Pro Tools LE to HD upgrade special: Open discussion

[Tony Cariddi]

Hello,

The new "Raise Your Level" Pro Tools LE to HD upgrade offer sparked debate on the Pro Tools 8 Facebook fan page within the first few hours of its announcement. I am starting this thread in the spirit of open discussion where I can offer direct feedback from Avid Digidesign.

Feel free to post your feedback in this thread. We look forward to hearing from you.

Tony

[TOM@METRO]

Hi Tony, an observation, followed by just a little question. In my testing and in the testing duplicated by a couple of other Pro Tools lovers, we have discovered that it takes one heck of a big HD system to live up in raw processing power to a native PT system on a full blown i7 machine. We can run just about parallel to an HD7 rig. I have an HD3 that is basically unusable by comparison. The question: Have you found a different result in your in house comparisons? Thanks.

[Tony Cariddi]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the post. It is true that faster processors are enabling native workstations with the power to run a good amount of plug-ins. Fast processors are benefiting the RTAS processing pool in both Pro Tools LE and HD systems alike. The difference is that with Pro Tools|HD you have two pools of resources: native (RTAS) and dedicated (TDM). With native workstations you have only one.

In demanding scenarios when you are using a broad array of DSP hungry VI's (that are depend on native power like PLAY, Ivory, and VSL), in conjunction with EQ, DYN, and delay plug-ins, HD's benefits are that you can push your host processor to its limits, even pushing up your buffer settings significantly if necessary, all the while retaining the near-zero latency on audio tracks and peak UI performance.

Assuming we are comparing apples to apples here and the CPU is the same, it is not fair to say that an LE system can outperform an HD system because if the native power is constant, the dedicated processing you get with HD is always in addition to the power the native.

Does that answer your question?

Tony

[Transputer]

I've just posted over on another forum basically saying how everyone must, not probably should or might like to, but must keep up to date with Intel. Now my username should give an insight into how long I've been around and the fact is that now Intel's CPU technology eclipses everything else. Sheer brute force.

http://www.intel.com/idf/pressroom/photos.htm
22nm node right there. Very interested to hear where the current strategy is leading Tony ? Intel lay out there tick and tock - years in advance. How about Digi ?

Thanks in advance.

[TOM@METRO]

Hi again Tony,

Well you have made good points. However it has not been possible to push our Native systems to their limits. Or clients run out of ideas and record 60-90 tracks all cluttered with plug-ins and VIs and we can't use much more than half of the available CPU. All on Native. Remember we have an old HD3 and rent it out. Next year the new CPUs on the horizon will even make todays look weak.

Are you referring to "post" where to I/O and track counts get into extreme numbers, because I don't find the limitation in Native that you speak of. And who wants to buy TDM plug-ins? It seems that for commercial music production Native is the answer if you uncapped the I/O count as other native systems have and offered unlimited track count as those others have also done and of course, did all of the de-crippling.

I’m sure you are aware that this is the only pro DAW left without ADC. Even GarageBand has it. That makes us feel kinda’ unloved.

And here's an idea, offer us the 96 I/O ported for Native. You would sell a ton.

HD could still keep a rightful place in "post". At least for now.

I work in a bunch of studios here in LA and admittedly most have HD, but would they buy it again today… Well you know the answer. I wish you well and hope you sell enough of these to finance the new age of Native Pro Tools. Fix the software re-design the hardware (no preamps great converters maybe 16 of ‘em) and tell me where to type in my AMEX number.

Much appreciation for showing up here. I apologize for not being a better cheerleader. For what it’s worth I’ve been a grateful user since Sound Tools.

Much Respect

[spicemix]

My understanding is that TDM + RTAS is in fact NOT linearly additive. I.e. 1 + 1 = 1.5. For one thing, you will start burning TDM voices when you go out to RTAS in a TDM system, but there is no such cost in LE/MP. For another, the RTAS engine has been demonstrated to be significantly compromised vs. the native engines of other DAWs. It was, according to Avid, a hack of the TDM engine adapted for native use and the whole shootin match needs to be rewritten to compete with modern native designs.

VI performance is quite poor in Pro Tools, and there is no freeze track feature. There is only one TDM VI (Access Virus Indigo) and for all others you have native playback latency the same as LE/MP.

Really the argument that the ability to add TDM "on top of" your native processing holds little water...a fully optimized native system from other vendors will, I understand, net outperform basic HD rigs. I wonder if someone can benchmark (using plugins available in all of TDM, RTAS, and VST) just how big an HD rig you would need to outperform Reaper (which has a 64 bit audio path let's remember, compared to TDM's 24bit) or Cubase/Nuendo. Allow the full use of RTAS in addition to TDM. And go ahead and include error-free latencies in the report.

[kbruff]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

Hi Tony, an observation, followed by just a little question. In my testing and in the testing duplicated by a couple of other Pro Tools lovers, we have discovered that it takes one heck of a big HD system to live up in raw processing power to a native PT system on a full blown i7 machine. We can run just about parallel to an HD7 rig. I have an HD3 that is basically unusable by comparison. The question: Have you found a different result in your in house comparisons? Thanks.

Interesting, could you please comment on which pluggins you are using during your stress tests, and also do you have signifcant delay compensation requirements.

In other words, the obvious areas where HD is authority is...

The specialized HD pluggins and the delay management engine.

Other than that the other differentiating factor is the control surface integration.

Regards
Kev

[kbruff]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

Hi again Tony,

Well you have made good points. However it has not been possible to push our Native systems to their limits. Or clients run out of ideas and record 60-90 tracks all cluttered with plug-ins and VIs and we can't use much more than half of the available CPU. All on Native. Remember we have an old HD3 and rent it out. Next year the new CPUs on the horizon will even make todays look weak.

Are you referring to post where to I/O and track counts get into extreme numbers, because I don't find the limitation in Native that you speak of. And who wants to buy TDM plug-ins? It seems that for commercial music production Native is the answer if you uncapped the I/O count as other native systems have and offered unlimited track count as those others have also done and of course, did all of the de-crippling.

I’m sure you are aware that this is the only pro DAW left without ADC. Even GarageBand has it. That makes us feel kinda’ unloved.

And here's an idea, offer us the 96 I/O ported for Native. You would sell a ton.

HD could still keep a rightful place in post. At least for now.

I work in a bunch of studios here in LA and admittedly most have HD, but would they buy it again today… Well you know the answer. I wish you well and hope you sell enough of these to finance the new age of Native Pro Tools. Fix the software re-design the hardware (no preamps great converters maybe 16 of ‘em) and tell me where to type in my AMEX number.

Much appreciation for showing up here. I apologize for not being a better cheerleader. For what it’s worth I’ve been a grateful user since Sound Tools.

Much Respect

I have witnessed the power of well integrated HD system, but i have also witnessed the speed and flexibility of other environments as well. Honestly I cant think of a reason to buy any PT product other than to sell my self as a PT user, which at the end of the day means that the tool is better than the result.

Regards,
Kev

[Tony Cariddi]

Hi Tom,

You have brought up some very good points as well.

Pro Tools|HD does meet the rigorous I/O and track count requirements of the post and broadcast markets. It also fulfills the demands of the constantly evolving audio software market in the (possibly) scaled back demands of the music market.

As you see with new technology ranging from operating systems to VIs, whenever there is more power available with faster CPUs, new tools are always soon developed that take full advantage of them. What I hear when talking to customers who are using the the best sounding, most CPU-intensive VI's is that they still rely on the dedicated processing of HD because of the strain these new tools put on their CPU. I understand that not everyone has the same expectations and demands but Pro Tools|HD is designed to meet the expectations of those who have the highest demands for quality and performance.

What is really exciting about this promotion is that when you look at what it costs to build a native workstation that delivers the track count and high quality I/O included in the HD exchange, their total costs are in the same ballpark.

Much respect,
Tony

[Tony Cariddi]

Originally Posted by kbruff

I have witnessed the power of well integrated HD system, but i have also witnessed the speed and flexibility of other environments as well. Honestly I cant think of a reason to buy any PT product other than to sell my self as a PT user, which at the end of the day means that the tool is better than the result.

Hi Kev,

I don't think I understand your comment. If you make a living as a Pro Tools engineer, then doesn't the system have value for you?