Topic by KeyboardSideAudienceLeft

  • Avatar
  • KeyboardSideAudienceLeft
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 14-03-2024
  • Posts: 4

Topic: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

Hi,

I have the following settings on the Audio/MIDI Setup page:
...
Audio device type: ASIO
Device: ASIO4ALL v2
...
Sample rate: 48000 Hz
Audio buffer size: 512 samples (10.7 ms)

If I click the "Show this device's control panel", there is an additional setting for ASIO Buffer Size. My question is, which of these buffer size settings is actually the one that is in effect?

From what I've read, the buffer size of 512 samples is a bit high and will result in noticeable latency. My plan is to reduce the buffer size (once I know which one to adjust) as low as possible until I start hearing glitches/clicks/pops. Any other tips on optimizing ASIO4ALL v2.15 settings would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 91

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

KeyboardSideAudienceLeft wrote:

Hi,

I have the following settings on the Audio/MIDI Setup page:
...
Audio device type: ASIO
Device: ASIO4ALL v2
...
Sample rate: 48000 Hz
Audio buffer size: 512 samples (10.7 ms)

If I click the "Show this device's control panel", there is an additional setting for ASIO Buffer Size. My question is, which of these buffer size settings is actually the one that is in effect?

From what I've read, the buffer size of 512 samples is a bit high and will result in noticeable latency. My plan is to reduce the buffer size (once I know which one to adjust) as low as possible until I start hearing glitches/clicks/pops. Any other tips on optimizing ASIO4ALL v2.15 settings would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance.


If you have an external sound interface you should use the manufacturer interface drivers and not ASIO4all.

The two numbers are the same thing. They should match.

You can try the windows audio built-in driver in different modes at 128 buffer. 

Typically 128 would be best.

Reply by KeyboardSideAudienceLeft

  • Avatar
  • KeyboardSideAudienceLeft
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 14-03-2024
  • Posts: 4

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

dikrek wrote:
KeyboardSideAudienceLeft wrote:

Hi,

I have the following settings on the Audio/MIDI Setup page:
...
Audio device type: ASIO
Device: ASIO4ALL v2
...
Sample rate: 48000 Hz
Audio buffer size: 512 samples (10.7 ms)

If I click the "Show this device's control panel", there is an additional setting for ASIO Buffer Size. My question is, which of these buffer size settings is actually the one that is in effect?

From what I've read, the buffer size of 512 samples is a bit high and will result in noticeable latency. My plan is to reduce the buffer size (once I know which one to adjust) as low as possible until I start hearing glitches/clicks/pops. Any other tips on optimizing ASIO4ALL v2.15 settings would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance.


If you have an external sound interface you should use the manufacturer interface drivers and not ASIO4all.

The two numbers are the same thing. They should match.

You can try the windows audio built-in driver in different modes at 128 buffer. 

Typically 128 would be best.

I do not have an external sound interface. I guess it makes sense to set the audio buffer and the ASIO buffer to be the same, but I am still curious about which one actually mattersl FYI with ASIO4ALL, I hear "pops" but not very often at 64 sample buffer, 128 sample buffer seems to have no problems. I will try comparing the Windows audio built-in driver to ASIO4ALL to see which I prefer. Thanks for the suggestions.

Reply by Luc Henrion

  • Avatar
  • Luc Henrion
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 02-05-2007
  • Posts: 897

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

My personal experience is that ASIO4ALL worked well up to Windows 7, but since WASAPI on Win 10 (and 11), it has become useless. What version of Windows are you using?

Luc Henrion's Website

Reply by Key Fumbler

  • Avatar
  • Key Fumbler
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 20-10-2018
  • Posts: 1,320

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

Luc Henrion wrote:

My personal experience is that ASIO4ALL worked well up to Windows 7, but since WASAPI on Win 10 (and 11), it has become useless. What version of Windows are you using?

WASAPI can work surprisingly well anyway, nice low latency performance - can be indistinguishable from good ASIO performance.

Reply by undcov

  • Avatar
  • undcov
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 16-03-2024
  • Posts: 3

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

KeyboardSideAudienceLeft wrote:

If I click the "Show this device's control panel", there is an additional setting for ASIO Buffer Size. My question is, which of these buffer size settings is actually the one that is in effect?

According to ASIO4ALL's website applications can override the buffer size set in the ASIO4ALL control panel. This should be indicated by the blue mark being elsewhere on the slider. So the buffer size you set in Pianoteq should be in effect.

Reply by dikrek

  • Avatar
  • dikrek
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 06-02-2023
  • Posts: 91

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

Luc Henrion wrote:

My personal experience is that ASIO4ALL worked well up to Windows 7, but since WASAPI on Win 10 (and 11), it has become useless. What version of Windows are you using?

Need to use the right WASAPI mode. Depending on machine it may be that exclusive isn’t better. Try all with 128 buffer.

ASIO4ALL is a wrapper that uses WASAPI at the back end BTW.

Check FlexASIO, which may be even better.

Last edited by dikrek (17-03-2024 15:40)

Reply by Luc Henrion

  • Avatar
  • Luc Henrion
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 02-05-2007
  • Posts: 897

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

dikrek wrote:
Luc Henrion wrote:

My personal experience is that ASIO4ALL worked well up to Windows 7, but since WASAPI on Win 10 (and 11), it has become useless. What version of Windows are you using?

Need to use the right WASAPI mode. Depending on machine it may be that exclusive isn’t better. Try all with 128 buffer.

ASIO4ALL is a wrapper that uses WASAPI at the back end BTW.

Check FlexASIO, which may be even better.

Thanks for this info !

Luc Henrion's Website

Reply by bani223

  • Avatar
  • bani223
  • Member
  • Offline
  • From: Saint Louis, USA
  • Registered: 20-02-2022
  • Posts: 36

Re: Audio buffer size vs. ASIO Buffer Size, which one matters?

In Asio4all should be possible to raise the buffers up from zero until you get good sound. Run that and Pianoteq 8 standalone and test that similarly. Should take 10 or 15 minutes I'm guessing. Cant be more specific cause I dont have your same hardware/software set up. Side note I personally found ASIO4ALL to be a very helpful tool and on my sound card/hardware it only needs maybe 0-1 ms or so beyond that accounted for in PT, so it's a low resource burden.

Last edited by bani223 (31-03-2024 19:37)
Soundblaster ZXR, ASIO4ALL. 96khz, ~2ms buffer. Little to no pop/crackle on Realtime priority.
I have posted several times about tweaking Pianoteq