Will a better interface significantly help reduce my laptop CPU overburdening?

[Enlightened Hand]

I don't know the actual answer to your situation. But I suspect that your laptop is not specified appropriately for the processing required to handle the software that you're using. It might not be the interface at all. You mentioned this:

...On the laptop I mainly use soft-synths, and the problem is that the above system seems that cannot cope even with single synths (some of them) and even at a buffer size of 1024. I am not talking about adding effects, etc. I even run a single synth that is a bit CPU-hungry (like Z3TA), and on some patches the sound comes out COMPLETELY BROKEN. I don't even dare to run some other soft-synth that might be even more CPU-hungry...

There are recommended specifications for hardware AND software. If your computer doesn't meet the requirements for both then you can have problems. I took a glance at the minimum requirements for the Fast Track Pro and it said this:

Originally Posted by AVID

Pentium 3 – 500 MHz (higher speed CPU may be necessary for laptops)
256MB RAM
DirectX 9.0c
Windows XP (SP2)* / Vista SP2 (32Bit , 64 Bit) / Win7 (32Bit , 64 Bit)
(Windows 2000, 98, 98SE, ME & NT not supported)
USB port
* Home and Professional Edition only. Windows Media Center Edition is not supported.
** M-Audio suggests that you also check the minimum system requirements for your software, as they may greater than the above.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about.

[phas3d]

Some audio interfaces do have better performance than others on the same machine. Mainly because of the chipset they use as well as the drivers.

[bart_read]

Given you're limited to USB, and USB by its very nature puts quite a load on the CPU, I suspect the answer may be no, but see if you can try out a few different interfaces with your laptop in a local retailer - you never know.

Even if you had Firewire it probably wouldn't be the answer with that HP laptop: I learned the hard way that you only want to use a Firewire interface with a PC specifically built for audio, otherwise drop-outs and misery are quite likely to follow.

[apollo99]

Thank you both... So I guess the answer is NO for this particular laptop setup...

Though, I wonder how people in various exhibitions/presentations manage to run intensive DAW's/synths, by using a laptop (usually Macs). For example I remember a Spectrasonics Omnisphere/Trillian/DAW presentation I've seen on youtube, where all this setup was through a Mac Book.

Is Apple-MacBook so much faster/more powerful than similar spec-ed PC laptops, or there is another explanation?

Originally Posted by bart_read

I learned the hard way that you only want to use a Firewire interface with a PC specifically built for audio, otherwise drop-outs and misery are quite likely to follow.

I guess the only (mainly) thing you can do about a PC for audio is, good CPU/RAM and 64bit -except for the interface itself, about which we're talking)... Wrong?

[phas3d]

It will depend on the DAW. Some perform better than others on MBP. Logic runs great here. No complains. Again the audio interface maters too.

[Sergievsky]

is your drive 7200 or 5400? (it wont be 5200) I think thats the problem, and you'll probably see a bigger improvement putting an ssd in there, or even add more memory.

[fastlanestoner]

You need a better machine, an interface wont help you here

[apollo99]

I understand that its mostly CPU processing problem, so a better interface might not be the solution.

I think it's better, to forget running any high CPU synths on this laptop, otherwise buy a better laptop. (I don't plan to do so anytime soon, I'll better stick with my desktop)

Thank you all for your time...

[jessestephens]

Don't toss the laptop just yet. It probably just needs to be configured properly.
The specs of your laptop are more than enough to run multiple VST plugins without experiencing the problems you are having. Espescially older ones like Z3TA.

Try disabling turbo boost in the bios of the laptop. I had almost identical issues with my i7 (Dell XPS sandy bridge i7) when turbo boost was enabled. For some reason it created audio crackling and latency problems with VST instruments in Cubase. Disabling power saving and turbo boost straightened it out for me.

Changing out your interface probably won't fix it. You could try loading ASIO4ALL drivers and see how it performs with them instead of the manufacturer ASIO drivers.

As for the hard disk recommendation earlier, that is almost certainly not the problem. Hard disk speed issues usually manifest when you're recording and playing back multiple audio track recordings simultaneously. There are only a few VST's that do sample streaming directly from the hard drive, most don't. Most of them are CPU and ram dependent.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by apollo99

Hello to everyone.

Although a Gearslutz's Forum reader for a long time, this is my first post....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Laptop specs:

HP Pavilion dv7
Win 7 x64 (Home premium)
1.60 GHz Intel Core i7-720QM Processor
4 GB DDR3
1 TB SATA Hard Disk Drive 5200 rpm
120 W AC Power Adapter
USB Interface (NO Firewire available on laptop, nor a PCMCIA slot, so please don't propose a Firewire audio interface purchase)

Audio interface used with my laptop: M-Audio Fast Track Pro

Latest Drivers used
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know the Fast Track Pro interface is a cheap one, but when connecting to my i7-920 quite powerful Desktop PC, I don't have any problems (I also have a Saffire Pro 24, which actually gives me more problems than the Fast Track)

But, on my HP Laptop, I have great problems with the Fast Track Pro. Although, the laptop's specs seem quite good, in real world this laptop (as many others) is quite slow, probably because it came full with HP software rubbish. I have uninstalled what was possible, but again the laptop not so fast .

On the laptop I mainly use soft-synths, and the problem is that the above system seems that cannot cope even with single synths (some of them) and even at a buffer size of 1024. I am not talking about adding effects, etc. I even run a single synth that is a bit CPU-hungry (like Z3TA), and on some patches the sound comes out COMPLETELY BROKEN. I don't even dare to run some other soft-synth that might be even more CPU-hungry.

And all this at a buffer size of 1024. I cannot increase it to 2048, because then the very big latency (close to 50ms I think) makes it impossible to play the synths.

So, I cannot even run a single instance of some synths, and I stay with some other synths (lighter on CPU), that cannot cover my needs.

I have tried everything to optimise the laptop, according to this Focusrite tutorial: Optimising your PC for audio on Windows 7 .: Focusrite Answerbase (and many others, but didn't help)

The only thing left is to buy a quite expensive card like RME Fireface UCX (both USB/Firewire, so I can use it with both my Laptop and Desktop). But, what do you think? Will it significantly help on the performance so that I can run even CPU-intensive synths ( I am talking about single instances always, not having any unreasonable demands)?

OR, it will NOT make any big difference?

I am a bit confused on this: An expensive audio interface won't overtake significant amount of processing off the CPU (on the use of soft-synths always) OR is it "only" better sound (clarity, etc...) it will produce? Because if its only better sound, then it will probably not solve my problem of poor perfomance on the laptop...

Thank you in advance, and sorry about my long message, but tried to explain the issue as good as possible...

Here's how your processor stacks up against others...

PassMark - Intel Core i7 720QM @ 1.60GHz - Price performance comparison

So, it's not a top performer by a stretch. (In fact... :( )

Still, I'm running my XP-based DAW on what is presumably an even slower, 6 year old, single core P4.

There can be a number of factors in performance, of course. When I got my basic machine it, too, was loaded down with RAM resident crapware. I think it was using something like 280 MB of RAM just sitting there -- and it only came with 512 MB! Absurd. When I got rid of all the garbage, I got the load profile down to ~125 MB. (I also upped the RAM to 1 GB immediately and added another GB to max it later.)

(The vendors like Dell and HP get a negotiated payment for each item of crapware -- which basically are often demo-ware or timeout-ware or simply unnecessary "helper" applications put in by the HP, Dell, Sony, and other vendors in the absurd belief that having their branded crapware cluttering up the system and confusing already befuddled users somehow improves their branding.)

Among other issues that can affect peformance are drives. Many people are afraid to open up their towers so they just go buy a USB drive. Unfortunately, you can stick a relatively quick IDE or SATA drive in the typical USB outboard drive box and reduce througput from 50 Mbps down into the 20's.

BTW, your 1TB drive is not particularly quick at 5400 RPM, of course. 7200 rpm is pretty much the standard for contemporary consumer drives.

A more expensive audio card might have better written drivers. But that's usually the difference between being able to work with a hardware buffer set to 64 samples instead of 128, for the most part -- not the kind of difference I suggest you're talking about. It's not going to make a big difference in all likelihood.

As you correctly suggest, soft synth performance/latency is a function of CPU speed/efficiency. Better hardware drivers might get a tiny improvement in latency but not likely to be at all significant


Now... all THAT said, while you talked about your hardware buffers, I don't believe you've said anything about your playback buffers -- and THAT is where the adjustment for CPU-guzzling soft synths is typically made.

With the hardware buffers, you generally find the lowest buffer setting your computer can sustain with a straight audio signal and forget it.

But the playback buffer (in the DAW) is where you set buffer time to make up for soft synths. (It basically takes the total hardware buffer time and then adds extra time as you direct in order to allow for playback of CPU-heavy VIs and FX.

For instance, I have the hardware buffers for my MOTU 828mkII set to 128 samples. In my DAW (Sonar) that gives you a minimum playback buffer setting of 2.9 ms at 44.1 kHz. (128/44100) (with AD conversion time it comes out to a one-sided time of about 4.5 ms; a roundtrip ADC through the computer and back out through DAC -- at that playback buffer setting -- takes a total of ~9 ms.

However, if I start throwing convolution reverbs and CPU intensive soft synths in there, pretty soon, pretty darn soon, I'm going to end up running out of playback buffer and getting glitches -- unless I temporarily up the size of the playback buffer.

(I monitor incoming analog via an analog mixer because I'm a big baby about any kind of monitoring latency of my live tracks.)

So, while I track with playback buffer set to 2.9 ms -- 'freezing' synths or heavy FX tracks when I have to to avoid running out of CPU -- I tend to mix with the playback buffer cranked way up to something like 150 ms. Fast enough that the lag when pushing play and stop buttons isn't a problem, but with lots of room for 'slow moving' VIs and FX.


So, if you haven't played with your playback (cue, or whatever your DAW calls it) buffer settings, make sure you do, because that could well be the primary source of your problems if it's set too low.