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 > Legacy Products > Pro Tools 11

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-21-2015, 12:53 PM
darbyclash34 darbyclash34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 225
Default Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

One of the major features touted by Pro Tools 11 was its system of using a fixed playback buffer, and only using a smaller buffer when the track was record enabled. This seemingly should mean we see the performance of the machine at 1024 if we only have say one track record enabled. But myself and many others have noticed that turning up the input/record buffer, the only one adjustable by the user, lowered our CPU usage and have us fewer CPU overload errors, just like in the old days. The manual says that any "aux track with live input" uses the record buffer. Wouldn't that mean every aux send, save some very rare situations? Unless there's a render file, but how could it respond the changes made on other tracks? So I feel like in any real scenario, you're constantly running tracks that have a buffer set by the input buffer, and therefore this is not nearly as exciting or useful as described. Am I correct in these assumptions? I would just like to get definitive word about whether or not aux inputs acting as say FX returns are considered to be receiving live input and are therefore at the record buffer, and that's why CPU lessens when you increase it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-21-2015, 02:30 PM
priorytools priorytools is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,112
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

Avid ?
__________________
~ Trashcan Mac Pro late 2013 - 64 GB RAM - 10.12.6 / Pro Tools HD 12.8.3 / HDX 2 + UAD2 PCIe OCTO in Magma Expressbox 3T / HD I/O's x 4 + 1 x 96io / Avid S6 M10-24-5 V3.6 ~
~ MBP 15" 2.8 Intel Core i7 -10.12.6 /Apollo 16 / Steinberg U22 / Artist MIx / Pro Tools HD 12.8.3 - UAD2 V8 / UAD2 Satellite DUO ~
~ Mac Pro 8 core - clover - 13 GB ram - 10.6.8 / HD5 / Pro Tools 9.0.6 / HEAT / Magma PE6R4 / ProControl 24 faders / UAD2 QUAD PCIe ~ ARCHIVE RIG
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2015, 06:50 PM
YYR123's Avatar
YYR123 YYR123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 13,652
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

Not on the weekends brah....
__________________
Daniel
HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8
Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii
D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue


http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-21-2015, 07:26 PM
guitardom guitardom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,777
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

Quote:
Originally Posted by darbyclash34 View Post
One of the major features touted by Pro Tools 11 was its system of using a fixed playback buffer, and only using a smaller buffer when the track was record enabled. This seemingly should mean we see the performance of the machine at 1024 if we only have say one track record enabled. But myself and many others have noticed that turning up the input/record buffer, the only one adjustable by the user, lowered our CPU usage and have us fewer CPU overload errors, just like in the old days. The manual says that any "aux track with live input" uses the record buffer. Wouldn't that mean every aux send, save some very rare situations? Unless there's a render file, but how could it respond the changes made on other tracks? So I feel like in any real scenario, you're constantly running tracks that have a buffer set by the input buffer, and therefore this is not nearly as exciting or useful as described. Am I correct in these assumptions? I would just like to get definitive word about whether or not aux inputs acting as say FX returns are considered to be receiving live input and are therefore at the record buffer, and that's why CPU lessens when you increase it.
Live input means an input from an interface (Live monitoring path). Not an internal buss input from within PT. This thread might help a bit.
http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?p...th#post2105958
__________________

pro-tools-pc.com


TRASHER Pro Tools Utility(updated 3-6-18)

HD Native, Avid 16x16, Eleven Rack, Focusrite Clarett 8preX, UA Quad Apollo TB.

Intel I7 6800k
Win 10
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-22-2015, 05:06 AM
DC-Choppah DC-Choppah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 395
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

There is no mention of a 'dual buffer' in the PT 11 Manual. The description of the buffer is basically the same as it has always been.

Hardware Buffer Size
The Hardware Buffer Size (H/W Buffer Size) in the Playback Engine controls the size of the buffer used to handle host processing tasks such as processing with host-based, or “Native” plug-ins.
• Lower Hardware Buffer Size settings are useful for improving latency issues in certain recording situations or for improving certain system performance problems:
• On all Pro Tools systems,lower settings reduce MIDI-to-audio latency (such as when playing a virtual instrument live and monitoring the instrument’s output). Lower settings can also improve screen response or the accuracy of plug-in and mute automation data.
• On host-based Pro Tools systems, lower settings reduce all input-to-output monitoring latency on any record-armed tracks or Auxiliary Input tracks with live inputs.
• On HDX systems, lower settings reduce monitoring latency that occurs on tracks that have one or more Native plug-ins. Lower settings
can also improve the accuracy of MIDI track timing on systems without a MIDI interface that supports time stamping. Lower settings also improve MIDI track timing on tracks using MIDI virtual instruments that do not support time stamping.
• Higher Hardware Buffer Size settings are useful for sessions that are using more Native plug-ins for playback. These settings allow for more audio processing. They can also be useful to reduce errors on machines that require a higher buffer size.
__________________
DC-Choppah's Project Studio:

ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo /Intel Pro 2 Quad Core-rackmount PC
Windows 7 professional 64 bit
Pro-Tools 11.3.1
AIR Instrument Expansion Pack v2
WAVES Platinum plugin bundle
M-AUDIO FastTrack ULTRA 8R Interface
Roland RD-300 / Novation XiO Keyboards
Mackie 12 channel Analog Mixer
Adam A8X monitors

Estonia Parlor Grand Piano
Yamaha Studio Drum kit

https://soundcloud.com/dc-choppah
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-22-2015, 06:16 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 16,336
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

Well this isn't a technical explanation; but imagine PT rendering your output one minute before realtime (when you start to hear click in the cans), which would mean it has already calculated whatever you need to hear in the cans while recording. That would mean the software only needs to stream one feed from memory and record what you want to record, so therefore recording buffer can be lowest possible.

Now replace that "one minute" with a reasonable amount of time (say, a second?) between hitting record and hearing the click and we're almost there.

Of course, this is not how it works because you can adjust levels realtime, but to understand the concept of dual buffers this is as close as it gets if we talk layman's terms.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-22-2015, 11:07 AM
nst7 nst7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 9,775
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

I think his main question was one that's been asked before, with no clear answer:

That is, if every track other than those record-enabled is supposed to be playing back at a buffer of 1024, why is he still seeing a CPU hit when lowering the buffer setting, which should only affect tracks that are record-enabled? In other words, if only a few tracks (record-enabled) are operating at the low buffer, and the rest are at the max buffer, the overall performance should be similar to running at the max buffer in PT10 and earlier. But apparently that's not the case. Setting the buffer lower for record-enabled tracks seems to be affecting all the tracks, just like the old system. That shouldn't be the case, according to Avid's description of how it works.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-22-2015, 12:14 PM
Amack Amack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 846
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

nst7

There are two buffers, one for input (record) and one for output (playback) both are set to the same size via the Playback Engine H/W Buffer Size menu. http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=2267209&postcount=75 shows measurements for HD Native Omni and I/O. Post http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=176 shows calculations demonstrating that there are two identically sized buffers in series (input and output) for RTL. It also shows my predictions for HDX RTL, which seems to have everyone upset. (Understandably so if they are correct!) It sure would be nice if someone with HDX would do some measurements, especially since RTL latency compensation and ADC seem to cause so much misery! - http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=352076

Amack

Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
I think his main question was one that's been asked before, with no clear answer:

That is, if every track other than those record-enabled is supposed to be playing back at a buffer of 1024, why is he still seeing a CPU hit when lowering the buffer setting, which should only affect tracks that are record-enabled? In other words, if only a few tracks (record-enabled) are operating at the low buffer, and the rest are at the max buffer, the overall performance should be similar to running at the max buffer in PT10 and earlier. But apparently that's not the case. Setting the buffer lower for record-enabled tracks seems to be affecting all the tracks, just like the old system. That shouldn't be the case, according to Avid's description of how it works.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-22-2015, 12:29 PM
guitardom guitardom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,777
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amack View Post
nst7

There are two buffers, one for input (record) and one for output (playback) both are set to the same size via the Playback Engine H/W Buffer Size menu. http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=2267209&postcount=75 shows measurements for HD Native Omni and I/O. Post http://duc.avid.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=176 shows calculations demonstrating that there are two identically sized buffers in series (input and output) for RTL. It also shows my predictions for HDX RTL, which seems to have everyone upset. (Understandably so if they are correct!) It sure would be nice if someone with HDX would do some measurements, especially since RTL latency compensation and ADC seem to cause so much misery! - http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=352076

Amack
Now you are making a prediction about a hardware system you clearly do not understand?? Why do you think Avid is lying?? Have you used an HD/HDX to see the buffer size does not matter if you don't use Tdm plugins?

Second off the the input and output buffers on native systems are independent of each other, since PT11. I posted a link above from an Avid engineer who knows a bit more than you. It's also in the reference guide.

You are asking about posts where your information is wrong.....well here you go.

You went from being laughable to now just being an out right nuisance.
__________________

pro-tools-pc.com


TRASHER Pro Tools Utility(updated 3-6-18)

HD Native, Avid 16x16, Eleven Rack, Focusrite Clarett 8preX, UA Quad Apollo TB.

Intel I7 6800k
Win 10
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-22-2015, 12:30 PM
Emcha_audio's Avatar
Emcha_audio Emcha_audio is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montréal, canada
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: Would Appreciate An Official Word on How Dual Buffering is Handled

Guitardom, it would seem that he doesn't record, mix or even produce, and that he has used none of the systems related to pro tools, or so he has avoided answering those questions when Shan asked.
__________________
Manny.

#BOYCOTTTUSPRODUCTS

just not Pro tools and compatible plugins...
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
AVID, Can we get an official word? manichouse Pro Tools TDM Systems (Win) 0 11-10-2010 06:35 AM
PDC-Whats the official word eboy Pro Tools M-Powered (Mac) 4 09-27-2005 07:58 AM
Official word about PTLE6.7 & CS updates Obsidian Dragon 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 2 11-08-2004 10:49 PM
"The official word" on bundled Digi 002 plug ins! Phil O'Keefe 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 30 09-09-2002 06:18 AM
any word on Dual Processor compatibility....??? tommydee 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 5 12-17-2001 08:33 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 PM.


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