Different buffers for recorded data and incoming data

I’m no expert but wouldn’t having different buffers for recorded data and incoming data make sense?. Even if we needed two sound cards.
This way we could playback with a 1024 buffer while recording or auditioning with a 64 buffer. Zero latency while recording and way less stress on CPU’s during playback.

Like Studio One, you mean?

No way, does it? Cool. If S1 had Logical Editor and Expression Maps I would certainly be considering jumping ship.

I think you refer to asio-guard. Cubase does this, and it does it “per channel”. So when do recording the channels that re not in “fast mode” eg you have active input, audio or midi it is using a bigger chunk of audio.

Studio One has Macros but I am not sure about expression maps, however
https://youtu.be/KPO__i98X18

Hold still…There! I just added that feature to your Cubase. Just make sure asio guard is turned on.

I have ASIO guard on, but if I set my Focusrite buffer to 1024, it increases latency. Thus my request to be able to set a playback buffer to whatever without is affecting the latency when using my MIDI device.

You’re using it backwards. That buffer size governs the realtime thread buffer size.

Excuse my ignorance, but which box do I tick to increase the playback buffer thus relieving my CPU of unnecessary burden. And which box do I tick to carry out the former while not increasing the MIDI device latency?.

Turn up your asio guard level to medium or high and turn down your asio buffer size.

Cheers. Will give it a shot. :smiley:

Yeah I think he wants the direct monitoring of the interface inside the DAW. Studio One has it for certain interfaces.

You can do it in Cubase but only if you have certain Steinberg interfaces like the UR824 and probably some of the newer ones. It would be good to have support for other 3rd party interfaces.

I have not encountered a audio interface that didn’t have direct monitoring. My Motu, Steinberg,TC, Yamaha,RME and Behringer interfaces all do.

But the answer is asio-guard, as already said.

All I wanted was to have immediate response from my MIDI device, while playback had a comfortable 1024 buffer. I still need a buffer of 512 even when ASIO guard is set to high. I suppose 24ms input latency isn’t too bad but I would rather 0ms or as close to it as possible.

I had one of the focusrite interfaces, but sold it after one week, because of the latency issues. Their drivers were so bad. Even with the 1st gen UR22 could get sub 9ms for audio and the MIDI on it was rock solid. Now I have UMC1820 and no latency issues on my old i5-2500k with cubase 10.5

All of my MIDI devices are going straight into my PC via USB. Is this not ideal?

Yes, its correct, but sometimes usb hubs can cause extra latency or bad usb port or even firmware. You can test your MIDI equipment by following this page
https://www.musicrepo.com/testing-midi-device/

I think anything above 6ms is getting noticeable, but workable uptil 10ms.
Try setting your buffers at 128 and use methods to bring down the ASIO load like:
Freeze tracks
Constrain Delay Compensation.
Remove any plugins on the Master bus.