Is anyone running steinberg interfaces at 2048 buffers for mixing?

[bill45]

Instability can mean drop outs,cpu spikes ect.....

[Mind Riot]

I use a Steinberg UR44 and find I never have cause to set it above 512, even on projects with 150+ plugs. It's left on that setting for everything unless I need real time performance for tracking using a guitar sim.

It really depends on the processing power of your computer, i guess, and the efficiency of the interface's drivers.

I still don't understand what the OP meant with higher buffers causing more instability though. Or why you'd need such buffers in the first place. If you run into dropouts so quickly, there's stuff you can do, like render tracks.

My PC isn't anything special, especially compared to some of the monsters I hear other people using. It's a four or five year old i5 quad core with 8 gigs of RAM, a 120 gig SSD for the OS and programs, and a 1TB HDD for music files and sample libraries. I started from a fresh OS install in the beginning and have kept it running lean.

Even so, my needs are modest and I rarely even come close to pushing it. Mostly using Reaper as a multitracker for my own one man band.

[flugel45]

The focusrire scarlett 6i6 only goes up to1024
Cubase 9.5 Win 7.High latencies can make things unstable.

You shouldn't EVER have to go above 1024 samples... If so, there is a bottleneck/problem somewhere with your setup. Of course, it could be the speed of your system itself.

The question that' still needs answering... WHY do you need to raise your buffers so high? Are you saying you can't run reliably at 512 samples?

[bill45]

The focusrire scarlett 6i6 only goes up to1024
Cubase 9.5 Win 7.High latencies can make things unstable.

You shouldn't EVER have to go above 1024 samples... If so, there is a bottleneck/problem somewhere with your setup. Of course, it could be the speed of your system itself.

The question that' still needs answering... WHY do you need to raise your buffers so high? Are you saying you can't run reliably at 512 samples?

Because I want to get more VSTi and EFX without bouncing.Focusrite goes to 1024.
Steinberg goes to 2048.Does anyone use 2048 Buffers.

[DuX]

Anything above 1024 is completely ineffective in giving you more CPU and less crackling. If you need more CPU power you just have to freeze, render, make some synths and drum sounds mono etc. Using 2048 samples ASIO buffer will not help.

[whyterabbyt]

The question that' still needs answering... WHY do you need to raise your buffers so high? Are you saying you can't run reliably at 512 samples?

Because I want to get more VSTi and EFX without bouncing.

Adjusting your latency from 1024 samples to 20148 samples is not going to free up enough CPU to run any extra plugins.
This is not a relative tradeoff; running at very low latencies can result in a CPU overhead as the CPU has to 'work harder' to meet that demand, but there's an absolute maximum number of CPU cycles required to move that data, and above a certain latency it is already accounted for; beyond that point the CPU wont 'work less' just because it has more time to do so.
And since the only significant CPU overhead come at the very smallest latencies (typically 32, 64), the number of processing cycles 'saved' for plugins per 'latency step' above the high-impact latencies is marginal and to the no-gain latency are going to be more and more marginal.
In comparison freezing one or two tracks will likely free up far more CPU time.

(aside : Ive never understood the lengths people go to to avoid freezing, it always seems to be ludicrously counterproductive, and at the mixing stage, doubly so. Especially given the flexibility of modern freeze implementations.)

[flugel45]

Steinberg goes to 2048.

I own two Steinberg interfaces and have never had to go to 1024, much less 2048. I leave mine at 256 for tracking, then 512 for heavy mixes.

Yes, 1024 is the next logical step, but if I had to go that high, I'd be questioning what is the bottleneck in my system.

Bottom line - and as others have already pointed out - you will get negligible benefit going to 2048. I'm not telling you that a Steinberg interface won't give you better performance (It may or may not), but assuming it will based on the higher sample buffer is a mistake.