Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good

Author
methodman3000
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 133
  • Joined: 2007/12/02 17:24:57
  • Status: offline
2008/01/06 23:58:22 (permalink)

Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good

My buffers have to be set to 512 to play the song on the dvd disk. Is that good. Anything less I get drop outs?
I am using the built in motherboard realtek ac97 Is that fast?

Tomorrow I will install the m-audio 1010LT, and set that up. Is that a good recording card?
#1

5 Replies Related Threads

    bmdaustin
    Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1114
    • Joined: 2004/01/11 21:56:51
    • Status: offline
    RE: Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good 2008/01/07 00:36:03 (permalink)
    My opinion is that if it works, it's good There are much better/sophisticated/audiophile interfaces than the 1010LT on the market, but at commensurately higher prices. My experience is that you pretty much get what you pay for. Again, after installation, if you're happy with the sounds and performance you're getting, then life is good. It doesn't matter what everyone else has. The 1010LT has been a very popular interface for a long time and it is well established in the marketplace. If at some point in the future your ears tell you that you need something better, then it will be time to start looking around again, but don't get caught up in the hype.

    Paul Baker
    Baker's Jazz And More
    http://www.bakersjazzandmore.com
    #2
    Bassmanx
    Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 532
    • Joined: 2004/10/22 12:30:39
    • Location: Red Lake Falls, Minnesota
    • Status: offline
    RE: Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good 2008/01/07 00:36:40 (permalink)
    Install the 1010LT and then see what happens. You'll want to disable the AC97 so you can record 24bit.

    Sonar Platinum
    Windows 10x64  

    Zoom R-16
    M-Audio Oxygen 8
    BCR2000 
    AMD A8 Quad-core 3.7ghz, 8gb ram
    1.0TB``     
    1.0TB
    #3
    CJaysMusic
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 30423
    • Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
    • Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
    • Status: offline
    RE: Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good 2008/01/07 02:08:27 (permalink)
    My buffers have to be set to 512 to play the song on the dvd disk. Is that good. Anything less I get drop outs?
    I am using the built in motherboard realtek ac97 Is that fast?

    Tomorrow I will install the m-audio 1010LT, and set that up. Is that a good recording card?

    Good move. The buffer your talking about is the i/O buffer in the options/audio/advanced menu, right? A rule of thumb is when you start a project, you need to have the lowest settings to get the best performance and latency from sonar. So to start out with 64 and then when you see your disk meter (not the CPU meter) peaking, then raise it to 128, then to 256, then to 512. The I/O buffer relates to your disk and your latency relates to your CPU
    Cj

    www.audio-mastering-mixing.com - A Professional Worldwide Audio Mixing & Mastering Studio, Providing Online And Attended Sessions. We also do TV commercials, Radio spots & spoken word books
    Audio Blog
    #4
    bitflipper
    01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
    • Total Posts : 26036
    • Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
    • Location: Everett, WA USA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good 2008/01/07 11:07:16 (permalink)
    My buffers have to be set to 512 to play the song on the dvd disk. Is that good. Anything less I get drop outs?
    I am using the built in motherboard realtek ac97 Is that fast?

    Tomorrow I will install the m-audio 1010LT, and set that up. Is that a good recording card?


    Whatever buffer size works is the right size. There is no downside to raising latency during playback other than a very slight pause between hitting the spacebar and hearing sound come out.

    Small buffers are only necessary if you're using soft synths or monitoring software-based effects during recording. When that's necessary, you can bypass effects and freeze tracks during playback in order to free up CPU cycles while tracking. Once you've recorded the tracks and are ready to start mixing, bump the buffer size back up. If you're just recording live audio (vox, bass, drums, guitar, hardware synths) you can monitor directly off the interface and keep the large buffers all the time.

    The 1010LT may not be a high-end unit, but it should work just fine for you and is definitely superior to the Realtek interface. After installing the M-Audio, be sure to disable the Realtek. Having two audio devices can cause conflicts.

    Whether or not the 1010LT will allow you to lower buffer sizes, I don't know. Don't be surprised if it makes no difference, since the interface itself does not have much impact on latency. The efficiency of its driver does, though, which is why some cards to better than others. Mostly, though it's about the sample rate and how much CPU horsepower you have and what kind of demands your song places on the CPU (e.g. reverb and linear-phase equalizers are CPU-intensive effects).


    All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. 

    My Stuff
    #5
    Desperate Dan
    Max Output Level: -59.5 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 1554
    • Joined: 2003/11/08 12:56:17
    • Location: Lysithea
    • Status: offline
    RE: Cakewalk buffer size is 512 good 2008/01/07 11:18:09 (permalink)
    My buffers have to be set to 512 to play the song on the dvd disk. Is that good. Anything less I get drop outs?
    I am using the built in motherboard realtek ac97 Is that fast?


    I Know this sounds like a dumb question but are you reading directly from the DVD or did you copy it to your Hard drive first?? Just a thought

    Windows 7 Professional  64 bit - Intel Q-9550 2.83 CPU, 8Gb DDR800, Gigabyte EP35-DS3R, M-Audio Delta 44, Yamaha HS-80M Monitors, UAD-1 Ultra Pack

    I'm reading a book about anti-gravity at the moment and I just can't put it down
    #6
    Jump to:
    © 2025 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1