Noel, we think alike. I just came to the same conclusion (see my edited post) and then noticed your reply on the refresh! hahaha.

So, that is indeed how you do it.

Very interesting stuff.

Well, I have to admit that the way Sonar does it is best for almost all use-cases. Most ITB producers master as a separate process. And even with the kind of large-studio-esque submixing / stemming I'm doing, a single core on a modern computer should be enough to do typical stem-oriented mini-chains (once you remove the final, stereo mastering stage).

Honestly, I'm pretty close to my dream configuration even without pre-buffering, as my mastering chain *almost* fits on one Ivy Bridge core. I'm just going to have to wait until one more rev of Intel processor and then I'll be home-free (with Sonar) and will have Sonar's low latency, as well.

Okay, mystery solved.

I am sorry for not being as technical as others here. Out of all of this though it is still not clear to me that given my current system whether or not I can expect more performance with regard to the Audio Engine in X2.
 
It's really just a general question that overall, should the average user expect better performance. If not, then there is really no reason for me to upgrade at this point. Not that I wouldn't want to make use of some of the other new features and functions, but I need audio performance more then anything right now.
 
Thanks
 

Jalcide one thing you may have not tried. If all you are doing is mastering and you don't care about latency, all you need to do is up your latency and SONAR should be able to handle a pretty huge chain of effects. The larger the buffer size, the less the cpu load.

Thanks, Noel. Yeah it's maxed. :-)

Since my chain is so close to fitting into a single core, it's possible even a small improvement in X2 could push it into the green. I'm crossing my fingers.

I may even try for another 100 mhz on my overclock, too.

The single core executes it all when I'm driving it with audio. It's just that liiiittle bit extra with a VST, instead, that kills it. So close.

I read some of this but not all. Did you try different settings with your midi buffer? I had a similair problem and increased it and it went away.

HTH

Thanks, Guitarpima. No, I have not messed with the MIDI buffers. Good idea. I'll try it.

Hi there Jalcide. Got a few ideas for you. Firstly are you mixing and mastering at the same time. Personally I don't believe this is a good idea. I think its OK to maybe mix into some gentle compression maybe but nothing more. There are so many reasons not to mix and master at the same time. One good one is to listen to the mix for a week before mastering. The other is that you cannot make good mastering decisions after mixing for a day or more. The best albums are not mixed and mastered at the same time.

In mastering you only need three processes really. EQ, compression and limiting. Maybe two EQ's but no more. Anymore than 3 or 4 processes and you are over doing it. Simple as that. I master on a computer that is only a single core 3Ghz processor and even with 3 or 4 big expensive plug-ins it does not even break a sweat. Why is your mastering chain so hard on the computer unless you are mixing at the same time then I could understand it.

When you are mixing/mastering why not set the latency for the highest value. What difference does it make. Everything will still work as per normal.

Also I am about to get the API2500 plugin myself. I have been using an analog Smart C2 as the compressor but want to replace it with the API plug-in. Another forum member Danny Danzi says it is great and I don't doubt him at all. Just wondering what your take is on that plug-in.

Hi, Jeff.

Thanks for the suggestions. But, I've been studying mastering since the late 80's, produced a lot of boy band style pop and did it the more traditional way, for years. So, now, I'm very confident and opinionated about all the things I'm intentionally "doing wrong." :-)

My newer production approach centers around "mixing into the mastering chain" and there is no looking back, for me. I think it's very specific to an EDM style of music and does not apply, as much, to most other styles.

There are some very specific goals I need to reach in terms of dance-floor-ready dynamics. Having an "iterative feedback loop" -- being able to change the stem source material dynamically -- presents me more control in reaching that goal.

In other words, the more a genre of music evolves to become more characterized, defined and inextricably bound to specific mastering attributes, the more natural it becomes for mastering to shift upfront into the creative process. I mean, there is literally a "final db" placement of a kick and snare that almost has to be what it needs to be. I wanna make sure it "gets there," has a space carved out for it, without collateral damage. That it's not a compromise made during the mastering process. Remember, mastering has traditionally been much about compromises made because the mastering engineer doesn't have the ability to take a stem or stereo file apart. Mastering engineers go to great lengths, using sophisticated mid-side processing, etc. in a sometimes futile attempt to change attributes of a misbehaving element in the mix. If those mastering engineers could only have access to the darn instrument to fix it on the spot, I promise you they'd do it (when no one was looking). Well, now we can, as we're all mastering engineers and we have the tools to do it non-destructively and in real-time. It's a new age.

Actually, I disagree with you on the only "3 or 4 processes," for my EDM genre at least. Just the opposite; I'm finding it better to make many small, subtle changes in dynamic shaping, rather than big changes at the end.

For example, I'll agonize over 1db of gain reduction that I might yield from a non-linear summer's overdrive modeling so as to get a small amount of "crunch" in the top-end of a kick.

Yes, my latency is already maxed. Thanks for that suggestion, though. I still have a few more things to try (like the MIDI buffers suggestion).

Yes! Love it. I used to rent the hardware version of the 2500 and am thrilled with Waves emulation of it. It has the same seemingly endless amount of forgiveness. It's like you almost can't push it too hard. :-) That said, I'm only putting about 2 or 3 db of gain reduction at any stage, now -- with my newer mastering approach. 

The API2500 is amazing for keeping the integrity of kicks and bass in a full mix. That is, it's a great compressor for the mastering stage, a stereo mix.

Get it. You'll love it. Also, you can't have too many compressors. :-) Each compressor is unique in its subtle characteristics. As many mastering engineers say, "compression IS eq, too." Compressor nerds are a whole subculture in the Gearslutz forums. I've seen forum threads go back years over one compressor.

Cheers.

bladetragic

Saxon1066


Latency was listed as one area of improvement in X2 in the initial lists by Cake.  Is it true, or isn't it?  If so, how so?  And if not really, why list it?  (Just b.s. advertising?)  The vagueness about this is really bugging me.

You are not alone here.  I found the vagueness in this area a bit strange as well and the needle on my b.s. meter definitely began to jump around a little.  Such a vague and generalized description could mean just about anything.  

During the live webinar I directly asked: "What exactly does improved low latency audio engine mean?" and "Is there gapless audio?"  Neither question was answered with any real detail, if at all.  

It does come across as a bit of an advertising ploy.   Almost as if to say: "We know many people want gapless audio, but we still haven't figured it out (or flat out can't do it) so we'll throw something vague and noncommittal in there to try and lure those people on board."  

  
  
  
  
I am interested in the Low-Latency performance improvements of X2 as well. I wish someone from Cakewalk would talk about this! I just bought X1 to get X2 for free in large part because of Low-Latency improvements, i hope i won't be disappointed. This is important to me and Audio engine improvements are amongs the few things i care about. I hope i won't be disappointed.