# Orchestral composers: What size is your buffer?



## JohnG (May 11, 2021)

I'm wondering, for those working to emulate a "big" sound -- epic / hybrid epic orchestra / full orchestra -- what buffer size you can get away with.

[edit: by "big," I mean a template with hundreds (over 1000 maybe) midi tracks, with, frequently, say, 50 or more active tracks]

Please, do NOT answer if you are writing songs or for really small ensembles, you use a very small template, or you don't use a template at all. I'm trying to work out whether I should be content where I am or tip over the table a bit.

I realize that the buffer itself is only part of the story, but some setups are so complex that I am not sure how to poll that.


----------



## jneebz (May 11, 2021)

Well John, that's quite personal I must say.


----------



## Rob (May 11, 2021)

256 for my average orchestral setup, ww "a 3", brass, percussion, harp, piano, choir and soloists, strings, sometimes additional keys


----------



## storyteller (May 11, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I'm wondering, for those working to emulate a "big" sound -- epic / hybrid epic orchestra / full orchestra -- what buffer size you can get away with.
> 
> Please, do NOT answer if you are writing songs or for really small ensembles, you use a very small template, or you don't use a template at all. I'm trying to work out whether I should be content where I am or tip over the table a bit.
> 
> I realize that the buffer itself is only part of the story, but some setups are so complex that I am not sure how to poll that.


384 has been the best for me for large track counts. I marked 256 on the poll since that is what I start out with. I end up at 1024 with verbs and such during mixing with frozen/rendered tracks though. That is without VEPro. I am about to convert to VEPro, so that may change the buffers - especially with VEPro's 2x internal buffer.


----------



## sourcefor (May 11, 2021)

256 when recording drums or a vocalist and 1024 for everything else!


----------



## jbuhler (May 11, 2021)

I’ve been doing 128 ever since I got the new i9 iMac in November. So far so good but it hasn’t seen a full stress test yet so it’s possible I’ll need to move to 256 long term. My 2015 iMac i7 needed to run at 512, and often at 1024.


----------



## AndyP (May 11, 2021)

128 or 256. For playback only sometimes 512 or more.


----------



## Rob Elliott (May 11, 2021)

128 for writing / 512 for mixing


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2021)

storyteller said:


> I am about to convert to VEPro, so that may change the buffers - especially with VEPro's 2x internal buffer.


Hmm -- the VE Pro buffer setting; I probably need to do a brush-up on that. Been using it so long I am not sure I remember exactly what the meaningful difference is depending on what you do with it.


----------



## darkogav (May 11, 2021)

512 mixing, usually 256 editing. sometimes 128 recording. I am baffled by people that use 32 and 64 buffers.


----------



## X-Bassist (May 11, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I'm wondering, for those working to emulate a "big" sound -- epic / hybrid epic orchestra / full orchestra -- what buffer size you can get away with.
> 
> Please, do NOT answer if you are writing songs or for really small ensembles, you use a very small template, or you don't use a template at all. I'm trying to work out whether I should be content where I am or tip over the table a bit.
> 
> I realize that the buffer itself is only part of the story, but some setups are so complex that I am not sure how to poll that.


Perhaps you should define what “big” is for you. Some people feel 30 tracks is big, but I would guess your talking about a templete with hundreds of tracks or a piece with 80+ tracks. Defining what size you work in will help to get answers from people that are working as big as you are.

For me I can do 128 to start, but beyond running 30 tracks I need 256. Unfortunately I often add percussion last, so I’ll record a mix track to work with, and record drum midi at 64 or 128. Mixing sometimes has to go to 512 or 1024, but I’ve done some mixes at 256 that worked fine. I think having all my samples split up on 8SSD’s coming in through thunderbolt and getting VEPro set up really helped to make this possible.


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2021)

X-Bassist said:


> Perhaps you should define what “big” is for you.


Good idea -- I changed the original post. Thank you!


----------



## Manaberry (May 11, 2021)

Cannot go lower than 256 with my 1700+ tracks template. It's smooth actually, but I would like to get a solid 128 someday.


----------



## Crossroads (May 11, 2021)

256 all the way through from first concept to master. And that's using a lot of heavy plugs. I don't even have that great of a machine anymore. I7 5820K. But I never get problems. 16 year old M-Audio Fast Track Pro also still putting in the works!😎


----------



## X-Bassist (May 11, 2021)

darkogav said:


> 512 mixing, usually 256 editing. sometimes 128 recording. I am baffled by people that use 32 and 64 buffers.


I felt the same way until I started using VE Pro, which changed things for me. If I’m starting with a perc track or adding it to some printed tracks I can get it down to 64, which is great for playing perc in live (which for me makes it feel more real, and it’s faster). 

Before VE Pro I couldn’t get it below 256 without it crapping out, and a big mix had to be printed. So VE Pro helps the plugins to run better/more efficently. The change for me was big (3x as fast.) for some others it’s 50%-150% faster, but still a significant difference.

It does involve redoing templetes with Kontakt inside (for me it’s Kontakt inside Komplete inside VE Pro inside DAW 😄) buying VE Pro ($175?) and a dongle ($30? They are switching to iLok soon so the extra dongle may go away), but as I said, it can make an aged computer (2013 3.5GHz Mac Pro) into a monster sample player without any other hardware (I use it on my host computer and have not used a slave in years).


----------



## storyteller (May 11, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Hmm -- the VE Pro buffer setting; I probably need to do a brush-up on that. Been using it so long I am not sure I remember exactly what the meaningful difference is depending on what you do with it.


I avoided VEPro over the years, but am beginning to really embrace it for certain instruments that are always the same in my template. From what I understand, if your DAW buffer is at 128 and you have VEPro plugin set at 2x buffer... then this means that VEPro has a 128 buffer in and 128 buffer out, creating a total round-trip buffer for your session of 384 (128 DAW + 128 VEProIn + 128 VEProOut). I've been a little unclear if the DAW buffer counts as the "in" but I do not think it does...


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 11, 2021)

Most daws use a really big buffer for all non-live tracks that are playing back regardless of the buffer size you set, which mainly affects the channels in live mode. The tracks that aren’t in live mode can be pre-rendered. The general buffer size mainly just affects the latency of your live channel. I always set mine as low as I can get away with while I’m recording tracks and as big as possible when I’m just playing back

Vepro adds some complication though regarding which tracks are in live mode or not and vepro also uses a very large buffer for non live playback, however it is detected, But notice that I think with vepro in play dp May or may not be able to do it’s next gen pregen thing. You should converse with vsl about dp soecifics

But vepro’s 2x buffer setting is again I think related to live tracks. The open question is how vepro decides a Track is live. I mean if you have 300 tracks feeding into a single vepro instance and one of them is live then does vepro put the entire instance into live mode? Possibly. I can’t remember exactly but I’ve seen some discussions about that. 

If the whole vepro instance goes into live mode easily then you will want the biggest buffer settings you can tolerate the latency while recording a part, including that vepro 2x buffer thing.


----------



## I like music (May 11, 2021)

2048 I think?

Dealing with a 1/2 second delay on every key I press. Luckily I don't write much music but merely fuck around with sounds, so it doesn't matter much.

Also, whatever I do write, I draw it in, so it hasn't much bothered me. This is what happens when your computer costs £600 and you're running Sample Modeling Strings, all of Aaron Venture stuff, CSS, HWP, Genesis Choir and feckin Omnisphere on the machine.

Hardest working computer in the land I have. So it deserves to at least breathe. And therefore the massive buffer size.


----------



## mscp (May 11, 2021)

512 when I'm in Cubase/Nuendo. I use Cubase's lovely ASIO Latency compensation thing hidden under MIDI track settings though. Something I'm afraid it's not a feature in any other DAW as I've tried them all and haven't really found anything like it. It is also one of the top 3 reasons I left Logic despite my huge affinity for their stock plugins.

Note: ASIO MIDI latency compensation should not be confused with standard latency compensation.


----------



## José Herring (May 11, 2021)

I'm at 256 with VEPro set to 2 buffers (512). I was using 512 with VEPro to 1 buffer. That was a little bit more stable but 256 is almost just as stable with VEPro at 2 buffers and that gets me at little more snappy performance and better timing when playing.


----------



## Kent (May 11, 2021)

128, but with a 2x buffer on VEP. Everything on one machine.


----------



## I like music (May 11, 2021)

We have a billionaire on this forum?!


----------



## Kent (May 11, 2021)

I like music said:


> We have a billionaire on this forum?!


tell us your secrets @AudioLoco


----------



## givemenoughrope (May 11, 2021)

I find myself changing it not only for writing (low end) and mixing (high end) but also per instrument. For something where the attack is important the buffer being low is obv more important than a slow attack (thinking various strings or pads patches) where I tend to compensate for the "attack" or swell time or however you say it.


----------



## sinkd (May 11, 2021)

With the MAS version of VEPro, I can get away with 128 for most basic orchestral stuff (4 buffers on each instance--VEPro applies different delay to record enabled channels while I am sequencing). But when mixing, I usually bump up to 256.


----------



## Bollen (May 11, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I'm wondering, for those working to emulate a "big" sound -- epic / hybrid epic orchestra / full orchestra -- what buffer size you can get away with.
> 
> [edit: by "big," I mean a template with hundreds (over 1000 maybe) midi tracks, with, frequently, say, 50 or more active tracks]
> 
> ...


1024, but I'm a notation guy so probably not what your looking for....


----------



## Instrugramm (May 11, 2021)

I start with 32 or 64 (playing in the main melodies with the least delay I can afford) and mostly end up with 128 or 256 (sometimes even more, this depends on the style I write in and the effects in use) at the mixing/mastering stage. (I voted for 128 since it's the buffer that's set most of the time once the concept of the song's done.)


----------



## JohnG (May 11, 2021)

Interesting -- so far it's about 60% at 256 or lower, 40% at 512 or higher.

Thanks everyone; still interested in the nuances, so I like the posts. You're right @Bollen -- I do use Sibelius (and Finale ..still) but I'm focusing on the sequencing buffer(s) for now.

If anyone cares to recommend best practices for VE Pro settings along the way, I'm sure many people would be interested in that too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 11, 2021)

I voted for 64, but sometimes I have to go up to 128.


----------



## ScarletJerry (May 11, 2021)

What's the advantage of lowering your buffer size? My machine has 32 GB of RAM.

Scarlet Jerry


----------



## PaulieDC (May 11, 2021)

One more vote for 256, which gives me 6ms roughly in Cubase on a BabyFace Pro, so no delay when playing. It’s weird, I can run at 128 and get 3.8ms but 256 just feels right when playing piano parts. I know that’s probably got nothing to do with it.

Usually mix at 1024. I would _always_ mix at 1024 if I actually remembered to switch it.


----------



## PaulieDC (May 11, 2021)

ScarletJerry said:


> What's the advantage of lowering your buffer size? My machine has 32 GB of RAM.
> 
> Scarlet Jerry


To get less than 10ms latency when playing in instruments, that way it feels right, especially with piano, staccato, anything with a sharp attack. It’s more stress on the CPU so you have to balance it. If you step record, or use a notation app and import it into your DAW solely for playback, then it won’t matter and you can push it to 512 or even 1024, your CPU will love you and crackling audio will be a rarity. In most cases.


----------



## I like music (May 12, 2021)

I once tried playing in CSS with advanced legato mode with 2048 buffer.

Absolute carnage.


----------



## Crossroads (May 12, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> One more vote for 256, which gives me 6ms roughly in Cubase on a BabyFace Pro, so no delay when playing. It’s weird, I can run at 128 and get 3.8ms but 256 just feels right when playing piano parts. I know that’s probably got nothing to do with it.
> 
> Usually mix at 1024. I would _always_ mix at 1024 if I actually remembered to switch it.


Ah you see that's my secret... I too always forget😅


----------



## darkogav (May 12, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> To get less than 10ms latency when playing in instruments, that way it feels right, especially with piano, staccato, anything with a sharp attack. It’s more stress on the CPU so you have to balance it. If you step record, or use a notation app and import it into your DAW solely for playback, then it won’t matter and you can push it to 512 or even 1024, your CPU will love you and crackling audio will be a rarity. In most cases.


Yes you do. And if you are able to tell < 10ms you are a musician of caliber that should be on stage and not waste your talents away behind a DAW. To my recollection, most people don't notice latency until it hits 13 to 15 ms. There was a story of a virtuoso musician once who was getting mixed up by the latency that was caused by the gear which migth have been around 8ms while working on a part to accompany synth parts. But this was a top notch virtuoso who plays with other virtuoso who all play complex parts.


----------



## dariusofwest (May 12, 2021)

64 whenever possible for recording/programming. 512-1024 when mixing/editing. 2048 for rendering.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 12, 2021)

kmaster said:


> tell us your secrets @AudioLoco


I'm sure the other 64ers like me, are tall, handsome, played quarterback in high school, have formerly played for the Lakers and for a short period at Barcelona FC.
I also briefly dated Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Lawrence (at the same time, they were OK with that).
We cannot tell you ALL the secrets otherwise you will be in great danger. It's for your own good. 

Anyhow it's 64 for writing/1024 for mixing. Windows + RME, nothing special really.


----------



## colony nofi (May 12, 2021)

Its been mentioned a few times - but if the concerns are about the actual latency (and not the buffer number) then we should repeat the questionaire - getting people to put in the real buffers they are using by adding the buffer setting for their interface in their daw to the buffer(s) used with VEP. And then people who don't use VEP just can report their DAW buffer as is. Makes for much much more useful information.

Its also why there's a bunch of mis-information around regarding VEP and resource usage. For instance : "My machine runs so much smoother at 256 buffers now I have my samples hosted in VEP" really means "My machine runs so much smoother now I'm running live tracks at 768 buffers because I've got 2 extra buffers turned on for VEP"

Now, there are some performance advantages by using VEP - particularly when running CPU's with higher core counts. But there's far less advantage once you account for the extra buffers most end up using (usually it seems people use 4 extra buffers at extremely low settings, and two more at 128 or above)


----------



## AudioLoco (May 12, 2021)

darkogav said:


> Yes you do. And if you are able to tell < 10ms you are a musician of caliber that should be on stage and not waste your talents away behind a DAW. To my recollection, most people don't notice latency until it hits 13 to 15 ms. There was a story of a virtuoso musician once who was getting mixed up by the latency that was caused by the gear which migth have been around 8ms while working on a part to accompany synth parts. But this was a top notch virtuoso who plays with other virtuoso who all play complex parts.


The human ear starts noticing two distinct sound once you get to 10/12ms.
The sensibility may vary plus/minus a few ms.

The usual demonstration is often given with a repeated percussive sound that gets nearer and nearer from one hit to another. Once the distances between each hit is less then 10ms you start hearing not a repeating percussive sound, but a note which frquency depends on the distance between the hits.


----------



## Loïc D (May 12, 2021)

I have tried tricks to enlarge my buffer but it didn’t work as expected. Still lacking power and not lasting very long before reaching a peak...

Oh wait...


----------



## holywilly (May 12, 2021)

512 for everything, with VEP of 1 buffer.


----------



## Mr Greg G (May 12, 2021)

384 for 27.7 ms RTL . Haven't felt the need to try to go lower even though I do some tracking (guitars etc)


----------



## ScarletJerry (May 12, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> To get less than 10ms latency when playing in instruments, that way it feels right, especially with piano, staccato, anything with a sharp attack. It’s more stress on the CPU so you have to balance it. If you step record, or use a notation app and import it into your DAW solely for playback, then it won’t matter and you can push it to 512 or even 1024, your CPU will love you and crackling audio will be a rarity. In most cases.


Thank you. So what happens if my buffer is too small?


----------



## dadadave (May 12, 2021)

X-Bassist said:


> It does involve redoing templetes with Kontakt inside (for me it’s Kontakt inside Komplete inside VE Pro inside DAW 😄) buying VE Pro ($175?) and a dongle


Wait, so you run Komplete in VE Pro? What are the benefits of that? Last time I checked, it wasn't possible to use NKS with VE Pro. But that was a while back, is that an option now? Are there other benefits?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 12, 2021)

128 for everything.


----------



## IFM (May 12, 2021)

I ticked 256, but that's only when I'm in Cubase. If I stick with Logic, I can run the live buffer at 128 most of the time. The nice thing is the Processing Buffer stays the same no matter what my live buffer is set at. This is on a MOTU 828ES via Thunderbolt and a MP6,1 12 core


----------



## darkogav (May 12, 2021)

ScarletJerry said:


> Thank you. So what happens if my buffer is too small?


Magic sounds appear you didn't expect to hear.


----------



## PaulieDC (May 12, 2021)

darkogav said:


> Yes you do. And if you are able to tell < 10ms you are a musician of caliber that should be on stage and not waste your talents away behind a DAW. To my recollection, most people don't notice latency until it hits 13 to 15 ms. There was a story of a virtuoso musician once who was getting mixed up by the latency that was caused by the gear which migth have been around 8ms while working on a part to accompany synth parts. But this was a top notch virtuoso who plays with other virtuoso who all play complex parts.


Well, I'm definitely not a virtuoso and the 10ms was really the idealistic target of choice from every article you read on the subject.  OK, let's make it 15ms!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2021)

darkogav said:


> Yes you do. And if you are able to tell < 10ms you are a musician of caliber that should be on stage and not waste your talents away behind a DAW. To my recollection, most people don't notice latency until it hits 13 to 15 ms. There was a story of a virtuoso musician once who was getting mixed up by the latency that was caused by the gear which migth have been around 8ms while working on a part to accompany synth parts. But this was a top notch virtuoso who plays with other virtuoso who all play complex parts.



Yes sir. And up to a point it's subjective. I can feel the difference between a 128 and 256 buffer if I compare them, but the 256 has never bothered me (I'm a keyboard-as-tool player, not a real one).

On the other hand, I was at a session where Steve Ferroni was unhappy with *3ms* of latency caused by... I forget the details about what was causing it, most likely a digital mixer. Once they slipped the track, you really could hear the difference in the groove.


----------



## chillbot (May 12, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> Well, I'm definitely not a virtuoso and the 10ms was really the idealistic target of choice


Same for me. Not at all a virtuoso but 10ms is about my limit of happiness. I'm very.... "sensitive" to latency.

Also don't forget, latency is not just your DAW buffer, and/or your VEPro buffer, sound card settings, etc... latency is baked into the samples now, some more than others. Why we have different timing offsets for different libraries. So getting the DAW as low as possible becomes even more important to us sensitive types.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 12, 2021)

ScarletJerry said:


> Thank you. So what happens if my buffer is too small?


Up to a point, buffer size and computer strain are on opposite sides of a scale.

You'll hear nasty clicks and pops if your computer's processor spikes.


----------



## colony nofi (May 12, 2021)

ScarletJerry said:


> Thank you. So what happens if my buffer is too small?


As @Nick Batzdorf said!

A really good demonstration is the last round of public dawbench results from early last year.





Taken from http://www.scanproaudio.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DB-VI-Q1-20.jpg

You can see the diminishing performance with lower buffers (or increased performance with higher buffers)

(there's another whole world of discussion over the 3950X result @ 128!!! The 5950X doesn't seem to suffer the same issues...)

The law of diminishing returns also exists for more DSP oriented testing, but the differences are minuscule compared to VI loads.






There's a lot to take in here - but also notice how different chip architectures are better at different things. AMD was WAAAAY out ahead on DSP but a little behind intel on VI. Current gen chips have seen this change, and benchmarking I've done has seen AMD fly passed intel on VI tests. I haven't had the absolute latest Intel chips in though to test... and I've yet to see any public data on that but the general consensous is that AMD is kinda ahead right now for DAWs in the consumer chip range. There are a lot of folk hanging out for Zen 3 Threadrippers... although I'd love to see an Epyc Zen 3 take on a VI test! (Don't you wish there were some awesome Epyc workstation motherboards to match threadripper MB's!!!?!?!)


----------



## Justin L. Franks (May 12, 2021)

I put 512 even though most of the time I'm actually at 256. If I'm using something CPU-heavy like Symphonic Motions, I'll bump it up to 512 even if it is not needed. For whatever reason, despite being a pianist, the delay at 512 doesn't really bother me. I can notice the difference but it doesn't affect my playing unless it something really technical.

(running Logic on a 2019 iMac with the 8-core i9)


----------



## David Kudell (May 12, 2021)

I’m at -256 these days which is cool because I actually hear the note before I hit the key.


----------



## darkogav (May 12, 2021)

David Kudell said:


> I’m at -256 these days which is cool because I actually hear the note before I hit the key.


Yes. This is something I hear a lot. Some people work better with a little latency in the setup.


----------



## Bollen (May 12, 2021)

darkogav said:


> Yes. This is something I hear a lot. Some people work better with a little latency in the setup.


I think you missed the joke...


----------



## BlackDorito (May 12, 2021)

David Kudell said:


> I’m at -256 these days which is cool because I actually hear the note before I hit the key.


You must be using one of those buffer enhancement devices.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 12, 2021)

colony nofi said:


> As @Nick Batzdorf said!
> 
> A really good demonstration is the last round of public dawbench results from early last year.
> 
> ...


But doesn't it also depend on your audio interface? For example, I could not run huge projects at 128 without my Apogee Element.


----------



## colony nofi (May 12, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> But doesn't it also depend on your audio interface? For example, I could not run huge projects at 128 without my Apogee Element.


The last say 5 to 6 years has seen remarkable improvements across the industry when it comes to the performance of different drivers / audio interfaces.

Yes, there are still differences between the performance of two otherwise identical systems which use different interfaces, but the delta is much much smaller than it used to be. 

I personally would look at CPU/MB first, and then interface second (so long as you are talking a modern interface!) when designing a system to run well for low buffers / latency operation.


----------



## PaulieDC (May 13, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> 128 for everything.


I think I'm going to try 128 for a while now that I have an SL88 Grand. I get <4ms with my RME interface, maybe I'll like it more. At least while my template is still in design stage and I'm not running 1700 tracks. Yet.


----------



## toddkreuz (May 13, 2021)

would be nice to know what interfaces people are using.
Cinewinds or Cinestrings true legato at less than 1024 without clicks n pops
is not possible for me.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 13, 2021)

toddkreuz said:


> would be nice to know what interfaces people are using.
> Cinewinds or Cinestrings true legato at less than 1024 without clicks n pops
> is not possible for me.


Apogee Element 24 Thunderbolt. Wonderful interface if you’re on Mac, never had a single issue.


----------



## NekujaK (May 13, 2021)

When I compose large orchestral pieces I need a buffer of at least 10 feet around me lest someone gets injured by my flailing arms, a thrown cell phone, or my monitor flung across the room!


Sorry, couldn'resist. The real discussion can now resume...


----------



## davidson (May 13, 2021)

I don't know how you monsters running at 256+ live with yourselves.


----------



## JohnG (May 13, 2021)

davidson said:


> I don't know how you monsters running at 256+ live with yourselves.


So you’re at 128?


----------



## Dewdman42 (May 13, 2021)

Like I said before most daws only use your buffer setting for the live track you’re recording to. Other playback tracks are implicitly using a very large buffer size. In theory it should not matter whether you’re mixing 1700 tracks or 7 tracks; all of them except for your live track are using a large buffer, the specified buffer merely specifies how much latency your live channel will have. Knock on wood.

With vepro it gets a little murkier since the entire vepro plugin is detected as being in live mode if any of the midi tracks feeding it are record enabled. That’s why with vepro you May have to use a larger buffer because if all those other instruments, if you have many playing from one instance. So vepro gives you the multiplier , which also only applies to when it’s in live mode, vepro also uses a super big buffer under the covers when only in playback but you put one of the midi tracks into live mode that feeds a large vepro instance, then the whole thing goes into live mode with your daw’s buffer setting, times the muliplier. If you have your daw set to 128 then you May need the multiplier for vepro since there are potentially many tracks feeding it, so when it’s live at 128 it would struggle especially if over the network, without the multiplier

Bottom line is that if you’re only mixing down a huge buffer doesn’t hurt but really your daw is doing that already and so is vepro as long as you don’t have any track record enabled. So you can leave the buffer at the smallest size that doesn’t cause drop outs while laying diwn a live track. Some instrument plugins could be very low with low latency and some others might require more breathing room. Vepro will require more breathing room particularly with large instances or network use. But you can use the muliplier for that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 13, 2021)

colony nofi said:


> I personally would look at CPU/MB first, and then interface second (so long as you are talking a modern interface!) when designing a system to run well for low buffers / latency operation.


Everyone is trained to look at latency specs before even asking about the *sound* of an interface! Crazy.

Someone did one hell of a marketing job.


----------



## colony nofi (May 13, 2021)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Everyone is trained to look at latency specs before even asking about the *sound* of an interface! Crazy.
> 
> Someone did one hell of a marketing job.


Didn't they just! Or perhaps commerce just got in the way of a good time! 

I guess it just comes down to how/why you are designing your system.

From a facility perspective, things even get more complicated. Yes, sound comes into it, but it isn't the highest weighted part if the decision process. 

A bunch of features are necessary for particular workflows. Then those interfaces that fit the necessary feature set are evaluated for sound, ease of integration, cost and stability.


----------



## JohnG (May 13, 2021)

Well maybe quality is out the door in this thread in some places, but my impression is that the sound quality differences have shrunk somewhat. And anyway, I still am sick of that mushy feeling that latency generates. 

My original post was prompted by having, in fact, just bought all-new, expensive interfaces and a new, quite expensive Mac Pro. I am expecting Great Things, but I want to be realistic, hence the poll. 

My setup is rather elaborate still; one of my friends thinks I should bag all the satellite PCs and put it all on the Mac Pro.

Maybe he's right.


----------



## T-LeffoH (May 13, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Well maybe quality is out the door in this thread in some places, but my impression is that the sound quality differences have shrunk somewhat. And anyway, I still am sick of that mushy feeling that latency generates.
> 
> My original post was prompted by having, in fact, just bought all-new, expensive interfaces and a new, quite expensive Mac Pro. I am expecting Great Things, but I want to be realistic, hence the poll.
> 
> ...


From an operational perspective, putting everything you use on the Mac Pro will eliminate many variables; at some point that's my plan when I decide to drop my VEPro PCs for just one machine.

EDIT: And insofar as my settings, in DP I'm at 256 with 2x on the VEPro instances.


----------



## davidson (May 13, 2021)

JohnG said:


> So you’re at 128?


Of course, I'm not a monster! I dream of the day we can run at 32 without issue.

I create a lot of synth based music and anything over 128 feels like walking through treacle. For orchestral I could probably cope with 512 as the attack times aren't as much of an issue.


----------



## JohnG (May 13, 2021)

davidson said:


> I create a lot of synth based music and anything over 128 feels like walking through treacle. For orchestral I could probably cope with 512 as the attack times aren't as much of an issue.


I think you may be right about 512 for orchestral. I'm gunning for 256 and I should be able to get there. [edit: tried 256 while writing a cue yesterday and it worked]


----------



## TimCox (May 13, 2021)

I can do 256 just fine but I generally keep it at 512 just to give myself some headroom. It's probably not necessary but it gives me a sense of security

EDIT:

To add to this, I bought this PC last summer as a massive upgrade to what I was using where I had problems at 2048 so this is all gravy now


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 13, 2021)

JohnG said:


> one of my friends thinks I should bag all the satellite PCs and put it all on the Mac Pro.


Actually, after spending a bazillion hours setting up templates on my upgraded slave PC (with a 2013 MacBook Pro master), my new iMac that arrived recently has changed everything. I have put it through the ringer, and I've ditched the slave setup once and for all....including VEPro. Plus, dynamic track loading in Logic is the icing on the cake.


----------



## jbuhler (May 13, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Plus, dynamic track loading in Logic is the icing on the cake.


I know, isn’t this great! I also have the i9 iMac. Even at 128 GB I start to run out of room if I’m working on a big project requiring multiple mics all over the place, so I still love libraries that have pre built mixes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 14, 2021)

JohnG said:


> Well maybe quality is out the door in this thread in some places, but my impression is that the sound quality differences have shrunk somewhat. And anyway, I still am sick of that mushy feeling that latency generates.



To be clear, my comment wasn't at all directed at you, John, it was in general!

And yes, the differences have shrunk, in fact they were pretty subtle 15 years ago. Still, a $300 interface won't sound as good as a $2000 one, and they don't all sound the same.


----------



## Bollen (May 14, 2021)

For what it's worth I run with an unusual setup of two soundcards, one set at 64 samples (1.4ms) just running a piano and the other one at 1024 running my DAW/Notation program. This allows me to play and write without any latency (and potentially even record) and then the playback can handle my full orchestra (including dimension strings) fully loaded all on the same PC.


----------



## JohnG (May 14, 2021)

Bollen said:


> For what it's worth I run with an unusual setup of two soundcards, one set at 64 samples (1.4ms) just running a piano and the other one at 1024 running my DAW/Notation program. This allows me to play and write without any latency (and potentially even record) and then the playback can handle my full orchestra (including dimension strings) fully loaded all on the same PC.


I didn't know that was even possible!

I finally gave up on sound cards and use VE Pro only these days.


----------



## rgames (May 14, 2021)

128+128 here (sound card + VE Pro).

HOWEVER, 

Let's not forget that acoustic instruments have latencies of *at least* tens of milliseconds (yes, including pianos). So if you say you have to run a piano at < 10 ms latency then you've never played an acoustic piano!

Here are some references: soprano wind instruments typically have 15 - 30 ms latencies. Soprano strings are a little more. Bass instruments, especially strings, can have latencies as high as 500 ms in their lowest registers. And people play them just fine.

So.... latency isn't really an issue these days. It was waaaaay back in the day at the dawn of digital because the processing was slow and created significant latency. But DAW latencies have improved dramatically since then.

People forgot to quit worrying about it...

If your latency is under 20 ms then it doesn't matter if it *could* be better. It's good enough. There are a few thousand years worth of musicians who dealt with much larger latencies than that and they seemed to make some pretty good music, no?

All the while being blissfully unaware that they needed lower latency...

rgames


----------



## Vik (May 14, 2021)

JohnG said:


> My original post was prompted by having, in fact, just bought all-new, expensive interfaces and a new, quite expensive Mac Pro. I am expecting Great Things, but I want to be realistic, hence the poll.


IIRR you have 384 gb RAM and a quite powerful Mac Pro. Have you checked anything without satellite PCs yet, or tried anything at all using the low buffer sizes?


----------



## Bollen (May 14, 2021)

JohnG said:


> I didn't know that was even possible!
> 
> I finally gave up on sound cards and use VE Pro only these days.


The one I run the piano on is just a cheap Lexicon Alpha, nothing fancy...


----------



## reutunes (May 14, 2021)

I like big buffers, and I cannot lie.


----------



## AllanH (May 15, 2021)

I use 256 at 48k, i.e. about 5 ms.

EDIT: I think it's primarily about the latency in ms, as the sample rate also affects the size of the buffer the DAW needs to keep things running smoothly.


----------



## purple (May 15, 2021)

I'm not really a hybrid/epic guy but I'll write for a full orchestra with pretty big sections a lot and many solo instruments and stuff. I usually start at 128 and then raise it for mixing to make sure I don't get any dropped notes or anything on a full project.


----------



## JohnG (May 15, 2021)

Vik said:


> IIRR you have 384 gb RAM and a quite powerful Mac Pro. Have you checked anything without satellite PCs yet, or tried anything at all using the low buffer sizes?


Yes, @Vik I dropped to 256 and seems ok for now. I'm going to try 128 but I'm in the middle of something so haven't quite yet.

So far, 256 seems solid.


----------



## alcorey (May 15, 2021)

Vik said:


> IIRR you have 384 gb RAM and a quite powerful Mac Pro. Have you checked anything without satellite PCs yet, or tried anything at all using the low buffer sizes?


Really? or typo?


----------



## Vik (May 15, 2021)

No typo: "I fixed on a 16 core with 1TB boot drive and one of the OWC 8TB drives for samples. I can still use two of my SATA SSDs internally, it appears, but either way it should do the trick. 384 GB of RAM."

384 gb RAM isn't a bad idea at all! Several VI users have that.


----------



## dadadave (May 15, 2021)

rgames said:


> 128+128 here (sound card + VE Pro).
> 
> HOWEVER,
> 
> ...



Wait, what latency are you referring to for acoustic instruments, exactly? The time it takes for instance for a string to fully speak? Because in that case that would still be different from working with samples, right, because with the acoustic instrument your get some sort of sound (and other feedback, e.g. tactile, air pressure that might also help with playing) even with a slow attack, whereas with samples you don't get any response for the duration of your latency (except the midi keyboard's key) and then ADDITIONALLY you get the potentially slow attack of the recorded performance.


----------



## JohnG (May 15, 2021)

rgames said:


> et's not forget that acoustic instruments have latencies of *at least* tens of milliseconds (yes, including pianos). So if you say you have to run a piano at < 10 ms latency then you've never played an acoustic piano!


That is a good point @rgames , at least in theory. I'm thinking though, that my system is loading "stealth" buffers all over the place, just as on any multiple-computer system. 

I'm keen to reduce the latency on my "main" DAW computer in order to lower the aggregate round-trip latency, which comes from multiple sources, as I'm sure you know:

1. Midi out from DAW to VE Pro, audio back (the VE Pro that's on the DAW itself but outside Digital Performer);

2. Midi out / audio back from satellite computers;

3. Monitoring through Pro Tools, which has only a 64 buffer but still.

So with the VE Pro buffers and everything else, there are plenty of suspects




Dewdman42 said:


> With vepro it gets a little murkier since the entire vepro plugin is detected as being in live mode if any of the midi tracks feeding it are record enabled. That’s why with vepro you May have to use a larger buffer because if all those other instruments, if you have many playing from one instance. So vepro gives you the multiplier , which also only applies to when it’s in live mode, vepro also uses a super big buffer under the covers when only in playback but you put one of the midi tracks into live mode that feeds a large vepro instance, then the whole thing goes into live mode with your daw’s buffer setting, times the muliplier. If you have your daw set to 128 then you May need the multiplier for vepro since there are potentially many tracks feeding it, so when it’s live at 128 it would struggle especially if over the network, without the multiplier


Right you are @Dewdman42 . Maybe if I weren't so bored by this (paradoxically) I would force myself to learn half what you and others know about it!

Nevertheless, I'm honing in.


----------



## lux (May 15, 2021)

This is interesting, for a long time I thought my 256 was an over quota value, just discovered it's very common among mockupers.


----------



## Babe (May 15, 2021)

When my brain says 'get up', until my ass finally moves, is measured in seconds, not ms. Must be because I have a large buffer.


----------



## justthere (May 19, 2021)

Maybe this has been said - but since all CPU’s aren’t the same, and since some people use slower drives than others, this doesn’t tell a person much without detailed information in that regard.

I will add that on my system (2013 12Core Mac Pro with a 5,1 12-Core Mac Pro satellite, both using nvme drives on PCIe 3.0 busses), running PT HD or Cubase I can start with a small buffer for piano sketching but once the tracks are enables it gets bumped up. The full template, which is many hungry plugins (SampleModeling and SWAM instruments, Altiverbs, plus lots of other Kontakt stuff, Omnisphere and various other synths) gets me to 1024. These are both older and comparatively slower machines. I’m looking forward to moving to a much faster main machine this year.

I have been a big VEPro user for a long time - it’s what hosts stuff on the satellite - but I transitioned away from using a local instance of it when I started using Cubase. (My PT template still uses VEPro.) I found that the latency in Cubase with local VEPro was troublesome because obviously it needs those expanded buffers to handle SM Strings and SWAM, and I couldn’t find a happy medium there with playability. Latency’s not fabulous without VEPro either but it seems a little more manageable.


----------



## kilgurt (May 20, 2021)

Can someone please give me a hint or point me towards a good guide for improving the latency of my system (specs below). Tried many things over the years but can't get below 512ms without heavy crackling. Thanx!


----------



## kilgurt (May 22, 2021)

Here you go (Cubendo): https://forums.steinberg.net/t/crackles-in-cubase-please-help/688037/9


----------

