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 > Pro Tools Software > Virtual Instruments

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-21-2014, 06:26 AM
RyanC RyanC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 668
Default Vote for (MUCH!!) better VI performance.

Just still on my little crusade here....I figure with the new licensing they might be making a list of things to add to PT next year, why not vote for a massive improvement in VI performance when running a low buffer setting?

Wouldn't it be nice to use Diva and Serum etc and leave your buffer set to 32?

http://protools.ideascale.com/a/dtd/...er/122484-3779
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-21-2014, 02:49 PM
Bill Denton Bill Denton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,644
Default Re: Vote for (MUCH!!) better VI performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Just still on my little crusade here....I figure with the new licensing they might be making a list of things to add to PT next year, why not vote for a massive improvement in VI performance when running a low buffer setting?

Wouldn't it be nice to use Diva and Serum etc and leave your buffer set to 32?

http://protools.ideascale.com/a/dtd/...er/122484-3779
Diva...

"But," says Urs, "what truly sets DIVA apart is the sheer authenticity of the circuit emulations – at the cost of a relatively high CPU-hit, DIVA is the first native software synth that applies methods from industrial circuit emulators (search for "PSpice") in realtime.

So, you think Avid should do something about u-he's engineering choices?

http://www.kvraudio.com/product/diva-by-u-he

Serum also has a heavy CPU hit.

So, even if Avid did want to "fix" it, which I doubt they do, it's not theirs to fix...
__________________
X
Note that all opinions, observations, whatever, in this post are mine, unless I'm being mean or am wrong, in which case it's somebody else's fault. I do not work for Avid (their loss)...my only relationship with Avid is that of a customer (when I'm not too poor to buy stuff, like now)...and that hot administrative assistant...that's more of a "thing" than a "relationship" (that should keep them guessing for a while...)

Just rockin'...what more is there?

Bill in Pittsburgh
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-21-2014, 08:07 PM
RyanC RyanC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 668
Default Re: Vote for (MUCH!!) better VI performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Denton View Post
Diva...

"But," says Urs, "what truly sets DIVA apart is the sheer authenticity of the circuit emulations – at the cost of a relatively high CPU-hit, DIVA is the first native software synth that applies methods from industrial circuit emulators (search for "PSpice") in realtime.

So, you think Avid should do something about u-he's engineering choices?

http://www.kvraudio.com/product/diva-by-u-he

Serum also has a heavy CPU hit.

So, even if Avid did want to "fix" it, which I doubt they do, it's not theirs to fix...
Avid can implement the dual buffer for VI's, Right now when running a 32 buffer, every VI is running at 32 samples instead of 1024.

I have a 5960x @ 4.4. It's plenty fast to play an instance of diva (even on the highest settings) set to a 32 or 64 buffer, but it can't playback 4+ instances without setting the buffer higher for the whole session.

If Instrument tracks used the dual buffer the same way audio tracks do (or how VI's use the playback buffer in logic) the cpu use would go way down for tracks that aren't armed or monitoring. Unless you need to record 20VI's at once the it would be a huge increase in practical horsepower (and stability) without having to sacrifice higher latency for the whole session.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-22-2014, 12:53 AM
nigelpry's Avatar
nigelpry nigelpry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home
Posts: 2,166
Default Re: Vote for (MUCH!!) better VI performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Avid can implement the dual buffer for VI's, Right now when running a 32 buffer, every VI is running at 32 samples instead of 1024.

I have a 5960x @ 4.4. It's plenty fast to play an instance of diva (even on the highest settings) set to a 32 or 64 buffer, but it can't playback 4+ instances without setting the buffer higher for the whole session.

If Instrument tracks used the dual buffer the same way audio tracks do (or how VI's use the playback buffer in logic) the cpu use would go way down for tracks that aren't armed or monitoring. Unless you need to record 20VI's at once the it would be a huge increase in practical horsepower (and stability) without having to sacrifice higher latency for the whole session.
Absolutely!

This is a prime reason why people who use VI while still doing audio overdubs have not benefitted from the kind of performance improvements in PT11 that were touted by Avid.
__________________
Mac Pro 2009 with 2010 firmware, 12-Core 3.46ghz, 64gb RAM & working Thunderbolt, OS 10.14.6 and Windows 10
Macbook Pro 2011 17", 2.2ghz i7, 16gb RAM OS 10.12.6
Digi 003 Console, Focusrite OctopreLE and MOTU Traveler for extra analog-ADAT conversion, UAD Apollo Quad Silver with Thunderbolt card, Apollo x4 and pci-e Octo, Adam A77X monitors.
Pro Tools 2020.3, Media Composer 8.9, Sibelius 8.7, Cubase Pro 10.5, Wavelab Pro 10, Logic Pro X 10.4.8, Mainstage 3.
Various apps, soft synths, FX plugins.
Plenty of hardware synths, rack gear, microphones etc.
And then there's the studio ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-22-2014, 09:02 AM
RyanC RyanC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 668
Default Re: Vote for (MUCH!!) better VI performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelpry View Post
Absolutely!

This is a prime reason why people who use VI while still doing audio overdubs have not benefitted from the kind of performance improvements in PT11 that were touted by Avid.
Right or even if you need to keep adding more VI's that are played instead of written on the piano roll.

I think if you compare strictly on tests the PT audio engine is much better than logic's. If you duplicate a lot of instances of say Kontakt and arming them all at the same time, protools 11 can do many more instances at the same buffer setting before getting glitchy than logic can. Or a more practical scenario for me is having high CPU VI's that have a send to a high cpu reverb (say diva to 2CB2), this runs more smoothly at the same buffer settings in PT than it does in LPX. Not to mention that the same buffer numbers in LPX are a tad higher actual latency than 11 with HDN.

Freeze would help here of course, but I think the dual buffer for VI's should be a high priority too. VI's can get so integrated with FX these days that I find it really nice to have not to have to print them.

I understand 11 was already a huge undertaking, and IMO they did a great job with it for the most part. It's only realistic that they can't do everything at once but I am hoping that as we move into this subscription thing (I'll be doing the support plans for both HD and a vanilla license) that we can expect to see these things addressed in coming years.

Really it's a no brainer though. Everyone who uses VI's should be voting for this. Not only does it give the cpu more overhead for other stuff, but it also would make things more stable and less prone to glitches or 9171's and 9172's etc.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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
Vote for better VI performance RyanC Virtual Instruments 0 08-10-2014 06:45 AM
Please vote :-) maddmatt Eleven Rack 1 01-18-2011 05:52 AM
VOTE Roger Stauss Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 26 11-07-2002 12:33 AM
DUY or MC DSP vote. beatboy Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 9 06-07-2002 07:10 AM
LET'S VOTE!! G4 350 and 001... staedtler 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 19 02-09-2000 10:52 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:04 PM.


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