PT HD Native & HDX / latency?

[kirkbross]

I will be upgrading my decade-old Digi002 rack running PTLE 8.0.5 in the next six months. I don't need the power of an HDX DSP system, but I would like the extra features of PT11 HD software.

Will PT 11 | HD Native afford me everything HDX does, minus the DSP horsepower of the HDX card?

My biggest issue is tracking latency. When I track with my current setup I *must* record directly to an audio channel. When I record through an aux channel bussed to an audio channel, I get massive latency and have to lower the samples in the playback engine.

[guitardom]

The latency of an HDN is drastically lower than a 002. No comparison really. For many, even 128 hw buffer is still completely workable which you could never do on a 002. At 64 HW buffer the HDN still feels less. You will be surprised!

[kirkbross]

Originally Posted by guitardom

The latency of an HDN is drastically lower than a 002. No comparison really. For many, even 128 hw buffer is still completely workable which you could never do on a 002. At 64 HW buffer the HDN still feels less. You will be surprised!

I guess I don't understand what the HW buffer does or how it functions and need to read up! :) For some reason I thought the HW buffer setting became irrelevant with HD systems. i.e. I could have it set to 2048 to handle a dense mix and still have zero latency when tracking through a bunch of inserts or a bussed channel.

At low settings (64/128), I get acceptable latency but the CPU will choke if there are too many plugins. Conversely if you crank up the buffer, your playback will maintain, but you get massive latency.

[nst7]

Whatever limitations your CPU is giving you will most likely still be there with HD Native. A few people have reported lower CPU usage with HD Native vs. other interfaces they had, but I have not found it to be the case.

If your computer is struggling with a low buffer when you have a lot of tracks and plugins, it will continue to do so, unless you get a more powerful computer.

However, if you are able to run at 128 instead of 64 because of the lower latency of HD Native, that may help a bit. Also, Protools 11 will help more because of the better efficiency and dynamic buffer.

There is really not much processing on the card itself that does anything like what HDX does for zero-latency tracking.


None of this is meant as a negative. I love my HD Native system. I just don't want you to have unrealistic expectations. There are some good reasons to get it, such as being able to use the fantastic sounding HD interfaces, the ability to expand to 64 I/O if you need it, the extra features of the HD software, and some other things.


But if it's mainly for latency issues, you may find that just getting a more powerful computer will help you regardless of what native system you're on (though HD Native will probably be more stable with really large sessions).


Also, regarding what you mentioned about latency when tracking through an aux, this should not add anymore latency at all. Not in any native version of Protools, including older LE versions. Something else is going on there. Or you may be just trying to track through plugins that have inherent latency, which even HDX won't fix.

And while I understand tracking through plugins, I'm not sure why you need to actually record to an audio track that way (I assume that's why you're using an aux), vs. just putting them on the audio track and just monitoring through them as you record.

[Raoul23]

Originally Posted by kirkbross

I will be upgrading my decade-old Digi002 rack running PTLE 8.0.5 in the next six months. I don't need the power of an HDX DSP system, but I would like the extra features of PT11 HD software.

Will PT 11 | HD Native afford me everything HDX does, minus the DSP horsepower of the HDX card?

My biggest issue is tracking latency. When I track with my current setup I *must* record directly to an audio channel. When I record through an aux channel bussed to an audio channel, I get massive latency and have to lower the samples in the playback engine.

I have a HD rig and find if I have ADC on when tracking and track through a track which then feeds to an aux it produces latency because PT is trying to delay the that track regarding the ADC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kirkbross]

Originally Posted by nst7

Whatever limitations your CPU is giving you will most likely still be there with HD Native...

I have a 2008 Mac Pro 2x2.8GHz quad core and don't run into CPU problems unless I'm running a full session with tons of virtual instruments and loads of plugins.

Do I understand it correctly that both RTAS *and* TDM are a thing of the past, replaced by the new AAX format? Does this mean that 3rd party plugins will have a single AAX version for Pro Tools and thus a single price point? I can't see Waves giving up their "double-price" gouging on TDM plugs without a fight...

I'll probably buy a new Mac Pro when they come out this fall (provided they don't get terrible reviews) and so I basically want a great converter (like an RME ADI-8 QS or Apogee Symphony) and whatever PT HDN system that supports Thunderbolt, since that will be the new interface.

[nst7]

There will still be AAX and AAX DSP (the equivalent of TDM). And some companies will still have two price tiers.

As for Waves, they have stated they won't be doing AAX DSP, only Native AAX. What they will have instead is a higher price point for their Soundgrid products.


Regarding converters, if you plan on using HD Native PCIe or Thunderbolt, the only interfaces that will work with it (other than Avid HD interfaces), are 3rd party interfaces that have a Digilink port that imitates the Avid HD interfaces. So that's a pretty small list. Basically the Symphony IO, Lynx Aurora, and maybe a couple from Prism or Mytek. Nothing by RME will work with it.

And if it's just good conversion you want, the Avid HD interfaces are up there with the best. Plus, the HD Native systems are not sold without an interface.

[kirkbross]

Originally Posted by nst7

...And if it's just good conversion you want, the Avid HD interfaces are up there with the best. Plus, the HD Native systems are not sold without an interface.

Great info nst7... thanks. I didn't realize that HD Native isn't sold without an interface. So is the following correct:

Regular PT 11 ... can use w/ any interface.
PT 11 HDN ... must use AVID interface (HD I/O, MADI, OMNI).
PT 11 HDX ... can use w/ any interface.

I'm probably making this more complicated than it is, but I want to understand their software and hardware tiering/bundling scheme.

[nst7]

I think you misunderstood.

HD Native and HDX hardware (cards or Thunderbolt box) require an HD interface to work, or a 3rd party interface that mimics the HD interfaces and has the equivalent of a Digilink port.

HD software will work with any interface, just like non-HD Protools.

So you can buy an HD Native system that comes with an HD interface, and then just sit the HD interface on a shelf somewhere, and instead use the HD software with any interface of your choice. But if you want to actually get the benefits of the cards, they need to work with an HD or HD-like interface.

I was just specifying because it sounded like you were talking about somehow hooking up an RME interface to the HD Native card or Thunderbolt unit, which is not possible because it doesn't have that kind of hookup.

But you can use an RME interface with the HD software, and have the full software features, as if you were running a Complete Toolkit.

But I was pointing out the the HDX and HD Native systems are only sold with HD interfaces, so you'l be paying for something you don't need if you bought the system just to get the HD software to use with another kind of interface.

You also mentioned something about wanting good converters, so I was just pointing out that the HD interfaces are among the best. But they are expensive especially if you're looking for a lot of inputs/outputs.

[kirkbross]

Originally Posted by nst7

...So you can buy an HD Native system that comes with an HD interface, and then just sit the HD interface on a shelf somewhere, and instead use the HD software with any interface of your choice.

That makes sense but I find it a bit frustrating that you cannot buy HD software by itself. If you have to buy one of their interfaces and then put it on a shelf, you might as well tell me you can't use the software without their hardware. I know their hardware is great, but it's kind of like a $2,000 cork fee at a restaurant for bring in your own wine! :) Or... you just want a flour tortilla, but you have to pay for a whole burrito and scoop out the insides and put in your own meat and cheese.

Or... just get an HD I/O and call it a day :)