I am using Plogue on the Mac Minis. They don't work slower than I would have expected because my comparison was with Plogue Bidule on a Dual G5. On both, Plogue is only using one CPU.

If indeed DP allows to use more CPU power, then I would be able to lower the buffer and thus get less latency. On some of our Mac Minis here, we're at 1024 and if I could lower it to 512 or 256 that'd be a great improvement.

As you may know, the more VI instances loaded, the more power it requires (no matter how many samples are in each of them) and the higher the buffer needs to be to avoid pops, crackles, etc.

Jerome

what kind of latency are you getting at 1024? also, how many instances of VI are you typically running?

chris

On the systems at 1024 I'm running more than 10 instances.

In theory, a 256 buffer = 6 ms of latency and a 1024 buffer = 24 ms of latency. Practically, it's ok for legato stuff but starts to be pretty annoying with staccato and rhythmic music.

Jerome

vibrato, currently the vienna instruments software can access more than 2GB if a) the machine has 4 GB RAM b) the /3GB switch is set c) the hosting application is LAA aware
christian

24 ms doesnt seem too bad to me....right now using Roland's Marcato1as string patch I put a 31ms pre-delay on the midi track to get it to lock in.

@Jerome said:

On the systems at 1024 I'm running more than 10 instances.

In theory, a 256 buffer = 6 ms of latency and a 1024 buffer = 24 ms of latency. Practically, it's ok for legato stuff but starts to be pretty annoying with staccato and rhythmic music.

Jerome

Well, I guess acceptable latency means different things to different people [:)]

Jerome

@Jerome said:

Well, I guess acceptable latency means different things to different people [:)]

Jerome

I guess so. Any more than 256 and I can't track with any accuracy.

DG

@Jerome said:

Well, I guess acceptable latency means different things to different people [:)]

Jerome

Trying to be optimistic here...

for years the roland strings have been the workhorse at my company. a huge complaint with them has been the slow attack on the "marcato1aS" patch. we find ourselves consistently playing ahead of the beat or using a 31ms midi pre delay. i was hoping to avoid this in VI, but i guess this is one aspect where we will just be moving sideways.

chris

@vibrato said:

Hi! cm,

Thanks for your reply.

How can I set the 3GB Switch? What is the 3GB switch? And what is LAA and is Cubase 4 LAA aware?

Tanuj.

There is a sticky about the /3gig switch and how to set it.

Cubase 4 is LAA (Large Address Aware), which means that it can use more than the normal 2GB or RAM that Windows XP allows.

DG

@Jerome said:

Well, I guess acceptable latency means different things to different people [:)]

Jerome

I guess so. Any more than 256 and I can't track with any accuracy.


Same here. I even find 256 to be annoying for particularly fast work (string runs, etc.) Though, I was a percussionist long before I started using samplers so that might lower my tolerance for latency.

All the same, ever try to lay down tracks on a percussion controller when the latency is bad? It's darn near impossible. I just end up clicking them in or slowing down the tempo.

I'd love to hear if anyone else is getting smaller buffer sizes on an Intel Mac.

Well, if you have the money, you can get a 32 (yes, thirty two!) buffer with the Apogee Symphony cards (and up to 96 channels of I/O).

Jerome

I'm setting up a Mac Pro with Apogee Ensemble interface for a friend, and currently I'm fooking around with the buffer settings. 64 samples is not bad at all, considering the interface being "mid-level".

The ENsemble is a firewire interface, whereas the Symphony is a DSP-based PCI-e card. You will get a much better latency with the Symphony than with the Ensemble; I heard though that the Ensemble was great for running Logic... it seems to be a neat piece of gear!

I know that Jerome, but it also comes at a fraction of the price of the Symphony. [:)]