Metric Halo in 2025? - Page 2

slainbabyyc · 9th March 2025

i get less than 5ms rtl using my ULN-8 at standard settings with an m4 pro mac. I find the audio quality to be stellar and the software is very flexible and easy to use. i'm pretty picky when it comes to gear and they more than satisfy my expectations and the current price of the ULN-8 is a real steal in my eyes.

Karloff70 · 9th March 2025

Also, the mk4 has 4 filter type settings. Two linear and two minimum phase types to choose from. I selected subjectively by ear and to my surprise liked the fastest minimum phase setting best. This makes the latency even smaller than standard setting, which is the slightly longer minimum phase setting.

6strings · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by flwehr ➡️

I really don't think you would regret the MH system - just prepare for a learning curve with the software, especially the logic of signal routing which has some traps for young players.

Yeah, that's the only other thing that gives me pause is the learning curve. I'm working with a 7.1.4 Atmos setup with bass management... The Lynx software seems to have a much more user-friendly UI for this sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flwehr ➡️

...and (3) a MIDI keyboard with the Keyscape VI, measuring the start of the MIDI note to the start of the recorded audio note (9 msec).

Have you tried halving your buffer to 32? This is the number the "latency sensitive" typically aim for when tracking VI. But it can be a challenge for many systems and interfaces to run with reliability.

6strings · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️

Also, the mk4 has 4 filter type settings. Two linear and two minimum phase types to choose from. I selected subjectively by ear and to my surprise liked the fastest minimum phase setting best. This makes the latency even smaller than standard setting, which is the slightly longer minimum phase setting.

I'm also reading up thoroughly on the new filters and converters after seeing the mk4 loopback results tank in the long-running Gearspace converter loopback test. This also gives me pause since ideally, a converter's ultimate job (IMO) is to pass audio as unchanged as possible. I did see MH BJ's reasonable explanation for the mk4's lower test result, but the fact remains other high-end converters' late-model designs have moved UP the list, not down.

Karloff70 · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings ➡️

I'm also reading up thoroughly on the new filters and converters after seeing the mk4 loopback results tank in the long-running Gearspace converter loopback test. This also gives me pause since ideally, a converter's ultimate job (IMO) is to pass audio as unchanged as possible. I did see MH BJ's reasonable explanation for the mk4's lower test result, but the fact remains other high-end converters' late-model designs have moved UP the list, not down.

Use whatever metrics make you happy, but that loopback test is flawed, as BJ has indeed already pointed out.

Chuck_S · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings ➡️

I'm also reading up thoroughly on the new filters and converters after seeing the mk4 loopback results tank in the long-running Gearspace converter loopback test. This also gives me pause since ideally, a converter's ultimate job (IMO) is to pass audio as unchanged as possible. I did see MH BJ's reasonable explanation for the mk4's lower test result, but the fact remains other high-end converters' late-model designs have moved UP the list, not down.

Gear may be optimized for some aspects of performance, and other aspects of performance may end up being degraded (or the gear may be designed to perform in a ‘balanced’ manner across many parameters and not optimal for any one parameter). When gear is tested you need to understand the test setup and know how to interpret the results. You also need to know what is most important for your use case (i.e. results of a null test or RTL). With the ULN-8 MkIV now having the ability to select converter filter type you can choose how you would like it to be optimized.

6strings · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck_S ➡️

Gear may be optimized for some aspects of performance, and other aspects of performance may end up being degraded (or the gear may be designed to perform in a ‘balanced’ manner across many parameters and not optimal for a one parameter). You need to know what is most important for your use case. With the ULN-8 MkIV now having the ability to select converter filter type you can choose how you would like it to be optimized.

Yes, I'm hoping to see results with the different filter types, as someone posted for some of the high-end RME units.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️

that loopback test is flawed, as BJ has indeed already pointed out.

Well, the test is as scientific as you can get for comparison of audio gear, and has accumulated a large data sample base over a very long test period. Ear-based evaluations, as BJ described for their fine-tuning process, are a purely subjective measure. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to entertain the possibility that they missed the mark in regards to improvements on the new converter design. I'm not saying they don't sound great, only that given the negative test result, an un-biased observer would not be wrong in questioning claims of improvement. Regardless, BJ obviously has a horse in that race.

Karloff70 · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings ➡️

Yes, I'm hoping to see results with the different filter types, as someone posted for some of the high-end RME units.

Well, the test is as scientific as you can get for comparison of audio gear, and has accumulated a large data sample base over a very long test period. Ear-based evaluations, as BJ described for their fine-tuning process, are a purely subjective measure. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to entertain the possibility that they missed the mark in regards to improvements on the new converter design. I'm not saying they don't sound great, only that given the negative test result, an un-biased observer would not be wrong in questioning claims of improvement. Regardless, BJ obviously has a horse in that race.

I think you might be misunderstanding the 'scientificness' of that comparison excercise, which is what BJ has alluded to in detail. But all good.

3bc 🎙️ · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings ➡️

I'm also reading up thoroughly on the new filters and converters after seeing the mk4 loopback results tank in the long-running Gearspace converter loopback test. This also gives me pause since ideally, a converter's ultimate job (IMO) is to pass audio as unchanged as possible. I did see MH BJ's reasonable explanation for the mk4's lower test result, but the fact remains other high-end converters' late-model designs have moved UP the list, not down.

Link?

mh_bj · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musician ➡️

Thought of selling my MH gear since im so fed up with finding a Mio crash and starting up Mio console even the computer to just hear my connected synths... with my DM3 mixer its almost immediately ready to play or record..

Why don't you set a boot state? Also, if you are getting repeatable crash of the hardware, please file a bug and get in touch with support so we can resolve it.

6strings · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3bc ➡️

Link?

Converter AD/DA loopback results (ongoing): Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

BJ's rebuttal to the mk4's placement on the list:
Metric Halo 3D Is Here

DEA · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by richbreen ➡️

It's a small engineering-driven company which devotes their resources to product stability/improvement and customer service. I've never seen another company who have maintained the long-term commitment to upgradeability and development that they have. Their web site may not be fancy, but the gear and support are second to none.

I think RME might give them a run for the money in terms of long-term support and driver stability . .

But certainly not on upgradability of the actual hardware!

3bc 🎙️ · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6strings ➡️

Converter AD/DA loopback results (ongoing): Evaluating AD/DA loops by means of Audio Diffmaker

BJ's rebuttal to the mk4's placement on the list:
Metric Halo 3D Is Here

This means that the higher number means a deeper null, as in, less added to the signal by the converter?

mh_bj · 9th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3bc ➡️

This means that the higher number means a deeper null, as in, less added to the signal by the converter?

Deeper null yes. "Less added or subtracted" not exactly. In terms of the mkIII vs mkIV, the difference is that the low-latency filter introduces frequency dependent all-pass filter in band, and that shows up as less of a null. The signal is definitely different (due to the phase shift), but perceptually (at least to us) it sounds closer to the original analog signal than the artifact cause by the linear phase filter (e.g. the higher latency filter) which nulls better.

In any case, the thing is that with the current software you are free to use the linear phase filter on the mkIV units which nulls better (at the cost of higher latency). And you can make that choice dynamically, so, for example you could prefer the LL filter for tracking, and use the linear phase filter for mixing (if you prefer).

mattiasnyc · 10th March 2025

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh_bj ➡️

perceptually

Hopefully constructive criticism:

I have been looking for interfaces for an upcoming change in mix environment and was looking at your website. Most in my opinion "good" websites show certain things clearly and with minimal navigation;

- a list of interfaces
- a list of i/o for each interface
- pictures of the front and rear of each interface

On your website I actually struggled to find what I was looking for (still haven't, maybe..?). If I click on "Hardware" I get three interfaces, but the naming tells me nothing about how they are different, and images show identical front panels. If I open the respective pages there is a brief description that differentiates the units, but seemingly only partially (?).

Having to scroll pages that are almost exactly the same and then compare them for differences is neither quick nor effective I think, and I think you would be better off with pictures that show differences along with pages that compare the units in a clear, concise way... like a boring table - column A, mic pres; column B, line i/o, etc.

---------

As for what I am unclear about;

Is the difference between the three only amount of mic pres? If not, what are the differences?

Are your interfaces capable of being accessed by multiple apps on the same computer simultaneously? I currently need this for various reasons.

Where can I read up on potential correction functionality if you have it, i.e. EQ, delays and maybe bass management for B-chain processing?

What is the maximum channel count accessible to the DAW on the connected computer?

Do you have sales in the EU?

Your gear looks great btw!

mh_bj · 10th March 2025

Quote: