KVR Audio

jamesOne · Post by **jamesOne** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:51 am

Hi-

I have some very exciting news from BionicFX. The beta is still being constructed. However, I would like to finally answer your questions about latency.

These are REAL test results:

CPU: AMD Athlon 3200+
GPU: NVIDIA 6800

BionicFX AVEX Engine
Processing: 1 tracks, 1 channels, 1 streams

Host clock: 44100
Host buffer: 512
Host latency: 11ms

AVEX latency: 2.08ms
Computing performance: ~0.0002 GFlops

---

What do these numbers mean?

The latency of the BionicFX engine is 2.08ms. (Not much more than native.)

If you have your host drivers set to a low latency, then the total audio latency will be host + 2ms (in this case 13.08ms total). On Cubase you should experience NO latency, and when we release plug-ins for Logic the latency will be as good or better than other plug-ins and far better than any DSP solution.

Disclaimer 1:
The complexity of certain plug-ins is going to increase the latency. But, this is where another number above is important. The BionicFX engine requires 0.00026 GFlops. This means that far less than 1% of your GPU is being used by the engine and 99.999% can be used for audio processing. Tests running algorithms which performed 5000 floating point operations (FLOPS) added virtually no additional time.

Disclaimer 2:
Increased plug-in counts will cause the latency to increase. How much? I can't say yet, but will share results here in the next few days.

So, thanks for your continued support and interest.

The digital audio revolution is coming soon!

j1

Edit: time 1s removed

Muff Wiggler · Post by **Muff Wiggler** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:39 am

you never replied to my beta request

and I don't make them often

Aleksey Vaneev · Post by **Aleksey Vaneev** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:13 am

Why it took 0.192s to render 1s audio? Does it mean this GPU-powered plug-in still consumes 19% of CPU?

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:21 am

DSP cards take 100-500ms?

Wow, when i used uad-1's they had nearly identical latency to what you describe.

What a crock of shit

jamesOne · Post by **jamesOne** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:25 am

Aleksey Vaneev wrote:Why it took 0.192s to render 1s audio? Does it mean this GPU-powered plug-in still consumes 19% of CPU?

Ignore that number. It's meaningless outside of the engine and has no relevance to performance. (I should have left it out of my original post)

jamesOne · Post by **jamesOne** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:31 am

Edit: Error correction.

mike.0 · Post by **mike.0** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:40 am

You must be kidding.. UAD-1 can get down to 64 samples. It uses either 1x or 2x multiple of your soundcards buffer size.

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:45 am

jamesOne wrote:
Robert Randolph wrote:DSP cards take 100-500ms?

Wow, when i used uad-1's they had nearly identical latency to what you describe.

What a crock of shit
Not true at all.

The UAD requires a 4096 sample fixed buffer last time I checked. That's a lot more than 2ms.

You should check again. Refer to the post above mine. It goes based upon the host buffer.

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:46 am

jamesOne wrote:
Aleksey Vaneev wrote:Why it took 0.192s to render 1s audio? Does it mean this GPU-powered plug-in still consumes 19% of CPU?
Ignore that number. It's meaningless outside of the engine and has no relevance to performance. (I should have left it out of my original post)

So you mean he picked up on something that shows that this "technology" has a flaw?

Im in a nasty mood tonight.

jamesOne · Post by **jamesOne** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:46 am

mike.0 wrote:You must be kidding.. UAD-1 can get down to 64 samples. It uses either 1x or 2x multiple of your soundcards buffer size.

Great.

Then you can compare the performance of the UAD to your NVIDIA card at 64 samples at some point.

mike.0 · Post by **mike.0** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:52 am

Good point.. but dont forget that its the character/quality of the plugins that really matters.

BTW, just to be a complete bastard.. I must tell you that my firewire powercore runs at 64 samples absolutely stable.

jamesOne · Post by **jamesOne** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:03 am

mike.0 wrote:Good point.. but dont forget that its the character/quality of the plugins that really matters.

BTW, just to be a complete bastard.. I must tell you that my firewire powercore runs at 64 samples absolutely stable.

This is good to know and I'm glad you are having fun with the PowerCore. It's a great product with killer plug-ins.

Original post edited.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:25 am

I'm very excited about these plugins. I hope they use less latency than my UAD-1 and Poco and sound better. Why? Because then many of us will be able to use our gpu's instead of buying expensive DSP's. I just hope the plugins aren't priced too high so that all the benefits go out the window.

Which is a tall order nowdays what with poco elements selling at $299 (with rebate in US) plus a suite of plugins.

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:34 am

Hum. yet another convolution reverb and Im wondering if it will work with ATI cards... will it make use of ogl rendering cards? Only the higher-end nvidia?

Will there be a DX version?

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:45 am

jamesOne wrote:GPU: NVIDIA 6800
Time to render 1s: 192ms

Does this mean you could run five 1s convolutions on an NVidia 6800 with negligible CPU hit?

Hmm... five free convolutions...

Forever,

Kim.

** An official announcement about BionicFX latency **

An official announcement about BionicFX latency