Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Find topics on computers, studios and music-related hardware.
Post Reply
TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by TNM » Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:36 am

Hi.. having real issues here.. I have gone through 4 different interfaces.. MOTU Ultralite MK3, Mbox3, Apollo Thunderbolt (best performer of the lot), and just plain on board mac sound through headphone out.

The thing is, Cubase is almost impossible to play ANY vsti with "in realtime", under 128 buffer..

i.e if the track is record armed...

64 causes pops and clicks, 32 sounds like a meat grinder.

The latest test was with Roland JV1080, a relatively light VI compared to many others.

I can not play 4 note chord progressions at anything under 128 buffer in Cubase...

HOWEVER.. once i have recorded, and the instrument track is shuffled back onto it's "asio core" buffer (in my case 1024 samples, the normal setting), Cubase actually beats out Logic in terms of instances and polyphony.. for example.. when i did my last DSP test using kilohearts ONE synth, i got 14 tacks in logic playing same patch and midi file vs 16 in Cubase. Pro tools rules them all when it's internal high buffer is instantiated.. it would play 20 instances in that scenario, for example.

pro tools once again beat out both Logic and Cubase doing the same test with the JV1080, by around 10% this time.

YET, like Cubase, Pro tools suffers under 128 buffer.. HOWEVER, it allowed me to play the JV1080 at 64 buffer using the apollo, which cubase could not manage.
But usually, i have to be at 128.

SR is 44.1K in all tests.
If i was to go to 88 or 96k, i'd have to put it at 256 buffer.

Now, the reason why this is an issue is, because logic allows LIVE PLAYING at 32 buffer, for EVERY single instrument where cubase fails at even 64 buffer.
Yes, once the live playing is done, and the VI's are shuffled onto the higher internal playback buffer, cubase beats Logic.. But for me, and i suspect many others(?), low latency performance is what we want.

I am certain if i invested in a killer windows machine it would all be ok.. but i am a mac guy.. Looking at an imac pro even but not sure if it will solve my issues (after all, playing a single VI at low latency depends on single core performance)...

To rub more salt in the wound, i set 8 of logic's VI's in "live buffer" mode, so 8 of them were at 32 samples, and I was able to play away all 8 simultaneously via my keyboard at 32 buffer.. I would be a fool to even try this in cubase if i valued my health!

I am far from alone.. I have confirmed this now on 8 other macs of various studio friends, before i wrote this topic.. I had to be 100% sure.. many of them use much newer macs.. So 6 other macs, besides my own 2.. In every case, logic can easily play love at 32 or 64 buffer in situations where Cubase falls over.

Steinberg, can you improve this please? This isn;'t a case of an issue with my machine. I have done thorough enough testing to confirm as much.. It's just the way it is.

You yourselves know that Cubase does outperform Logic in an outright polyphony test when using Asio guard, but this is not good enough.. I want to play my drum Vi's at low latency.. Sometimes i may want to avoid UA console and also monitor external signals through Cubase and native FX at low latency.. Right now, Logic is the KING in that regard..I mean it can basically just do ANYTHING "live", at 32 samples..Why can't Cubase?

If you are on MAC, and play VI's at 32 samples in realtime, please state processor spec and interface.. Much appreciated!

PS does anyone know if high sierra is any better than sierra in this regard?
Macbook Pro 2019 model, i9-9880H (2.3ghz base) 8 Core/16 thread, 32GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.14.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Vega 20, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo,CB Pro 9.5.3, Multiple T Bolt SSD's, Motu microlite, midi synths.

TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by TNM » Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:44 am

How is this a hardware issue? why was this moved from CUBASE issues?

This has nothing to do with hardware.. Did the mod even read anything I said? This is a CUBASE issue, cause Logic is fine at 32 buffer on same machine. I can also play VI's at 32 buffer in S1.. And 64 buffer in PT.. Cubase minimum is 128.

This is a CUBASE problem.

Sweeping it under the rug and trying to get people to ignore it will not change anything.
Macbook Pro 2019 model, i9-9880H (2.3ghz base) 8 Core/16 thread, 32GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.14.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Vega 20, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo,CB Pro 9.5.3, Multiple T Bolt SSD's, Motu microlite, midi synths.

-steve-
External Moderator
Posts: 9095
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by -steve- » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:45 pm

This forum is active, and no one is hiding anything.

Largely speaking this is a discussion about Cubase performance vs Logic and Pro Tools, using several audio interfaces, and a request/complaint about Cubase performance. The issues sub-forum is for bugs and the like.
independent manufacturer rep
cubase pro, nuendo, and dorico pro; latest versions
windows pro 10 | i7-3770k | ga-77x-ud5h | 32 Gb | UR-RT2 | k-mix audio interface
hp spectre x360 2018 | 16 Gb

User avatar
Denis van der Velde
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:41 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Denis van der Velde » Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:59 am

TNM you must be kidding to just CUBASE bashing. A lantecy of 8-10ms should be ok. So check that and you plugins running etc.
I7 8core 16tread 32gb Aopen Board, SSD Samsung. C10,W10,Halion6,Groove Agent5,etc.
Running on 8ms Latency with a Soundblaster XFi Pro. Yamaha MW12c USB mixer.
Behringer TRUTH B2031A active studiomonitors. Sony MDR-V900 Headphones.
Steinberg CC121 Controller. Mackie Control Pro.

Denis van der Velde
http://www.curioza.com
AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System for Windows

TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by TNM » Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:05 pm

Denis van der Velde wrote:
Wed Apr 25, 2018 7:59 am
TNM you must be kidding to just CUBASE bashing. A lantecy of 8-10ms should be ok. So check that and you plugins running etc.
Oh yes, I am kidding, and am bashing cubase. Are you serious?

No, i do not like 8 or 10ms..

good for you if you are not classically keyboard trained and can not feel that latency.. I can.

What's that got to do with the topic?

it's not just VI's.. setting cubase to 32 samples even to monitor external audio and it goes crazy whereas logic does NOT on the same machine. Nor does reaper. Nor does Studio one.

So it's a cubase thing.

128 is where Cubase settles.. this is far too high, especially for round trip latency.. for Vi's it is not too bad, as for Vi's only the output latency matters..

however my virus USB doubles the internal buffer.. this is how the dsp works.. so it becomes 256 samples.. much too high.

In logic i can set my computer to 32 samples which means my virus Ti is at 64. Perfect.

I HATE Logic and it's bugs.. why do you think i don't use it anymore..

But one thing you can not take away from it is it's low latency performance.

This is something that only steinberg can improve.
Macbook Pro 2019 model, i9-9880H (2.3ghz base) 8 Core/16 thread, 32GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.14.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Vega 20, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo,CB Pro 9.5.3, Multiple T Bolt SSD's, Motu microlite, midi synths.

User avatar
Denis van der Velde
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:41 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Denis van der Velde » Tue May 01, 2018 8:39 am

Very funny to me that i never said anything just about the latency, and you come across it is and must be a cubase thing.
And you go futher on it like you need 0 latency. You like cubase but all i hear is bs...... I dont think steiberg HAS to improve anything on you assumptions...
THX!
I7 8core 16tread 32gb Aopen Board, SSD Samsung. C10,W10,Halion6,Groove Agent5,etc.
Running on 8ms Latency with a Soundblaster XFi Pro. Yamaha MW12c USB mixer.
Behringer TRUTH B2031A active studiomonitors. Sony MDR-V900 Headphones.
Steinberg CC121 Controller. Mackie Control Pro.

Denis van der Velde
http://www.curioza.com
AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System for Windows

Romantique Tp
External Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Romantique Tp » Tue May 01, 2018 9:28 am

Denis, these posts aren't being particularly helpful. I'll have to recommend you to stop.

Everyone has different needs. I don't know if there's anything he can do to improve Cubase's low latency performance while using this specific hardware and/or OS setup, but these assumptions you're making aren't going to help anyone.
Every time someone says "it must be easy to add/fix", a programmer dies.

Cubase Pro and Wavelab Pro (latest), Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, MSI Z87-G45 GAMING, i5 4690k, GeForce GTX 760, almost every Steinberg plugin and expansion, Trilian, Komplete 10, etc etc etc etc

User avatar
Denis van der Velde
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:41 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Denis van der Velde » Tue May 01, 2018 9:54 am

Well i was just defending Cubase and told the user that a 8ms latency is quite good. But hey, each time i say something or try to do something here, i get cutoff.. Thx. I will not use the forum for answering other mans questions. Quess you should do that only then for now ??? thx.... Even the moderator Steve told the users to be a little less hard on cubase... but hey, This user has needs. And we must protect the needs of the user,.
Romantique Tp wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 9:28 am
Denis, these posts aren't being particularly helpful. I'll have to recommend you to stop.

Everyone has different needs. I don't know if there's anything he can do to improve Cubase's low latency performance while using this specific hardware and/or OS setup, but these assumptions you're making aren't going to help anyone.
I7 8core 16tread 32gb Aopen Board, SSD Samsung. C10,W10,Halion6,Groove Agent5,etc.
Running on 8ms Latency with a Soundblaster XFi Pro. Yamaha MW12c USB mixer.
Behringer TRUTH B2031A active studiomonitors. Sony MDR-V900 Headphones.
Steinberg CC121 Controller. Mackie Control Pro.

Denis van der Velde
http://www.curioza.com
AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System for Windows

Romantique Tp
External Moderator
Posts: 2878
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 3:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Romantique Tp » Tue May 01, 2018 10:17 am

Posting your opinion is fine, but the way you're expressing it is only going to start a fight. There's no reason to assume that he's posting this in bad faith.
Every time someone says "it must be easy to add/fix", a programmer dies.

Cubase Pro and Wavelab Pro (latest), Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, MSI Z87-G45 GAMING, i5 4690k, GeForce GTX 760, almost every Steinberg plugin and expansion, Trilian, Komplete 10, etc etc etc etc

User avatar
Denis van der Velde
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:41 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Denis van der Velde » Tue May 01, 2018 10:36 am

Romantique Tp wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:17 am
Posting your opinion is fine, but the way you're expressing it is only going to start a fight. There's no reason to assume that he's posting this in bad faith.
Too me there are two moderators that did not answer his posting.
If i react on it is not ok. So how to solve the posting then?
I7 8core 16tread 32gb Aopen Board, SSD Samsung. C10,W10,Halion6,Groove Agent5,etc.
Running on 8ms Latency with a Soundblaster XFi Pro. Yamaha MW12c USB mixer.
Behringer TRUTH B2031A active studiomonitors. Sony MDR-V900 Headphones.
Steinberg CC121 Controller. Mackie Control Pro.

Denis van der Velde
http://www.curioza.com
AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System for Windows

User avatar
Denis van der Velde
Member
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:41 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Denis van der Velde » Wed May 02, 2018 11:10 am

''In logic i can set my computer to 32 samples which means my virus Ti is at 64. Perfect.''

Too me demanding 32 samples from Asio in Cubase is asking for Crazy things to happen.
I7 8core 16tread 32gb Aopen Board, SSD Samsung. C10,W10,Halion6,Groove Agent5,etc.
Running on 8ms Latency with a Soundblaster XFi Pro. Yamaha MW12c USB mixer.
Behringer TRUTH B2031A active studiomonitors. Sony MDR-V900 Headphones.
Steinberg CC121 Controller. Mackie Control Pro.

Denis van der Velde
http://www.curioza.com
AAMS Auto Audio Mastering System for Windows

TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by TNM » Wed May 30, 2018 6:08 am

Romantique Tp wrote:
Tue May 01, 2018 10:17 am
Posting your opinion is fine, but the way you're expressing it is only going to start a fight. There's no reason to assume that he's posting this in bad faith.
I have no idea why he is doing this, but thanks for interjecting.

Ok.. I will try to explain it more simply..

On both the macs in my signature, not state of the art macs by any means, whether using internal audio or UAD apollo (i have also tried my MOTU ultralite on the imac as that has FW800 port), Cubase when set to 32 or 64 samples can not play Vi's.. Pro tools can NOT do it at 32 samples either, ok. No way. Pro tools HAS to be at 128..

BUT.. Logic, Reaper, and Studio 1, can all play the exact same VI's with exact same settings, at 32 samples. With Cubase, *sometimes* 64 works.

But it's not just VI's.. I record 32 audio tracks at a time right, i have 2 apollo 8's with adat filled on both, so 32 inputs each all recording hardware midi...
If i wanted to bypass the apollo mixer and use native plugins instead, i.e, use Cubase monitoring 32 channels of audio going into it in realtime, through native FX, Cubase is very problematic at 32 samples.Same with pro tools.

with logic, Reaper, S1.. I can monitor all 32 audio inputs, in realtime, at 32 samples, and each with a reverb plugin on them! I mean the difference is huge. This is all I am saying..

Even though my macs are not the latest, my macbook pro is not far behind the current very top of the line one.. but i admit, my imac is basically a 2600K inside, old processor. But even as such, on the exact same computers using the exact same interfaces, the other DAWs i mentioned CAN do what Cubase can not.

If this guy thinks I am a liar, I am happy to take video to show the difference, the way Logic spreads the load and how there are zero dropouts at 32 samples at ALL.. even when i use my midi keyboard to play realtime very hungry synths like Diva.. (cubase needs 128 for Diva).

The way I get around it now, is use the apollo for all my monitoring, using UAD dsp effects, and setting Cubase at 128 to play for when I use VSTi's..

For me, playing piano and drums, 128 is too high.. Especially when i use analog hardware synths which are basically instant.

I have no idea why this guy has an issue with me..

All i am saying is, since Logic/s1/reaper can do it at 32 and 64 samples, the fact cubase can not, means it's up to Steinberg to fix low latency performance.
How this is bashing in any way shape or form, i have no idea. But i have muted this guy as i was getting very angry.. Even when you the moderator told him to stop he kept going, and i am not going to get into any fights, so i made it simple.. i have put him on ignore list permanently and will never ever read any of his posts.. ever.. so don't worry, there will be no fighting from me.

Now, just to clarify.. once the project starts getting really busy and full, Cubase at 128 samples actually does give better performance than every other DAW i listed, in terms of effect count and VSTi polyphony. I have done extensive tests over and over again to verify this, using multiple VSTi's. At 128 Cubase beats S1, Logic, Reaper.. The only one that matches it is Pro tools.

But the issue is, Cubase simply can't do it at UNDER 128 buffer.. for many people this is ok.. for me.. well.. let me give you an example. IF I bypass the UAD mixer and go native, the roundtrip latency at 128 is 8 milliseconds.. this is much too high to use a native guitar amp or for a real live drummer.

In Logic, i set it at 32 and have a roundtrip of 4ms. Big difference, no?

PS about the Virus TI.. I use it through USB as a plugin, but the processing is all done in the virus itself, so it doesn't use any CPU. However, how responsive it is to play, is dependant on the DAW chosen buffer size. The virus is basically always double what the chosen buffer is.. So since in Cubase I have to work at 128 buffer, it means the virus is at 256.. 256 is just too high.. The only work around for this, is to use the analog output for the virus to bypass the USB for monitoring, but i have no audio inputs left! None!
Since i can set the buffer in logic at 32 and never change it, the virus is always at 64.. which is still very playable.

Now, I know many people who CAN set Cubase at 32 samples, maximum 64.. but they are using computers more than double the power of mine. I used my friend's 10 core imac pro just 2 days ago.. and he uses 4 apollo's at 32 samples.. And on the imac pro it is possible in Cubase.
However.. it still falls over at 32 samples, at about 30% the VSTi polyphony that logic does.. In other words, you can't do much at 32 samples.. It's usable, but as the project gets busy, no way.. Even with Asio guard on maximum. With Logic on the imac pro, we never ever had to move it from 32 samples in all our tests. So what this tells me, is, that even on very powerful machines, Cubase is still way less efficient at ultra low buffers, than the other DAWs on mac. On windows it might be a completely different scenario, I don't know?

Can anyone tell me if they can use Cubase at 32 samples on a windows machine? I am looking at a 7900X with 64GB ram built from a local pro DAW computer builder. If i can use Cubase at 32 samples, it means Pro tools will probably work at 32 also.. So i will consider to switch to windows rather than buy a ridiculously expensive imac Pro.
Macbook Pro 2019 model, i9-9880H (2.3ghz base) 8 Core/16 thread, 32GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.14.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Vega 20, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo,CB Pro 9.5.3, Multiple T Bolt SSD's, Motu microlite, midi synths.

Wepsta
Junior Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:51 am
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by Wepsta » Wed May 30, 2018 10:30 pm

Hi TNM i am using a 18 Core i9 machine on windows side, smaller then 128 buffer no way Cubase needs min.128 i always work on stable 256-512.
I think Steinberg is working on that now.
viewtopic.php?f=250&t=138024
Interesting why Logic, "Reaper and S1" is better in low latency on macOS is it better on windows to?
Good luck ;)
Win 10 Enterprise - Cubase 10 - Apollo Quad MKII Thunderbolt - Core i9-9900K 5Ghz All Core EK-Watercool - Gigabyte Z390 Designare - 32GB DDR4-2666 - 4x MX500 - RX 580 Pulse - Corsair RMx Series RM750 - Fractal Design Define R5 - CP40 Stage - MOTU Micro Lite - VEP 6

TNM
Junior Member
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Terrible Low latency Performance VS Logic, heck, even Pro Tools!

Post by TNM » Thu May 31, 2018 5:55 am

Wepsta wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 10:30 pm
Hi TNM i am using a 18 Core i9 machine on windows side, smaller then 128 buffer no way Cubase needs min.128 i always work on stable 256-512.
I think Steinberg is working on that now.
viewtopic.php?f=250&t=138024
Interesting why Logic, "Reaper and S1" is better in low latency on macOS is it better on windows to?
Good luck ;)
Wow ok thank you for that.

I noticed on my old, 2012 quad core ivy bridge windows laptop, that Pro tools works much better than it does on mac.. I can set at 64 samples and leave it there.. But I didn't try cubase 9 yet on it, as it's windows 7 so what's the point.. if i buy a new 10 or 14 core windows computer, it would have to be windows 10, and i know windows 10 has issues with Cubase and many cores.

Logic does amaze me in that regard.. I don't understand it either.. I literally set the buffer to 32.. and it says, "output latency 1 ms".. same as what Cubase reports.. But in Logic i can arm a VI track and play to my hearts content.. Or i can arm 32 audio tracks and put effects on all of them.. In Cubase I simply can not do that.

I guess this is where hardware DSP solutions like Apollo do help a lot.. and as I said, I can work around it simply because I do have the Apollo.

I am just tired of using an external mixer, and the apollo mixer... this is why I was considering getting 4 presonus quantum interfaces and having all my external gear go through the DAW mixer so I can use native effects.. and that way have total recall.. Basically to use the DAW as a "live" mixer/monitor. But yeah, 128 is pointless.. it is far too high to monitor all the external synths, vocals, and guitar through.In that case, it makes sense to just keep using the Apollo.

I see you are also using apollo and your system is an absolute beast.. I presume all power saving is completely disabled? This can not be done on mac and is why I always presumed Windows could work at lower latencies. However, I'd be using a similar motherboard, same interface, just a slightly lower chip.. and if it doesn't work for you under 128, then it's likely to make sense for me to just stick to mac and work at 128...

Thanks for your help.

PS re reaper and S1.. they are not so great in performance overall, it's just that they can at least "work" at low buffers, actually in presonus, i can play VSTi's at 16 samples! But the cpu fills up very fast.. Again, at 128 samples, Cubase thrashes them.. to give you an example.. I copied a synth and midi part over and over.. looped 32 bars.. In cubase, 14 instances vs 8 in S1 and Reaper, and 12 in logic. So there you go.. The actual core spread when asi guard is on, is perfect.. Cubase beats them all! it's just that bugbear for the record armed and live tracks, that i can't go under 128.
Macbook Pro 2019 model, i9-9880H (2.3ghz base) 8 Core/16 thread, 32GB Ram, 2TB SSD, OS 10.14.6, Caldigit TS3+ Dock, Vega 20, Tbolt Apollo Twin Duo,CB Pro 9.5.3, Multiple T Bolt SSD's, Motu microlite, midi synths.

Post Reply

Return to “Computer/Studio Hardware & Setup”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: valvehead and 5 guests