The focusrire scarlett 6i6 only goes up to1024
Cubase 9.5 Win 7.High latencies can make things unstable.
Steinberg has a reputation for solid drivers.I'd love to get more plugins.
When checking latency in cubase.Using the focusrite scarlett I get????
Thanks,Bill
Is anyone running steinberg interfaces at 2048 buffers for mixing?
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
"High latencies can make things unstable."
My experience has been that, yeah. 2048 is worse than 1024 for it. I have used a Steiny audio interface. It wasn't much if any better than using the onboard on MacBook Pro. I would suppose that the problem is, optimal for Mac platform doesn't happen. So it's a good question. If everyone's experience was like mine they'd have to deal with it or business falls away.
My experience has been that, yeah. 2048 is worse than 1024 for it. I have used a Steiny audio interface. It wasn't much if any better than using the onboard on MacBook Pro. I would suppose that the problem is, optimal for Mac platform doesn't happen. So it's a good question. If everyone's experience was like mine they'd have to deal with it or business falls away.
-
UltimateOutsider UltimateOutsider https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=216800 - KVRian
- 824 posts since 5 Oct, 2009 from Portland, OR
What sample rate are you using? A 1024 sample buffer is enormous @ 44.1kHz, for example (and incurs enormous latency, especially on a Focusrite Scarlett on Windows, both Gen 1 and Gen 2). Why are you using a sample buffer so large? Are you getting pops and drop-outs on smaller buffer sizes?bill45 wrote:The focusrire scarlett 6i6 only goes up to1024
Cubase 9.5 Win 7.High latencies can make things unstable.
Steinberg has a reputation for solid drivers.I'd love to get more plugins.
When checking latency in cubase.Using the focusrite scarlett I get????
I generally do everything at 44kHz/256 samples on my MOTU and RME interfaces, although I had to bump up to 512 samples for a recent project with some heavy-CPU plugs during mixdown.
If you need a 1024 sample buffer (again, assuming 44.1k) in order to get reliable audio you might get better mileage out of a PC upgrade.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
UltimateOutsider wrote: I generally do everything at 44kHz/256 samples on my MOTU and RME interfaces, although I had to bump up to 512 samples for a recent project with some heavy-CPU plugs during mixdown.
If you need a 1024 sample buffer (again, assuming 44.1k) in order to get reliable audio you might get better mileage out of a PC upgrade.
And some people may use more CPU-hogs to mix than you in this project.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2604 posts since 15 Jun, 2006
Yes,44.1k sample rate.I've always mixed with higher latency(27ms ).I can get mor VDTi and Effx.UltimateOutsider wrote:What sample rate are you using? A 1024 sample buffer is enormous @ 44.1kHz, for example (and incurs enormous latency, especially on a Focusrite Scarlett on Windows, both Gen 1 and Gen 2). Why are you using a sample buffer so large? Are you getting pops and drop-outs on smaller buffer sizes?bill45 wrote:The focusrire scarlett 6i6 only goes up to1024
Cubase 9.5 Win 7.High latencies can make things unstable.
Steinberg has a reputation for solid drivers.I'd love to get more plugins.
When checking latency in cubase.Using the focusrite scarlett I get????
I generally do everything at 44kHz/256 samples on my MOTU and RME interfaces, although I had to bump up to 512 samples for a recent project with some heavy-CPU plugs during mixdown.
If you need a 1024 sample buffer (again, assuming 44.1k) in order to get reliable audio you might get better mileage out of a PC upgrade.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2604 posts since 15 Jun, 2006
Correctjancivil wrote:UltimateOutsider wrote: I generally do everything at 44kHz/256 samples on my MOTU and RME interfaces, although I had to bump up to 512 samples for a recent project with some heavy-CPU plugs during mixdown.
If you need a 1024 sample buffer (again, assuming 44.1k) in order to get reliable audio you might get better mileage out of a PC upgrade.
And some people may use more CPU-hogs to mix than you in this project.
-
- KVRist
- 289 posts since 3 Aug, 2014
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.
-
- KVRian
- 936 posts since 28 Jan, 2008
I have the Scarlett 2i4 and I also need to increase the buffer to the max when mixing, which is only 1024. I really, really dislike the Scarlett's ASIO driver. But, I AM using some CPU hungry effects. (Ozone, 3 to 4 instances of Kazrog's Thermionik sims, KONTAKT can be hungry depending on the library, etc)
Another note, I found that disarming track record enable helped with the ASIO load quite a bit.
Another note, I found that disarming track record enable helped with the ASIO load quite a bit.
-
- KVRAF
- 35689 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
It really depends on the processing power of your computer, i guess, and the efficiency of the interface's drivers.Mind Riot wrote: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.
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.
-
- KVRAF
- 3846 posts since 15 Mar, 2002 from Underworld
In my experience, using bigger buffers than 1024 samples doesn't get you any more CPU power, or it's really negligible. So I never use it. Even at 1024 samples, there's not much difference in CPU usage. Therefore, the biggest buffer I ever use is 512 samples. 128 and 256 for recording. 256 and 512 for mixing and mastering. The difference in CPU usage between 128 and 256 is the biggest and then it decreases rapidly. All RME, TC Electronic and Scarlett drivers behave the same way AFAIK. 1024 samples is the "peak ASIO efficiency", it seems. So I think there's no need for any bigger buffers than 1024 samples. 
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Jiddu Krishnamurti
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2604 posts since 15 Jun, 2006
Rendering tracks is aP.I.T.A.chk071 wrote:It really depends on the processing power of your computer, i guess, and the efficiency of the interface's drivers.Mind Riot wrote: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.
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.
-
- KVRAF
- 35689 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Running into dropouts, or having a massive latency (or instability? The OP still hasn't explained what instability means, and why it is happening with high buffer sizes) due to the chosen buffer size is more of a PITA.