Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Hardware > Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-08-2012, 02:26 PM
Shan's Avatar
Shan Shan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 13,579
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emcha_audio View Post
I agree with you there, those newly designed box for your system would undeniably be bigger than the actual HD I/O box, remember you want to be able to place a full length hdx card in it + converters etc.

So you then come to think, what do we do? Do we do a box that can only fit 1 card, so if you want a hdx 3, you need to buy three of the new boxes? Or do we do one box that can fit the 3 hdx card inside it, which will make them bigger than the current hd I/O boxes, less portable, with so many connectors on it to allow the 11 other I/O box to connect to that one box (1 hdx card can connect 4 Hd I/O to it)

So you're still stuck with a system.. that wouldn't be portable after all either way, 3 box one card in each, or 1 box 3 cards in it.. plus all the other I/O boxes to connect to to either new redesign. Of course the other way around this could be creating 1 box for the cards, and one mega I/O box that would include 192 Ins and outs, with how many adat ports to plug preamps and other things? What price would that new and improved system cost more?

So while thinking oh yeah it would be great to allow portability.. well I guess that's why the HDN exists.. HDX wasn't meant to be portable one bit.
In a 2U system, the PCB could definitely allow for more than 18 DSPs(1 HDX Card). As for how powerful to make it, there's many directions to take that concept based on needs and use. The UAD Apollo and Eleven Rack are a few examples and directions it could go. With the Apollo concept, Avid would not be limited to a small number of plug-ins from just one manufacturer like UAD, as all AAX DSP plug-ins could be used from anyone who develops for it. It would definitely be a more portable solution but also no worries about filling PCI slots in a tower, thus more computer(and even motherboard) choices.

Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing

Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em!
__________________

"Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM

__________________

Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-08-2012, 02:51 PM
Emcha_audio's Avatar
Emcha_audio Emcha_audio is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montréal, canada
Posts: 6,752
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
In a 2U system, the PCB could definitely allow for more than 18 DSPs(1 HDX Card). As for how powerful to make it, there's many directions to take that concept based on needs and use. The UAD Apollo and Eleven Rack are a few examples and directions it could go. With the Apollo concept, Avid would not be limited to a small number of plug-ins from just one manufacturer like UAD, as all AAX DSP plug-ins could be used from anyone who develops for it. It would definitely be a more portable solution but also no worries about filling PCI slots in a tower, thus more computer(and even motherboard) choices.

Shane
I agree the concept is interesting, but the problem remains, the I/O. Even if you have a 2u system that can fit more than one card, you're placing a lot of power in it which is good, but missing one of the biggest advantages of the HDX cards which is the number of I/O a single card can now take. Would it be really cost effective for Avid to develop such a box with only 8-12 Inputs, when a single HDX card can easily take 64 I/O multiply that by the number of cards such a box could incorporate? That would make the box a bigger box than a 2u system. The actual HD I/O Boxes are already 2u for the amount of input they provides, except for the omni which offers a total of 8 simultaneous audio channel and is 1u system, but that still would be at least a price tag of 9999 to 23997 system for a hdx+omni/hdx3+omni. That's now a 3u system just to accommodate this still portable but less, and mightily expensive to just enable people to work anywhere. But eh it's their wallets. But that might not be as big a seller as people would think, and maybe not even enough to warrant the R&D. If you remember, there's a video that already shows Avid using thunderbolt for their HDX system, but it doesn't include the I/O box, and it's not Avid who's developing it. But the OP wants avid to develop essentially an uber Omni system that would incorporate HDX card or cards with thunderbolt. So while it's his money to risk, he can already do it if he uses a magma chassis and an omni. Avid doesn't have to waste money on developing this.
__________________
Manny.

Wave-T.com
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-08-2012, 07:49 PM
Electrox Electrox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York
Posts: 323
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emcha_audio View Post
Hmm thunderbolt was not developed by apple. It was developed by intel and put to market by apple through technical collaboration.

And btw didn't you hear, even apple is rumored to launch a new big heavy computer that you won't carry everywhere with you, for the pro's out there. Yes with thunder bolt, and also rumored with pcie 3 (much much faster than tb)
Really need that PCI bus and the associated weight/size/bulk for...Audio?! Really? Is bulk associated with "Pro"? Does that mean the Hulk is the... oh never mind!

No, Thunderbolt (Light Peak) WAS developed by Apple. It is because they don't want their boxes opened up and messed with. It was pushed onto Intel so the industry would accept it as being an open standard, and not Apples.
Read:
http://9to5mac.com/2009/09/26/intels...tually-apples/ The second paragraph addresses what I have heard about the development from several sources.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-08-2012, 08:06 PM
Emcha_audio's Avatar
Emcha_audio Emcha_audio is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montréal, canada
Posts: 6,752
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrox View Post
Really need that PCI bus and the associated weight/size/bulk for...Audio?! Really? Is bulk associated with "Pro"? Does that mean the Hulk is the... oh never mind!

No, Thunderbolt (Light Peak) WAS developed by Apple. It is because they don't want their boxes opened up and messed with. It was pushed onto Intel so the industry would accept it as being an open standard, and not Apples.
Read:
http://9to5mac.com/2009/09/26/intels...tually-apples/ The second paragraph addresses what I have heard about the development from several sources.
Get your fact straight, Apple didn't developed thunderbolt even Apple admits it.

http://www.apple.com/ca/thunderbolt/

Quote:
Powerful technology from a powerful collaboration.

Thunderbolt began at Intel Labs with a simple concept: create an incredibly fast input/output technology that just about anything can plug into. After close technical collaboration between Intel and Apple, Thunderbolt emerged from the lab to make its appearance in Mac computers.
The close contribution as apple state they did, is in reality that they suggest and asked intel to use copper fibre instead of optical, since with optical (which was the first idea and was what Intel was working on at the time called light pipe) cannot transport electricity. After that as reported by many tech news agency, all they did was to do the initial (like the link I provided earlier) paperwork filling for the trademarks, which they are now handing back to intel.

source

Quote:
Dave Salvator, Senior Communications Manager at Intel.

"As part of our collaboration with Apple, they did some of the initial trademark filings. Intel has full rights to the Thunderbolt trademark now and into the future. The Thunderbolt name will be used going forward on all platforms, irrespective of operating system."
An further down in the article

Quote:
In a nutshell, Apple filed for the original trademark and is now transferring that trademark to Intel. At the same time, Apple will continue to have unrestricted use of the technology. 3rd party implementations such as Sony's desire to use USB Connector instead of DisplayPort one and the eventual change of technology branding (Sony's IEEE1394 a.k.a. Firewire implementation was named i.LINK) will have to be ironed out as the time passes by.
__________________
Manny.

Wave-T.com
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-08-2012, 08:09 PM
Electrox Electrox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York
Posts: 323
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emcha_audio View Post
That's now a 3u system just to accommodate this still portable but less, and mightily expensive to just enable people to work anywhere. But eh it's their wallets. But that might not be as big a seller as people would think, and maybe not even enough to warrant the R&D. If you remember, there's a video that already shows Avid using thunderbolt for their HDX system, but it doesn't include the I/O box, and it's not Avid who's developing it. But the OP wants avid to develop essentially an uber Omni system that would incorporate HDX card or cards with thunderbolt. So while it's his money to risk, he can already do it if he uses a magma chassis and an omni. Avid doesn't have to waste money on developing this.
Are you working for Avid? Are you concern about what they are are "wasting" their money on? I am MORE concern with NOT wasting my money filling up ANOTHER studio with big boxes that don't do what I need them to do. If I am going to invest another 15K on Avid gear, wouldn't it be in my BEST INTEREST to buy some "box" that actually did what I wanted it to do (like, a DSP Thunderbolt system every laptop user would love to have) rather than piece together ANOTHER big beige box with cards, wires going to hard drives, wires going to Interface, Big Rack to hold all pieces together, Another fan to keep it cool, a separate room so I don't have to hear that fan and the 3 that are in the Big Computer (Pro! Big because it is PRO!) Wow, did I buy all of the correct stuff, because I need to add my 3rd party plug ins as SOON as they actually GET DEVELOPED! (cricket chirps?!)
Well, that's ONE way of working...
...Or, grabbing my laptop with the DSP box, in my suitcase, off to work on the beach to get my work done.
Change is sometime difficult, I know... Currently we HAVE your way of working. I just think there are some people out their that might want to work the way I want to work...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-08-2012, 08:16 PM
Shan's Avatar
Shan Shan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 13,579
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrox View Post
...Or, grabbing my laptop with the DSP box
+1!

And there's no reason why it couldn't be a powerful tablet instead of a laptop down the road. It's only a matter of time until powerful tablets start appearing with thunderbolt. On the PC side, we'll definitely see i7 based tablets, hence the ability to run Pro Tools in W8. Then there's the benefit of just plugging into any Mac, PC, laptop, tablet etc that has thunderbolt. That's a big plus on it's own right there. HDX anywhere, without the bulky towers and PCI cards. I say bring it on, as it's a realistic use for a thunderbolt based DSP I/O box.

Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing

Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em!
__________________

"Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM

__________________

Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-08-2012, 08:23 PM
Emcha_audio's Avatar
Emcha_audio Emcha_audio is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Montréal, canada
Posts: 6,752
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrox View Post
Are you working for Avid? Are you concern about what they are are "wasting" their money on? I am MORE concern with NOT wasting my money filling up ANOTHER studio with big boxes that don't do what I need them to do. If I am going to invest another 15K on Avid gear, wouldn't it be in my BEST INTEREST to buy some "box" that actually did what I wanted it to do (like, a DSP Thunderbolt system every laptop user would love to have) rather than piece together ANOTHER big beige box with cards, wires going to hard drives, wires going to Interface, Big Rack to hold all pieces together, Another fan to keep it cool, a separate room so I don't have to hear that fan and the 3 that are in the Big Computer (Pro! Big because it is PRO!) Wow, did I buy all of the correct stuff, because I need to add my 3rd party plug ins as SOON as they actually GET DEVELOPED! (cricket chirps?!)
Well, that's ONE way of working...
...Or, grabbing my laptop with the DSP box, in my suitcase, off to work on the beach to get my work done.
Change is sometime difficult, I know... Currently we HAVE your way of working. I just think there are some people out their that might want to work the way I want to work...
No I'm not, and the reason I'm concerned about it is pretty simple, why waste money on tech that is already being developed by others, when there much more things to be done with your own software, 64 bit a whole bunch of features that have been asked by the masses and are a lot more important to the majority than developing a thunderbolt box, when there is already solutions for it. Different teams one might say, but global R&D wallet.

I've noticed you said that you weren't going to be held off by boxes. So you're going to mix on the go, sure.. with headphones (cause obviously you wont bring studio grade monitors with you on the beach since you don't want to be tied up to big boxes right?).. err....in places that are potentially very noisy, busy and cramped...errrr. That's good for editing, heck I do it myself for that on a laptop from time to time when I have to. But for that you don't need the power of HDX. It comes back to what I was saying before. You really want to spend that much money on a system and use it somewhere unsafe (beach... subway etc)? Sure you got your logic chip set straight...(cricket chirps?!?).

Oh yeah speaking of cables going to this and that.. well you're still going to have cables going to this and to that.. Cables going to your hdx chassis, cables going to your monitors.. going to external HDD drives.. so you're just replacing different types of cables, by one type of cables. But your video monitors still will need their power supply cables, you're still going to need to daisy chain them with your other devices that use thunderbolts, so that's still one cable per daisy chain. Basically, the only difference in what you're saying is that your using a computer that is.. smaller. Cause none of the rest changes. In fact.. by using thunderbolt the way you suggest.. you end up with more cables laying around.. see, with a tower.. at least you can place the video card inside.. with the hdx card.. with the extra hdd's. While with a laptop.. that's cables and cables laying around. Place it (tower) in a iso booth. and voila no more noise from it nor from your other units. You still can have them at hands reach easily.

Now all of this is pretty much semantics and we could go around arguing about it all week long. Fact is, Avid doesn't have to developed that technology. Magma is, and they are pretty much the best out there for such thing. So much that Avid which had it's own expansions chassis at the time which wasn't very reliable, dropped them and started to recommend Magma for that use. Magma has a product that will be out soon, that will fit exactly what you want, therefore Avid doesn't have to waste it's time developing this, when they could work on other things. It's called prioritizing.
__________________
Manny.

Wave-T.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-09-2012, 10:36 PM
bacchus40 bacchus40 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: CANADA, west coast
Posts: 481
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmazurek View Post
Avid wasting money and time engineering a Thunderbolt box that would amount to a PCI card in a chassis is just plain dumb* and we'd all pay for it. Next. :)

.
agreed, wtf is the point... sorry op... i like towers.. so do all engineers I currently work with... biggest reason..! HEAT! i've got a liquid cooled system!! it will outlast any laptop... my video card needs cannot be met inside an on-board chip either.... i'm rather happy with the way things are...

the laptop is for editing n' over-dubbin'... at least that's what it is for me... the tower gets the big boy.!!

hd-native at the moment...
__________________
kickin' at the darkness 'till it bleeds daYlighT


Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-11-2012, 08:47 PM
Electrox Electrox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York
Posts: 323
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emcha_audio View Post
Get your fact straight, Apple didn't developed thunderbolt even Apple admits it.

http://www.apple.com/ca/thunderbolt/



The close contribution as apple state they did, is in reality that they suggest and asked intel to use copper fibre instead of optical, since with optical (which was the first idea and was what Intel was working on at the time called light pipe) cannot transport electricity. After that as reported by many tech news agency, all they did was to do the initial (like the link I provided earlier) paperwork filling for the trademarks, which they are now handing back to intel.

source



An further down in the article
Well, if you read it off of Apple's web site, at least they convinced YOU that they didn't develop it. But the truth is Apple did, as a follow up to the Firewire standard that they also created. You can believe what you want, as can I:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/26/e...ntel-could-be/
or
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/26/is-ap...ak-connectivi/
Both articles were printed way before the Apple page you referenced. Steve Jobs wanted Intel to "own" the project. There were many reasons for this, but I digress...

The point of my whole thread was to get some of you to start thinking that maybe working with BIG BOXES in a STUDIO is NOT the only way to do things with recording, editing, and creating. The new MacBook Pro Laptops blows away ANY computer used with ANY TDM system of past. Back in those days we all recorded many professional high quality projects that were seen on TV, in the movies, and heard on the radio. These projects usually consisted of a room full of gear with miles of wire and multiple systems to get the job done. Fast forward to today, and we are being handed tools that are readily portable and even MORE powerful than the big boxes of yesteryear. What are we to do? We seem still stuck in working exactly the same way we always did, filling these big rooms with gear to show how "pro" we are. All I am suggesting is an "alternative" way of working by allowing these new mega laptops to be greeted with a front end WORTH their weight in power. I do not think any of the USB 2 or Firewire 800 boxes are valid in this new paradigm. In a year or two we will be having 8 to 12 core laptops. I also think interface boxes without some raw DSP is not worth much. I already have too many of these boxes. I am looking for a High Quality AVID box that is an all-in one portable solution. Why should I put cards in a Magma box and add an interface? From an electrical engineering standpoint the waste of power and duplicate resources for that to happen is just plain silly. Other companies are jumping on the bandwagon I am writing about. Universal Audio is going that route, MOTU has been there for years, Presonus boards have eaten Yamaha's lunch... I think Avid knows there is a market for what I am talking about. I also suspect they already have a design for what I am writing about. I just don't understand the need for some of you to let them off the hook by denying what I see as part of the future of recording...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-12-2012, 06:21 AM
lifer lifer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 330
Default Re: We need a Thunderbolt HDX system

I'd love to see a Thunderbolt Omni with HDX dsp option like the UA Apollo...make a great pro portable system. In fact it would pretty much be a full studio replacement for me :)
My 2c worth anyhoo..
__________________
Win 7 Pro 64
PT 10 HD, HD4 Accel
Jetway JNAF92-Q67
Intel 2700k 3.8ghz
16GB Crucial Ram
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Slimming down the PT system. Mac Mini & Thunderbolt peripherals cheney5 Post - Surround - Video 15 01-12-2014 03:57 AM
Looking for someone running an HD Native Thunderbolt system and Waves to compare with propower Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 1 12-14-2013 12:46 AM
HD native thunderbolt through Echo Express SE Thunderbolt Chassis hkj1 Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 1 11-06-2013 05:49 PM
Until Someone Makes a Thunderbolt Hub, Thunderbolt is a (1/2 Useless) Dead End Street relaxo Pro Tools 10 7 11-12-2012 11:43 AM
Thunderbolt-Sonnet’s Echo™ Express PCIe 2.0 Expansion Chassis with Thunderbolt™ Ports Barry Johns Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 29 08-11-2012 07:01 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com