Jim Roseberry

Just now, Fleer said:

What happens with virtual-instruments that don’t stream samples from disk (Superior Drummer 3, EZ Drummer 2, Addictive Drums, etc)?

They're loaded into (and stream from) RAM.

1 hour ago, sarine said:

No.

Unless you're talking about orchestration or other heavy sample libraries, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Uhhh... yes.   

First, not all virtual-instruments stream samples from disk (Superior Drummer 3, EZ Drummer 2, Addictive Drums, etc).

Those Vi's that do stream from disk... buffer the transient of each sample using a small bit of RAM.

I'll use Reaper as an example (MacBook Pro in this case)... as it's cross-platform and extremely small-footprint.

Open an empty project, add a single instance of Kontakt... and load up The Grandeur (acoustic piano).

With just Reaper and The Grandeur loaded, OSX shows 4.51GB of RAM being used.

Now, add a second track with Super Drummer 3... and load  the "clean" Ayotte kit.

OSX now reports 6.61GB memory being used.

On a MacBook Pro with 8GB, you've got less than 1.5GB of free RAM.

I wouldn't consider a two track piano/drum project to be "heavy orchestration".  😁

If a machine runs out of physical RAM, it'll use the VM swapfile (in lieu of physical RAM).

That kills performance.

Professional composers working on TV and Film are running a minimum of 64GB RAM (most are now running 128GB).

Many of these folks are clients...

10 hours ago, Bapu said:

We Need @Jim Roseberry to chime in on 16gb system which is what I would choose along with 1tb or 2tb OS drive.

I think this would blow away my MacBook Pro Quadcore 8Gb 1tb.

It would blow away your older MacBook Pro.

I'm not much of an Apple guy... and not a fan of ultra small form-factor machines for "workstation" purposes.

A laptop that's passive-cooled with 8GB of RAM is suitable for it's design purpose (Surfing the Web, office duty, etc).

With 8GB RAM, a small handful of virtual-instruments would have the machine RAM-starved.

Open up Chrome with half a dozen tabs active/open.  You can chew thru RAM quickly.

Even using compression to stretch that 8GB further... it's running lean.

If small-form-factor also means small-cooling, that's going to limit performance.

Some folks will try to tell you the M1 (mobile CPU) will out-perform something like the 5950x (desktop CPU).

If expecting that level of performance, the laws of thermal-dynamics (tight enclosure) are going to disappoint you.  😁

If you're expecting a great performing mobile CPU, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

It will be interesting to see what Apple does in a desktop version of the M1.

My idea of a great small-form-factor machine:

Lian-Li TU-150 mini-ITX case - allows full-sized Noctua 140mm cooler

Full-sized cooler means you can run a high-end desktop CPU... at full speed.

Up to 64GB RAM

Multiple internal SSDs (including M.2 NVMe Ultra)

Small... but zero performance compromise

Runs near dead-silent 

3 hours ago, Paul Young said:

That is like a first for AMD.

It is a bit ironic.   😁

Had a MB Badlander 50.

Crunch was fantastic.

Onboard Cabclone IR sounded very good

The internal fan was LOUD... to the point I couldn't deal with it.

Otherwise, it was a fantastic amp... and (compared to Friedman, DR-Z, ec) reasonably priced.

Had a DR-Z CAZ-45.

It's billed as a high-gain amp.

If this makes any sense, it's extremely well built... but... (to me) just didn't have any umph (insert your favorite adjective for "balls").

I'm generally into modded-marshall (gain wise). 

Wanted to love the CAZ-45... but just didn't care for it.

DR-Z is located here in OH, has a great reputation, etc.

Wound up with a BE-100 Deluxe, Bogner Shiva, and 20th Bogner Shiva.

Of course, this was during the height of Covid.  

What in the world was I thinking buying 50-60 pound heads?

Nothing at all "practical" about them.  🤪

On 6/1/2021 at 7:02 AM, Gordon Prokap said:

This interface has caught my attention, what does Cakewalk report the RTL to be on a 32 sample buffer at 48 KHz?

At 96k with 32-sample ASIO buffer size, the round-trip latency is 1ms.

It's going to be right about 2ms at half the sample-rate (48k).

I've measured this with a loopback test... so it's accurate.

1 hour ago, DeeringAmps said:

What you’re saying is I should get off my lazy ***** and buy a TB cable?

You should get a Thunderbolt cable.   😁

If you've tended to all the details, you can achieve lower round-trip latency with Thunderbolt.

Think of Thunderbolt as "external PCIe"

Under ideal circumstances, you can achieve PCIe level performance with an external audio interface.

The best USB audio interfaces achieve round-trip latency of ~4ms.

The best Thunderbolt audio interfaces can achieve round-trip latency of sub 1ms.

All USB audio interfaces I've seen/used/tested that connect via USB-C... are actually USB-2 devices.

I've been running Thunderbolt audio interfaces on PC for a couple years.

UA Apollo, RME UFX+, Presonus Quantum, and Antelope Orion Studio Synergy Core (can they make the name a little longer? 🤪)

All have been rock-solid.

If you're getting a new machine, be aware that there are currently issues with Thunderbolt-4 controllers.

Ironically, TB4 is not working well with Intel based machines... but works just fine on the Asus ProArt B550 Creator (AMD 5950x Vermeer CPU).

Ultimately... this will be ironed out.

On 3/4/2021 at 11:15 PM, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

Only thing Intel CPUs are still king is single core performance, which is becoming less and less important nowadays

Single core performance is still extremely important... especially if you're pushing the limits of ultra low latency performance.

ie: Let's say you have a Thunderbolt audio interface that yields 1ms total round-trip latency at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size.

With those settings, you can play/monitor thru plugins like Helix Native with 1ms round-trip latency (equal to or better than the Hardware).

At those settings (96k/32-sample ASIO buffer), the machine has ~half a millisecond to process the next ASIO buffer and get it in cue for playback.

This is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded (spread across multiple cores).

If anything interrupts this process, you'll hear glitches.

If you try doing to above with the Threadripper 3970x (~$2000), you'll hear glitches.

The 10900k (~$500) can do the above with zero glitches.

The new 11900k shows performance improvement in many benchmarks (vs the 10900k), but there were some changes in architecture that make it more latent.

If you're pushing the limits at ultra low latency (32-sample ASIO buffer size or smaller), the 11900k is a step backward.

The newer Ryzen Vermeer series (5xxx series) has greatly improved low latency performance.

The 5950x (~$800) can run the above example glitch-free.

Unlike Threadripper (280w TDP), the 5950x is a much more manageable (quiet) 105w TDP.

1 hour ago, cclarry said:

 

Covers the new features... but doesn't go into much detail.    🤪

I hadn't heard...  🙁

RIP Bill

Just saw there was an update for Bandlab Assistant.

Installed it... and it seems to have resolved this issue.

CbB is now installed.

Version that was just released solves the issue some of us were having the past ~48 hours.

Heard back from Morten.

They are aware of the issue... and they're working to resolve.

I've contacted Morten.

I'll post when I have a response/solution.

For anyone else experiencing this issue:

Just installed a new version of the Bandlab Assistant (available today).

Same error message upon trying to install CbB

Today I went to load CbB for a client... and got this message (below).

Uninstalled CbB from my own machine... and now receive the same error message.

I wish there was a dedicated download/installer. 

Dead-in-the-water...

Unhandled Promise Rejection
Error: spawn EBUSY
    at t.<computed> (electron/js2c/asar_bundle.js:5:2208)
    at C:/Users/Jim Roseberry/AppData/Local/Programs/bandlab-assistant/resources/app.asar/index-win.js:403:7
    at new Promise (<anonymous>)
    at install (C:/Users/Jim Roseberry/AppData/Local/Programs/bandlab-assistant/resources/app.asar/index-win.js:402:12)
    at queueInstallers (C:/Users/Jim Roseberry/AppData/Local/Programs/bandlab-assistant/resources/app.asar/index-win.js:720:7)
    at C:/Users/Jim Roseberry/AppData/Local/Programs/bandlab-assistant/resources/app.asar/index-win.js:794:13
    at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)

What audio interface are you using?

Some audio interfaces report their latency accurately... others don't.

Take a short high-transient audio spike... and put it on a track in CbB.

Re-record this high-transient audio spike on a second track (via an analog input on your audio interface).

Zoom-in and measure the difference (in samples) between the two.

This is the amount of "Record Offset" (in samples).

Preferences>Audio>Sync And Caching>Record Latency Adjustment:

Enter the "Record Offset" in the Manual Offset field.

Repeat the high-transient spike test used above... and verify there's no offset between the two. 

Stream Deck is a great solution for having lots of Hot-Key/Macro functions immediately available.

You can custom design icons for all the buttons (each has a LCD).  Particularly nice for transport controls, record-arm, etc.

You can save different Stream Deck configurations for each of your applications (DAW, Video Editing, etc).

For working at ultra low latency settings, clock-speed is the single most important factor.

ie:  Some audio interfaces like the Antelope Orion Studio Synergy Core will allow you to run at 96k using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size... resulting in 1ms total round-trip latency.  Running amp-sim plugins at these settings isn't something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded (spread across multiple cores).

More cores is certainly beneficial (especially at higher buffer sizes), but not at the expense of significant clock-speed.

In a perfect scenario, you want highest clock-speed... AND the most cores you can get.

Tested the 11900k recently.

It's a performance improvement (vs the 10900k) in most areas... but not all.

There were some changes in the CPU architecture (for Rocket Lake) that are a bit more latent.

Working at larger buffer sizes, you'd not notice.

If you're trying to run Neural DSP plugins, Helix Native, etc... at 96k using a 32-samples ASIO buffer size (or smaller), you'll hear glitches.

That's the one area Rocket Lake is a step backward (ultra low latency audio).

For the performance/cost, it's still hard to beat the 10900k.

If you're into AMD, the 5950x is significantly better at low-latency audio (than Threadripper)... and still offers great multi-threaded performance.

TDP is a much more manageable 105w.

With 280w TDP, there's no such thing as a truly quiet build (as in near dead silent).

Then, you have active-cooled motherboard chipsets...  🤪

Even the Floe Riing RGB 360 TT Premium Edition (one of the quietest closed-loop coolers available) is appreciably louder than something like a Noctua D15.

Of course, if you try to use a D15 with Threadripper, it'll thermal-throttle (defeating the whole purpose).

And would you believe a $400 CPU bests it at ultra low latency performance?!?!   😉

5 hours ago, Amicus717 said:

I wish the Quantum 26X32 was offered in TB3. It is has a lot more features (and slightly better specs) than the Quantum 2626, but I dislike the idea of buying a $1400 interface that right out of the box has an outdated interface and needs an adapter. 

FWIW, You'll see *zero* performance difference using an original Quantum 26x32 (Thunderbolt-2) vs. the newer Quantum 2626 (Thunderbolt-3).

The Apple Thunderbolt-3 to Thunderbolt-2 adapter ($50) works perfectly.

If the original Quantum is a better feature match, I wouldn't give the Thunderbolt-2 connection a second thought.

I still have an original Quantum... along with a RME UFX+.