Cakewalk Buffer size

[jono grant]

 

Hi, I recently installed a version of Pro Tools to open some projects etc. to move over to Cakewalk.

Curious, why does Cakewalk require much higher buffer settings than Pro Tools?

I use UAD Apollos and normally with a bunch effects inserted into Cakewalk, I need to select a high buffer like 2048 to get smooth playback.

Pro Tools won't even let me push play unless I change it to 256 or lower, and this is w/o any plugins.

Is it that Cakewalk relies on some Windows audio system whereas PT uses it's own?

 

Thanks

Jono

[Starship Krupa]

I'm assuming that you're using ASIO mode for both of them....

No idea, but I'd be curious to find out whether this is the case with non-UAD FX in both DAW's.

UAD are kinda Pro Tools-centric, so it might be that their AAX plug-ins take better advantage of their hardware. Seems like we would have heard about it if that were the case, though.

Maybe try it with REAPER or Waveform to see if it's Cakewalk-specific?

Edited February 14, 2023 by Starship Krupa

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

I can run both my interfaces at 256 and lower ( depending how many plugins I am running ) one is Audient and the other is my old Behringer - both use their own ASIO driver.

 

[marcL]

With my Behringer and Focusrite interfaces I can also use 256 or lower, but with the PreSonus Studio24c and CbB I often have issues, don't know why? I did not investigate too much until now, though I should! 😄

[petemus]

I can get quite far mixing with my RME UCX at 48 samples with many tracks and plugins, until buffer size increase becomes necessary - usually because of more "buffer hungry" plugins or just more plugin instances.

With Cakewalk, that is.

Edited February 16, 2023 by petemus

[msmcleod]

FWIW I'm running a very old 3rd gen i7 3770 processor running at 3.4Ghz with 16GB of RAM, and I normally run my Scarlett 18i20 or 6i6 at 64 samples.   It will actually run at 32 samples if it's a simple audio project with no FX, but 64 works for most projects unless I start adding some CPU intensive reverbs or something.  I rarely need to go above 256.

If I'm using my RME, I use a buffer of 128 simply because in real terms it's pretty much the same latency in milliseconds as the Scarletts at 64... and I have no need for lower latency.

There has to be something else at play with the Apollo drivers,  or at least something else on your system that is interfering with them.

[Terry Kelley]

Show off!

[Christopher Brown]

On 2/13/2023 at 3:49 PM, jono grant said:

 

Hi, I recently installed a version of Pro Tools to open some projects etc. to move over to Cakewalk.

Curious, why does Cakewalk require much higher buffer settings than Pro Tools?

I use UAD Apollos and normally with a bunch effects inserted into Cakewalk, I need to select a high buffer like 2048 to get smooth playback.

Pro Tools won't even let me push play unless I change it to 256 or lower, and this is w/o any plugins.

Is it that Cakewalk relies on some Windows audio system whereas PT uses it's own?

 

Thanks

Jono

Hi Jono,

 

Have you tried this without the UAD Apollos in play? I would be curious to see if the performance issues persist.

[jono grant]

The question is in relation to the Apollos and cakewalk vs protools specifically, so no, I use only the Apollos in my system. 

It's not a really a performance issue, more a difference in performance settings! Hence my question. 

Thanks

J

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

On 2/26/2023 at 1:00 AM, jono grant said:

The question is in relation to the Apollos and cakewalk vs protools specifically, so no, I use only the Apollos in my system. 

It's not a really a performance issue, more a difference in performance settings! Hence my question. 

Thanks

J

One thing to note is the number you see in the settings for your driver is not the value Pro Tools uses. ASIO4ALL shows that well. PT will sometimes change the buffer size without your consent because "it feels like it."