Login

Nebula3ZL and *DSPBUFFER*

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Re: Nebula3ZL and *DSPBUFFER*

Postby mixmonkey » Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:07 pm

Enrique, what exactly do you mean when you say 'ZL mode is off' when buffers are set higher than 512 samples? Off in what way?
mixmonkey
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:34 pm

Re: Nebula3ZL and *DSPBUFFER*

Postby Support » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:18 pm

Look these two screen shots.

1 - ZL is useful for monitoring though host (obviously).
2 - ZL is useful for host that not compensate automatization in surfaces.

Soon as you rich medium to big buffer sizes, use ZL has no sense, due ZL will load more CPU than Nebula and Nebula3 Reverb without any low latency feature due host is working at medium or high latency mode.

NebulaZLOnly.JPG


NebulaZLAndNebulaReverb.jpg
Best regards,
Enrique Silveti.
Acustica Audio customer and technical support
http://www.acustica-audio.com
User avatar
Support
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2877
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:33 am
Location: Lodi, Lombardia, Italy.

Re: Nebula3ZL and *DSPBUFFER*

Postby mixmonkey » Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:38 pm

Aah, I see what you mean. You're saying there's no point in using a ZL instance when the host buffer has already increased the I/O latency.

Of course, you're quite right :) However I would add one more item to your list of when ZL is useful:

1 - ZL is useful for monitoring though host (obviously).
2 - ZL is useful for host that not compensate automatization in surfaces.
3- ZL is useful when chaining multiple instances of Nebula, when the accumulated latency of Regular or Reverb becomes a problem- this is why I use it.

Chaining 4-5 Nebula ZL instances in Nyrv Agent to create full EQs and channel strips and then mapping the parameters of all the instances to a control surface (a Command 8 in my case- true, it's not an S6, but I've mixed loads of albums on it, replaced all it's moving faders at least once and had to build it a new PSU, but it's a trooper :mrgreen: )

But we digress. My original point was that if I increase ZL's <DSPBUFFER> to 1024 from the default 512, its CPU usage drops by about 10%. In ProTools, on Mac, with a PT H/W (input) Buffer of 256. That's all- try it for yourself and see if you concur.
mixmonkey
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:34 pm

Re: Nebula3ZL and *DSPBUFFER*

Postby markgalup » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:14 pm

mixmonkey,

I am a producer/mixer in Nashville and I work on PT11. I just bought and am just getting deep into Nebula3 Server. Your point is very interesting and I will check it out asap. My question is why would you do full pro mixing at a buffer of 256? If you increase it you'll increase your CPU overhead, in all of my experence.

Also, sorry to be slightly off-topic, but do you encounter glitchy audio when you bypass the ZL version like it does with the Reverb version?

Mark Galup
www.ReelRecording.com
Mark Galup
Producer/Engineer/Mixer/Mastering Engineer
ReelRecording.com
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

Acustica Audio Dealer for the USA
User avatar
markgalup
Member
Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:15 am
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Nebula3ZL and *DSPBUFFER*

Postby mixmonkey » Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:41 pm

I try to stay on a buffer of 256 because it produces a (just) manageable latency if I have to overdub the odd MIDI instrument at mix time.

Also, since Pro Tools 11, the output (process) buffer is fixed and changing the input buffer in the Playback Engine settings doesn't have the same impact on CPU utilization it did in earlier versions of Pro Tools (although your system will still fall over if you reduce it too far ;) )
mixmonkey
User Level III
User Level III
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:34 pm

Previous

Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests