lowdbrent wrote:Nope. Not Consoles. We were talking SAC and AMP like systems. QSYS and Symetrix SymNet.
When it comes to Dante based monitoring consoles and systems, Digital Audio Labs and others offer that kind of latency.
Interesting, didn't know those systems were quite that low, but as I suspected you're comparing apples and oranges. SAC and AMP are virtual mixing consoles and as you know Qsys and SymNet are DSP system routers and processors. While they have a lot of the same tool kit under the hood I doubt too many people are using either of those products to mix monitors or any active mixing for that matter. Just as I doubt there are many out there using AMP or SAC as a system processor or router. (although I have actually done that with SAC)
That's not to say that I dismiss the matter, just that if you're going to start throwing numbers around, particularly ones that are much lower than what is available in the products being discussed, it's only fair to be clear about what kind of devices one is talking about.
Obviously I don't think SAC is very competitive when it comes to the topic of low latency mixing. AMP appears to be able to hold it's own, but probably won't blow any of the hardware options out of the water unless someone comes along with a better driver model for Windows than ASIO. Of course with the right CPU and hardware and with it's ability to actually make use of more than a single (or maybe two at most) core CPU AMP could potentially run it's engine at 96KHz and cut all the latency in half. But that would probably bring many CPUs to their knees unless the channel count was small.
Anyway, I don't really see the software mixing console thing ever being the leader in the latency wars, but there are many other attributes that they do bring to the table over the hardware solutions.