So, latency on HD Native vs HDX?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by arche3

I went from am hd6accel to an hdx2 (now an hdx3) and it was way better than the tdm system.

I have also went from HD3accel to HDN and it has been way better

[propower]

Originally Posted by JFreak

You have perfectly illustrated the picture of DSP systems being inferior to pure native, if native processing is to be used at all.

Nonsense! Only true if you need Native in the REC enabled channel. Every plugin in playback can be Native with zero latency hit on the REC channel if the REC track has only AAX-DSP on it. I have said this 4 ways already in this thread.

Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth

The minimum buffer with HDX is twice the minimum buffer of HDN.

You would place an AAX DSP plugin after the native plugin to track with/through native.

Only the Minimum buffer is impacted on HDX (64 samples at 44.1 and 128 samples at 96kHz). If you use all Native with HDX at 44.1 64buffer it will be almost identical to HDN at 64 samples buffer in latency.

Originally Posted by JFreak

Their Intel box was inferior the day it was introduced. I have heard or nobody who has paid money to buy one of those boxes. I have only heard legends of some Waves evangelists who have had free gear.

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.

[audioluche]

Originally Posted by JFreak

I have also went from HD3accel to HDN and it has been way better

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.

[arche3]

Originally Posted by propower

Nonsense! Only true if you need Native in the REC enabled channel. Every plugin in playback can be Native with zero latency hit on the REC channel if the REC track has only AAX-DSP on it. I have said this 4 ways already in this thread.

Yeah that's what I thought. I use only aax dsp plugins after native plugs on the record enabled tracks and I use native stuff like slate vcc and vtm. I don't have any latency issues on hdx at all. Cues feed from dedicated outputs on my i/o.

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

[Rich Breen]

Originally Posted by brianjanthony

...
Sometimes, like the last week, I'm tracking 32 ins for days on end. and sometimes I'm tracking 1 or 2 in on a session sent from somewhere where there's hundreds of plugins....

I don't plan on using DSP plugs only. Quite the opposite will happen actually. I inherit a lot of sessions and most run native, esp crazy effects tracks. So my main concern is/was, in a session that in native needs a 256 buffer to run smooth, in HDX I will still need the 256 buffer. And then the record track would need a DSP trim first, then native plugin after it, and I put it into record. Will it feel like a 32 buffer in native land? I don't think so. Even if I only use a DSP compressor on the vocal track, I think I'll still have issues.

...

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

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

No.

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?

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Misinformation?

Just sayin' most "studies" assume zero plugins, which in real world isn't the case. Build your mixer and add plugins, the numbers change even if you only add TDM plugins. Even with zero native processing, a TDM latency can be unbearable for tracking. And in this scenario there is this small limitation of not being able to use native processing.

Which is why HDN and 96k@64 buffer wins hands down. There is only native buffer in the equation and not variably growing TDM latency at all. As soon as first native plugin is added to a TDM session, the game is over.

Ok, this sounds good, and i can use a ton of zero latency native plugins for monitoring..

but, in the real world, how reliably does 96k at 64 samples work when 64 inputs are enabled? The cpu load i mean?

[TNM]

Originally Posted by JFreak

That's their excuse, not the real reason. How come other vendors have seen benefits in moving from TDM to HDX but suddenly Waves is incompetent in plugin development? The real reason is they don't want their plugs running on S3L/S6L

there's no way waves will do the right thing and port their plugins to AAXDSP.. cause they have their OWN dsp solutions for their plugins now.. this is the real reason sadly. What else could it be, really? I wonder how their dsp hardware could integrate into a hdx system, if at all. Perhaps with one of their HD compatible interfaces, you could use the waves dsp at the point before it hits the HDX card and use waves plugins with no latency that way? I believe they have a plugin that you can use that works solely on the dsp..

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.

[Darryl Ramm]

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

[Watagushu2013]

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.