|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Let us know when you have the test together. I'm looking forward to trying it out.
With the newest policies of Avid, I'm considering my options... One of the biggest factors for me is performance in the context of a template that includes buses and FX send/return buses and otherwise full routing. Will this be covered in your test sessions? If not that will still be very useful to me. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Quote:
It's too complicated to add it to the VI tests because it makes the basic "how many tracks of this VI can you get" which is an easy way to easily balance load all cores perfectly evenly (will be just a 4 polyphonic chord progression repeating over a 2 minute length and the DAW must be able to play back the entire length without glitches), well, not so basic anymore LOL. In the audio input monitoring tests it's essential OTOH, as it's a quality reverb that is the hardest thing to run at low buffers. As far as busses to busses and things like that, we'll see how we go down the track.. It will be very streamlined to begin with, but as with anything of this nature, anyone is welcome to alter it for their own needs however they see fit. I'll be following the tried and true DAWbench formula for VI's which is just duplicated tracks playing the same thing and the same patch of the same VI. I think kontakt player is the way to go for the VI test but I am still open to suggestions on other freeware.. I just need to find a patch that is cpu taxing and is freeware. I designed the new Logic benchmark test over at GS (same user name), so that will give you some idea of how I construct them. Cheers!
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Did you already check which version of Kontakt or VEpro you are using? Pretty important factor here...
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Quote:
The performance differences I have picked up have zero to do with kontakt.. Kontakt only came into the discussion just now as a possible freeware (the player) to use in construction of the standardised performance test.. Ve pro? Will never buy or use that useless thing in my lifetime, sorry.. On the same computer it offers much worse performance than just using the DAW, and also adds latency if you want the performance to be at least decent.. It's totally unsuitable for my use and the results or posts here have nothing to do with VE Pro.. they are just projects in general with a variety of synth based VIs that can't play back anymore as PT 2019 doesn't have the cpu overhead that previous versions had. Because I noticed this, I created some benchmark tests using a couple different random plugin synths to confirm it, and indeed I did.
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Just saying v1 VI on v1 DAW may perform differently than v1 VI on v2 DAW. Always check compatibility and use latest version for a given DAW
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Quote:
__________________
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Quote:
All other mac DAWs are way behind with S1 being less than half of the top 3. I think Cubase mac is actually, for the first time ever, running better than the windows version, cause windows has the MMCSS issue that is still plaguing Cubase 10 (when tracks are record armed, cubase can't use more than 6 cores by design now with Cubase 10 on windows, which they call a "fix"). Cubase 10 does work well on windows when using asio guard and for playback tracks though.. but live track performance has stunted sadly.. and since there are no such MMCSS limitations on mac, theoretically it should beat windows now. I'll find out myself on my imac pro soon in bootcamp... 8 cores/16 threads is just high enough to trigger the MMCSS issue which occurs above 14 threads. That said, why not answer my question you quoted? All I am asking for is one person to arm one VI track on their MAC (windows is ok) with PT 2019.10 at 32 buffer, and see if all cores start getting used rather than just one. Anyway, I can't change the headline but this topic's situation has changed somewhat.. PT low latency performance is no worse for me than it was in 2015.. I originally made this topic cause support told me they had fixed that particular issue. But I have always worked around it by using UAD for external input monitoring, and 128 buffer in PT to play VI's.. The issue is now, that the playback buffer performance has drastically decreased which is far worse cause i means I can get less VI's and plugins than before.
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Quote:
My tests are always done with the same plugin version.. It is not the VI's fault or the dev's fault if their VI changes performance for the worst in a PT update if it was working before. It's not even a consideration though, as then I would have to throw out every plugin. I have tested 20 "brands" so far and every one suffers from the new bottleneck..I am not going to test every plugin I own. Fab filter plugins have the best aax coding around and they too are "afflicted".. every VI is. I have some new video now from someone that HD native does the same thing at it's lowest buffer, even trying to play one VI to record the midi notation, all cores start spiking.. Anyway at least now I know it's not just a core audio issue, and i am guessing the same would happen with native plugins in HDX. I still don't know where VE Pro fits into this. If your reply was talking about the initial post relating to low buffer record armed tracks, then why not do the simple test? Put your buffer at 32 and arm a vi track and start playing notes and tell me what happens, if all cores spike for the one VI. Here's what happens in mine.. As you can see at the top in the istat cpu indicator, those cores really are being used.. I can show you in other DAWs how only one is used when one vi is armed.. there is nothing else in this project... I can give you pictures of 50 different VI's including the AIR ones (except xpand cause it uses no CPU) and they all do it.
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
TNM:
Is there any real, legitimate reason you work at such a low buffer? |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Horrible VI performance when recording in 2019.10!
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PT 2019 Mojave performance improvements | bartosz idzi | Pro Tools 2019 | 8 | 05-17-2019 01:10 PM |
Horrible Latency when recording in Pro Tools 11 | FJ92 | Pro Tools 11 | 4 | 04-22-2016 10:09 AM |
Recording quality suddenly horrible? PT8 - files in here. | masta1 | Pro Tools M-Powered (Win) | 7 | 04-03-2009 10:11 AM |
Horrible noise on bass amp when recording! | idledude | Pro Tools M-Powered (Mac) | 6 | 01-07-2009 12:57 PM |
Horrible, Horrible, Skreeching Noise On Drum Track in Sampletank | William.E.Lemuel | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 2 | 10-09-2002 06:54 AM |