HD native tracking question

[Tim R.]

Along these lines: Can you track (HDN) with a Guitar modeling plugin ON the record track (I'm imagining recording guitar with Chrometone or Waves GTR instantiated on the record channel)? I do this regularly with my HD (PT9) rig, but am planning on "Downgrading" to HDN next.

Thanks

[Drew Mazurek]

Sure. So long as the computer can handle what you're asking it to do while maintaining that 64 sample buffer.

In fact, if you were using a Native plug on your PT9 TDM rig, you even had to put a DSP plug in front of the native plug and you were subject to the same latency as you would with HD Native, twice the buffer.

[nst7]

I've been able to do that for years in native on a dual core Imac. It just depends on how much other stuff is going on.

Again, this should be much more capable in PT11.

[yellowshaman]

I had a test system here consisting of a MB Pro Retina, Pt native hd TB & omni I/O to see if I could get similar latency response like with my hdx system.

I connected a mono dpa 4006 mic to the omni
and recorded some handpercussion through the integrated mic pres
while listening via headphones from the TB card.

With 32 buffer at 44,1 - LLM off there was noticable latency.
No numbers here but enough to make me uncomfortable
playing with headphones.
When turning LLM On it was better but still not nearly as good
as on my old hd or the new hdx system.
And with LLM On all plugins on the input channel get bypassed.

For me as a recording musician the latency issue
is big enough not to buy hd native and go for a used hd \
new hdx instead.

I know many engineers think latency is no big deal
but it CAN be very distracting for musicians
if its not right - especially with rhythm sections.

You track and track for hours but something is just not right...
well more often than not its the latency involved.

Just as an alternative view...

[Jack Ruston UK]

There must be something wrong there. LLM is way less than old HD TDM at 44.1kHz. Without it, at 32 samples you should be seeing about 3.2ms round trip vs 2.4ms old HD TDM. I suspect something is not quite right. I've tested this quite a bit on my HDN card, and I swap back and forth constantly between that system and TDM.
J

[Jack Ruston UK]

BTW...I do agree that latency is an issue, and HDX is really strong in that respect. But TDM or HDN at 96k are also extremely fast.

J

[yellowshaman]

Originally Posted by Jack Ruston UK

There must be something wrong there. LLM is way less than old HD TDM at 44.1kHz. Without it, at 32 samples you should be seeing about 3.2ms round trip vs 2.4ms old HD TDM. I suspect something is not quite right. I've tested this quite a bit on my HDN card, and I swap back and forth constantly between that system and TDM.
J

You know I´m not so good in numbers
and I generally trust only to what I hear.

I allways felt comfortable with the latency on my old TDM
and still am on hdx but I´m not on hd native...

I double checked all possible values,
my mbp is certified and not a slow machine...
so I guess hd native is just not for me.

Maybe it´s a thunderbolt issue ?
But then my hdx is in a magma tb chassis working great...?

Maybe others don´t care about the involved latency - I really do.

[Markk]

We all really care about latency. I'd say its the number one reason I use HD. So assuming that, I'd say you're the first and only person I've heard with issues with HD native. But it is concerning to be as I'm about to invest heavily in new systems.

Can you try setting up an input aux channel with digi rack eq and compressor on insert feeding an audio channel and report back if you are able to track a source without the source hearing audible latency?

Thanks!

[nst7]

I don't understand how he heard any latency. I used a 003 via firewire into a dual core Imac for 5 years at a buffer of 64, and it was like real time to me. So much so that I didn't even bother with 32. I was able to also do this the same way with USB interfaces.

Now that I have my HD Native system, it's even better. So unless he had plugins with inherent latency on the tracks, I don't see how that would have been possible. And when I say inherent latency, I mean at least 64 or more. Something like the Waves SSL channel with 3 samples of latency isn't going to make any difference.

I'm not doubting his experience, but I'm wondering if something else was going on in the system.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by nst7

I don't understand how he heard any latency. I used a 003 via firewire into a dual core Imac for 5 years at a buffer of 64, and it was like real time to me. So much so that I didn't even bother with 32. I was able to also do this the same way with USB interfaces.

Now that I have my HD Native system, it's even better. So unless he had plugins with inherent latency on the tracks, I don't see how that would have been possible. And when I say inherent latency, I mean at least 64 or more. Something like the Waves SSL channel with 3 samples of latency isn't going to make any difference.

I'm not doubting his experience, but I'm wondering if something else was going on in the system.

I think his problem is this setup - he's using the headphone jack on the HD Native box to monitor. I wonder if Avid updated things so that it can be used as a true headphone jack as in the original release it wasn't able to be used as such. You still needed to have an interface hooked up which he has but still not sure if Avid fixed this or not.

Originally Posted by yellowshaman

I had a test system here consisting of a MB Pro Retina, Pt native hd TB & omni I/O to see if I could get similar latency response like with my hdx system.

I connected a mono dpa 4006 mic to the omni
and recorded some handpercussion through the integrated mic pres
while listening via headphones from the TB card.

With 32 buffer at 44,1 - LLM off there was noticable latency.
No numbers here but enough to make me uncomfortable
playing with headphones.

I have to wonder why he didn't use the headphone jack on the Omni to monitor?