Performance and Audio Interface

[Milkman]

Is there confusion about the difference between audio interfaces who HOST DSP plugins, vs audio interfaces which only power the DAW's DSP engine and do not host? And this is on an unknown brand laptop, which might have many power management, CPU dynamic clocking, etc, features enabled?

Adding a thunderbolt interface wouldnt instantly solve "Bitwig choking", alone, unless something very specific and user-oriented was involved. Something else was going on here. I dont use NI's audio interfaces, but I do have one in my maschine MK3 that I use as a test interface sometimes, and I have zero trouble with it in Bitwig, Cubase 12, etc. Your buffer settings were maxxed?

[muzicxs]

Let's end this once and for all

An audio interface with DSP (Digital Signal Processing) offload support can greatly enhance the performance of audio processing, but it may not be compatible with all VST plugins. Here's why:

1. DSP-Specific Compatibility: Some DSP-powered audio interfaces are designed to work specifically with certain plugins optimized for their architecture. This means that not all VST plugins will be compatible with the DSP offloading capabilities of these interfaces.

2. Native vs DSP Plugins: Traditional VST plugins are designed to run natively on the CPU of your computer. DSP-offloaded plugins, on the other hand, are specifically coded to run on the DSP hardware. Therefore, a standard VST plugin would need a DSP-compatible version to fully utilize the DSP offloading feature.

3. Performance Improvement Scope: While DSP offloading can significantly reduce the load on your computer's CPU, the extent of performance improvement depends on the specific plugins and the tasks they perform. Some complex or CPU-intensive plugins might benefit more from DSP offloading than others.

4. Manufacturer Ecosystems: Some audio interface manufacturers offer their own ecosystems of DSP-compatible plugins. For instance, Universal Audio has a range of plugins specifically designed to work with their UAD DSP platform. Plugins outside of these ecosystems may not be able to utilize the DSP offloading capabilities of such interfaces.

In summary, while a DSP-capable audio interface can significantly improve performance and reduce latency, it's important to check the compatibility of your preferred VST plugins with the specific DSP hardware you're considering.

[drsyncenstein]

Well, nearly there.

An audio interface with DSP (Digital Signal Processing) offload support can greatly enhance the performance of audio processing, but it may not be compatible with all VST plugins.

An audio interface with DSP (Digital Signal Processing) offload support can greatly enhance the performance of audio processing, but it is not compatible with the majority of VST plugins.

Code developed for an x64 processor can not run on a dsp without some form of conversion process. Audio interfaces would need to have a dsp able to run code for x64 (pc) and arm (apple m) processors to be able to do that. Generally speaking, a dsp is a totally different creature than a cpu. If Antelope pulled this off on its own they would be pretty magical.
Things that do offload generic plugins (audiogridder for example) need a wrapper to be able to load the plugin and execute it on another system. On another cpu that is, not on a dsp.

But the discussion here is not about dsp offloading of plugins. We have a poster that somehow thinks that sending audio data over a usb or thunderbolt interface needs so much cpu cycles that you need a dsp in the audio interface. While logic says that processing of native plugins uses far more cpu power than just pumping bits across a usb interface. A good driver interface does reduce cpu load. Not by magic, but by adressing the rest of the system in the most efficient way.
Anyone who tried to use his interface on windows with a directx or mme driver instead of asio knows how big the influence of drivers on daw performance can be.

[JHernandez]

I can understand OdoSendaidokai's picture just fine personally. OdoSendaidokai just didn't present any objective evidence for the claim and therefor I don't know whether to believe OdoSendaidokai or not. I can say I've never heard of such a thing.

I've used a couple of cheap interfaces with Bitwig without performance issues. The only difference (besides quality) I've noticed with say my RMEs (which have onboard DSP/Total Mix FX and can function/record standalone.) and say a cheap Focusrite is milliseconds in latency/RTL. In my experience anyway.

[JHernandez]

Yeah, my bet is on a crappy driver.

[lokio]

In the days of dialup modems there used to be a thing called winmodems, where the cpu did most of the dsp work rather than chips in the modem. A modem and an audio interface share some striking similarities.

That said, I'd be surprised if NI's interface didn't have proper DSP onboard. Seems more likely to be poor drivers.

[BazJacuzzi]

It's not that the FX Unit is processing your "external" plugins. It only says that there is an active unit doing stuff. And it is logical that this is not the only active unit, when you get that outcome with lower CPU consumption.

Compare it with a wagon you have to push to get it moving, or a wagon where you can switch on a motor that drives it. Here it is the same. AND the wagon has an additional FX "machine" on top that processes some "on wagon" effects.

There are different DSPs what I call "passive" and "active". The passive ones are like the CPU has to tell everything what the DSP have to do: move it here, copy it there and so on. It is like a shelf, where you have to spend all your time to put and sort everything yourself
An active DSP just gets commands like "play", "process", "stop" ..... So you get like an assistant that is already trained and is taking care of putting everything in the shelf, getting it out again and keeping order of everything for you. So you can use your time to do other stuff.

Every other explanation would need to include magic, dragons or alien technology.

[_leras]

Slightly off topic.... But it's have a project that works in 4.4.6, but crackles in 5.0.11...

It's a sparse project and the culprit is a lowly two instances of Diva.

I haven't looked into it in detail yet, but thought it weird that it hit a limit in 5, when it's ok in 4...