|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 21, 2019 8:56:13 GMT -6
So was getting ready to pull the trigger and buy some more hardware after having such a good experience, when I started to have a not-so-good experience. I started a new project.. I normally go for 44.1 but I decided to spurge and record at 96. It's just a 1+1 where I recorded the guitar with two mic (using multiple takes so there are 6 tracks of guitar), and a single vocal. All is fine until I use Logic's I/O plugin to strap in the A-S Buss Compressor on the 2. Things immediately start to hiccup, tick and tack..
I didn't have this problem at all doing the same thing on my last project, which had dozens of tracks, plugins, virtual orchestra, etc.. My money says the problem lies in the I/O..
The plug pings at +48 samples
I/O buffer: 64 Samples (with a resulting latency of .9 ms = 1.8 ms roundtrip - pushing this to 128 samples seems to help but I'm pretty sure I'm hearing it in places.
Recording Delay at 56 Samples.. When I change this, nothing seems to happen - I.e it doesn't appear to affect latency, but it shouldn't matter if I'm not recording, right?
Processing Threads: Automatic
Process Buffer Range: Medium
Before I experiment too much with that I just have a few questions.. Is 96K putting that much of a strain on CPU? Mine may not be a super-computer but it's no slouch. 2017 iMac, 3.8 GH i5 with 16 GB RAM. How much does track count affect things?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jun 21, 2019 9:30:11 GMT -6
Setting up your projects Buffer Size?
You can't do some things in 96khz which you can do in 44.1 kHz depending on how many horsepower your computer delivers.
I don't see any value tracking in 96 kHz. I do all my songs in 44.1.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jun 21, 2019 9:55:33 GMT -6
What's the problem with a longer buffer? Just mixing, right? My buffers are at a full second. I was running 88K2 and 96K on a G5 from 2006-2014 with no problems, up to about 30 tracks with a plug or two on each track.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 21, 2019 10:35:22 GMT -6
96K will definitely strain the system more. You just need to up your buffers, think about it, your more than doubling your samples. Your computer should be fast enough, but the more hardware you use in terms of plugins(not in a chain) the more strain you'll add. That is why HDX and other hardware acceleration systems exist.
If you're using more outboard gear, then the higher sample rate is more worth it. It'll capture the hardware all the better. I don't do anything less than 96k.
|
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Jun 21, 2019 11:01:16 GMT -6
I record at 64 sample buffer up over 30 tracks, but the second I start mixing and adding plugs it has to go up. Low buffer is only critical for tracking latency, after that set it so you don't get errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 11:11:49 GMT -6
512 buffer here, 96k, but then I never need to monitor anything live, just mastering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 21, 2019 11:30:49 GMT -6
Im around 512 and 1024 for mine, Im monitoring through a 5.1 and stereo track at all times as I print live back into PTs, not the bounce function.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 21, 2019 11:36:22 GMT -6
I use logic I/O plug in all the time for mixing 20 odd track sessions, anywhere from 1-8 instances (groups going to different compressors) and I use different sample rates (41,44 and 96).
Am using a symphony mkii 16x16, never had a problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 21, 2019 15:29:04 GMT -6
I record at 64 sample buffer up over 30 tracks, but the second I start mixing and adding plugs it has to go up. Low buffer is only critical for tracking latency, after that set it so you don't get errors. I think this is the key. I may experiment with a low buffer to start. Also, I'm thinking 96k is definitely making my system sweat. I've been a 44.1 kind of guy up until this, and honestly, I'm not hearing a difference. My guess is I have other fish to fry in terms of getting the best sound. I've noticed a lot of people seem to work with 48k, but if I can't even hear the difference from 96, I sure ain't with 48, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that higher sampling rates come more into play when you have a lot of tracks AND a lot of dynamic range that you want to keep - like as in classical/orchestral music, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 21, 2019 16:09:09 GMT -6
I record at 64 sample buffer up over 30 tracks, but the second I start mixing and adding plugs it has to go up. Low buffer is only critical for tracking latency, after that set it so you don't get errors. I think this is the key. I may experiment with a low buffer to start. Also, I'm thinking 96k is definitely making my system sweat. I've been a 44.1 kind of guy up until this, and honestly, I'm not hearing a difference. My guess is I have other fish to fry in terms of getting the best sound. I've noticed a lot of people seem to work with 48k, but if I can't even hear the difference from 96, I sure ain't with 48, right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that higher sampling rates come more into play when you have a lot of tracks AND a lot of dynamic range that you want to keep - like as in classical/orchestral music, etc. Many, if not most plugins work better at higher rates. Sampling rate has nothing to do with dynamic range - that's bit depth. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 21, 2019 16:39:16 GMT -6
Yeah the biggest advantage is basically moving the Nyquist filter further out and less steep slope so the top end sounds more open and natural.
That and you get more samples so its more accurate.
I am a classical engineer mostly and 96K is the minimum. Most my stuff is in 384K actually. But when I get to do other things I do it in 96K still.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjheck on Jun 23, 2019 16:12:29 GMT -6
Is there anything else on your two bus?
Sometimes the IO plug doesn’t play nice
When plugs that upsample or are heavy
Usage (Nebula) are on the same channel.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jun 23, 2019 17:40:44 GMT -6
Is there anything else on your two bus? You bet. I usually put a couple of compressors in series, plus a limiter at the end. I don't know how hoggy Slate's Mastering compressors are, but I'm hoping that this is just a buffering fix. Really, I should do it right and create a mix with very little on the two, then "master" the mix separately. Thing is, I'm constantly going in and tweaking my mix - then "remastering" because I solicit for mix advice from my on-line friends all the time. Truth is, I do it less and less as I become more comfortable and confident, but really, it's just become a part of my process. Efficiency is not a consideration. I'm in absolutely no rush to produce and my output is small. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jun 23, 2019 17:56:59 GMT -6
Have you tried simplifying: like just putting say an Audioscape ssl comp on your 2 bus and inserting say a wa273eq for a little eq and transformer magic: you might be pleasantly surprised?  |
|
|
|
Post by mjheck on Jun 23, 2019 18:21:28 GMT -6
Logic does have a really specific way of diving up cores and channels (Im pretty sure you can't split them).
I think my work around for this has been to have an IO bus that then feeds all of my Fab Filter stuff on a different bus.
That may be worth a shot.
MJH
|
|
