So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

Hi all,

Now that very few plug-in manufacturers have chosen to develop plugs coded specifically for HDX, and as computers continue to get faster and faster, there seems to be little incentive to going HDX aside from possibly better latency figures and/or a higher track count. Am I wrong?

For those of you who have bought HD Native, are you finding that you are having latency issues when tracking, for instance, a band or something that requires 25 or more tracks in record at one time? I know there was initially a lot of discussion about latency, but now that you might have lived with your HD Native systems for a year or more...how is the latency issue for you?

Would love to know your impressions...

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

I switched from HD Native to HDX yesterday and only in a day of usage the difference is quite big.

I never really had issues with the HD Native but I did have to make compromises to be able to record and ultra low buffer settings and when recording drums I would notice some.

The HDX even at higher buffer settings is not noticeable. It's absolutely fantastic. I am very happy I took the plunge

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

No.

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

The talent probably won't notice a huge difference in their headphones between monitoring/tracking analog or through PT with low latency. However if your tracking with plugins and VI's there most definitley will be a noticable latency issue.

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

Why? If you have 64 buffer at 96kHz it's just as good as TDM

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

I'm a drummer and do a fair amount of drum sessions on a weekly basis for film and album projects. I own HDN and HDX and have no problem tracking large session with either.

I'm using the MP trashcan and my buffer lives on 32 or 64 at all times.

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

Only notice it if I mistakenly track through plugins.....But I use a Dangerous for cans and monitoring...Every now and then a Hearback system so No for me....

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

To set the record straight, no, it's definitely not.

96kHz with HDN at 64 buffer is slightly lower than 44.1kHz on a TDM system, but it's over three times the latency of 96kHz (0.48ms) with a TDM system (if you're using HD I/O with both systems for a fair comparison). HDX at 96kHz is 0.50ms. TDM and HDX are that low REGARDLESS OF BUFFER.

HDN is 1.67ms, but only at 96kHz and with a buffer of 64. At a buffer of 128 it's unusable for tracking for most artists trying to record vocals, saxophone, etc..

There are several in-depth studies that prove this, including:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14256

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

99% of my work is 24 bit/48K. I track bands(4-6 pieces) on HDN at the 64 buffer. I provide 5 stereo headphone mixes from inside the sessions(5 AUX sends on each track) and never hear any complaints re latency. I keep high-latency plugins inactive while tracking(and nobody seems to mind the 7 samples of compensation for the bass amp sim):o

Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
 

Many threads for that topic, but please let's not go there in this one...