Stupid Question about Pod Farm.

[ahjteam]

I'll give you the latency argument, but I don't like to print/export tracks and have to clean it up later. I only do that for tracking vocals.

What I mean is that you just route the input to two channels and print the Pod Farm output as you record, not separately. But also I don't see the problem doing it as a separate print, as Cubase has Batch export that does it in less than 30 seconds for all the tracks if they don't have much more than just Pod Farm there.

 

[ahjteam]

I made a tut for you how to do it:

 

[Joel4662]

Why are we arguing about this? It seems like a preference choice to me. I HAVE to use direct monitoring because of my ghetto processor, and if you have a powerful enough computer where you're getting like <10ms latency. You're better off that way IMO (which isn't worth much but idc!)

Also thanks for the contribution once again ahj. If I ever buff up my computer I'll have to try it out

 

[ahjteam]

Why are we arguing about this? It seems like a preference choice to me. I HAVE to use direct monitoring because of my ghetto processor, and if you have a powerful enough computer where you're getting like <10ms latency. You're better off that way IMO (which isn't worth much but idc!)

Also thanks for the contribution once again ahj. If I ever buff up my computer I'll have to try it out

Which part of the "USING POD FARM IS NOT DIRECT MONITORING" did you not get? If you use a physical POD, then you can use direct monitoring, but if you use the software, it's not direct monitoring. It's INPUT -> AD conversion, ASIO driver input, Pod Farm, ASIO driver output, DA conversion -> OUTPUT.

Direct monitoring is INPUT -> (AD/DA conversion and routing) -> OUTPUT. Nothing else. If you don't understand the difference: ASIO drivers create an extra buffer stage for the input and output, thus creating extra latency.

And if you can use a single instance of Pod Farm as a stand alone, you can do it in the DAW too... The method I describe in the video only has ONE(1) instance of Pod Farm running. Everything else is audio. And according to Cubase, I had like ~11ms of latency (input + output combined), and I had no problem at all to play. And if you can't record two audio tracks at the same time, maybe you should upgrade to at least a 486 computer.

 

[Joel4662]

Which part of the "USING POD FARM IS NOT DIRECT MONITORING" did you not get? If you use a physical POD, then you can use direct monitoring, but if you use the software, it's not direct monitoring. It's INPUT -> AD conversion, ASIO driver input, Pod Farm, ASIO driver output, DA conversion -> OUTPUT.

Direct monitoring is INPUT -> (AD/DA conversion and routing) -> OUTPUT. Nothing else. If you don't understand the difference: ASIO drivers create an extra buffer stage for the input and output, thus creating extra latency.

And if you can use a single instance of Pod Farm as a stand alone, you can do it in the DAW too... The method I describe in the video only has ONE(1) instance of Pod Farm running. Everything else is audio. And according to Cubase, I had like ~11ms of latency (input + output combined), and I had no problem at all to play. And if you can't record two audio tracks at the same time, maybe you should upgrade to at least a 486 computer.

I call it "Direct Monitoring" because that's the name line 6 gave it. Sooorrrryyy -.-
I use it because of some technical crap where it runs through the UX2 instead of my shitty processor. I have no problem having multiple instances in my DAW, I just get sometimes up to 200ms latency. Same with my vocals, which I also monitor directly with my interface. I understand that there is some latency with the software, but it's significantly lower through my UX2 than my computer.