|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
I’m pretty sure everybody that makes AAX would release them as AAX DSP too if it was just as easy. Last edited by basehead617; 01-20-2020 at 06:50 AM. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
Still running older Macs with older PTHD...... purchased a new MP7.1 and presently debating on old HDX. Not waiting another year or two, three... for Avid. I would of thought that Apple announcing the new release years ago that Avid would of started on some type of update/upgrade when the new MP releases but nope....Avid behind the ball as usual. MTRX Studio, another HDX card carrier..... Just sell the company. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
I heard a rumor that maybe Steinberg might introduce a PCIe card.....would be interesting. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
If that is the case, Avid must have really borked the implementation of AAX-DSP given the number of TDM plugins that never made it to HDX.
__________________
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
I'm not a DSP programmer but, I imagine it's as much market forces at work, as the nature of the industry has changed (and native has become much more powerful than it was at the time of TDM's introduction). I suspect Avid would have actively had to subsidise developers to make AAX DSP plugins – and I wish they did, in which case I would be contemplating buying another HDX card rather than a UAD Octo. Instead, pushing the voice count at high sample rates is the only thing that would make me consider adding another card.
__________________
https://lukehoward.com/ |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
From what I have read and heard, coding AAX-DSP (with C++) is a whole lot easier than coding TDM (with assembly). But the nature of DSP as a restrictive platform never goes away. Real problem here is Waves screwed DSP business by dropping DSP development and therefore DSP plugin prices by 50%, or in other words, today plugin vendor cannot double the price when they have DSP available.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Here’s an idea given Avid seems to be OEM’ing a lot of hardware these days. License the UAD cards and put a TDM bus connector on them. Instant plugin ecosystem and low latency (because it would avoid round-tripping to the CPU). They can still sell you a HDX card to run the mixer and other AAX DSP plugins.
__________________
https://lukehoward.com/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
If it was going to interest me, they need a new DSP system where the standard SDK developed plugins don't have 34 samples of latency or more.
I don't know that much about DSP, but if two (quality) inserts have more latency than the 32 sample buffer, then the money is better spent on a faster computer for my workflow. Make a new card with more power, get someone like Bricasti to make a high end verb for it, something that wouldn't be practical in native land, get the latencies down to below what can be done with native...In other words make something to where there is an actual advantage to having the DSP. Otherwise put a fork in it, put the resources into developing a better audio engine, add 2x and 4x buffer settings for VI's and develop some native hardware that is at least as good (if not better than) other companies. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Re: NAMM new HDX or nothing!!!
Quote:
Don't know why the new DSP is "slower" than TDM, which had 4 samples "standard" latency. For comparison ReVibe TDM had 4 sample latency but ReVibe AAXDSP has 66 sample latency. There must be some timing issue with how AAXDSP addresses its memory, compared to TDM. Only explanation I can come up with. Theoretically you always need one sample for reading in, one sample for processing, one sample for writing out. So those old 4 sample TDM plugs were pretty damn awesome -- only one sample shy from perfect. So yes, AAX-DSP XL or whatever it would be called is way overdue. I cannot see myself putting my money into these +8 year old cards today because either the cards are going to be updated or going away soon, and neither scenario encourages me to invest.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
11R at NAMM | musicman691 | Eleven Rack | 35 | 02-18-2013 02:37 PM |
Namm | broken81 | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 6 | 05-11-2010 11:51 AM |
NAMM 07 | MiamiMusicMan | Virtual Instruments | 3 | 01-18-2007 09:50 AM |
NAMM '07 - What do you want? | dts.music | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 26 | 01-16-2007 02:40 AM |