Best AAX DSP reverb available?

[MixerGuy]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

HDX cards are about 8 years old now so certainly don't have "insane" power. Also, you can run more instances of Exponential Reverbs purely natively than you can on an HDX system. Going between native and AAX DSP plugins actually reduces the capability.

I agree HDX cards enable large count tracks, but these days that's a purely artificial limit. Back in the G4 and G5 days DSP was needed, now it's not.

Are you seriously suggesting an HDX3 has more power than a Xeon?

Tom have you ever worked on an HDX-3 rig?

And

I didn’t suggest anything about Xeon specifically.

To clarify:

A current MacMiniPro (2018 version) plus a thunderbolt chassis and three HDX cards would be more powerful for plugin power, and +\-one sample hardware inserts, than a native based computer with no HDX3.

Simple logic.

Plus a native based ProTools rig does not have the same power as HDX for +/- 1 sample hardware inserts.

It isn’t just about track count.

It is track count, hardware inserts and also plugin power. All 3.

Very few of us want all this power in a rig... but for those that do - HDX3 + a fast host computer is unbeatable in my experience.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by MixerGuy

Tom have you ever worked on an HDX-3 rig?

I have.

If HDX is more powerful, why does Michael Carnes state specifically one reason he never made his plug-ins for AAX DSP is because fewer instances would run?

A fully native system can run more of his plug-ins than an HDX card can. The reason HDX3 seems more powerful is because Pro Tools is held back natively. Look at Nuendo, no DSP at all and that runs similar sessions to what people do on Pro Tools.

I understand the "simple logic" that a CPU + HDX SHOULD be more powerful, however, in the case of Exponential reverbs, you can actually run more of them on a native system without HDX.

Think of it this way. HDX has a finite number of resources, and Avid know exactly how many voices each HDX card can provide, therefore there's a limit which is dictated by the number of HDX cards in a system. Modern Intel processors are vastly more powerful than an HDX3 system, but Avid limit the number of voices artificially, 1) to protect their HDX revenues, and 2) because there are so many variables they couldn't say how many voices each CPU could handle. Personally, I'd rather have Pro Tools Ultimate not have a finite number of voices artificially imposed upon it and max out my Xeon.

Nuendo on the other hand was always native from the start, and that is just of capable of running huge sessions without any DSP cards at all.

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

If HDX is more powerful, why does Michael Carnes state specifically one reason he never made his plug-ins for AAX DSP is because fewer instances would run?

Because he can $ell more in$tances of native plugs.

Let’s be real a OEM developer still has to look out for his bottom line. Good Will doesn’t pay the bills.

He has a vested interest to go entirely native. Less development work and a bigger market. What’s not to like.

I personally feel the real reason for HDX is latency free tracking. For me that wins everyday , but that’s just me.

[MixerGuy]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

I have.

If HDX is more powerful, why does Michael Carnes state specifically one reason he never made his plug-ins for AAX DSP is because fewer instances would run?

A fully native system can run more of his plug-ins than an HDX card can. The reason HDX3 seems more powerful is because Pro Tools is held back natively. Look at Nuendo, no DSP at all and that runs similar sessions to what people do on Pro Tools.

I understand the "simple logic" that a CPU + HDX SHOULD be more powerful, however, in the case of Exponential reverbs, you can actually run more of them on a native system without HDX.

Think of it this way. HDX has a finite number of resources, and Avid know exactly how many voices each HDX card can provide, therefore there's a limit which is dictated by the number of HDX cards in a system. Modern Intel processors are vastly more powerful than an HDX3 system, but Avid limit the number of voices artificially, 1) to protect their HDX revenues, and 2) because there are so many variables they couldn't say how many voices each CPU could handle. Personally, I'd rather have Pro Tools Ultimate not have a finite number of voices artificially imposed upon it and max out my Xeon.

Nuendo on the other hand was always native from the start, and that is just of capable of running huge sessions without any DSP cards at all.

Tom you keep deflecting from what I am actually saying.

I am not talking about running a specific reverb plugin native vs HDX.

I am not talking about specific DAWs vs each other.

I am simply saying that for ProTools (my DAW) Native + HDX3 is more powerful, currently, than Native PT alone.

You can speculate / argue about Native vs HDX all you want. I am just commenting on what is available today, for ProTools Ultimate.

I never said anything about what you are commenting on.

I never said "HDX is more powerful than Native"

[LDS]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

I have.

If HDX is more powerful, why does Michael Carnes state specifically one reason he never made his plug-ins for AAX DSP is because fewer instances would run?

A fully native system can run more of his plug-ins than an HDX card can. The reason HDX3 seems more powerful is because Pro Tools is held back natively. Look at Nuendo, no DSP at all and that runs similar sessions to what people do on Pro Tools.

I understand the "simple logic" that a CPU + HDX SHOULD be more powerful, however, in the case of Exponential reverbs, you can actually run more of them on a native system without HDX.

Think of it this way. HDX has a finite number of resources, and Avid know exactly how many voices each HDX card can provide, therefore there's a limit which is dictated by the number of HDX cards in a system. Modern Intel processors are vastly more powerful than an HDX3 system, but Avid limit the number of voices artificially, 1) to protect their HDX revenues, and 2) because there are so many variables they couldn't say how many voices each CPU could handle. Personally, I'd rather have Pro Tools Ultimate not have a finite number of voices artificially imposed upon it and max out my Xeon.

Nuendo on the other hand was always native from the start, and that is just of capable of running huge sessions without any DSP cards at all.

All systems have finite resources. The difference between HDX and Native is the prior knowledge of where that limit is verse something that equates to the old Wild, Wild West. A Nuendo system will only ever be as capable as the computer running it. In some cases that might be more tracks than HDX, in others it will be much less.

It might be suitable for a lot of owner operators, but I can’t imagine it being really easy running a commercial facility with native systems. Especially in post. There are too many variables. You know what you get with HDX before even walking into the room, and that includes latency. It’s predictable, whether it is a HDX1 system or a bunch of HDX3 systems running satellite link. You only get that running what essentially is a digital mixer on a PCIe card.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by YYR123

Because he can $ell more in$tances of native plugs.

Let’s be real a OEM developer still has to look out for his bottom line. Good Will doesn’t pay the bills.

He has a vested interest to go entirely native. Less development work and a bigger market. What’s not to like.

I personally feel the real reason for HDX is latency free tracking. For me that wins everyday , but that’s just me.

Even if he made AAX DSP versions he'd still have the huge native market out there, so that argument doesn't really stack-up.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by MixerGuy

Tom you keep deflecting from what I am actually saying.

I am not talking about running a specific reverb plugin native vs HDX.

I am not talking about specific DAWs vs each other.

I am simply saying that for ProTools (my DAW) Native + HDX3 is more powerful, currently, than Native PT alone.

You can speculate / argue about Native vs HDX all you want. I am just commenting on what is available today, for ProTools Ultimate.

I never said anything about what you are commenting on.

I never said "HDX is more powerful than Native"

Fair points, but you did say HDX is incredibly powerful, which unfortunately it's not.

As for talking about Exponential Reverbs, he's one of the only developers who talks about the limitations HDX exposes, but I'm sure there are others.

The lack of AAX DSP reverbs is potentially testament to that.

[tom_lowe]

Originally Posted by LDS

All systems have finite resources. The difference between HDX and Native is the prior knowledge of where that limit is verse something that equates to the old Wild, Wild West. A Nuendo system will only ever be as capable as the computer running it. In some cases that might be more tracks than HDX, in others it will be much less.

Very true, but I don't imagine it would be that hard to develop a small app (maybe even within PT) that went through and determined what your machine was capable of. It'd soon show a modern CPU has far more resources available (when software lets it) over HDX cards.

Avid could then list certain configurations and what can be achieved, a la HDX, before you buy.

[smurfyou]

This thread was started 5 years ago. Performance aside, I don't think time passing has had a positive effect on AAX DSP development. It seems all the developers decided years ago yay or nay and haven't changed their minds. HDX is very long in the tooth and there's constant speculation about whether Avid will abandon DSP.

Long story short there are probably no new DSP reverbs. If I have to use one I go Revibe. Sonnox is also nice for music or sound design.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by tom_lowe

Very true, but I don't imagine it would be that hard to develop a small app (maybe even within PT) that went through and determined what your machine was capable of. It'd soon show a modern CPU has far more resources available (when software lets it) over HDX cards.

Avid could then list certain configurations and what can be achieved, a la HDX, before you buy.

That wouldn't actually work given the fundamental differences between Native and HDX. Native allocates shared resources dynamically. HDX allocates dedicated resources statically, including to the mixer itself. It is that segregation and allocation of resources that allows DSP based systems to clearly state what they can achieve.

There are far more aspects to a DAW than just how large a session it can run. If that is the only metric you need to measure, then HDX is actually probably far more powerful than you'll ever need. There is a reason it appears in a lot of facilities, and it isn't because their owners are dim.

Originally Posted by smurfyou

This thread was started 5 years ago. Performance aside, I don't think time passing has had a positive effect on AAX DSP development. It seems all the developers decided years ago yay or nay and haven't changed their minds. HDX is very long in the tooth and there's constant speculation about whether Avid will abandon DSP.

Long story short there are probably no new DSP reverbs. If I have to use one I go Revibe. Sonnox is also nice for music or sound design.

Oh yeah, people have been prophesying the death of Avid & DSP for decades but it still ticks on. If anything, one of the reasons native has become so successful is because other interface manufacturers have been taking a line out of Avid's book. RME, Metric Halo, Focusrite, Motu, Apogee, Antelope, etc all have interfaces that are underpinned by DSP or FPGA based monitoring to achieve low latencies. DSP really isn't going anywhere, particularly in a world focused on becoming more and more compact and portable. The majority of the gripes regarding Avid and DSP are driven by restrictive accessibility due to pricing more than anything, if you ask me. If Avid released a cost effective UAD Apollo style interface with HDX functionality tomorrow, there would be a line forming around the block.

It would be nice to see more AAX-DSP reverbs, but I think the writing was on the wall for them before HDX actually existed. Even with TDM, running a native reverb plugin on an aux channel would result in nothing more than a little added pre-delay. We might see more... Audioease released Indoor 18 months ago and it sounds amazing for post work.