-9173 Error Finally Gone?

[Emi]

I had a mixing session this morning for maybe 4 hours. I didn't have any errors, very stable for me.

I was having some errors from time to time when running 2018.12 on Mojave, but with 2019.5 none...fingerscrossed.

I also noticed improvement on stability and cpu.

I prefer to have stability over new features, so I'll give a thumbs up to Avid on this update. And hope they give 50% more voices on regular Protools also, not that I need it...

[Howardk]

Found this review on youtube:
https://youtu.be/tL43-szEzq4

He is still getting errors...

[Jazzbass56]

I now getting this error AAE-9173 for the first time since updating to 2019.5

I did a clean install, uninstalled 2018.12 first, trashed pref etc

I am on Mojave 10.14.4 OS

My system Mac Pro 6.1 12 core, 128g of ram, D700 cards, in other words complete top of the line Mac Pro

I am using a Apollo 8 thunderbolt 2 interface and I'm on PT Ultimate

I never experience this in 2018.12, I may just roll back to 2018.12

2019.5 has no updates that benefit me, and now it is unstable for me

Cheers

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Jazzbass56

I now getting this error AAE-9173 for the first time since updating to 2019.5

I did a clean install, uninstalled 2018.12 first, trashed pref etc

I am on Mojave 10.14.4 OS

My system Mac Pro 6.1 12 core, 128g of ram, D700 cards, in other words complete top of the line Mac Pro

I am using a Apollo 8 thunderbolt 2 interface and I'm on PT Ultimate

I never experience this in 2018.12, I may just roll back to 2018.12

2019.5 has no updates that benefit me, and now it is unstable for me

Cheers

IO Buffer size ? Sample rate?

System fully optimized? Every last thing done?

UAD software and all third party plugins up to date?

You trashed prefs. Which is a great first step. But you do not mention doing any plugin troubleshooting. And that is the obvious thing to look st here, always was the thing to exclude with 9173, even if we knew Pro Tools had its own significant plugin processing issues.

Now with 2019.5 making such significant plugin/thread improvements it’s more important to carefully troubleshoot plugins because 9173 errors are hopefully more likely to be a plugin issue than before. And there is always the chance that changes in 2019.5 broke compatibility with some plugins.

Before doing more, make sure this is not just happening with one session.

Then standard plugin troubleshooting: move all .aaxplugin files out of the plugin folder. Trash prefs and try running sessions with just the standard plugins (that Pro Tools will magically put back). If that worked, try putting plugins back in batches to find the troublemakers(s). Plugins do not necessarily be instantiated in a session, just installed in Pro Tools May be enough to cause issues, but normally suspect the ones that are being used. But best to do the quick test of removing them all.

If that did not work try using built-in Output as the playback engine, starting with a new session. There’s is one or two other UAD users reporting 2019.5 problems, by far not enough to feel there is an issue there— just that it would be good to hear each one of them gets sorted out.

[TrackerLe]

My try with 2019.5


After disabling HT and Turboboost, a session in 2018.12 worked fine...
So now with 2019.5 i enabled HT and TB again to check, if the audio engine was reworked.... Unfortunatly no...
Same errors again... 9173 after half of the playback...


My Setup: HDX and 512 Latency...


Used Plugins Avid Complete...


I really wished,that the audio engine was reworked... Maybe it is, but not for me... PT Prefs trashed and all Izotope Plugins removed...

[albee1952]

FWIW, performance here(Windows 10, PT Ultimate and an old DIGI003rack) is scary good. I'm able to run sessions at the 64 buffer that never would run on previous versions without upping the buffer. I used to mix at the 1024 setting(24 bit/48K), but so far, not a single stop or error at 64. Ozone 8 would(on previous versions) cause a stop and 9xxx error every time I tried to instantiate or open, if I was at the 64 buffer. Now I can add or open it any time

[JFreak]

32 buffer here (just for testing) going strong, even as full native. Snappy as best of TDM days -- so in my book this macOS 10.14.4 & PT 2019.5 is the best 64bit combination ever.

IMO, though, there is no real reason to go below 256 buffer.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by JFreak

... snip :

IMO, though, there is no real reason to go below 256 buffer.

Huh Say Whaaaaaaat

We would never track an artist recording vocals or accoustic guitars at 256 buffer size as the latency above 64 is useless for any pro studio 2019!

anyone in 2019 should be able to track at 64 or less.

So your statement is not working for us ane people we works with!

[Becharax]

It's working like a charm here ... I only got a bug 1 minute after I started using it and then nothing at all ... it was a loud noise coming out of my speakers with a freeze but I could force quit it and restart it and that was it .... is this bug common ?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

Huh Say Whaaaaaaat

We would never track an artist recording vocals or accoustic guitars at 256 buffer size as the latency above 64 is useless for any pro studio 2019!

anyone in 2019 should be able to track at 64 or less.

So your statement is not working for us ane people we works with!

we can discuss this in more detail next week