Posted on Aug 08, 2011 09:13 am
Member Since: Nov 08, 2010
I've also begun having popping and drop out issues again. I beleive I have fixed it, but it has to do with the settings on my Cakewalk program (GT3) and under the audio settings there is a slider that I beleive is to udjust latency and goes from left to right, it refers to miliseconds, and all the way to the left is it's fastest setting and to the right is it's safest settings. I did 2 things I read an artical that said if ASIO does not work well, then go with WMK or something like that, so I did. Still dropped out untill I moved that slider all the way to the right, which is higher latency. I don't even know how latency effects me, but its working very smooth now. The question is, I only record audio. I don't use anything midi. How can higher latency hurt me?
Thanks in advance for your opinion!
[ Back to Top ]
Aug 08, 2011 09:19 am Ah, the ever-present evils of latency...well, latency is minimal compared to when I started recording on PC, but yeah, it can affect you, but it depends on the amount...a lot of latency can be really, really weird and create timing issues between tracks and all that, but it depends on your PC, the quality of the interface and drivers ability to compensate for the latency and the power of your PC.
I used to only use ASIO drivers back in the day before WDM drivers. The specs and performance of WDM drivers are pretty awesome for some devices. Which you use will simply depend on the performance of either.
If you still use the Audiophile 192 that it says in your file, either should work pretty well. You need to find the happy balance between safe and fast...but really, Cakewalk's built in profiler, I have found, works pretty well setting up the device for optimal settings.
Aug 08, 2011 09:35 am Thank you sir. After tweaking, I pulled up a project that gave me the most problems. It has about 10 tracks or so, and 1 to 3 effects on each track. I added a test track to see if it sounded weird and it did not. It seemed to be in time. Does that mean I'm probably OK with current settings?
Aug 08, 2011 09:37 am It'll tell more when you start recording more over it, it's more of a task to record and playback simultaneously than just playback.
for playback, with a lot of effects, you could look into upping the amount of RAM you have if possible...just a random thought, process speed would help too, but that is a little more involved.
Aug 08, 2011 10:07 am Thanks for your help!
Aug 09, 2011 09:53 am Well......your right. I had it running smooth, but way too much latency. Recording was impossible. Now I'm just all confused. I read some articals that said I won't notice 12ms and may not notice a little more. the test project that I'm using is a song I have posted here called "Cherry Red". I chose that because it has about 10 tracks and at least a dozen effects. I try to record along with it while playing back and its good for 2 minutes then cracks and drops. I fooled with the buffer size on my m audio card, and with the buffer settings on my DAW. And the more I mess with the settings, the worse it gets. I had to walk away from it. Perhaps when I go in there with a fresh head, I'll figure it out. Meanwhile, If you can recommend some buffer sizes for me to start with, that would be appreciates. As you probably know, I'm using GTP3 on an older HP maxed at 2 gigs of ram, and yes, the card that I have on file. I must have had it set right at some point, because I don't recall having troubles when I did that big project. Thanks for your help.
Aug 09, 2011 09:59 am That's rough being maxed at 2 if it gives you trouble...one thing that comes to mind tho, does GTP3 offer "track freezing"? That means that you can temporarily apply the effects to the track so the effects can be shut off during recording of new tracks, saving CPU power.
I haven't had to fiddle with buffer settings in a long time, so long I don't really even remember it well enough to try to give any advice. I would say though, use the profiler (GTP is Cakewalk, right?) Cakewalk's profiler will analyze your card and at least get you back to that point for starters.
Also, clean out and defrag your hard drive.
Two free utilities that can help do those tasks...and go thru your startup processes, make sure nothing is running that shouldn't be when the PC starts up...when working on audio, shut off firewalls, anti-virus and crap that runs in the background.
Aug 09, 2011 11:02 am OK...yes it's cakewalk. The profiler is good but it sets the DAW according to the buffer size that I have set on my sound card, which has also been fiddled with. :o
Aug 09, 2011 10:12 pm update. I downloaded ASIO4ALL i got it running pretty smooth at 11.6ms. Probably the best I'm gonna do. I read, somwhere, that 12ms is equivilant of standing out about 9 feet in front of your amp. I realize people are getting 1.5ms, but I'm on a budget here. After all, I'm a musician. :)
Aug 10, 2011 01:34 pm Cool, glad you got it sussed out.
Aug 10, 2011 02:02 pm 11.6 is pretty dang good if you ask me!
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Aug 11, 2011 06:32 am Thanks...How many ms would you say is too much? That would give me an idea of how much play I have on bigger projects.
Tim NUh, at least one more time . . .Member
Aug 14, 2011 08:21 pm I run at 50 millisecends almost always, unless I'm playing a keyboard as stand-alone (Korg Wavestation, say); then I drop the thing down to 4 ms. I recently upgraded my computer to a Dell with the i7 processor, and life during record and mix and playback time is a lot easier now.
Since: Feb 07, 2007
Shouldn't you be able to record without monitoring the recorded signal through the DAW, thereby bypassing the latency issue? I've always done that, but then I don't ever consider monitoring the recording with the DAW's effects--I just listen to the mix of the DAW's outputs with my pre-recorded signal mixed in via the hardware mixer I have.
My issue was always processing power--the comp would buckle under a relatively high VST and track load, and then I would have to go back and start freezing stuff. I actually had at least one song in which all the tracks were frozen (not the busses), and the comp still couldn't handle it! (I had a Pentium 4--I think you have that too, Bigbluesman--very frustrating.) Typically, my settings (the ASIO buffer) were at 2400/24 bit; this is 50 ms of latency. I'd say go as high as you can with the latency to avoid any chance of pops and drop-outs.
Aug 15, 2011 05:13 pm During tracking I can run the session with a 128 ms buffer and everyone has been happy. People ***** if I knock it up to 512...but.sometimes I get away with 256 but definitely not ideal. I work exclusively on an underpowered MacBook now so I deal with this problem constantly.
Since: Nov 11, 2007
Aug 16, 2011 03:43 am use the freeze function or the like on all vst's if you have them running at the same time when recording, that'll give a ***load of your CPU back.
Since: Nov 27, 2007
I can be running vsts to the point i cant run the program at all under 512, freeze the vst's, and i can then go back to 196. and still have my performance metre/gauge on a 1/4 with plenty left.
I think 196 i about 4ms-ish
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.