Vote for (MUCH!!) better VI performance.

[RyanC]

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

[Bill Denton]

Originally Posted by RyanC

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...

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by Bill Denton

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.

[nigelpry]

Originally Posted by RyanC

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.

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

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.