We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

[Mount Royal]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

If you are getting good use out of two octo cards then that may indicate HDX is not a good/necessary option. UAD DSP cards naturally puts you in high-latency plugin processing, you have to get to them via the UAD native wrapper. HDX DSP is for those high IO config and/or folks who want/need to monitor through Pro Tools plugins at low latency.

I think Bob is just suggesting it may make more sense if you want to spend mo why, to do so on better interfaces not the DSP, MTRX is the latest (nice) interfaces that Avid OEM’ed from DAD.

If you love UAD plugins then going to one or more UAD Apollo with low latency DSP in the interface/console may make more sense for you... if latency/monitoring is a issue.

Thanks, Darryl. My AVID dealer counsels me that I may not be happy with the tracking latency on HD Native, as I'm used to the latency we've had with the TDM HD system. Apparently HDX offers even less latency than I now have with HD TDM. As for UAD, those plugs are never serially placed on any track at record time, so the UAD adds no latency to what I track.

I'm leaning towards a single HDX card and the 3-slot Sonnet chassis which, I am told, offers a quieter fan than the Magma chassis fa.

Thanks again,

John Caldwell

[Bob Olhsson]

Now that hardware is unbundled, you could buy an HD Native card, try it out and then replace it with HDX if you have any problems. Input latency is the only difference because 64 bit Pro Tools is dual-buffer. It doesn't work the same way as TDM so the numbers are comparing apples to oranges.

As for sound, HDX plug-ins are more efficient running native than most native-only plug-ins.

[Mount Royal]

Yes, an idea Bob. I suspect my dealer would accommodate an Native > HDX card exchange.

Did it surprise to read above that some feel the HD Mix Engine sounds different when the HDX cards are in use, vs. the sound of the engine running purely natively on the CPU? The assertion is that the Native-only operation sounds best.

[Brandonx1]

Originally Posted by Mount Royal

Thanks, Darryl. My AVID dealer counsels me that I may not be happy with the tracking latency on HD Native, as I'm used to the latency we've had with the TDM HD system. Apparently HDX offers even less latency than I now have with HD TDM. As for UAD, those plugs are never serially placed on any track at record time, so the UAD adds no latency to what I track.

I'm leaning towards a single HDX card and the 3-slot Sonnet chassis which, I am told, offers a quieter fan than the Magma chassis fa.

Thanks again,

John Caldwell

Sense most plug ins are native, you aren't going to see lower latency numbers with HDX compared to HD Native. Also, you actually have a more powerful system with a decently powerful computer and HDN than you do with HDX 1. When you start getting into HDX 2 and up, you start to see the benefits of HDX like higher input (above 64 inputs) and DSP plug in gains. Trust me, I have HDX, HDN, Niative systems for years.

[Mount Royal]

Originally Posted by Brandonx1

Sense most plug ins are native, you aren't going to see lower latency numbers with HDX compared to HD Native...

Suppose no plugs were used in the serial signal path during tracking. In that event, would one see lower latency tracking HDX than with HD Native?

Thank you for your insights.

John-

[Darryl Ramm]

Yes, because you are avoiding the IO buffer. But the question is how small an IO buffer can you stably track at? And does that additional latency cause a problem or not. And it may not matter if most plugins are AAX-Native... you need to check if the plugins you want to use have AAX-DSP versions, or there are alternatives that do, or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk