Is anyone managing to run low buffer sizes on DP?

[gravity]

Just wondering about this.

I run a few different programmes and as much as I love DP I never seem to get the buffer size lower than 128. Is this the general situation for most people?

B

[menright]

I got into big trouble with this. I lowered the buffer size to the lowest preset (though I can't remember what that was: 64? 32?) and immediately crashed the machine. I then couldn't relaunch DP without crashing it on startup. Took me a couple days to find a workaround. Since then I haven't gone lower than 128.

[gravity]

I think switching off the warning is the way to go. I'm just not sure about recording when the performance meter is flat out in the red.

[cuttime]

I can run as low as 16 with a few plugs, but as noted, it can cause crashing. I can reliably run at 64 with an i7 processor.

[gravity]

That's interesting Cuttime. How many tracks?

[cuttime]

That's interesting Cuttime. How many tracks?

I'd say an average of 6 instrument tracks, and maybe another 6-10 audio tracks, but as noted in other threads it really depends on the plugin, and in the case of instruments like Kontakt, it can vary wildly from instrument to instrument, as with some heavily scripted ones I would not dream of going any lower than 128. DP9 seems to be more finicky about this than previous versions.

[gravity]

Do you have your Host Buffer Multiplier set higher then 1?

[Basstrup]

Your host buffer should be 1 if you have one hw interface, 2 if you have 2...

I regularly track at 64, a few times at 32. MacPro 3.1 16Gb ram

as a precaution I make a duplicate of the current mix, and track with minimum plug-ins.

Sessions are 10 - 20+ tracks

[bayswater]

I've set it 16 to try out new guitar plugins without significant latency. But it struggles.

[Gravity Jim]

Since 128 or even 256 provide virtually inaudible latency on my DP rig, I have never understood the fascination with ultra-low buffer settings. It's like comparing gas mileage, only even more mundane, and buffers don't cost $3.03.9 per multiple. Why care what the number is if it works?

[cuttime]

Do you have your Host Buffer Multiplier set higher then 1?

No, but in earlier 32 bit versions of DP it was possible to squeak out a little more CPU performance by playing with this setting. Also, I try to run multiple instances of VIs instead multitimbral modes to take advantage of multi cores.

[bayswater]

Since 128 or even 256 provide virtually inaudible latency on my DP rig, I have never understood the fascination with ultra-low buffer settings. It's like comparing gas mileage, only even more mundane, and buffers don't cost $3.03.9 per multiple. Why care what the number is if it works?

Nice for trying things like echoes. At 128 I can hear an echo from the latency. It doesn't interfere with anything, but it's there.

[wvandyck]

It's like comparing gas mileage, only even more mundane, and buffers don't cost $3.03.9 per multiple. Why care what the number is if it works?

Based on my listening, 128 is a good setting for analog inputs. But it's a fair question to ask whether or not that number works.

MIDI guitar is another situation where a low I/O is appreciated. Latency in the conversion process (unless using a Ztar or similar) is added to the the host I/O. 128 is ok, but 64 or 32 sounds very tight! Just saying'.

[gravity]

One of the main reasons I'm trying to get the latency as low as possible is that a few guitarist that I regularly record seem to feel latency at 128. Who am I to argue with that.

I understand the concept of Host Buffer Multipliers but have also noticed that setting it to 2 or 3 instead of 1 significantly lowers the strain on the processors with very little obvious ill effects. Does anyone else do this?

[HCMarkus]

2 @ 128 = 1 @ 256. Use multiplier of 1 for low latency.

Look for look-ahead plugins (like limiters) in your project and remove (don't just bypass) to avoid additional latency.