12.7.1 Ouch !

[moshuajusic]

Originally Posted by Cutlerbri

I just started using Rewire along with Waves Tune. That's what Waves suggests doing. Can I use Waves Tune without using Rewire?

Yes. Use it as audiosuite instead of a track plugin. It's very CPU intensive so I don't think you'd want it on a track anyway.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by dankin

What do you mean by "many VI".. do you have many installed, or do you use many at once in PT? Are you talking 3-4 VI's, 10-12, 20-30, or more? I'm always intrigued by any one who claims to use "many" VIs at once in any version of PT, who isn't also using something like VePro to offload them. I've just never seen what I would consider "many VIs" running at once with my on eyes on any PT rig. I've seen it (and do it myself) many times with Logic, Cubase and other daws, but with PT...I've yet to see it happen. Are these VIs just playing simple drum parts, or do you really get multiple VIs that are using decent amounts of polyphony all going at once?

What buffer settings are you at? Can you actually play these in realtime from a controller? No offense intended here. I'm truly curious about the handful of people on this board that claim to run "many" VIs with no issues in PT. While the rest of us have constant issues with 9173s and other errors. My 12 core Macpro will not run any where near what I would consider "many VIs" inside PT. I'm not even getting into the numerous midi bugs in PT, which is a whole other topic

I agree performance claims without benchmarks are useless.

I'm building a new composing template at the moment so in a state of flux. Until just recently my template had over 40 instances of Kontakt in PT and a few dozen VE Pros. BFD, Maschine, Breaktweaker. Musically I'm talking often epic hybrid/cinematic. Walls of orchestra, masses of cinematic percussion, often with lots of electronica elements, kitchen sinks etc. GBs of samples loaded in Pro Tools, sometimes thousands of voices of polyphony in Kontakt. VE Pro multiplied the buffer by two. Usually I could run the buffer at 256/512. Anything lower than that and it just croaked.

Because of Pro Tools' low latency dual buffer I could quite happily play a record-armed VI from a controller with NO noticeable latency, (except Maschine for some reason.) That one track could REALLY push the CPU though so you had to be careful if the VI in question was demanding. THAT is one area were unexpected CPU overload errors fooled some people IMO. They simply forgot the record armed track effectively went to a MUCH lower buffer and started shouting at PT. That was sometimes the cause of genuine and understandable -9173 errors or whatever IMO... It actually was a genuine CPU overload and it would probably have happened in other DAWs with a low latency monitoring scheme.

Providing I didn't let "native" latency get too high then I could quite happily track audio using HDX right up to and including mixdown again with no noticeable latency. Best of both worlds.

I had some stability "golden ages" with this set up. Yosemite 10.10.5 and Pro Tools HD 11.3.? and 12.6.1.

BUT.... it went horribly pear-shaped with PT 12.7.(1). My system got hopelessly unstable hence the re-modeling. I've gone back to HD 12.6.1 but now I AM getting -9171/3 errors with VERY low CPU usage. Go figure.....

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by dankin

What do you mean by "many VI".. do you have many installed, or do you use many at once in PT? Are you talking 3-4 VI's, 10-12, 20-30, or more? I'm always intrigued by any one who claims to use "many" VIs at once in any version of PT, who isn't also using something like VePro to offload them. I've just never seen what I would consider "many VIs" running at once with my on eyes on any PT rig. I've seen it (and do it myself) many times with Logic, Cubase and other daws, but with PT...I've yet to see it happen. Are these VIs just playing simple drum parts, or do you really get multiple VIs that are using decent amounts of polyphony all going at once?

What buffer settings are you at? Can you actually play these in realtime from a controller? No offense intended here. I'm truly curious about the handful of people on this board that claim to run "many" VIs with no issues in PT. While the rest of us have constant issues with 9173s and other errors. My 12 core Macpro will not run any where near what I would consider "many VIs" inside PT. I'm not even getting into the numerous midi bugs in PT, which is a whole other topic

Ok, this new session we have up now are (and I counted) 29 VI and another 27 VI with only samples inside so 54 VI we run IRT that we tweak and change sounds until everything sound like we want it to.

I would consider that many VI for only use in the Computer and no external programs.

Buffer is never touched here as we are very happy tracking thru our SSL4000G+ into Apollo Quads and Apollo 16 Black X2. We use a 6 core nMP 2013 32GB Ramm and 512GB Flash hard drive and 3 external Samsung Pro 850 512GB in a thunderbolt chassie and another Samsung SSD 1TB for samples into the trashcan thunderbolt.

I think a 9173 error popped up once yesterday when i was drawing live automation on two tracks at the same time with a Slate Raven MTi2 but that was a HUGE session and we had all 42 43 VI up and non committed.

No rewire or VEP here either.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

Ok, this new session we have up now are (and I counted) 29 VI and another 27 VI with only samples inside so 54 VI we run IRT that we tweak and change sounds until everything sound like we want it to.

I would consider that many VI for only use in the Computer and no external programs.

Buffer is never touched here as we are very happy tracking thru our SSL4000G+ into Apollo Quads and Apollo 16 Black X2. We use a 6 core nMP 2013 32GB Ramm and 512GB Flash hard drive and 3 external Samsung Pro 850 512GB in a thunderbolt chassie and another Samsung SSD 1TB for samples into the trashcan thunderbolt.

I think a 9173 error popped up once yesterday when i was drawing live automation on two tracks at the same time with a Slate Raven MTi2 but that was a HUGE session and we had all 42 43 VI up and non committed.

No rewire or VEP here either.

What buffer though? You're not quantifying anything here.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

What buffer though? You're not quantifying anything here.

I am thinking we work at 512 as we are done with recording for now. Why that would matter is beyond me as it is irrelevant if you aren't tracking ITB at the same time as you are mixing and producing.

We have never used anything less than 128 buffer as these sessions will have a hard time with 64 and even 128 sometimes so right now i will say we are producing and using midi work at 512 which is a great level for us.

However I used our Live9 Suite the past weekend for a project with the great Push2 for learning that box and when I was done the song was 231 tracks and 77 VI and atleast 80 plugins and the Live9 didn't even puff. I could have added double that VI and Plugins and still could have worked a breeze so Imagine having PT and Live9 merged into one DAW Thats my dream

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

i will say we are producing and using midi work at 512 which is a great level for us.

But how do you record MIDI without it being out of time at these higher buffers? Am I missing something here? Am I the only one who's had 10 years of problems recording MIDI parts with anything other than 128 buffer setting? Does HD-X cope with recording MIDI in a way that HD-Native doesn't? Sorry/thanks

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

But how do you record MIDI without it being out of time at these higher buffers? Am I missing something here? Am I the only one who's had 10 years of problems recording MIDI parts with anything other than 128 buffer setting? Does HD-X cope with recording MIDI in a way that HD-Native doesn't? Sorry/thanks

When we need to record anything Midi we set the buffer size to 128 and as I use a Roli Seaboard 49 I need to quantize my midi takes anyway but nothing we have had to talk about in terms of issues with Midi and buffer size. Changing that takes 2-3 seconds so no biggie.

I have said this many times before. We have not had any workstopping midi issues since PT12.4 and now everything works. It just does. I still believe using VEP and Rewire and so on is worse than running the VI in the program but thats just IMO and am not saying that the other ways are working worse for others.

Also The only time we have had any midi timing issue was Slate Drum VI and the extra sample libraries which we got an updated Slate Drum installer and even though it's hard on the CPU it works as advertized again..

PS. We don't use HDX anymore. The HDX2 system just sits in wait of sale.

[Marsdy]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

But how do you record MIDI without it being out of time at these higher buffers? Am I missing something here? Am I the only one who's had 10 years of problems recording MIDI parts with anything other than 128 buffer setting? Does HD-X cope with recording MIDI in a way that HD-Native doesn't? Sorry/thanks

As I said in my earlier post, Pro Tools has had a dual low latency buffer since version 11, (Native and HD AFAIK.) You set the buffer to say 256 or 512 but the record armed instrument track switches to a much lower buffer in the background, therefore you get much lower latency. Logic has always worked like this which is partly why there's misconception it is more CPU efficient.

As long as the overall system delay isn't too big as to affect your playing it works well, UNLESS, the record armed VI track is very CPU intensive and throws you into the red. It is surprisingly easy for this to happen even on a trashcan 12 core Mac Pro and a demanding Kontakt instrument.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

As I said in my earlier post, Pro Tools has had a dual low latency buffer since version 11, (Native and HD AFAIK.) You set the buffer to say 256 or 512 but the record armed instrument track switches to a much lower buffer in the background, therefore you get much lower latency. Logic has always worked like this which is partly why there's misconception it is more CPU efficient.

As long as the overall system delay isn't too big as to affect your playing it works well, UNLESS, the record armed VI track is very CPU intensive and throws you into the red. It is surprisingly easy for this to happen even on a trashcan 12 core Mac Pro and a demanding Kontakt instrument.

Thans for the clarification and info. Didn't realize PT12 changes to lower buffer size automatically Great News for us.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

As I said in my earlier post, Pro Tools has had a dual low latency buffer since version 11

Documentation proving this please. I haven't noticed any difference in operation between 10 and 11.