Beat Monitoring Latency with MOTU Cuemix -- part 1

Fig. 1

Supported equipment

First of all, MOTU's "Cuemix Console" software is available for both Mac and Windows (supplied free with the hardware installer discs or online), and works ONLY with the following computer audio interfaces from Mark of the Unicorn:

All old and new PCI interfaces can use Cuemix with the 424 card (this applies both versions of MOTU's PCI-424 card, PCI-424 and PCI-424e): 2408, 2408MKII, 2408mk3, 1224, 308, 1296, 24i, 24i/o, HD192.

The PCI-324 card does not support Cuemix on OSX. (However, if you are still using a 324 card, you can contact MOTU, (617) 576-2760, for a reasonably-priced upgrade exchange.) The 24i/o, 2408mk3, HD192 do not work with a 324 card on any OS.

All FireWire interfaces (and the 828mkII USB 2.0) support Cuemix except the original 828 and 896.

So, if you use any of these audio interfaces, read on. It doesn't matter which music/audio/MIDI software you use, i.e. Digital Performer, Logic, etc. But if you use any other brand of audio interface (or any Pro Tools hardware or software), this doesn't apply to you.

Latency — where does it come from?

Let's review: Latency delay is a problem which is characteristic of audio interfaces which do not have onboard audio DSP, but instead use the computer's processor for all audio routing and manipulation, often referred to as "native" signal processing. (There is some latency in all digital audio devices, but it's generally not considered a problem with devices offering less than 1 or 2 ms. throughput delay.) When a "native"-hardware-equipped computer system receives an incoming audio signal from an external source such as a synth/sampler or microphone, there can be, depending on the buffer setting in the software, fairly substantial delay, up to several tenths of a second.

Why is this? Analog audio comes in through one or more of the inputs, is converted to a digital signal by the interface box, and then passes into the computer, goes through its buffers, memory, and processor, is routed into your audio software and goes through whatever routing and processing it may do, and then, if you are set to monitor that signal, it must turn around and go all the way back out, and then be routed to your speakers or headphones.

In order to do this the computer needs a number of processing cycles; this delay is usually measured in number of samples. Your audio software will have a setting, somewhere, that allows the user to set how many samples the computer is allowed to use as it routes and processes the audio. This will probably be from 64 to 1024.

Why would you change this setting? If you have set an audio track to record sound from some outside source, and have the software set so that you can monitor "input" in the standard old-fashioned way, you will probably notice that the larger this number, the more delay you will hear, and as the number is set smaller, the delay is decreased. If you, or another musician, is playing and monitoring the live sound through headphones, you will find that any setting much greater than 64 or 128 samples leads to an unacceptable delay between the live performance and the monitored sound. And if you put up your "Processor Monitor" window in your software, you will see that the computer is working harder when the number is set smaller.

Here is an imaginary scene that might help to visualize what is going on in your computer: Suppose you are trying to transfer sugar from one barrel into another, and you need to move one cup of sugar every ten seconds. First of all, start with a coffee mug; it should be fairly easy to scoop in the first barrel and then dump it into the second barrel once every ten seconds (this corresponds to your computer with a buffer setting of a large number, such as 1024). Now, instead, use a tablespoon — you will have to move much more quickly in order to move the same amount of sugar in the same amount of time (this corresponds to a smaller buffer setting). What if you used an even smaller measure, such as a teaspoon? At some point you will no longer be able to keep up, and either fall behind or spill the sugar. Either way: bitter tea!

Your computer has the same situation going on, pouring audio digits through its circuits and in and out of your hard drive. If you are using plugins, soft synths, or video, that takes processor power as well. If the buffer number is set so small that the computer can't keep up, the audio you are trying to record will end up with pops, crunches, or distortion. In extreme cases the software will bog down or crash.

What if your computer simply doesn't have enough power to keep up with all you are asking it to do, to run at a low-latency buffer setting, to monitor incoming audio with a manageably short amount of delay, at the same time — now what do you do?

Cuemix Console to the rescue

Suppose you could monitor incoming audio sources with practically no delay at all, and at the same time let your computer breathe easy with a large (1024) buffer setting. With Cuemix Console, you can.

On the MOTU PCI-424 card, and in their Firewire and USB2 audio interfaces, there is a special "mixer" chip especially intended for this type of monitor mixing. This can be set to take any incoming signal and immediately send it back out an output, without it having to take the time for the journey all the way through the computer. Cuemix Console is simply a control panel for this mixing capability that lives in the hardware.

To use it, first change the setting in your audio/MIDI software so that it does NOT monitor the input signal from any record-enabled track at all. (When playing back a recorded track it should monitor output as usual, whether or not the track is record-armed.) Instead, we are going to use Cuemix Console to derive a mix of the live sources.

Notice in each page of the Cuemix Console, there is a fader, pan pot, and mute button for every input channel of your hardware. Notice also, on the right-hand side above the "master" fader, there is a pop-up which lets you select any of your hardware's outputs in stereo pairs. (See figure 2.) You can create a completely separate mix of the inputs, routed to any output pair.


Fig. 2

Start by selecting the output pair that you want to use for monitoring. If you are working without a mixing console, that would be the pair that routes directly to your speakers and/or headphones.

Next find the fader or faders that corresponds with the input source(s) you want to monitor. This would be the signal from a microphone or similar device. Notice the faders are labeled according to the inputs on your MOTU converter. If you want to see names that are more logical, you can change the names in "MOTU PCI Audio Console" (a separate application that is also provided with your MOTU interface) and then those names will appear in every application that accesses the interface. (If you always keep things plugged in the same place, try names such as "Mic1", "GtrPod", etc..)

That's all there is to it. Raise the fader and set the pan and you will hear the source. Make sure the "master" fader is up too, and the "mute" buttons aren't muted.

Caution zone

There are two important limitations to understand about monitoring through Cuemix Console. First, the sound that you hear in your speakers is now not the same as that reaching your mix bus in Digital Performer or other audio app. That is, DP doesn't "hear" the live mic or other source being monitored. So, this won't work for mixing, such as monitoring external synths or other instruments with lower latency. You'll still have to record them onto tracks or use an aux channel to monitor them for mixing.

Secondly, after recording, don't forget to turn off (mute) the channels in Cuemix Console before you quit that application, or the source sound will still be "live" in your speakers. Remember, Cuemix Console is just a "control panel" for the monitor mixing capabilities in your audio interface — it has to be told to no longer route those channels for monitoring or it will continue to do so.

How dry it is

One other little problem with monitoring a source with Cuemix Console is that the sound will be "dry", no reverb. Since you are not monitoring the source using your main audio app such as DP, you can't just turn up an aux send and use a plug-in 'verb. When you play back the track it will be wet but when you are recording it will be dry, unless you can add some 'verb after the output, such as if you have a mixing console.

There is a work-around for this. Have you got an old hardware reverb box around that you're not using? Lots of folks do (how about that old LXP-1?). It can have digital or just analog inputs and outputs. Patch it directly into your audio interface with two channels in and out. (This is another case where it might be convenient to label those ins and outs in the software.) Leave it there and let it be dedicated for just this purpose.

Now, in Cuemix Console, use the pop-up on the right to select the output pair that feeds your monitor speakers or headphones, and find the two channel faders that represent the input to the interface from the output of the reverb; unmute, raise, and pan them left and right. Then go to the output pair that is feeding the reverb inputs; find the channel fader that corresponds to your microphone or other source and raise the fader a bit. This is your "send" to the reverb. That's all there is to it. Season to taste by adjusting the "send" fader. Being a different reverb device for the source than for the track output, it won't be quite the same sound as when you play back the recorded track, but you should be able to get it close enough.

One thing that can make it a little easier to work with CueMix mixing features: most major DAW packages (DP, Cubase, Logic, etc.) have a way to control CueMix monitoring (enable/disable, level, pan, etc.) from within their mixing window. This is covered in the manuals for the 828mkII, Traveler, UltraLite, etc., and is cool because it means the user doesn't have to switch to CueMix Console to manage the input monitoring. Read the manuals for details on how to do this with each app (DP, Cubase, etc.).

A useful compromise

That's all there is to it. Cuemix Console is a useful tool that helps to solve the latency problem under certain conditions. Is it as effortless and convenient to use as working with ultra-low-latency computer audio hardware such as Pro Tools? No, but if it's worth it to you to save the substantial difference in money between that and the MOTU audio interfaces, then it's nice that it is available.

Prediction

I'm going to go up on a limb and make a prediction: that our current problems with latency delay, using "native" computer audio hardware, isn't going to be a permanent thing. For example, I've just been reading about a new interface from Apogee that lowers latency to 32 samples or 1.6 milliseconds of latency at 192 KHz sample rate (which beats Pro Tools under certain circumstances); my sources at MOTU report they are also working with the latest fast computers and hardware with very low latency. Count on this to ignite a competition among all the manufacturers.

As computers and digital hardware get faster and more powerful, someday soon we're going to look back at this whole latency hassle as "old news". When that happens, remember you read it here first.

Thanks to Jim Cooper and Matt LaPoint of MOTU for their help in researching this article.



This is not intended as an advertisement for any product. All products mentioned are trademarks of their various manufacturers. ©2006 by Les Brockmann.

What happened to my UCLA Extension class "Staying in Sync"?

From UCLA Extension catalog, winter term, 2006


The big catalog for the 2007 winter term of UCLA Extension just hit the mailbox, and for the first time in eleven years, "Staying in Sync" isn't listed. This was my choice. For those who may care, including all the terrific composers, musicians, engineers, filmmakers, and others who have taken the class in the past, or to those of you may have considered taking the class in the future, this may serve as something of an explanation.

A History

I first was asked to teach this class in 1995, taking over for increasingly busy composer Jeff Rona. He told me at the time that he would be happy to work with me, to help get me going, and provide materials that he had used when he taught it. I never heard from him again. So, I got busy and developed the class from scratch, creating not only the syllabus and lectures but a great deal of support material as well, including overhead projector slides, software files, equipment demonstrations, and (as any student who has taken the class can attest) an increasingly large library of informative articles about all sorts of aspects of the topic.

The class started out to be all about SMPTE time code, its structure and usage. The class has always been a technical elective class for students in the Film Scoring certificate program, and of course time code is an important tool for a film composer, especially those who, as is increasingly necessary, want to be able to deal with and understand the equipment that's part of their job.

Over the years I have constantly tried to update and keep things current. Time code is now a small part of the class; increasingly all aspects of digital audio have become a main focus. Although I have gotten students with all kinds of fields of interest and career goals, I have always tried to emphasize topics and techniques that would be useful to the film composer. Since the world of film, television, and stage music is where I spend most of my "real" job, I've been there for a lot of the changes in technology in the composers' world, most importantly, the increasing usage and sophistication of computers and digital audio.

The class has never been a huge draw (I never packed them in like rock star Scott Smalley did with his orchestration class, but then again I never had Jerry Goldsmith's thrilling music to offer) but each year there have been a steady 10 to 20 students enrolled. I feel privileged to have met a number of really nice and talented folks in the class over the years, including (here comes a scoop folks) one who, okay I'll admit it, a few years later I ended up married to. :-)

What it's like to work for Extension

Over the years I have generally felt good about working as a teacher for an organization that has seen many students go on to great success in composing and other fields. It's not my intention to burn bridges with the folks that run the Department of Entertainment Studies there, because they've been very nice to me and I wouldn't mind working for them again. But there have been a few aspects that were a challenge, which I will go into briefly.

You might be surprised to know, UCLA Extension (at least the part that I have worked for) is in some ways not exactly like a traditional college. For example, there is never been a meeting of the music or recording engineering faculty that I'm aware of. I have never met many of the people who teach classes that are in some way related to mine; we've never been asked to consult or work together to make sure that our topics and material covered coordinates in some way with each other or with some larger overall plan.

I assume someone in management looks over my syllabus each year and is satisfied that, in general, what I teach is appropriate and useful. But no one has ever called me up, asked for meeting, and said something like, "You know, such-and-such-other-teacher is covering basically this same topic, could you work together to make an adjustment somehow?", or, "What do you see as trends from your position in the industry, and how can we make sure we're offering students what they need to keep up?", or (in my dreams!), "What can we do to work with you to make sure this topic is as well presented and vivid to the students as possible?" Unless I initiated contact with Entertainment Studies management, with an email or call, I've been pretty much left on my own.

Maybe that's okay. I think most people understand that what you get out of an adult school such as UCLA Extension is not exactly the same as an undergraduate or graduate degree program in "regular" UCLA. It's more "education ala carte" — if you see something on the menu that you think would do you some good then you buy it. And certainly in the music and entertainment businesses, unless you're in academia, the value of a degree or a "certificate" of some sort is somewhat less than in other fields; what's much more important in the job world is simply the ability to do the work in a way that is competent, perhaps innovative, hopefully superior, that helps you stand out from the crowd. I'm sure people who take classes from the Extension catalog are looking for just such a way to get a leg up on their competition and careers.

Computers and Software

My class has increasingly been about digital audio, and more and more that means computers. For the past two years the class has been presented in one of the computer labs, in which every student has access to a Macintosh stocked with today's tools of the trade, such as Pro Tools, Digital Performer, and many other applications. The class isn't all a "hands-on" class, not how to use a particular piece of software, but we take a look at techniques and technical features, and the students are given a chance to explore and try out concepts we're talking about.

Pro Tools and DP are my two example software platforms of choice for the class, because I think some awareness of both of those industry leaders is essential for film music composition students in particular and anyone else who works with sound for picture, and because in my regular job working with successful composers, those are the two that I see used the most in the pro world. (Yes, I know there are also Logic, Cubase, Nuendo, and a host of others, but as I said this is not about specific platforms; concepts taught would apply to any of these.)

As long as I have been with Extension I have tried to be an advocate for the students, trying to help them get the best, most up-to-date training and experience. In particular I have tried my best to insist that the computers always be stocked with the newest current version of the software, just as pros and students alike work with in the real world. This has not always been easy. In the bad old days when the classes were held on campus, we struggled with sad obsolete and outdated hardware and software. I'm grateful that things have gotten better since then.

This past year, upon arriving to set up to teach, I found that there was no working version of Digital Performer on any of the computers, either for the students or at the teacher's station. It seems the computer lab folks upgraded all the computers to the newest operating system (good) but left behind only an old version of DP that was incompatible with that OS and crashed on startup (bad). This was a problem because not only was a substantial part of my weekly lectures based on demonstrations in DP, but I was also looking forward to a special guest appearance of one of the west coast's most authoritative experts on DP, MOTU's local rep Matt LaPoint, and it didn't seem right for him to show up to a room with no usable software.

I expressed my concern to my faculty-liaison people at Extension, and requested the DP update. They balked, citing cost. I continued teaching, adapting certain techniques that I had intended to show in DP to Pro Tools (although there are certain things that DP does that PT won't do). Finally, at the last minute before my one crucial DP lecture anticipating Matt's scheduled appearance, and after some talk of canceling the class, I was able to persuade them to install just one new copy of DP in the instructor's computer. So, whew, that one crucial class came off okay. The following week I arrived to find that the new version of DP on the instructor's station had vanished without a trace; it was never seen again. Maybe someone on the staff loaned us their personal copy — if so, thanks!

An aside: It's too bad that Extension no longer offers any sort of training on Digital Performer, except for one online-only class which originates out of Berklee. This is in contrast to quite a bit of "Apple certified" training on Logic. Although I am not an insider on the matter, I'm sure a substantial part of the reason comes down to aggressive marketing on the part of Apple, and of course money. During last winter's discussion between the Entertainment office folks and MOTU, they weren't able to come to an agreement on an educational discount or group price for the upgrade. If this is really the case, it's kind of short-sighted, denying students who are interested access to one of the industry's leading products, and will lead to a whole generation of Extension-trained composers being exclusively Logic users. Bad for MOTU? Seems like it. And it's ironic, just as the new DP5 has added many features specifically of interest to film composers, including video streamers and punches, improved cue timing tools, software synthesizers, etc.

Conclusion and tributes

My decision to hit "pause" on "Staying in Sync" isn't just about being denied a particular piece of software; far from it. Do I want to just take a break, or move on to something different? Time will tell. (I did tell my supervisor there that if another class on some related topic in recording engineering or sound technology needed an instructor, to let me know.) If you'd like to take "Staying in Sync" sometime in the future, please let them know in the Entertainment Studies office (say hi to Dave Dominique or Judith Chlipala there). And if you have any comments you like to share with me about this or other aspects of professional education in the music business, drop me a line (click "Contact").

I do have a strong commitment to the value of a good education, regardless of the particular institution, ever since my own Bachelor of Music majoring in Music Engineering Technology at the University of Miami, where I learned from the famous engineer and wonderful teacher Bill Porter (whose clients included Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison, and Buddy Rich). Here in LA, UCLA Extension has proved to be an excellent source for lots of folks to get good career-oriented training (where I've also enjoyed being a student as well as a teacher).

I'd like to mention that it's been an honor for me to be, as an Extension instructor, together on the same list with a lot of terrific and highly respected people, true leaders in our industry. From these pros and many others like them, I learned that teaching at UCLA Extension isn't just another gig, but a good way to "give back". A partial list: Christine Luethje, Charles Bernstein, Thom Sharp, Dennis Dreith, Stephen Scott Smalley, Don Ray, Bob Drasnin, Jack Fierman, and Jerry Fried.

Thanks to those who have been guest speakers in my class, including Christine Luethje (I'll still do your class, Christine, call me), Matt LaPoint of MOTU, and Jon Conolly of Digidesign, and to the folks in the office including Judith Chlipala, Dave Dominique, and Pascale Halm. I'd like to conclude by saying I did my best; there were a few obstacles in the way but overall it was a pretty good experience, and I am grateful for your trust.

I hope I'll be seeing all of you again soon.



This is not intended as an advertisement for any product. All products mentioned are trademarks of their various manufacturers. ©2006 by Les Brockmann

Open letter to the Los Angeles Times Calendar

Sunday, November 19, 2006



Like many Times Calendar readers, I was saddened to hear of the death of Daniel Cariaga. A week or two ago, Mark Swed wrote a kind and moving tribute to Cariaga. But after reading this weekend's "Of Sound and Vision" about Segerstrom Hall, I was reminded that there is one important trait that Swed never did, and never will, learn from Cariaga's example.

Under the leadership of Swed at the Times, hundreds of talented musical performers and thousands of music lovers throughout Southern California know the ground rules: if you are not the L.A. Philharmonic or the L.A. Master Chorale, you are simply not worthy of respect, praise, or validation. This is widely known among members and audiences of the Pacific Symphony, the Pacific Chorale, the Angeles Chorale, the Pasadena Symphony, the Long Beach Symphony orchestra, and all the other "secondary" ensembles in the huge Southern California area.

Once again the Times lavishes acres of newsprint on Swed's wandering whines, this time about the new Segerstrom hall. Now I haven't been down there and heard for myself, and he may or may not be right about it. But I'm sure lots of good folks in Orange County let out a groan, knowing that this is simply something that was to be expected — sooner or later, and usually always sooner, the Times returns to its standard position of raining on anything that isn't in or about Disney Hall.

Daniel Cariaga was never such a snob, but supportive of talent, effort, ambition, and quality wherever he found it. How sad that he is gone.

Les Brockmann

Los Angeles