SuperG wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:46 am
dr wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:13 pm
SuperG wrote: ↑
Sat Mar 14, 2020 9:59 pm
If you're multitracking, in a studio, for money, you ought to be to afford an audio interface with built-in effects so you can avoid latency issues altogether.
Latency isn't going away anytime soon. The problem here isn't a lack of processor speed, or number of cores, it's that real-time processing forces a fixed limit on time processing. It's interrupt driven - and that interrupt *overhead* is fixed. So to wail about things not being perfect (i.e. round-trip delay while monitoring through VST effects), when you're pushing a system beyond it's limit because "I want to"... it's annoying, even to an amateur.
If you're tracking, you are mainly recording a dry signal - so no need to stuff up the daw with latency inducing effects. Effects during recording are mainly to give a performer a comfortable headphone cue. Built-in effects do this quite nicely and have 0 delay.
The fact that it is possible to have a monitor cue with VST effects on during recording does not imply that it's always a good idea. You need to be careful when doing so. You can't just demand that it all work the way you want it to and expect satisfaction.
Well, I'm doing studio work since more than 20 years. I know what musicians need on their headphones.
One important thing is being able to punch in/out, without a change in sound.
This is not the case (or can get complicated and annoying) when using Interface based effetcs for monitoring, which are gone when just listening back the tracks (unless you have recorded the FX).
This is more important to me, than having absolutely zero latency.
I want (sorry) it to sound exactly the same while recording (including processing), as when listening to the recorded stuff.
I used a mixing desk solution years ago, but I won't go back to it, since it has other disadvantages..
But however: All of the above (exept 0 latency) is completely doable within Cubase, and has been for years.
I'm using a RME UFX + UCX.
It works okay with 64-96 samples buffer @44,1 within a certain track and plug in limit, even with an old 4 core I5 4460. Have that cpu in my recording pc since 2014. No problems at all. In worst case I have to go up to 128 samples. Still okay.
I just testet a Core I7 9700K, of course it performs much better, this cpu seems perfect (right now) for a realtime scenario.
More tracks, more plug ins. I checked with a friends PC, not even audio optimized in any way.
BUT it is already an outdated cpu with its 8 cores and no HT somehow.
My mixing machine has the 3900x, works great for that.
I only used it once for recording, that's when I came across the fact it only uses 11 cores for realtime stuff. A 6C/12T cpu uses all 12, so one more than my 12C/24T cpu??
I'm not expecting miracles and I'm aware of realtime processing obstacles in general.
For me the solution, as it is right now, just does not seem to be the best way of handling it for already existing or upcoming 12+ thread/core cpus.
Look at Reaper, no problems there. Arming a track can not colllapse a project, even with a 64core cpu or so.
The Asio load just stays stable. I don't know what exactly is going on under the hood there, but it seems to just work better. I hate mentioning Reaper, but in this case..