5 ms·

There is no such thing as DAW inside a browser. DAW is mostly about the lowest latency possible unless it's for the sole purpose of sound creation (synthesis/sa

There is no such thing as DAW inside a browser. DAW is mostly about the lowest latency possible unless it's for the sole purpose of sound creation (synthesis/sampling). This would allow it to bear the name Digital Audio Rework Station (DARwS) In all other cases lowest latency, ASIO drivers etc. are a must-have.

jampekka 2y ago
Minimal latency is only really needed for live performance and monitoring, though these do tend to be crucial demands in most cases. A major problem for browsers is also poor support for multichannel devices. They do plan to have a "native wrapper like tauri" in the future. I've played around with node-web-audio-api for low latency multichannel for Electron, but it wasn't a great success. Mostly because Rust audio backends (and almost all audio backends in general) aren't very good in such usage. https://github.com/ircam-ismm/node-web-audio-api https://github.com/ircam-ismm/node-web-audio-api
- input_sh 2y ago
  If you're just picking up samples from Splice or whatever and arranging them, sure, latency means nothing, but it becomes pretty crucial when you're recording an instrument.
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    Why would recording be the latency sensitive part, wouldnt it be the playback ?
    - fnordlord 2y ago
      I'm guessing they mean the monitoring latency while recording. For me, that's one of the most vital parts of a recording environment. If I hit the key or the drum and hear it come through the headphones 50ms later, it's completely unuseable.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Delays can be compensated for during either recording or playback, the problem is when both at the same time. It just so happens that recording is typically done "in-the-loop" with the backing track being played through headphones during the session.
- p0w3n3d 2y ago
  Not if multitrack recording. If you record it with different latencies you're toast.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    Not if you know the latencies.
Mashimo 2y ago
Why do you need the lowest latency possible to operate a DAW?
- prmoustache 2y ago
  It is important if you are driving hardware synths and samplers through midi. Otherwise latency is not really a problem.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - wdfx 2y ago
    > Otherwise latency is not really a problem This is absolutely not true. Latency in audio systems is important in almost every aspect of using a DAW
  - jcelerier 2y ago
    it's pretty hard for me as a musician to record guitar tracks in sync if I'm not getting the lowest latency through my computer (since I try to use e.g. software amp sims & pedals, etc.). Past ~8ms I feel it when I play, past 15ms I can hear the less accurate playing in the recorded tracks.
    - Aldipower 2y ago
      Use direct monitoring of your interface or an mixer in front of your interface. Then you can get away with 0ms (an analog mixer) or 2-4ms (interface direct monitor). Your DAW will latency compensate the "record head". It is just a matter of signal routing. It took me 20 years to get to this simple solution. :-D
      - jcelerier 2y ago
        > Use direct monitoring of your interface but that doesn't allow me to have my (software) effects chain when I record ? for a guitar solo where i'm going to play with say, delays and whammys that's a no-go
tnolet 2y ago
No, low latency is not needed for all non-realtime things. Even then, you are looking for latency compensation. Just add one VST plugin to an audio track and you will instantly add latency. The crux is you want everything to play in sync when doing recording and overdubbing, e.g. "hit record and what I hear live is in sync with what I have recorded already". Almost all DAWs solve this by just starting things a bit later (latency compensation). Some audio cards solve this by allowing direct hardware monitoring. But even then you will have some samples of latency.
- jcelerier 2y ago
  > Just add one VST plugin to an audio track and you will instantly add latency. most plug-ins don't add latency ?
  - tnolet 2y ago
    All plugins add latency. They just report that in their API and your DAW compensates. There is no way eliminate CPU cycles being spent on whatever the plugin does.
    - squeaky-clean 2y ago
      That's for plugins with an explicit fixed latency to use PDC. If a plugin doesn't request latency, which most do not, they have the duration of the DAW audio buffer to complete their processing. If the combined processing of all active plugins on a single thread exceeds the audio buffer duration you get audio drop-outs, or portions of the buffer which are just zeroes because they were unable to be processed in time.
    - jcelerier 2y ago
      I wrote a DAW (https://ossia.io https://ossia.io) and a few dozen plugins (actually 150+ if I count the various small tests and examples in https://github.com/celtera/avendish https://github.com/celtera/avendish) and I can assure you that most plug-ins don't add latency. > There is no way eliminate CPU cycles being spent on whatever the plugin does. that's not how DAW works, they don't output audio immediately anyways, everything is buffered at the driver level or just above so that there's always 1 or 2 buffers of delay between the input and the output. There's no difference in terms of latency between putting one or 50 bitcrushers in series for instance because in the end the audio main loop looks like (in a very simplified way): void process_soundcard_buffers(float** in, float** out, int samples) { for(int i = 0; i < samples; i++) // samples would usually be the buffer size you set in your audio config out[0][0] = f(in[0][0]); } where f can be one distortion, or 50 distortions - what matters is that their processing time is < than the time you have to write the output and if so you'll always get the same fixed latency. (And if not so, you don't get delayed output, you get crackles because the soundcard will be reading its buffer whether you wrote something meaningful in it or not)
nerflad 2y ago
A lot of people who have apparently never stepped foot in a recording studio are replying to you. Pre-plugin era was exactly about this. Drive the DAC and manage writes to the disk without introducing (much) latency so tracking can get done. Perhaps no one who uses this will intend to setup more than one microphone.
- wdfx 2y ago
  Absolutely agree with you here. There's a huge divide between people who might play with this at home as a toy and those who would be able to work with professional musicians with it. The latter group will have some very strict requirements around performance, latency and workflow. Edit: and reliability
  - tigeba 2y ago
    Just going to add this RE: reliability. Today CPUs are so powerful you don't need DSP systems anymore to do things like low latency tracking. It is still up to the user to manage latency by carefully selecting plugins, etc. With DSP based systems, the latency is generally fixed and extremely stable. I still use a very old PTHD system because it works great for recording audio :)
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Latency is not related to CPU power, until the DSP load starts creeping up. For just low latency tracking, a 486 is perfectly capable.
      - tigeba 2y ago
        As a practical matter, the CPU has to deal with IO as well, I don't believe any 486 systems could handle this. DSP based systems struggled a lot with IO in the late 90s until faster SATA drives became ubiquitous. Lots of them used SCSI or exotic hardware cards to deal with large track counts.
beAbU 2y ago
Most audio interfaces support direct monitor, so there is essentially zero latency between your source and the monitor when recording tracks. DAWs then allow you to set the latency as a "take nudge" where the take is immediately nudged by the known latency amount, so that when you play back your tracks they are in sync. Lastly, some fancy interfaces have built in DSP, so that you can load your effects right in the interface, for when you want effects in your recording monitor feed... So I dont think latency is that critical anymore, and with a decent interface its mostly sorted out.
- Aldipower 2y ago
  Second this. You can even go down to exactly 0ms of latency, if you are using an analog mixer with multiple simultaneous output routes in front of your digital interface. One output route is for live monitoring the other is for live recording. The DAW just needs to latency compensate the "record head", which almost every professional DAW is doing of course. _Every_ studio is working like that. OK, a lot of studios have digital mixers nowadays, that adds maybe 2-4ms of latency, which is still ok.

jampekka 2y ago

Minimal latency is only really needed for live performance and monitoring, though these do tend to be crucial demands in most cases. A major problem for browsers is also poor support for multichannel devices. They do plan to have a "native wrapper like tauri" in the future. I've played around with node-web-audio-api for low latency multichannel for Electron, but it wasn't a great success. Mostly because Rust audio backends (and almost all audio backends in general) aren't very good in such usage. https://github.com/ircam-ismm/node-web-audio-api https://github.com/ircam-ismm/node-web-audio-api

input_sh 2y ago
If you're just picking up samples from Splice or whatever and arranging them, sure, latency means nothing, but it becomes pretty crucial when you're recording an instrument.
- worthless-trash 2y ago
  Why would recording be the latency sensitive part, wouldnt it be the playback ?
  - fnordlord 2y ago
    I'm guessing they mean the monitoring latency while recording. For me, that's one of the most vital parts of a recording environment. If I hit the key or the drum and hear it come through the headphones 50ms later, it's completely unuseable.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Delays can be compensated for during either recording or playback, the problem is when both at the same time. It just so happens that recording is typically done "in-the-loop" with the backing track being played through headphones during the session.
p0w3n3d 2y ago
Not if multitrack recording. If you record it with different latencies you're toast.
- jampekka 2y ago
  Not if you know the latencies.

Mashimo 2y ago

Why do you need the lowest latency possible to operate a DAW?

prmoustache 2y ago
It is important if you are driving hardware synths and samplers through midi. Otherwise latency is not really a problem.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wdfx 2y ago
  > Otherwise latency is not really a problem This is absolutely not true. Latency in audio systems is important in almost every aspect of using a DAW
- jcelerier 2y ago
  it's pretty hard for me as a musician to record guitar tracks in sync if I'm not getting the lowest latency through my computer (since I try to use e.g. software amp sims & pedals, etc.). Past ~8ms I feel it when I play, past 15ms I can hear the less accurate playing in the recorded tracks.
  - Aldipower 2y ago
    Use direct monitoring of your interface or an mixer in front of your interface. Then you can get away with 0ms (an analog mixer) or 2-4ms (interface direct monitor). Your DAW will latency compensate the "record head". It is just a matter of signal routing. It took me 20 years to get to this simple solution. :-D
    - jcelerier 2y ago
      > Use direct monitoring of your interface but that doesn't allow me to have my (software) effects chain when I record ? for a guitar solo where i'm going to play with say, delays and whammys that's a no-go

tnolet 2y ago

No, low latency is not needed for all non-realtime things. Even then, you are looking for latency compensation. Just add one VST plugin to an audio track and you will instantly add latency. The crux is you want everything to play in sync when doing recording and overdubbing, e.g. "hit record and what I hear live is in sync with what I have recorded already". Almost all DAWs solve this by just starting things a bit later (latency compensation). Some audio cards solve this by allowing direct hardware monitoring. But even then you will have some samples of latency.

jcelerier 2y ago
> Just add one VST plugin to an audio track and you will instantly add latency. most plug-ins don't add latency ?
- tnolet 2y ago
  All plugins add latency. They just report that in their API and your DAW compensates. There is no way eliminate CPU cycles being spent on whatever the plugin does.
  - squeaky-clean 2y ago
    That's for plugins with an explicit fixed latency to use PDC. If a plugin doesn't request latency, which most do not, they have the duration of the DAW audio buffer to complete their processing. If the combined processing of all active plugins on a single thread exceeds the audio buffer duration you get audio drop-outs, or portions of the buffer which are just zeroes because they were unable to be processed in time.
  - jcelerier 2y ago
    I wrote a DAW (https://ossia.io https://ossia.io) and a few dozen plugins (actually 150+ if I count the various small tests and examples in https://github.com/celtera/avendish https://github.com/celtera/avendish) and I can assure you that most plug-ins don't add latency. > There is no way eliminate CPU cycles being spent on whatever the plugin does. that's not how DAW works, they don't output audio immediately anyways, everything is buffered at the driver level or just above so that there's always 1 or 2 buffers of delay between the input and the output. There's no difference in terms of latency between putting one or 50 bitcrushers in series for instance because in the end the audio main loop looks like (in a very simplified way): void process_soundcard_buffers(float** in, float** out, int samples) { for(int i = 0; i < samples; i++) // samples would usually be the buffer size you set in your audio config out[0][0] = f(in[0][0]); } where f can be one distortion, or 50 distortions - what matters is that their processing time is < than the time you have to write the output and if so you'll always get the same fixed latency. (And if not so, you don't get delayed output, you get crackles because the soundcard will be reading its buffer whether you wrote something meaningful in it or not)

nerflad 2y ago

A lot of people who have apparently never stepped foot in a recording studio are replying to you. Pre-plugin era was exactly about this. Drive the DAC and manage writes to the disk without introducing (much) latency so tracking can get done. Perhaps no one who uses this will intend to setup more than one microphone.

wdfx 2y ago
Absolutely agree with you here. There's a huge divide between people who might play with this at home as a toy and those who would be able to work with professional musicians with it. The latter group will have some very strict requirements around performance, latency and workflow. Edit: and reliability
- tigeba 2y ago
  Just going to add this RE: reliability. Today CPUs are so powerful you don't need DSP systems anymore to do things like low latency tracking. It is still up to the user to manage latency by carefully selecting plugins, etc. With DSP based systems, the latency is generally fixed and extremely stable. I still use a very old PTHD system because it works great for recording audio :)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Latency is not related to CPU power, until the DSP load starts creeping up. For just low latency tracking, a 486 is perfectly capable.
    - tigeba 2y ago
      As a practical matter, the CPU has to deal with IO as well, I don't believe any 486 systems could handle this. DSP based systems struggled a lot with IO in the late 90s until faster SATA drives became ubiquitous. Lots of them used SCSI or exotic hardware cards to deal with large track counts.

beAbU 2y ago

Most audio interfaces support direct monitor, so there is essentially zero latency between your source and the monitor when recording tracks. DAWs then allow you to set the latency as a "take nudge" where the take is immediately nudged by the known latency amount, so that when you play back your tracks they are in sync. Lastly, some fancy interfaces have built in DSP, so that you can load your effects right in the interface, for when you want effects in your recording monitor feed... So I dont think latency is that critical anymore, and with a decent interface its mostly sorted out.

Aldipower 2y ago
Second this. You can even go down to exactly 0ms of latency, if you are using an analog mixer with multiple simultaneous output routes in front of your digital interface. One output route is for live monitoring the other is for live recording. The DAW just needs to latency compensate the "record head", which almost every professional DAW is doing of course. _Every_ studio is working like that. OK, a lot of studios have digital mixers nowadays, that adds maybe 2-4ms of latency, which is still ok.