256 is smallest h/w buffer size?

[jstaczek]

Is 256 actually the smallest h/w buffer size on an HD2 PT8 system? I'm sure I've seen 64 on LE systems. Why so big, and any workaround?

Thanks,

Jason

[tonwurm]

I´m able to go down to 64

[Ad Sluijter]

Hi,

It all depends on how many DSP chips you assign to your number of voices.

I checked this once a while back and this is what I came up with on my HD3 system:

Number of Voices / DSP chips / Lowest buffer size
192 / 6 / 128
144 / 6 / 256
96 / 6 / 256

160 / 5 / 128
120 / 5 / 256
80 / 5 / 256

128 / 4 / 128
64 / 4 / 256

96 / 3 / 128
48 / 3 / 256

96 / 2 / 64
64 / 2 / 128
32 / 2 / 256

48 / 1 / 64
32 / 1 / 128
16 / 1 / 256

The only think I don't understand is that if you increase the number of voices while the number of DSP chips stays the same the lowest possible buffersize increases. I would have expected it to be the other way around.

Best regards, Ad

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by jstaczek

Is 256 actually the smallest h/w buffer size on an HD2 PT8 system? I'm sure I've seen 64 on LE systems. Why so big, and any workaround?

Thanks,

Jason

My lowest buffer is 64 running below specs and a Magma EXP Chassis.

[jstaczek]

Originally Posted by Ad Sluijter

Hi,

It all depends on how many DSP chips you assign to your number of voices.

Thanks. I had no idea. I couldn't find anything about this in the manual, before or after you mentioned it. How did you figure this out? And, Digi, why is LE better in this case? No futzing with DSP allocation to get down to 64 in LE.

Jason

[Ad Sluijter]

Hi Jason,

Well on my Macbook it was even possible to go down to 32 so I was really surprised that on my Mac Pro the lowest buffer size was 128 (can't remember the number of voices). I noticed though that it was possible to get the same number of voices but with more DSP chips assigned to do the job and I thought that this maybe would reduce the latency, but to my surprise it turned out to be the other way around. I couldn't find anything on this in the reference guide, so I just tried all the settings and wrote down the outcome in case it would ever come in handy.

To me it's still a mystery why LE is able to get lower buffer sizes. I don't want to start yet another 'HD is outdated' thread, but well I can't think of any other explanation.

Best regards, Ad