HDX end-of-cycle?
 

Hi all-

I am a PC/RME/Nuendo guy tired of the endless hardware issues trying to make a reliable DAW in Windows and am thinking of going Mac.

I'm probably going to wait and see if another mac pro is announced, but that brings me to my next question. I'm interested in HDX but I've seen a lot of references in threads on this forum and gearslutz forum about HDX now (5-6 years later) being at the tail end of its life cycle. I don't know if that's just out-the-ass chatter based on price drops, or if there has been substantiated rumors about something else coming. Historically I like to buy the top of the line stuff when its new rather than get something that's immediately obsoleted (even if it's cheaper).

What have you guys heard about what's next or how long HDX systems are going to be first tier?

Thanks!

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

Welcome to the community.

Historically speaking, Avid should be replacing the HDX card with something new sooner rather than later. But with that said, I have not heard anything and if I did I wouldn't talk about it ;)

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

I agree, but have a few more thoughts to offer(just my 2 cents worth:-)). Moving to Mac because PC hasn't been solid? Maybe a good move, and maybe not:o Many of us have been making a living with Pro Tools on PC and are quite happy(in fact, the pro-tools-pc.com website is a great place to purchase a purpose-built PC that will run the heck out of Pro Tools):D

Back to the HDX question, do you NEED HDX? If you are doing huge tracking sessions, maybe with a large analog console, then HDX might be the best option. If not, a native solution can be very capable. As an example, I track bands(usually 4-6 pieces) on HD/Native system. I provide 5 separate stereo headphone mixes from the sessions. With careful selection of plugins(and a lot of them;)) and a 64 buffer setting, latency is a non-issue(even with up to 32 live inputs). If your needs are not quite this large, the UA Apollo boxes are my next-best IO option(and the ONLY option if you wish to track with UAD plugins).

Next detail is; do you need surround? If you don't, then non-HD software may do everything you need(but it will have a 32 IO limit with all 3rd party IO, 64 IO with HD/Native card). Just wanted you to think it thru before dropping big dollars on HDX:o

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

Hi,

I remember asking me the same question when i buyer my first HD Accel rig.
The fact is that even if the technology was old, this rig gave me almost 10 good years of work!

I then changed to HDX 2 years ago.
Some say that you can do the job (tracking bands) with a native rig and i suppose it's true for some parts, but the fact is, that for a little more $$, you have the peace on mind and never have to worry about glitch, dropouts or latency and all those sort of vibe killers during tracking.

For me, that alone is worth the price of admission.

What is 1000$ or 2000$ more for the heart of your studio?
Heck, we dont hesitate to drop 4k or more often on pre's eq's and comp, so 1k is nothing!



I am 100% happy with my system!
If you need HDX, i'll say go.

Cheers!

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

...bearing in mind that HDN is capable of 64 i/o with its two digilinks

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

HDX2 is about 12500$ with a 16 I/O. Not really 1-2k more than HDn.

Also keep in mind that in terms on voice count HDn can be more powerful than HDX2.

Probably not for music tracking but it's quite easy to create a surround mix session that runs fine on HDn that won't play back on HDX2 due to the loss of voices when using native plugins.

Maybe not a criteria for the OP but worth keeping in mind.

You only need HDX when you need more than 256 voices (not tracks) or a lot of I/O (more than 64) or zero latency in live feeds.

If none of the above is the case I'd say go with HDn.

F.

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

First sentence is not quite true, because old user owning probably HD3 likely gets a lucrative hardware exchange deal and you cannot compare interfaces, because those are same on both sides.

Second sentence is very true. Someone could say HDX is better when tracking with plugins, but in that case the mixer should only use DSP versions.

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

Not sure how that makes the sentence untrue?

The OP said he is a "PC/RME/Nuendo guy". So he doesn't very probably own an HD3.

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

Hi Frank.

Well, if you go HD native, you need an HD I/O too!
A Pro Tools HDX card + software is 4999$
A Pro Tools HD native card + software is 2999$.

So it's a 2000$ difference.
And if you go used, you can get the card and software for way cheaper. So the difference is small.

For the voices, HDX handles native plugins way better than TDM.
I dont use more than 150-200 tracks in large mixes, but even when mixing native and DSP plugins, i never came near the limit of voices. When this was painful with TDM.

So i'm not sure about the fact that a native rig can handle more voices than an HDX2 rig with the same computer. But hey, if you track bands like me, HDX1 is more than enough!

Cheers.

Luc

Re: HDX end-of-cycle?
 

My PERSONAL, totally non-insider feeling is that Avid is moving to a totally software based DAW, meaning no more external DSP's on cards anymore.

As it is, you can buy a small HD Native card that connects to Avid I/O, including the new MTRX. It's just a matter of time before the card is gone, and the I/O attaches directly to the computer via Thunderbolt. (And as I'm writing this, I'm remembering all kinds of audio I/O that is already Thunderbolt)

As a very long-time PT user, all the way back to PT3, the whole AAX Plugin transition has been a bust. Yeah, there are some good ones, but by and large, even though I have an HDX setup, most of the plugs I use are Native, so I don't even need the HDX card. And that's not to say Avid won't / can't include DSP in the Audio I/O either, but from where I sit, no more DSP on PCIe cards.

So once Avid is done with outboard DSP, its all about Audio I/O, and they've already opened those barn doors pretty wide.