Old 04-16-2019, 11:24 AM   #241
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
I totally don't get this post...
@Glennbo: If its working for you as it is, that's great - I was mixing something recently and I noticed the issue - to be clear it wasn't the GUI itself that was laggy, but a noticeable time between turning a control and hearing the change. I was using a buffer of 128 samples at 48000 with ALSA (not JACK - maybe that has something to do with it).
At those settings, or even up to 512 samples in other hosts / OS there's no problem. The only thing that made a difference was to disable the anticipative FX.

EDIT - Running such short (64 sample) buffer settings is probably why your session wouldn't run with render ahead disabled - and I guess a short buffer, with render ahead enabled, is actually behaving like having larger buffer settings

@Jack Winter: I guess adjusting the render ahead setting will have the same effect - I haven't tried that.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:03 PM   #242
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
I totally don't get this post. I have a REAPER project that has 49 FX, 47 of which are OverTone DSP plugins. To see what you are referencing, I un-ticked anticipative FX and the project wouldn't even play.

I'm not experiencing any lag in the movement of the controls while playing or stopped, and as for how quick I hear the changes I'm making with the controls, like sweeping the mid band freq on EQ500, seem pretty instantaneous.

Edit: I thought I'd include all my relevant system specs.

Asus P7P55D / 2.66Ghz Intel i5 / 6GB RAM / Two M-Audio Delta 2496 PCI Audio Cards

I use JACK audio set to 64 samples with 2 periods for 1.4/2.9ms latency in REAPER

Just now I played with the freq control on an instance of EQ500 on a guitar track and with the Q set to max, I was able to real time create a wah-wah effect by spinning the frequency control to the beat of the music. No lag whatsoever happening here with anticipative FX enabled like I've always run REAPER in both Linux and Windows.
This is my experience as well, using ALSA. Anticipative render-ahead is 200ms (Reaper's "stock" setting). Using JS plugins or LinuxVST plugins, there's no discernible latency when adjusting controls. My system's round-trip latency is ~7ms, and it responds like that.

@mike: are you using plugins that introduce latency?
__________________
https://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:17 PM   #243
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
@Glennbo: If its working for you as it is, that's great - I was mixing something recently and I noticed the issue - to be clear it wasn't the GUI itself that was laggy, but a noticeable time between turning a control and hearing the change. I was using a buffer of 128 samples at 48000 with ALSA (not JACK - maybe that has something to do with it).
At those settings, or even up to 512 samples in other hosts / OS there's no problem. The only thing that made a difference was to disable the anticipative FX.

EDIT - Running such short (64 sample) buffer settings is probably why your session wouldn't run with render ahead disabled - and I guess a short buffer, with render ahead enabled, is actually behaving like having larger buffer settings

@Jack Winter: I guess adjusting the render ahead setting will have the same effect - I haven't tried that.
I'm using the stock 200ms for the render ahead value, but the controls all feel pretty instantaneous for me. I wouldn't have kept buying your plugins if they felt sloppy to me. I've purchased licenses for all but the AF210/M equalizer.

This is the line I have in REAPER for auto-starting JACK.

/usr/bin/jackd -P80 -dalsa -dhw:M2496 -r44100 -p64 -n2 -Xseq
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:37 PM   #244
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
This is my experience as well, using ALSA. Anticipative render-ahead is 200ms (Reaper's "stock" setting). Using JS plugins or LinuxVST plugins, there's no discernible latency when adjusting controls. My system's round-trip latency is ~7ms, and it responds like that.

@mike: are you using plugins that introduce latency?
Have you tried any of Mike's plugins? I'm running stock render ahead settings and the controls on all plugins feel tight. OverTone's included, and just to be extra sure I ran my last project and grabbed controls of parameters from several different OverTone plugins and ran them up and down to the beat of the music. In all cases the sound followed the controls in time.

Like you, I'm wondering if there might be a high latency plugin somewhere else in the chain that makes it appear as though there is a disconnect between moving a parameter and hearing the effect from it.

I have seen something like this with midi drums, where a high latency plugin (usually a convolution reverb) later in the chain introduces delay such that hitting a midi drum and hearing it are almost seconds apart.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:41 PM   #245
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,817
Default

I think 200ms is noticeable, 50 much less so.
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040, etc. :)
Jack Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:52 PM   #246
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
I have seen something like this with midi drums,
If he's testing using a MIDI track with VSTi into his plugins, that would make sense; it's this setting in preferences -> audio -> buffering:

Disable media buffering for tracks with open MIDI editors

I have that checked (disabling the media buffering).
__________________
https://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:57 PM   #247
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Winter View Post
I think 200ms is noticeable, 50 much less so.
And by noticable, do you mean it introduces lag?

Is the issue that you move a control right now this second, but 200ms of future sound was already rendered before you moved the control?

Does the latency of the plugin you are using have any bearing on what that render ahead buffer ultimately feels like? Reason I ask that is it does not feel like there is a 200ms delay from the time I move a control until I hear the effect of doing it. The wah-wah effect I was doing earlier by sweeping the freq at full Q didn't feel laggy, and I'm pretty sure 200ms delay would have felt sloppy to me and not kept time to the music I was sweeping the freq control along with.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 02:01 PM   #248
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
If he's testing using a MIDI track with VSTi into his plugins, that would make sense; it's this setting in preferences -> audio -> buffering:

Disable media buffering for tracks with open MIDI editors

I have that checked (disabling the media buffering).
I just checked mine and I also have that item checked.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 02:07 PM   #249
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,817
Default

Yes I mean I hear the change of a plugin parameter later than I'd like to.

Add reaeq to a track and move a highpass filter up an down. Try at 1000ms, 200ms & 50ms. I think it's hard not to notice it

On the other hand anticipative fx is great because it will allow you to run much bigger mixes at low latency settings. It does not apply when you are live monitoring a rec armed track.
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040, etc. :)
Jack Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 02:36 PM   #250
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Winter View Post
Yes I mean I hear the change of a plugin parameter later than I'd like to.

Add reaeq to a track and move a highpass filter up an down. Try at 1000ms, 200ms & 50ms. I think it's hard not to notice it

On the other hand anticipative fx is great because it will allow you to run much bigger mixes at low latency settings. It does not apply when you are live monitoring a rec armed track.
Pushing it out to 1000 started feeling sloppy, but the difference in feel between 200 and 50 was much less noticeable to me, and probably why I'd never changed it from the stock default.

By clicking back and forth the minimum and maximum ends of the freq control on ReaEQ while set to highpass, at 200ms I would lose the first downbeat clicking back and forth in time with the music, but at 50ms the downbeat was still there, but clipped.

Which poses the million dollar question . . .

Does running only 50ms of anticipative buffer use more CPU than a default of 200ms?

If they both use the same amount of CPU I'll switch to 50ms, but if there is a CPU hit for a smaller buffer I'll keep things the way they are now.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 03:58 PM   #251
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Just to be clear, I was seeing this not just with my plug-ins but with e.g. the built in reaper plugs too - and its not something I've seen happen in any other host application, so I've no reason to think there is anything specific to my plug-ins.

I think the issue is that I was running slightly larger buffer settings than most here seem to (I seldom need to drop the buffer size below 256 normally - I certainly wouldn't need to go to 64 in normal usage... by the time we're talking about 64 or less you could just move closer to the speakers and save the extra CPU usage... )

This compounded by the fact that I'm most likely very fussy about this, and / because, I know that my plug-ins are designed to be very responsive - and not to add any audio latency.

Adjusting the read ahead restored things to what I would normally expect, however I should perhaps have qualified my original post with "if you experience latency when adjusting plug-in controls..."

Maybe there's a compromise - to have a slightly lower setting as the default e.g. 100ms? (since the setting is not intuitive or particularly discoverable, and at present likely to manifest to users as 'this plug-in isn't as good as I expected' rather than 'perhaps I need to look at the read ahead buffer settings')
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 04:18 PM   #252
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
Does running only 50ms of anticipative buffer use more CPU than a default of 200ms?
If anything 50ms would use slightly less CPU and memory, but it would make underruns (say, from a plug-in taking more than 50ms to process a buffer) more likely. If things work well at 50ms for your uses, then you should be good. If you notice more audio underruns then you might need to increase that value slightly.
Justin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 04:34 PM   #253
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
I think the issue is that I was running slightly larger buffer settings than most here seem to (I seldom need to drop the buffer size below 256 normally - I certainly wouldn't need to go to 64 in normal usage... by the time we're talking about 64 or less you could just move closer to the speakers and save the extra CPU usage... )
If you monitor through REAPER like I do, then low latency is a big deal. If you hit a note on a guitar but the sound for it doesn't come out until 30ms later it's going to feel real sloppy playing. Like you're playing through a slap echo or something.

While I don't really use virtual amps, I do always monitor through REAPER and frequently do it through 3 to 5 VST plugins.

64 samples latency is how I run all the time, and only on the most complex of projects do I ever have to increase to 128 during the final mixing and mastering phases.

Now that I'm running almost all native Linux plugins, I'm not taxing my CPU at all. My most recent project in REAPER has 28 tracks with 49 FX (47 of which are OverTone DSP plugins) and playing it at 64 samples latency shows me I'm only using 24.96% of my CPU's total capacity.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 05:57 PM   #254
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
JamesPeters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 2,867
Default

I can run with a very modest setup (the one in my signature) and achieve 7 ms round trip latency at 44.1 KHz while keeping the system stable up to the highest CPU load, using a stock kernel with stock settings (no tweaks to the OS at all). Linux has made this easier for me than Windows. For the most part when people are using relatively newer computers and newer distros, it seems this is the norm.

You might as well set your audio driver buffers (block size, number of blocks) lower especially if your system can handle it. Lowering your latency so that mixing is responsive is just one of those things you do with a DAW. You will notice an improvement even regarding the responsiveness of the mixer faders.
__________________
https://petersamplification.com
Using REAPER for Linux
JamesPeters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 06:13 PM   #255
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
If you monitor through REAPER like I do, then low latency is a big deal. If you hit a note on a guitar but the sound for it doesn't come out until 30ms later it's going to feel real sloppy playing. Like you're playing through a slap echo or something.
Yeah, 30ms is too much, but 10-15ms (256 @ 48k typically) is pretty easy to get used to (like being 10-15' from your guitar amp...).
Justin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 06:53 PM   #256
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Yeah, 30ms is too much, but 10-15ms (256 @ 48k typically) is pretty easy to get used to (like being 10-15' from your guitar amp...).
I know what you mean about adapting to distance while playing. You have to trust yourself that you are playing in time, even though from your perspective it sounds like you are late and should be playing earlier.

The highest I ever use in REAPER is 128 which gets me 2.9/5.8ms. I can run like that all day long with the fattest projects and never break a sweat.

In Windows I ran 64 samples in ASIO and never ever changed it for any reason, because I didn't need to. In Linux using all native Linux plugins, I can achieve the same thing, but if I add a lot of bridged Windows plugins, I may have to up it to 128 to keep artifacts from creeping into the audio playback.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 12:59 AM   #257
Hanswurst
Human being with feelings
 
Hanswurst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 40
Default

Hey folks, got some minor workflow issues as Reaper seems to behave a little differently from Windows in some respects:

- in the track FX window, double clicking into the plugin list does nothing (should open up the FX browser)
- I canít correctly map some shortcuts (using a German keyboard layout), for example trying to map Ctrl+Alt+^ gives me Ctrl+Alt+▯ and the shortcut does nothing when pressed
- I canít open the Media Explorer via Ctrl+Alt+X, stuff like Ctrl+Alt+V for the Navigator works though
- When I open the mixer, the main window is still focused. Indirectly this is also a problem with the track FX window: When I open that, Reaper opens the browser (when there are no effects no the track), but closing the browser with ESC now leaves me with the main windows focused (instead of the track FX window). This makes it impossible to close both windows via pressing ESC two times.
- For some reason, pressing ESC in the main window tries to close Reaper.
- I canít edit the track volume via clicking on the volume field on a track in the TCP and MCP (have to confirm that on my windows machineÖ)
Hanswurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 04:01 AM   #258
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
Pushing it out to 1000 started feeling sloppy, but the difference in feel between 200 and 50 was much less noticeable to me, and probably why I'd never changed it from the stock default.
Sorry for making you hear it, now you won't be able to unhear it again

Personally the 200ms seems too much, I find it makes plugins seem sluggish to react, ymmw and all that..

Quote:
If they both use the same amount of CPU I'll switch to 50ms, but if there is a CPU hit for a smaller buffer I'll keep things the way they are now.
I don't think it changes CPU use very much, but rather a smaller buffer might make xruns more prevalent, though I think 50ms seems large enough not to cause any problems...
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040, etc. :)
Jack Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 04:04 AM   #259
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike@overtonedsp View Post
Maybe there's a compromise - to have a slightly lower setting as the default e.g. 100ms? (since the setting is not intuitive or particularly discoverable, and at present likely to manifest to users as 'this plug-in isn't as good as I expected' rather than 'perhaps I need to look at the read ahead buffer settings')
I don't know, I think it's just how reaper works and does have benefits. Personally I think the default might be a tad high, it didn't take me long at all to notice Maybe lowering the default value might make sense, especially since machines keep getting faster.
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040, etc. :)
Jack Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 04:12 AM   #260
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
If you monitor through REAPER like I do, then low latency is a big deal. If you hit a note on a guitar but the sound for it doesn't come out until 30ms later it's going to feel real sloppy playing. Like you're playing through a slap echo or something.
Note that anticipative fx doesn't apply to live monitored tracks. It's exclusively for the tracks playing back. It also doesn't apply to master FX. When you live monitor a track the latency will be given by the buffer sizes, any additional hardware latency, and any latency induced by plugins on the track and master fx.

The good thing is that anticipative fx allows you to lower the buffer sizes for live monitoring while still allowing fx chains (on played back material) that would normally cause dropouts with such small buffers.
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040, etc. :)
Jack Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 07:40 AM   #261
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Winter View Post
Note that anticipative fx doesn't apply to live monitored tracks. It's exclusively for the tracks playing back. It also doesn't apply to master FX. When you live monitor a track the latency will be given by the buffer sizes, any additional hardware latency, and any latency induced by plugins on the track and master fx.

The good thing is that anticipative fx allows you to lower the buffer sizes for live monitoring while still allowing fx chains (on played back material) that would normally cause dropouts with such small buffers.
What I noticed in particular when I built my current machine, was that I could drop to the next lower buffer size and still get reliable performance. The biggest place that difference showed up for me was on digital drums. Playing a tight buzz roll on my V-Drums playing through REAPER to Superior Drummer 2 felt much tighter at 64 samples latency than at 128. At the the higher latency, I can feel that I am outrunning the time it takes to receive a midi note, send it to Superior, have Superior render it and send it back out as audio.

Just playing a beat to a song it isn't so noticeable but with tight double stroke rolls it feels a lot tighter playing at 64 samples. I can live with more latency playing guitar or bass than drums.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 09:50 AM   #262
Jack Winter
Human being with feelings
 
Jack Winter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Luxembourg/Spain
Posts: 1,817
Default

I'd imagine that drummers would have the biggest gripes with latency, except for maybe singers who might complain about the comb filtering occurring in the head when the vocal sound inside the head mixes with the delayed sound from the monitoring. After all a drummer normally has his ears much closer to his instrument than an electric guitarist or bass player.

On the bass I'm quite cool with some latency, a bass note blooms so it's a bit hard to say exactly when it starts. At higher latency it just gives me a feeling of playing on a big stage.
__________________
Reaper for Linux Documentation (WIP). Software: Archlinux/KDE, Fabfilter FX, Komplete 8, Nebula, Schwa/Stillwell, T-racks Max/Amplitube/SVX, etc. Gear: i7-2600k/4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, Genelec 8040, etc. :)
Jack Winter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 11:08 AM   #263
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

When I record bass I use a hardware based Digitech bass amp modeling pedal, and playing it though REAPER at 128 feels tight enough to record.

As for OverTone DSP's plugins and REAPER, the only issue I have is not being able to put multiple 500 series plugs side by side because they have a shaded background on the sides which makes their container in REAPER as wide as it is tall, even though the plugin UI only needs 1/3 of that space horizontally.



This plugin opens in a narrow container in REAPER.

__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 06-04-2019 at 01:34 PM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 05:52 AM   #264
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
As for OverTone DSP's plugins and REAPER, the only issue I have is not being able to put multiple 500 series plugs side by side because they have a shaded background on the sides which makes their container in REAPER as wide as it is tall, even though the plugin UI only needs 1/3 of that space horizontally.
I'm working on V3 updates to the 500 series at the moment - I'll take a look at what we can do regarding the UI dimensions, the issue is actually that *most* DAWs seem to be configured for 'landscape' plug-in UIs, so, for example Presonus Studio One will add padding to the UI of approximately what you have there in the DYN500 screenshot and there's nothing the plug-in can do about it. Other hosts add padding to default the UI to a minimum size so as to contain all the hosts preset management 'furniture' etc that it adds around the plug-in. It would be nice if there was some consistency between host applications (or a way to find out what the host's minimum window dimensions are) but compatibility quirks are just in the nature of plug-in development.

On a general point about Reaper and plug-in windows, I always get messed up with it somehow e.g.

Configure to open plug-ins in their own window (which I prefer because it means I don't get reaper's 'host' window / extra menus etc). Close the plugin and it re-embeds it in the reaper window, instead of closing it. So now I'm back with the opposite of what I configured. Double click the plugin to separate it from the reaper window again, and I'm left with the empty reaper window taking up space where the plugin used to be.

If there is anyway to improve this it would be much appreciated.

Last edited by mike@overtonedsp; 04-18-2019 at 05:59 AM.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 06:30 AM   #265
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

That would be very cool if the 500 series plugins could live in narrow containers like the K-Meter plugin. I have instances of Dyn500 and EQ500 on each of my four acoustic drum tracks, and it would let me get them all side by side while tweaking the drums.

That said, it is only aesthetic, and I really love how quickly I can dial up great sounds with your plugins.

As for dealing with any plugins in REAPER, I prefer to click an effect in the FX bin, which brings up the effect in it's own window, like the two images I posted earlier. Click the effect a second time in the FX bin and it toggles the effect back to hidden. I never use any other way of bringing FX up on screen to make changes.

Note: You have to have the mixer view up to see the FX bins, and the FX bins themselves need to be enabled by right clicking the master fader and ticking the show FX bins option.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 04-18-2019 at 06:37 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 10:37 AM   #266
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
That would be very cool if the 500 series plugins could live in narrow containers like the K-Meter plugin. I have instances of Dyn500 and EQ500 on each of my four acoustic drum tracks, and it would let me get them all side by side while tweaking the drums.
The GUI is resizable, and our new toolkit allows more flexible adjustment of width and height, so the option I'm working with at the moment is for the user to be able to shrink the width down to just the width of the plug-in front panel if necessary. That way it will be possible to achieve what you need, in hosts which handle it nicely. In hosts which impose their own minimum size, it is by definition, unfortunately a limitation of the host.

Quote:
That said, it is only aesthetic, and I really love how quickly I can dial up great sounds with your plugins.
Glad you like them - A lot of them came out of my need to have tools I wanted to use, on Linux (quite a few years ago, before there were many native Linux plug-ins.. or Linux DAWS... ).
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 01:10 PM   #267
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Very cool Mike. Will the versions you are experimenting with show up as "Latest Versions" on the download page at OverTone, or will they be only available to a beta group initially?
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 12:55 AM   #268
mike@overtonedsp
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Will the versions you are experimenting with show up as "Latest Versions" on the download page at OverTone, or will they be only available to a beta group initially?
When we release them they'll be available to download as usual, but that likely won't be for a while (any updates represent significant work, requiring builds / testing for Windows, Mac, Linux, VST2, VST3, AAX, Audio Unit etc etc). The 'beta group' consists of myself and a colleague at the moment.
mike@overtonedsp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 12:43 PM   #269
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,229
Default

Thanks. I'll just check your download page every once in a while.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2019, 02:52 PM   #270
lilith93
Human being with feelings
 
lilith93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Karlsruhe
Posts: 276
Default

Reaper crashes when loading in the U-he Repro 5 or Repro 1 as VST3 version. With Diva it is working. Bug is reproducible.

In the terminal I get a seg fault error:

Code:
./reaper 
jack: created client
jack: setting TIME_CRITICAL = 74
jack: activated client
setNumInputs ( 0 );
setNumOutputs ( 2 );
allocateArrangement ( &plugInput, 2 );
allocateArrangement ( &plugOutput, 2 );
setNumInputs ( 0 );
setNumOutputs ( 2 );
allocateArrangement ( &plugInput, 2 );
allocateArrangement ( &plugOutput, 2 );
HostPlaying changed: inQuarter: 8.000000, lastQuarter 8.000000 currentQuarter 11.498000 
HostPlaying changed: inQuarter: 8.000000, lastQuarter 8.000000 currentQuarter 11.432000 
HostPlaying changed: inQuarter: 8.000000, lastQuarter 8.000000 currentQuarter 10.948000 
Speicherzugriffsfehler
marco@fox:~/opt/REAPER$
----------------------------------
Debian 9, XFCE, Compton compositor, Reaper 5.974
__________________
https://soundcloud.com/lilith_93

Debian - Buster / XFCE
lilith93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 03:30 PM   #271
Westrabua
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 59
Default Possible bug: "Thread priority" setting has no effect



Is changing the setting "thread priority" supposed to change the priority of the worker threads spawned when load a VST?
I tested with u-he Hive (u-he VSTs in general seem to result in worker threads with realtime prio set).
But no matter the setting here the asociated worker threads have the highest user allowed realtime priority (set within "/etc/security/limits.d/99-realtime-privileges.conf"; changes are applied after logout/login cycle).

Or can a VST force Reaper to use highest possible priority according to OS setting?

Version: v5.974

Last edited by Westrabua; 04-27-2019 at 03:35 PM. Reason: Added version
Westrabua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 06:34 AM   #272
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westrabua View Post


Is changing the setting "thread priority" supposed to change the priority of the worker threads spawned when load a VST?
That thread priority only affects reaper-created threads, not any VST-created threads. And it only does anything if the audio device is configured for realtime use (and the current user has permissions for those realtime priorities).
Justin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 07:55 AM   #273
Westrabua
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
That thread priority only affects reaper-created threads, not any VST-created threads. And it only does anything if the audio device is configured for realtime use (and the current user has permissions for those realtime priorities).
My system is configured with "threadirqs", my user is part of the "realtime" group, which is allowed:
- @realtime - rtprio 98
- @realtime - memlock unlimited

When I start reaper and look at "ps -eLo rtprio,cls,pid,pri,nice,cmd | grep "FF" | sort -r", I get:



Looking at the processes using "htop" (tree view), I see:



Here I've tagged the reaper process and it's child processes/threads.

After loading i.e. u-he Hive, I get the following:



More child processes/threads (all those unmarked ones), which are of rtprio 98 regardless of the "thread priority" setting in Reaper:


But if I understand you correctly then these threads labeled "reaper" are actually created by the VST and Reaper has no influence on their realtime priorities.
Westrabua is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2019, 01:34 PM   #274
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,631
Default

If you set htop to show thread names you might get more info (REAPER sets its own thread names, not sure if u-he does). In any case, u-he plugins setting their workers to the maximum priority is bad form IMO, as those threads could then interrupt the audio thread. If anything they should see what priority they are called in (when processing audio) and use a priority the same or slightly below that...
Justin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 10:38 AM   #275
Tobbe
Human being with feelings
 
Tobbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Backe, Jšmtland, Sweden
Posts: 404
Question Using Tab key to name next track closes Reaper down

Hi,

Anyone have any problems with that? I tried several times to add couple of new tracks and name them by hitting TAB key to get to next track. Doesn't matter if I do this in TCP or MCP. Last time I started Reaper via terminal and got only:

Code:
jack: created client
jack: setting TIME_CRITICAL = 89
jack: activated client
Segmentation fault
Reaper version: 5.974
__________________
OS: Ubuntu Studio, Reaper For Linux (64Bit) and native linux-vst plugins (16GB RAM) LSP-Suite, Drumgizmo, TpL-Plugins, LinuxSampler/Fantasia, Behringer U-PHORIA UMC22.
Tobbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 10:43 AM   #276
clepsydrae
Human being with feelings
 
clepsydrae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,527
Default

I'm not seeing that on either 5.97 or 5.975rc1 on Kubuntu 18.10. Made a new poject, made several tracks, double-clicked name of first, named, tab to next, named, etc.
clepsydrae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 10:50 AM   #277
Tobbe
Human being with feelings
 
Tobbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Backe, Jšmtland, Sweden
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clepsydrae View Post
I'm not seeing that on either 5.97 or 5.975rc1 on Kubuntu 18.10. Made a new poject, made several tracks, double-clicked name of first, named, tab to next, named, etc.
Lucky you
__________________
OS: Ubuntu Studio, Reaper For Linux (64Bit) and native linux-vst plugins (16GB RAM) LSP-Suite, Drumgizmo, TpL-Plugins, LinuxSampler/Fantasia, Behringer U-PHORIA UMC22.
Tobbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 10:52 AM   #278
clepsydrae
Human being with feelings
 
clepsydrae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobbe View Post
Lucky you
Maybe try with a new config (i.e. fresh install) to see if it's a setting thing?

Sounds like it's a hard crash of reaper, which i'm sure is something the devs would like to fix.
clepsydrae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 12:47 PM   #279
Tobbe
Human being with feelings
 
Tobbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Backe, Jšmtland, Sweden
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clepsydrae View Post
Maybe try with a new config (i.e. fresh install) to see if it's a setting thing?

Sounds like it's a hard crash of reaper, which i'm sure is something the devs would like to fix.
New installation fixed it. Must happend something with the other one somehow.

Thanks
__________________
OS: Ubuntu Studio, Reaper For Linux (64Bit) and native linux-vst plugins (16GB RAM) LSP-Suite, Drumgizmo, TpL-Plugins, LinuxSampler/Fantasia, Behringer U-PHORIA UMC22.
Tobbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2019, 01:17 PM   #280
clepsydrae
Human being with feelings
 
clepsydrae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobbe View Post
New installation fixed it. Must happend something with the other one somehow.
If you still have the other config, it would be good to get to the bottom of what happened...
clepsydrae is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.