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
  #21  
Old 04-10-2013, 12:04 PM
nst7 nst7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 9,778
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

As mentioned, it should be the same as tracking thru Native plugins before. But this feature will just make it easier to do so, and be able to do it with more tracks and plugins going on before you finally hit that point where you need to deactivate some plugs, or bounce down to stems, before continuing to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-10-2013, 12:31 PM
nigelpry's Avatar
nigelpry nigelpry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home
Posts: 2,154
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

My impression that the concept is to allow low latency on tracks you are recording on, so the musos don't get a noticeable delay in their cans. This is NOT about conquering latency when trying to use plugins on the track you are recording on, that would require warping the space time continuum ;-)

When doing overdubs, you still want low latency for a noticeable delay free headphone mix on the tracks you are now going to record on.

But by then, the tracks you previously recorded may have lots of plugins instantiated, you might have effects busses, and you might have lots of virtual instruments playing back too.

It's about pro tools dynamically creating a bigger playback output buffer for that previously recorded data, so your computer can cope better. So it will be manipulating the playback timing of the previously recorded material, while at the same time maintaining very low (unnoticeable) latency on the tracks you want to record on now.

The only logical way to do that is to playback the previously recorded material early, by precisely the correct amount of samples so that it appears at the output buss at exactly the same time as the recording track spews its audio back out having passed through the track.

If you try to instantiate plugins, or convoluted routings on the track being recorded on, then there will be extra latency building up due to the delay caused by those plugins/routing. There's no way of avoiding that. Some simple plugins can be used, just like they can now, but anything that generates noticeable delay won't be of any benefit ... it will just put the musician off.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-10-2013, 12:49 PM
DonaldM's Avatar
DonaldM DonaldM is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,129
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

I frankly don't care HOW it works, only that it WILL work. They could be using a mini Harry Potter waving a magic wand inside my PC for all I care...as long as I get low latency on the input without sacrificing the output.
__________________
"Never believe anything you hear in a song." Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones
Owner: Dragon Rock Productions LLC
Dell XPS 435T/9000 Win-10 Pro 24gig RAM
IntelCore i7 CPU 920@2.67GHz
Pro Tools 2018.12
Focusrite Scarlett 8i6


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-10-2013, 01:47 PM
Raoul23 Raoul23 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,014
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

If this new buffer works as good when recording with plugs as Avid say (or not say as Avid didnt mention tracking through plugs and the low latency) people wouldn't pay the big cash for HDX because apart from more I/O what other feature do you really get with HDX compared to Native. Id really like to see this working and what the limitations are before I upgraded my TDM rig.
__________________
Raoul Crane
www.blaze-studios.co.uk

PT 10.3.10 HD Accel 6, Mac Pro 3.1 Dual Boot Lion 10.7.5 and Maverick 10.9.5 32GB Ram Magma PE6R4i Chassis
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-10-2013, 02:54 PM
nigelpry's Avatar
nigelpry nigelpry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home
Posts: 2,154
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

Avid is not talking about miraculously achieving low latency when tracking through plugins that themselves cause extra latency ...

When you overdub it is always a compromise ... how low can you set the buffer to give a delay free headphone mix to the musician while not having pro tools fall over with errors because of the cpu load of all those previously recorded tracks loaded up with plugins, and virtual instruments etc?

The heavier the load of previously recorded material and the pulgins you've put on those tracks, the higher you have to set the buffer, at the moment (in PT10 and earlier), and that then starts to affect the musician because he can hear a delay in his headphones for the stuff now being recorded. ...

Well this is Avid's way of trying to resolve that problem. I can't wait to try it out, it'll be one of the first new features that I take for a spin!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-10-2013, 02:59 PM
Raoul23 Raoul23 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,014
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

Wouldn't this feature be stepping on the toes of what HDX has to offer
__________________
Raoul Crane
www.blaze-studios.co.uk

PT 10.3.10 HD Accel 6, Mac Pro 3.1 Dual Boot Lion 10.7.5 and Maverick 10.9.5 32GB Ram Magma PE6R4i Chassis
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-10-2013, 03:46 PM
mykhal c's Avatar
mykhal c mykhal c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: san fran
Posts: 4,355
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelpry View Post
Avid is not talking about miraculously achieving low latency when tracking through plugins that themselves cause extra latency ...

When you overdub it is always a compromise ... how low can you set the buffer to give a delay free headphone mix to the musician while not having pro tools fall over with errors because of the cpu load of all those previously recorded tracks loaded up with plugins, and virtual instruments etc?

The heavier the load of previously recorded material and the pulgins you've put on those tracks, the higher you have to set the buffer, at the moment (in PT10 and earlier), and that then starts to affect the musician because he can hear a delay in his headphones for the stuff now being recorded. ...

Well this is Avid's way of trying to resolve that problem. I can't wait to try it out, it'll be one of the first new features that I take for a spin!
which i actually did explain in my 1st post from a general programming approach that is...not necessarily Avid's way of attackin' the problem.
__________________
bassist...deep pocketz anyone???!!!

The Basschakra Lucid Soul Trip

i7 Builds - Specs and Results

HDNative | Omni | i7-3930K OC'd 4.0GHZ |
ASUS X79 Sabertooth | 32GB GSkill DDR3 2133 ram | mo' stuff
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-10-2013, 03:54 PM
Sardi Sardi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,701
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

Exactly.

We're all just repeating ourselves now.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-10-2013, 03:59 PM
mykhal c's Avatar
mykhal c mykhal c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: san fran
Posts: 4,355
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sardi View Post
Exactly.

We're all just repeating ourselves now.
yep...exactly what threads are for!!
__________________
bassist...deep pocketz anyone???!!!

The Basschakra Lucid Soul Trip

i7 Builds - Specs and Results

HDNative | Omni | i7-3930K OC'd 4.0GHZ |
ASUS X79 Sabertooth | 32GB GSkill DDR3 2133 ram | mo' stuff
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-10-2013, 04:00 PM
Shan's Avatar
Shan Shan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 13,547
Default Re: Who else doesn't get how different input and output buffers shall work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
As mentioned, it should be the same as tracking thru Native plugins before. But this feature will just make it easier to do so, and be able to do it with more tracks and plugins going on before you finally hit that point where you need to deactivate some plugs, or bounce down to stems, before continuing to do so.
Exactly! It's no different than how it works currently. What's new is a dual buffer engine instead of our current single buffer. Function wise it remains the same as it always has.

We've had this problem along with it's solution in analog studios before computer recording and the DAW even existed. The concept and it's solution is nothing new since the days of tape.

Delay(latency) between the record head and repro head on tape = High buffer
Musicians going into the console = Low buffer
Monitor routing in the console = Solution

As far as "how" it works, in laymen's terms it's just routing under the hood(technically more to it than that when it comes to programming of course). Certainly not the oldest request for a multibuffer engine, but a more basic description.

A high H/W buffer gives us tons of CPU overhead, plug-in instances, VI's, large sessions etc, but impossible to recod without noticeable latency(It's great for mixing). A very low H/W buffer gives us extreme low latency(great for recording) but with a big hit in CPU, hence fewer plug-in instances, VI's, tracks, smaller sessions etc. The ideal solution is a multibuffer engine in which playback tracks stay at 1024, while only record tracks and live MIDI tracks are at 32(or the user defined settings). The result is a massive increase in performance in the many areas mentioned above in both native and HDX. As to "how" it works and programmed in the code, see analogy above.

Many of the DAW problems can model and echo the same solutions found in the analog studios of yesteryear. History likes to repeat itself, along with our posts.

Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing

Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em!
__________________

"Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM

__________________

Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit
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
Help! I can't get my main output to work, and I can't make a stereo output! oceanlove_1 Pro Tools 9 1 06-27-2011 06:23 AM
Out of System Exclusive Output Buffers James and Julieah Pro Tools M-Powered (Win) 0 01-22-2007 11:27 PM
input-output buffers - Compensated for??? Dunewar Tips & Tricks 1 01-27-2006 05:30 AM
Can I use a PA output as an input for Mbox? dklcn 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 12-12-2005 03:19 PM
Please help, no output / input from 001 jdavis74 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 04-03-2003 08:18 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM.


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