On my mac mini m4, there is no way to go under 64 samples.
In Reaper, I can decrease to 16 but with an increased audio charge and with the indication that the buffer is not optimal in Pianoteq.

It depends on the audio interface. Both the actual number and the true latency.

dikrek wrote:

I think Modartt just used some standard dialogue box for the buffer settings, that shows what’s available with the current hardware. It changes depending on what’s connected, if the interface supports a lower number then you may see lower.

Got it. I think I have to upgrade my MacBook Pro to M3 or M4 including my audio interface first as soon as possible so I can get the option of 32 or 16 buffer size show up on the standalone Pianoteq.

Thank you very much for your response. Best regards.

I don’t think you need to upgrade your RME interface. It’s pretty much as good as it gets regarding USB interfaces. Just ensure you’re using a powerful computer and the lowest buffer, plus the kernel mode drivers.

On M series macs you need to do a bit of a workaround to use the kernel mode drivers but it’s not hard, RME has the process.

I think Modartt just used some standard dialogue box for the buffer settings, that shows what’s available with the current hardware. It changes depending on what’s connected, if the interface supports a lower number then you may see lower.

I will check

I think Modartt just used some standard dialogue box for the buffer settings, that shows what’s available with the current hardware. It changes depending on what’s connected, if the interface supports a lower number then you may see lower.

Got it. I think I have to upgrade my MacBook Pro to M3 or M4 including my audio interface first as soon as possible so I can get the option of 32 or 16 buffer size show up on the standalone Pianoteq.

Thank you very much for your response. Best regards.

dikrek wrote:

Large butters aren’t for real time playing, they’re for lower CPU overhead when playing back during, say, mixing and mastering.

  Do you think Pianoteq use that high buffer size 4096 for mixing and mastering?  Pianoteq is not DAW (still give options for 4096), but you mentioned the high functional for Mixing and Mastering even though they're not for real time playing.  Have you ever use that Pianoteq high buffer size?   What do you think the playability of 4096. Is it really beneficial for your playing using 4096 vs the lower 32 "IF" Pianoteq give the option for future update?

I am trying to find the correlation here that really beneficial for us Pianist who use Pianoteq mainly for real time playing. That's why we test, buy, and enjoy the beautiful technology to make everyone happy, particularly the audience who always love watching us playing happily to entertain them.

Best regards.

I think Modartt just used some standard dialogue box for the buffer settings, that shows what’s available with the current hardware. It changes depending on what’s connected, if the interface supports a lower number then you may see lower.

Large butters aren’t for real time playing, they’re for lower CPU overhead when playing back during, say, mixing and mastering.

  Do you think Pianoteq use that high buffer size 4096 for mixing and mastering?  Pianoteq is not DAW (still give options for 4096), but you mentioned the high functional for Mixing and Mastering even though they're not for real time playing.  Have you ever use that Pianoteq high buffer size?   What do you think the playability of 4096. Is it really beneficial for your playing using 4096 vs the lower 32 "IF" Pianoteq give the option for future update?

I am trying to find the correlation here that really beneficial for us Pianist who use Pianoteq mainly for real time playing. That's why we test, buy, and enjoy the beautiful technology to make everyone happy, particularly the audience who always love watching us playing happily to entertain them.

Best regards.

Pianistically wrote:

Lower latency helps better control of dynamics but not because of these reasons but rather indirectly

Very fast playing such as extremely rapid arpeggios or repeated notes are in the region of 10 notes-15 notes per second max in piano playing.    So if you take 10 notes per second as a reference , it means that you have 100 ms between each note,  which is way above the  latency observed in the audio chain , so your fingers can control the keys  with no difference, whether  the audio latency is  5 ms, 10 ms or 15 ms audio latency.

BUT

when playing expressively, especially rapid dynamic shifts the pianist relies on immediate auditory feedback. High audio latency disrupts the feedback loop. If the pianist doesn't hear the sound  of  soft touch (pp) or hard strike (ff) immediately, the brain has trouble controlling with accuracy the next note's dynamic and much force is needed to press the key.

Low latency provides a near-instant feedback that  your neuromuscular system needs to allowing for fine,  instinctive dynamic control. 

Also note that Jazz or Progressive Rock are very expressive forms of music and require as much dynamic control as traditional classical music, but  pop and traditional rock usually use a reduced range.

I love reading the long analysis. Can you also comment on my last point about higher buffer size options that Pianoteq has up to 4096?  How useful 4096 vs 32 buffer size for your playing?  or what buffer size that you always use for playing, 4096?

Best regards.

Large butters aren’t for real time playing, they’re for lower CPU overhead when playing back during, say, mixing and mastering.

Lower latency helps better control of dynamics but not because of these reasons but rather indirectly

Very fast playing such as extremely rapid arpeggios or repeated notes are in the region of 10 notes-15 notes per second max in piano playing.    So if you take 10 notes per second as a reference , it means that you have 100 ms between each note,  which is way above the  latency observed in the audio chain , so your fingers can control the keys  with no difference, whether  the audio latency is  5 ms, 10 ms or 15 ms audio latency.

BUT

when playing expressively, especially rapid dynamic shifts the pianist relies on immediate auditory feedback. High audio latency disrupts the feedback loop. If the pianist doesn't hear the sound  of  soft touch (pp) or hard strike (ff) immediately, the brain has trouble controlling with accuracy the next note's dynamic and much force is needed to press the key.

Low latency provides a near-instant feedback that  your neuromuscular system needs to allowing for fine,  instinctive dynamic control. 

Also note that Jazz or Progressive Rock are very expressive forms of music and require as much dynamic control as traditional classical music, but  pop and traditional rock usually use a reduced range.

I love reading the long analysis. Can you also comment on my last point about higher buffer size options that Pianoteq has up to 4096?  How useful 4096 vs 32 buffer size for your playing?  or what buffer size that you always use for playing, 4096?

Best regards.

dulistan heman wrote:

For Jazz piano, Gospel, Pop and Rock genre that using less velocity, using 64 or 128 buffer size is great.

For Classical and Church music that requires wide range velocity from pp to fff, using 32 buffer size can give our fingers more room to hit notes with more accurate precision. I encourage anyone to experience it on their own computer "to Feel" the difference.

Lower latency helps better control of dynamics but not because of these reasons but rather indirectly

Very fast playing such as extremely rapid arpeggios or repeated notes are in the region of 10 notes-15 notes per second max in piano playing.    So if you take 10 notes per second as a reference , it means that you have 100 ms between each note,  which is way above the  latency observed in the audio chain , so your fingers can control the keys  with no difference, whether  the audio latency is  5 ms, 10 ms or 15 ms audio latency.

BUT

when playing expressively, especially rapid dynamic shifts the pianist relies on immediate auditory feedback. High audio latency disrupts the feedback loop. If the pianist doesn't hear the sound  of  soft touch (pp) or hard strike (ff) immediately, the brain has trouble controlling with accuracy the next note's dynamic and much force is needed to press the key.

Low latency provides a near-instant feedback that  your neuromuscular system needs to allowing for fine,  instinctive dynamic control. 

Also note that Jazz or Progressive Rock are very expressive forms of music and require as much dynamic control as traditional classical music, but  pop and traditional rock usually use a reduced range.

Agreed all around. It’s just important to make clear that the same buffer size does NOT result in the same latency in practice.

Not even close.

Sometimes it can be over 2x due to extra safety buffers.

Depends on the interface, driver and operating system.

RME PCI cards on Windows using ASIO will offer truly the lowest possible latency and best driver efficiency.

CoreAudio without special drivers on Macs/iOS devices will typically have higher latency. Also called “class compliant”.

CoreAudio with RME kernel drivers will have the lowest latency on Macs.

For someone relying on iOS, the only solution as the OP wants is to allow the app to push for very low buffers, assuming the device can handle this at all.

For Jazz piano, Gospel, Pop and Rock genre that using less velocity, using 64 or 128 buffer size is great.

For Classical and Church music that requires wide range velocity from pp to fff, using 32 buffer size can give our fingers more room to hit notes with more accurate precision. I encourage anyone to experience it on their own computer "to Feel" the difference.

Lower latency helps better control of dynamics but not because of these reasons but rather indirectly

Very fast playing such as extremely rapid arpeggios or repeated notes are in the region of 10 notes-15 notes per second max in piano playing.    So if you take 10 notes per second as a reference , it means that you have 100 ms between each note,  which is way above the  latency observed in the audio chain , so your fingers can control the keys  with no difference, whether  the audio latency is  5 ms, 10 ms or 15 ms audio latency.

BUT

when playing expressively, especially rapid dynamic shifts the pianist relies on immediate auditory feedback. High audio latency disrupts the feedback loop. If the pianist doesn't hear the sound  of  soft touch (pp) or hard strike (ff) immediately, the brain has trouble controlling with accuracy the next note's dynamic and much force is needed to press the key.

Low latency provides a near-instant feedback that  your neuromuscular system needs to allowing for fine,  instinctive dynamic control. 

Also note that Jazz or Progressive Rock are very expressive forms of music and require as much dynamic control as traditional classical music, but  pop and traditional rock usually use a reduced range.

Are you sure you can feel the difference between 64 and 32 samples ?

Yes, 100%. I've been playing it for the past week with smile on my face. Since the crackling noise is noticable and occasionally get drop out sound when am playing so much notes, I wouldn't be able to record it properly.

For Jazz piano, Gospel, Pop and Rock genre that using less velocity, using 64 or 128 buffer size is great.

For Classical and Church music that requires wide range velocity from pp to fff, using 32 buffer size can give our fingers more room to hit notes with more accurate precision. I encourage anyone to experience it on their own computer "to Feel" the difference. The real question is:

Why Modartt has Options for higher buffer size up to 4096 that is no one even use it for playing?

Those higher buffer size usable for replying some midi and learning Piano, but not for playing.

It is not hard to add options for 32 or 16 buffer size that is very very useful anyway in Pianoteq standalone just like DAW's. Many Pianist will appreciate the next update when Modartt included this.

Best regards.

I always play through a DAW (I use my own reverb, compression and saturation, insanely better than what PT can do on its own).

Good to hear that. For live gig, I use Pianoteq standalone on my iPad with 64 buffer size. I have a little overload when I use Pianoteq through Cubasis though. So, the DAW definitely add more CPU stressful compare to using it standalone.

Yes, you're right about Intel computer.

dikrek wrote:

It also depends on the interface. Some don’t do much below a certain number. Meaning they the true latency is similar.

The only way to properly test it is using the RTL utility (you connect a cable from the output to the input and it sends pulses).

You are right for the interface. Mine is a Babyface Pro, expensive but solid and hyper stable.
Anyway, there is certainly some difference with the lowest buffer sizes. In my case it's just that I don’t feel it under 128. So, for me, it seems useless to go to play at 32 or 16.

Same with my RME (Digiface USB), 128 is fine and I can’t perceive delays.

Folks - remember that some plugins cause major latency. Certain look-ahead compressors or tape emulators could easily add 5-10ms of latency each…

It also depends on the interface. Some don’t do much below a certain number. Meaning they the true latency is similar.

The only way to properly test it is using the RTL utility (you connect a cable from the output to the input and it sends pulses).

You are right for the interface. Mine is a Babyface Pro, expensive but solid and hyper stable.
Anyway, there is certainly some difference with the lowest buffer sizes. In my case it's just that I don’t feel it under 128. So, for me, it seems useless to go to play at 32 or 16.