yes, but you said: If you monitor direct through your sound card, you might want to disable that option… but I didn’t test that.
that’s what i responded to.
I just tried to see why you would want to disable it when direct monitoring as it doesn’t make much sense.
Here’s why I think there’s a difference, and why I posted the original question (and soon you’ll see why I think I came to the wrong conclusion…)
When monitoring through Renoise, there’s some latency - whatever’s set in the preferences. When monitoring direct through the sound card, there’s no latency. So it makes sense to me that in one setup, you’d enable latency compensation (in the “record new sample dialog” that is!!), and in one setup, you’d disable it.
The question is… which option for which setup?
In my original post, I said: “if I don’t use the direct monitoring, and instead listen to the input through renoise when recording (the little speaker icon) then I think I wouldn’t want to use i/o compensation for the recording”
so, original hypothesis: direct monitoring, enable latency compensation; software monitoring, disable it
Because when direct monitoring, the sound I hear direct through my sound card will avoid the latency, and thus Renoise will need to compensate for it…
so then I made my experiment. Here’s where I went wrong.
By disabling monitoring altogether and playing silently to the metronome, I introduced a condition that never happens in practice. When monitoring through software, you naturally play a little bit ahead to make up for the latency. This was the reasoning behind my original hypothesis… and is hard for me to test. If I disable monitoring, then I can play along to the metronome - and see that my uncompensated hits are behind the beat. But in practice, I will have monitoring on… and will play a bit ahead so that what I hear matches the beat.
So I’m back to square one here. I think that with software monitoring enabled, I want to disable latency compensation, because I compensate for the latency naturally through my own playing. And when direct monitoring, I want to enable latency compensation, because what I hear coming through the sound card will be slightly out of sync from Renoise’s perspective.
In practice, with a latency of 8ms, it doesn’t seem to matter, because my body has more than 8ms of jitter
I’ve just done a bit more testing, with software monitoring enabled, at a slower tempo… with latency compensation disabled, the sample is consistently behind the beat (with space before the first beat). With latency compensation enabled, the sample is consistently ahead of the beat (with the first beat partially chopped off. This was with a device latency preference of 24ms.
When I set the device latency to 8ms, I can’t really tell a difference… part of the first beat is still chopped off. Uncompensated seems to have a bit better timing, but not by much.
So in summary… I have no idea wtf is going on It seems like, for my combination of playing ability + sound card + renoise settings, the answer is to slice and sequence if timing matters, rather than relying on my hand-played sample. If I don’t want my sample getting chopped off at the beginning, then I need to play two loops around, so I can hand-trim it at the right place.
Two things I’ll be messing with: 1 - slice in renoise, and sequence it right on the beat. 2- record in to ableton, and use its warping / quantization to get the sample where I want it, and then bring it in to Renoise. Neither is ideal to me, but it’s pretty clear now that I can’t rely on Renoise’s pattern-sychronized sample recording.