ASIO Guard discussion

For users of legacy Steinberg Cubase software
User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

Conman wrote:Hm. I can see that makes sense as well. As I haven't yet tried it with higher latency I'll have to try it and see if it works as I think it's meant to. I'm getting used to people saying I'm not logical without any explanation as to why.
I don't have to say others are illogical. All I do is state a case without trivialising the personal.
Actually I didn't trivialize you. You often make that claim also, even when people are just pointing out when you are posting random mutterings of no content. I simply pointed out that this statement
That actually makes sense to me because it's purpose is to compensate for higher latencies delay so it's effect on lower latencies will be negligible.
makes absolutely no logical sense at all. It's entire purpose is to pre-render some tracks to ALLOW lower latencies. It's affect will be MOST effective at lower latencies. However, Helge pointed out that it is probably most impactfual on OSX.

Again, I made no personal comment about you. I simply pointed out how illogical your post is. And, that you have a tendency to thread crap with the same semi-intelligible gibberish on pretty much every thread you can find.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

Also, keep in mind that there is multiple things going on here, to include ...

1) pre-rendering to eliminate drop-outs
2) delay compensation for MIDI tracks

These are both considered part of ASIO-Guard it seems. But, they are not the same thing. I believe the OP is commenting primarily about #1.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

JMCecil wrote:Helge pointed out that it is probably most impactfual on OSX.
What did Helge actually say here?

I found this link also:

http://www.attackmagazine.com/reviews/g ... ubase-7/3/
attackmagazine wrote:One particularly interesting new innovation in Cubase 7 (which has far greater importance than its half page in the manual would suggest) is the ASIO-Guard feature. Enabled on a per-plugin basis, it pre-processes any audio channels that do not have to be processed in real time, much like a selective variable audio buffer. It aims to help avoid dropouts caused by CPU load spikes, which in turn should help you work at lower buffer sizes, reducing latency. There are some restrictions on the types of plugins with which it will work, though on the whole it seems effective.
It seems the word "selective" may mean not all buffers are actually processed but are instead allocated, which would make sense as the default (allocated) option, provided settings don't change significantly from playback to playback.

I'm wondering though, what situations would actually require real-time processing, other than rending a project in it's entirety.
Last edited by emotive on Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

emotive wrote:
JMCecil wrote:Helge pointed out that it is probably most impactfual on OSX.
What did Helge actually say here?
I'll see if I can find it. They've edited a lot of info out of the Q&A threads. funny that...
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

Here is one of the quotes I remember
Helge Vogt wrote:
lights wrote:I am so confused as to why this helps "especially on the Mac side". Can someone from Steinberg clarify that?
It is because OS X is lacking in terms of realtime audio performance due to a lets say different threading model. That's the reason why PCs are performing much better with lower latencies. However, the result is that ASIO Guard improves the performance under OS X heavily.

Cheers,
Helge
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

There was more than just that one, but the general conclusion from the various conversations was that OSX would benefit from this more than Windows, because windows already handles threading fairly efficiently. Notice one of the requirements is that you have multi-threading turned on?

So really I can understand NOT getting much of an improvement on windows depending on the contents of your project. But, I don't understand reduced performance. One thing I can think of is that it is fighting the existing windows scheduler. Maybe the pre-rendering is actually making other portions of the project wait, which increases the VST load. Without knowing how they have it working under the covers, I don't know how we can trouble shoot it.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

JMCecil wrote:So really I can understand NOT getting much of an improvement on windows depending on the contents of your project. But, I don't understand reduced performance. One thing I can think of is that it is fighting the existing windows scheduler. Maybe the pre-rendering is actually making other portions of the project wait, which increases the VST load. Without knowing how they have it working under the covers, I don't know how we can trouble shoot it.
What I am thinking is Intel is not as good with Windows as it is for Macintosh and I personally will stick with AMD for Windows, unless there is some specific configuration that can be done with the Scheduler or some other area of optimization. As for pre-rendering, I'd think that as projects are saved and re-loaded that there would be more pointers to the specified data and that project sizes would grow as a result.

I wonder so what is "attackmagazine" saying regarding a selective "variable" audio buffer?

lights
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by lights »

emotive wrote: What I am thinking is Intel is not as good with Windows as it is for Macintosh and I personally will stick with AMD for Windows, unless there is some specific configuration that can be done with the Scheduler or some other area of optimization. As for pre-rendering, I'd think that as projects are saved and re-loaded that there would be more pointers to the specified data and that project sizes would grow as a result.
What?? That's not what Helge said at all. That's just made up.
Last edited by lights on Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-darren
music: www.lightsfadelow.com
follow lights fade low on facebook


i7 980x 18GB RAM; ProFire2626; Win7; everything x64

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

lights wrote:That's just made up.
So what is your interpretation?

Bear in my that what you quoted are my own thoughts, not an interpretation of what I think anyone else has said.

lights
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by lights »

First of all, Helge said that ASIO Guard benefits Macs more because Macs were much worse to begin with at low-latency audio and that Windows already does well at low latencies. I don't know how you'd jump to a conclusion that meant Intel chips work better with Macs.

Second, the statement you made about how saving a project would make more pointers doesn't make any sense. I am not sure what you're trying to speculate about but there are already several statements directly from Helge in the thread about what ASIO Guard is and how it works. And yes they are vague. But it seems to pre-buffer or pre-render audio and some VSTi channels that are not record-enabled so that you can run at lower latencies because every channel isn't being evaluated in real time.

However, in my limited testing it doesn't work and actually makes things way worse. That's the subject of this thread.
-darren
music: www.lightsfadelow.com
follow lights fade low on facebook


i7 980x 18GB RAM; ProFire2626; Win7; everything x64

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

emotive wrote:
lights wrote:That's just made up.
So what is your interpretation?

Bear in my that what you quoted are my own thoughts, not an interpretation of what I think anyone else has said.
What makes your thoughts think this has anything to do with intel/AMD? It is an OS threading issue that Windows currently handles better than OSX.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

lights wrote:First of all, Helge said that ASIO Guard benefits Macs more because Macs were much worse to begin with at low-latency audio and that Windows already does well at low latencies. I don't know how you'd jump to a conclusion that meant Intel chips work better with Macs.
Just my opinion that UNIX is a better OS for Intel machines than Windows. :geek:
...it seems to pre-buffer or pre-render audio and some VSTi channels that are not record-enabled so that you can run at lower latencies because every channel isn't being evaluated in real time.
That's the point pre-buffer vs pre-render, as attackmagazine said, and without any details all anyone can do is surmise.

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

JMCecil wrote:What makes you think this has anything to do with intel/AMD? It is an OS threading issue that Windows currently handles better than OSX.
Threading and priority is handled differently between different processors, and OS's.
Last edited by emotive on Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

emotive wrote: Just my opinion that UNIX is a better OS for Intel machines than Windows. :geek:
lol, I like pie ... that's an opinion too. Neither has anything to do with this at all.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

emotive wrote:
JMCecil wrote:What makes your thoughts think this has anything to do with intel/AMD? It is an OS threading issue that Windows currently handles better than OSX.
Threading and priority is handled differently between different processors, and OS's.
Yes this is absolutely true, but again has nothing to do with this. Other than Windows is better at managing real time streaming and multi-thread scheduling than OSX regardless of Intel/AMD. There are many scenarios that Windows handle better than UNIX regardless of CPU architecture. There are scenarios where UNIX handles the scheduling better than Windows regardless of the CPU architecture. They both made a choice of how to implement scheduling. Again, it has little to do with the Intel/AMD.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

lights
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by lights »

emotive wrote:
lights wrote:First of all, Helge said that ASIO Guard benefits Macs more because Macs were much worse to begin with at low-latency audio and that Windows already does well at low latencies. I don't know how you'd jump to a conclusion that meant Intel chips work better with Macs.
Just my opinion that UNIX is a better OS for Intel machines than Windows. :geek:
...it seems to pre-buffer or pre-render audio and some VSTi channels that are not record-enabled so that you can run at lower latencies because every channel isn't being evaluated in real time.
That's the point pre-buffer vs pre-render, as attackmagazine said, and without any details all anyone can do is surmise.
Regarding your opinion on unix being better than Win for intel chips, I am not sure where you formed that opinion. But in this specific case it's exactly the opposite of what Helge said.

Regarding the pointer comment I guess unless you have a software engineering background (from your comments on the board I gather you don't) there's no point in adding confusing speculation without any knowledge in the area.

Overall I would just caution people who aren't Steinberg employees and have have not written commercial software themselves that adding wild speculation can really detract from threads and they meander to the point Steinberg doesn't even bother responding to real user issues.
-darren
music: www.lightsfadelow.com
follow lights fade low on facebook


i7 980x 18GB RAM; ProFire2626; Win7; everything x64

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

JMCecil wrote:I like pie ... that's an opinion too.
Intel uses fake threads, the original AMD (multi-core design) has pure native cores, but has now moved to a dual process package however each thread still runs on an independent processor.

User avatar
JMCecil
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by JMCecil »

emotive wrote:
JMCecil wrote:I like pie ... that's an opinion too.
Intel uses fake threads, the original AMD (multi-core design) has pure native cores, but has now moved to a dual process package however each thread still runs on an independent processor.
lol, still has nothing to do with anything we are discussing, nor does it explain why you have decided on this affinity of intel to Unix and AMD to Windows. The scheduler is the issue, not the reported # of cores by the HAL.

Lets get back to the subject. Sorry lights, I know better but always get distracted after a few glasses of wine.
cpu:i7 6950x - RAM:128gb - OS:Win 10 - Interfaces:Lynx Aurora, Komplete Audio 6 - MIDI:Midisport 4x4, Quadra Thru
Steiny Suff: CMC:FD,CH,TP,QC,PD | Wavelab 9 | Cubase VST-32->9 | H5, GA4, HSO, Padshop Pro, Cubasis, iC Pro

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

JMCecil wrote:The scheduler is the issue, not the reported # of cores by the HAL.
It's not the number of cores but how thread priority is determined and execution, which is not entirely driven by the OS scheduler and is largely a function of CPU architecture.

lights
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by lights »

Emotive: Can we please focus on the topic of this thread?

Back to the thread: another thing I noticed is that the ASIO performance meter 'average' bar jumps up and down wildly when ASIO Guard is on and I load my test project. It's odd that the average meter would jump like that.
-darren
music: www.lightsfadelow.com
follow lights fade low on facebook


i7 980x 18GB RAM; ProFire2626; Win7; everything x64

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

lights wrote:...another thing I noticed is that the ASIO performance meter 'average' bar jumps up and down wildly when ASIO Guard is on and I load my test project.
What does the following tool report:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 5884,d.dGI

lights
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by lights »

Consistently low DPC latency with zero spikes.
-darren
music: www.lightsfadelow.com
follow lights fade low on facebook


i7 980x 18GB RAM; ProFire2626; Win7; everything x64

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

lights wrote:Consistently low DPC latency with zero spikes.
Are there any specific plugin configurations you find bring about spikes in either ASIO, VST performance or CPU usage?

lights
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:07 pm
Contact:

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by lights »

No but I have not exhaustively tested it. I paid for the product ;). If Steinberg wants me to beta test I'm happy to do that and spend some of my time coming up with a minimal repro, but those companies who have asked me to do that have granted me free copies of the software I test (hint, hint).
-darren
music: www.lightsfadelow.com
follow lights fade low on facebook


i7 980x 18GB RAM; ProFire2626; Win7; everything x64

emotive
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:08 am

Re: ASIO Guard discussion

Post by emotive »

lights wrote:...I have not exhaustively tested it.
I bought it because I want to be on the bleeding edge and also because I enjoy submitting error reports to Microsoft (the error reporting in Windows 7 is an improvement on Xp in particular but Vista as well).

SB have a habit of introducing some very tempting feature improvements/additions and for the price I normally pay, e.g EDU, it's always a real treat to devolve myself away from other studies.

There's also the feeling of excitement and anticipation around updates for a new product knowing they will come thick and fast (particularly after v4 era) but also the security in the knowledge that my past investments are safe in there is always a final update/fix to the previous version.

Anyway, I'm probably not the most qualified person in this area since most of my plugins aren't compatible with ASIO Guard, but I also noticed my UAD plugs seemed to be performing better than in the past and for my work I can put up with silly bugs like solo in key editor, just to get the benefit of a more focused zoom so without knowing what plugins you are using and in which combinations, it might be difficult to get an answer from anyone at all.

Post Reply

Return to “Older Cubase versions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests