|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Low buffer versus disk cache
With one of the improvements in PT 2020.11 being improved working at low buffers I've changed from running at 512 to 128. I also have been running with a disk cache of 2 gig. Making some changes to a session swapping out the previous Arturia B3 emulation for the Acoustic Samples B5 V-3 running in UVI Workstation (easier than working in Falcon 2).
Hit play and I get all kinds of distortion & crackling. So I up the buffer to 512 and it's okay. I then happen to look at the cache meter and it's not green but is full scale. Change cache to 4 gig and drop the buffers back to 128. Everything plays fine and I see the cache meter line is now green and showing 49% usage. To me that means it should have been fine at 2 gig disk cache but it wasn't. Changing cache size to 'normal' didn't help and still had distortion & crackling. Has anybody seen such an interaction between disk cache size & buffers? Keep in mind that my sessions are on a 7200 WD Black internal spinner. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
With an SSD everything will improve. I don’t use disk cache.
__________________
Mac Mini M1 | Mac OS 12.6.1 Monterey | Avid Carbon + 2x Carbon Pre | Pro Tools Studio 2024.3 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
Simple answer that doesn't help. Thanks anyway.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
IME/IMO of you have to up the cache disk is because your hard disk is not fast enough. And I had the same problems back in the days when I was using spinners. Once I went fully SSD all these problems went away and I switched to normal disk cache.
But sorry for not being of any help.
__________________
Mac Mini M1 | Mac OS 12.6.1 Monterey | Avid Carbon + 2x Carbon Pre | Pro Tools Studio 2024.3 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
Disk Cache has zero effect on VI plugins performance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
Never said that. What I said was I found an interesting seeming correlation between a session fully loading and playback buffers. At no time did the cpu usage ever go past 50%
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
Didn't mean to comment that comment, just telling that it does not have any effect on VI problems. SSD is useless too, unless your VI sample library is on it.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
to me disk cache changes the overall performance of the whole session and mekaes everyting running smoother! I never run any session without disk cache anymore - its on 6GB default and I can work on big sessions 128 buffer overdubbing with no latency which is pretty damn cool and close to my HD rig years back!
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Low buffer versus disk cache
I also have DC on all the time (32GB) so that recording never stops. With DC you can even record to USB stick if you really want to, so it is great. But it is designed for audio files, not VI's.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Could not allocate memory for the disk cache. Try lowering your disk buffer.. | slim_shady | Pro Tools 10 | 15 | 05-09-2017 05:20 PM |
Disk Cache Bug in PT 10.3.3 | zion | Pro Tools 10 | 51 | 03-12-2013 04:26 PM |
PT10's Disk Cache or RAM Disk. Why not use the same concept for VI memory space? | sunburst79 | General Discussion | 6 | 09-15-2011 11:28 AM |
mbox 2 pro versus buffer underruns etc. | jes | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 50 | 01-12-2007 03:18 PM |