|
|
|
01-11-2019, 01:33 PM
|
#41
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by poetnprophet
It seemed to work pretty well when mixing, getting some slight CPU decrease. But for recording live it seems to be counter-productive.
So tonight i will revert my settings to default and hope that gets me back to where I was.
|
Just a couple points... The RT CPU (as coachz mentioned) is where it matters, that lives on a single CPU core, and if you had say 4 cores, the OS showing 25% could mean one that one core is maxed at 100% aka 25% of 4 cores. That will cause glitches because the audio driver thread (RT CPU) can only live on one core.
Lastly, unless you have a specific need (such as I mentioned further up in another post) always mix at the highest buffer setting available as there is little benefit to low-latency if not recording and monitoring through reaper. On that note, if you aren't monitoring through reaper when tracking (I monitor through my sound card mixer whenever possible) you still don't need small buffers - the only time small buffer are needed are when you need to monitor through reaper such as through an amp sim or VSTi in real time - or you have automation that needs to occur in less that 20ms or so (rare in my world).
Lastly, lastly... I suggest testing one perf setting change at a time, I've made very few changes over the years - there should be a happy medium but it can be a bit of a combination lock because no two systems/user setups/needs are the same. I've found that to be true in every DAW I've ever used but this is because such real-time low-latency is rarely needed by any other type of application outside of DAWs and audio.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
|
|
|
01-11-2019, 03:16 PM
|
#42
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,957
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz
1024 is a big buffer!
|
1024 is the recommended buffer size for mixing and will reduce CPU usage.
Only go lower if you need to record with low latency.
|
|
|
01-11-2019, 03:33 PM
|
#43
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,651
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic
Just a couple points... The RT CPU (as coachz mentioned) is where it matters, that lives on a single CPU core, and if you had say 4 cores, the OS showing 25% could mean one that one core is maxed at 100% aka 25% of 4 cores. That will cause glitches because the audio driver thread (RT CPU) can only live on one core.
Lastly, unless you have a specific need (such as I mentioned further up in another post) always mix at the highest buffer setting available as there is little benefit to low-latency if not recording and monitoring through reaper. On that note, if you aren't monitoring through reaper when tracking (I monitor through my sound card mixer whenever possible) you still don't need small buffers - the only time small buffer are needed are when you need to monitor through reaper such as through an amp sim or VSTi in real time - or you have automation that needs to occur in less that 20ms or so (rare in my world).
Lastly, lastly... I suggest testing one perf setting change at a time, I've made very few changes over the years - there should be a happy medium but it can be a bit of a combination lock because no two systems/user setups/needs are the same. I've found that to be true in every DAW I've ever used but this is because such real-time low-latency is rarely needed by any other type of application outside of DAWs and audio.
|
RT CPU at the time of the issues was about 20%. When recording vocals, I use 64mb buffer for the lowest latency and performance for recording only through Reaper and plugins. When mixing I'm at 512, 1024 for a large project...and not recording at all.
Agreed, changing settings was not really a good idea as I don't know what I'm doing and I'm pretty sure that was the culprit (i'll confirm later). My point being that, what works for some computers/workflows won't work for all....and I think someone else mentioned that also. Don't go blindly changing things like I did just based on what you read.
|
|
|
01-14-2019, 11:54 AM
|
#44
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,651
|
confirmed it was the multi fx and thread processing settings, I actually left the behavior at default. Switched back to default buffer settings and all is well again. Whew.
|
|
|
01-14-2019, 03:40 PM
|
#45
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South
Posts: 587
|
Do any of you ever use 2048 block size?
|
|
|
01-14-2019, 04:25 PM
|
#46
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherT
Do any of you ever use 2048 block size?
|
Yep, if it's in the list of choices, I usually run 1024 since that's the highest available @48k with my RME UFX. I never use anything but the highest setting unless I have to monitor through reaper when tracking - beyond that there is almost zero benefit to mixing at low latencies (see a couple posts up of mine for a couple exceptions to that rule). There may be other exceptions based on use case but generally, mix at the highest instead of unnecessarily wasting CPU cycles.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
|
|
|
01-14-2019, 06:01 PM
|
#47
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South
Posts: 587
|
I have my mix set-up at 2048.
Can someone please explain what negatives a really high block size has?
(like 4096? - or larger?)
I understand the low size/recording for latency, but what exactly is the block size setting doing?
Is it setting aside ram for mix processing ?
I'm using a RME MadiFace + SSL AlphaLink Madi AX - MacPro 8Core 64g Ram.
But still unsure how far to push the block size for huge track count mixing, and how this may affect overall performance / plug in counts - or Ram?
|
|
|
01-14-2019, 10:43 PM
|
#48
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 14,687
|
Delay after pressing play (or stop) .
Delay between what you see on the screen and whyt you hear.
-Michael
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 02:11 AM
|
#49
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherT
Can someone please explain what negatives a really high block size has?
(like 4096? - or larger?)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell
Delay after pressing play (or stop) .
Delay between what you see on the screen and whyt you hear.
-Michael
|
Also all automation data and parameter modulations will not be time precise/accurate as with low buffers (lets say 256 and lower)
Although it may not be problem for normal track envelopes, it can be very prominent if you try to modulate e.g. Cutoff of filter as FilterEnvelope with sharp attack - try to change blocksize and listen to differences - it will vary from snappy attack envelope (low buffersize) to mellow slower attack envelope with high buffersize.
akademie
!! NOTE: Not to confuse with envelopes of synth plugins in VST (AU, etc.) format. Only JS Effects are affected by the buffersize!
Last edited by akademie; 01-15-2019 at 02:50 AM.
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 04:14 AM
|
#50
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: South
Posts: 587
|
OK thanks,
I understand the playback delay, and that is not really an issue, but I had no idea the visuals would be delayed,
nor the automation as accurate. (glad I asked)
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 04:29 AM
|
#51
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 12,769
|
Why would the automation parameters not be accurate anymore at a higher buffer size? I thought everything just got delayed at startup
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 05:13 AM
|
#52
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz
Why would the automation parameters not be accurate anymore at a higher buffer size? I thought everything just got delayed at startup
|
Hmmm, I am not sure, but could it be because this processes are happening in sample blocks? (So then it won't be possible to make extra fast change in parameter when another "update" is planned to near sample block, not individual sample - but there may be some exceptions where "sample accurate" function is featured.
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 05:37 AM
|
#53
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 12,769
|
Larger sample blocks should just mean that it is able to pass larger blocks of audio at a time along with the automation. is there any proof that this is actually happening and that automation is losing its accuracy with higher buffer sizes
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 07:04 AM
|
#54
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
|
Quote:
but could it be because this processes are happening in sample blocks
|
This matches what I remember, and also correct on the envelope part.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 07:07 AM
|
#55
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 14,687
|
There had been a discussion on sample accurate automation in the prerelease forum. Maybe it's implemented now.
-Michael
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 07:08 AM
|
#56
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coachz
Larger sample blocks should just mean that it is able to pass larger blocks of audio at a time along with the automation. is there any proof that this is actually happening and that automation is losing its accuracy with higher buffer sizes
|
I'm 99% positive automation envelope's processing are tied to the buffer size. If you look hard enough you'll find a thread from maybe ~7 years ago where Airon reminded me of this fact.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 07:09 AM
|
#57
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell
There had been a discussion on sample accurate automation in the prerelease forum. Maybe it's implemented now.
-Michael
|
That would be cool as it would make mixing at low latencies (from a studio perspective) even less practical.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
|
|
|
01-15-2019, 07:11 AM
|
#58
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,978
|
Well, Coachz, you can test it for yourself.
Make an automation that will abrupt change some parameter (square type) at some measure or beat. Play at various buffer sizes and you will hear that at buffer 128 samples and lower the change will immediate while at buffers 2048 samples and higher that change will be slow. I did quickly verified it now, but I am at work now and cannot supply any reasonable project file at the moment.
Still, for many mixing automation it may be ok, but as precise sound creation tool it is night and day difference.
|
|
|
08-22-2021, 04:13 PM
|
#59
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: I hang out near Lake Tahoe in Nevada
Posts: 34
|
Should definitely be a sticky thread ...
This is an excellent and desperately needed topic. For one thing, if all related questions and answers are in one place it's easier to keep things current. As fast as computer hardware and REAPER software change, the validity of this topic requires diligence. One simple but salient example is that the plugin bridging option was moved from the Preferences dialog to a right click option in the Plugin Browser. Another good reason for "one stop shopping" this topic is that trolling the entire forum for answers on this topic is arduous at best. I am currently working on a compendium of information regarding the optimization of REAPER/WINDOWS-PC systems that I have gleaned from my perusal of the forum on this very topic. Perhaps when I get it finished someone that actually knows about this stuff can turn it into a valuable resource for the entire community.
__________________
Windows 11 Pro 64; AMD Ryzen 7 5800, 3.40GHz, 8-cores, 16-threads; 16Gb DDR4 RAM; UAD Apollo Twin USB
Last edited by dennisnv; 08-23-2021 at 11:56 PM.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.
|