Jim Roseberry

When setting intonation on my guitars, I always double-check at various fret positions (helps when making smallest adjustments sharp/flat).

If you've used a Zoom guitar processor, this is the Native equivalent. Not bad by any stretch. Not going to lure you from a top-tier modeler.

Leaning to use High-Pass filters will do wonders for your mixes. There's no need for guitars/piano/vocals to be competing with the kick/bass down in the sub-bass frequencies. As was mentioned, use a high-pass filter on the bass (roll out the lowest sub-bass frequencies) to create separation from the kick.

Gibson has been thru the wringer (mostly due to ULM decisions)... but they're still a Heritage musical instrument company. The Les Paul is a classic/staple guitar... that's more than withstood the test-of-time. Even withstood minEtune... 😁 I think this leads some to almost want to find fault with Gibson guitars. "They're too expensive" "They're too heavy" "Upper fret access is poor (compared to other designs)" I do think that (at times) QC could have been better. If you pull a Standard off the wall at GC (where it's been used/abused for months), that can taint experience/opinion. I had a R9 for a couple of years. Ultimately sold it because I prefer other designs (ergonomics). I still consider that R9 one of the best guitars I've ever owned. Plug it into a decent Marshall amp... and it's instant Rock guitar.

FWIW, It's not hogging the "slot"... the driver is monopolizing CPU time (High DPC Latency). That can cause a "hiccup" in data flow. A typical general-purpose user would never notice say a 5ms hiccup in data flow. For someone running a DAW at a 32-sample ASIO buffer size, that 5ms hiccup in data-flow results in a glitch (at best)... or a transport drop-out. At a 32-sample ASIO buffer size (44.1k), the machine has 0.75ms to process/fill the next ASIO buffer. If it's not filled in time, you'll experience a glitch or drop-out. The X99 Deluxe II doesn't blanketly have a problem with high DPC Latency (it's the video card's driver). If you don't need much in the way of video processing, go with a GTX-1050 or one of the new GTX-1650 video cards. Right now, the AMD Vega-64 and Radeon VII result in lower DPC Latency than Nvidia GTX video cards. The difference isn't huge; GTX video cards can be effectively used when running DAW applications at small ASIO buffer sizes. Right now, Nvidia RTX-2xxx series video cards result in high DPC Latency. Ultimately, I'd expect this to be ironed out. I wouldn't blanketly say that AMD always results in lower DPC Latency than Nvidia. That's the case when comparing these video cards (at this point in time). Several months down the road (or with different models), things could change radically. That's the nature of computer hardware. A brand/model that's not a particularly great performer *today*... may be tomorrow's best-in-class. ie: Years ago, there was a time when Maxtor HDs were poor performers. Then, a couple years down the line, they were some of the best performers. Flash forward to the year 2006... and Maxtor was absorbed by Seagate. If you're not working with video, the video card's processing capabilities are (obviously) a secondary factor. Well-behaved drivers and low noise are more critical factors for DAW purposes.

Wow! RIP Bo

Now available for Mac and PC. It's certainly interesting... but I'm not generally a fan of any type of "automatic" adjustment/correction. You can hear it in action in this video:

Check to make sure power-management is disabled for all USB Root Hubs and newer Controllers. If power-management is enabled, the OS can decide to shut that port/s down to conserve power. That would (of course) cause the audio interface to disconnect.

Let me clarify: If your video card is causing DPC Latency of 500+uSec, installing a video card that doesn't increase DPC Latency (where the driver is much better behaved) would certainly solve that problem. With low/consistent DPC Latency, you'd achieve better DAW performance. Note that this isn't the same as the video card itself allowing you to run more audio processing. In your case, you need the video card to essentially "get-out-of-the-way" when it comes to impeding performance (high DPC Latency). I'll give you another example. Say you're using the onboard UHD-630 graphics on a i9-9900k CPU. The UHD-630 drivers are well behaved (don't cause high DPC Latency). If you then wanted to upgrade to a Radeon VII (drivers are also well behaved - low/consistent DPC Latency); you'd see no increase in DAW performance vs. using the UHD-630. Regarding the Izotope plugins: Your problem with glitches is due to high DPC Latency (not from poor video performance with the plugins enabled). IOW, Upgrading to an RTX-2080Ti (which currently suffers from high DPC Latency - but is a much faster video card), would still leave you with audio glitches. The lower your ASIO buffer size, the more critical to have low/consistent DPC Latency. If you're also working with video, what you need is a faster video card that doesn't significantly increase DPC Latency... and that's quiet when working with audio. Right now, for many folks a good sweet-spot (price/performance) is the new GTX-1660. When working with video, you may be surprised that there's not a huge (realtime) performance difference between using a RTX-2080ti vs. a GTX-1660. IOW, Previewing realtime VFX like Trapcode Particular doesn't run significantly faster with the RTX-2080Ti. The RTX-2080Ti would help a bit more on long video Renders.

Using a higher end video card won't increase your DAW (audio) performance. FWIW, We've found the latest Nvidia RTX-2xxx series video cards to suffer from high DPC Latency. If you're trying to run heavy loads at a 64-sample ASIO buffer size or smaller, avoid RTX video cards (for the time being). The GTX-1xxx and newest GTX-16xx series are fine. The AMD Vega-64 and Radeon VII video cards have lower DPC Latency than the GTX video cards. I've not seen Vega-64/Radeon VII with a 0dB fan mode.

If the internal optical drive is defective, you can connect an external USB optical drive.

Just skimmed thru this thread... As long as the optical drive is properly functional, you should be able to boot from it. The OS itself won't have any effect on this. If the first boot device (in the BIOS) is listed as "Windows Boot Manager", change the list to have the optical drive listed first. Some motherboards also have a "boot-override" where you press F12 (or other hot-key) and select the desired boot drive. With Win10, I'm of the mind that you've got to be running the Pro version. The Group Policy Editor makes it quick/easy to disable OneDrive, Cortana, etc. You can also completely disable all Automatic Updates. Windows Updates are mostly fine... but occasionally a problem occurs. With Automatic Updates fully disabled, you choose if/when to apply updates. When you go to apply Updates, you can be sure you've got an up-to-date backup image file prior to starting the process. A savvy computer user can get themselves out of many types of problems. Most times, it's a matter of finding and working thru the solution. Once in a while, you get a situation that you just can't seem to solve (or that burns a lot of time). These types of situations are a reminder to all of us... to stay diligent with proper backups. Craig, (I know) you know your way around a PC. 😉 If I can be of any assistance, shoot me a PM or give me a call.

If you're running an Intel socket 1151 CPU, use the onboard video instead of the Matrox G200. We used a LOT of Matrox cards... but that was ~20 years ago. The onboard Intel GPU will be significantly faster.

FWIW, That DPC Latency (although in the Green) isn't particularly low. You won't be able to work at smaller ASIO buffer sizes with DPC Latency near 300uSec. I'd test the laptop with a different audio interface. You may be encountering an issue with performance-throttling (common with laptops). CPU load for just recording is relatively low (as Noel mentioned)... so the system may be reducing clock-speed of the CPU (to conserve power and keep temps lower). Tracks Live may be a more substantial CPU load... thus not triggering performance-throttling. Many laptops (especially off-the-shelf models) don't expose BIOS parameters necessary to prevent performance-throttling. In this case, there are 3rd-party utilities that you can try (Throttle Stop)... but they may not fully solve the issue. The issue with laptops (especially off-the-shelf) is that they're designed for a MUCH different purpose than being a high-performance workstation. The typical user (Facebook, Email, light photo editing, etc) won't notice a 4ms hiccup in data flow (high DPC Latency)... whereas for DAW purpose that means an audio dropout. The typical user is much more concerned with long batter-life vs. maximum performance. Any type of power-management or performance throttling (necessary for long battery-life and to keep temps down in a tight enclosure) runs contrary to what you're trying to configure in a DAW. That laptop will never be able to effectively work at smaller ASIO buffer sizes... but should function alright at higher ASIO buffer sizes. I'd borrow/rent an audio interface that's known to be rock-solid (RME would be a great choice)... and check performance.

I have nothing at all against AMD. At any point in time, I'll use what I feel is the best overall CPU available. With Ryzen, Thunderbolt-3 is not available. That's a show-stopper for myself and many of our clients. Ryzen's "Infinity Archtecture" benefits from running faster RAM (DDR4/3200)... but it's hard to find a motherboard that'll run DDR4/3200 absolutely rock-solid. Ironically, Intel architecture doesn't benefit significantly from running faster RAM... but most motherboards will run DDR4/3200 without issue. From a performance standpoint, Ryzen is amazing at tasks that are heavily multi-threaded (video rendering). With lower clock-speed, Ryzen is not so amazing at are tasks that aren't heavily multi-threaded. In a DAW application, not all tasks can be heavily multi-threaded. Playing thru an AmpSim plugin and monitoring in realtime using a 32-sample ASIO buffer size at 96k is not something that lends itself to being heavily multi-threaded. Thus, when it comes to a DAW, CPU clock-speed is the most critical factor. As far as cores, you want as many as you can get (or afford). What you don't want to do is sacrifice significant clock-speed for more cores. This is why Xeon CPUs are often a significant performance hit (when used for DAW purposes). Another thing to be aware of is that CPU core performance doesn't scale 1:1 IOW, doubling the number of CPU cores doesn't double performance. I don't see Intel being particularly "pricey". 😉 With the release of the i9-9900k, you've got high-end "workstation" level performance in a mid-tier (cost) CPU. You have to go high-end socket 2066 i9 to significantly best the 9900k. The 9900k has 8 cores (16 processing threads) that can be locked at 5GHz. You've got the best of both worlds (super high clock-speed and 8 cores/16 processing threads). With AMD, we've notice small "incompatibility" type issues. ie: On one of the Cakewalk demo sessions (which we often used to compare performance), Boost 11 was used on a kick drum track. When running a Ryzen CPU, Boost 11 was producing an unwanted "click/snap" that almost sounded like digital clipping. Running the same exact project with an Intel CPU, Boost 11 (same exact settings) yielded no click/snap. I don't put the fault for this on AMD (many applications/plugins aren't fully optimized for Ryzen CPUs)... but you're likely to encounter similar issues. As a point of reference, I paid ~$100 more for my PII-266 (266MHz single core CPU) than I did for my 9900k (8 cores at 5GHz). Healthy competition from Ryzen is good for all involved. Right now, I prefer Intel (for the reasons above). If/when AMD fully leap-frogs Intel, we'll be happy to use their CPUs. We built many Athlon and Athlon II based machines when AMD was beating Intel (badly) in floating-point performance. Regarding Apple manufacturing their own CPUs: AMD has been at it for decades... and still can't best Intel's top 9980xe CPU. Apple would likely reap higher profit margin by using their own CPU... but I have serious doubts that it would be on par with the best AMD/Intel CPUs. Apple has all but abandoned their power-users... so it wouldn't be out of character for them to continue this direction (fully knowing their machines would offer lower performance). The iMac Pro is a sleek/slick looking machine. But when that represents the pinnacle of your top-performance range, you're not aiming high.

I agree, Larry. IMO, Including SoundForge 12 (even at $199) would be more enticing.

Just got the upgrade several days ago... On paper, the Pro X4 upgrade isn't that exciting (no revolutionary new features). That said, the new browser and MIDI editing features are nice improvements/additions. Samplitude Pro X4 (especially the Suite version) is an extremely power DAW application. Even if it's not your primary application, it's great for cleaning up audio, mastering, CD layout, and has DDP export (Suite version).

I have the exact same desk. 😉 BTW, Some nice gear in that desk!

Just tried playing virtual-instruments in MB32C. Even with an ASIO buffer size of 32-sample (at 96k), you can really feel the lag. This doesn't happen with any other major DAW application. I like a lot about Mixbus, but that's a show-stopper for me.

Finally got the situation ironed out (sort of). I received new codes from Full Compass. The rub... it's Samplitude Pro X4 (not Pro X4 Suite). The original description and pics on the Full Compass website were of Samplitude Pro X4 Suite. The website has now been changed. I need the features in Pro X4 Suite (DDP, etc). I should have just bought the upgrade straight off the Magix website.

For those who don't know, Michael Carnes is the man/mind behind Lexicon's classic hardware reverbs.

Full Compass (still) has no clue as to what's going on. They haven't changed the Website (still says Pro X4 and SoundForge Pro 12). They're saying it's going to take several days to figure out. Magix rep is out of town until April 15th. Should have just bought the Pro X Suite upgrade from Magix.

Thanks Wren! I'll contact them today.

Registered the Pro X3 Suite SN on the Magix website. There's no means of accessing Pro X4. Tried the upgrade procedure on the Magix website... price still comes up $199. Have to wait until tomorrow (Monday) to reach a human at Full Compass.

I bought this... thinking it was too good to be true. It is too good to be true. Although the Full Compass website lists/shows Samplitude ProX 4 and SoundForge Pro 12, you actually get Pro X3 and SoundForge Pro 11.