Are carbons head amps adjustable from PT

[LDS]

Originally Posted by BScout

The way this works is the euconized bit is the Pro Tools interface. Eucon does not control preamps directly in any way. Pro Tools talks to the preamps via MIDI after it receives control messages from Eucon. If there was no MIDI protocol to speak to those preamps, Eucon would do nothing.


They can't for the above reason.
They also have partner developers they'd upset if they got rid of it (not to mention the currently selling MTRX and MTRX Studio)

Their partner developers aren't using midi to control their preamps. They use software translation to locally convert the midi from Pro Tools to something much more functional that reflects modern, networked-audio workflows. That is why you can toss a 50 channels of Focusrite MP8R, or Grace 108s, or MTRX interface 300 meters from the control room and return 50 channels of audio, and control them from Pro Tools using nothing more than a single ethernet cable.

It is also why you need Rednet/DADman/etc open on the host computer... so it can do the realtime translation. Avid have also Euconised an xmon, using nothing more than a free software application.

The only pro tools capable preamp with a midi port still on it is the Avid Pre... and I'd be surprised if anyone actually buys them new anymore.

[Megalobass]

Originally Posted by BScout

But generally... never buy anything on promised features or future features. Buy things for what they can do now. Too many companies have never followed through on "promises." For instance, Avid started mentioning extended voices on HDX and that never made it to production --- anyone who bought HDX cards on that premise would be SOL. And Avid isn't exactly a rock stable company financially -- so if it doesn't work when you buy it, don't buy it on the possibility it'll work with a later update.

You're totally right. In my case, I'm waiting for this feature before I buy the PT Carbon (and the ability to chain the interface).

[dominicperry]

It's extremely unlikely that you willl be able to chain Carbons in a meaningful way.
DSP processing will be limited to the local inputs and outputs.
Even 3 chained UAD Apollos can only use local DSP for inputs. And those are connected together with 40Gb/s Thunderbolt. Chained Carbons will be connected with 1 Gb/s Ethernet. So sharing DSP across channels will, in my estimation, be impossible.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by dominicperry

It's extremely unlikely that you willl be able to chain Carbons in a meaningful way.
DSP processing will be limited to the local inputs and outputs.
Even 3 chained UAD Apollos can only use local DSP for inputs. And those are connected together with 40Gb/s Thunderbolt. Chained Carbons will be connected with 1 Gb/s Ethernet. So sharing DSP across channels will, in my estimation, be impossible.

Depends how you define meaningful, I suppose. Chaining multiple Carbons will still allow more I/O with DSP processing, or less I/O with more DSP processing per channel.

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by LDS

Depends how you define meaningful, I suppose. Chaining multiple Carbons will still allow more I/O with DSP processing, or less I/O with more DSP processing per channel.

I'm not sure it will. If you have an input channel on one box that has plugs that need processing and an aux which originated on the other box, then the signal has to pass between the boxes to get the aux DSP processing, or the aux has to be duplicated, reducing the amount of DSP available.

Headphone output on box 2 needs to mix a channel from box one - then the audio has to be passed across in real time. I don't know how you'd do it. It's certainly very complex - maybe there's a clever way around, but I don't see it myself.

The point is that the DSP mixer is a central resource - it needs access to all ins and outs and channels in real time to be able to perform the processing. If the DSP is split, you can't do that.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by dominicperry

I'm not sure it will. If you have an input channel on one box that has plugs that need processing and an aux which originated on the other box, then the signal has to pass between the boxes to get the aux DSP processing, or the aux has to be duplicated, reducing the amount of DSP available.

Headphone output on box 2 needs to mix a channel from box one - then the audio has to be passed across in real time. I don't know how you'd do it. It's certainly very complex - maybe there's a clever way around, but I don't see it myself.

The point is that the DSP mixer is a central resource - it needs access to all ins and outs and channels in real time to be able to perform the processing. If the DSP is split, you can't do that.

Like I said, it really depends on how you define meaningful. Other than HDX, there are very few, if any FPGA/DSP equipped audio interfaces that actually matrix DSP processing across multiple devices. There are still plenty of people out there that run multiple of those devices for expanded setups, though. And quite happily.

The AVB implementation in Carbon seems quite unique in that it has 156 channels in a single interface - 128 reserved purely for Pro Tools shuffling audio back and forth between CPU and DSP under the hood, and 28 channels that appear as the usual I/O. That already seems like a lot more than an Apollo.

All it really needs is the ability to sum DSP outputs between devices to provide coherent headphone mixes across systems, and it'll go a long way to serving quite a few users expanded needs. Given how few monitor mixes the Carbon is designed to handle, it would probably take quite a bit less than half a DSP chip to achieve...

[Mark Ziebarth]

Originally Posted by BScout

At least it was a VP who said that.

Seems odd he is combining Eucon features (monitoring) with the Avid Pre (MIDI/SysEx) channel strip features as they are two different things in his comment. I wonder if they would Euconize the mic pre feature set on the Carbon's sub menu access but still never have it on the channel strip part of Pro Tools' mixer.

But generally... never buy anything on promised features or future features. Buy things for what they can do now. Too many companies have never followed through on "promises." For instance, Avid started mentioning extended voices on HDX and that never made it to production --- anyone who bought HDX cards on that premise would be SOL. And Avid isn't exactly a rock stable company financially -- so if it doesn't work when you buy it, don't buy it on the possibility it'll work with a later update.

The Euconization of the preamps and the monitor controls/headphone amps is essential imho. There are too few dedicated controls for the head amps and preamps on the front of Carbon to be fast enough in a recording situation.

Best

Mark

[dominicperry]

Originally Posted by LDS

Like I said, it really depends on how you define meaningful. Other than HDX, there are very few, if any FPGA/DSP equipped audio interfaces that actually matrix DSP processing across multiple devices. There are still plenty of people out there that run multiple of those devices for expanded setups, though. And quite happily.

The AVB implementation in Carbon seems quite unique in that it has 156 channels in a single interface - 128 reserved purely for Pro Tools shuffling audio back and forth between CPU and DSP under the hood, and 28 channels that appear as the usual I/O. That already seems like a lot more than an Apollo.

All it really needs is the ability to sum DSP outputs between devices to provide coherent headphone mixes across systems, and it'll go a long way to serving quite a few users expanded needs. Given how few monitor mixes the Carbon is designed to handle, it would probably take quite a bit less than half a DSP chip to achieve...

Let's hope you are right - 128 channels of audio, 32bit, 192KHz, is 0.768 Gb/s, so achievable on a dedicated inter-device link. They may even be 10GbE ports on the box, in which case there's no problem with bandwidth, only latency is a question. The signal flow would include input -> DSP -> Ethernet -> DSP -> output. Perhaps it's doable, especially if they use the faster AVB spec between boxes.

[darkwavo]

Just and aside,
Anyone care to comment on the quality of the Carbon headphone amps?

[Cowboy Bob]

Originally Posted by darkwavo

Just and aside,
Anyone care to comment on the quality of the Carbon headphone amps?

Well this is personal opinion of course; I think they are very good, as does the talent that I have had through the studio in the past 3 months.

I'm comparing between my 003+ Rack and my Focusrite Clarett 8PreX.

I tend to only need 3 or 4 HP mixes at a time and it works out great for me. the times that I have needed more than 4 I have simply split them off of #3 or #4.