„AAE -9173 error“ - the biggest pro tools workflow killer over the last years

[monet]

I'm still getting it w/nothing on the masterbuss but things on regular tracks...I'm unclear...is everyone else past this? because I couldn't even get 2018.4 to launch...went back to .3 (came from 12.x)...still constant 9173...1 audio track and 3 midi tracks...the error comes up when the 3 midi tracks come in...am I so clueless that everyone else has fixed this? avid to me to freeze track it...1 audio track and 3 midi tracks....kontakt may be the biggest problem but am I not supposed to use it? how does it work for other people but not me??

[zion]

Originally Posted by monet

I'm still getting it w/nothing on the masterbuss but things on regular tracks...I'm unclear...is everyone else past this? because I couldn't even get 2018.4 to launch...went back to .3 (came from 12.x)...still constant 9173...1 audio track and 3 midi tracks...the error comes up when the 3 midi tracks come in...am I so clueless that everyone else has fixed this? avid to me to freeze track it...1 audio track and 3 midi tracks....kontakt may be the biggest problem but am I not supposed to use it? how does it work for other people but not me??

Need more info. Is this still your system spec's? (os 10.11.3 mac mini maxed out scarlet 2i2 keystation 61 (original not es) PT 12.4 native) Are you still using El Crapo!

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by zion

I never thought about this before but my question is If you are using an auxiliary track as a master bus can you still put a dither plug-in on it to dither down to 16 bit. Is the only difference that the inserts are before the fader where is on a master track the inserts are after the fader or is there something else going on in the 64bit summing mixer?

wow, very good question :)
I was also interested in this and have tested it.

its not the same. (but you can get the same when bounce "Track"). Thats my result:

1.
bouncing a mix with the 16 bit dither on the "Masterfader" -> to the Master "Output"
Your File is has 16 bit depth

2.
bouncing a mix with the 16 bit dither on the "AUX" (mix) bus -> to the Master "Output"
Your bounced File has full bit depth


3. BUT when you are bouncing the Track (its called Trackbounce = right Click on the AUX Track -> bounce ....) you get the same result as with dither on the Masterfader.
Your File is has 16 bit depth

when I print my mixes I always bounce the AUX (mixbus) Track by right clicking. For me this is the best way. In this case the Masterfader has no function. I have a room correction plug in (ARC) on the Masterfader and this is not included in the bounce.

[fsavell]

Hi Franklyn

Have you tried cascading your master bus into multiple auxes?

I alway "master" during my mixes so i'm using CPU hogging Native plugins like Ozone, T-Racks and lots of UAD. Anyways, on my HDX2 system, i've found that when I stack a bunch of plugins on a single master aux, it kills my CPU. However, if i cascade multiple auxes and place just one or two plugins on each aux, the CPU usage and 9073 errors reduce dramatically. It was a revelation when I found this solution. Logically it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as its the same amount of processing, but for some reason it seems to share the load better across my CPUs. These days I'm using 4 auxiliaries at the end of my mixes. I don't get a lot of 9073 errors and my sessions are quite massive, often with the CPU floating around 90%.

Forrester

MacPro 5,1; HDX2, PT2018.4, OSX10.13.2

[arche3]

Originally Posted by fsavell

Hi Franklyn

Have you tried cascading your master bus into multiple auxes?

I alway "master" during my mixes so i'm using CPU hogging Native plugins like Ozone, T-Racks and lots of UAD. Anyways, on my HDX2 system, i've found that when I stack a bunch of plugins on a single master aux, it kills my CPU. However, if i cascade multiple auxes and place just one or two plugins on each aux, the CPU usage and 9073 errors reduce dramatically. It was a revelation when I found this solution. Logically it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as its the same amount of processing, but for some reason it seems to share the load better across my CPUs. These days I'm using 4 auxiliaries at the end of my mixes. I don't get a lot of 9073 errors and my sessions are quite massive, often with the CPU floating around 90%.

Forrester

MacPro 5,1; HDX2, PT2018.4, OSX10.13.2

Oh! Have to try this.

[Franklyn]

Originally Posted by fsavell

Hi Franklyn

Have you tried cascading your master bus into multiple auxes?

I alway "master" during my mixes so i'm using CPU hogging Native plugins like Ozone, T-Racks and lots of UAD. Anyways, on my HDX2 system, i've found that when I stack a bunch of plugins on a single master aux, it kills my CPU. However, if i cascade multiple auxes and place just one or two plugins on each aux, the CPU usage and 9073 errors reduce dramatically. It was a revelation when I found this solution. Logically it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as its the same amount of processing, but for some reason it seems to share the load better across my CPUs. These days I'm using 4 auxiliaries at the end of my mixes. I don't get a lot of 9073 errors and my sessions are quite massive, often with the CPU floating around 90%.

Forrester


thank you Forrester,
Yes, I tried really everything. :)
that makes no big difference. My experience is that the AAE gets problems when the "overall" plug in/signal chain over the entire system is too long.
audiotrack(with plug ins)->group Aux(with plug ins) -> Mixbus AUX(with plug ins). and at the end of that chain (mixbus, where all signals are running through is the most sensitive part.
when more plug ins are used "parallel" (many tracks with plug ins, lesss instruments group busses, less mixbauss plugs) the CPU is more relaxed even when you use the exact same amount of plug ins.
I think this rule is on all pro tools systems the same.



MacPro 5,1; HDX2, PT2018.4, OSX10.13.2

[jasperhb]

Originally Posted by arche3

Oh! Have to try this.

I tried this and it made no difference what so ever as far as I could tell. I experience the same frequency of AAE 9173 errors and CPU spikes, unfortunately.


The real challenge here is that a) AAE 9173 is a periodical error and hence it's really difficult to establish causality and b) the AAE 9173 error is not very helpful.

Troubleshooting PT is unfortunately rather difficult. Which I believe the one of the explanations why this issue is debated here in the forum again and again and again and again… Over the years.

[Bobogura]

Originally Posted by fsavell

Hi Franklyn

Have you tried cascading your master bus into multiple auxes?

I alway "master" during my mixes so i'm using CPU hogging Native plugins like Ozone, T-Racks and lots of UAD. Anyways, on my HDX2 system, i've found that when I stack a bunch of plugins on a single master aux, it kills my CPU. However, if i cascade multiple auxes and place just one or two plugins on each aux, the CPU usage and 9073 errors reduce dramatically. It was a revelation when I found this solution. Logically it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as its the same amount of processing, but for some reason it seems to share the load better across my CPUs. These days I'm using 4 auxiliaries at the end of my mixes. I don't get a lot of 9073 errors and my sessions are quite massive, often with the CPU floating around 90%.

Forrester

MacPro 5,1; HDX2, PT2018.4, OSX10.13.2

It's because one track can only use one CPU core, so when you spread the plugins over several tracks you basically spread the load between different CPU cores.

[jasperhb]

Originally Posted by Bobogura

It's because one track can only use one CPU core, so when you spread the plugins over several tracks you basically spread the load between different CPU cores.

This sounds interesting. Do you know this as a fact? Is this is the documentation or somewhere else published by Avid?

[Bobogura]

Originally Posted by jasperhb

This sounds interesting. Do you know this as a fact? Is this is the documentation or somewhere else published by Avid?

I was told this by a fairly big plugin company. You can try it or yourself if you create just one track in the session and put some heavy plugins on that track, then check system usage. It will mainly use just one core/thread. Pro tools will use some of the neighbouring cores for the mixer etc..