Hardware Drive / Work Priority settings

[daniel.sneed]

[...] I'm just trying to figure out why your computer [...]need a lower buffer setting (unless it's assumed that a lower buffer setting is better?) to run VIs without latency.

Yes, Armageddon, lower buffer brings lower VIs latency on my machine. And this is much of a concern on my projects.

[daniel.sneed]

16-bit? Why, Daniel, Why? Oh, the humanity!

Don't worry to much, Dan and Don: I've not said *always*!
Some samplers allow tracking with 16bit samples and use the exact same set, but 24 bits, for mixing.
IMHO 16bit is just fine for *composing* music. And somewhat HD space and cpu saving. But, of course, public release is another story.

[Dan Worley]

16-bit? Why, Daniel, Why? Oh, the humanity!

Don't worry to much, Dan and Don: I've not said *always*!
Some samplers allow tracking with 16bit samples and use the exact same set, but 24 bits, for mixing.
IMHO 16bit is just fine for *composing* music. And somewhat HD space and cpu saving. But, of course, public release is another story.

Oh, good, Daniel. Now I can sleep tonight.

I freak out because I get projects in here where people have tracked at 16-bit (at low levels) and it just hurts.

Do you really notice that big of a difference on the CPU load when running at 16-bit instead of 24? I wouldn't think you would. Just curious.

I'm not understanding this claim of not experiencing latency when playing a VI live with the buffer set to 1024. What? How is that even possible?

c-ya,

Dan Worley

[Armageddon]

Yes, Armageddon, lower buffer brings lower VIs latency on my machine. And this is much of a concern on my projects.

See, that's odd to me, only because lower buffer settings (anything below 512) causes my VI audio to choke, same as above certain buffer settings. I've more or less been pushed into 1024 with a Host Multiplier of 2 as a happy medium between optimal audio and optimal latency. Again, on a faster machine, certain factors no longer apply. Also, I'm running every single thing inside of DP, whereas I assume you're at least running Reason via ReWire. And I generally run my large sample-sets in pre-gen mode to further conserve CPU and RAM.

Do you really notice that big of a difference on the CPU load when running at 16-bit instead of 24? I wouldn't think you would. Just curious.

I notice a substantial difference -- it definitely limits the amount of VIs I can run and even ends up taking a hit on my latency and playback. Most of the movie stuff I do is 48 kHz/16-bit, which is the HD standard, but I'll render the files out at 96 kHz/24-bit, down-convert in Wave Editor and send both versions, so my clients have a "future-proofed" master in case they want to remaster their stuff in a higher-quality format down the road.

[daniel.sneed]

[...]I'm not understanding this claim of not experiencing latency when playing a VI live with the buffer set to 1024. What? How is that even possible? [...]

Neither do I, Dan.

Armageddon, I assume you are playing Kontakt, not external hardware synths and expanders only. For if this would have been the case, sure I'd get your point. But with computer hosed virtual instruments, I can't see how this latency behavior can be.

On my setup and projects, at buffer 1024, I can play slow tempo melodies with low transient content samples with acceptable responsiveness, but no mid tempo *common* rhythmic pattern with percussive samples.

Obviously, buffer sensitivity and *cpu hungriness* vary much from one VI to the other, and from one sample set to the other within a VI.

My previous computer behaved the same, but just a little slower. Buffer 128 was always really to *hot* on cpu, so, while tracking VIs, I was staying with 512 or 256 . I've happilly composed and tracked many pieces at that time, though.

[Dan Worley]

Do you really notice that big of a difference on the CPU load when running at 16-bit instead of 24? I wouldn't think you would. Just curious.

I notice a substantial difference -- it definitely limits the amount of VIs I can run and even ends up taking a hit on my latency and playback. Most of the movie stuff I do is 48 kHz/16-bit, which is the HD standard, but I'll render the files out at 96 kHz/24-bit, down-convert in Wave Editor and send both versions, so my clients have a "future-proofed" master in case they want to remaster their stuff in a higher-quality format down the road.

That's interesting. Thanks a lot!

c-ya,

Dan Worley

[daniel.sneed]

[...]Oh, good, Daniel. Now I can sleep tonight. [...]

I've just loved that *16 Bits Dan and Don Lyrical Choir*!

[...]I freak out because I get projects in here where people have tracked at 16-bit (at low levels) and it just hurts.[...]

Yes, Dan, I'm *old school cautious* about levels when tracking at 16 bits.

[...]Do you really notice that big of a difference on the CPU load when running at 16-bit instead of 24? I wouldn't think you would. Just curious.

Tiny, but makes a difference on some heavy choking projects, though.

[donreynolds]

I did not either. MIDI would be alright

[dtobocman]

2023 post. It's still valid advice. I'm now working with an Apollo 8 interface and low priority setting cleaned up a lot of CPU glitches I was having at 64 buffer with the new Ivory3 (piano VI with modeling, CPU intensive, but very cool). Thanks, Motunation. Big difference.