What buffer size do you track with?

[gavspen]

Unless I'm deluding myself, always a possibility, when I switched from my old G4 to a G5 2.5 Dual, I remember thinking that it was weird that I used to be able to track with the buffer set at 256, but now on the G5 that produced an unacceptable delay between fingers and notes, and I had to lower it to 128. Now I've just switched again, to a Mac Pro, and the buffer still needs to be at 128.

I cant help but think that the old G4 would have been crippled with the buffer at 128 (I was running RMX, Mach 5, all those groovy things), so I think I'm remembering it right, but how can that be? A buffer set at 256 must produce the same amount of delay on any machine, right? Isnt it just a question of how well the processor handles that low buffer?

What buffer setting are you guys able to get away with?

Gavin

[magicd]

I record with buffer set to 1024. On the rare occasion that I track while monitoring through the CPU, buffer is set to 256. I use a MOTU 896mk3 on a MacBook Pro.

Dave

[gavspen]

What took ya so long, Dave

But......that's ok for mics, but what about a piano part on Mach 5? "Direct hardware playthrough" doesnt help with that, does it? And with the buffer set at 1024 you have to play 2 measures ahead!

In answer to my own question, here's what I just realised. In the good old days of the G4, I wasnt into V-racks and auxes for effects and all that. But these days I put everything into v-racks and route it all through various busses to various auxes and this is what seems to be introducing the delay. I just opened Mach 5 directly in the tracks window (no v-rack) sent it to main out 1-2 (no busses) with the buffer at 256, and voila! No delay. Is it just inevitable that if you use a v-rack and a few busses, this is going to happen? Bummer dude.

Gavin

[Mr_Clifford]

I've found that VI's need to be routed directly to the main output (rather than busses) during sequencing for the lowest latency - I was surprised to discover this also. Haven't thought about V-rack vs. in the sequence. I'll have to test that one now. I've been getting a decent latency @ 256 on the G5 for things like BFD & Ivory.

Also, have you tried setting 'sync recorded MIDI to patch thru' in the MIDI patch thru settings? I just discovered this, and it's great for sequencing VI's because it puts the note on the MIDI track so that it plays back exactly how you heard it whilst playing it in. Maybe everyone else already knew this one.

[jlaudon]

Since using Dp6.01, I've been able to track some VIs at 512 (Omnisphere, Ivory) - there is a very minor latency, but it frees up so much more CPU on my G5. Before, using 5.13 I normally had to use 128 - even 256 was too much latency.

[kassonica]

Well with the PB I used to track MIDI at 256 audio at 1024.

With the intel tower audio at 512 or lower and MIDI at 64 or 128.

[HCMarkus]

With 5.13, I like 128 for VI's that I am performing in real-time, like Ivory or BFD. I use hardware monitoring for live instruments, so buffer size is moot. You've got so much more horseppwer now than in the G4 days... set the buffer low and forgetaboutit!

[donreynolds]

I track as low as I can go with out problems I don't like latency

[Tomas E]

As you may have noticed I've changed the header slightly.

Since I don't like latency I've changed my buffer size to 64 to see how it'll work. I haven't had any issues with it so far but I've not at all pushed my gear to its limits. What are your experiences today? What factors affect playback quality? Are there more to what will affect things than just the amount of tracks playing back and being recorded? Such as a larger amount of programming code in more advanced sequencers? In that case maybe the benefits of faster processors etc will be neutralized.

Eventually I will ran out of diskspace so I'm also thinking of what will happen if I install my 500 GB original hard disk drive (5400 rpm) instead of the SSD of 256 GB currently installed. It seems like a waste of money not using it if it proves to be enough.

[Shooshie]

I use 64 when I can get away with it, but if I have to use a VI that requires a lot of CPU, I'll do 128. The latter is quite manageable these days with the speed of our Macs and OSX.

[mikehalloran]

... so I'm also thinking of what will happen if I install my 500 GB original hard disk drive (5400 rpm) instead of the SSD of 256 GB currently installed....

Everything is going to be really slooooooow compared to what you are used to. Go ahead and see if you don't want to rip it out again right after booting up.

Street price on a quality SSD like the 850 EVO: 500G SSD is $160; 1T is $300; 2T is under $600.

"waste of money" is really counterproductive when it comes to keeping up to date. You have to weigh costs vs benefits. That HHD is five years old. Equipment becomes obsolete. A $160/$300$600 SSD keeps your five your old Mac nearly current—replacing your Mac cost$ a lot more.

Btw, because of the "expanding battery" issue, it's a really good idea to budget replacing the battery when a MacBook hits five years. When these batteries go bad, they wreak havoc breaking motherboards and screens.

[Tomas E]

I use 64 when I can get away with it, but if I have to use a VI that requires a lot of CPU, I'll do 128. The latter is quite manageable these days with the speed of our Macs and OSX.

I took a dive into the Getting Started manual regarding this, a section that tend to be forgotten. Then I tried 16 but that just didn't work on my test project*. The Audio Performance meter went to the top and stayed there until I hit stop. 64 leaves a lot of headroom though.

I have somewhat forgot about the Audio Performance meter since my previous Audio Interface has been there for many years. Now that I've upgraded I have to have the AP section visible in the Control Panel so I can monitor what happens.

* That's funny, I tried 16 once more and this time it worked, although with heavy strain on the CPU.

One more thing that puzzles me is that iStat Pro indicated only 15% user activity and 10% system activity during playback. The AP meter were more like the opposite, that is maybe as much as 70-75% processor activity.

[mikehalloran]

If I have more than two tracks on playback during overdubs, I track at 128. With 2 only and a mono or stereo record, I can get away with 64. I hardly notice latency at 256, though.

[FMiguelez]

I am stuck with my setting for tracking, which is set at the highest (1024).

I simply can NOT change the buffer size without DP restarting the engine and messing up ALL (no exceptions) my VI bundles (they all get replaced by "Waves xxxx.....").

So, what I do, is I record my performances and orchestrate using my hardware JV 2080 synth with zero latency. Once I finish, I copy the Roland tracks to the relevant VI MIDI tracks for the substitution. Afterwards, I just delete the Roland stuff and work with the VIs normally.

I know it sucks, but DP will not let me change the buffer size without messing my VI bundles. And I'm VERY annoyed about it, since I could work much faster by playing and controlling kewswitches at the same time with the actual instruments I will use...

When I record singers, I use my external Tascam mixer, so they don't hear any latency with my highest setting.

[Tomas E]

... so I'm also thinking of what will happen if I install my 500 GB original hard disk drive (5400 rpm) instead of the SSD of 256 GB currently installed....

Everything is going to be really slooooooow compared to what you are used to. Go ahead and see if you don't want to rip it out again right after booting up.

Street price on a quality SSD like the 850 EVO: 500G SSD is $160; 1T is $300; 2T is under $600.

"waste of money" is really counterproductive when it comes to keeping up to date. You have to weigh costs vs benefits. That HHD is five years old. Equipment becomes obsolete. A $160/$300$600 SSD keeps your five your old Mac nearly current—replacing your Mac cost$ a lot more.

Btw, because of the "expanding battery" issue, it's a really good idea to budget replacing the battery when a MacBook hits five years. When these batteries go bad, they wreak havoc breaking motherboards and screens.

Yes I know about the boot time. I replaced the SSD once before with the other one for some reason I can't remember. However I thought there might not be as big a difference when I comes to working with a DP project.

There are 500 GB 7200 rpm units for about a third of the cost of the SSD you mention. What about such an alternative? Some say SSDs are not as durable as HDDs.

The battery is still in good shape. I didn't know however that it could cause damage to the motherboard and the screen. I've heard about the late 2011 being subject to problems with the graphics card. Luckily I haven't had that issue.