[darbyclash34]

Well, maybe that's how they'll finally through the HD crowd a bone before 2016 (well, except for HDX customers): while we're unlocking artificial restrictions and calling them new features, how about unlocking that little tidbit for at least all HD users? The only way this could be hardware dependent would be if it only worked when you were using 0 native plugins, keeping everything on the HDX cards at all times, so they can say that the HDX card is doing the work that allows this functionality. Since it works fine no matter what combinations of plugins, including sidechain inputs to native plugs being compensated, clearly the math for delay comp is being done on the host, where it belongs. There's only but so much headroom in the HDX card, and why waste any of it doing basic math that the host CPU is more than capable of doing, and probably better at doing.

So why not unlock that one little feature to make the HD users feel like Avid haven't forgotten about us? I mean, I'm basically getting extorted to pay $600 for something that doesn't bring anything new to the table aside from some added stability according to user reports, and stability should be a basic expectation for the industry standard, and we shouldn't have to pay to fix the bugs in the product I've already paid a huge amount for. I'm not asking for new features, I'm just saying if the answer is, "well just stay on 11" then 11 better be rock solid, and since many issues present in 11 have allegedly been fixed in 12, those fixes need to be added to 11. Again, no new features. But if there is a known fix for a bug, it should be required to be implemented. Only the software industry could possibly get away with this. I understand that there will always be bugs. This is true of all products of all types. I mean hell, the Challenger disaster occurred because of an unexpected response of the materials they used for the O rings, so basically, a bug. You can design and design and design all you want, but until you get things out into the real world and start using it, you can't find every flaw. But ONLY software can get away with leaving a multipage list of known issues in what they call the final release of the software, if you want that fixed you've got to pay. My grandmother's like 5 year old car just had a recall for all of that year and model because sometimes the trunk would stick. Definitely not a huge concern (unless you routinely keep people in your trunk, haha), not a safety issue, but they replaced the latch on a couple hundred thousand 5 year old cars because it was determined that it didn't work correctly and failed in a way that's beyond reasonable failure from wear and tear. I am totally ok with bugs existing, it's the nature of the beast. But I bought a piece of software with these advertised features, and if there are issues utilizing those features due to bug in the product, the developer should be required to either put out updates until you can realize a version with no known issues, offer a money back guarantee if they never deliver a fix for these issues, or if they have fixed it in a newer release, then they should be required to offer a free upgrade to impacted users. I understand that last option is not necessarily fair to the company, which is why I leave that decision up the developer. Which costs more: continuing to have people implementing bug fixes in older software, or losing a few upgrade dollars to eliminate the squeaky wheels. I've always wondered what the EU and their amazing consumer protection laws say about all this.

Sorry about the rant, just read the posts about 11.3.2 being a paid upgrade for 11 vanilla owners and it got my all riled up. One, they said the bug fixes would come until the end of the year without a support plan; two, they're giving it to 12 users who can't possibly use it as they surrendered their 11 licenses; and three, it's fixing bugs! It's a damn bug fix! And the last one for 11 according to the notice regarding it being a paid upgrade.

The point of my rant is that there is a lot of different reasons for customers to have not so great feelings about Avid these days, and they need to do some major things to turn this around. Let's start by throwing HD users some bones, and hell, here's an easy one: sidechain delay compensation. Let's be honest, no one was looking at the lower end systems and went HDX because it could compensate sidechains. They bought it for its reliability, low latency workflow, etc. Unlike taking HD only features and putting them in vanilla, this does not change the perceived value of the system. I know I feel my investment in HD has been devalued due to the features being added to the vanilla version, and the difference in upgrade price is a suckerpunch to the gut right after being slapped in the face. The perceived value of an HDX system is its low latency workflow, if you need HDX you get HDX. For those that have the option of doing HDX, and want that functionality, HDX pretty much sells itself. I worked with Guitar Center and then GC Pro for years when I was younger, every HD deal I did the person asked me for it. No one comes in looking at a 003 and gets upsold to an HD system (ignoring HD native, I'm talking DSP based HD, and of course it happens, but it's incredibly rare). So I don't think HDX owners would care at all if all software differences between the platforms that aren't hardware dependent were eliminated, and you'd basically have HD, and then HDX powered HD. Come on Avid, surely this is doable? Give HD users some reason to upgrade!

One last thing, I have this secret hope that HDX has flopped badly enough (3rd party plugin support, etc) that Avid is secretly working on a Pryamix MassCore type system to make the HD the flagship it should be, and bring them back to the innovator status they one had. For those of you unfamiliar with the MassCore system and technology, basically it hides some of your CPU cores from the OS and main application thread, and then uses the hidden cores to actually run the audio engine and plugins, essentially how HDX runs the mixer on the card. But apparently the raw power of modern Intel cores that aren't bogged down by OS nonsense is insane! Obviously a new driver protocol for audio interfaces would be necessary to support the functionality, as you'd have to get from what ever computer connection you're using to these phantom cores, and keep latency to an absolute minimum. Smarter minds than mine can figure that part out. But THAT'S the HD I want, and I think many do. No need for a proprietary card that needs proprietary code, an Intel chip is an Intel chip. Need more processing power? Cool, get a new processor or get one with more cores and give HD more of those cores to work with. It would be the best. Continue to sell HD interfaces etc for those that want them, hell maybe keep some features exclusive to your own, but allow third party's to license the driver spec so we can use the interface of our choice. Otherwise this is dead in the water. Your competition is too good and your rep is too tarnished. Keep trying to lock everything down and you're just adding to the ill will.

Wow, long ass post. My bad everyone. Hopefully you enjoy reading some of it.