Buffer sizes and latency with virtual instruments.

[SixChurchStreet]

I'm working on getting out of some of my old habits.

Back in the 001 days, I always used a 128 buffer no matter what. I used a lot of outboard MIDI synths, drum machines, etc, so I never wanted to have to nudge the audio to re-align it with my outboard sound sources.

These days, I don't use any outboard stuff anymore, it's all virtual instruments. Is there any delay that can occur with these if I used a higher buffer when mixing?

Now that everything is "in the box" is there anything detrimental that can happen by using a higher buffer size when mixing? I'd like to take some strain off my computer during mixdown if possible, and get out of my habit of leaving it set at 128. Thanks!

Kip

[mano111]

Set it to 64 or 128 when tracking/playing. Then set it to 1024 when mixing to get best preformance out of your CPU.
There is no delay as you are listening to all tracks at the same 1024 buffer, so it should sound the same as in 128.

[mykhal c]

ditto on mano's post

[filosofem]

Hi Kip

I agree with the boys, but I'd like to add that I also use 'MIDI Track Offsets'. Using MIDI Track Offsets tightens the overall performance of certain VI's, whether RAM or DFD there is an inherent degree of latency. Bus recording and offsetting keeps the MIDI performance in a recallable state for further editing, arranging, etc., thus giving a true overview before printing for mix processing.








filosofem

[mykhal c]

great tip!!! what's your method to determine the offset needed for VI's??

[filosofem]

A rudimentary approach, mykhal, for instance, would be to Bus Record an instantiated Xpand! Instrument Track and calculate the compensation in Samples.

A prerequisite to Multitimbral Instruments with Auxiliary Input Tracks is diligence.








filosofem