DJing Discussion

This area is for discussion about DJing in general. Please remember the community rules when posting and try to be polite and inclusive.

audio cache usb

DJ M.U. 12:42 AM - 20 August, 2007
could somebody tell me whats a good speed the usb audio buffer size and audio cache should be set at??
Konix 12:51 AM - 20 August, 2007
Well, ideally, you want the buffer set to the lowest (1 or 2) and the cache set the highest (60).
Konix 12:53 AM - 20 August, 2007
However, this puts more stress on the computer, so you need a fairly fast computer to handle these settings without getting dropouts. Your mileage may vary, so you will have to play with the setting and find what works good for your computer.
DJ M.U. 1:18 AM - 20 August, 2007
what are drop outs ?
Konix 1:24 AM - 20 August, 2007
When the audio skips/pops/crackles, basically when the audio cuts out or "drops out."
DJ M.U. 1:26 AM - 20 August, 2007
o well my audio cache is at the lowest 15 i think and the usb buffer is at 10 but i play set at 5 hours and havent had a single drop out do you think i should just leave it alone
Konix 1:28 AM - 20 August, 2007
If it ain't broke don't fix it is my philosophy.
DJ M.U. 1:29 AM - 20 August, 2007
ya thats what i was thinking but i was also thinking it might just help out something i dont see ill jus leave it alone thanks .. o and do you know what the set auto gain does ? i havent clicked it to tun it on ?
Konix 1:36 AM - 20 August, 2007
Well the buffer controls the overall latency. To be honest, 10 is pretty high, at least for scratching. Even for just normal mixing, for me at least, is still too high. You can try and set it lower and test it out.

Audio cache is how much of the song is loaded into memory. This also makes horizontal waveforms "wider" if you use the horizontal waveforms option (and have a widescreen laptop/monitor) (cache doesn't have any affect on vertical waveforms though).

The Auto Gain setting makes your songs, more or less, the same overall volume. This requires you to rebuild overviews on all your tracks though.
DJ M.U. 1:42 AM - 20 August, 2007
the same volume thing is good would you recomend using the auto gain or just do it manually ?
Rane, Support
Shaun W 3:45 PM - 20 August, 2007
*Moved to general*
cappinkirk 5:43 PM - 20 August, 2007
isn't is good to have a high buffer?

doesn't it scan ahead for less errors when you have a high buffer?

why is a high buffer linked to latency?

Thanks
Konix 8:10 PM - 20 August, 2007
Quote:
isn't is good to have a high buffer?


Certainly not for scratching, and not really for mixing either for most people.

Quote:
why is a high buffer linked to latency?


Audio must be processed in small chunks. Think of the buffer as a storage container to hold these chunk, like how a sink or a bath tub can fill with water. Now, the buffer has to be filled first before the audio can leave (think of the drain in a skin/tub). Now think of the tub as a large buffer and a sink as a small buffer. It takes much longer (i.e. more time/latency) to fill a bath tub than a small sink.

However, smaller buffers come at a price. It puts more load on the computer, and if your computer can't handle it, you'll get dropouts. If you fill a sink/tub faster than it can drain, eventually it will overfill and spill over. When the buffer overfills and spills over, that's a dropout.

Now, this is a very simplified way of explaining it as there's many more things involved, but should give you a basic idea.
djbriguy 8:20 PM - 20 August, 2007
Quote:
what are drop outs ?


hehe
cappinkirk 8:41 PM - 20 August, 2007
so should each person's setup of buffer/cache be determined accurately by their setup? should we suggest profiles to users based on their hardware? i want to have the most accurate setup but it seems that "lowest buffer size" isn't something I should be guessing, rather I should be calibrating it based on something objective. is this correct?
Konix 8:54 PM - 20 August, 2007
The only thing you can do is test it yourself. Judging by your profile, you have an Intel Mac and Powerbook, both of which should be more than capable of running a 2 buffer, the lowest Macs can go (Macs can't go down to 1) with no problems. I run a Macbook with a 2 buffer and 60 cache (and horizontal waveforms) no problems.
cappinkirk 9:05 PM - 20 August, 2007
well i thought so...but i am having a problem recording with serato ttm-57 that I think the buffer might need readjustment.

i get a nasty buzz sound when i am recording and load tracks sometimes so now I can't record until i fix it. it appears on the recording and the audience can hear it also. i'm trying to troubleshoot it so that's why i brought it up (so i'm not trying to hijack the thread, but i wanted to explain why i am making these statements)
cappinkirk 9:07 PM - 20 August, 2007
the buzz sounds like i just lost a life on some OG atari game so it's not something the crowd thinks of as a reward or like its my signature sample i'm cueing or anything.
AdamJay 11:12 PM - 20 August, 2007
Quote:
The only thing you can do is test it yourself. Judging by your profile, you have an Intel Mac and Powerbook, both of which should be more than capable of running a 2 buffer, the lowest Macs can go (Macs can't go down to 1) with no problems. I run a Macbook with a 2 buffer and 60 cache (and horizontal waveforms) no problems.


as do i.
and screen updates @ 30 frames per sec
cappinkirk 1:21 PM - 21 August, 2007
...while recording? i haven't heard any other ttm-57ers recording their whole sets saying that its working but maybe they are the silent majority. in any case thanks for the feedback guys.

also i've been using a low cache (15) should i be using a high cache? i guess i don't need an answer to that one. thanks!
cappinkirk 1:22 PM - 21 August, 2007
i was thinking screen updates was cache...i know this was pointed out earlier but i overlooked it.
AdamJay 4:07 AM - 22 August, 2007
yea, while recording... maybe it helps to have a dual core.
cappinkirk 1:34 PM - 22 August, 2007
i haven't had any freaky buzzes yet since i upped my cache.

thanks!