Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 8:24 AM -0700 3/14/05, Kris Hartung wrote: > >I have a friend who bought a notebook, but decided to cut corners on >the processor....I noticed a huge difference in latency and performance >with ProTools. We both had notebooks with similar RAM, XP, and hard >drive configurations. The only difference was our processors. It was >very interesting. On ProTools in the Playback Engine settings, I can run >my hardware buffer size at 256 samples with no latency. He had to run >his at 128, but then when he started to record it would crash ProTools >once in a while....lower buffer size, less latency, but more risk of the >crash. I found that 256 yielded no latency and no crashes for me, >unless I'm playing back a lot of tracks and mixing down...then I bump my >bufffer up to 512 where latency is not an issue because I'm not >recording. This seems odd to me. While I am a Mac guy (love my PB 1.5 Ghz!), I don't think this would be different on PC. From what I understand, hardware buffer settings introduce various amounts of latency independent of anything else. If I set a buffer size of 256, that means that there will be a latency of 256 samples. I started using Protools LE a while back on various processors and every one of them has given me (admittedly not scientifically tested) the same amount of latency for each setting. Is there any chance that you had the Low Latency Monitoring option turned on? If this operates in a different fashion, I'd really like to know, because whenever I select a buffer size over 128, the latency becomes very noticeable. It would be very interesting to me to know that if I just got a fast enough processor, I could set the buffer as large as I wanted without introducing latency! All the best, Edwin -- Edwin Hurwitz Boulder CO http://www.indra.com/~edwin http://www.cafemontalban.com Location Recording Services