SOLVED. Don't use MB chipset RAID for Pro Tools 11

[captdan]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

I'm sorry, but does PT 10 function without having some Avid hardware? I've never really understood this.

Yes, and quite well. In fact, you can set the buffer at 1024 and above and experience NO LATENCY WHATSOEVER if you monitor your tracking input directly on your console. This suggests that PT's input-only monitoring is irrelevant, regardless whether it's PT9, 10, or 11 Native.

Far as I know, the ONLY way to track with PT without latency *in the box* is to invest in their proprietary hardware cards. The only other advantage in that investment is an alleged increase in track count. But - really - do you NEED 64 tracks?

The DM and Protools play nice together. But some workarounds need to be done for certain applications. And they're really not that big a deal.

CaptDan



CaptDan

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

You're right, I think I can track at 1024 just fine but how do you punch in an overdub without some hijinx about rapidly muting the channel to keep the delayed "input monitor" track from being distracting against the track playing directly though a console input? I have been working the exact way you describe with Cakewalk products since I set up my studio. I've never bothered with input monitoring except for very rare circumstances. Avid is dead set on making me work that way. It really seems like it would be hard to punch in a full drum kit.

Furthermore, I've since discovered that I can use input monitoring with Sonar X3 quite well at very low buffer settings. I works very well. I might start doing this for vocal sessions whenever I can.

 

[rbrezins]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

Did you try all those firewire cards with the Windows legacy drivers? I hate to keep stating it but this is the first thing I'd try before anything else. Also using the latest Beta version of the IF FW MKII driver is the other missing piece of the puzzle

Yes I did, btw, I use an M-Audio ProFire2626 interface, haven't got the Tascam IF FW card. Might be an M-Audio driver issue in Win7, who knows........

This wasn't the only reason I bought a Mac Pro. Had clients in my studio which chose for other studios because they worked with Macs and I was on Windows..........Lost a lot of work/clients because of me not using a Mac..........it's a strange world....

 

[captdan]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

You're right, I think I can track at 1024 just fine but how do you punch in an overdub without some hijinx about rapidly muting the channel to keep the delayed "input monitor" track from being distracting against the track playing directly though a console input? I have been working the exact way you describe with Cakewalk products since I set up my studio. I've never bothered with input monitoring except for very rare circumstances. Avid is dead set on making me work that way. It really seems like it would be hard to punch in a full drum kit.

Furthermore, I've since discovered that I can use input monitoring with Sonar X3 quite well at very low buffer settings. I works very well. I might start doing this for vocal sessions whenever I can.

There are several ways to do punches in Ptools without latency. One is to use the PlayList approach; you lay down a series of tracks then comp them together. The other way (which I generally use), is to excise the section to be replaced, then lay in the 'punch' on an adjacent, separate track. The main track is monitored normally, then Punch Record kicks in at the section marked for replacement. Sometimes I'll set up three or four clone tracks. Then I just cut the best take of the replacement section and lay it into the main take. In essence, it doesn't really take that much longer to set up than the 'old school' method.

YMMV.

CaptDan

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

There are several ways to do punches in Ptools without latency. One is to use the PlayList approach; you lay down a series of tracks then comp them together. The other way (which I generally use), is to excise the section to be replaced, then lay in the 'punch' on an adjacent, separate track. The main track is monitored normally, then Punch Record kicks in at the section marked for replacement. Sometimes I'll set up three or four clone tracks. Then I just cut the best take of the replacement section and lay it into the main take. In essence, it doesn't really take that much longer to set up than the 'old school' method.

YMMV.

CaptDan

I have a feeling this whole thing is a PT issue because Sonar and Harrison Mixbus handle input monitoring surprisingly well. My normal workflow is already built around not using input monitoring so that's nothing new to me. What is new is not being able to turn it off and the issues it brings to the table.

Right now Sonar X3 is so refined and compatible with my workflow it's just insane how fast I can do complicated overdubs. It will punch in and out multiple times on a track while the transport is moving all using the DM3200 transport controls. It's so awesome I just can't get over how well it works! In the past I used to have to "set up" a punch by making a hole where the punch goes and all that (not unlike what you described. The way Sonar works now it will mute and then truncate the clip that's playing back at the point where you press record and then bring it back when you unlatch the record button. I'm probably not describing it very well but it's the single greatest improvement in my workflow in the last 5 years.

I spent my money and I'm interested in getting a result. I'd like it to work as intended if possible. If it's not possible then I'll come up with a solution that might look alot like what you describe. I can't help but to think that Avid might be knee-capping the vanilla PT to steer people toward the flagship product. The analogy I've made to friends is that it's a bit like I've shown up for my coach class seat with a silk pillow to rest my head and they've handed me a cinder block to hold in my lap for the whole trip.

What I wish is that there was a non-firewire solution for interfacing the DM3200 with the computer. I wonder if Tascam has a new product in the pipeline?

 

[captdan]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

My opinions - worth what ya pay for 'em:

I used Cubase for years; damn good DAW. Unlike Ptools, it handled input monitoring without latency and need for expensive hardware, toolkits, and upgrades. When I jumped to the DM console, I found it integrated quite well with C-base - especially with regard to remote layer functions and bi-directional synchronization. But, I absolutely couldn't handle the convoluted methodology when it came input/output routing.

For years, I was a huge critic of Ptools, Digidesign, and Avid. The primary reason: the marketing 'mission creep' one buys into with the PTools domain. If you want this, you must buy that; if you need to do that, you have to install this. Then, in 2010, when Avid announced its 'truce' with ASIO, I demoed PT9. I was immediately sold on the straightforward routing integration with the DM, jumped ship and haven't looked back.

All that said, my workflow - at least so far - allows me to deal with PT's perceived shortcomings in its ASIO/native format. But I can see how other producers, artists and engineers would be hamstrung without having to go to 'HD,' ToolKit', or whatever new upgrade allows functional capabilities tens of thousands of critics rightfully say have existed for years in Sonar, C-base, and other DAWs. Fact is, unlike all its competitors, PTools was braindead in the MIDI domain until at least PT8. So there's a case to be made for the superiority of other popular sequencers and platforms; I don't think there's a one size-fits-all reality here - at least not without some compromise.

And that's the conclusion I've come to: if a platform isn't providing the functionality you need, jump ship and don't look back. Or - at very least - use both platforms if that's a suitable alternative that doesn't introduce other complexities in the process.

YMMV.

CaptDan

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

My opinions - worth what ya pay for 'em:

For years, I was a huge critic of Ptools, Digidesign, and Avid. The primary reason: the marketing 'mission creep' one buys into with the PTools domain. If you want this, you must buy that; if you need to do that, you have to install this. Then, in 2010, when Avid announced its 'truce' with ASIO, I demoed PT9. I was immediately sold on the straightforward routing integration with the DM, jumped ship and haven't looked back.

All that said, my workflow - at least so far - allows me to deal with PT's perceived shortcomings in its ASIO/native format. But I can see how other producers, artists and engineers would be hamstrung without having to go to 'HD,' ToolKit', or whatever new upgrade allows functional capabilities tens of thousands of critics rightfully say have existed for years in Sonar, C-base, and other DAWs. Fact is, unlike all its competitors, PTools was braindead in the MIDI domain until at least PT8. So there's a case to be made for the superiority of other popular sequencers and platforms; I don't think there's a one size-fits-all reality here - at least not without some compromise.

And that's the conclusion I've come to: if a platform isn't providing the functionality you need, jump ship and don't look back. Or - at very least - use both platforms if that's a suitable alternative that doesn't introduce other complexities in the process.

YMMV.

CaptDan

Much of this could be my own bio. I've been a critic of PT for similar reasons but mostly because the core functions of most professional DAWs were tiered out over the product line with digidesign. The only reason I'm looking at Pro Tools now is because I'm tired of being the only guy I know using Sonar. It's been great for me, I know it forwards and backwards and don't really know any other DAW nearly as well. I will likely keep tracking in Sonar for the foreseeable future because it's very cooperative with my workflow but I have been turning down work because of Pro Tools and I cannot afford to do that any more.

I'd like to get it working the way it's designed so it would be easier to have another engineer use my room without requiring a complicated work flow. Maybe that will be impossible unless I'm willing to consider HD in the future. RIght now I still have lots of options to try with what I've got. I've just learned that PT 11 comes with a PT 10 license so maybe I can get that working. I really don't care which version I use as long as it works. I know 11 is nearly a complete rewrite so I'm sure there are differences.

 

[captdan]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

You've got plenty of company - engineers and producers whose clients refuse to bring biz to your door unless you have 'IT.' Unfortunate, really, but - if anything - Avid's marketing savvy created a customer base so convinced that - without PTools in the signal chain - it just ain't gonna be 'pro.' Besides that, there's something to be said for portability and compatibility, although these days, even that argument doesn't always hold water.

Bottom line: if you're running a for-profit studio, the specter of Avid forever looms over your head.

And bank account.

CaptDan

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

You've got plenty of company - engineers and producers whose clients refuse to bring biz to your door unless you have 'IT.' Unfortunate, really, but - if anything - Avid's marketing savvy created a customer base so convinced that - without PTools in the signal chain - it just ain't gonna be 'pro.' Besides that, there's something to be said for portability and compatibility, although these days, even that argument doesn't always hold water.

Bottom line: if you're running a for-profit studio, the specter of Avid forever looms over your head.

And bank account.

CaptDan

Preach on.

This whole thing is because I had to turn down a job that I really wanted that would have been an excellent opportunity. When I heard the tunes I was just beside myself but knew I couldn't learn to work in a new DAW that quickly and there really wasn't time. It was tough but I knew my reputation would be more harmed if I tried to BS my way into it.

 

[jamsire]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

I'm not gonna get to into this, but I have a Win7/64bit Rain Computer (now defunkt of course), with 24GB RAM. PT10 and PT11 running fine - I don't know why, but they do. Part of me thinks PT likes seeing the Eleven Rack audio interface hooked up to it even though I'm not recording directly to it. There are a lot of "things" you have to do in PT to get it to work with "YOUR STUFF." Once you do - it's smooth sailing. Let's all remember that it's only been 4 years since you were allowed to use >>any<< audio interface.

I don't want to get beat up and challenged here, I'm just stating that PT10-11 takes a while, but is worth the effort.

 

[ray vanda]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

i m using pt 10 with dm 4800 had some issues cant seem to get tc to the 4800 tried everything any idea

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

I'm not gonna get to into this, but I have a Win7/64bit Rain Computer (now defunkt of course), with 24GB RAM. PT10 and PT11 running fine - I don't know why, but they do. Part of me thinks PT likes seeing the Eleven Rack audio interface hooked up to it even though I'm not recording directly to it. There are a lot of "things" you have to do in PT to get it to work with "YOUR STUFF." Once you do - it's smooth sailing. Let's all remember that it's only been 4 years since you were allowed to use >>any<< audio interface.

I don't want to get beat up and challenged here, I'm just stating that PT10-11 takes a while, but is worth the effort.

I will admit a past bias against PT for various reasons but I've since decided to move on. Do I have suspicions about their business model? Sort of, but I also know it doesn't make sense for them to sabotage their own product with negative experiences.

I am an absolute greenhorn regarding PT's product line and as far as settings, there don't seem to be many options regarding audio other than device choice and buffer settings. I would love to hear more about how your configuration is set up because I can't imagine the DM3200/IF-FW/DM card combo can't be made to work.

Yesterday I was doing pre-production in the studio with a band and used the opportunity to test input monitoring across all the DAWs I have installed (Sonar X3, PT 11, and Harrison Mixbus). Sonar and Mixbus both handled 16 channels of live input monitoring at 128 samples while running the bundled track eq's and comps on a few of the tracks. I didn't really get into running effects on every channel but I certainly covered the bases for a cue mix with aplomb. PT was glitching during tracking and the audio is similarly defective. The audio with Sonar and Mixbus was fine.

I did notice the CPU meter in PT without effects running was still having these random spikes to 100% a few times a minute. Say every 10-20 seconds. Sonar and Mixbus don't seem to show the same behavior in their resource meters. That's not really saying much because how that's handled is very different from program to program. I would think that basic audio engine function is pretty similar comparatively.

I can say pretty definitively that nothing I've done to improve the situation has changed it at all. I've done the recommended settings according to the guidelines on the Avid DUC forum. The only thing I haven't done is turn off and disconnect my raid drives because I've got so much other stuff going on that I'm not comfortable with "disabling" my work computer in such a way at the moment.

 

[jamsire]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

Again, my setup is a custom Rain Computer (something I bought used on eBay), a DM4800 w/FW card going directly into the computer - nothing in the middle. I suspect that it is the version of PT you purchased accidentally. I'm using HD - since V9 and I'm good. In fact, when V9 came out, I immediately sold my awesome working Digi003 rack to a student and have never looked back. I use Cubase 6.xx and Ableton 8.xx.

Sorry for your troubles.

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

Again, my setup is a custom Rain Computer (something I bought used on eBay), a DM4800 w/FW card going directly into the computer - nothing in the middle. I suspect that it is the version of PT you purchased accidentally. I'm using HD - since V9 and I'm good. In fact, when V9 came out, I immediately sold my awesome working Digi003 rack to a student and have never looked back. I use Cubase 6.xx and Ableton 8.xx.

Sorry for your troubles.

So you have HD Native? My dm3200 is going straight into the computer as well. The apogee is just a digital input for the console if you're wondering about that.

I wonder what it would cost to upgrade to HD NATIVE? That requires some of their hardware doesn't it? I really don't understand their differences in various versions.

 

[jamsire]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

PT HD comes with installers for its hardware, as well as ASIO drivers.

When I meant straight in to my computer, I meant no adapter - not that it would make a difference - I'm not sure. I have done a full 24 track session with no issues. Yet, I wonder about your Input Monitoring issue. You said originally that you you do NOT have PT HD Native. The other versions of PT (non-HD) do not have Input Monitoring.

Check here.

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

PT HD comes with installers for its hardware, as well as ASIO drivers.

When I meant straight in to my computer, I meant no adapter - not that it would make a difference - I'm not sure. I have done a full 24 track session with no issues. Yet, I wonder about your Input Monitoring issue. You said originally that you you do NOT have PT HD Native. The other versions of PT (non-HD) do not have Input Monitoring.

Check here.

Maybe I'm calling it the wrong thing or they think of input monitoring as something else but when I arm a track to record I will hear the audio from the source input from my monitors. At anything but a very high buffer I have very glitchy audio and the recording is also glitchy and unusable.

My concern with getting HD was having to use their interface and coming up with the combination of hardware to interface the dm3200 without having to separate the apogee from the mixer thus keeping my ability to perform other tasks in my studio using the same front end. I didn't realize it could be used with an asio interface too.

The people I know that use PT are either HD and only know it works and don't think about it or have a 002/003 interface and demo at home with very little production. Neither have been able to offer any insight because their setups are with digi hardware.

 

[jamsire]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

Well, I'm even more confused then. How are you hearing what is coming from PT then? Are you using the Apogee or the FW card? If you are using either one - you are using PT regular the same way you would use HD. The input monitoring only happens - then, when you arm the track - that is standard. There is also an option to hear the input source when you are not record enabled in PT standard - it's under the Track menu. In HD, Input Monitoring is a button (like Solo or Mute) on the actual track.

Personally, I'm getting clean recordings at 128 or 256 buffer settings, but I monitor the signals "in the board" - not through PT. My trick was was to send the PT outputs to a mysterious bus so I would only hear what was coming into the board before it went to PT. Again, that's just me.

 

[wm_b]

Re: Optimizing the IF-FW/DMMKII latency for Pro Tools 11

Well, I'm even more confused then. How are you hearing what is coming from PT then? Are you using the Apogee or the FW card? If you are using either one - you are using PT regular the same way you would use HD. The input monitoring only happens - then, when you arm the track - that is standard. There is also an option to hear the input source when you are not record enabled in PT standard - it's under the Track menu. In HD, Input Monitoring is a button (like Solo or Mute) on the actual track.

Personally, I'm getting clean recordings at 128 or 256 buffer settings, but I monitor the signals "in the board" - not through PT. My trick was was to send the PT outputs to a mysterious bus so I would only hear what was coming into the board before it went to PT. Again, that's just me.

Firstly, this is solved! Turns out the MB chipset RAID was definitely not compatible with PT at all. I finished my work for the day, Made some backups and then disconnected the RAID drives and set the BIOS to AHCI. I stuck a WD black HDD in the machine and was able to record 16 simultaneous tracks down to a 64 sample buffer setting. THat's good enough for me.

To answer the confusion in this post I'm replying to, the Apogee is connected through multiple digital inputs. AES for 8 channels, TDIF for 4 at high sample rates and ADAT for 4 at high sample rates. It would be more elegant with two AES cards but the DM3200 doesn't have enough slots. There are no problems with the multiple connection types.

I'm not sure what workflow I'll adopt in the future but for now I can start recording and mixing with some assurance that it will all be okay.

Sorry for taking up everyone's time.

 

[captdan]

"PT10-11 takes a while, but is worth the effort.."

I think so too.

CaptDan

 

[wm_b]

Just a quick follow up to this strange problem. Everything is working perfectly under the same conditions that were totally unworkable. After I disabled the HDD controller RAID setting and set it to AHCI and did my successful input monitoring and recording tests in PT I returned everything to the previous settings again. My plan was to deal with the problem permanently after the holidays and a record that has to be turned in in the middle of January 2014. I didn't really want to drastically change my hardware configuration while I have work to finish.

Yesterday I was telling a former assistant about the problem and launched PT to demo the glitchy sound. Low and behold, it worked perfectly. I have no explanation for any of it. When I reconnected the drives and turned the RAID setting back on it did change the order of the volumes with my DVD burner so that one of the drive letters was different but that's about the only change left over from changing that setting.

I cannot say definitively that PT is or is not compatible with the RAID setting but after about 2 hours of trying to get it to mess up last night it didn't even shiver. I'll just put this down as growing pains.