|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
I have also went from HD3accel to HDN and it has been way better
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
Quote:
Quote:
I was originally loaned pieces but when I was no longer "working" with "beta testing and forum support" I paid for all my DiGiGrid stuff and used it for quite a while thereafter. I have since moved on for my own reasons - but that system is another alternative for folks with a list of features that many already find beneficial. FWIW - I see it more in live setups than straight recording.
__________________
2017 27" iMac 3.8GHz i5, 1TB SSD Logic ProX, Studio One V4, PT current version, Apogee Ensemble TB Musician: http://www.ivanlee.net/ Design Engineer: http://www.propowerinc.com/resume.html Last edited by propower; 03-20-2017 at 06:50 PM. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
Of course it is if you have a fast computer!
I went from HD3 accel to HDX1 and HDX smoked my TDM rig, nothing to compare, not even funny! I assume that HDN (using native plugins, of course) is way more efficient at handling AAX than TDM ever was at handling RTAS. I keep the same computer and it was like if i tripled my native power! But the point is, for tracking and integrated system, nothing beats HDX. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
Quote:
I can actually even have long delay compensated aax dsp plugins on a master fader and it still works. I don't think you can do that on hdn. Always worked. Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
Quote:
Brian - if you're still reading this thread (and I wouldn't blame you if you weren't), I think in your scenario, you'd find an HDX rig a much better tool. BUT, you will need to only use AAX/DSP plugs on *record* channels. As long as you do that you can have all the native plugs you want in the session (yes even high latency plugs like reverbs etc), and throughput latency will remain extremely low on the record channels (which is what we care about). There is no magic box that will allow all the native plugs you want with near-zero throughput latency and stability at high track counts (well, something like a Digigrid or UAD interface might qualify if you only want to use their plugs). best, rich
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com ---------------------------------------- Mac Studio / Ventura, PT 2023.12.HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, 3xS1/Dock Also running a Mac Studio Ultra / Ventura / HDX / MTRX / S6 Last edited by Rich Breen; 03-21-2017 at 11:17 AM. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
how is this possible.. I have heard that 32 tracks at the lowest buffer in HDN provides incredible computer strain, let alone the 64 it allows!
It's latency is only acceptable at 64 samples at 96K or 32 samples at 44k (barely)..if one wants to use native FX.. i'd need to permanently stream 64 outboard channels into it.. i'd use it like a live analog mixer.. I just can't imagine the imac handling that... Does anyone know of any videos showing real world cpu usage of HDN when using the lowest buffer?
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
Quote:
but, in the real world, how reliably does 96k at 64 samples work when 64 inputs are enabled? The cpu load i mean?
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
Quote:
What is so special about waves plugins anyway.. I just don't get it.. yes there are some gems, granted, the more recent ones.. but nothing that i haven't heard done better from UAD.. Those plugins are also not necessary for monitoring.. why would they be? Just use them on playback mixing tracks, and you can still use your waves plugins with HDX without worrying about latency. I just don't see one essential waves plugin for live monitoring..their compressors are generally just awful, and i have had tons of experience with good analog comps. There are only two waves plugins that operate like an analog compressor in the attack.. the H, the ren, the C1..all awful.. same with CLA2A etc..the PIE was a pleasant surprise and the api is "not bad". Their SSL channel isn't even remotely close.. the gate is so stuttery and chattery, the exact OPPOSITE of how an SSL gate is. In fact, i was convinced they just put the C1 gate with the ssl gui LOL. The glue is WAY better than their SSL bus comp. Or alternatively, the new UAD SSL bus comp with HP filter and wet/dry is just outstanding in every way. I do like their h reverb and their abbey road stuff.. but the h-reverb uses so much cpu and the fab filter sounds just as good for 1/10th the cpu.. (fab filter pro R, zero latency capable and amazing native verb).. For every waves plugin besides maybe emi, redd and vinyl, there is an alternative. Just IMO and my 2c.
__________________
- Intel 14900K/NzXt Kraken Elite/64GB Kingston DDR5 6000 mhz (32x2)/ Asus Pro Art Z790/Asus 4090/Win 11 Pro 23H2/UAD Apollo 8 x2 w TBolt 3 card u/g/UAD Twin X. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
You keep repeating the Waves "DSP" marketing claim like it has some meaning. There is no AAX Style DSP in processing in anything Waves does, it is all outboard processing on conventional Intel processors over a network. There is no "integration" of their "DSP" hardware with HDX possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?
After this ongoing thread i can conclude two things:
-if you track with plugins on a regular basis, HDN could be more efficient in handling latency than HDX, but keeping In mind that this setup requires a fast computer. - But probably only in that case, HDN could be a better choice. My experience is that HDX is a more capable system all around for professional work. -You can handle way better low latency monitoring on all outputs, -sidechain and analog inserts delay compensation. -Less stress for the computer using normal buffer sizes while recording. -less stress for automation and other tasks in dense mixes, even if you suddenly have to record while mixing (just taking care of some plugs on busses or masters) -Can accommodate UAD2 systems and latency in a very workable way. Or you can even integrate Digigrid on an HDX system. So you have just many ways to work with HDX and still use AAX DSP plugs that now are in my opinion, way better than TDM’s, especially Plugin Alliance ones and McDSP’s, I Can now run even the empirical labs Arouser 2.0 on AAXDSP cards which is amazing. Just put your native reverbs on host power and use AAXDSP for the rest. Just my 3.25 cents. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HD Native latency | stevegalante | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 6 | 03-17-2014 11:49 PM |
PT HD Native & HDX / latency? | kirkbross | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 13 | 08-24-2013 09:48 AM |
HD NATIVE vs HD TDM latency | James Drake | Pro Tools 10 | 20 | 06-19-2012 04:27 PM |
omni/native latency vs mbox pro latency | chrisdee | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Win) | 34 | 03-30-2012 07:24 AM |
HD Native latency | CamM | Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) | 2 | 11-30-2010 07:02 PM |