Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!:rolleyes:

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 18 years old!!!
 

HDX is 8 years old.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

corrected the thread title for you

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 18 years old!!!
 

Kind of.. Avid has been talking about upgrading voice count from 256 to 384 per card

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

New updated Hardware not software bumps for the motion picture industry. 384k/64.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Ugh.. 384 voices is the upgrade they want, not 384 kilohertz

The voice count (of current HDX1) already halves to 128 at 96k, and 64 at 192k, so at 384k it would be 32 voices or only four 7.1 tracks.. I bet it isn't quite acceptable if they are now struggling with voices with HDX3

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

The motion picture industry does not operate at these sample rates.
The highest you'll find is 96kHz in use (and rarely.)

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

What kind of hardware ‘upgrade’ do you want? More DSP? More voices? Different I/O? Please be more specific.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

He just said, apparently 384kHz sampling is now "it" and we cannot produce high-quality mp3's without

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Personally I am waiting for the 772 kHz MP3 before I re-rip my CD-collection.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

haha!

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

384k sample rate? I thought that was a typo.

Is that even a thing? That’s just ridiculous.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Since Pro Tools is now TRUE 64-bit, I've been having a great time recording 44.1kHz/64-Bit, 32-bit was such rubbish!!:p

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Anything below 768KHz sample rate is just not worth it :p

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Hahaha that funny, but do people still listen to MP3’s?

Seriously I don’t think they do anymore, it’s all streamed or AIF’s (or whatever they use) from Apple [emoji519]

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

iTunes still uses MP3...but I think I heard they're dismantling iTunes or something?

Either way, friends don't let friends listen to MP3s.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Uh? As it has been for a long time.. iTunes local media can use AAC, AIFF, Apple Lossless, MP3 or WAV. Apple Music streams in 256Kbps AAC. Personally I rip CDs as Apple lossless and keep a large iTunes library on my Mac, set downloads to iOS devices to maximum bitrate AAC. Streaming meh, but I’ll listen to some stuff on Amazon Music.

iTunes is not going away. The complete insanity of bloatware that iTunes became is being broken up.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Yes, 384k/64 or even DSD:D 8 years and people main concern is having voice count 100,000.......Lol


I think there's a percentage of sound stage mixers/studio's who's hearing is disabled viewing today's cinema. Way to loud and level transitions from dialog, sound effects and music is drastic/ridiculous:eek: No need for High fidelity.

MP3's..........:confused: crap:cool:

Avid pass the hardware design to a 3rd party company because it seems you don't have the engineers/designers.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

and yet movie soundtracks sound much better than most albums

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Your opinion. :rolleyes:

Explosions sound great........Lol

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Of course they do.. not mp3's

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Who said MP3 quality was good?

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Maybe I gave a hint?

Higher sampling rates only benefit you if your mix needs higher frequencies, but even current 192kHz boxes usually cap it at 20kHz going in which makes recording at higher rates unnecessary. Sweet spot would be 64kHz which would allow filters to set the non-linear action to frequencies human ear cannot hear but we don't have that so if your converters are not "perfect" you are very safe at 96k, will not need 192k and definetely don't need to request 384k

Mixing at 96k have some benefits compared to 48k because not all plugins are made equal, but that is another story.

Anyway, if your final mix don't have frequencies over 20kHz you have absolutely zero reason for recording over 48k

(and what is the frequency response of a MP3?)

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Understand this argument and many disagree with certain aspects.:roll eyes:

Lavry Engineering Inc. May 3, 2012

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

In some ways, you already got your wish. The MTRX is made my Digital Audio Denmark. Not Avid.

Although I completely disagree with the statement that they don’t have good hardware engineers and designers. The S6 and other control surface hardware is brilliant.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

The S6 is not an audio device but a device that is loaded with many encoders/servos to record/play physical moves....nice expensive toy.:D

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

S6L however is a whole another ballgame

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

To keep this in perspective, "corp" is a Pro Tools TDM v8 user.
These threads are just trolling for him. (and not the first by a long shot)

Like cro-magnon man asking where his supersonic jet is.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Really? are you positive? Lol

What kinda of car am I driving?:eek:

Who's the troll?

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Reliant Robin?

Is there a prize when we get this right? -- Maybe like a Pyramix system so we can understand the benefits of mixing in wonderful high bit rate DSD?

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

A new Digidesign 888.........High fidelity:D

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

There are many articles by Nika Aldrich, Paul Frindle and Dan Lavry that say that an ideal SR would be something around 60kHz (that does not exist) because beyond this frequency the bass band loses definition. Going over 96KHz is marketing.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

44.1 and 48k have paid the bills here for years. In all these years I only recall twice that someone asked for a higher sample rate. And one of them had me convert a 44.1 session to 96 and he said he could hear a huge improvement. What a fun business.

This post is in no way meant as a sample rate suggestion. We should all choose what makes us happy.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Perhaps the point is we already have too many to choose from and the foolish mind always becomes happy with bigger numbers. If audio industry isn't doubling the numbers then companies are greed to sell ageing boxes and hold on to better quality. Cannot win this with being happy.

Early digital gear were clocking 32k and doubling that to 64k would have been perfect. Damn CD gave us 44.1k otherwise our dilemma might be 32 / 48 / 64 what to choose?

With that said I'm fine with 48k (tracking) but some plugins do operate better at 96k so that's what I use for mixing

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

When in digital domain higher SR is probably better. What these guru guys were state is that with a too high SR the converters suffer during the reconstruction process

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

IN THEORY, digital domain and higher sampling rates ONLY mean processing of higher frequencies are possible. (EDIT: just the same, digital domain and higher bit rates ONLY mean higher dynamic range, but that is not necessary as 24bit can handle 144B and best converters can only do 124dB which still gives us a nice 20dB headroom to record below digital full scale)

IN REALITY, if you ADDA caps at 20k that is taken away from you. The only advantage of higher sample rate session lies in whether the plugin you use works better in 96k compared to 48k. If you only store/process frequencies below 20kHz, there is ZERO advantage in recording at zillion megahertz sampling rate

EDIT:
assuming you have perfect converters. the analog filters that cap to 20k make the more imperfections the less perfect converters you use. this is why people can hear a difference between 48k and 96k in blind tests. if we had 64k sampling rate available, nobody with human hearing could make a difference between 64k and 96k

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Not so much to do with reconstruction but if you sample zillion times a second you just have too much data to process and because ALL DATA HAVE "X" PCT ERRORS the more data you sample the more errors you will sample as well.

And because reconstruction takes all data into account, it also takes those bogus samples as well, which means if you only need 48k samples for a perfect reconstruction (assuming perfect converters) then sampling at 96k doubles the chances of sampling error, sampling at 192k quadruples it, etc.

So if we only hear and process frequences below 20k (which by Nyquist we only need 40kHz sampling rate) it is not a good idea to sample at 768kHz because the chance of a bogus sample is 16X compared to sampling at 48k (filtering out one bogus sample is not possible because any algorithm cannot determine what kind of music we are recording and processing)

The practical implication of this is: you get better results with close to perfect 48k converters than less than perfect 768k converters

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

When in XXX higher YYY is probably better kind of thinking has got us to this situation.

What people should understand is we need 40kHz sampling rate and perfect converters -- and because we don't have perfect converters, the imperfections of analog filterers before less than perfect conversion need to be compensated with higher sampling that puts those imperfections outside of human hearing range.

That however is proved to be somewhere near 60kHz sampling, and 96k is good enough for even mediocre converters such as DigiDesign 002 from +15 years ago.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

This is why there is more advantages rising the SR from 44.1 to 48 rather than from 48 to 96. Going to 48khz you force the filters to work in a safer range, outside the hearing spectrum. About the digital processing, some plugins work at high SR regardless the session SR, like the Massenburg eq that works always at 96khz.

Re: Avid: new HW?? HDX 8 years old!!!
 

Do you think it's better to use 48 instead of 44.1 if going to 44.1 16 bit wav? Do the sample rate conversation after the fact? Or stay at 44.1 instead of 48?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk