STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived!

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Tom F)

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:45:49 GMT

hi all - i just have a funny thing to report - since i was saying that i geat ultra low latencies also with a winxp 32 sp3 - well so i did some further testing and here is the result:

running a project at 88/24 ...16 tracks of recorded audio + 2 vstis (sylenth & dim pro)

i can play it back at 32 samples bufferset in the control panel (which means 16 samples at 88) AND IT WORKS :-)

the total real roundtrip latency reported by sonar is freaking 1,5 ms !!!!!

and the best (funny) thing is that the cpu meter shows 0% load (which is obviously a bug - but it made me smile)

rme cards just kick butt ;-)

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (smoochy)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:31:15 GMT

i know i got a bit rediculus... but that's all i was saying. if you have the option to get more slots why wouldn't you. the uad and other cards may only be using 1x right now but trust me... 16x is on the way. as soon as they figure out the architecture of the chips to make use of those additional lanes.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Rajay1)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:28:38 GMT

eratu

I'm not really interested in soft synths, can you offer some insight in to how this baby performs with 50-60 real audio tracks, plugs and say 12 (or better 24 if you've got them) input monitoring enabled tracks?

Many thanks
Child

44.1 sample rate for the tests, I normally use 44.1 or 48. I also briefly tested a similar project in Cubase 5.1 at 96KHz at 32 sample latency, which is about 0.3ms latency one way. Needless to say, the CPU hit was high, but it worked. :)

Haven't tried it with 50-60 audio tracks yet, but I did try it with about 25 audio tracks at 32 sample latency (about 0.7ms at 44.1 sample rate) with a video clip, a number of VSTi and at least 25 plugins, and it cut through it like butter, with ample CPU headroom. I suspect 50-60 tracks should be very comfortable at this latency as well, although I doubt I'll run it at 32 sample latency for practical purposes in most situations... but who knows? Now that I can, I might just stay there. :)

I just happened to be reading a post by a film scorer on another site who happily claimed 50 to 60 tracks with no problems with lots of string tracks and video. He didn't give the sample rate but I'm sure it was no less than 44.1. That's insane!
-Rajay

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (eratu)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:57:01 GMT

P6T working just fine here, slightly overclocked. I would happily recommend it if its features are right for you. Also check out the comparable Gigabyte boards. I generally prefer Gigabyte but I had my reasons for going with Asus this round... see earlier in this thread or over in my other huge thread... (links above, somewhere).

You always have a chance for getting a bum board from anyone. I think I've only ever had one truly bad bum board in my life, though, out of many, many motherboards -- from BIOSTAR, I believe -- I'd suggest that you buy locally in case you need to return and swap out... makes it far more convenient, even if it costs a tiny bit more.

Generally, the more likely scenarios for hardware problems are with RAM and occasionally power supply (if you don't get a top-quality one), in my experience. Again, I usually buy those parts locally to cover the hassle of returning them.

12GB RAM, absolutely no problem here. Stable as a rock for me... Make sure to thoroughly test your system with prime95 and memtest86 (memtest.org) at least overnight.

I can't comment on whether the new 1366 CPUs coming out will work on the P6T... I think they might, if it's just a BIOS update, but nothing I've read would confirm that for any motherboard at this point.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Rajay1)

Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:27:36 GMT

Awesome thread fellas! I'm learning a lot. Since I'm about ready to start ordering parts for a new i7 920 build, and since a lot of the heavy hitters are on this one; I have a few questions. Regarding the P6t, I haven't read 1 review that criticized it's performance. However most bad ones say there seems to be a problem with the slots. Some say they've gone through 2 or 3 before getting one that works correctly. That seems to indicate poor quality control. Secondly, although 64 bit is obviously the only way to go now, what would I have to add to run older 32 bit plugs? I still run extensively MIDI. Lastly, 775 v. LGA 1366 socket? I've been told that when (not if) PC goes to 8 cores using the 1366 means you wouldn't have to change the mobo. Again, awesome thread from a neophyte's perspective.
Almost forgot. I read here where some of you are using 12 gigs of RAM with no problem. I read some reviews where 12 adds an element of instability. When backed down to 10, everything cleared up. Can you verify this?
-Rajay

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (dontletmedrown)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:20:08 GMT

JonD

Of course, it can (be disabled), and the "Click here to continue" message likely can be gotten rid of too, if he would just stop a second and let us help him. " />

We already talked about this earlier. I can't disable the jmicron splash since I have an IDE drive connected to it. If I disable, it no longer finds that drive.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (JonD)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:09:18 GMT

Of course, it can (be disabled), and the "Click here to continue" message likely can be gotten rid of too, if he would just stop a second and let us help him. " />

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (A1MixMan)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:02:52 GMT

dontletmedrown

You know what's funny-- I have that same mobo. Isn't it ironic that it goes through so much crap BEFORE it even launches windows? I wish I could bypass the Asus banners and the "click here to continue booting..."" /> Because of the mobo, my DAW's boot time is longer than my older/slower DAW." />

I have the same mobo, you can disable this in the bios I'm pretty sure.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (dontletmedrown)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:29:00 GMT

John

Dave I was commenting on the MB being used by the OP. I don't know where you fit into this at all. Check my posts when I made those comments.

Sorry, but it's pretty irritating trying to chat with you. You seem to mis-interpret most of what I type. Someone mentioned the pt6t which I found interesting, then you jumped in with your "2 graphics slots is plenty". I was merely pointing out that 2 is not plenty for some people.

Anyways, have fun.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (John)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:49:38 GMT

Dave I was commenting on the MB being used by the OP. I don't know where you fit into this at all. Check my posts when I made those comments.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (HighAndDry)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:59:23 GMT

Did someone say they could run Pro Tools HD on a pc?

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (dontletmedrown)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:17:37 GMT

Lol. GJ John. thanks for explaining WHAT I ALREADY HAVE. The entire time, I've been commenting on the P6T6 which has a grand total of 6 PCIe slots.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (John)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:45:47 GMT

Asus P6t

Expansion Slots
3 x PCIe 2.0 x16 (at x16/x16/x4 mode)
1 x PCIe x1
2 x PCI

Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P

Expansion Slots

1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x16
1 x PCI Express x16 slot, running at x8
(The PCIEx16 and PCIEx8 slots support ATI CrossFireX technology and conform to PCI Express 2.0 standard.)
3 x PCI Express x1 slot
2 x PCI slots

Judging by this the gigabyte actually has more PCIe slots. Not that it matters.

I think we are talking over each other.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (dontletmedrown)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:21:40 GMT

John

No that is not the point. Unless you have a need for more then two graphics cards there is no advantage in getting a board that has that many PCI X 16 slots. What I think you are missing is I can place as many UAD cards in my system as you can. But at the same time I have better I/O with a lot more USB ports plus in this MB 's case I have 3 Firewire ports using the TI chip set. As well as 1 IDE and 8 SATA 2. We choose what we get for our own reasons. My choice is a valid one.

I was highlighting the point I was making. Of course your choice is a "VALID" one. I didn't realize you were only posting to validate YOUR setup. YOU ARE VALID. Feel better now?

FYI, my AES16e (x1) lives in a x16 slot. The reason they add the PCIe x16 slots is so that people can use SLI, but they're compatible with x1 cards. The most I've seen on any board is 3 x16s. It's not like you can custom order a board to only have PCIe x1 slots. There are only a few choices available. That board has more PCIe slots than I've seen on any board, so it makes sense for UAD and PTHD users.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (eratu)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:03:49 GMT

Jose7822

eratu

Jose7822

But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)

Wow, Jose, you're far more greedy than I thought you were, my friend. ;)

Give your quad-core a little love. Her feelings might get hurt if she heard you say that. ;)

LOL I know :-P

I say that because now EWQL is releasing a new package called Hollywood Strings which seems will compete with the VSL Libraries in terms of more articulations and better quality than previous EWQL libraries. I'm sure they'll start with the strings first and then slowly move to the other sections of the orchestra. Hollywood Strings is gonna be a huge library with 5 different mic positions that I'm pretty sure will take A LOT of processing power to run reliably at low latencies. So that's where I'm coming from :-) Eventually, I want to upgrade to the newer libraries when processing power gets to the point where I'm able to run everything on one machine. So, to me it sounds like a 16 or 32 core one should do the trick. But I'm happy with what I've got for now.

Take care!

LOL! I'm with you -- I'll be jumping on those new technologies when the price-point makes sense -- I'm sure I'll find a way to use the resources... But I burned myself on my 8-core (my previous DAW to this i7), which was overkill for XP at the time. I can't wait to gut XP off that machine and put Win 7 x64 on there and see how it compares to this i7. I'm just trying to be very careful saying anything out loud so the DAWs don't have their feelings hurt. ;)

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (eratu)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:56:39 GMT

Rothchild

Hey Eratu I've got a couple of extra questions about this rig if you don't mind.

What sample rate are you running at with the 32 buffer?

I'm not really interested in soft synths, can you offer some insight in to how this baby performs with 50-60 real audio tracks, plugs and say 12 (or better 24 if you've got them) input monitoring enabled tracks?

Many thanks
Child

44.1 sample rate for the tests, I normally use 44.1 or 48. I also briefly tested a similar project in Cubase 5.1 at 96KHz at 32 sample latency, which is about 0.3ms latency one way. Needless to say, the CPU hit was high, but it worked. :)

Haven't tried it with 50-60 audio tracks yet, but I did try it with about 25 audio tracks at 32 sample latency (about 0.7ms at 44.1 sample rate) with a video clip, a number of VSTi and at least 25 plugins, and it cut through it like butter, with ample CPU headroom. I suspect 50-60 tracks should be very comfortable at this latency as well, although I doubt I'll run it at 32 sample latency for practical purposes in most situations... but who knows? Now that I can, I might just stay there. :)

I have some huge 100+ track projects with bucketloads of plugins that I have not yet tried to bring over to this DAW just yet. I will update this thread, or my long Win 7 x64 thread when I get to that point.

As for inputs/ input monitoring, I don't normally record more than 2 tracks at a time. When I do, I use a different interface (not the Lynx, although that may change the next time I need to, since the L22 is expandable), and I haven't tested that yet. However, I did superficially test enabling 8 inputs from the Lynx mixer (which has multiple input sources from an optional LStream expansion) and it didn't bat an eyelash with the above test. So my feeling is that if I actually had the LStream expansion with something hooked up to those inputs :) , it would have been fine.

I did hook up the Sapphire Pro 40 for some of the above tests as well, and I got far inferior results than I did with the Lynx. That's to be expected since it is a DICE-II based firewire device, which have notoriously unremarkable low-latency performance with the current drivers. So I wouldn't trust those figures. However, 8+ channels streaming from the Sapphire Pro 40 at 128 sample latency seems like a no-brainer... but not sure yet.

However, I would make the wild assumption that you could handle 12-24 input-monitoring-enabled channels with this type of system without a problem if you had a quality audio driver from Lynx or RME. Hope that helps!

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Player)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:48:58 GMT

Congratulations, Eratu! Everything has been running great here since January '09. I am still running Vista but looking forward to Windows 7.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Jose7822)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:19:20 GMT

eratu

Jose7822

But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)

Wow, Jose, you're far more greedy than I thought you were, my friend. ;)

Give your quad-core a little love. Her feelings might get hurt if she heard you say that. ;)

LOL I know :-P

I say that because now EWQL is releasing a new package called Hollywood Strings which seems will compete with the VSL Libraries in terms of more articulations and better quality than previous EWQL libraries. I'm sure they'll start with the strings first and then slowly move to the other sections of the orchestra. Hollywood Strings is gonna be a huge library with 5 different mic positions that I'm pretty sure will take A LOT of processing power to run reliably at low latencies. So that's where I'm coming from :-) Eventually, I want to upgrade to the newer libraries when processing power gets to the point where I'm able to run everything on one machine. So, to me it sounds like a 16 or 32 core one should do the trick. But I'm happy with what I've got for now.

Take care!

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Rothchild)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:17:41 GMT

wormser

it seems the only group that is squawking is the Linux community but that's to be expected. Windows cost money and they seem to want everything, including music, for free.

Hmmm, Free Beer is nice but Free Speech is better. It's for the latter that I count myself a member of that community.

Child

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Rothchild)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:15:14 GMT

Hey Eratu I've got a couple of extra questions about this rig if you don't mind.

What sample rate are you running at with the 32 buffer?

I'm not really interested in soft synths, can you offer some insight in to how this baby performs with 50-60 real audio tracks, plugs and say 12 (or better 24 if you've got them) input monitoring enabled tracks?

Many thanks
Child

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (eratu)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:09:52 GMT

Jose7822

But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)

Wow, Jose, you're far more greedy than I thought you were, my friend. ;)

Give your quad-core a little love. Her feelings might get hurt if she heard you say that. ;)

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (John)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:07:56 GMT

John, You can't expect everyone to have the same needs as yours. A choice of motherboards is more than just what brand, chipset or socket it uses. Each person will have different needs as far as the motherboards connectivity goes. Some people still need IDE adapter, others don't. Some need more PCI/PCIe slots then others, or even more USB ports. That's why we have so many choices of motherboards nowadays, even from the same company. If he wants to have 14 or 20 PCIe x16 slots, then so be it. He has the right to choose, no? :-) Take care my friend!

See my post above. I think I say much the same thing. And you also take care and have fun.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Jose7822)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:05:18 GMT

eratu

wormser

I have to give them credit in that they got Windows 7 right this time.

Here! Here! +1

x1000

Microsoft did get it right this time. Actually, they started with Vista SP2. Ever since then, things have been running very smooth here.

But I don't think I'll be completely happy untill we get to 16 or 32 core machines. :-)

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (John)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:05:04 GMT

Well the point is, if you're using lots of cards, that is the board you'll want. Most only offer 4 max (mine has extra PCI slots, but I don't use those.

No that is not the point. Unless you have a need for more then two graphics cards there is no advantage in getting a board that has that many PCI X 16 slots. What I think you are missing is I can place as many UAD cards in my system as you can. But at the same time I have better I/O with a lot more USB ports plus in this MB 's case I have 3 Firewire ports using the TI chip set. As well as 1 IDE and 8 SATA 2. We choose what we get for our own reasons. My choice is a valid one.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (eratu)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:01:22 GMT

wormser

I have to give them credit in that they got Windows 7 right this time.

Here! Here! +1

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (Jose7822)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:57:50 GMT

John,

You can't expect everyone to have the same needs as yours. A choice of motherboards is more than just what brand, chipset or socket it uses. Each person will have different needs as far as the motherboards connectivity goes. Some people still need IDE adapter, others don't. Some need more PCI/PCIe slots then others, or even more USB ports. That's why we have so many choices of motherboards nowadays, even from the same company. If he wants to have 14 or 20 PCIe x16 slots, then so be it. He has the right to choose, no? :-)

Take care my friend!

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (wormser)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:53:00 GMT

I've got to agree with Windows 7 x64 being a winner.
Seriously, I skipped everything after Win XP Professional and stuck with what worked and despite having an extremely solid system, I would get an occasional glitch now and then.

I'm a pro pianist playing Jazz and my style has me hitting a lot of keys, quickly, and using the pedals quite a bit. I tend to overload MIDI and Ivory. Under Windows XP, even streamlined with none of the eye candy etc I would get occasional burps with Ivory at 64 samples and very fast Seagate 1.0tb disks.

With Windows 7, I have done nothing special.
Aero is on, Avira is running, all the services etc are going and so forth.
I haven't hiccuped once with this system when playing at 64 samples.

The system seems smoother to me, the look is very Mac like especially with the themes which I also like playing with and so forth.
This is all the same hardware (listed below) and nothing else has changed except 64 bit drivers of course and one exception was dumping the Midisport 2Port USB (Still no drivers from Midiman) for a Cakewalk UM-2G.

I hate Microsoft, I really do, but I have to give them credit in that they got Windows 7 right this time.
I suppose they had to because if it was another Vista, they might be in serious trouble business wise. Vista got awful reviews but Windows 7 is getting mostly very positive reviews and it seems the only group that is squawking is the Linux community but that's to be expected. Windows cost money and they seem to want everything, including music, for free. Anyway, my advice is check your hardware compatibility and go for it!

System is Intel Q9400, 4G Asus P5Q-SE2, 4 Seagate 1TB SATA drives Nvidia PCIe Quadra 540 card, Delta 66 card and twin LCD 22+16.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (dontletmedrown)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:52:57 GMT

Well the point is, if you're using lots of cards, that is the board you'll want. Most only offer 4 max (mine has extra PCI slots, but I don't use those.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (eratu)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:51:09 GMT

John

I fully agree with everything you are saying. I do believe it was your doing the research that put you over the hump sort of speak. I am very happy with my choice too. Personally I think right now we are in a new age of computing power. We are seeing all these things come together in a sort of critical mass that is making all this possible. Great hardware great software and reasonable prices. Its a good time to be involved. I am very glad you have found this to your liking. Take care Eratu and have fun.

Thanks, John! You too! I totally agree about this new age we're living in right now... amazes me every time I boot up my i7 DAW. A miracle, really. Just a decade ago, I dreamed about being able to do what I can now, finally, do on a "standard" computer. And to think the new laptop CPUs coming out have similar relative power, I shudder to think what we will be able to do in 10 more years.

Re:STUNNING low-latency performance in Sonar 8.5 x64 on Win 7 x64 - The future has arrived! (John)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:49:35 GMT

John, sometimes you surprise me. Have you ever heard of UAD? Pro Tools HD? Some people need more slots. PCIe x1 cards can be used in the PCIe16 slots. For instance, my system is already maxed with PCIe cards:

1. Video card
2. AES16e
3. UAD1
4. UAD1

I'll probably end up buying the 7-slot mobo when I go PT HD so I can run either system from the same PC.

You don't need PCIe X16 slots for any of that. I have on my MB 2 X16 slots 3 PCIe slots and 2 PCI slots. I use one PCI slot and 1 X 16 for graphics. The rest are empty. On my last machine I had all but one slot used they were 1 AGP and 6 PCI slots. Because I am using more USB ports then any other connection type I look for as many of those as I can get on the MB and that is still not enough.

Boards with more then 2 PCIe x 16 slots are marketed to gamers for the most part. That is not a bad thing but it is not important to a DAW. USB and Firewire are far more important for DAW use. At least that is the way I see it.