Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > macOS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-27-2014, 01:19 PM
thesuitelounge thesuitelounge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12
Default Apollo with Virtual Instruments

Anyone with a UA Apollo that could help me?

I am interested in buying an Apollo but have this question..a little confused.

I would like to program virtual drums (Strike) in a midi/instrument track in Pro Tools 11, and then overdub live audio tracks. I do this with my current interface by setting a low buffer (32) in Pro Tools for lowest tracking latency. I would like to be able to raise the buffer (1024?) for best performance, yet still have low/no latency using Apollo's Console application.

My thought is: set PT buffer higher, send instrument track's output to Console's Virtual IO input, and monitor through Console (instead of through Pro Tools).

Then overdub live instrument audio tracks through Apollo, monitoring existing Strike virtual tracks along with new recording tracks through Console with low latency.

Will this work this way? Do I need to use Pro Tools Low Latency Monitoring? Do I need to mute the record track in Pro Tools?

Thank you for your help.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-02-2014, 05:20 AM
quantise quantise is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Headley Down, UK
Posts: 176
Default Re: Apollo with Virtual Instruments

Quote:
Originally Posted by thesuitelounge View Post
Anyone with a UA Apollo that could help me?

I am interested in buying an Apollo but have this question..a little confused.

I would like to program virtual drums (Strike) in a midi/instrument track in Pro Tools 11, and then overdub live audio tracks. I do this with my current interface by setting a low buffer (32) in Pro Tools for lowest tracking latency. I would like to be able to raise the buffer (1024?) for best performance, yet still have low/no latency using Apollo's Console application.

My thought is: set PT buffer higher, send instrument track's output to Console's Virtual IO input, and monitor through Console (instead of through Pro Tools).

Once you have your Strike part in PT you shouldn't need to bring it into the Console virtual inputs as the outputs from PT are monitored by Console anyway. Unless, of course you want to treat the Strike part with UA plugins.

Then overdub live instrument audio tracks through Apollo, monitoring existing Strike virtual tracks along with new recording tracks through Console with low latency.

Yes, you will be good to go in this regard.

Will this work this way? Do I need to use Pro Tools Low Latency Monitoring? Do I need to mute the record track in Pro Tools?

Low Latency Monitoring assumes you are using Outputs 1-2 in PT vanilla and bypasses any plugins on a track that's recording. You can try it either way but my experience is the fewer plugins you have on a PT channel when recording the better. Of course you have a load of possibilities plugin wise within Console as long as they are UA plugs.

It's good practice to drop the record fader in PT when using Console to monitor so that you don't hear two versions of your recording. One through Console and the other through PT.


Thank you for your help.
Hope this helps.
__________________
PTHD 12.8.3 TB Native + Avid 8x8x8. Universal Audio Apollo 8p and Apollo 8 plus SF Apollo Quad used as outboard.
MacBook Pro 15-inch 2017. 4-Core 2.9 GHz Intel Core i7. OSX High Sierra 10.13.2
Avid S3 and Softube Console 1. Dynaudio BM5's.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-03-2014, 10:04 AM
thesuitelounge thesuitelounge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12
Default Re: Apollo with Virtual Instruments

Thanks for the reply. The reason I was asking about monitoring Strike through Console is the entire point of my question. If I record Strike FIRST while monitoring in PT, the buffer must be set lower, for lower latency, but more CPU is used, more CPU errors. If I RAISE the PT buffer and monitor Strike through Console (not even using any UA plugs, just running it through Console Virtual IO, wouldn't this be more efficient on CPU? Unless I wouldnt be able to HEAR Strike because its outputs are going to Console (aren't sent to 1-2) and disallowed by Low Latency Monitoring....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Virtual Instruments And RAM Becharax Virtual Instruments 8 12-19-2013 08:00 AM
Virtual Instruments guitars5005 Pro Tools 11 12 07-07-2013 09:12 PM
someone can help me buy some virtual instruments? abn2012 Virtual Instruments 0 07-17-2012 05:18 PM
Using virtual instruments jamiet macOS 3 07-24-2011 03:20 AM
are 5.1 'virtual' instruments possible? technician 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 2 05-19-2005 02:08 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:03 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com