Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Virtual memory
Total paging file size for all drives:
4864MB
was already set be default

I changed it to 4096MB no effect

If I don’t reply to a specific proposition you made, it’s because I already did it and forgot to mention it. For example, I’ve tried all the settings possible in the rme hardware menu.

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

I will stop ranting for now... This indeed frustrating.

Although, please check the new updated/improved table figures here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1chXnd … cbk7Y2Tekk

There has been a second step in performance for some reason, I have uninstalled a couple of softwares,
absolutely no idea.., but nothing major for sure. No change in the drivers or ram or deeper.

1. The MAUDIO can play the DIVA 6 file down to 16.1ms rtl (reported to ableton), yesterday was 17.6ms.
2. The latency values have alos changed a bit for the maudio, almost no change for the rme
3. The RME has improved as well, yesterday i could not get clean audio even at 47.6 ms rtl
    today it produces clean audio down to 24.3ms rtl. Almost 12.7ms...

Now IF we multiply by 2 the Maudio rtl, then rme is ahead at this moment.

A 5-10% increase in performance and the holidays will be very enjoyable...
I have purchased the adi-2 pro fs together with the ufx+ by the way, will plug
it in soon, when this is resolved. Cant wait to hear the sound from it.

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

The significant difference between ufx+ and the other interface is
- USB3
- much higher channel count ~4 vs 188

Something does not work properly.
Is this a Win10 preinstallation from factory?

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

latest LatencyMon (with Core 0 not included, ACPI.sys, from DELL, is well-known for creating high DPCs on core 0)
But in the next post I will put the LatencyMon resulys with Core 0)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts.
LatencyMon has been analyzing your system for  0:03:19  (h:mm:ss) on processors 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SYSTEM INFORMATION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Computer name:                                        DESKTOP-GC47NPJ
OS version:                                           Windows 10 , 10.0, version 1903, build: 18362 (x64)
Hardware:                                             XPS 15 9570, Dell Inc., 07GHH0
CPU:                                                  GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-8950HK CPU @ 2.90GHz
Logical processors:                                   12
Processor groups:                                     1
RAM:                                                  32531 MB total


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU SPEED
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported CPU speed:                                   2904 MHz

Note: reported execution times may be calculated based on a fixed reported CPU speed. Disable variable speed settings like Intel Speed Step and AMD Cool N Quiet in the BIOS setup for more accurate results.

WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEASURED INTERRUPT TO DPC LATENCIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The interrupt to DPC latency reflects the measured interval in which a DPC could execute in response to a hardware request from the moment the interrupt service routine started execution.

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs):       481.0
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs):       2.681001


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED ISRs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interrupt service routines are routines installed by the OS and device drivers that execute in response to a hardware interrupt signal.

Highest ISR routine execution time (µs):              0.0
Driver with highest ISR routine execution time:       

Highest reported total ISR routine time (%):          0.0
Driver with highest ISR total time:                   

Total time spent in ISRs (%)                          0.0

ISR count (execution time <250 µs):                   0
ISR count (execution time 250-500 µs):                0
ISR count (execution time 500-999 µs):                0
ISR count (execution time 1000-1999 µs):              0
ISR count (execution time 2000-3999 µs):              0
ISR count (execution time >=4000 µs):                 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED DPCs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DPC routines are part of the interrupt servicing dispatch mechanism and disable the possibility for a process to utilize the CPU while it is interrupted until the DPC has finished execution.

Highest DPC routine execution time (µs):              45.256887
Driver with highest DPC routine execution time:       storport.sys - Microsoft Storage Port Driver, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total DPC routine time (%):          0.000747
Driver with highest DPC total execution time:         ntoskrnl.exe - NT Kernel & System, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in DPCs (%)                          0.001868

DPC count (execution time <250 µs):                   16161
DPC count (execution time 250-500 µs):                0
DPC count (execution time 500-999 µs):                0
DPC count (execution time 1000-1999 µs):              0
DPC count (execution time 2000-3999 µs):              0
DPC count (execution time >=4000 µs):                 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED HARD PAGEFAULTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hard pagefaults are events that get triggered by making use of virtual memory that is not resident in RAM but backed by a memory mapped file on disk. The process of resolving the hard pagefault requires reading in the memory from disk while the process is interrupted and blocked from execution.

NOTE: some processes were hit by hard pagefaults. If these were programs producing audio, they are likely to interrupt the audio stream resulting in dropouts, clicks and pops. Check the Processes tab to see which programs were hit.

Process with highest pagefault count:                 svchost.exe

Total number of hard pagefaults                       1487
Hard pagefault count of hardest hit process:          339
Number of processes hit:                              34


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PER CPU DATA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 1 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.748057
CPU 1 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 1 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 1 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 1 DPC highest execution time (µs):                7.848485
CPU 1 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000321
CPU 1 DPC count:                                      140
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 2 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.827837
CPU 2 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 2 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 2 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 2 DPC highest execution time (µs):                28.636708
CPU 2 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.017488
CPU 2 DPC count:                                      7263
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 3 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.806026
CPU 3 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 3 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 3 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 3 DPC highest execution time (µs):                15.146006
CPU 3 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000292
CPU 3 DPC count:                                      140
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 4 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.807204
CPU 4 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 4 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 4 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 4 DPC highest execution time (µs):                45.256887
CPU 4 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.005488
CPU 4 DPC count:                                      1850
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 5 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.811086
CPU 5 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 5 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 5 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 5 DPC highest execution time (µs):                15.581956
CPU 5 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.001119
CPU 5 DPC count:                                      430
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 6 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.841829
CPU 6 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 6 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 6 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 6 DPC highest execution time (µs):                25.209711
CPU 6 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.005178
CPU 6 DPC count:                                      2061
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 7 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.834893
CPU 7 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 7 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 7 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 7 DPC highest execution time (µs):                20.786846
CPU 7 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000246
CPU 7 DPC count:                                      93
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 8 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.829776
CPU 8 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 8 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 8 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 8 DPC highest execution time (µs):                19.566804
CPU 8 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.004173
CPU 8 DPC count:                                      1103
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 9 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.827757
CPU 9 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 9 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 9 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 9 DPC highest execution time (µs):                17.012397
CPU 9 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000551
CPU 9 DPC count:                                      217
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 10 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.785139
CPU 10 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 10 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 10 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 10 DPC highest execution time (µs):                29.774793
CPU 10 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.008861
CPU 10 DPC count:                                      2601
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 11 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.797816
CPU 11 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 11 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 11 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 11 DPC highest execution time (µs):                28.810950
CPU 11 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.00090
CPU 11 DPC count:                                      263
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Same but with Core 0 included in the LatencyMon test,

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts.
LatencyMon has been analyzing your system for  0:01:36  (h:mm:ss) on all processors.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SYSTEM INFORMATION
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Computer name:                                        DESKTOP-GC47NPJ
OS version:                                           Windows 10 , 10.0, version 1903, build: 18362 (x64)
Hardware:                                             XPS 15 9570, Dell Inc., 07GHH0
CPU:                                                  GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-8950HK CPU @ 2.90GHz
Logical processors:                                   12
Processor groups:                                     1
RAM:                                                  32531 MB total


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU SPEED
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reported CPU speed:                                   2904 MHz

Note: reported execution times may be calculated based on a fixed reported CPU speed. Disable variable speed settings like Intel Speed Step and AMD Cool N Quiet in the BIOS setup for more accurate results.

WARNING: the CPU speed that was measured is only a fraction of the CPU speed reported. Your CPUs may be throttled back due to variable speed settings and thermal issues. It is suggested that you run a utility which reports your actual CPU frequency and temperature.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEASURED INTERRUPT TO DPC LATENCIES
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The interrupt to DPC latency reflects the measured interval in which a DPC could execute in response to a hardware request from the moment the interrupt service routine started execution.

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs):       484.20
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs):       2.631461


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED ISRs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Interrupt service routines are routines installed by the OS and device drivers that execute in response to a hardware interrupt signal.

Highest ISR routine execution time (µs):              188.600895
Driver with highest ISR routine execution time:       ACPI.sys - ACPI Driver for NT, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total ISR routine time (%):          0.001715
Driver with highest ISR total time:                   ACPI.sys - ACPI Driver for NT, Microsoft Corporation

Total time spent in ISRs (%)                          0.001718

ISR count (execution time <250 µs):                   254
ISR count (execution time 250-500 µs):                0
ISR count (execution time 500-999 µs):                0
ISR count (execution time 1000-1999 µs):              0
ISR count (execution time 2000-3999 µs):              0
ISR count (execution time >=4000 µs):                 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED DPCs
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
DPC routines are part of the interrupt servicing dispatch mechanism and disable the possibility for a process to utilize the CPU while it is interrupted until the DPC has finished execution.

Highest DPC routine execution time (µs):              483.184573
Driver with highest DPC routine execution time:       ACPI.sys - ACPI Driver for NT, Microsoft Corporation

Highest reported total DPC routine time (%):          0.007773
Driver with highest DPC total execution time:         rspLLL64.sys - Resplendence Latency Monitoring and Auxiliary Kernel Library, Resplendence Software Projects Sp.

Total time spent in DPCs (%)                          0.015463

DPC count (execution time <250 µs):                   134076
DPC count (execution time 250-500 µs):                0
DPC count (execution time 500-999 µs):                57
DPC count (execution time 1000-1999 µs):              0
DPC count (execution time 2000-3999 µs):              0
DPC count (execution time >=4000 µs):                 0


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REPORTED HARD PAGEFAULTS
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hard pagefaults are events that get triggered by making use of virtual memory that is not resident in RAM but backed by a memory mapped file on disk. The process of resolving the hard pagefault requires reading in the memory from disk while the process is interrupted and blocked from execution.

NOTE: some processes were hit by hard pagefaults. If these were programs producing audio, they are likely to interrupt the audio stream resulting in dropouts, clicks and pops. Check the Processes tab to see which programs were hit.

Process with highest pagefault count:                 securityhealthservice.exe

Total number of hard pagefaults                       7
Hard pagefault count of hardest hit process:          6
Number of processes hit:                              2


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PER CPU DATA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 0 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.933569
CPU 0 ISR highest execution time (µs):                188.600895
CPU 0 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.019789
CPU 0 ISR count:                                      254
CPU 0 DPC highest execution time (µs):                483.184573
CPU 0 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.168672
CPU 0 DPC count:                                      131206
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 1 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.352964
CPU 1 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 1 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 1 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 1 DPC highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 1 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 1 DPC count:                                      0
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 2 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.385344
CPU 2 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 2 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 2 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 2 DPC highest execution time (µs):                16.774793
CPU 2 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000553
CPU 2 DPC count:                                      192
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 3 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.382610
CPU 3 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 3 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 3 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 3 DPC highest execution time (µs):                6.643251
CPU 3 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000026
CPU 3 DPC count:                                      15
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 4 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.377558
CPU 4 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 4 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 4 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 4 DPC highest execution time (µs):                11.686639
CPU 4 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000190
CPU 4 DPC count:                                      79
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 5 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.382851
CPU 5 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 5 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 5 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 5 DPC highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 5 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 5 DPC count:                                      0
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 6 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.393154
CPU 6 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 6 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 6 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 6 DPC highest execution time (µs):                22.608471
CPU 6 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.007555
CPU 6 DPC count:                                      2328
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 7 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.391922
CPU 7 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 7 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 7 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 7 DPC highest execution time (µs):                11.122245
CPU 7 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000053
CPU 7 DPC count:                                      17
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 8 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.392791
CPU 8 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 8 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 8 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 8 DPC highest execution time (µs):                18.863292
CPU 8 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000322
CPU 8 DPC count:                                      82
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 9 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.392742
CPU 9 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 9 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 9 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 9 DPC highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 9 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 9 DPC count:                                      0
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 10 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.362744
CPU 10 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 10 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 10 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 10 DPC highest execution time (µs):                17.621212
CPU 10 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.000767
CPU 10 DPC count:                                      214
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CPU 11 Interrupt cycle time (s):                       0.378164
CPU 11 ISR highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 11 ISR total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 11 ISR count:                                      0
CPU 11 DPC highest execution time (µs):                0.0
CPU 11 DPC total execution time (s):                   0.0
CPU 11 DPC count:                                      0
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Just as a last test try reaper (is free) with the divas. Will take only a little while.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
HDSP9652+ADI-8AE  2X HDSP9632
Cubase pro10

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Yes, it came pre-installed, but as usual with all my systems, I am careful what is installed on it.
I absolutely removed all that was unnecessary, everything I could think of
I've disabled all possible useless drivers not used for audio.
Uninstalled my anti-virus and stopped windows defender from running.
I was as thorough as i can be.
Removed a lot of background services not needed.
Windows search indexer for example and more..

This is probably as far as I can go..

Although my latest test seems to have improved things a bit,
but again the advantage of the rme is not very obvious.

CPU could be throttling, but then again its also throttling for the maudio.

Reinstalling windows, will probably not help, as others have reported...
I've contacted Process Lasso team to maybe obtain specific tips...

I will now undervolt my cpu for less heat, but trying to make that the cpu tuning software does not interfere with audio processes...

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Ok I will try reaper when I have some time.
Next week I will have access to a macbook pro new version..
Will maybe try there.

But the problem is I have reached a point of diminishing returns !
to get slightly better performance im going to have to spend lots of hours tweaking.
And maybe get nothing in the end, no idea....

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

But lets say Reaper gives better results ?
It means Ableton is less optimized but where to I go from there ?

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

adrien852 wrote:

But lets say Reaper gives better results ?
It means Ableton is less optimized but where to I go from there ?

I think ableton runs nice on a mac so do try that.
If it is ableton that has issues with the ufx that is good to know, cause you can then let go of tweaking your laptop. If reaper runs more divas, it might also be more effective with the m-audio (again). Then the choice might indeed be windows vs mac.
But I feel your pain, I have had this stuff about 8 years ago and I am now just keeping my PCI based core2 quad because it runs so nice with cubase. Only a 8 core monster will really increase performance, but only if it works....

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
HDSP9652+ADI-8AE  2X HDSP9632
Cubase pro10

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

only if it works indeed, keyword IF ! lol

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Did the repear test
Same midi info
same DIva patches
same track count

As far as I can tell same load..
Ableton handles it better.
(only tried with the rme)
Anyway, that was a good test to do !

113 (edited by ramses 2019-12-21 15:54:23)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

What would be of interest whether the loss of audio is related to the additional high cpu load of the 5-6 VSTi.

What happens if you perform simple music playback of a flac file using foobar2000 or MusicBee using the RME ASIO driver.

If this would be possible now then I would come back to the point that freezing of VSTI tracks like in Cubase could reduce cpu load significantly.

If you say that on dell laptops it's typical that core 0 gets high load. Could it be the case that maybe some audio related processes get in trouble on that particular core?

Assumed your VSTi processes are shown in the process list as threads of Ableton then you could try with process lasso pro to assign the Ableton process (and by this also it's threads) to work ie on core 2-11 or even 2-13 (out of 0-15) . Maybe you can even identify the RME Driver and assign him a cpu core.

You need to look in process lasso pro to make this assignment permanent. Then whenever this process starts then this assignment takes place.

But don't oversubscribe. Leave at least 2 complete cpu's for the other stuff.

Maybe 0+1, 14+15 unassigned.
2-11 for Ableton
12+13 for rme driver

Then eventually on top a little higher process and i/o priority.

The use of another daw is simply to exclude that you see same behaviour or not to be able to exclude Ableton as root cause.
I would choose a demo version of cubase and try freezing of tracks because you will surely not play 6 synthies in parallel ...
I think it's a valid approach of doing this to lower cpu load.

And this then in combinto on with the other tuning tips and by lowering the amount of channels.

Still you didn't answer whether this is a new win 10 installation that you performed or preinstalled from factory which is usually crap based on my experience with other laptop's.  Even Lenovo preinstallations you cannot trust to put an example.

Does the UFX+ have already the latest firmware flashed ?

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

114 (edited by MetalHeadKeys 2019-12-21 18:37:52)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Hello, again, everyone!

In Reaper you can define how many cores can be used! There is an appropriate setting in the Preferences menu!
You can, also, freeze tracks by right-clicking on a track(or selected tracks) -> Freeze track to mono/stereo/multichannel

@Adrien
I noticed in your latest tests, that the hard pagefault values decreased with Core 0 inluded in the test!
Also, can you check if the Ufx is in CC mode? Here's a quote from the manual on how to do it:

The factory setting for the Interface Mode, Auto, makes sure that any connected   computer   connection   is   recognized   automatically. Thunderbolt,  USB  3,  USB  2  and  Class  Compliant  will  usually  work without  any  further  user  interaction.  In  case  of  problems  the  current interface mode can be set manually to a fixed one. This is done under SETUP/REV, Options, Hardware/Diagnosis, Interface Mode.

This is done in the unit's front panel.

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

You will, also, need to clean windows registry!
I use CCleaner for that. There is a free and a paid version. The free version is great!

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Sorry if I disagree to your well meant proposal.

Registry cleaner are regarded as evil as there are reports that they sometimes destroy more than they do any good.

New installation is the cleaner way and then to take care and work cleanly. If you want to back-out an installed program, restore ie from backup.

Much better approach compared to trust registry cleaners.

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

117 (edited by MetalHeadKeys 2019-12-22 03:39:32)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Hey, Ramses!

I don't mind you, disagreeing! smile

Yes, a clean install and careful installation of new things is the best way. I've only read good things about CCleaner, though, and from my experience, I have no horror stories to share!

I mainly use it on my laptop for cleaning internet cache, cookies, temp files etc, which I use for internet browsing.
I, also, use it on my desktop pc which is dedicated for audio(and some gaming smile ). On this pc, of course, I carefully install programs or plugins, but when I want to uninstall anything, I always use CCleaner afterwards to clean the registry. Of course, I observe every registry key that the program states that needs deleting, and I check if it's relevant to the program I uninstalled. So far, no harm done!
I 've, also, used it on many friends' pcs and laptops, for the same purposes and no horror stories from their side, either!
You can have a registry backup file, if needed, as well!

I know what you 're talking about, though, and I was very sceptical before using it, but I did, and it works great for me. I 'm talking only about CCleaner in particular!
The only reason I suggested it to Adrien, is for all these hours of tweaking, to not go wasted. And if he, finally, performs a clean install, he could run CCleaner as a last resort before that!

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

@Adrien

Another tweak I forgot mentioning, is to open Device Manager -> USB Host controllers, find Usb Hubs, right-click on every one of them(unless you know which one your Ufx is connected to) -> Power Management and uncheck the "Allow computer to turn off this device" option.

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

@all

yes i've tried all the proposed tweaks already, short of formatting.

"unchecked the "Allow computer to turn off this device" option"

"The factory setting for the Interface Mode, Auto, makes sure that any connected   computer   connection   is   recognized   automatically. Thunderbolt,  USB  3,  USB  2  and  Class  Compliant  will  usually  work without  any  further  user  interaction.  In  case  of  problems  the  current interface mode can be set manually to a fixed one. This is done under SETUP/REV, Options, Hardware/Diagnosis, Interface Mode."

I know ccleaner, I used it in the past. And those softwares including ccleaner are a bit controversial..
might do a single quick cleaning though, lets see.



@ramses

downloading now foobar2000.
But this is a comparison test. It means that if I am well under the limit of what the ' Dell/ufx+ OR maudio system '
can do, then both the ufx+ and Maudio will play it easily. 


mmmmh... Not sure if you absorb all of the information I post. sigh

Yes i will use more than 6 synths lol !
But current projects has well above 50 synths ! (mentioned that a few times)
More importantly, the point is NOT to freeze tracks to reduce cpu load, its a well-known method indeed, i agree.

The point is to test the limit of the ufc+/dell (mentioned already) vs maudio/dell.

The point is to optimize the setup I have, Maudio does not need to freeze tracks at all.

If the ufx+ needs tracks frozen then 2 only 2 possible reasons:

A: the Dell system is already quite optimized and 
unfortunately, bizarrely, disappointingly, the ufx+ handles less than the Maudio (FOR THAT SOFT SYNTHS TEST), for some reason. On the other, the sound quality should be better, and other obvious advantages for the rme. But it would still be strange, because i would believe that, everything the maudio can do the rme can do easily AND MORE.

B  : the Dell system is not optimized well enough, so
for the ufx+ to shine and be able to handle for example maybe 6 diva synths at very short rtl, the Dell has to be super fined tuned to the extreme.

Again:
The diva project file is my way of doing my personal little "benchmark" on my Dell.
The diva project test is really heavy - ON PURPOSE - (mentioned already) for the sake of testing and debugging only.

Also mentioned a few times is the fact that i've already configured core affinities with process lasso.
To no effect.

Including i/o, memory.

On that note, here is the reply from the bitsum guys:
"You should not set it to Below Normal or Idle. That snippet was trying to convey that, in your example, *other* apps which could interfere with Ableton should be lowered in priority class, rather than Ableton raised in priority class. ProBalance does this automatically.

While you could raise the priority class of Abelton to High or Real-Time, I would not expect it to improve performance or responsiveness.

In addition to process priority classes, each thread in a process has a priority. Ableton almost certainly sets its important threads to real-time (time-critical) priorities. Further raising the priority class of the entire process just won't achieve any additional effect.

I/O priorities and memory priorities aren't likely to matter either.

All this said, Windows PCs have a complex software and hardware environment, with a lot of variables to account for, so it isn't impossible some tweak that shouldn't matter, actually does.

In the end, I'd just leave Ableton alone, let ProBalance do its job, and limit the number of custom tweaks you make."

Drivers are up to date, everything has been flashed with the latest firmwares (mentioned a few times i believe).

About the windows installation: see previous post.

120 (edited by adrien852 2019-12-22 08:16:37)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Thanks to everyone here, and mostly thanks to ramses mentioning the c states, I've had 3 jumps in performance,
for every sound card.

There is probably the possibility to improve again, that is the big question I believe !

Formatting will not hurt anything, might help a bit, a lot, or not at all.
This is the last resort lol !
I've done reformatting when pulling my hair trying to optimize games a decade ago.
Sometimes is helps, sometimes not.
This was the time when the order of the driver installation could matter quite a lot !
Those are not my favorite memories of using computers !

Next week I will install ableton on my friend's Mac, although specs are lower than my Dell,
so I will need to adjust the Diva file, lets see.

For now I want to say, that the ufx+ is very usable !
The mystery is how much of the potential of the card am I accessing ?

Am I using it at 30 % ?
Am I using it at 60 % ?
Am I using it at 80 % ?
Am I using it at 99 % ?

If i'm at 70-80% of its potential I am happy !
I just have absolutely no idea.

For me, because the rme is such a high end product, an Mercedes  F1 car, my intuition tells me,
That absolutely ANY TEST we throw at it against an entry market product like the Maudio or Steinberg,
it should win with a SIGNIFICANT MARGIN.

But that intuition might be very wrong.


It seems that my Dell specs and the recent very successful series tuning, should be enough to say that the computer
is now good enough, so that Rme can run at 80% of its potential. No idea whatsoever.

But again , the card is very usable at the moment.

121 (edited by ramses 2019-12-22 14:51:27)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

The reason why I asked you to check, whether simple playback of a flac file at 32 samples ASIO buffersize works, is to see whether audio playback at that buffersize basically works.

To have a basement to say ok this works.

I think  that your Dell might be capable to exchange audio data with your UFX+ reliably up to a certain cpu load of the system (as too high DPC latency let the process time for other processes shrink. After a certain cpu load this is not guaranteed anymore with small buffersize's.

Your 5 synthesizer or your personal diva stress test does not work anymore with a 188 channel interface ON THIS Laptop. I would say good-bye to your old stress testing of an interface because this test generates too much cpu load that for 188 channels it's not possible any more to perform the i/o in time and especially not at smaller ASIO buffersizes.

It would make more sense now to look how to work with your UFX+ in the best possible way.

So pls do not try stress tests that won't bring you any further, use a real project.
In this project try to bring CPU load down to a level that your laptop is still able to exchange audio data in time.
This you can do by freezing tracks with VSTi''s and using a reasonable ASIO buffersize.

In some of my projects I could also not use asio buffersizes of 48 or 32 simply because the masterIng plugin generated too much load.
I had to use 512 samples buffersize.

Another reason for this was my workflow. For me as non commercially working hobbyist I saw no merit to make a clear cut between mixing and mastering.

So when doing mastering there were still all the VSTI running. But for me no problem because if you reached the mastering stage then RTL does not matter at all, there I do not record with VSTI anymore. So there I can also choose 512, 1024 without any issue's.

My advice to you is not to fight windmills by thinking you need to be able to run the same load tests with a 188 channel interface like before with a 4 channel interface.

The UFX+ has excellent RTL at any ASIO buffersizes. You need now to learn how to organizIng your projects in a way that it works reliably.

The recording interface is nothing which accelerates your computer in any way. It's not like a coprocessor card. It's only more efficient working compared to consumer cards and Windows drivers. Otherwise it's simply deman ding to your computer to perform i/o operations in time.

Baseball I would keep also the 32 channel setting as long as you do not need madi extensions.

Or you simply need another laptop or desktop which can deliver better.

If I am nor wrong there is a certain tendency that Dell is known to have issues with dpc.
And it's genearly hard to find good laptops for audio. Either use selected ones for audo or better desto.  But evendor with desktops there are pitfalls.

Otherwise good luck with new installation.
Make photos of which driver and programs are installed and try to leave out as much as possible from Dell add on tools / programs or also drivers as possible.

Sorry for problems in communication typing with smartphone is he'll in such a long thread with many tools output.

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

122 (edited by ramses 2019-12-22 10:19:05)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Other options

A) if you have still the possibility to return the UFX+ and if you do not need Madi or Thunderbolt to get the UFX II, this is an USB2 30ch in/out = 60ch interface.
Maybe the Dell can deliver better when using fewer channels an)d usb2.

UFX+ and UFX II are the same interfaces with same quality, the UFX+ has only the higher channel count because of MADI and thus USB3 and Thunderbolt.

RME USB2 driver are so well they manage up to 68ch in and out, but that is the maximum for USB2.

You see with UFX II and USB2 you would be fine with 30th in and USB2.

B) get a turnkey system for audio. Preferable desktop then you can scale better on cpu.

C) try good new installation of Win10 as suggested

D) change your workflow and use the UFX with appropriate asio buffersizes and for laptop manageable  cpu load

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

123 (edited by MetalHeadKeys 2019-12-22 14:20:25)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Or you could even get the Digiface USB and hook up your ADI 2 Pro Fs via optical SPDIF for monitoring purposes, if you don't need external preamps! I use it and it's great!

And please update us with the Mac Test!

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Will definitely do the Mac test and update next week.

Changing my workflow for this card ? I really don’t mind ! Maybe the madi are a bit overkill.. I like the midi and the other I/o...

But do I need to change the workflow because it has so many channels as you say, and the stress test is normal...

Or do you I change computer because it could do better. Ramses you proposed these options, but the cause is very different in the 2 cases.

By the way I’ve already contacted XI-machines 2 days ago, for that plan B, but no reply yet. I would have liked to know if they ship abroad. Maybe it’s the holidays or something.

Anyway. Lesson learned the hard way. And yes a laptop is not ideal I agree. If and when I upgrade to a dedicated machine, you can be sure I will do that test again, haha !
And the answer will be definitive !

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Oh and will update shortly about the flac test, yes it’s a good base.
Although I’ve already played back 1 audio sample on 1 track in ableton and at 32 it’s hard.. 64 was ok.

126 (edited by ramses 2019-12-22 18:57:43)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Freezing tracks is no big change in workflow. This might save you the efforts to get new laptop or new interface if Win10 reinstall doesn't bring a solution for you.

And as far as I remember you only talked about issue's with your probjects for stress tests.

I would be more interested to hear how things are going with normal workloads like stereo playback as I said and real projects of yours.

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

@Adrien

Another thing to try before a clean install!

Some years ago, a friend of mine who run a studio, could not have a usb stick identified on his pc. I researched for a few days and finally found that the problem was that windows had a limit of 100(I think) usb drivers.
The reason was that, by having a studio, he was constantly connecting/disconnecting usb sticks of various customers. And windows would install the same driver for as many different ports, he would connect each one to. This is how I fixed it:
https://www.maketecheasier.com/remove-o … s-windows/

Perhaps, there are old usb drivers in your laptop, creating conflicts. Well, that's the last thing I can think of, to be ruled out, since we covered everything!

128

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Highly unlikely. This is a fresh, very new Dell XPS 15 7590 (wrongly described in the first post as the older 9570). It is the same notebook I have and run very successfully, but I bought a lower CPU version (i7).

I am still not convinced that this notebook has gotten all the latest Dell updates, from Killer WiFi to BIOS. Dell is regularly issueing important updates for it.

I can confirm that disabling C states is one of the most effective low latency optimizations, but disabling SpeedStep and SpeedShift goes into the wrong direction and should not be necessary.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

@ Ramses !
No ! Again no !
I mentioned my current project file (song) a few times as well. This is not purely academic.
And freezing tracks can make a difference in workflow, as it really depends on the person’s initial workflow...

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

MC wrote:

Highly unlikely. This is a fresh, very new Dell XPS 15 7590 (wrongly described in the first post as the older 9570). It is the same notebook I have and run very successfully, but I bought a lower CPU version (i7).

I am still not convinced that this notebook has gotten all the latest Dell updates, from Killer WiFi to BIOS. Dell is regularly issueing important updates for it.

I can confirm that disabling C states is one of the most effective low latency optimizations, but disabling SpeedStep and SpeedShift goes into the wrong direction and should not be necessary.

No, it is a 9570... (Sometimes the expert community may have a tendency to be biased towards end users with issues thinking they probably are confused, and rightfully so, at times...).

Here’s more details:
Dell XPS 15 Core i9 9570, 8950hk, GTX 1050ti, 4K touchscreen, ports:

usb 3.1 gen 1 5GBPS x2
Thunderbolt 3 up to 40gbps
(usb 3.1 gen 2 type C 10gbps)


Ok I will undo the unnecessary bios tweaks. (Speedstep, speedshift) Wasn’t quite sure about those indeed.


Also, this:

“ Well, the “tweak” was a workaround from RME. They really know their stuff, but the fact that it was only a temporary solution wasn't communicated like the tweak itself.”

That’s from a guy from XI machines on gs:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c … nce-2.html

The tweak he is referring to is the “background process” priority tweak.

Which seems to actually slow down (albeit marginally) systems.
This was, according to the reference, a very old tweak necessary for rme a while ago.

The Xi machine poster, mentioned that he tested this on 3 systems and say a drop in performance around 5%, when doing down to low lantencies.


Will do the basic flac test soon.

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Metalhead, ok, will check the usb tweak

132 (edited by adrien852 2019-12-23 08:47:24)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Please check :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1chXnd … cbk7Y2Tekk

@MC
Updated performance:
Re-enabled speedstep and speedshift..
And yes indeed, it was going to other way.

Made another pretty good performance jump !
With the Diva 6 test, 256 is now ok, as is 128 ! I am now at 55 and 60 % cpu load respectively:
compared to previously, up to 99+ %. (check hte linked pic, day 3 table).

64 has audio issues, but much less than before.
32 is a crackling fest.

All this is very cool nonetheless.

Will try to do basic tests at 64 and 32 with lighter loads.

Just a reminder: Process Lasso is always on.

133

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

adrien852 wrote:

No, it is a 9570...

Here’s more details:
Dell XPS 15 Core i9 9570, 8950hk, GTX 1050ti, 4K touchscreen, ports:.

Thanks for the clarification. While we use the same chipset, CPU and graphics cards are different. As is the BIOS etc. Indeed the 9570 has a bad reputation when it comes to DPC and audio, moreso under heavy load as it tends to clock down the CPU early.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

How about TurboBoost in the bios, on or off ?

135 (edited by ramses 2019-12-23 14:03:54)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

adrien852 wrote:

“ Well, the “tweak” was a workaround from RME. They really know their stuff, but the fact that it was only a temporary solution wasn't communicated like the tweak itself.”

That’s from a guy from XI machines on gs:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-c … nce-2.html

The tweak he is referring to is the “background process” priority tweak.

Which seems to actually slow down (albeit marginally) systems.
This was, according to the reference, a very old tweak necessary for rme a while ago.

The Xi machine poster, mentioned that he tested this on 3 systems and say a drop in performance around 5%, when doing down to low lantencies.

I gave you this recommendation already very early in this thread: https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 91#p148391

I did some research on this topic last recently. This is my summary what it does: https://www.tonstudio-forum.de/blog/ind … es-or-not/
"background process” priority tweak is a complete misnomer for this setting.

The source of information that I found on this topic came to other conclusions than the forum colleague from Xi on gearsluts who claims it reduces performance: http://recoverymonkey.org/2007/08/17/pr … unixlinux/

But anyway, what we want to achive with this change is not primarily "higher performance" we want to achieve stability for audio that the CPU can work more efficiently on processes and threads and does not have too many process overhead by switching the context too early and thus too often. I can not really think of that performance should be affected in a negative way by a CPU which can work more effiently with less context switch overhead.

"The longer, fixed quantum of Windows Server means less system resources are wasted on context switching and all processes have the same quantum. With such a scheme, more overall system throughput can be realized, and it is more of a "fair scheduler" for all processes. It also explains the higher benchmark numbers when the scheduler is run in "background services" mode. It's obviously best for systems that run a few intensive processes that can benefit from the longer quantum (and believe it or not, games and pro-audio applications run better that way)."

This is BTW not a RME specific workaround, this is a general audio tuning recommendation which exists since a very long time (> 15 years). Nearly every tuning guide lists it.

My answer to this topic on gearsluts thread: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpos … tcount=126

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

136

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

adrien852 wrote:

How about TurboBoost in the bios, on or off ?

On. You could also experiment with disabling the nVidia card altogether.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

137 (edited by ramses 2019-12-23 14:45:52)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

I like MC's idea to really check whether the Laptop has latest DELL BIOS deployed and to check whether the latest drivers are deployed (where the latest is not always the greatest).

After thinking a while about this thread .. I hope of course, that the sum of all proposed tuning measures finally
will lead to satisfactory results.

But I have a certain feeling that Adrian did not plan his system careful enough for his special requirements,
that the system needs to work without audio loss under
a) low ASIO buffer sizes and
b) when using his personal "stress test project"
and considering that a 188 channel recording interface is more demanding for a system.

The real big problem here appears to me is, that the DELL laptop is not the best choice for these requirements.
Its maybe also a bad understanding of Adrian, that a RME recording interface can compensate a bad HW choice fully.
And especially tricky because the UFX+ has so many channels which creates higher audio bandwidth / processing demands.

I think in a good case of luck he gets it going up to a certain point, but I fear comprimises are to be made, like
freezing of tracks or to choose wisely which ASIO buffersize to use depending on the CPU load of the project,
number of VSTi/VST, whether they are esp CPU consuming, etc.

The drivers of the DELL might take too much CPU time, there is not so much left to process audio processes in time
and especially not for a higher number of channels (defenitively more than 4, either 64 or 188).

Good luck with the further new setup of the system and to check for latest BIOS, maybe better driver or maybe also involving DELL. I hope for you that the tests with Apple or another Windows system are more positive for you.

But as you can see now, how many work bady chosen HW can cause, you understand maybe better,
why where are still companies on the market who can survive on the market by selling turnkey systems.

Its simply a very time consuming work that also requires a lot of experience in the area of system tuning and it needs background knowledge on how computers work. This is not so easy if you operate a system from end user perspective.

Much easier would have been for your type of requirements to talk to such a company, define your requirements, let them review whether this is possible or not (maybe by sending such a test project), etc ... I think this will be more fruitful, less frustrating and not so time consuming at all.

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

adrien852 wrote:

Please check :
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1chXnd … cbk7Y2Tekk

@MC
Updated performance:
Re-enabled speedstep and speedshift..
And yes indeed, it was going to other way.

Made another pretty good performance jump !
With the Diva 6 test, 256 is now ok, as is 128 ! I am now at 55 and 60 % cpu load respectively:
compared to previously, up to 99+ %. (check hte linked pic, day 3 table).

64 has audio issues, but much less than before.
32 is a crackling fest.

All this is very cool nonetheless.

Will try to do basic tests at 64 and 32 with lighter loads.

Just a reminder: Process Lasso is always on.

These figures are more like it!! Glad, at least, you can enjoy your card now!

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Congrats!

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Thanks!

@Metalhead, yes just in time for Christmas lol...

“ But I have a certain feeling that AdriEn did not plan his system careful enough for his special requirements “

True, it was an all purpose + simulation laptop I already bought before deciding to go deeper into music production. And as you very correctly mentioned in the very first post, I already had underlying - hidden - issues that were not much of a concern for the Maudio and the workflow I had at the time. Until I got the ufx+.
Lesson learned !

I will eventually get a computer to match more seriously the ufx, but for now I think the Dell is really working at a satisfactory enough level, so that I can get back and focus on the music.

(If the thread stays open long enough, I’ll post the test with the dedicated computer, just for the fun of it).

Thanks to everyone, and have nice holidays.

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

ramses wrote:

...
I am pretty sure that process lasso pro would be additionally beneficial for you. If you have 6c/12t then you could try to dedicate 3c/6t or even 4c/8t to the DAW process. Run Process Lasso Pro as service so that it can control all processes and threads of the system.
....

Ramses, do you mean the daw should not use certain cores? Or do you mean some cores should only be used by the daw? I'm not sure how to do that with process lasso. I have attached a screenshot how I've set process lasso.
https://1drv.ms/u/s!AsNedAPvuG2thH0YBaU … 0?e=d9DLDb

(Schenker W507: i7-6700 CPU @ 3.4 GHz, Windows 10; RME fireface 800; Behringer ADA8200; Line6 Helix)

142 (edited by ramses 2020-07-04 19:01:09)

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

PL can be used to permanently assign a process to certain cpus. Then other processes then do not utilize this CPU.
It can help in certain situations, but you should know what to do and should know how your DAW works.
By this I think that a few context switches can be avoided so that the selected CPU cores and Hyperthreads can maybe work more efficient on the DAW part of workload incl VST/VSTi.

I used it i.e. to be able to be able to fully utilize my new nVidia graphic card (GTX 2070 Super) with a 5y old CPU Xeon E5-1650v3. I nailed the game to 4 of the 6 CPUs (incl. hyperthreads), then it was possible to get the GPU to 100% load so that its potential got fully utilized in some situations when needed.

I think that similar benefits are possible in the DAW area. But there I had up to now no demand as everything is working fine here with my DAW workload and the very good RME drivers for the UFX+.

EDIT: on the other hand I think that drivers are still distributed across CPU cores so it might be the case that PL does might not bring a change. As I mentioned I am using PL for other things to e.g. be able to utilize the GPU more for games.

As (MC?) already mentioned, Process Lasso might be overkill in this scenario. Optimizing BIOS, Drivers, certain Windows settings is the key here ...

BR
Ramses
X10SRi-F, E5-1650v4, Win10 Pro 2004, Cubase 10.5.20, UFX+, XTC, ADI-2 Pro FS R BE, ARC USB

Re: UFX+ vs MAUDIO2x2m and total despair !

Interesting thread , I have had some issues of a similar nature in my case my m-audio fw 410 measured round trip latency using a mic and a prerecorded click track and to my surprise the RME ufx has no real latency advantage .

The point is that if all u need is a 2 channels then the ufx may be overkill .
I just wanted the best at the time .

As your needs change its far better to have the ferrari, just dont expect it to go faster than the ford on a straight road with one person on board.

One problem in my case is that the UFX is not reporting to reaper at all and i don't know why .
If there is an answer here I would like to know it.
The m-audio fw 410  is reporting but its a few hundred samples out and there is setting in reaper to add the off set.

Also if it helps anyone else i was using spdif out ,into a yammaha amplifier and the yamaha spdif was causing a 2000 sample delay that made life very difficult . I blamed the interface at first ,then the daw , then the computer, but it took a while to realize that my strategy to stay digital (optical) was a sad step backwards .even the rme sends it out later (though not significantly) ,the monitoring amp was hopelessly slow ...
switching to analogue solved the issues.

Fun and games for sure !