Pro Tools HD vs Native CPTK

[reichman]

Hello DUC:

I used to read the posts about people claiming the demise of Digidesign's dedicated PCI cards with some skepticism. TDM systems are low latency and very powerful.

BUT, in testing Pro Tools 8, we moved a session from a CPTK 8-core 2.8 Ghz Mac to an HD2 system. The native session was reading 18% CPU usage, and when we opened it on the HD2, it filled all the chips up, and nearly overloaded the voices (88 used out of 92 available).

This is ridiculous. Digidesign, get down with modern CPU design and release Pro Tools HD *software* as a a native option. CPTK was a great thing to buy. Charge us a few more dollars for the rest of the missing features and let us go fully native when needed! You won't lose money, there are plenty of users who need low-latency and a zillion inputs. But to purposely handicap me when I want to just edit or mix a big session on a new Mac Pro is frustrating.

Best,

Nathaniel Reichman
www.nathanielreichman.com

[lode]

+1

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by reichman

Hello DUC:


BUT, in testing Pro Tools 8, we moved a session from a CPTK 8-core 2.8 Ghz Mac to an HD2 system. The native session was reading 18% CPU usage, and when we opened it on the HD2, it filled all the chips up, and nearly overloaded the voices (88 used out of 92 available).


Nathaniel Reichman
www.nathanielreichman.com

I don´t understand, the number of voices is the same (I thought). How can they max out on one system and not on the other?
You are comparing CPU usage with number of voices. Please clarify.
Why are there only 92 voices available on your HD2 system? There should be 192 (!!) with the maximum engine.

Was ADC on? Long or short engine? ADC eats quite an amount of chips

???

[reichman]

Hello Frank:

I could write a ten-page treatise on the details, but the big picture remains the same: a Mac Pro outperforms an HD2, and probably even an HD4 system. It's the software that's holding us back!

All my RTAS plug-ins converted accurately to TDM (thank you Digi and 3rd parties). ADC was off. I think 92 voices was our only choice in the configuration we had (I'll check on this).

I'll follow up after we explore this some more. But as I said, the big picture remains the same...

Best,

Nathaniel

[Frank Kruse]

While I do not want to jump into the "native better than TDM" pond there are some facts to consider in you scenario:

- HD2 has 192 voices (unlike LE)
- HD has ADC (unlike LE) and it uses chips. Turn ADC off for real comparisson.
- TDM plugins use accel chips
- RTAS use the processor.

-Your LE-session opened on the HD rig would have 192 voices available (given you run the correct engine).
-You would have the same CPU usage as on your LE system (using the same CPU) if you ran the same RTAS plugs.
-In addition to the CPU power, you would be able to use even more power on your accel cards for TDM processing.

So I guess it all depends from what perspective you look at it.

While I agree that modern CPUs outperform the dated accel cards it´s difficult to compare (since you are only comparing certain features that were relevant in your case).

But then: Hey you can save multiple thousand $$ by working on LE and it even outperforms TDM (unless you need ADC, more then 128 voices, and want record live, or need better I/O hardware) so why bother...

frank.

[O.G. Killa]

Originally Posted by reichman

I think 92 voices was our only choice in the configuration we had (I'll check on this).

Sounds like your system is messed up as there is absolutely no way to get a max voice count of 92 voices in PTHD. The voice count is ALWAYS a multiple of 16. Unless you are running on an expansion chassis, your max voice count will always be a multiple of 16. And actually, on the expansion chassis I don't think it reports a lower track count, you just max out before you hit it... but I could be wrong about that. I haven't used a chassis in a couple years.

I think more importantly, your complaints are falling on deaf ears, both users and developers. If you can't see the value or need for your HD system I'll gladly swap you a brand new 003R for your HD2 system.

And in 16/24 months when the predecessor to HD finally comes out, I'll be able to upgrade/trade-in for dirt cheap and you'll be complaining that LE is too weak compared to the new HD systems.

Plugin count and track count are not the main reasons why a lot of us prefer HD. The fact that the mixer is 48bit AND is run on DSP instead of the host processor makes most operations much less sluggish. And yes, there is no latency when tracking... and the IO flexibility and max IO count, and the TDM only plugins.

My question to you is, why do you feel all your plugins HAVE to be running TDM on an HD system? No matter how you look at it, an HD system HAS all the power of an LE system PLUS the power of the Accel cards.

[aurelio funk dias]

The life is very simple:

1) If you prefer a LE system buy a LE system

2) If you prefer a TDM HD system buy a TDM HD system.

I have a TDM HD2 system on a Mac, and I am very happy, no issues, no bugs, the only thing that I don't like is "video latency".

Chers

Aurélio Dias

www.myspace.com/aureliodias

[postprosound]

If i'm not mistaken, doesn't putting rtas plugs before TDM plugs (or the other way around) take up voices? Wouldn't this mess up your track count, and max out your DSP?

[infiniteloop]

Originally Posted by aurelio funk dias

The life is very simple:

1) If you prefer a LE system buy a LE system

2) If you prefer a TDM HD system buy a TDM HD system.

It's nice that you think life is so simple - would you be quite so relaxed about it if you were, say, forced to buy an extra 10 seats in your car you don't need for an extra $15,000 so you could get cruise control? This is essentially what we are faced with in pure post-production. Many of us don't need loads of inputs that we can record into with without latency, we just need mixing power and proper automation. Clearly now, the MacPros provide all the mixing power we need, we just need the option to get full automation control.

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by aurelio funk dias

I am very happy, no issues, no bugs, the

wow, where did you get that bug-free version of PT?