Playback crackels worse at 2048 buffer size

[T Boog]

 Hi. Is there a reason why playback gives no probs at 1024 buffer size but crackles/clicks at 2048?  (I have 7 audio tracks with effects and 3 VSTs with effects. Nothing is frozen yet).

Anyway, I thought the safer buffer size is supposed to cause less probs on playback cause it has more time to look ahead.

[User 905133]

I cannot give you a reason, but several years ago I noticed the same thing. For my system the optimum setting was not the maximum buffer size.

I just assumed that the crackle and unwanted audio artifacts were the results of hardware (PC, audio devices, etc.), configuration/settings, and specific software used at the moment.  

Edited July 9, 2023 by User 905133
grammatical correction

[scook]

1 hour ago, T-Boog said:

Anyway, I thought the safer buffer size is supposed to cause less probs on playback cause it has more time to look ahead.

Extreme settings, large and small, can be difficult for software to manage often resulting in unwanted artifacts such as clicks and pops.

This is not the same as the "look ahead" most often used to describe the buffering used by plug-ins to do their job. Driver buffer settings are separate from plug-in look ahead buffer requirements.  Plug-ins that need look ahead buffers manage it themselves. Some are user adjustable.

 

[T Boog]

27 minutes ago, User 905133 said:

I cannot give you a reason, but several years ago I noticed the same thing. For my system the optimum setting was not the maximum buffer size.

I just assumed that the crackle and unwanted audio artifacts were the results of hardware (PC, audio devices, etc.), configuration/settings, and specific software used at the moment.

Thanks. Well, I'm at least glad to know that this prob is not unheard of. Esp since it seems to go against common DAW understanding.

 And maybe ur right that, for whatever reason, 1024 is more optimal for my particular system/setup than 2048. Oh well, if I can't figure it out I'll just stick with what works. Cheers my friend!

[T Boog]

7 minutes ago, scook said:

Extreme settings, large and small, can be difficult for software to manage often resulting in unwanted artifacts such as clicks and pops.

This is not the same as the "look ahead" most often used to describe the buffering used by plug-ins to do their job. Driver buffer settings are separate from plug-in look ahead buffer requirements.  Plug-ins that need look ahead buffers management their own buffers. Some are user adjustable. Together the driver and plug-in buffers add up to the delay often referred to as latency in DAW world. 

 

Ah, Thanks Scook! That's what I was trying to get my head around was the "look ahead" concept of driver buffer size. So I guess my system is not disfuctional after all. That's awesome! I'll just stick with 1024. Thanks a lot guys!

[charles kasler]

Disable plugs one at a time & see if one is the cause.

[T Boog]

4 hours ago, charles kasler said:

Disable plugs one at a time & see if one is the cause.

Thanks Chuck. I actually had done that. FWIW, the CA-2A Leveler on the master bus seemed to be the worst for crackling at 2048 esp when combined with the SS5 drum vst. But so far, they both work fine at 1024.

 It seems to be more about the overall load than one specific plug though. I'm thinking Scook was right that the extremely safe buffer setting just doesn't play well with my sofware(esp outside drum VSTs) . Btw, even the visual graphics were starting to lag at the end on 2048 but so far on 1024, the graphics are working fine/fast.

 I think I'm just gonna keep it at 1024 for playback and pray snap, crackle & pop don't show up to join the session again. ?

[scook]

7 hours ago, T-Boog said:

 Hi. Is there a reason why playback gives no probs at 1024 buffer size but crackles/clicks at 2048?  (I have 7 audio tracks with effects and 3 VSTs with effects. Nothing is frozen yet).

Reads like minimal hardware, a lot FXs (or really CPU intensive ones or both), very poor configuration or a combination of all three.

There are limits to what a PC can do using the internal sound chip. CPU, SSDs and RAM are not going to compensate for Realtek.

If this is a hardware limitation getting the project to all audio tracks by freezing and/or bounce+archive may be an important part of the workflow.

[T Boog]

1 hour ago, scook said:

Reads like minimal hardware, a lot FXs (or really CPU intensive ones or both), very poor configuration or a combination of all three.

There are limits to what a PC can do using the internal sound chip. CPU, SSDs and RAM are not going to compensate for Realtek.

If this is a hardware limitation getting the project to all audio tracks by freezing and/or bounce+archive may be an important part of the workflow.

I think I follow. So even if the perf tab & task manager show I have plenty of CPU & memory, it could still be my weak computer or a configuration issue at fault(?). Well, for now it's working well at 1024 but if it starts acting up again, I'll def start freezing tracks.

Btw, I once read that although Cakewalk accepts outside VSTs, they can sometimes cause problems. I may try the onboard SI drums in place of the Slate kit to see if that helps too. Either way, I know ur right... It's time to start freezing some tracks. Thanks again Scook ?

[T Boog]

2 hours ago, scook said:

Reads like minimal hardware, a lot FXs (or really CPU intensive ones or both), very poor configuration or a combination of all three.

There are limits to what a PC can do using the internal sound chip. CPU, SSDs and RAM are not going to compensate for Realtek.

If this is a hardware limitation getting the project to all audio tracks by freezing and/or bounce+archive may be an important part of the workflow.

Btw Scook, you mentioned the Realtek/internal sound chip. I'm using the ASIO driver with my interface. Does the internal sound chip still come into play in this case? (Forgive my ignorance. I'm still trying to learn how these things work)

[scook]

40 minutes ago, T-Boog said:

Btw Scook, you mentioned the Realtek/internal sound chip. I'm using the ASIO driver with my interface. Does the internal sound chip still come into play in this case? (Forgive my ignorance. I'm still trying to learn how these things work)

Probably not, Reatek is not the only manufacturer of audio gear NOT designed for DAW use.

Some companies that sell products intended for DAWs have devices that just don't seem to be up to the task because of poor driver support.

Hardware/drivers may not be an issue. It may be something else entirely.

Of course, if one was really looking for answers they would be more forthcoming with information.

Describing symptoms without describing the patient is bad medicine.

[T Boog]

11 minutes ago, scook said:

Probably not, Reatek is not the only manufacturer of audio gear NOT designed for DAW use.

Some companies that sell products intended for DAWs have devices that just don't seem to be up to the task because of poor driver support.

Of course, if one was really looking for answers they would be more forthcoming with information.

Describing symptoms without describing the patient is bad medicine.

Oh my bad man. I'm using a Dell 790 i5 2nd gen, 3.10 Ghz processor, 16 GB RAM with a single SS drive(1 TB), Windows 10 Pro, Audiobox usb96 & Rokit 5 monitors. All the VSTs & plugins are those that came with Cakewalk except the Slate Drums.

 

 Note, I've recently been told that a 2 drive minimum computer is best for DAW recording. I wonder if just having the single drive could be causing this issue(?) If so, I'll just try to work around it's limitations until I can upgrade.

[scook]

That's a good starting point.

Dual drives were the rule before SSDs but a single SSD is fine for most users. 

My guess leans toward config and this may be worth checking out

 

[T Boog]

6 minutes ago, scook said:

That's a good starting point.

My guess leans toward config and possibly this may be worth checking out

 

Thanks bud but yeah, I already tried the latency monitor test and it showed it was good for recording audio, etc. 

 You know what? 1024 buffer size is working good so far, I'm gonna go add even more tracks & turn on more vst's to see if & when it'll start crackling too. Then I can update yall

 If it ends up working great on 1024, I would think I'm good to go with that huh Scook? (If it ain't broke don't fix it?)

 

[scook]

sounds like a plan

[T Boog]

2 hours ago, scook said:

sounds like a plan

 Check it out Scook... I added 3 more vst tracks, incl the SI drums. Then I recorded 2 more audio tracks and added lots of plugins like comps, verbs, consoles, etc. to the existing tracks and... Everything worked fine. NO crackling! It's also responding much quicker & smoother to keyboard & mouse commands.

 Dude, I'm thinking u nailed it in ur first post. The two buffer extremes don't seem to be my friend. User 905133 said he had the same experience where the sweet spot was somewhere between the extremes.

 So my friend, I guess I'll just roll with 1024 and avoid 2048 like it's a bad neighborhood I never wanna visit again.

Anyway, Thanks for the tutelage Scook. I promise I'll never bug u again.

 ...Unless I have another Cakewalk problem of course?. Cheers!

[T Boog]

Hi guys, I just wanted to give a last update. 1024 is still working perfectly. Also, I did find a couple of post from people having the same issue using diff DAWs. One was with Abelton:

So whatever the cause, 2048 does seem to give probs for some setups. Anyway, Thanks again for the help fellows. Cheers!

Edited July 16, 2023 by T-Boog