• Registered: 2013-01-28
  • Posts: 4

Topic: And about buffer size again.

Hello RME Community,

I’m exploring my new UFX usb device. The impression is mostly positive. Just wondering if there’s any material reason to limit the buffer size to 2048 samples at 48 kHz. So far the only explanation I’ve seen on the forum is that a larger buffer size doesn’t make sense. Not very convincing. It makes sense for me. My older Cubase projects work fine with E-mu 0404 usb but with UFX they seem to suffer from clicks and dropouts. Yes, there’s plenty of vst’s and fx there, but I used to manage fine increasing latency in E-mu asio driver. As for UFX, I just press against 2048 samples and it’s not enough.

My system is not that bad:
HP Pavillion dv7 4050er:
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Service Pack 1
QuadCore Intel Core i7-720QM, 1733 MHz (13 x 133)
8128 Mb  (DDR3-1333 DDR3 SDRAM)
2x Hitachi HTS725032A9A364  (320 Gb, 7200 RPM, SATA-II)
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 (1024 Mb GDDR3)
Atheros AR9285 802.11b/g/n WiFi Adapter
Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller
IDT 92HD81B1X @ Intel Ibex Peak PCH - High Definition Audio Controller [B-2]
Chipset:  Intel Ibex Peak-M HM55, Intel Lynnfield
Bios: Insyde EFI (F.29)
Cubase 5.5

Tried disabling pretty much everything: ACPI Battery, validity sensor, webcam, onboard soundcard, wifi adapter, net card. UFX is the only device on the usb bus.
DPC Latency Checker says my machine is fine.

Firmware: USB 352, DSP 151, FireWire 341
Driver: 1.0.28.0

So should I just hang myself for spending 2.5k$ on a device that has more limitations than a device for 150$?.. Or I can hope for the improvements in future firmware updates? It’s not just my problem, you know, you keep getting this question.

Sincerely,
Ivan

2 Reply by MC

  • MC
  • MC
  • Administrator
  • Offline
  • From: Germany/Thailand
  • Registered: 2007-04-06
  • Posts: 24,877

Re: And about buffer size again.

Not really. Most users understood that buffers bigger than a certain threshold do not solve the problem, it just delays them a bit - if they're lucky.

A comparison to the emu is not valid as the UFX has many more channels, so its system basic load is higher. That said 2048 is a hardware limitation and can not be changed.

Regards
Matthias Carstens
RME

MC's Website

  • Registered: 2013-01-28
  • Posts: 4

Re: And about buffer size again.

Thanks, Matthias. I guess I’ll have to ease off the cpu load and probably look into getting a more efficient pc.

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,660

Re: And about buffer size again.

In my experience my RME drivers are 30% more efficient then my old emu ones and there is no noticable improvement going higher then 1024 with RME. So the question is, what is causing the crackles. Did you do any system tweaking. First thing to try is disabling your wifi adapter and maybe even the network adapter.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • Registered: 2013-01-28
  • Posts: 4

Re: And about buffer size again.

Yep. I tried to disable pretty much everything that is not essential for the laptop to work. See the original post. I tried every usb slot as well.

I noticed the rme drivers' superiority on lower latencies too. But let’s say I have a project that works fine with e-mu at 200ms latency. Considering the 30% advantage of rme drivers I need them to work at 140ms latency, but all that they give is 47ms. But if you say there’s no real improvement after 1024 samples maybe the latency is not the point. Maybe it’s all that my bus is capable of, or cpu.

  • Registered: 2011-05-03
  • Posts: 94

Re: And about buffer size again.

What DAW are you using? Have you checked the internal plugin delay compensation figures and checked on that?

In Reaper, it shows you the CPU load of various plugins and the delay in samples. 

Also see how your CPU load is when your DAW is idle after playing then pausing the song.  I have had some instances where Kontakt and other plugins eat CPU which caused me similar issues at times, although this may not be completely related.

On my i7 2600k @ 4ghz I work comfortably at 128 and sometimes, 256, even with many instances of Kontakt, Omnisphere etc;

Also, if you have big projects and aren't doing so already, try save on CPU by creating FX buses so you can share reverb FX and so on.

  • vinark
  • DAW Mastermind
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2009-06-05
  • Posts: 2,660

Re: And about buffer size again.

You could try to use the asio direct x driver (I have checked in cubase 6.5) and I stopped testing with a 16348 buffer (about 400ms). I have no idea if it will help but it is worth a try.

Vincent, Amsterdam
https://soundcloud.com/thesecretworld
BFpro fs, 2X HDSP9652 ADI-8AE, 2X HDSP9632
  • Registered: 2013-01-28
  • Posts: 4

Re: And about buffer size again.

Hi everyone,

It seems that Automap was a part of the problem. It’s an official software that wraps itself around vst’s to make them easier to control with Novation SL MkII midi keyboard. After stripping down all the effects of it and killing the process I can finally work without crackle. I don’t need the keyboard at the mixing stage anyway. I still push the buffer to the limit but it gets the job done.

Still doesn’t feel right that the asio buffer is full at cpu load at only 50%. So I started evaluating a trial version of Reaper to see if it uses my system more effectively than Cubase. The Performance Meter is a gem!

Thank you all for your tips, I really appreciate your help.

  • Registered: 2008-01-01
  • Posts: 3,025

Re: And about buffer size again.

Does it happen just because of the wrapper or does it only happen when the SL is connected?

10 Reply by PGW

  • PGW
  • New member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-08-17
  • Posts: 4

Re: And about buffer size again.

A) Is the laptop´s energy plan set to balanced?
Should be set to performance for DAW-use.

B) Are all other relevant drivers updated?  (chipset, graphics, USB etc.)

C) All Win-versions have a bunch of services & stuff autostarting which are totally unnecessary for a DAW, I used this guide to tweak the Core 2 Duo laptop & ran 30+ tracks (with FX) without problems in Sonar X1 Pro (ASIO, 512 & 44100, for smaller projects smaller buffer was ok) : http://www.tweakhound.com/windows7/tweaking/index.html
Stay away from the "Disable 8.3 names ..." though, it is known to cause problem with VST´s.
As always when tweaking - does the tweak make sense to you(?) & don´t do all @ once.

I use a FF400, but a CPU-load of 50% definitely not seem right whatever soundcard you use.

PGW's Website