|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
Yes, but you need Ultimate for HDN also
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
Quote:
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
Only useful scenario is with bass that has poor intonation.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
Thanks for the responses.
For me it’s more so- do I need to keep something around for those specific tracking scenarios where they must monitor through the AT? Will I get unnoticeable latency numbers with the auto tune artist plugin in the chain with HDX to the point where the artist won’t notice? I know natively you can do this because I have used non UAD powered auto tune and it works through the Apollo. I just haven’t tried on HDX yet. Price is a non-issue. I am already invested in avid products, have ultimate and recently gave up my Apollo’s for an avid mtrx. At this point, I know I have successfully worked with auto tune in a native environment and believe me, if these artists wouldn’t ask for it, I wouldn’t even think twice about it. But some want to monitor through it when they record. The dsp solution with Apollo is great. Unfortunately, what pushed me to the decision is after using X16’s to stem out mixes to my analog console, I kept feeling like I wasn’t getting the best conversion I could get and kept having to eq again or things would thin out and and i’d loose more then I would like in the process. Plus hardware inserts didn’t behave like an avid interface and had to be accounted for. I was not working as fast as I would have liked. I have lots of outboard that I want to selectively use at times. So my solution was 2x UAD octo cards, and get rid of the Apollo’s. Maybe keeping one apollo is smart if I will have drawbacks with HDX though? Along with that, there are many other factors for why I went back to HD/HDX. With mtrx, there’s so much more functionality, and I’m looking at the unit as basically future-proof. My new control room isn’t finished yet, but with the spq card there is bass management and I am able to tune and do adjustments With DADman.. If I want the subs on with the mains at +3 because the rap guys are coming in, I can do that easily. Or different rooms being networked together in the same building, the rooms can communicate if needed with the Dante card. Honestly yes, you may have limitations with an HDX1 system but that’s something that can be expanded. Does it cost more? Of course. That’s talk for another day though. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
You still need to run a DSP plugin followed by a native plugin in HDX. Mainly because a native plugin alone will be bypassed when you record arm the track. Adding a DSP trim stops it from happening. The added latency is really just the result of audio needing to move from DSP to the native CPU and back again. If you track in only DSP, that doesn't happen. It's a tricky question to answer, as it really depends on how big a session you plan on running, and how much latency is too much.
HDX feels like it has gotten a lot better at low latency native monitoring in recent releases. It could perhaps coincide with my move from MBP to trash can, I don't know. I've got a 109 fader 5.1 post mix open at the moment. It is using about 70% of a HDX card, 183 voices, 90ish DSP plugins, plus three dozen native plugs including 11x 5.1 instances of Stratus 3D. It plays back fine with a 64 sample native buffer. I can't really ever remember it doing that in the past. Usually 128 minimum. Not only that, I can create a mono channel, add Waves Tune LT (the only autotune I have), and track through it, with a send to one of those 5.1 stratus instances totally smoothly while the rest of the session plays. Flipping that same session to native using the analogue IO of a thunderbolt 2 AJA XT IO, I need to increase the native sample buffer to 128, or bypass the send to stratus to get it to work smoothly. How does that compare latency-wise? Running a native plugin with no inherent latency will add 138 samples in HDX. How many samples of latency the autotune plugin has, I have no idea. Based on that simplistic test, if all you are doing is tracking a single vocal through a native plugin and reverb in an already established session, native might be a slightly better choice, at least with my 6,1 Mac Pro. Where HDX really shines is in larger scale DSP tracking. It will do that one channel through a native autotune, but it will also handle tracking another 30 mono channels with as many DSP plugins as your HDX card can handle at the same time. One thing to really be aware of though, is that HDX doesn't scale entirely evenly. It is a much bigger beast than UAD. UAD is capped at 4 stereo cue mixes. HDX will do a 16 channel cue mix in a single send slot, and still have 9 more slots available for you to use. That is A LOT of possible cue sends. The routing capabilities, I/O counts and plugin chains it can manage entirely within DSP are exponentially larger than anything UAD offers. Part of throwing that much audio around does mean an increased use in native system resources. 64 sample native buffers at 70% of HDX1 works... but I would anticipating having to increase the native buffer higher if you suddenly find yourself at 70% of HDX2... and higher again if you end up at 70% of HDX3. But anyway, I'm rambling. If you want me to test anything specific, just let me know. HDX can be an obtuse thing to navigate. Often too small for big mixes, yet totally overkill and barely utilised in smaller tracking sessions.
__________________
Pro Tools Ultimate 2024.3. OSX 13.6.5. Win 10. HD Native. Lynx AES16e. Lynx Aurora 16. i9-13900KF. ASRock Z690 Steel Legend. 64GB Ram. AMD Vega 64. BM Decklink. Dolby Atmos Renderer 5.2. Trinnov D-Mon. D-Command. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
Quote:
+1 HDX is a complicated beast. A versatile companion on the one hand and a eye of the needle on the other hand. It depends on your recording environment. Best Mark
__________________
Mac Pro 2010 3.66 GHz six Cores, HD Native, 192 I/O, Avid Dock, Artist Mix and Pro Tools Ultimate Mac mini 2018 i5 64 GB RAM, RME Fireface, Pro Tools 2021, Euphonix MC Control MacBook Air 2020 (M1) 16 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD, Zoom U-44 and Pro Tools Ultimate |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX or Native in this scenario
HDX is at its best on S6L and you should really think that desk when you use your HDX on computer. Everything on DSP and you need to have a reason to go Native. That way it is great. Mix and match was even worse on TDM systems.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A scenario and a question. | Elton Hyland | MIDI | 7 | 03-12-2009 02:40 PM |
PROBLEM SCENARIO | yeehawchicken | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 3 | 09-22-2006 07:18 AM |
How would you mic this scenario | CCash | Post - Surround - Video | 4 | 03-18-2004 02:12 PM |
dithering scenario | jimlongo | Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) | 6 | 12-12-2002 12:09 AM |
I got a scenario for you guys.... | Kevin Jackson | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 13 | 09-14-2002 12:33 AM |