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 9
Register FAQ Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-10-2011, 01:14 PM
Carl Lie Carl Lie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,310
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

I'm curious if the UAD plugs run well at low buffer settings (256/128).

Anyone have experience with this?

Carl
__________________
PT 2021.10 HDX 16x24 -Mac Pro 12 Cores 48 GB RAM OS 10.13.6 - API 16 channel - AMS Neve 16 channel, AMS-Neve-SSL -Pres/Processing, Bock Audio, BLUE Bottle, Neumann, Josephson -Mics, Bogner, Kemper- Guitar, Chandler Zener-Curve Bender Outboard/Master. UAudio, Waves, Plugin Alliance etc.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-15-2011, 08:18 AM
WinTaper WinTaper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 133
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

UAD plugs run fine at low buffer settings ... I run mine @ 128 samples

There is also a low latency "live" setting switch on each UAD plugin window that reduces latency even more - at the expense of host CPU. I think I read somewhere that live mode switches the processing back to the host (essentially running it 'native' under the hood)

-dan
__________________
Pro Tools 2020 | Mac OSX 10.15.x
RME Ray-DAT | SSL Alpha-Link AX
2019 Apple Mac Pro 16 core / 96GB
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-15-2011, 06:10 PM
roberts roberts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Ont
Posts: 2,438
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

I hate the latency and the added CPU usage of UAD - I like some their plug-ins
But I use a TDM plug-in every chance I get I need low latency
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-15-2011, 06:20 PM
musicman691 musicman691 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Sopranos State (NJ)
Posts: 19,139
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

Quote:
Originally Posted by roberts View Post
I hate the latency and the added CPU usage of UAD - I like some their plug-ins
But I use a TDM plug-in every chance I get I need low latency
Simple answer to the latency - don't track with plugins.
__________________
Jack
See profile for system details
iMac dead & retired as of 11/4/17

QAPLA!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:56 AM
roberts roberts is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Ont
Posts: 2,438
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicman691 View Post
Simple answer to the latency - don't track with plugins.
No so simple in our workflow we mix as we track/build the song. It's so critical to hear how what we doing to heard in full context of what the final product will be.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-30-2011, 11:42 PM
chrisbass chrisbass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Down South, Orrrr-straiiilia
Posts: 27
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

I run UAD 1 and 2 on a Windows 7 32-bit machine and if I try and run some of the plugs (like Fatso) in anything less than a 1024 buffer size the session will freeze. I was under the impression that the higher buffer size was needed for UAD.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-01-2011, 11:54 AM
barstool719 barstool719 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 625
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

I use a UAD1 on my W7x64 machine daily. I can track using the plugs (usually the 1176) and LLM mode @128 buffer and not have any perceptible latency.
__________________
i7-860 / 12GB Kingston / Intel DP55WB / 500GB Barracuda / 1TB Deskstar W7x64
Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 / Pro Tools 9.0.3
Mics, Guitars, Amps, Basses, Drums, Keys


http://overtheeffect.bandcamp.com
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-03-2011, 06:34 AM
barstool719 barstool719 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 625
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

Some of the UAD plugs use more power than others. I could see not being able to track through the tape machine emulations or something like the Fatso JrSr. I used a friend's UAD2 some the other day, and some of those plugs are pretty heavy.

So when Im tracking, I bring the vocals in on an AUX track, insert the 1176, route the AUX track to an audio track, and then enable LLM. Then I setup a send from the audio track to a delay/reverb channel so they can hear a little wetness when they are tracking. (The reverb delay doesnt get recorded, since it's sent from the target audio track.)

If I need to dub something in after I already finished tracking and started mixing, I have to take some things apart to get back to optimal tracking routing. I'll go through and "make inactive" some of the more resource hungry plugins, and then be able to track using the UAD/AUX/Audio combo @128 buffer/LLM. Sucks, but only takes a few minutes.

Once I start getting heavy with the mixing and routing, I crank the buffer up to 1024.

This is all on the system in my sig - i7 PC with 8GB running W7x64, an Mbox3 and PT 9.0.3. (Not HD)
__________________
i7-860 / 12GB Kingston / Intel DP55WB / 500GB Barracuda / 1TB Deskstar W7x64
Focusrite Saffire Pro 40 / Pro Tools 9.0.3
Mics, Guitars, Amps, Basses, Drums, Keys


http://overtheeffect.bandcamp.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-03-2011, 03:17 PM
UAsupport UAsupport is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Scotts Valley, CA
Posts: 2
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

Hi everybody!

I wanted to jump in on the discussion and offer some info on using the UAD products with Pro Tools...

First of all the UAD plugins are really meant for use in the mixing and mastering phase of production. This is due to the fact that we would recommend you set your hardware buffer size to around 512 to start. Some systems would require that we increase the hardware buffer to 1024. The latency at this point would not allow for tracking.

I have heard of some users running their systems at lower hardware buffer sizes. Realistically I suppose some users could be doing this and may have not ( yet ) run into problems. Basically we all have to understand that each user will have different computer systems with different hardware and capabilities. Also each user will have different 'use' scenarios with these systems. This in mind there could certainly be some people out there running systems at a lower buffer size and as yet not had a problem.

Operative word here being 'yet'.... we would still recommend you run at a minimum of 512 samples however ; )

Dan - you are correct in saying the UAD2 PCIe products have 'LiveTrack' mode which would let you run the UAD2 PCIe card in '0 latency' mode and would then allow you to track. The 'LiveTrack' mode would increase burden on the host computer CPU however. Realistically 'LiveTrack' is meant for tracking through one or maybe two UAD plugins. And at that we would not recommend tracking through some of the more dsp intensive plugs like the Manley, EP-34, Ampex, etc.

And DEFINITELY you can't run a whole bunch of UAD2 plugins all in 'LiveTrack' mode. ( Sorry people... you won't be able to create a 64 channel 'LiveTrack' UAD2 Neve console or something similar ).

LP - You bring up a good point with your question 'What CPU with how many cores and threads? Just wondering since your answer might help some of use if you've found a golden combination that works. Enquiring minds want to know!!!'

All systems differ... All user scenarios differ ( 2 track voice over OR orchestral movie score? )... All computer systems differ... The trick is to find that 'happy balance' of settings to optimize performance. Here are the settings I suggest as a starting point:

Pro Tools hardware buffer size -

For Pro Tools 8.* and below set the Hardware Buffer Size ( H/W Buffer Size ) to 512 for Pro Tools HD and 1024 for Pro Tools LE.
For Pro Tools 9.* and above you can experiment by setting the Hardware Buffer Size first to 512 and then increase the value if needed.

RTAS Processors -

Try experimenting with the number of RTAS processors you have running ( reduce the number of processors ). This can often improve performance. - Open the Setup/Playback Engine settings window in Pro Tools. Change/reduce the RTAS Processors value. Experiment with this value... Try setting the value to '2 Processor' and then press PLAY. You can then experiment by increasing this number if needed.

I hope this information helps all of you. If you have any questions about this please feel free to contact me directly here at Universal Audio Customer Support.


Universal Audio Customer Support
Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm PST

Telephone Support
USA: 877-MY-UAUDIO [877-698-2834]
International: +1-831-440-1176

Email Support
[email protected]

Regards,

Dan Becker

Customer Service
Universal Audio
www.uaudio.com
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-03-2011, 03:23 PM
lennieh lennieh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Epsom Downs,Surrey,UK
Posts: 392
Default Re: Pro Tools and UAD 2 Quad satelite

Another top tip is to disable the Enhance CPU Performance flag in the UAD configuration, I was getting tons of 9128 errors and CPU spikes until I did that....
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Video Satelite LE & Digitranslator nedd Buy & Sell 1 08-11-2013 06:17 AM
Video Satelite and MC 7 StefB Post - Surround - Video 7 07-08-2013 07:41 AM
Uad 2 satelite priorytools Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 5 01-19-2011 10:30 AM
Automation bug with satelite PierrevC Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 0 11-23-2009 02:22 PM
TOSHIBA SATELITE A80 runs PT LE disurbed bassplayer 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 0 07-02-2005 01:57 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 AM.


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