This can't be right . . .

I just threw down big cash on a new system to run Sonar PE 8. Two years ago I spent an ass load of $$$ on a bunch of IK plugins. One of them being Amplitube. For two years I fought to get Amplitube to run without latency. Even though my last machine is still considered strong, I just couldn't get it to where it was anywhere near usable. That IK disk is now used as a beer coaster.

Ok, now I have a new machine and with my new PE 8 came Guitar Rig LE. I have all the current drivers for my MOTU ULTRALITE. Set it up and again...the same ****ing issue. So, again I break out my Sonar Power book and start reading. Mind you that dyslexia makes reading tech manuals a blast. Scott tells you to go to the buffer size slider in the Audio option box and adjust it. Just like when I was running PE 7, my slider is grayed out and I can't move it. I'm using the ASIO drivers. What am I missing? Also in his book, Scott says that the default 500 ms playback buffer should be good to go in most cases. Why am I having such issues when both of my computers are MUCH stronger than other users I see here. They don't seem to be complaining about latency.

Help....

ORIGINAL: thomasabarnes

You don't adjust the latency setting with the slider, if you're in ASIO driver mode, the slider is used when in WDM driver mode..

To adjust the hardware buffer size in ASIO driver mode, go to Options> Audio General tab and click the ASIO Panel button under the Mixing Latency section. This should bring up the MOTU Audio Console where you can change the Samples Per Buffer setting.

Thomas, here is what I see when I did what you said to do. I don't get a "mixing Latency Section" nor does it bring up the MOTU audio console.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2mmhbgk.jpg

The pic you gave a link to is the MOTU Audio Console.

You change the latency setting where it says Samples Per Buffer. Click on the drop down menu and you'll see the settings you can choose from. Start by selecting the 128 setting. Then, try recording and playing back in SONAR.

Generally, when recording MIDI and audio (and playing softsynths), you want a low setting (64-128). When Mixing, you want a higher setting (somewhere between 512-1024)

If you have pops and clicks when playing back or recording, you want to choose a higher setting. These pops and crackles start to occur when you start to increase the amount of softsynths, effects and tracks in a project, but to get on time MIDI performances, it wont hurt to stand for a few pops and crackles during recording. However, if you want as few pops and crackles as possible, freeze softsynths before you record to another track. You can always unfreeze to continue editing a track that you have frozen.

For what you're talking about it is mostly CPU which dictates your smallest possible latency.

But the rig you are currently using should be able to drive Guitar Rig or Amplitube at much lower latency than the 1024 samples you are currently using. Turn it down and rock on.

Q.

ORIGINAL: jerjabs

Does a fast CPU and RAM make all the difference in latency issues?

No, but with a good PC configuration (the right hardware parts, not of which incompatible parts have caused problems for users, so some have gone to DAW builders to get a good system that works as a DAW), a good Audio Interface and drivers, and SONAR 8.3.1, you have the potential for serious music production!

On another note, are you following the other threads you have started?

I perceive you're new to PC based music production. There are various learning curves you'll encounter. It requires some "know-how" about PC hardware, configuring windows (OS), and the willingness to learn your DAW software, and audio interface for starters.

We are here to help as we see it is reasonable or when we're in the mood, yet it is nice and encouraging when a user who has started a thread for help let's us know when a problem is resolved or not, or when the thread starter makes a comment that brings some closure to a thread.

So, I would say, why don't you visit other threads you started and let us know where you stand with that particular topic, if you haven't already.

Cya around.

I doubt that it's Amplitube. I have a MOTU audio interface, and Amplitube is working with no problems in SONAR 8.3.1 on my system.

MOTU does not have the worse drivers! Recent developments in driver releases that have transpired (because of MOTU's responsibility to make the drivers compatible with the new mk3 products) resulted in some mistakes, such as ASIO output routing being offset, but that doesn't mean MOTU has the worst drivers.

It's a fact that I'm using MOTU drivers, yet Amplitube is working for me. It's nonsense for you to assert that MOTU has the worst drivers and insinuate this assertion is the reason Amplitube is not working for the OP!

You can go sell that crazy talk somewhere else! The source of the problem lies somewhere else, but as I said, I doubt it's the fault of Amplitube or the drivers.

ORIGINAL: jerjabs

Thanks for all the help! I lowered my setting to 512 and it seemed stable. I was able to record parts with little or NO latency. The real question will come when I start stacking alot of tracks together. Usually my nsongs run in the 40-45 tracks zone.

I get from this thread that it's pretty normal to experience significant latency on a "mature" project with a lot of tracks and audio processing. That's certainly what happens to me when recording MIDI - while on new projects I get pretty much no latency.

I don't profess to totally understanding this latency deal, but what I have been doing lately, with some success, is to create a copy of my project that is expressly for recording MIDI. I strip all unnecessary effects out and cut the tracks down to the essentials for giving me the tempo and feel of the project. This has enabled me to finally record good on-tempo MIDI inside Sonar. Once the MIDI is recorded, I freeze it, open up the original project along with the cutback MIDI version, and drag the audio track over into the original project.

This has been working fine, and as hassles go it's not a huge one - but I just ordered BFD 2 which I expect to record with multiple audio outs to multiple tracks, so the hassle is going to multiply by a factor of several when that happens. Is there any better way to do this?

Hi jerjabs:

A samples per buffer setting 512 is still high. Maybe your system needs to be tweaked. My system is just a AMD Athlon 4600+, 8GB DDR2 800 MHz RAM, Vista 64, three 7200rpm drives, and a MOTU UltraLite, and Delta 1010LT. I can run projects usng a 128 hardware buffer setting at the start of my projects, then I have to freeze softsynths, and record them one at a time when I get to about 4 softsynths and FX on several other tracks and busses, to still record at the 128 setting at a minimun of pops and crackles.

With a new system you should be able to do even better (though you didn't give the complete specs of your system. I'm thinking new as in a quadcore CPU).

Here's a link with some DAW related articles and PC optimization guides you may find helpful: http://www.audioforums.com/resource_center.php

Some of your performance issues may be because of an untweaked system and/or selection of hardware parts for your PC.

If I were you, I'd try tweaking my PC, and if that fails, I would contact DAW builders like Scott Reams or a representative of ADK Pro Audio: http://www.adkproaudio.com/

Or Jim Roseberry of Studiocat: http://www.studiocat.com/

Thanks, Tom, that's helpful.

First, unless somebody else jumps up and tells me I should have zero latency on a project with lots of tracks and lots of plug-ins, I'm going to just stop worrying about latency, which has been gnawing at me ever since I started using Sonar in early March. I have a workaround that gets the job done, and that's all I can really ask.

Whew! It's Millah time!

Next, I'll think about that archiving/staying inside the project idea and work out some kind of process that works for me.

Thanks again.

alkie:

Just realized, after I made my post, it was you who posted in the Tutorial thread about the tutorial videos, so I'll try to be more tollerant of you, as you do try to help others here, and you're not just communicating bitter remarks because of a bitter experience.

I figured you had an experience with MOTU that has you angry.

I don't see that MOTU has the worst drivers because of your experience, as I keep telling you the drivers I use work well for me.

My view is this: I have to direct you to what I think is the key word in this experience which is "configuration."

Of course I don't have the same system as the OP, yet I rule out the notion that MOTU has the worst drivers because I have MOTU drivers that work impressively well for my MOTU unit. And this again emphasiezes that the likely problem is with a computer configuration, because if a particular driver release is bad, more users would be having the same problem with that release, IMO.

One can't always be certain that the components of a system will work great together, so it's becomimg more and more popular to research what hardware works good together. I researched the MOTU unit I have before I bought it, and though that's not to say the reason it is compatible with my system, it did let me know this unit is working impressively for a good number of people. And would, more likely work well for me. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case for you. Sorry for your problems/bitter experiences with a MOTU product, but my view is that it doesn't imply that MOTU has the worst drivers, it more so points to a PC configuration that makes MOTU not a good choice for some PC configurations.

As I think about it more, the term more appropriate for what I really mean is probably not PC configuration, but PC "composition."

OK OK OK.... i take it back...... they`re not the worst drivers, my real point is most problems end up being compatability issues with drivers.

I pray none of you ever go through what i went through with MOTU techlinks.

Man, don't get me wrong. I'm not pleased that you had a bad experience with MOTU. It's just that the conclusion you came to (which is that MOTU has the worst drivers) is far fetched.

"I rule out the notion that MOTU has the worst drivers because I have MOTU drivers that work impressively well for my MOTU unit."

Have you visited the MOTU forums?

There are lots of complaints about drivers... there is not a big enough issue that MOTU will be doing bug fixes as it isn't a problem with the drivers not working correctly.. it is interfering with other drivers and that is not their problem.

Ancient thread alert. This thing is a year old.

But looking back, it appears to me that in addition to the high buffer setting (1024 samples is most certainly an issue for input monitoring), the magic words "Plug-in Delay Compensation" should have come up.