small buffer = no clicks; large buffer - clicks?

Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
mcdonalk
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 547
  • Joined: 2004/04/05 19:04:22
  • Status: offline
2011/07/09 01:42:14 (permalink)

small buffer = no clicks; large buffer - clicks?

I have just migrated from an old XP 32-bit machine to a new W7 64-bit machine. I have loaded Sonar 8.5 64-bit, and am running 64-bit versions of Dim Pro and Rapture as well. In addition, I have other 32-bit SW synthesizers, which I am running both standalone and within Sonar using jbridge. (I was running Sonar 32-bit on the previous machine.) Sound card is a Lynx L22 with Aurora 8 connected via Lstream.

When operating the SW synthesizers standalone (Rapture, Korg KDLE, etc), I have to reduce the ASIO buffer to 64 (~1.5ms latency) so that the audio won't break up. If I increase the size to 128 or 256, there are clicks, and sometimes, long periods (e.g. seconds) of distortion.

Isn't this the opposite of expected behavior? I would think that a larger buffer size would result in freedom from clicks, etc.

Similarly, when running the synthesizers under Sonar, I have to increase the ASIO buffer to 128 to avoid clicks. This seems more pronounced with Rapture. Therefore, I need to change the ASIO buffer depth depending on whether I am running the synthesizers standalone or within the Sonar host (Standalone = 64, Sonar = 128).

Any idea what is going on here, and is it possible to find one ASIO buffer setting that works for standalone operation, and within a host?

thanks

Keith
#1

1 Reply Related Threads
    Jonbouy
    Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
    • Total Posts : 22562
    • Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
    • Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
    • Status: offline
    Re:small buffer = no clicks; large buffer - clicks? 2011/07/09 06:01:40 (permalink)
    Having gone through a recent hardware upgrade I'm finding similar scenario's.

    I'm presuming on the stand-alone issue is the processor is dealing with the throughput quicker than the machine can fill a disk buffer hence as well as clicks and pops at higher buffer sizes, there is lower latency operation which I'm finding as a welcome thing.

    Different stand-alones likely display different behaviour as the audio engine implementations differ between manufacturers.

    For me it is most important to get Sonar behaving as sweetly as possible which I have done, I then treat standalones on a case by case basis when required.

    Another way of levelling the field somewhat when using standalones is to use the same host to standardize how you run the VST(i)'s, i.e. something like Savihost, rather than a plethora of different manufacturers diverse standalone implementations.

    Certainly I'm not complaining as although I find I'm still having to tweak stuff here and there, improved performance as a result of my particular upgrade, has so far been across the board.

    I'm no bona-fide techie but I'm sure someone will chip in to accurately inform why smaller buffers are required in some instances and I know that my system will eventually settle down and require as little tweaking as my old one did to get the best out of it but hey, isn't that the price of progress?
    post edited by Jonbouy - 2011/07/09 06:07:18

    "We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles.
    In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
    #2
    Jump to:
    © 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1