|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Quote:
Curious to check out how it'd be nowadays, when tracking just completely natively, especially when overdubbing on big sessions, because I can do that without thinking about the native playback buffer now with DSP, even if the session runs on a native playback buffer of 1024 samples.
__________________
Apple MacBook Pro M2 Max, 96GB ram | Pro Tools HDX | Avid MTRX | Pro Tools Ultimate 2023.12 | macOS 13.6.3 |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Quote:
God only knows how the artists managed to sing with DA/AD to digital reverb, totalling +142 samples of latency (plus being the internal latency of the reverb). I still hold my opinion that nobody should have a problem with 128 playback buffer with native systems. And for the few who may always complain, 64 should drop it. 32 setting is just simply unnecessary, unless you want to convince your boss to buy you more powerful computer.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Quote:
Now you’re talking about something that is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. How is latency of an effect like reverb a problem when tracking? I seriously have no words. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Are we still arguing? Time and time again everything says that the roundtrip latency of superfast TDM systems were higher than that without plugins? And no problems tracking with plugins either.
If the artists were eating magic mushrooms back then, maybe they didn't notice that those MIX/HD systems were crap. But a lot of good recordings were made with those. If the systems were okay, maybe it is psychological when someone cannot perform with 64 latency. Go figure.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Darryl, just let me know if you run out of popcorn. USA makes a lot of it, we can perhaps arrange a food delivery.
Anyway. For most musicians acceptable latency is 12ms, and first digital pianos had latency of 10ms from keypress to output. Playing guitar with cabinet 1m away means 3ms latency. In 48k session, these numbers would be 580 samples (too high for me), 480 samples (doesn't bother, but not analog piano feel), 145 samples (perfectly okay). I know some for example classical singers have not used to cans and want to leave one ear open, but it is not the cans to blame. But saying 64 samples is too slow means the problem is somewhere else than the playback buffer.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
^ yeah.
Whenever I have disagreement I just tell the singer to drink water while I fix this, then continue without doing anything. Usually no complaints afterwards. If there really is a problem, and I know some are more sensitive, usually best solution is to leave one ear open. Singer with a real singing technique cannot live with two ears closed no matter what. Still, unless using some super crazy latency introducing plugin, 256 buffer is a good starting point. I have absolutely no symphaties for "64 is too slow" because the problem is somewhere else. MIX/HD had bigger roundtrip latency with 0 buffer (no plugins).
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Tracking with Buffersize 32?
Quote:
Has it occured to you that all of these years that you've been lying to people, they may have just concluded it's bad equipment, a bad studio, or a bad engineer? Dominic
__________________
MacBookPro M1Max 16" 10/32 64GB 2TB, Ventura 13.6.3, Pro Tools 2023.12.1, Carbon. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to get the low H/W buffersize of 32 | Dutchmountain | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 7 | 12-18-2009 10:34 AM |
How do i change the I/O Buffersize? | One-i | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 1 | 01-15-2006 09:26 AM |
Buffersize vs RAM | soebx | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 06-01-2005 02:27 PM |
H/W Buffersize and Rewire | am.syn | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 2 | 09-23-2004 03:03 AM |
buffersize PT 6.4 ?? | hoijandee | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 0 | 05-05-2004 01:01 AM |