New Install

mishappen · #1 10-12-2003

I recently reinstalled Win XP Pro. and performed all the tweaks per http://www.musicxp.net/

Everything runs real well, and imroved latency compared to the last set up I had.
However, once in awhile, I will double click on a effect I have on a track, and an error will come up about an audio drop out. This happens while there is no music playing. This is also an intermittant problem.

The only tweak I didn't perform was the screen saver. I set it to 60 minutes.

It acted wierd from the very beginning. It didn't like my onboard sound card, and I had to tell it twice to disable it.

Can the program just not install correctly sometimes? Or maybe I did something wrong with the tweaks?

dana

Porter · #2 10-12-2003

I haven't seen that happen before...

Couple of questions... what is your latency set to?

Sound Card? ASIO or WDM drivers?

Porter

mishappen · #3 10-12-2003

ty

I'm using a tascam 428 w/wdm drivers.

And my latency is at a frightening 69.7.
With 2 buffers

dana

mishappen · #4 10-12-2003

Hey! who made me a junior member.

I feel ohsomuch like a newbie still!

Porter · #5 10-12-2003

Hmmmmm...

When you aren't doing anything, what is your CPU running at? Higher than 30%? Are you running any Anti-virus software?

Also, is trying ASIO drivers an option?

Porter

mishappen · #6 10-13-2003

ty Porter

When I'm not playing any tracks the CPU meter in Sonar is running between 0-3% (Seems like this should be 0% when not playing))
In the Windows Task Manager the CPU is running between 5-15%.

No Anti-Virus software. No wait there is something in the msconfig hold on....
ccRegVfy ..Symantec something or 'nother (is this bad? I thought it check the registry at boot and that was it.)
I removed my ccApp, which is Symantecs Anti-Virus Auto protect.

I thought the WDM drivers were better than the ASIO drivers? When I install Sonar it automatically detects WDM and does something. How would I change the drivers.

I've been using Sonar for several months now without a problem. tis only happened when I redid my HD, OS and Tweaks.

??

dana

Other INFO:
AMD 1800+
512 Ram
7200 HD's
XP Pro
Sonar 2.2xl

catch ya tomorrow night.

moskus · #7 10-13-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
I thought the WDM drivers were better than the ASIO drivers? When I install Sonar it automatically detects WDM and does something. How would I change the drivers.

What is best really depends on you soundcard. You can change what drivers to use under Options -> Audio -> Advanced.

It's normal that you have a CPU usage of 0%-3% when it's not playing, because your virtual instruments are still running.

moskus · #8 10-13-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
I thought the WDM drivers were better than the ASIO drivers? When I install Sonar it automatically detects WDM and does something. How would I change the drivers.

What is best really depends on you soundcard. You can change what drivers to use under Options -> Audio -> Advanced.

It's normal that you have a CPU usage of 0%-3% when it's not playing, because your virtual instruments are still running.

moskus · #9 10-13-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
I thought the WDM drivers were better than the ASIO drivers? When I install Sonar it automatically detects WDM and does something. How would I change the drivers.

What is best really depends on you soundcard. You can change what drivers to use under Options -> Audio -> Advanced.

It's normal that you have a CPU usage of 0%-3% when it's not playing, because your virtual instruments are still running.

mishappen · #10 10-13-2003

Moskus

I have no Virtual Instruments in this projects, Only wav files.

Unless the effects are considered virtual.

dana

moskus · #11 10-13-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
I have no Virtual Instruments in this projects, Only wav files.

Unless the effects are considered virtual.

Yes, I think virtual anything that runs in realtime (like effects, DXis, Input Monitoring, etc) drain CPU power even when Sonar is stopped.

kgirl72 · #12 10-15-2003

Dana,

Sorry you keep having problems. That must be really frustrating! Dropouts suck pretty much more than anything in the world as far as I'm concerned.

Hope it gets fixed soon...this one is not one I'm gonna be any good for, I'm sure. Also, I will say that for me, ASIO drivers seem more stable. But, I had been using WDM forever, until I was feeling adventurous enough to change it and learn how to mess with ASIO, which I'm still learning.
-Kirstin

mishappen · #13 10-15-2003

Hey

I looked at the driver modes that I have available.
1: WDM/KS
2: ASIO
3: MME (32 Bit)

I've never heard of the MME ones.

Will any of these drivers run my sound?

I think I will experiment.

dana

kgirl72 · #14 10-15-2003

The MME drivers are going to be the very worst, latency wise. Try them all and see what you get though, the experiments are always a good thing, unless you blow up your soundcard...which you WON'T. So, don't worry about it...experiment and use what works the very best.

The Tascam...it's USB, or not?

mishappen · #15 10-15-2003

Kirstin

Yes the Tascam is USB.

It seems like if I set the latency to a certain point, and then run wave profiler, that the slider stays where I put it. I thought the wave profiler was supposed to adjust the latency slider the the safest point.

For some reason I keep getting double messages in my email when someone posts to my subscriptions.

Do I have problems or what?

dana

moskus · #16 10-15-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
I thought the wave profiler was supposed to adjust the latency slider the the safest point.

No, based on your soundcard settings the wave profiler sets it to a "recommended value".

moskus · #17 10-15-2003

*doubble*

What's going on with the server?

mishappen · #18 10-15-2003

Moskus
"recommended value" is what I meant by "safest point" I just didn't know how to word it. And if I adjust the slider and then run the wave profiler, it will not return to the original position.

I guess it probably doesn't matter because I think there is something else wrong with my computer.

I've got 18 tracks with 25 plugs and the cpu meter is running at about 43% does that sound about right?

And the "drop" error is only intermittant???

ty

dana

moskus · #19 10-16-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
I've got 18 tracks with 25 plugs and the cpu meter is running at about 43% does that sound about right?

My computer would run with a higher CPU usage than that, but I use the DR-008 with 4 outputs and the big Drumkit from Hell. And my latency is set to 2.9 ms.

The wave-profiler just set the values at the last tab under Options -> Audio. I thought...

mishappen · #20 10-16-2003

Moskus if your latency is set to say 2.9 or 23. whatever, will it change the way the cpu meter reads?

dana

moskus · #21 10-17-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
Moskus if your latency is set to say 2.9 or 23. whatever, will it change the way the cpu meter reads?

Yes! Latency up = CPU usage down.

Lower latency means that the CPU needs to "work faster", as in reserve more CPU cycles for faster processing of audio signals.

mishappen · #22 10-17-2003

Thanks Moskus

I'm in the process of redoing my computer again. The only thing different I'm doing this time is performing a "full" format instead of a "quick" format. I hope it solves my problem

???

dana

moskus · #23 10-18-2003

Quote:

Originally posted by mishappen
The only thing different I'm doing this time is performing a "full" format instead of a "quick" format.

Do you mean the difference is "format c:" and "format c: /quick" ?

mishappen · #24 10-18-2003

Yes except it's not under a dos command it's under win xp full install options.

1: Delete partition
2: Create partition
3: Fomat or Format (quick)
4: Install files
5: Tweak

I got done with it last night, and thus far no drops. I also tested the latency. The lowest my 428 will go is 23.4. I played the files at the lowest latency and the average cpu response was 43%. I played it with the highest latency and the average cpu response was 53%. (almost into the yellow)
It did seem to run fine on the lowest setting.

I've been reading some othe posts about the delta 1010 and it's latencys of 1.9 and 2.3. Are these numbers native to the card, or is it the computer processer they have that allows these low numbers, or what?

It would seem that if you are able to start with a lower latency, you could go all that much farther. Is that correct?

dana

moskus · #25 10-18-2003

Your 428 isn't fast enought to get low latency. The figures for the Delta-card is accurate. I get the same with my Inca 88.

Latency is dependant on several things:
- The soundcard.
- It's drivers.
- And you need to have the CPU power to use the low latency.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)