New machine, Mixcraft 6, crackly playback

[jmpld]

I have been using MX for years, starting with MX3. The past few years I have been happily using MX5 on a 6-year-old HP laptop with XP, Intel Duo CPU T575 @ 2GHx, 3 GB ram. It worked fine, even with two simultaneous instances of MX, and with browsers open. I used the Wave sound device with 8 buffers of size 16384, giving a latency of 743.

How I work is I create some virtual instrument tracks, then overdub one-at-time numerous tracks of my guitar playing. I am plugged directly in (no amp or mic). I monitor my playing in real time (not through the computer) so the 743ms delay is not noticed by me as I play along, and my recorded guitar tracks (almost) always came out exactly synchronized with the rest of the music.

NEW:
I have just bought a new Asus laptop -- i7 processor, 8GB ram, Win 8.1 -- and I am trying out MX6. Problem is I am getting crackly playback, which I didn't have on the old setup. MX says CPU usage is around 15-20% for MX and about the same or a few points higher for system, so I assume there is not a resource problem.

PROBLEM:
On the new setup, using the same settings -- Wave with 8 16384 buffers -- I am getting crackly playback. With WaveRT I haven't heard crackling, but my guitar tracks get recorded out of synch (delayed by 20ms or whatever the latency is I guess) which makes it unusable to me. With Wave the crackling occurs even with max number of buffers and a ridiculous latency.

In my testing the new setup I am not sure I am even getting consistent results vis-a-vis the synch of my guitar tracks using Wave 8 16384, and a weird thing just happened -- I recorded about 15 seconds of guitar and the first few seconds came out perfectly synched, but the rest was delayed!

Also, I do not totally understand the latency thing. It has never affected me before. I do notice that if I choose "monitor incoming audio" there is a very noticeable delay between plucking the string and hearing it back through the computer (so I don't do that) and I notice the lag when I do certain things in MX during playback (like changing track volume for example). But, the guitar sounds I record while playing along, monitoring myself in real time, usually come out properly synched when I use Wave, but delayed when I use Wave RT. With Wave RT I also get the playback delay; not with Wave.

So Wave works a lot better for me because I don't notice any latency (even though 743 is big), whereas with Wave RT my guitar is recorded late, and playback is delayed.

I do not understand why I am getting crackly playback with Wave with my new much higher powered machine, that I didn't have on the older lower-end machine

Thank you in advance.
Joel

[Vibrant Audio]

My guess is that the sound card in your old computer was better suited for recording than the sound card in your new computer.

Have you tried an ASIO driver instead of Wave or WaveRT?

Also, it may end up that your best bet is to get an external audio interface and save yourself a ton of headaches.

[jmpld]

My guess is that the sound card in your old computer was better suited for recording than the sound card in your new computer.

Have you tried an ASIO driver instead of Wave or WaveRT?

Also, it may end up that your best bet is to get an external audio interface and save yourself a ton of headaches.

Thanks for your advice. My preference would be to have a good card built into the computer. I can still return this computer. Can you advise as to how to find out if a particular machine has a suitable sound card when shopping for a laptop?

Re an external audio interface, I will look into it. I have never used one but am open to it. Can you point me towards anything that might work for what I'm doing? Damn, it's frustrating to get a new high-power machine and have it work worse than the old one. Thanks again.

[Vibrant Audio]

My preference would be to have a good card built into the computer. I can still return this computer. Can you advise as to how to find out if a particular machine has a suitable sound card when shopping for a laptop?

Laptops are notorious for cheap motherboard-integrated sound cards. I've had better success (as you did) with the Realtek devices inside HP laptops.

Bottom line is that with a laptop you get whatever sound card is on the motherboard. Most high-end audio laptop sellers just set those computers up to work well with external USB or Firewire interfaces.

Re an external audio interface, I will look into it. I have never used one but am open to it. Can you point me towards anything that might work for what I'm doing?

Some suggestions for relatively inexpensive, reliable interfaces are:
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Scarlett2i2/
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/AudioBoxUSB/

[jmpld]

Most high-end audio laptop sellers just set those computers up to work well with external USB or Firewire interfaces.

Thanks so much. Since I am contemplating returning this machine I wonder could you point me to any of those high-end audio laptops? I should probably get one of those.

Also, forgive my ignorance on the topic, but I currently am having sound get in and out of my computer via a cheapo USB box called "Instant Music" which is designed for people who want to put their old vinyl and tapes on their computer so it's basically a converter between digital and analog. It has phono left and right inputs and outputs and a wire to my computer's USB port.

So my clueless question is ... since I'm using a USB port to get sound in and out of my computer am I still using the computer's sound card or am I bypassing it? If I'm bypassing it then then my soundcard isn't the source of my problems. What do you think? Thanks again. (This is why I've been putting off buying a new computer. I was dreading just this kind of headache.)

[Vibrant Audio]

I am not really suggesting you dump your current laptop and get something else. But if you want to look at other computers, you might start here. The options for what and where to purchase are endless (as are opinions on what one should buy).

I didn't realize that you are already using an interface (if we can call it an interface ) That should theoretically work just fine (actually it worked fine with your old PC, I guess?) Interestingly, that "Instant Music" box looks like it may have come bundled with Acoustica "Spin It Again" software - is that how you found Mixcraft, I wonder?

Anyway, yes, that is a USB interface. I think that if it worked with your old laptop, it should work with your new.

A couple of things:
1) Could you list ALL of your Sound Device settings?
2) Are you using Mixcraft 6.1 Build 217?

[jmpld]

I am not really suggesting you dump your current laptop and get something else. But if you want to look at other computers, you might start here. The options for what and where to purchase are endless (as are opinions on what one should buy).

I didn't realize that you are already using an interface (if we can call it an interface ) That should theoretically work just fine (actually it worked fine with your old PC, I guess?) Interestingly, that "Instant Music" box looks like it may have come bundled with Acoustica "Spin It Again" software - is that how you found Mixcraft, I wonder?

Anyway, yes, that is a USB interface. I think that if it worked with your old laptop, it should work with your new.

A couple of things:
1) Could you list ALL of your Sound Device settings?
2) Are you using Mixcraft 6.1 Build 217?

I got the "Instant Music" thing at an office supply store! I should have made it clear before that I'm using it. Thanks for your patience. Yes, I'm using MX6.1, build 217.

Windows control panel says my default sound device is 2-USB Audio CODEC.

My Mx sound device settings are (at the moment):
Driver: Wave
Default recording device (input): Microphone (2-USB Audio CODEC)
Playback device (output): Speakers (2-USB Audio CODEC)
Sample rate: 44100
Number of Buffers: 8
Bit depth: 16
Buffer size: 16384
Force Single CPU -- off
Use High Priority Threads for Audio Engine -- on

(I think these are the default settings.)

I was getting decent results with this setup on my old machine. Here's an example:
http://joelpostrel.com/track/628187/no- ... _id=683389

[jmpld]

Vibrant Audio, I just cut the buffer size in half (so it's now 8192) and there seems to be some improvement. Does that makes any sense to you?

[gypsy101]

I was going to suggest adjusting the latency setting/buffer sizes.
avg latency should be around 500 as a benchmark.
the other thing is,I've heard a lot of people say that Windows 8.1 doesn't play nice w/ DAW systems.

[jmpld]

,I've heard a lot of people say that Windows 8.1 doesn't play nice w/ DAW systems.

grrrrrr..... I was so happy with XP. I resisted Vista and Windows 7. Now I "upgrade" (hah) and look what happens.

[Mark Bliss]

I was getting decent results with this setup on my old machine. Here's an example:
http://joelpostrel.com/track/628187/no- ... _id=683389

Sorry I cant be terribly helpful on this specific issue, just following along...... I suspect the right combo of buffer settings might get you sorted though. I still don't fully understand your monitoring/latency methods, but hey, use what works!

But your saying you get that spanky guitar tone going direct into an "Instant Music" phono pre?
Go figure, I never cease to be surprised and amazed. Nice result!
That's pretty funny actually!

[gypsy101]

,I've heard a lot of people say that Windows 8.1 doesn't play nice w/ DAW systems.

grrrrrr..... I was so happy with XP. I resisted Vista and Windows 7. Now I "upgrade" (hah) and look what happens.

I had Vista forever & on Windows 7 now. it works fine w/ MC & I should have done it long ago.

[Vibrant Audio]

Vibrant Audio, I just cut the buffer size in half (so it's now 8192) and there seems to be some improvement. Does that makes any sense to you?

Having to tweak the buffers and buffer sizes (up or down) to get acceptable performance is normal. Once you find settings that work for you, you're set.

And the reason I suggested an interface is that they typically come with ASIO drivers that give much better performance.

[jmpld]

I still don't fully understand your monitoring/latency methods, but hey, use what works!
But your saying you get that spanky guitar tone going direct into an "Instant Music" phono pre?
Go figure, I never cease to be surprised and amazed. Nice result!
That's pretty funny actually!

It gets even funnier; my "mixing board" -- what I use to adjust input, playback, and monitoring levels -- is what's left of a 20-year-old Tascam "porta one" 4-channel cassette recorder. And I don't go directly into the Instant Music; my guitar first goes through one of those foot-pedal effects gadgets that guitar players use which supplies all kinds of reverb, delay, chorus, wah-wah, distortion, etc... And then there are all the great Mixcraft effects.

Re my latency method, I don't understand it either! I described it in the hope someone would explain it to me!

Thanks for your feedback.
ps -- Cobbler's Wife very nice.

[jmpld]

Vibrant Audio, I just cut the buffer size in half (so it's now 8192) and there seems to be some improvement. Does that makes any sense to you?

Having to tweak the buffers and buffer sizes (up or down) to get acceptable performance is normal. Once you find settings that work for you, you're set.

And the reason I suggested an interface is that they typically come with ASIO drivers that give much better performance.

Thanks much. So I gather there is a certain amount of trial and error -- i.e. "fiddling" -- with buffer settings and sound device choices that is necessary on each machine? I was just surprised that halving the buffer size, thus decreasing latency, would improve playback. I thought it worked the other way around! Also surprised about having better results with Wave than Wave RT after having read that RT is best. A little confused here. Any thoughts?