the solutions it competes with, and after that failing to deliver enough specific information of the alternative being marketed.
So, the most important thing to change on the site - in addition to the overall tone...
Where are the exact specifications? I'm sure they are somewhere on the site, but clicking the "Features" link, one only gets some more marketing talk. This is an important design issue.
As Receptor is mentioned to be "the ultimate hardware solution for a software crazy world", publishing the exact features where they logically should be is a must. Not doing so is a real downer for a serious visitor, and the current design of the "Features" section might easily give an impression that the developers are trying to avoid something they should mention straight up. It's hard to find answers to essential questions like "What is the exact hardware this unit is based on? How does it perform? How is it really built?"
One of the first things one wants to know of your product is the amount of true DSP power on offer, not just the theoretically possible plug-in count of the software interface.
Fixing these issues, you'll be giving a lot more assuring impression of your system right from the start! Good luck to the Receptor project
So, the most important thing to change on the site - in addition to the overall tone...
Where are the exact specifications? I'm sure they are somewhere on the site, but clicking the "Features" link, one only gets some more marketing talk. This is an important design issue.
As Receptor is mentioned to be "the ultimate hardware solution for a software crazy world", publishing the exact features where they logically should be is a must. Not doing so is a real downer for a serious visitor, and the current design of the "Features" section might easily give an impression that the developers are trying to avoid something they should mention straight up. It's hard to find answers to essential questions like "What is the exact hardware this unit is based on? How does it perform? How is it really built?"
One of the first things one wants to know of your product is the amount of true DSP power on offer, not just the theoretically possible plug-in count of the software interface.
Fixing these issues, you'll be giving a lot more assuring impression of your system right from the start! Good luck to the Receptor project
Last edited:
K
kborman
Guest
Good feedback. Thanks- the site will get better, I promise.
>What is the exact hardware this unit is based on? >How does it perform? How is it really built?"
Hopefully some of your questions are answered below.
As a quick aside- one off the funny (ironic) things about the current state of electronic instruments is that if a solution is computer based, then people naturally want to know processor specs, etc. in deep detail. At the same time if you are talking about a Triton then the issue of "what kind of processor it is" suddenly disappears- sound quality and flexible speedy operation are the more immediate concerns.
Let me say this first- Receptor sounds GREAT. Receptor definitely delivers the goods. Of course this is a guy from the company talking and I know that doesn't mean a whole lot. But I can honestly tell you that invariably, this is the first comment I hear when I show someone the box.
We have a proprietary audio card that was designed by the same guy who has designed the audio output for lots of the most expensive and successful high end samplers in the marketplace over the last decade or so. Receptor is also fully realized in the sense that you can just open it up and make music- you don't have to go down the "specs" journey if you don't want to.
Receptor currently uses an AMD Athlon 2700 processor, the internal components are fairly standard computer motherboard parts. As time goes by we will of course change processors. Using standard computer parts means we can adapt as generic parts pricing and performance improve.
As a caveat related to processor speed: please note that Receptor utilizes a small footprint Linux environment optimized for one use only (music). Receptor thinks fast on its feet. The way Receptor performs with an Athlon 2700 is dramatically different from the way Windows XP performs with the same 2700.
A large portion of our differentiation has to do with the way we've optimized OS performance as well as the Muse Control front end mixing and editing environment that we've developed. Muse Control makes the process of stacking plug-ins and creating new cool blended sound flavors easier and a lot faster.
How many Plug-ins
Theoretically you could run 16 VSTi instruments with three VST effects inserts on each instrument, plus two bus inserts with three effects on each bus, plus 3 more effects you can add to the master fader. As an example you could have a VSTi instrument that has 12 VST effects assigned to it.
From a real world specs standpoint it is kinda hard to nail down exactly how many plug-ins it will run at a time, how much polyphony, etc. because of the extreme variance in efficiency between the plug-ins themselves and the way they are written by each third party plug-in developer. You might only be able to run a couple monster plug-ins at a time with only a few notes of polyphony if the plug-ins themselves are true CPU hogs. On the other hand, to give a general idea of what is possible I can at least say we ship with a ton of multi-plug in preset patches that might typically integrate 10+ VST and VSTiplug-in mixtures.
By the way, the built in presets sound great, and can also give you some good direction on how to build your own sounds.
RAM plays a role in how Receptor performs as well. Like any computer Receptor loves RAM, and you can add up to a total of 2GB giving you lots of headroom for sample playback applications.
Here is some latency info-
Test conditions: we used a Tektronix digital storage oscilloscope model TDS350 to capture a MIDI event and the onset of an audio waveform from a plug-in in the case of measuring MIDI latency, and the onset of an input and an output waveform in the case of measuring throughput latency. In the case of audio input to output testing, an Audio Precision ATS-1 audio analyzer generated a pulsed audio test signal and the delay between the test signal and the output of Receptor was measured. In the case of MIDI to audio output latency testing, the 4Front E-Piano VSTi plug-in was used.
In the case of audio input to audio output, the line input was used, at nominal gain, with no effects instantiated so as to measure true A to D to A latency. In both cases the delta between the triggering signal and the audio output was measured using the TDS350 internal delta measurement tools, and worst case numbers were used. The unit under test, Receptor (serial number R40129030027) was pulled at random from production inventory, no tweaks or modifications were done to the unit.
In each case the measurements were made at all four different audio buffer settings and three common sample rates used in Receptor (1s = 1000mS)
Line in to Line out:
Code:
Buffer setting 44.1kHz 48.0kHz 96.0kHz
-------------------------------------------
32 4.3mS 4.0 mS 2.0 mS
64 7.2 mS 6.7 mS 3.3 mS
128 13.0 mS 12.0 mS 6.0 mS
256 24.5 mS 22.7 mS 11.3 mS
As a frame of reference, sound travels at 1100 feet per second (at standard atmospheric pressure and temperature). This means an amplifier located 10 feet behind you on stage will have 9.09mS of “latency” between the time the sound leaves the cone of the speaker and the time it hits your ear. So if you perform through Receptor on-stage, at a buffer setting of 64 buffers at 48kHz, the latency is similar to an amplifier located 7.4 feet behind you.
MIDI input to Line out:
Code:
Buffer setting 44.1kHz 48.0kHz 96.0kHz
-------------------------------------------
32 3.4 mS 3.1 mS 2.0 mS
64 5.1 mS 4.3 mS 2.7 mS
128 9.0 mS 7.5 mS 4.6 mS
256 18.0 mS 16.0 mS 7.5 mS
By way of comparison, we will compare Receptor's latency with two common, comparable configurations: a laptop with an external audio/midi USB interface device, and a desktop pc with an internal audio/midi solution. The results for the desktop system are forthcoming, the lap top configuration test results follow:
For the laptop comparison, we repeated the test using an HP Pavilion model ze3500 lap top computer (2.66Ghz P4 processor, 448MB Ram, running Windows XP) using an M-Audio Audiophile USB audio / MIDI interface. The Laptop was configured to run Cubase SX, with only one VST instantiated (4Front E-piano) with project sample rate set to 48kHz. Device settings were configured in Cubase so that the “lower latency” radio button was checked.
The latency settings were then changed on the M-Audio driver panel, and each time Cubase was rebooted so that those new settings were used.
Code:
Latency setting 48kHz
-------------------------
“Very low” 14.6 mS
“Low” 21.6 mS
“Medium” 25.3 mS
“High” 36.4 mS
“Very high” 59.2 mS
In this particular test case, using this particular I/O box, Receptor’s worst latency is nearly as good as the laptop’s best case latency.
Of course, the latency of a desktop computer system with an internal sound card should (theoretically, at least) be better than that of a laptop using a USB interface due to the absence of the latency contributions of the USB interface layer. And due to a variety of reasons, no two computers are exactly the same in terms of performance, so computer tests can vary significantly. We will be doing some comparison tests with a desktop system soon and will post the results when they become available.
Hope this info helps!
Keith
>What is the exact hardware this unit is based on? >How does it perform? How is it really built?"
Hopefully some of your questions are answered below.
As a quick aside- one off the funny (ironic) things about the current state of electronic instruments is that if a solution is computer based, then people naturally want to know processor specs, etc. in deep detail. At the same time if you are talking about a Triton then the issue of "what kind of processor it is" suddenly disappears- sound quality and flexible speedy operation are the more immediate concerns.
Let me say this first- Receptor sounds GREAT. Receptor definitely delivers the goods. Of course this is a guy from the company talking and I know that doesn't mean a whole lot. But I can honestly tell you that invariably, this is the first comment I hear when I show someone the box.
We have a proprietary audio card that was designed by the same guy who has designed the audio output for lots of the most expensive and successful high end samplers in the marketplace over the last decade or so. Receptor is also fully realized in the sense that you can just open it up and make music- you don't have to go down the "specs" journey if you don't want to.
Receptor currently uses an AMD Athlon 2700 processor, the internal components are fairly standard computer motherboard parts. As time goes by we will of course change processors. Using standard computer parts means we can adapt as generic parts pricing and performance improve.
As a caveat related to processor speed: please note that Receptor utilizes a small footprint Linux environment optimized for one use only (music). Receptor thinks fast on its feet. The way Receptor performs with an Athlon 2700 is dramatically different from the way Windows XP performs with the same 2700.
A large portion of our differentiation has to do with the way we've optimized OS performance as well as the Muse Control front end mixing and editing environment that we've developed. Muse Control makes the process of stacking plug-ins and creating new cool blended sound flavors easier and a lot faster.
How many Plug-ins
Theoretically you could run 16 VSTi instruments with three VST effects inserts on each instrument, plus two bus inserts with three effects on each bus, plus 3 more effects you can add to the master fader. As an example you could have a VSTi instrument that has 12 VST effects assigned to it.
From a real world specs standpoint it is kinda hard to nail down exactly how many plug-ins it will run at a time, how much polyphony, etc. because of the extreme variance in efficiency between the plug-ins themselves and the way they are written by each third party plug-in developer. You might only be able to run a couple monster plug-ins at a time with only a few notes of polyphony if the plug-ins themselves are true CPU hogs. On the other hand, to give a general idea of what is possible I can at least say we ship with a ton of multi-plug in preset patches that might typically integrate 10+ VST and VSTiplug-in mixtures.
By the way, the built in presets sound great, and can also give you some good direction on how to build your own sounds.
RAM plays a role in how Receptor performs as well. Like any computer Receptor loves RAM, and you can add up to a total of 2GB giving you lots of headroom for sample playback applications.
Here is some latency info-
Test conditions: we used a Tektronix digital storage oscilloscope model TDS350 to capture a MIDI event and the onset of an audio waveform from a plug-in in the case of measuring MIDI latency, and the onset of an input and an output waveform in the case of measuring throughput latency. In the case of audio input to output testing, an Audio Precision ATS-1 audio analyzer generated a pulsed audio test signal and the delay between the test signal and the output of Receptor was measured. In the case of MIDI to audio output latency testing, the 4Front E-Piano VSTi plug-in was used.
In the case of audio input to audio output, the line input was used, at nominal gain, with no effects instantiated so as to measure true A to D to A latency. In both cases the delta between the triggering signal and the audio output was measured using the TDS350 internal delta measurement tools, and worst case numbers were used. The unit under test, Receptor (serial number R40129030027) was pulled at random from production inventory, no tweaks or modifications were done to the unit.
In each case the measurements were made at all four different audio buffer settings and three common sample rates used in Receptor (1s = 1000mS)
Line in to Line out:
Code:
Buffer setting 44.1kHz 48.0kHz 96.0kHz
-------------------------------------------
32 4.3mS 4.0 mS 2.0 mS
64 7.2 mS 6.7 mS 3.3 mS
128 13.0 mS 12.0 mS 6.0 mS
256 24.5 mS 22.7 mS 11.3 mS
As a frame of reference, sound travels at 1100 feet per second (at standard atmospheric pressure and temperature). This means an amplifier located 10 feet behind you on stage will have 9.09mS of “latency” between the time the sound leaves the cone of the speaker and the time it hits your ear. So if you perform through Receptor on-stage, at a buffer setting of 64 buffers at 48kHz, the latency is similar to an amplifier located 7.4 feet behind you.
MIDI input to Line out:
Code:
Buffer setting 44.1kHz 48.0kHz 96.0kHz
-------------------------------------------
32 3.4 mS 3.1 mS 2.0 mS
64 5.1 mS 4.3 mS 2.7 mS
128 9.0 mS 7.5 mS 4.6 mS
256 18.0 mS 16.0 mS 7.5 mS
By way of comparison, we will compare Receptor's latency with two common, comparable configurations: a laptop with an external audio/midi USB interface device, and a desktop pc with an internal audio/midi solution. The results for the desktop system are forthcoming, the lap top configuration test results follow:
For the laptop comparison, we repeated the test using an HP Pavilion model ze3500 lap top computer (2.66Ghz P4 processor, 448MB Ram, running Windows XP) using an M-Audio Audiophile USB audio / MIDI interface. The Laptop was configured to run Cubase SX, with only one VST instantiated (4Front E-piano) with project sample rate set to 48kHz. Device settings were configured in Cubase so that the “lower latency” radio button was checked.
The latency settings were then changed on the M-Audio driver panel, and each time Cubase was rebooted so that those new settings were used.
Code:
Latency setting 48kHz
-------------------------
“Very low” 14.6 mS
“Low” 21.6 mS
“Medium” 25.3 mS
“High” 36.4 mS
“Very high” 59.2 mS
In this particular test case, using this particular I/O box, Receptor’s worst latency is nearly as good as the laptop’s best case latency.
Of course, the latency of a desktop computer system with an internal sound card should (theoretically, at least) be better than that of a laptop using a USB interface due to the absence of the latency contributions of the USB interface layer. And due to a variety of reasons, no two computers are exactly the same in terms of performance, so computer tests can vary significantly. We will be doing some comparison tests with a desktop system soon and will post the results when they become available.
Hope this info helps!
Keith
K
kborman
Guest
Pulsar's are good, no doubt.
Manufacturers make choices when they are building solutions. The Pulsar uses a dedicated microporcessor called a Shark chip. It is efficient and focused, and does what it does very well.
On the other hand the Shark chip necessitates a code port for plug-in developers. Porting = time and pain. The upshot is you're probably going to get fewer developers making stuff for that platform. Fewer developers means fewer plug-in choices for the customer.
We chose a different path- instead of using as Shark chip we chose a standard computer processor architecture. The benefit of this approach is that it automatically opens Receptor users up to a broader range of plug-in; the whole world of VST plug-ins.
There are pluses and minuses aassociated with both approaches. I guess the market will decide what's best ;-)
Manufacturers make choices when they are building solutions. The Pulsar uses a dedicated microporcessor called a Shark chip. It is efficient and focused, and does what it does very well.
On the other hand the Shark chip necessitates a code port for plug-in developers. Porting = time and pain. The upshot is you're probably going to get fewer developers making stuff for that platform. Fewer developers means fewer plug-in choices for the customer.
We chose a different path- instead of using as Shark chip we chose a standard computer processor architecture. The benefit of this approach is that it automatically opens Receptor users up to a broader range of plug-in; the whole world of VST plug-ins.
There are pluses and minuses aassociated with both approaches. I guess the market will decide what's best ;-)