How much Tdm/Hd is better than Le?

[Ealsh]

Hey,

I use to work with Pro Tools Tdm at work , and Le at Home.

For Those that have oportunity to do the same...Let's make a little "Forum" here...

How much You think is better the Pro Tools TDm or HD, on Le version...

Don't menssion obvious things like, more tracks, more plugs, or something like that...

We all know the basic difference...

Have a good one!

[dubaifox]

I'd be curious at just the price difference. I started pricing an HD system this summer and stopped considering it, when I saw the price tag of just the core card, not to mention the Interface, MIDI, SCSI , storage and other things required. I never tallied it up, but it is a HUGE difference. I have used a TDM system (the older HD Pro Tools) as well as a 001, and decided to just go with the 002r to upgrade.

[GZUZIZLORD]

I think the only thing better is that all the processing is done on the hd and tdm cards themselves, where as with le its dependent on your cpu. Also the higher sample rate and plug-ins, but the plug-ins cost so much more. I think you can get really close with the motu hd interfaces, digital performer and the new powercore firewire plug-ins by tc electronics. I'm actually thinking about going in that direction, especially with the freeze option in dp, I don't think le will ever be free of limitations because of the hardware exchange = digidesign$$$$$

[kmshroom]

i work with a TDM system @ college, and i personally am very annoyed with the RTAS limitations of PT TDM, and also the horrible nature of the HTDM format (it just doesn't work!). and, the fact taht you can't have RTAS and HTDM in the same session is just extra annoyance. oh, and add in the reality that the HD process cards are so damn weak in actually providing power (maybe Accel is better, i dunno).

not to mention that one would have to shell out $7,000+ in order to 'be privileged enough' to have to deal with all these annoyances. i mean c'mon, it doesn't even have auto delay compensation (which PT's competitors have!).

no thank you.

[neil_mcdermott]

I work on a Mix+ system & have an LE studio at home.

What you gain with dsp & latency with a TDM system you lose with cost & complexity of set-up. Of course with HDTDM you are getting higher sampling rates as well but i have yet to run a session on HDTDM.

the 002R is a nice reasonably proffesional looking solution but is marred by the absence of S/MUX ADAT in at 96kHz.

Now the Mobile I/O is a seriously professional bit of kit in a similar price range. Without the limitations of PTLE.

[Ealsh]

Guys how many of You recorded a session in 96k? Common...
Let's talk serious...
Everybody work in 44. not even 48k.

Besides, let me do a small note...

On Pro Tools LE You can add a plug-in when the session is Playing, on Tdm You can't. I don't know about you, but for me , it's a pain in the a.. to stops pro tools every time on a mix that I want to ad a plug...

And what's that "noise" when You add a Plug on Tdm? Until today I Don't know what the heck is that?

I Started asking that, because now that I just upgrade my mac. I Could upped my LE to TDm , instead of changing mac. No thanks.

I'm guite happy with My Le system, specially now that I have Cpu power...

And what plugs they make for TDM that You don't have similar on Rtas?

Have a good One.

[kmshroom]

Guys how many of You recorded a session in 96k? Common...
Let's talk serious...
Everybody work in 44. not even 48k.

LE has 96k now, so it's all good anyway. sure as hell don't need 192k. i mean, most plugs don't even work above 96k anyway!

On Pro Tools LE You can add a plug-in when the session is Playing, on Tdm You can't. I don't know about you, but for me , it's a pain in the a.. to stops pro tools every time on a mix that I want to ad a plug...

i think with TDM 6.1 (thou i've only used TDM 5.x), you can instantiate a plug during playback. the audio just drops out for 3 seconds.

I'm guite happy with My Le system, specially now that I have Cpu power...

exactly. i second that. i don't see how Digi can price TDM cards as MORE EXPENSIVE than a full blown computer, and with LESS POWER than a full blown computer too.

i mean, i think TDM would be respectable if it had auto delay compensation, if there wasn't so many issues and problems with RTAS and ESPECIALLY HTDM, and if TDM cards *actually* had the power to match its price.

[didger]

This is a topic that's been of considerable interest to me for some time, so I'll risk the flames in the hopes of also some concrete interesting information.

I've had a TDM system since the Mac Quadra days in the Late Pleistocene. At that time ProTools was the only game in town, period. Subsequently I upgraded to a TDM Mix system and at that time Native was still so slow that TDM was still pretty much the only appealing game for me.

Because I've been spending about half the year in India, I had to have mobile PT, so I upgraded to 6.1 and also got into Reason, Live, and Rebirth. For various reasons already explained and that I've been heavily flamed for explaining, I find I now get the best production versatility using Mac OS X and 9.2 on a 1.25 G4 and OS X on an ibook and Windows XP Pro on a very fast PC notebook.

For my purposes, Native performance is so good that I wouldn't consider TDM if I didn't already have a big system. It's nice to have it for big mixes and nice to have a huge plug library of TDM and rtas, but it's not so nice that I'd spend that money in today's world.

HOWEVER, I only use my studio for my own projects, not outside clients, so I don't need to impress anyone and I personally never need a zillion tracks and plugs in a session. I know several very successful high power producers, however, that usually use around 40+ tracks for a mix and lots of effects too. For them a big TDM system is still the only ProTools choice.

Now the issue that's sure to attract some flames. Over the past year or so I've been running into more and more very knowledgeable producers with extremely good track records in the industry who don't like the sound of a big pure ProTools mix compared to running the same tracks through a good board and lots of outboard gear. These people say they've done careful A/B tests and the pure internal PT mix sounds thin compared to the same tracks processed similarly through outboard gear. Not enough "depth" and not "punchy" is the words they keep using.

These PT critics claim that the problem is that the PT mixing routines don't have enough bit depth. Apparently the new HD systems are better, but still nowhere near the bit depth of some competing DAWs according to this apparently growing number of critics. I find ProTools just fine for everything I can ever imagine wanting to do, but some people have requirements that are different and maybe more demanding than mine. Dismissing their claims in a sort of Digi loyalty knee-jerk reaction may not be the wisest course.

I have no way of verifying all these claims and I also don't understand why up to 52 bit mixing algorithms supposedly end up sounding better in a final mix that gets converted to 24 bits for mastering and then only 16 bits when it gets pressed as a CD.

If I were considering buying a TDM system I would certainly want to look into these issues very carefully and with an open mind. I'd also want to know more about the prospects of future Apple support for Digidesign compatibility. EALSH's obseravtions about that are a bit disturbing. Finally, I'd look very carefully at all the competing DAWs on both platforms, not necessarily with a view toward switching to something totally unfamiliar, but to try to assess the trends in the industry and whether that big TDM system is apt to be worth anything in a couple of years, either for resale or as a draw for clients.

I don't think I'll ever get into the expense and learning curve of a whole new sort of system, but I would be very cautious about spending a big sum of money for a big expensive PT system. PT was the only game in town for a LONG time and it's been #1 in spite of growing competition for a long time, but are there now some cracks developing in the foundation? Everybody else in the world can't really be total dummies.

[losttimestudios]

Speaking of recording a session in 96/26, I thought I would give it a shot in recording a hard rock sound. I ususally record at 44/24 bit on a Digi 002. About a third way into the session, I abandoned the higher smapling rate and converted the already-recorded tracks into a new session at 44/24. Why? Not all plug ins operate at the higher sampling rate. I couldn't get the bombfactroy compressors (LA2A) that I have been using since the Digi 001 factory days. Well, I guess I could survive w/ a different compressor on the bass, but when I went to add outboard effects (reverb, chorus etc.) I did not have access to the 8 extra in/outs that I usually get thru an ADAT analog/digital bridge. Plus, it seemed the CPU got tapped out quickly when using plug ins.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that at this stage, 96 or 88 is really only feasible when only using a few tracks with very little plug-ins or outboard effects. Anybody's experiences different?

[Benyvin]

for me the diference it's very clear, first the latency, second and beyone the reverb one, i know that there is this subject about the fixed and floating point but, work with a TDM system it very diferent than do it with a host system and for me the best way to work with the audio is using a TDM system.
Cheers.