Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!

[XJENSEN]

Originally Posted by TNM

There is one problem.. even if one adjusts for this for Vi's and even external synths, the moment you want a vocalist or guitarist to record you are screwed. I have never ever met one of either who would tolerate that sort of latency.. and if you have a busy project.. back to square one.. the moment you arm at low buffer, issues..

Exactly! Big trouble with latency, even on HD Native. There would be the LLM option (Low Latency Monitoring), but that's also broken at the moment. Avid is looking into it, though (I have a few cases open on this issue). Hope they figure it out and fix it in one of the following releases.

Originally Posted by TNM

The workaround then would be to bounce your song so far to a stereo file and deactivate all other tracks till the new audio parts are recorded.. doable but that makes me feel like 2005 again.

Sadly, that's what I'm doing at the moment. No other way. On 2019.10.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by TNM

That's fine but I didn't once talk about PT 11 in my testing, other than one brief mention that that was when Avid added a hybrid 1024 playback buffer.

I specifically said PT 12.8.4 on sierra and 2018 on sierra/high sierra.

Wasn't PT 12 supposed to be better than PT 11 performance-wise? I took it back one more PT level than you did to prove a point that performance in 2019.6 is better than previous versions. If you can't grok that then I don't know what to say. If PT 2019.6 and 2019.10 performance was as bad as you're saying there'd be a LOT more people bitching about it here. Especially people like Southside, Darryl, Janne and others.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by musicman691

Wasn't PT 12 supposed to be better than PT 11 performance-wise? I took it back one more PT level than you did to prove a point that performance in 2019.6 is better than previous versions. If you can't grok that then I don't know what to say. If PT 2019.6 and 2019.10 performance was as bad as you're saying there'd be a LOT more people bitching about it here. Especially people like Southside, Darryl, Janne and others.

yes PT 12, and PT 2018 were the pinnacle so far.. something has happened in 2019.10 to affect overall plugin instance capability vs previous versions.

I don't know what you are trying to achieve or trying to confuse me with.. I said the specific versions i had great results with, and now I am saying the version I am not.. there's nothing untoward, deliberately misleading, nada. I am just saying how it is for me.. it wouldn't matter whether PT5 was the one that gave the new audio engine, or PT 2060.. I am specifically referencing the releases and the different performance between them.

There was one release of 12, i can't remember which one.. which did exactly what 2019.10 is doing to me here.. and it was fixed in the next point update.. which is why I hope it can be fixed..

Again.. no one will notice this unless they are literally at 80% on every core in a heavy project.. as I said i only noticed it cause projects that were borderline on previous versions can't play back now.

You really are weird.. you go from nice to insulting in 2 seconds.. I think it's a game you play..

I can "grok" that. It seems that you can't.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by XJENSEN

Exactly! Big trouble with latency, even on HD Native. There would be the LLM option (Low Latency Monitoring), but that's also broken at the moment. Avid is looking into it, though (I have a few cases open on this issue). Hope they figure it out and fix it in one of the following releases.



Sadly, that's what I'm doing at the moment. No other way. On 2019.10.

I hope LLM gets fixed for you.. in a way i am glad to have confirmation from you and some at gearslutz, but I also am not happy that others have issues.. I like others to be trouble free and enjoy their experience.

I checked your profile but need to ask.. what CPU are you using or mac model?

I am going to ask you a huge favour.. to tell me the number of logical cores you have, so I can work out the maximum theoretical real cpu PT has access to, and ask you to open up activity monitor and tell me at what percentage it can't play a project back.. This will hopefully be in line with my findings (since the low buffer stuff is) which means I have more backup to go to Avid with.

For example, if it's an 8 core 16 thread, max cpu is 1600%.
If PT 2019.10 is letting you use say 1000% only, then you have the same issue as me for playback tracks (unrelated to the low latency issue).
It should be more around 1350% as with previous versions.
(theoretical max is 1200% for 6 core, 800% for 4 core, as long as it's a hyper threaded cpu you just double core count and multiply by 100% to get the maximum available cpu usage available to the mac)

All this means is that you can use less plugins than before but with a decent mac you won't notice it unless you are doing a large orchestral mock up or something that really taxes the cpu.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by TNM

yes PT 12, and PT 2018 were the pinnacle so far.. something has happened in 2019.10 to affect overall plugin instance capability vs previous versions.

I don't know what you are trying to achieve or trying to confuse me with.. I said the specific versions i had great results with, and now I am saying the version I am not.. there's nothing untoward, deliberately misleading, nada. I am just saying how it is for me.. it wouldn't matter whether PT5 was the one that gave the new audio engine, or PT 2060.. I am specifically referencing the releases and the different performance between them.

There was one release of 12, i can't remember which one.. which did exactly what 2019.10 is doing to me here.. and it was fixed in the next point update.. which is why I hope it can be fixed..

Again.. no one will notice this unless they are literally at 80% on every core in a heavy project.. as I said i only noticed it cause projects that were borderline on previous versions can't play back now.

You really are weird.. you go from nice to insulting in 2 seconds.. I think it's a game you play..

I can "grok" that. It seems that you can't.

I don't know where you get insulting in what I wrote but I don't play any games. I'm a straight-shooter. Believe me when I say I could have said a lot more but I didn't. And I won't - that should suit you just fine.

[JFreak]

"You have to work at 32 if you want a respectable roundtrip to use the DAW as your actual mixer for all sources"

You have no idea how many times I have run FOH system at 256 buffer, producing house sound and monitoring without a single complaint about latency. Also good to know if a synth isnt a VI then its roundtrip is added latency. Somehow musicians can play if you dont tell them any numbers. They assume it is analog until the threshold of delay being unbearable. That is 512 buffer.

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

"You have to work at 32 if you want a respectable roundtrip to use the DAW as your actual mixer for all sources"

You have no idea how many times I have run FOH system at 256 buffer, producing house sound and monitoring without a single complaint about latency. Also good to know if a synth isnt a VI then its roundtrip is added latency. Somehow musicians can play if you dont tell them any numbers. They assume it is analog until the threshold of delay being unbearable. That is 512 buffer.

As I said, even if that was workable, it would fall apart when you want to add a vocal or guitar.. no vocalist will record with a 23ms roundtrip.. they'll complain instantly even at 8ms.. 64 buffer is where most of them start dealing. Anyway since we are going back to the latency talk, isn't it besides the point? Logic, cubase and reaper can do it at 32 buffer with tons of tracks armed with fx, so, why not PT?

[JFreak]

I am talking about real world latency experienced by musicians on stage. There are only two types of latency: too much and good enough. If you dont tell them numbers they are okay with 256 buffer. Period. That is my point.

[XJENSEN]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I am talking about real world latency experienced by musicians on stage. There are only two types of latency: too much and good enough. If you dont tell them numbers they are okay with 256 buffer. Period. That is my point.

On stage is probably more forgiving than studio work.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by XJENSEN

On stage is probably more forgiving than studio work.

No. It is a matter of being able to monitor yourself. If the latency is too much you hear delay. If it is good enough you do not. Physiological fact.

Only thing different between stage and studio is not many divas want to tell the audience that he or she doesnt feel good right now so just lets try another time and/or blame someone else. In studio you can do that. Either your water is too hot or too cold or whatever, but on stage you have one chance to satisfy your audience.

That is the only difference.

(and btw I have been running monitors on studio conditions at 256 as well. when someone asks to lower latency I just mute the monitors for a second and say it is done. works 99% of the time)