Input buffer--plugs better on aux tracks or Master faders?

[bashville]

After checking out various threads regarding the PT11 "split" buffer--

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t...t=input+buffer

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t...t=input+buffer

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=337130&page=3

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-...uffer-yes.html

video at 12:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-rDi7t348#t=764

Wondering if it would make a performance difference to place plug-ins on Master fader tracks vs. aux tracks that particular fader might be feeding. Say I've got doubled acoustic guitars that I want to treat together. Normally I'll send them to an aux and put some plugs on the aux track. My understanding now of the input buffer says that those plugs will be have to be processed within the input buffer since they're input tracks. Would it make a difference if the plugs were placed on a Master fader track for the bus feeding the aux? Or is the Master fader track just another input at that point?

Also, I searched "input buffer" in the PT11 Reference guide with no results. What Avid manual talks about this in detail? I've found a number of posts here in the DUC, but haven't yet seen an actual manual entry about it.

Thanks

[bashville]

From this Sound on Sound article:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep1...cles/pt-11.htm

"Last, but not least, the new audio engine has dual buffers, one for playback tracks which is "set dynamically according to what the session needs for reliable playback”, and a separate input buffer for record-enabled or input-monitored tracks. This can be set to a much lower value, allowing low-latency monitoring of input signals through plug-ins, and immediate response when playing soft synths live."

also see this response from "Bharath" at Avid in this thread:

http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t...t=input+buffer

-------------
Another way to look at this : "live monitoring path" vs "disk track path".

If your signal topology falls in the first case, it has to be in a lower latency path and hence follow the hardware buffer size (or input buffer). If it is the later one, naturally it can be processed at a bigger size (1k or 2k depending on sample rate) since we don't have to worry about "monitoring" latency and we are just reading disk data.
__________________
:: Bharath
Audio Engine Team
-----------------

This post and the ones leading up to it in that thread seem to confirm that aux channels also have to be considered as input channels, which you could take as slightly contradicting the info in the Sound on Sound article, which info was a typical part of the original descriptions of this feature from Avid. This is what got me thinking that this may apply to plugs you put on Master faders as well. Which pretty much throws you back into the LLM method of dealing with latency in PT11 using the HD-Native card, rather than thinking the new input buffer was going to set us free from all that. Thoughts?