Protools 10HD upgrade to from 9 is 999.99 ..... WHY

[WernerF]

You guys are not addressing the fact that, if you are using a Native system and you want to be able to mix as you overdub, and your mix picture involves having a limiter or compresser across the mix buss, the latency will be too much to ignore. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is an intregal part of my workflow and I have absolutely no problem doing this on an HD system now. Will I lose the ability to do this on a Native system? I am told that I would.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by WernerF

You guys are not addressing the fact that, if you are using a Native system and you want to be able to mix as you overdub, and your mix picture involves having a limiter or compresser across the mix buss, the latency will be too much to ignore. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is an intregal part of my workflow and I have absolutely no problem doing this on an HD system now. Will I lose the ability to do this on a Native system? I am told that I would.

Do you mean regular native or HD Native?

[WernerF]

HD Native. But I would be curious to know what the latency situation is with just plain Native is as well.

[digi2000]

The more I think about this upgrade, the more it pisses me off. I don't feel that Avid is listening at all and am starting to see why so many people are moving to different platforms..

FYI just bought he entire ableton suite for 899 and am loving it.

Thank god I can use my native card with it.

Avid if you are listening please don't screw all the people here who have supported you for years.

I love pro tools but right now I don't even want to use it out of principle.

$999 is an insult to hd users when the standard version is $350.

Does,hd10 support control 24?

[dstryrwiz]

Originally Posted by WernerF

You guys are not addressing the fact that, if you are using a Native system and you want to be able to mix as you overdub, and your mix picture involves having a limiter or compresser across the mix buss, the latency will be too much to ignore. Correct me if I'm wrong. This is an intregal part of my workflow and I have absolutely no problem doing this on an HD system now. Will I lose the ability to do this on a Native system? I am told that I would.

Are you talking about latency caused by having a high buffer, or latency caused by the plug-in? If it's caused by the plug-in, that's exactly what delay compensation is for, and with 10 they gave you even more delay compensation. If you're talking about in regards to the buffer size, that could be an issue if the latency is present from your input monitoring, as a higher buffer will give a greater delay in that sense, however there are many workarounds to that. The biggest one is to get the CPTK and shut off the input monitoring on that track assuming you have an interface that can route the single right from the input to the output (such as the Focusrite interfaces, like the Liquid Saffire 56 that I have), and then the buffer within Pro Tools won't matter. If you choose not to get the CPTK (which I would honestly recommend, as you get the same features as HD at a much lower price point, especially if you can find it on eBay for example for less, such as the $600 that it cost for me), then you can still disable input monitoring on outputs 1 and 2, however then you don't get the ability to have different mixes for each player, or even for yourself to monitor more precisely.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by WernerF

HD Native. But I would be curious to know what the latency situation is with just plain Native is as well.

Well interface latency is important in this situation, if you intend to track with plugins on. USB, of course, has the highest latency, followed by FW.

HD Native, provided you are tracking at a low buffer, like 64 or 128 you shouldn't notice any latency, since the card has quite a low round trip. (1.4ms I believe).

[dstryrwiz]

Originally Posted by Dism

Well interface latency is important in this situation, if you intend to track with plugins on. USB, of course, has the highest latency, followed by FW.

HD Native, provided you are tracking at a low buffer, like 64 or 128 you shouldn't notice any latency, since the card has quite a low round trip. (1.4ms I believe).

Check the alternative I suggested with using an interface with DSP built in, such as the Focusrite ones, for people not going with HD Native (you may already know it, but it's something different for people shorter on cash). If he needs that track he's currently overdubbing to have the plug-ins applied, then it won't work, however as he was mentioning compression and limiting, rather than a guitar emulator for example, he should be fine with just bypassing them for that track by routing the input on the interface to the output with the mix on it, merely turning off the input monitoring in the session for that track. I feel like the situation from how I understand it, is that he is doing mixes with the plug-ins on the buses, and rather than needing to disable them any time he may need to do an overdub to allow for reduced latency off of a lower buffer size, as well as to get rid of the plug-in latency, he wished to find a workaround. HD has always had delay compensation, which to me seems like part of what was missed in regards to the Native sessions which actually got it with 9 (as the plug-in latency could be pretty apparent at times), and beyond that, the monitoring right off of the interface rather than even letting it get to the program would shave off the latency caused by the buffer. If I am understanding the situation right, then this is probably the cheapest solution (and if he wants to make it even more stable, with the CPTK he can store the session in his RAM, which would take the hard drive for the most part out of the equation).

[WernerF]

Originally Posted by Dism

Well interface latency is important in this situation, if you intend to track with plugins on. USB, of course, has the highest latency, followed by FW.

HD Native, provided you are tracking at a low buffer, like 64 or 128 you shouldn't notice any latency, since the card has quite a low round trip. (1.4ms I believe).

In addition to my HD system I have PT's 9 on a new MacBook Pro. On a large session I have to bump my buffer size to at least 256 just to get the session to play. Is this not the case with HD Native on a Mac Pro desktop?

[Dism]

Originally Posted by WernerF

In addition to my HD system I have PT's 9 on a new MacBook Pro. On a large session I have to bump my buffer size to at least 256 just to get the session to play. Is this not the case with HD Native on a Mac Pro desktop?

Well a Mac Pro is likely to have more power than a Macbook, but as I said, interface is important.

A FireWire interface at 128 buffer has higher latency than HD Native at 128.

[dstryrwiz]

Originally Posted by gives

The fact that I bought an HD IO and I got no warning about the update to NEW hardware really bugs me! I would not have minded on waiting if I knew that the new hardware I got, would mean I would have to buy another HD IO to get one of these "SUPER Cards". I only bought the HD IO less than three months ago. Now I will NOT spend money for the upgrade to any of it. I sma doing three films and doing fine with what I have. I will just have to work more and bill the client more. That's the deal and the principal in my mind. This is not the old Digidesign that I used to deal with.. It's something quite different:) G

It's not Digidesign anymore, that's why. Avid fired just about everyone that was under the old Digidesign about 2 or 3 years ago I believe. Avid knows post-production, as their software really is Media Composer, and what came before that. They do not know the audio industry at all, and just care about profits, not their customers.