chaning buffers between recording/mixing

[northstar]

I am a musician doing home recording, mostly 2-3 channels at a time. I have been using the 003 and when I started I learned to set the buffer low when recording and high when mixing. This is pretty easy to do in Pro Tools with the 003 and I go back and forth a lot, as within the same song I'll do some mixing, decide to add instruments or back up vocals, more mixing, re-do tracks I don't like, etc. I know this is not the workflow of a standard studio where generally you would record everything, edit, then mix and master once everything is done, but it is just not the way I work and hasn't gotten in my way with the 003.

I tried out a TC Impact Twin a few weeks ago and I loved the sound quality compared to the 003, but h/w buffer had to be changed in the control panel, not in Pro Tools. It gave me a lot of issues when I tried to go back and forth, re-starts, crashes, etc. The guy at the store says he never heard that you need to change buffers, that once you get a setting you stick with it whether you're recording or mixing. Is this true, even if you are using heavy-duty plugins? I am using Windows 7 64 bit with 8 GB ram, Intel I5, Pro Tools 10.

So I have ordered a Fast Track C600 (still waiting for it) hoping it will be at least close in quality to the TC Impact Twin and not have this issue (I also like some of its other features better), but reading the manual it says that in Windows you can't change the buffer either without re-starting Pro Tools. Is this a trend now that Pro Tools is working with all hardware, that there is no direct control from within Pro Tools? Is changning buffer sizes a lot something people generally do these days or is it a thing of the past? Any insight would help!

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by northstar

I go back and forth a lot, as within the same song I'll do some mixing, decide to add instruments or back up vocals, more mixing, re-do tracks I don't like, etc. I know this is not the workflow of a standard studio where generally you would record everything, edit, then mix and master once everything is done

Actually, practically every session I've ever worked on has happened with a workflow more like you're used to, not like the "standard studio" ideal. Even back in the analog tape days, there was almost always a back and forth, track and mix, track and mix. So don't worry. You're doing it the pro way.

Originally Posted by northstar

The guy at the store says he never heard that you need to change buffers, that once you get a setting you stick with it whether you're recording or mixing.

Never listen to the guy at the store. If he knew what he was talking about, he probably wouldn't need a minimum-wage retail job.

Originally Posted by northstar

Is changning buffer sizes a lot something people generally do these days or is it a thing of the past?

Many of us still do it. Not everyone. A few lucky people can get away with keeping low buffer sizes all the time. But many. Maybe most. I generally print heavy tracks like those with VIs or guitar amp sims once I'm sure I've got the sound I want. That way I can keep the buffer size lower longer. If I need to track a rhythm-sensitive part in a really huge mix, I'll even print a stereo mix of the whole shebang, disable everything but that stereo track and the new track, set the buffer to 64, get it recorded, then raise the buffer back up and re-enable everything. You do what you have to. Whatever it takes to get the job done is the right way.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by northstar

I tried out a TC Impact Twin a few weeks ago and I loved the sound quality compared to the 003, but h/w buffer had to be changed in the control panel, not in Pro Tools. It gave me a lot of issues when I tried to go back and forth, re-starts, crashes, etc.

This is exactly why I don't really care to use 3rd party interfaces with Pro Tools even though they may sound better. From my experience with using ASIO4ALL on my laptop, PT has to be shut down and restarted in order to change the buffer.

Originally Posted by daeron80

Many of us still do it. Not everyone. A few lucky people can get away with keeping low buffer sizes all the time. But many. Maybe most. I generally print heavy tracks like those with VIs or guitar amp sims once I'm sure I've got the sound I want. That way I can keep the buffer size lower longer. If I need to track a rhythm-sensitive part in a really huge mix, I'll even print a stereo mix of the whole shebang, disable everything but that stereo track and the new track, set the buffer to 64, get it recorded, then raise the buffer back up and re-enable everything. You do what you have to. Whatever it takes to get the job done is the right way.

Yup! I rarely have to increase my buffer setting. It mostly stays at 128 for recording and mixing! I may have to go to 512 only on the few really heavy mixes I do or if I use the resource hogging L3 on the master.

To the OP, your computer seems pretty powerful, I wouldn't increase the buffer unless you are getting errors when you start to add lots of plugs. Don't just increase it because of the rule "record low, mix high". Try keeping it at 128 for both recording and mixing. You will not hear any noticeable delay while tracking until you hit 256 and up!

[northstar]

Thanks to you both for responding, this helps a lot. I am still concerned that I will be faced with the same problem with the fast track C600 as with the Impact Twin, a problem I don't currently have with the 003. I guess I'll have to wait and see and try to return it if I have the issue. Maybe I can get away with a buffer of 128 for recording and mixing most of the time and this will become a non-issue!

[daeron80]

128 is a bit long for me. 64 is just on the edge of comfortable. I wish to goodness I could get mine down to 32, but that's a Mac-only thing at this time.

The problem with the Fast Track is that it's USB. Firewire interfaces will always get you lower tracking latency than USB ones. Stay away from the USB variety if you're interested in keeping low buffer sizes/reasonable latency.

[Sidecut]

Anyone using UAD cards and pugs in PT is jumping up to 1024 to mix.

[northstar]

So, does anyone know any interface that can be considered an upgrade to the 003 in terms of pres and converters, minimum of two preamp channels and one high-z instrument channel, that works as well as the 003 with pro tools under windows in terms of changing buffer size without a restart?

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by daeron80

128 is a bit long for me.

Really? You can hear the delay at 128?

Originally Posted by northstar

So, does anyone know any interface that can be considered an upgrade to the 003 in terms of pres and converters, minimum of two preamp channels and one high-z instrument channel, that works as well as the 003 with pro tools under windows in terms of changing buffer size without a restart?

Maybe try sending your 003 to Black Lion Audio! It ain't cheap but it will likely cost less than any interface that's better than a 003! But the other thing to keep in mind with going the BLA route, you'd be dropping all that bread to upgrade your unit and PT 10 is the last version to support the 003!

[northstar]

yeah, I hear their mod is great, it's a bandmate's 003 (I suppose I could buy it off him he bought it and has no idea how to use it), my main worry is the 003 will no longer be supported by Avid to my knowledge so I hesitate to invest money into it.

I've been doing more research and it seems RME Babyface is rock solid with Windows and Pro Tools and can change buffer size seamlessly without a re-start. Still trying to figure out if I can use two sets of monitors plus two headphones with the things. Unclear to me how mbox 3 will behave. Difficult to get good info on this.

[daeron80]

The newest of the Mbox Pros is supposed to fit that bill. Can't vouch for it myself, but a number of people I trust have.