"> AFAIK the general buffer size idea is: keep it small during creative > work when tracking and recording to get low latency, keep it larger > when mixing and when cpu load is getting heavy." "Are we talking about the same thing :-) ? We were discussing processor buffer, not that of an audio driver :-) . Agree with all the points otherwise :-) . Best, Andy" Not sure Andy, I´m talking about the audio preferences settings in Logic. Judging by your post I may have misunderstood what the processor buffer does. Care to shed some light on the matter? All the best /E _____________________ Erik Häusler +46 708 650 550 erikhausler@mac.com

Erik wrote: > "> AFAIK the general buffer size idea is: keep it small during creative >> work when tracking and recording to get low latency, keep it larger >> when mixing and when cpu load is getting heavy." I responded: > "Are we talking about the same thing :-) ? We were discussing processor > buffer, not that of an audio driver :-) . Agree with all the points > otherwise :-) ." Then on May 31, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Erik Häusler asked: > Not sure Andy, I´m talking about the audio preferences settings in > Logic. Judging by your post I may have misunderstood what the > processor buffer does. > Care to shed some light on the matter? I am afraid I don't fully understand it myself :-) , and the manual is rather sketchy on this... Both settings are located on the Audio:Drivers page. The I/O buffer, set as 32, 64, ... 1024 samples, is probably the one you were talking about. It is used by audio hardware (p. 378 of the manual). The processor buffer set as small, medium or large (p. 380) is "the native buffer used to compute mixes and effects", and to my surprise it also affects the latency, especially with processor heavy plugs. It's the I/O buffer that we increase when mixing, that's why I posted the comment above... My personal understanding is you don't mess with the processor buffer once you found the optimal setting... I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it in greater detail. Best, Andy

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Andy Hardwake <andyhardwake@...> wrote: > Then on May 31, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Erik Häusler asked: > >>Not sure Andy, I´m talking about the audio preferences settings in >>Logic. Judging by your post I may have misunderstood what the >>processor buffer does. >>Care to shed some light on the matter? > >I am afraid I don't fully understand it myself :-) , and the >manual is rather sketchy on this... >The processor buffer set as small, medium or large (p. 380) >is "the native buffer used to compute mixes and effects", and >to my surprise it also affects the latency, especially with >processor heavy plugs. >I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it in greater >detail. This is my take on the processor buffer. The kind of "latency" the processor buffer affects is the responsiveness of the audio engine itself. If moving a volume fader using the large processor buffer, a small amount of lag can be noticed between the move and actual volume change. Theoretically one should see less CPU overloads with the processor buffer set to large, at the expense of the sequencer feeling slightly less responsive. HW

On 5/31/07 5:52 AM, "pancenter" <hwooten@dakotacom.net> wrote: > > > > > --- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com <mailto:logic-users%40yahoogroups.com> , > Andy Hardwake <andyhardwake@...> > wrote: >> > Then on May 31, 2007, at 1:15 AM, Erik Häusler asked: >> > >>> >>Not sure Andy, I´m talking about the audio preferences settings in >>> >>Logic. Judging by your post I may have misunderstood what the >>> >>processor buffer does. >>> >>Care to shed some light on the matter? >> > >> >I am afraid I don't fully understand it myself :-) , and the >> >manual is rather sketchy on this... > >> >The processor buffer set as small, medium or large (p. 380) >> >is "the native buffer used to compute mixes and effects", and >> >to my surprise it also affects the latency, especially with >> >processor heavy plugs. > >> >I would really appreciate it if someone could explain it in greater >> >detail. > > This is my take on the processor buffer. > > The kind of "latency" the processor buffer affects is the > responsiveness of the audio engine itself. > > If moving a volume fader using the large processor buffer, a small > amount of lag can be noticed between the move and actual volume > change. > > Theoretically one should see less CPU overloads with the processor > buffer set to large, at the expense of the sequencer feeling slightly > less responsive. > > HW > . > > One thing to note: Logic calls this a PROCESS buffer, not a PROCESSOR buffer. I have no idea if this is relevant in any way to this discussion ­ I actually have never played around with the process buffer myself, so am interested in finding out more about it. blair -- blairfisher@shaw.ca

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, Blair Fisher wrote: > >On 5/31/07 5:52 AM, "pancenter" wrote: >>Andy Hardwake <andyhardwake@> >>wrote: >> >>>>The processor buffer set as small, medium or large (p. 380) >>>>is "the native buffer used to compute mixes and effects", and >>>>to my surprise it also affects the latency, especially with >>>>processor heavy plugs. >>This is my take on the processor buffer. <snip-snip> > One thing to note: > >Logic calls this a PROCESS buffer, not a PROCESSOR buffer. I have no >idea if this is relevant..<snip> Right you are Blair, thanks for the correction. Cubase has a similar setting, in "Expert Settings" it's simply a check box called "Lower Latency". Here's what the help file says: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lower Latency When this is activated, the mixing will happen at the time the driver calls the VST engine for the next audio data block to be delivered. This results in lower latency at the risk of overloading the machine. If you get playback problems such as pops and clicks, make sure this option is turned off ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOward