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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 09-13-2015, 08:38 AM
guitardom guitardom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,807
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by john1192 View Post
... the chart saying that there is a fixed Buffer in Playback only, puzzles me a little ... what i get out of this is that Aux and VI (instrument) channels can ruin your day as they are in the Low Latency all the time ... even during playback ONly ... i ask this as i do this .. add plugs too VI's and Aux channels ...
We all do this! It don't ruin anything anything on playback as it's the way the system is designed. There are some scenarios where you might have to shut the delay comp off of a VI, but that is more of an oddball situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by john1192 View Post
so in a session that has only audio BUT you place a plugin on a Sub-master Aux channel this would ruin the buffer as the AUX channel is in the low domain .. does this sound correct ... ??
Assuming you have latency inducing plugins on that sub master, it's pretending like a master track where it's fine to mix but you can't track through it as the latency from the plugins is now delaying everything, including the track you have record/input monitored. If you don't have plugins or 0 latency plugins on that aux, you will be able to track through it fine. One of the attractions of HD-HDX hardware is that you can do this with DSP plugins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by john1192 View Post
BUT i also seem to read from some of the posts that even if you have Audio Only and no Aux or VI tracks you still cannot set your Low buffer to say 32 samples without having your session crumble ??
That is due to the power and real time processing capabilities of your computer. Sample rate will also affect this as high sample rate sessions can double/triple or more the CPU load just being open in comparison to low sample rates. So a very high sample rate and an either non optimized machine or just not a powerful enough machine don't work well together. Others of us with custom built or higher end macs don't have those issues. Most modern machines though will work fine at low buffers at 44.1/48k unless there is interrupt problems created by things like the wireless or vid card drivers.

As I explained multiple other times. PT has always directed its CPU power according to the buffer setting. So if you are sitting at a low buffer PT is optimizing it's power to the real time/low latency needs of that buffer setting as its use is tracking. From here if you drop a track into record/input monitoring, the CPU jump in relation is quite small.
__________________

pro-tools-pc.com


TRASHER Pro Tools Utility(updated 3-6-18)

HD Native, Avid 16x16, Eleven Rack, Focusrite Clarett 8preX, UA Quad Apollo TB.

Intel I7 9900k
Win 10
  #102  
Old 09-13-2015, 08:49 AM
guitardom guitardom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,807
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amack View Post
It appears that everyone now agrees that the portion of the webcast explaining the two latency domains (http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/e...side-Pro-Tools) needs to be corrected or removed. I'm sure that those responsible for it would want to be made aware of that so they could do so ASAP. How can they be made aware?

Numerous DUC threads (both old and recent) containing similar misinformation should also be corrected. Since its original source appears to have been Bharath, and he’s apparently still around (head of AAE group?), he’s the most logical person to write the primary correction statement. I’m sure he would be willing to do so when he becomes aware of the problem. How can he be made aware?

Links to that statement can then be placed in the other misguided posts. Whenever I have posted misinformation, I have corrected it as soon as I became aware of having done so. I would imagine that others would want to do that also.
??? I have yet to see one person agree with you. You might want to point out who "everyone" is.

Where have you ever fixed your "misinformation"??? All the gibberish is still a few pages back about the HW buffer and HDX. Your failed test of recording into audacity from PT and how it's supposed to mean something is still there. Never mind the nonsense from your last few posts (and really your conclusion from day 1) about how Bharath and Avid are wrong and you are right.

You are the greatest troll in Duc history. Congrats on that, it's a hard earned trophy!
__________________

pro-tools-pc.com


TRASHER Pro Tools Utility(updated 3-6-18)

HD Native, Avid 16x16, Eleven Rack, Focusrite Clarett 8preX, UA Quad Apollo TB.

Intel I7 9900k
Win 10
  #103  
Old 09-13-2015, 09:16 AM
Amack Amack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 846
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

To me the silence from those that would really like to prove me wrong suggests that they are unable to do so. Just saying I'm wrong over and over again doesn't prove anything. It does however provide valuable insight regarding those that continue to do so! So please continue!

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitardom View Post
??? I have yet to see one person agree with you. You might want to point out who "everyone" is.

Where have you ever fixed your "misinformation"??? All the gibberish is still a few pages back about the HW buffer and HDX. Your failed test of recording into audacity from PT and how it's supposed to mean something is still there. Never mind the nonsense from your last few posts (and really your conclusion from day 1) about how Bharath and Avid are wrong and you are right.

You are the greatest troll in Duc history. Congrats on that, it's a hard earned trophy!
  #104  
Old 09-13-2015, 09:32 AM
dr_daw's Avatar
dr_daw dr_daw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cariboo, BC
Posts: 1,216
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amack View Post
To me the silence from those that would really like to prove me wrong suggests that they are unable to do so. Just saying I'm wrong over and over again doesn't prove anything. It does however provide valuable insight regarding those that continue to do so! So please continue!

My silence is because you are just continually making a fool out of yourself. Do you your tests and run a session that would actually be used by 95% of the pros on here. We all use aux's in our sessions, almost always with inserts on them. Right away this takes us out of the 1024 fixed domain that you speak of. You can just NOT wrap your head around how to actually track and mix a REAL session.

The people that you're dealing with here record live bands, in sessions that are generally in templates that include all our submixes, and effects sends. We also in real situation record up to 32 channels at once, this is the reality. When you have a client sitting on the couch behind you, time is money. If our sessions aren't setup with all our normal arsenal of processing, we're wasting their time and money.

Seriously, wrap your head around a real session, in a real scenario. Don't insult me or others who fall silent because you're so absolutely stubbourne to accept that you don't know what you're talking about.
__________________
FBR recording - https://www.facebook.com/fromthebase...cordsrecording
@FBRrecording - Instagram
Rig
MBP 15" High Sierra 10.13.3, i7 2.6Ghz, 8Gb DDR, 750Gb 7200rpm, PT 2019.5, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, Octopre MkII, Glyph GPT50, Avalon 737sp, AMS Neve 1073's, API 512c, CAPI 312's, DW drums, Fender Guitars/Amps, AKG, Rode, Sennheiser, Neumann U87 & KM184's, Coles 4038, Equator D5 monitors
  #105  
Old 09-13-2015, 09:59 AM
Amack Amack is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 846
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Your post sure seems OT to me. Is it just me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_daw View Post
My silence is because you are just continually making a fool out of yourself. Do you your tests and run a session that would actually be used by 95% of the pros on here. We all use aux's in our sessions, almost always with inserts on them. Right away this takes us out of the 1024 fixed domain that you speak of. You can just NOT wrap your head around how to actually track and mix a REAL session.

The people that you're dealing with here record live bands, in sessions that are generally in templates that include all our submixes, and effects sends. We also in real situation record up to 32 channels at once, this is the reality. When you have a client sitting on the couch behind you, time is money. If our sessions aren't setup with all our normal arsenal of processing, we're wasting their time and money.

Seriously, wrap your head around a real session, in a real scenario. Don't insult me or others who fall silent because you're so absolutely stubbourne to accept that you don't know what you're talking about.
  #106  
Old 09-13-2015, 10:02 AM
guitardom guitardom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,807
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amack View Post
To me the silence from those that would really like to prove me wrong suggests that they are unable to do so. Just saying I'm wrong over and over again doesn't prove anything. It does however provide valuable insight regarding those that continue to do so! So please continue!
So, you have 0 proof even 1 person agrees with you and you somehow make the assumption everyone agrees with you? Even over the guys that design this stuff. Do you not see the stupidity here? The reason you are getting silence is that most everyone just realize you are not worth the time as you completely ignore anybody but yourself. Would you Listen to a supposed mechanic that has never drove or even been around a car??? Because that is what is happening here. You think you know more than you do and it getting ridiculous,

Saying you're right over and over again with nothing to back it up proves nothing. Even more stupid is When you are 100% proven wrong on the HDX debacle as well on the audacity testing and you still don't see it. The rest of this has just been nonsensical and lacking of any substance. It's just you making assumption after assumption, not understanding what you are seeing or doing, and then you being unwilling to listen to any explanations or reasoning.

Do yourself a favor, take your troll award and go away! Or maybe learn to play a bit of guitar or something and actually learn how PT functions.
__________________

pro-tools-pc.com


TRASHER Pro Tools Utility(updated 3-6-18)

HD Native, Avid 16x16, Eleven Rack, Focusrite Clarett 8preX, UA Quad Apollo TB.

Intel I7 9900k
Win 10
  #107  
Old 09-13-2015, 10:07 AM
guitardom guitardom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,807
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amack View Post
Your post sure seems OT to me. Is it just me?
Considering you said he agrees with you, he has the right to say that he in fact does not agree with you. So completely on topic!
__________________

pro-tools-pc.com


TRASHER Pro Tools Utility(updated 3-6-18)

HD Native, Avid 16x16, Eleven Rack, Focusrite Clarett 8preX, UA Quad Apollo TB.

Intel I7 9900k
Win 10
  #108  
Old 09-13-2015, 10:38 AM
dr_daw's Avatar
dr_daw dr_daw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cariboo, BC
Posts: 1,216
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by guitardom View Post
Considering you said he agrees with you, he has the right to say that he in fact does not agree with you. So completely on topic!

+1
__________________
FBR recording - https://www.facebook.com/fromthebase...cordsrecording
@FBRrecording - Instagram
Rig
MBP 15" High Sierra 10.13.3, i7 2.6Ghz, 8Gb DDR, 750Gb 7200rpm, PT 2019.5, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, Octopre MkII, Glyph GPT50, Avalon 737sp, AMS Neve 1073's, API 512c, CAPI 312's, DW drums, Fender Guitars/Amps, AKG, Rode, Sennheiser, Neumann U87 & KM184's, Coles 4038, Equator D5 monitors
  #109  
Old 09-13-2015, 01:53 PM
musicman691 musicman691 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Sopranos State (NJ)
Posts: 19,136
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amack View Post
To me the silence from those that would really like to prove me wrong suggests that they are unable to do so. Just saying I'm wrong over and over again doesn't prove anything. It does however provide valuable insight regarding those that continue to do so! So please continue!
We don't have to prove you wrong - you do that all by yourself.

And I do agree with guitardom - the greatest DUC troll on history. And there have been some real trolls around here.
__________________
Jack
See profile for system details
iMac dead & retired as of 11/4/17

QAPLA!
  #110  
Old 09-13-2015, 04:46 PM
DigitalMetal DigitalMetal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 413
Default Re: Low-Latency Input Buffer

I just stumbled on this thread and read the whole thing.
Guys stop feeding this one you are just stressing yourselves out, he's either doing this for fun just to wind you up and see how long he can string you along for or he's on release from some kind of ignorance asylum.
Please just stop before someone gets hurt
__________________


PT10HD5 PCIX in 64Bit Magma Chassis,
2x192io's + 2x96io's & Legacy io's
Pro Control & Fader Pack
UAD2 Quad, Octo & All Plugins
Black Lion Audio Modified MOTU 24io and 2408MK3 x2
TC Powercore PCI MK2 x2 & Firewire

Softube, Sonnox, Eventide, SSL, McDSP, Waves
Closed Thread

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
Input Buffer OneThousandBirds Pro Tools 11 2 09-20-2013 02:35 PM
Input/output buffer xy44 Pro Tools 11 1 06-24-2013 11:34 AM
HW buffer size and latency JPeters86 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 0 10-07-2007 11:22 AM
latency/ buffer overflow..Please someone help me ozzymau 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 12 02-01-2005 02:52 AM
Latency/HW Buffer Question vlad 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 7 06-03-2003 10:14 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:01 PM.


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