Pro Tools 2019 !

[Downtown_BE]

I´m happy with bugfixes - THX!

[kirkbross]

Which is coming out first, PT 2019 or PT 2020?

[LDS]

Originally Posted by RobertDorn

I agree on the fact that all DSP systems have its benefits and its quirks. Where HDX handles the combination of DSP and Native plugins far better in PT, UAD plugins add awful lots of sample delay. Once you track with a DSP system you know how good it is compared to Native workflow where even the lowest buffersettings give more delay. Nevertheless DSP seems very unpopular for plugin developers since only a small percentage of the market asks for it. While UAD is using older technology they're at least fully Mojave supported and they still release awesome sounding new DSP plugins every year, still. Something that is less and less happening with the aax-dsp plugin format. I guess HDX nowadays only makes sense for the big post production studios and music studios that use protools more as a tape machine, using outboard gear and just needing lots of I/O.

HDX still makes sense for a lot of people. Like anything, it's a case of weighing up the pros and cons. In terms of shear processing resources, a modern, high powered native system is probably the best way to go in 2019 - something like an iMac Pro. The downside is obviously the cost. Even the entry level iMac Pro comes pretty close to costing twice what I paid for my entire HDX rig (excluding the HD license that I have had since TDM), and the computer it runs on.

My HDX card & Omni cost less than a new UAD Apollo X6. And while UAD certainly make some great plugins, it is probably the most expensive DSP platform on the market when you consider cost-per-plugin-instance. And by a huge margin at that.

[DetroitT]

Fine Tune it. but! bring it on.v 19.4

[RobertDorn]

Originally Posted by LDS

HDX still makes sense for a lot of people. Like anything, it's a case of weighing up the pros and cons. In terms of shear processing resources, a modern, high powered native system is probably the best way to go in 2019 - something like an iMac Pro. The downside is obviously the cost. Even the entry level iMac Pro comes pretty close to costing twice what I paid for my entire HDX rig (excluding the HD license that I have had since TDM), and the computer it runs on.



My HDX card & Omni cost less than a new UAD Apollo X6. And while UAD certainly make some great plugins, it is probably the most expensive DSP platform on the market when you consider cost-per-plugin-instance. And by a huge margin at that.

I came from an HD Native thunderbolt system with 2 HD I/O’s. I considered a MTRX and HDX but I went for 2 Apollo X units. I can live with the 32 I/O limit in ProTools Ultimate.

So I upgraded my converters a whole lot, I can do near zero latency tracking with distressors LA2A’s 1176’s, Neve EQ’s, vintage guitar amps impedance matched with physical inputs, lexicon 224 or 480 all over (where are that kind of plugins for aax-dsp, ok Arouser is aax dsp) and I still saved some money. 24x24 MTRX is above 10K alone. The new UAD X converters come quite close.

And I can connect my interface to my iMac Pro directly without the need of buying an expensive chassis to put a PCIe card in.

But anyhow, back to topic, luckily I bought my iMac Pro before Mojave. Because pro tools is married with HDX, and HDX is holding back pro tools development and so also the Mojave supported version.




Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[simon.a.billington]

Originally Posted by RobertDorn

No one was ready with AAX-DSP, Waves and many others never decided to develop aax-dsp plugins and up until today still only a few third party companies make AAX-DSP. When I track with an Apollo I sort of imagine what a HDX system with a great feature set of almost latency free dsp based plugins could have been.


Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

This is what I mean. It’s almost pointless people getting pissy with Waves, when it’s quite a widespread trend amoungst the developers. When you look at the common thread between them all it’s Avid. So I even more firmly believe that the problem lies mostly with them and not Waves or all those other 3rd party developers.

It is a mistake to create any new standard these days that isn’t “future-proof.” Really, HDX had potential, but it just wasn’t designed or made as accessible to developers as well as it “should” have been. So what happens now?? Will Avid limo through the next few years with HDX or retire it, learn from its mistakes and do something new?? They can’t possible do that now without angering so many HDX owners.

[JCBigler]

Originally Posted by DetroitT

Fine Tune it. but! bring it on.v 19.4

Uhh...I think you mean 19.5

[LDS]

Originally Posted by RobertDorn

I came from an HD Native thunderbolt system with 2 HD I/O’s. I considered a MTRX and HDX but I went for 2 Apollo X units. I can live with the 32 I/O limit in ProTools Ultimate.

So I upgraded my converters a whole lot, I can do near zero latency tracking with distressors LA2A’s 1176’s, Neve EQ’s, vintage guitar amps impedance matched with physical inputs, lexicon 224 or 480 all over (where are that kind of plugins for aax-dsp, ok Arouser is aax dsp) and I still saved some money. 24x24 MTRX is above 10K alone. The new UAD X converters come quite close.

And I can connect my interface to my iMac Pro directly without the need of buying an expensive chassis to put a PCIe card in.

But anyhow, back to topic, luckily I bought my iMac Pro before Mojave. Because pro tools is married with HDX, and HDX is holding back pro tools development and so also the Mojave supported version.

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

Sure, and it's no criticism of what you like using. It just isn't for me. I have punched
the numbers and looked at the alternatives. UAD certainly have a reputation for making
amazing sounding plugins, but I don't think they have some kind of secret special sauce
or voodoo in them. UA's real genius is in the marketing and branding. You use UAD's
SSL E, I use bx_console SSL 4000 E. You use UAD guitar sims, I use brainworx and sknote
guitar sims. You use UAD's LA2A, I use bx_opto. DSP reverbs are a waste of time and
DSP in 2019.

The fundamental benefit of HDX is that AAX-DSP and AAX-Native co-exist. I can run 1000
instances of bx_console SSL E. 136 designated to HDX's low latency DSP, and the other 864
designated to the old, crusty 12 cores of CPU in my 2010 Mac Pro. At the click of the button,
I can switch plugins between DSP and CPU to suit my monitoring needs. Your UAD devices
on the other hand, operate entirely irrespectively of the computer running them. You will
get the same number of UAD plugin instances regardless of whether you are running a 2011
MacBook Pro that you purchased off craigslist for $200... or a $10,000 iMac Pro. I would
have to be particularly enamoured with the sound of UAD plugins to go that route.



Your iMac Pro is probably far more capable at low latency monitoring through native plugins
than your UAD stuff is. RyanC is the chap to chat to about that. Hopefully we can taunt him
enough to maybe post some screenshots of what his native system can achieve. But for me,
running a 9 year old system, the deficiencies of the UAD platform are far, far worse than a
delay to Mojave support. A lot of people are using Pro Tools with Mojave successfully anyway.

It is probably less HDX, and more Avid that is to blame. For the past 6 or 7 years they have
been slow, messy, poor communicators and generally directionless. They may change their
ways, but I doubt it. HDX will be committed to the bottom of the ocean at some point, but
UAD is certainly worthy of heading there first... at least in it's current form. In any case, I
would probably bunker down. It's Avid. If it is going to happen, it is probably going to be a
long, bloody and expensive pathway for all of us.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by simon.a.billington

This is what I mean. It’s almost pointless people getting pissy with Waves, when it’s quite a widespread trend amoungst the developers. When you look at the common thread between them all it’s Avid. So I even more firmly believe that the problem lies mostly with them and not Waves or all those other 3rd party developers.

It is a mistake to create any new standard these days that isn’t “future-proof.” Really, HDX had potential, but it just wasn’t designed or made as accessible to developers as well as it “should” have been. So what happens now?? Will Avid limo through the next few years with HDX or retire it, learn from its mistakes and do something new?? They can’t possible do that now without angering so many HDX owners.

Avid being the common thread kind of falls apart though when you consider how many manufacturers just got on with making AAX-DSP plugins. Sonnox, Plugin Alliance, Flux, Audioease, Softubes, McDSP, etc. Even years after AAX-DSP was released, Sknote jumped on board and started making plugins for less than $50! That is a big leap away from Waves suggesting that AAX-DSP is to time consuming and expensive to develop for.

I reckon it is probably a complex range of issues that came to head. Avid being tricky to deal with. Too entrenched in existing frameworks. Poor TDM sales. The release of other third party DSP platforms (i.e. sound grid). Even the weird transition from TDM to AAX32 then to AAX64. The whole HDX release timeline was a little weird, and it definitely had a lot of developers playing the 'wait and see' game. That probably just snowballed into a slower uptake as potential users also sat back and waited as well.

HDX turns 8 this year. It is hard to imagine they will just walk away from it. Or develop something spectacularly new. They will probably just wrap two or three HDX cards into a single unit and call it HDX Accel or something stupid like that.

[RobertDorn]

Originally Posted by LDS

Sure, and it's no criticism of what you like using. It just isn't for me. I have punched
the numbers and looked at the alternatives. UAD certainly have a reputation for making
amazing sounding plugins, but I don't think they have some kind of secret special sauce
or voodoo in them. UA's real genius is in the marketing and branding. You use UAD's
SSL E, I use bx_console SSL 4000 E. You use UAD guitar sims, I use brainworx and sknote
guitar sims. You use UAD's LA2A, I use bx_opto. DSP reverbs are a waste of time and
DSP in 2019.

The fundamental benefit of HDX is that AAX-DSP and AAX-Native co-exist. I can run 1000
instances of bx_console SSL E. 136 designated to HDX's low latency DSP, and the other 864
designated to the old, crusty 12 cores of CPU in my 2010 Mac Pro. At the click of the button,
I can switch plugins between DSP and CPU to suit my monitoring needs. Your UAD devices
on the other hand, operate entirely irrespectively of the computer running them. You will
get the same number of UAD plugin instances regardless of whether you are running a 2011
MacBook Pro that you purchased off craigslist for $200... or a $10,000 iMac Pro. I would
have to be particularly enamoured with the sound of UAD plugins to go that route.



Your iMac Pro is probably far more capable at low latency monitoring through native plugins
than your UAD stuff is. RyanC is the chap to chat to about that. Hopefully we can taunt him
enough to maybe post some screenshots of what his native system can achieve. But for me,
running a 9 year old system, the deficiencies of the UAD platform are far, far worse than a
delay to Mojave support. A lot of people are using Pro Tools with Mojave successfully anyway.

It is probably less HDX, and more Avid that is to blame. For the past 6 or 7 years they have
been slow, messy, poor communicators and generally directionless. They may change their
ways, but I doubt it. HDX will be committed to the bottom of the ocean at some point, but
UAD is certainly worthy of heading there first... at least in it's current form. In any case, I
would probably bunker down. It's Avid. If it is going to happen, it is probably going to be a
long, bloody and expensive pathway for all of us.

Well I'm a producer, so I need that fast computer anyway for virtual instruments. Even a faster computer than my colleagues who use fruity loops logic cubase etc since they handle VI's more efficiently than Pro Tools does.

Only thing I dislike is that I have my 'tracking chain' in UAD console, and then my mix chain in Pro Tools which are 2 separate things so I have to make them twice because I have to do it separately in ProTools. Within the HDX environment you set it once in PT.

I don't have a clue about where both platforms will be in 5 or 10 years. At least Universal Audio doesn't ask for a subscription after you buy something from them and they release new products on their UAD platform every year. They did 3 or 4 generations of interfaces in the same cyclus AVID released 1 HDX card with HD I/O's. The MTRX is just a DAD converter, not their invention.
AVID asks €428,- subscription fee for a product costing €2200,- ... what was the last time they released a aax-dsp plugin themselves instead of accompanying with another third party NATIVE plugin vendor for a gift or promo action for subscribers...

It can be me, but I don't see AVID as an innovative or creative company. They are sluggishly updating a product they once acquired from Digidesign and that's it. Oh and they ask a lottttt of money for it from their users while failing at being spot on and up to date in return for that.