Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Hardware > Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2019, 04:48 PM
timothys_monster timothys_monster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3
Default DSPs responsible for conversion?

Hi there,

I am new at using Avid products. At the studio I am now working, we are using a Pro Tools HD system. So basically a Digidesign 192 with a Core card and an Accel card.

Now, the DSPs on the cards can be used for audio signal flow and for processing certain supported effects if I understand correctly.

My question is: Are they also in any way responsible for the AD/DA conversion (and thus for the sound quality) or is this all done by the hardware unit 192?

Thanks and sorry if it had been discussed before, I wasn't able to find an answer.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2019, 05:23 PM
the19thbear the19thbear is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 228
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

Conversion is done by the 192. Dsp’s are just expensive pocket calculators. No adda in the dsp. Only signal processing. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-28-2019, 05:29 PM
timothys_monster timothys_monster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

Thanks for clearing things up, 19thbear!

That's what I was assuming. So the 192's DSPs are kind of outdated in comparison to modern CPUs, I guess?

Could I run all channels of the 192 at 192 kHz with only the Core card then?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-28-2019, 06:29 PM
LukeHoward LukeHoward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 805
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by timothys_monster View Post
Thanks for clearing things up, 19thbear!

That's what I was assuming. So the 192's DSPs are kind of outdated in comparison to modern CPUs, I guess?

Could I run all channels of the 192 at 192 kHz with only the Core card then?
I/O counts can be found below, yes it should be possible.

https://www.avid.com/products/pro-to...specifications
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2019, 12:04 AM
Southsidemusic's Avatar
Southsidemusic Southsidemusic is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stockholm - Sweden
Posts: 12,349
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

And just to be ”clearer” there is no DSP in the 192’s as you wrote. That is on those 20 year old HD cards. The converters on the 192’s are old and there are way cheaper interfaces today for less than 300usd that kill those old boxes.
__________________
Best Regards
Christopher

—————————————
South Side Music Group
WEBHOME
—————————————
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2019, 12:11 AM
the19thbear the19thbear is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 228
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

I would personally keep the 192. It’s a fine converter. Not the best but certianly not the worst. But that’s another discussion:)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2019, 03:45 AM
timothys_monster timothys_monster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

Thanks to everyone for the valuable information.

We are definitely keeping the 192's, I was just wondering if we'd need the DSP power when upgrading at some point to a new computer. Now I know that they are really only responsible for signal processing, not converting.

Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2019, 06:10 PM
albee1952 albee1952 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nashville
Posts: 35,023
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by timothys_monster View Post
Thanks to everyone for the valuable information.

We are definitely keeping the 192's, I was just wondering if we'd need the DSP power when upgrading at some point to a new computer. Now I know that they are really only responsible for signal processing, not converting.

Cheers!
My own experience; the 192's run great on the Avid HDN card(no DSP) and can be run with OMNI and/or HD IO boxes without issue. My own 2 cents; the 192 sounds fine, so if your recordings are not hits, its not because of the 192
__________________
Gigabyte X79/intel i7 3930K, 32GB RAM, DIGI003 Rack
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works


The better I drink...the more I mix.....

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2019, 03:57 PM
LDS LDS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 694
Default Re: DSPs responsible for conversion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by timothys_monster View Post
Thanks to everyone for the valuable information.

We are definitely keeping the 192's, I was just wondering if we'd need the DSP power when upgrading at some point to a new computer. Now I know that they are really only responsible for signal processing, not converting.

Cheers!
What are you using your system for? Tracking bands/music? Mixing? Virtual instruments/composition?

Those old HD accel cards will only work with 32-bit versions of Pro Tools, which means you are stuck with Pro Tools HD 10 at best. An implication of running 32-bit apps is that they will only ever access 4gb of system ram at best, which is horrible if you want to run virtual or sample based instruments. You would be far, far better off scrapping HD Accel and moving to PT11 or beyond if that is the case.

If you are tracking and mixing bands though, HD accel still remains one of the lowest latency systems in existence. Super stable, you'll be able to monitor directly through DSP plugins and build some pretty hefty headphone mixes as though you are working on an analogue mixing console.

Don't be surprised if you don't see huge gains in performance when you do purchase a new computer. It is simply the result of incapability of HD accel and the versions of Pro Tools that work with it in accessing all of the available system resources. HD TDM systems are from the early 2000's after all!
__________________
littledevilstudios.com.au
Pro Tools Ultimate 2019.6. OSX 10.14.6. HDX. Avid Omni. MacBook Pro 2018. 6 Core i7. 32Gb. 4x mSata SSD Drives + 4x HDD. Blackmagic Intensity PCIe. ATI RX580. Sync HD
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PT 6.4 CRASH ON LOAD - IS D-VERB RESPONSIBLE? sbarncar Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 1 06-10-2004 04:39 PM
Bomb factory says Digidesign is responsible mucky 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 4 07-30-2002 08:09 PM
too many DSPs used up... MGalway Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 1 09-06-2001 01:54 AM
how many DSPs would it take ... 5down1up Tips & Tricks 1 03-08-2001 02:29 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com