Question Regarding relationship Between Latency and Freezing/Bouncing/Exporting

[Keni]

I'm just looking to find out for certain about this issue.

When I'm freezing a track or Bouncing down, or exporting a mix etc.

The latency should not be a factor? I mean I know that I've recently encountered a plugin that crashes when freezing with latency set longer than 512. So I know that they do relate...

 

What I'm wondering is...

 

If I hear artifacts while listening and they go away at longer latencies, must I set my system to such latency when I export? ...or as the processing is happening without playback, should I expect clean results? So far it sounds as though this is true, hence my confusion...

 

Many thanks...

Keni

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Keni

[John Vere]

You mean buffer settings. Lower buffer settings reduce Round trip latency. But that’s nothing to do with also increasing them to stop drop outs and static. 
Latency is only noticeable when you turn on input echo when recording audio or midi. Not during playback. 
This why interfaces have direct monitoring so latency is not a factor in tracking audio. 
Round trip latency is more or less invisible to anyone who records, edits and mixes with a DAW. 

But buffer setting are important and performance is based on the quality of the system. 

A powerful computer with lots of cores and RAM will run at a lower buffer than a not so powerful one. 

Then some ASIO drivers are better than others like RME, and that also helps prevent dropping out at lower buffer settings. 
But as projects grow and certain plug ins are added that starts to stress the system and that might require increasing the buffers during mixing to stop glitching. 
But increasing buffer settings and then trying to record midi you might hear the latency so we then just globally bypass the effects and 99% of the time this fixes it. 

Then exporting a mix is all in the box and has nothing to do with buffer setting or your interfaces drivers. It just goes faster on a more powerful machine. 
I always set mine at 256 and forget about them.  But that said my now retired Motu M4  was on the edge at 256 so I had to bump it up. I now have a Zoom L8 and it is on the edge at 128 so I’m back to smooth sailing at 256 again .  
 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by John Vere

[Keni]

20 minutes ago, John Vere said:

You mean buffer settings. Lower buffer settings reduce Round trip latency. But that’s nothing to do with also increasing them to stop drop outs and static. 
Latency is only noticeable when you turn on input echo when recording audio or midi. Not during playback. 
This why interfaces have direct monitoring so latency is not a factor in tracking audio. 
Round trip latency is more or less invisible to anyone who records, edits and mixes with a DAW. 

But buffer setting are important and performance is based on the quality of the system. 

A powerful computer with lots of cores and RAM will run at a lower buffer than a not so powerful one. 

Then some ASIO drivers are better than others like RME, and that also helps prevent dropping out at lower buffer settings. 
But as projects grow and certain plug ins are added that starts to stress the system and that might require increasing the buffers during mixing to stop glitching. 
But increasing buffer settings and then trying to record midi you might hear the latency so we then just globally bypass the effects and 99% of the time this fixes it. 

Then exporting a mix is all in the box and has nothing to do with buffer setting or your interfaces drivers. It just goes faster on a more powerful machine. 
I always set mine at 256 and forget about them.  But that said my now retired Motu M4  was on the edge at 256 so I had to bump it up. I now have a Zoom L8 and it is on the edge at 128 so I’m back to smooth sailing at 256 again .  
 

 

Thanks John

 

I think you addressed my question towards the end of that.

 

When rendering an output mix, the latency settings do not affect the outcome...

[David Baay]

As mentioned in your other thread, CbB uses the ASIO buffer as the default "chunk" size for offline rendering and some plugins can be sensitive to it - more often when it's too small than too large. But in general, offline rendering will work just fine even when the buffer is too small to get pop-free plyback in real time. The reason is that there's time pressure to keep the interface driver supplied with a steady stream of buffers when rendering offline. If a particular buffer takes a little longer to process for whatever reason or a some other system demand interrupts it, the CPU can take a l long as it needs to process it and write it to file.

[Keni]

12 hours ago, David Baay said:

As mentioned in your other thread, CbB uses the ASIO buffer as the default "chunk" size for offline rendering and some plugins can be sensitive to it - more often when it's too small than too large. But in general, offline rendering will work just fine even when the buffer is too small to get pop-free plyback in real time. The reason is that there's time pressure to keep the interface driver supplied with a steady stream of buffers when rendering offline. If a particular buffer takes a little longer to process for whatever reason or a some other system demand interrupts it, the CPU can take a l long as it needs to process it and write it to file.

Thanks David...

 

That's what I have been believing... and experiencing. But wanted a firmer grasp on what's involved and going on. I had the understanding that without the immediacy of live playback, the pc was afforded the necessary resources to accomplish more than the live play...

Yesterday I played safe so that I didn't feel I needed to scrutinize for such errors (though of course I did anyway) I simply opened the latency all the way to 2048 to be safe! ?

 

[Glenn Stanton]

yeah, as a general rule - low latency during live recording w/ monitoring via the DAW (typically not necessary if using virtual instruments, or using the direct monitoring from the IO), and high latency when mixing/mastering to allow maximum resources for the processing.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Glenn Stanton

[John Vere]

46 minutes ago, Keni said:

Thanks David...

 

That's what I have been believing... and experiencing. But wanted a firmer grasp on what's involved and going on. I had the understanding that without the immediacy of live playback, the pc was afforded the necessary resources to accomplish more than the live play...

Yesterday I played safe so that I didn't feel I needed to scrutinize for such errors (though of course I did anyway) I simply opened the latency all the way to 2048 to be safe! ?

 

Be careful with that. It is been said a few times here that too large a buffer size can cause issues in some systems. 

[Keni]

29 minutes ago, Glenn Stanton said:

yeah, as a general rule - low latency during live recording w/ monitoring via the DAW (typically not necessary if using virtual instruments, or using the direct monitoring from the IO), and high latency when mixing/mastering to allow maximum resources for the processing.

I’ve always followed that idea, but never before actually needed it!

My difficulty frequently arises when I need to record guitar using a virtual amp etc. but even then I’ve never before been forced to do these things. The Little Plate being the first to put me in this position. Though the Cherry Audio excellent synths frequently give me grief too! ?

[Keni]

33 minutes ago, John Vere said:

Be careful with that. It is been said a few times here that too large a buffer size can cause issues in some systems. 

Yup. I ran into that with Amplitube 5 crashing CbB at 512 but fine at 128/256...

[Greg Wynn]

3 hours ago, Glenn Stanton said:

yeah, as a general rule - low latency during live recording w/ monitoring via the DAW (typically not necessary if using virtual instruments, or using the direct monitoring from the IO), and high latency when mixing/mastering to allow maximum resources for the processing.

Exactly.  I track at 128 and use a few PA consoles and mix at 1024 because I use a bunch of Acustica Audio plugs. 

[Keni]

It seems to me that more plugins are turning up with heavy resource demands these days.

Most fx are reasonable, but Instruments are another story. Often hard to work if more than one virtual instrument is active (frozen not an issue). So constant freeze/unfreeze/clean drive required. ...and I’ve got a reasonably powerful machine (xeon 12-core multithreaded, 128G)

The anti is raised again!

[HOOK]

8 hours ago, Keni said:

It seems to me that more plugins are turning up with heavy resource demands these days.

Hasn't that always been the case?  Starting with the Pentium Pro 200 machine I had in 1995, every machine I've ever built as an "upgrade" has been because of plugins and not Cakewalk.  Luckily, for the last 15 years or so, I've been able to build machines that go years without having to freeze anything for the most part.  When the plugins start choking the processor I upgrade.

[Keni]

Just now, HOOK said:

Hasn't that always been the case?  Starting with the Pentium Pro 200 machine I had in 1995, every machine I've ever built as an "upgrade" has been because of plugins and not Cakewalk.  Luckily, for the last 15 years or so, I've been able to build machines that go years without having to freeze anything for the most part.  When the plugins start choking the processor I upgrade.

Wish I could afford to... but a dual xeon 12core with the trimmings is over $10k away...

[HOOK]

I built a dual with a couple Xeon 5060's on Server 2003 in 2007 and it ran for several years.  Just a killer setup for the time.  Allowed me to do everything I ever wanted for soooo long.

Edit...ohhh. I see you're using a Mac.  Price prohibitive, for sure...lol.

Edited November 11, 2023 by HOOK

[Keni]

54 minutes ago, HOOK said:

I built a dual with a couple Xeon 5060's on Server 2003 in 2007 and it ran for several years.  Just a killer setup for the time.  Allowed me to do everything I ever wanted for soooo long.

Edit...ohhh. I see you're using a Mac.  Price prohibitive, for sure...lol.

Yeah, a trashcan gift. I really never use the Mac side. My previous machine (I still have) is also a Mac Pro dual xeon 6 core with 64G. Also a beauty. Each of these machines was over $10k!

 

[Daniel Crothers]

Before i go and buy another computer I'm going to buy a big sledgehammer and completely destroy the computer I have. i have all the issues with the notes getting hit and then hearing it a little later. no matter what I adjust it stays there. &$%*@ I gave up but I'm still sitting here reading everything I can feebly grasping any of it and hoping by accident it will get fixed. it didn't even exist (the problem) until one day and now it won't go away. 

 

[Daniel Crothers]

I went and started whole new tracks and the problem is gone. go figure. threaten to leave her and she straightens up. Typical!!

[John Vere]

@Daniel Crothers

This sounds like what is often wrongly called midi latency. 
You press a key on your controller and there’s a noticeable delay. 
Midi systems can and do have some latency but it’s usually down in the 1-2 ms range. 
The delay is actually in your audio system and almost always goes away if you simply by pass all effects in the control bar. 
It is most often caused by mastering type effects that use look ahead buffers. 
Otherwise you have other issues creating latency like too high a buffer setting or a lousy audio drivers being used.