Mac OS 9 Lives
Digital Audio Workstation & MIDI => Audio & MIDI Hardware => Topic started by: arjen_1 on September 08, 2014, 01:17:38 PM
-
Hi,
I would like to know what kind of latency/audio performance is typical for OS9.
In my case I am using an ESI Waverterminal U24 usb audio interface with the Ploytec driver.
I've set it to 24bit, fast system setting, with a latency of 20ms. I can get 7ms but then the CPU load is massive while using VSTi's.
When I go down to 16 bit, cpu load drops and latency stays the same. However I like to work on 24 bit with VSTi's. Just sounds better imho.
So what kind of latency / audio performance do you guys get?
Greetz,
Arjen
-
that the bit depth doesnt change the latency is the expected result, latency is (software-side) always in samples, so only a higher samplingrate will shorten the latency.
your host is cubase, right? in opposite to some other hosts, in cubase and nuendo a shorter buffer will not have that much of an effect on CPU hunger of effects, in logic it is far worse, (not talking about maxmsp, where you dont want to work using a IO vectorsize of 32, because that means CPU x8 for effects.)
-
that the bit depth doesnt change the latency is the expected result, latency is (software-side) always in samples, so only a higher samplingrate will shorten the latency.
I understand. However bit depth does increase the CPU load.
your host is cubase, right?
Yep
-
I understand. However bit depth does increase the CPU load.
Not really, as our systems are 32 bits since System 7 era (more or less) LOL. In some cases, if the software is well programed can take some speed advantage of using 16 bits (16+16=32), but it is unusual.
If your CPU load are increasing for using 24 bits, may be that implies some extra process like converting 16 bits to 24 :(
-
If your CPU load are increasing for using 24 bits, may be that implies some extra process like converting 16 bits to 24 :(
That is interesting. I tend to use a lot of VSTi's. So are Imposcar, Atmosphere, etc 16 or 24 bit? If 16 bit that could explain the extra converting, CPU load.
Would a PCI card decrease CPU load compared to USB cards? And in terms of latency...what is considered 'normal' for our machines?
-
Not really, as our systems are 32 bits since System 7 era (more or less) LOL.
in fact it should not make a difference as the plug-in interfaces and everything else inside a program like cubase is 32 bit audio, no matter hat the files are. but it might be that he sees the result of the host program using more CPU for itself when running many tracks.
it then look like a synth would need more than before.
-
That is interesting. I tend to use a lot of VSTi's. So are Imposcar, Atmosphere, etc 16 or 24 bit? If 16 bit that could explain the extra converting, CPU load.
imposcar (and some others, for example the synyths from muon or dacota) are internally 64 bits.
but their inputs and outputs are always 32 bits.
in other words, the plug-ins – as well as the cubase mixer – are doing exactly the same, no matter of you use for example cubase 4.1 and then switch to cubase 4.1/24 with 24 bit audio files.
the only thing what needs more CPU than before is reading and writing the audio material from RAM.
and the only exception, for the sake of completeness, is protools,which was using integer audio signals of 24 bit or dual 24 bits for transporting and summing, (at least until version 8, which now has a 64 bit driver for summing)
-
Thanks for your responses!
Someone offers me the RME 96/8 PCI card. Would this PCI card decrease CPU load compared to USB audio I am using right now?
Greetz,
Arjen
-
Thanks for your responses!
Someone offers me the RME 96/8 PCI card. Would this PCI card decrease CPU load compared to USB audio I am using right now?
Greetz,
Arjen
Great card there arjen_1 used one for years a RME DigiPad - rock solid card in OS9 and OSX.
I think that it does help with CPU load not sure by how much though?
I think the drivers were better for windows with digicheck etc.
Never really had CPU overload using the card with ADAT - Analog - SPDIF at all ever.
-
arjen i sure wouldnt pass up an opportunity to try an RME interface if the price is right!
they are supposedly some of the most rock solid interfaces
considering you are using a ESI usb with a 3rd party driver
its quite possible
-
considering you are using a ESI usb with a 3rd party driver
its quite possible
Not entirely true. Ploytec is (or was) the developper of all ESI drivers. The 'universal' driver I use is far better than the orginal v1 'ESI' driver. Sonically I am a big fan of my U24. Stereo image and clearness is perfect. In fact the DAC's are the same as the RME's. However I am trying to reduce CPU load to run multiple not-so-well-programmed- (a.k.a. Vanguard) VSTi's. Therefore the RME could be a good option. I will try to get it for a decent price. Otherwise it's mixdown time. ;)
If I get it I will let you know my experience with the card. Thanks for your fasssst responses. -afro-
-
Since the seller didn't send me a reply I tried some other things to reduce CPU load. Somewhere I read that connecting USB audio to a PCI USB card instead of the built in USB ports gives you a better bandwith with less CPU load. And...I can confirm it works! Around 20% less CPU load. :o Cool trick!
-
Since the seller didn't send me a reply I tried some other things to reduce CPU load. Somewhere I read that connecting USB audio to a PCI USB card instead of the built in USB ports gives you a better bandwith with less CPU load. And...I can confirm it works! Around 20% less CPU load. :o Cool trick!
this may only be relevant to quicksilver machines... i think i remember readng that some mdd's have had their usb ports 'unlocked' to 2.0??? mactron? can u confirm this??
or am i dreaming?
also keep in mind the differences in architecture of the mdd, multiple pci bus etc. that mactron has spoken of before..
but congrats on your improved success Arjen;)
-
latency is often announced somewhere in the manual/tech sheets/advertisements, but the difference between the cards is not so extreme that this should be the only thing to look at.
the hammerfall PCI solutions are, however, one of the best OS9-solutions when it comes to conversion quality.
-
this may only be relevant to quicksilver machines... i think i remember readng that some mdd's have had their usb ports 'unlocked' to 2.0???
If only that could be achieved.... I am using a USB 2.0 PCI card for audio now. I still is only recognized as 1.1 so the ESI is on 1.1 too. (It's a USB 2.0 interface)
In theorie this 'trick' is relevant for all machines. The performance gain can will probably be different. I've been working for a couple of hours with Vanguard (still a very sluggish but bad ass sounding VSTi) and audio/cpu load is so much better. I can load an extra VSTi now. ;)
-
honestly its probably due to the cpu load caused by the 3rd party driver
i realize they were the ones to code the driver for this ESI company from the start..
but realize that other drivers for solutions would be very much different ie: PCI, Firewire
this is probably the core problem with why so many mac users were skeptical about usb interfaces back then
usb audio interfaces were looked at as a joke for a good long time as they were introduced..
perhaps you have stumbled upon that very reason behind that old belief.
this is totally not the case for windows/macosx probably due to improved usb performance
and it may not be the usb speed itself but rather that the system is using some cpu to facilitate the usb
thats why firewire was always looked upon as better then usb on the mac AND the pc because
usb requires cpu to regulate the function of it.. whereas firewire + pci do not require this extra cpu to manage the datathruput
http://www.diffen.com/difference/FireWire_vs_USB
Typical USB PC-hosts rarely exceed sustained transfers of 280 Mbit/s, with 240 Mbit/s being more typical. This is due to USB's reliance on the host-processor to manage low-level USB protocol, whereas FireWire delegates the same tasks to the interface hardware (requiring less or no CPU usage).
this quote is referencing a pc.. but its the same on mac, usb requires cpu in its function, firewire does not.
the improvement u are experiencing is likely because the pci card maybe has some chips on it that are regulating the usb on the card itself? im not sure.. its a guess.
-
... i think i remember readng that some mdd's have had their usb ports 'unlocked' to 2.0??? mactron? can u confirm this?
Yes, this is true. But only on the FW800 models, and only USB 1.1 speed once booted on Mac Os 9 as any other USB 2 on Mac Os 9.
connecting USB audio to a PCI USB card instead of the built in USB ports gives you a better bandwith with less CPU load...
Yes this is true, a PCI interface (133 or 266 MB/s MAX theoretical throughput) for a USB 1.1 (1.5 MB/s MAX theoretical throughput) must be enough. LOL
Any way, USB is one of those technologies "only half performance than advertised" as DDR and many others...
-
sometimes being creative and brave can open new doors, sometimes it just causes problems and risky situations.
in my opinion an USB 2.0 PCI card has nothing to do in a computer which should boot into OS9. and an USB audio interface has nothing to do at an USB 1.1. interface.
-
too bad a bunch of dual processor 1.0 ghz cpu's couldnt come up for sale on ebay right Arjen?
best cpu u can get for quicksilver.. if only we could fine one.. or 2. or 3;)
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=578.0
jumping from 550, to 854 on the benchmark score
-
too bad a bunch of dual processor 1.0 ghz cpu's couldnt come up for sale on ebay right Arjen?
best cpu u can get for quicksilver.. if only we could fine one.. or 2. or 3;)
Yep! But if you know how long I searched for my 933mhz.....You don't hear me complaining. I love my machine; mint condition. In fact it's has an interesting history. Mine was used by it's previous owner for creating some of the world most reknown star maps. Now it has the joy of being used for music. ;D
A dual processor won't give you that much advantage on OS9 does it?
in my opinion an USB 2.0 PCI card has nothing to do in a computer which should boot into OS9. and an USB audio interface has nothing to do at an USB 1.1. interface.
Nothing wrong with backward compatability imho. At the time all USB audio interfaces had 2.0 specifications. I had an Imac G3 so no choise to use PCI. I am happy with it. ;)
-
Yesterday I got the RME 98/6 PST PCI card and just installed it. It gives me about 25% less CPU load compared to USB audio. Latency is about 5ms. Soundwise it reveals every detail. Basically a VSTi like Imposcar sounds really different compared to internal audio and my usb audio card. It's like the cutoff filter has opened 10% more. Difference is remarkable.
Makes you wonder about what you should use as a reference. ::)
Drivers are simple and work fine. Just follow the manual and don't forget to install 2 AISO driver files in every AISO Drivers directory. (settings app. & aiso driver file) The one thing I don't understand is the AISO setting of the card. You can only choose between a 16bit or 32 bit audio stream. Before I could choose 8, 16 or 24 bit audio. I guess 32 bit data stream is the same as choosing 24 bit audio?
@Chris....you bought a great card! -afro-
-
the bit depth settgins is something RME specific and i dont know by heart what exactly it means.
generally audio is always sent as 32 bit float to hardware drivers, at least in OS9 (ASIO EASI Soundmanager ...) – with protools as the only exception.
if you dont like to read manuals, do the following: sum 50 tracks and see if it makes a CPU difference when you switch from 32 to 16. if not, the option simply does nothing.
-
if you dont like to read manuals, do the following: sum 50 tracks and see if it makes a CPU difference when you switch from 32 to 16. if not, the option simply does nothing.
Actually I read the manual over and over. The setting influences buffer/latency. The only thing I can't determine is if the card really plays back on 24 bit or 16 bit. Normally you would choose the playback resolution in the AISO driver. That's not the case here...So does it play 24 bit automatically if I e.g. set record to 24bit in Cubase? Or?
-
The setting influences buffer/latency. The only thing I can't determine is if the card really plays back on 24 bit or 16 bit.
thats unlikely that a card has a 16 bit AD/DA mode in addition to 24 bit – but i dont know RME enough. it might be that 16 bit is available for ADAT out, for example.
Normally you would choose the playback resolution in the AISO driver.
normally you wouldnt have different resolutions in one converter. :)
the converters from motu, m-audio, sony, eventide, mykerinos, usbaudio, terratec, avid, apogee, eventide, tc, and digidesign always only support 16 OR 24 bits format.
though i remember that at least one of the nuendo branded 19" units also had different modes (and they are hammerfall based.)
some of the high end sony cards and the weiss converter also have different modes - but of course at different ins and outs.
So does it play 24 bit automatically if I e.g. set record to 24bit in Cubase? Or?
nah, the setting of the software is independant from that. the setting of the host program only affects reading and writing files, everything releated to the card must be available in the ASIO controls.
-
Hi IllO,
Thanks for your responses. I found out that the RME Mac OS9 driver is 100% the same as the windows version, but it has a totally different function. Someone was very lazy. ;) Basically you can't use the digi 96/8 manual wich is all over the internet. There's a specific Mac manual on the driver CD which solves all mysteries.
In AISO mode you can choose 2 different buffer sizes for 16 bit playback/recording which is mentioned as a 16 bit data stream in the AISO driver. The 2 - 32 bit buffer options enable 24bit playback/recording. As usual the host program must have the same resolution. Sample rate can only be chosen in the host program. Latency is less on higher samplerates. Don't know why that is.
While working with VSTi's I always used a 44.1 Khz resolution. With this new card I've got the option to work with less latency on 48 Khz or 96 Khz. What would be the most optimal samplerate to use with e.g. Atmosphere, ImpOscar, Vanguard etc?
Greetz,
Arjen
-
Don't know why that is.
:) because that part of the overall latency which comes from the card and its driver always comes in samples. shorter samples== shorter latency.
-
What would be the most optimal samplerate to use with e.g. Atmosphere, ImpOscar, Vanguard etc?
for instruments it does not really matter, but the RME PCI cards offer a very god quality at samplingrtates higher than 44.1, so if you are recording a lot (or of you use this computer to send VSTi´s to an analog mixer) you will have a benefit of using 88.2 or 96 kHz quality wise.
i would not recommend the same for a m-audio interface, cheaper converters sound better at 44.
that, of course, at the cost of CPU (of up to 2 times more CPU when the samplingrate is doubled...)
p.s. this wont apply to you and is not related to the converter questions, but higher samplingrates are also interesting when you sta on the digital layer, i.e. imposcar -> waves ren verb -> render to disk, and even more interesting for processes like pitch shifting or programs like melodyne or metasynth.
-
for instruments it does not really matter, but the RME PCI cards offer a very god quality at samplingrtates higher than 44.1
GOD quality;)
"go forth my son, and VST"
amen. lol
;D
-
Some real world Numbers...
With a M-Audio 2496...
DMA Buffer Size 128.. Latency = 2.9ms (Can't playback 16 Tracks, 32 Bit, Audio has dropouts), VSIs are very playable, 8 tracks of 24 bit audio with VSTis are No problem
DMA Buffer Size 256.. Latency = 5.8ms (Playback 16 Tracks of 32 Bit and NO Audio dropouts), VSTis are somewhat playable
-
These are the choices/numbers of the RME card:
Choice->Buffer size->Resolution->44.1 kHz->48 kHz->88.2 kHz->96 kHz
A-> 46 ms/16 bit 2048 s 16 bit 46.4 ms 42.7 ms 23.2 ms 21.3 ms
B-> 23 ms/32 bit 1024 s 32 bit 23.2 ms 21.3 ms 11.6 ms 10.7 ms
C-> 11 ms/16 bit 512 s 16 bit 11.6 ms 10.7 ms 5.8 ms 5.3 ms
D-> 6 ms/32 bit 256 s 32 bit 5.8 ms 5.3 ms 2.9 ms 2.7 ms
Some results of my tests:
Option D (= 24bit audio playback) gives best results for playing VSTi's. Playback has dropouts while using VSTi's. Without VSTi's no dropouts.
Option B ( = 24bit audio playback) gives best overall result. No audio dropouts. VSTi's are playable etc.
-
for instruments it does not really matter, but the RME PCI cards offer a very god quality at samplingrtates higher than 44.1, so if you are recording a lot (or of you use this computer to send VSTi´s to an analog mixer) you will have a benefit of using 88.2 or 96 kHz quality wise.
p.s. this wont apply to you and is not related to the converter questions, but higher samplingrates are also interesting when you sta on the digital layer, i.e. imposcar -> waves ren verb -> render to disk, and even more interesting for processes like pitch shifting or programs like melodyne or metasynth.
That's interesting. I am going to give it a try. Curious if I can hear an increased quality while using a higher sample rate. I heard no difference with my ESI. ;) Otherwise the processing benefits are also something to take into account.
-
just got the RME DIGI96/8 PST 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
$20 .. what a score!!!!!!!
the guy who sold it to me, (the original owner) bought it at a discounted price because he worked for one of the biggest music stores in canada, Long & Mcquade..
he said it cost about 750$-800 retail at the time
best deal ever!
-
Curious if I can hear an increased quality while using a higher sample rate. I heard no difference with my ESI. ;)
yeah thats what i would expect. there are exceptions, but the main thing what counts is the stability/quality of the clock.
if you have a MOTU interface and you want to record guitar and voice, a samplingrate of 192 kHz will give you worse result than 44.1 kHz, simply because of the clock beeing "not exact enough" for such a high samplingrate.
-
IIO u really gotta learn how to use quote blocks bud
-
arjen
does the mac manual for the RME say anything about multi-configurations using more than one of these cards?
the card has connections at the top for sync in, sync out, and cd audio in
from the sound on sound article: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb02/articles/rmedigi0202.asp
Output & Clock Options
It can get confusing dealing with digital clocks manually, but unless you do it correctly you'll end up with skips and jumps in your audio. To make things easier, RME provide an intelligent AutoSync mode that sticks with the low-jitter internal clock unless a valid clock is detected at the active input, when it switches over automatically. This should be a great help during 'on the fly' recordings, since you don't have to rely on the external clock being present before you start, and it also enables multiple DIGI cards to be synchronised from one input signal. However, there are some situations in which this mode can cause digital feedback, when you should switch the card to Master clock mode. A third Word Clock option is available if you've fitted the optional WCM module.
Overview
On the card itself are various additional connectors and jumpers. There's a digital input suitable for connection to a CD-ROM's digital output, or to synchronise another DIGI card, and a Sync output for which a suitable short cable is also supplied.
so it seems these are able to be stacked!!! for more I/O!!
-
Hi Chris,
See for yourself! ;D
Greetz,
Arjen
PS: Definitely a score! I paid more....
-
i just saw last night the asio control panel references up to 4 cards