audio delay compared with plugin display

I changed the audio device to integrated audio device and the problem is reproduced.

So it seems to me that this is not a problem with the audio interface.
Because no plugin is loaded it seems to be no problem with the plugin latency.
Because the effect was reported for win7 it seems to be no OS specific problem.


Try this:

  1. Enlarge the buffer size for the selected audio device (to max).
  2. Load a sound file with clear transients in a range of 1 or 2 seconds (or build an appropriate sound file)
  3. Load NO plugins into the master section
  4. Play, listen and look.

Are the WL meterings (spectrum, loudness, etc.) in sync with the sound?

For me the meterings are clearly ahead of the sound…
The smaller the buffer size the better it looks.

cheveyo, OK, I do understand what you are wanting me to do, of course. But I hope you understand that there is no point to me doing this - my DAW works fine running WL or Cubase. You understand this right?

So let’s take another look at this please. Your setup has a problem, whether it’s WL or your computer, that’s what we need to find out. First off, I think you are confused about the buffer and sample rate setting on your DAW’s interface and it’s programs. You do know that what every DAW wants is ZERO latency and ZERO buffer settings and ZERO driver sample rates? We can’t have it but this has always been the goal, ALWAYS. So, can you see where I would hesitate to follow your path and increase the sample rate and buffer size when it is something I know to be nothing I want for my DAW? Ha, I hope so. From every angle I look at what you are doing and my brain says ‘NOooo!’ Do you see this?

I think you have a driver that controls your Focusrite interface and yet you don’t think you do. I think you should set your WL to it’s default settings,16/16384 and find the Focusrite’s Driver settings box and change those settings. Change it to try 512, then 1028 or higher and see if you have the same problem in WL - BUT DO NOT CHANGE THE DEFAULT SETTINGS IN WL. There’s no reason to do this, and, in fact, it is counter to the goal you seek.

BTW, do you realize how large a number 16,384 is? This is HUGE!! Dig around, find that driver window for the Focusrite device.

Thank you for your efforts mr.roos and good luck.

Yes, I’m starting to notice this in more places too with greater buffer sizes.
No plugins at all. 44.1 clip with very sharp start attack on montage track. Start play from before the clip. The Master Section meters and Level meter are a good 300ms ahead of the clip with one of my needed settings.

The track meters in the montage are in correct time though. On Windows 7.

However, I just tried this in Reaper, increasing the buffers there (because you can). And I get the same problem: Pre-metering. So I guess if it’s wrong and a bug in Wavelab it’s wrong and a bug in Reaper too.

Maybe there’s some compensation in Reaper you can do, but I wouldn’t know where to find it.

AFAIK there is no compensation, and this is probably a known issue.

That Reaper shows the same effects is interesting.
I think there is a “pre zero output buffer” setting in reaper audio setup but don’t know for what (don’t own reaper).
On which metering this was seen? On an output/master track?

I checked again Logic and SO3 and put some plugins in the output channel, then switched the buffer size from min to max and there was no visual/audio delay at all. But in those DAWs the metering is for specific “tracks”…
Don’t know if that makes the difference.

Mastering engineers like Friedemann Tischmeyer told us years ago that you can not rely on meterings in WL.
Perhaps this was the issue??

Would be interesting to hear from PG about that issue.

PG, is this a known issue in Wavelab? On a fix list?

This will be fixed in 9.0.30


Just to put a 300ms delay into context … to blink typically takes around 300-400 ms. Is there a practical impact of the issue in terms of workflow that I’m missing?

I don’t think so. It’s just annoying and distracting. Like watching a movie with the sound out of sync.

Thank you for the fix PG.

I don’t see the need. I have 11.610ms latency running at 512 samples and I can’t even see a hesitation in the meters vs. audio. But I use WLE9 and only run 4 plugins in my Master Section and none of these are WL plugins.

However, now that I brought that up, since I am only running WLE9, the WLE plugins are not as deep as those in WL9Pro and I would like to try them and the program. I have downloaded a trial of WL9Pro to see what this is all about, I’m very curious.

Rat? You had this great template for CD text within a montage context (I think this was you?) that you shared a few years back, would you mind sharing this with me again? I am totally naïve regarding this aspect of WL and want to try this in the WL9Pro trial. Thanks in advance. :sunglasses: In fact, if anybody has a primer video that deals with this I would love to see it. Thanks.

Think: How do I manage to blink just in that moment I want to watch the metering?
If you suffer from tinnitus you can manage to ignore some frequencies so we don’t use EQ anymore?
Or could we manage to blend out some drop outs? Some people even do not recognize clipping, so let’s throw away the limiter…strange argumentation.

So, perhaps not for you. If it’s sufficient for you that the meterings are blinking a little bit from time to time to look cool, do not care about this problem and be happy :wink:

If you read the forum you will see that not everybody wants the same from WL.
(for example: some want to burn CDs, others use different programs for that task)

For me, I want the meterings in sync with audio otherwise the visual display makes no use at all and is more annoying than helpful as @bob99 (thanks for testing) already said.

If I could use small buffers all the time (as mr.roos is really proud of :slight_smile:) there was no problem. But most of the time I use WL to master. In those cases I want to use large buffers and there it becomes a problem…

So please, do not talk away the problems like an apple fan boy ("…for what do you want a correct email function on a mobile? Don’t you have a computer?" :wink:)…

Fair enough cheveyo. I am not suggesting that digital meters should not integrated correctly … they should.

And “guilty”: I spend most of time listening to the music I’m mastering as opposed to looking at meters.

By the way … what do you think the integration time is on your standard physical VU meters?

Personally, I’d like to see that the meters which have a corresponding physical version … like VUs for example … react in accordance with any applicable standard for that physical standard. But that’s just me.

Good luck and I hope this issue is corrected for you soon.

At the risk of being completely off topic: Hmmm … I can’t recall that. It might not have been me?

Unless it was this thread:

Currently, we don’t do CD Text unless we are asked to do so.

Sorry PG, I just tested 9.0.30 and I can NOT recognize a fix for that :frowning:

Play and watch the metering:

  1. for small buffer size
  2. for huge buffer size

of the audio device.

What meters? WaveLab meters or plugin meters? For WaveLab meters, I think there is a big difference with before.


Look at the metering from WL, for example: spectrum analyzer.

There is no change compared with 9.0.25.

A huge buffer size (2048) leads to a pre-metering of approx 0.5 s.
So the audio and the metering are totally out of sync.

You are right, for extreme cases. This concerns the spectrum meters and the wavescope (other meters are ok).
And then yes it could be improved on the WaveLab side.
But if you use some more common values (256 buffer size, or don’t use the default “16” buffers of WaveLab), you can easily get it right.

Yes, you can avoid this with small buffer sizes and 2048 are extrem.

But I had to use several times buffer sizes around 1024 (on an iMac!) due to slow hard disc behaviour or too much plugin latencies to avoid crackles, so 1024 for me it’s not uncommon (resulting in 200-300 ms pre-metering).

In my humble opinion, one of the bread and butter functionality (among others) for WL is to trustworthy visualize the audio signal, may be I am wrong…