Let me point out again that in general the Cubase 6.02 patch does not crackle, as the topic suggests.
TechBytes wrote:I'm confused.. !
Your 101 on dynamic ASIO buffer setting seems to miss one vital point , that many of us require the systems to run at ultra low latencies for the vast majority of time due to using virtual instruments , so raising buffers for mixing is irrelevant to the working environments being posed on this thread. Also many with good audio hardware can set and forget modern native systems at 064/128 samples and never touch the dial , the so called common practice of raising buffers depending on the production stage is not as valid as it was on past systems, it just sounds like a cop out.
I was pointing out some incontestable facts about ASIO and ASIO environments and there is nothing to argue.
1. I do not see how there is quote "a valid point missing that many of us require the systems to run at ultra low latencies for the vast majority of time due to using virtual instruments". Of course close to zero latency is desirable for recording and that’s what I stated "when you record you would reduce the buffersize". Just to make it absolutely clear yes, of course close to zero latency is desirable when we record our VSTi's.
2. Also I do not see why you would conclude that quote "raising buffers for mixing is irrelevant to the working environments being posed on this thread". If one doesn't use many plugins and does not use resource hungry processes one might be able to build up a project and finalize it with low buffersizes, but if one is using vsti's and CPU hungry plugins the buffersize is of course of relevance. Let's not start splitting hairs on this.
Also many with good audio hardware can set and forget modern native systems at 064/128 samples and never touch the dial ,
If you have small projects and don’t use many plugins you might be able to stay on those 64 sams buffersize. For users that have bigger projects and use more and more plugins this will certainly not be the case.
We should consider that it is not so much advisable to for instance drop MBC's and Reverences into a project before we recorded our first MIDI note but more after we recorded the last note.
If the majority here had no problem what so ever on 6.00 and 6.01, then it would be wise to focus on resolving the issues that you have introduced instead of shifting the blame on the end user's working environments / systems.
I have never shifted the blame to anyone. I was pointing out some facts. Just read what I wrote and don’t troll and twist my words. Acknowledge that my focus is constructive and you are the one exemplifying confrontational attitude.
Wheres the face palm emoticon when you need it.. !
You are really not getting it are you ?
The MBC with the previously noted 1712 sample inherent delay did not cause any PDC/delay issues in the past and 100's of instances could be used at ultra low latency without introducing any artefacts , whatever has been "fixed" has actually broken the plugin to the point of being unusable in the previous manner that no one complained about, first point, and also introduced other anomalies.
First rule - If It Aint Broke, Don't Fix. !
Your long rambling so called technical response is nothing but apologetics and lip service , sort the problem , save the lip service .
The MBC does not have "PDC/delay issues". It seems that you have misunderstood. It naturally introduces latency.
In 5.5.3 it might depend on the buffersize however and does under certain conditions produce undesirable artifacts.
So yes, the MBC also may introduce latency in 5.5.3 but that is not even the center point of what have written.
The main point of my second post was how to treat plugins that introduce latency like the MBC and how to find out which ones do. This is relevant to the second post of the thread starter.
The reason why the MBC has been changed is because it under certain conditions could introduce artifacts, latency is apperantly necessary to avoid these artifacts.
The Bug fix is listed in the version history:
28340 Potential sound artifacts when using the MultiBandCompressor with small ASIO buffer sizes
has been corrected.
The complaints and stated issues have already been acknowledged and a report has been issued. There is no need to troll around.
And as you where talking about rules let's go down that road as well. Your appearance here is quite inappropriate. Your posts here are factually wrong. You are misinforming the public. If you have points to make then go ahead but don't just come here to troll around. This is not they way we like to communicate around here in the forums. We would like to have constructive and reasonable posts from people that respect proper forum conduct. So if you are into polemics, trolling, flaming bashing and “facpalm emoticons” you are at the wrong place. Please have a look at the forum rules so you won't be puzzled if you should get banned.
Constructive explanatory, informative posts and criticism are welcome.