PT12 Vanilla vs HDN (Sorry!)

[bengineer]

On the prowl for updating, and it's to the point where I should just start over. Considering these two options:

1. PT 12 vanilla on MBP (new) with 15" Retina, 2.5 GHz, 16GB RAM, 512GB internal and use an Apollo 16 interface. Thunderbolt.

2. PT HDN with Omni linked to my 192 I/O for additional inputs. Using same laptop as above. Thunderbolt here, too.

I don't track with a lot of plugs, and need the capacity for at least 16 channels in. I have friends running vanilla in iMacs without issue, but I am concerned about latency with every input recording.

Thoughts? Is latency an issue on running the Apollo? I figure someone here is doing this and may have some insight. I'll buy new so I can get as far down the road as possible before updating.

And any other ideas would be helpful.

With thanks,

Ben

[albee1952]

First off, skip the i5 and go for the i7 quad. Nobody ever regretted getting more power(but most regret not getting enough). My 2 cents; get the Apollo for 2 reasons. #1-its a lot less money and gives you double the inputs(Omni can only give active 8 IO). #2-tracking with UAD plugins with Apollo will be easy and low latency, but tracking with another interface is another story. I have HD/Native and every UAD plugin reports at least 1100 samples of latency. As much as I love my rig, and as great as UAD plugins sound, I can't track with them.

[Brandonx1]

Also you can't use HDN with Pro tools vanilla. Yiu need pro tools HD software.

[Southsidemusic]

We track with Apollo Quad and Apollo 16 all day long both on MBP i7 and nMP.

Works awesome and tracking with plugins of the UA Caliber is great!

If you need 16 in and out The Apollo 16 is really super nice sounding but the Apollo Quad is even better with the Preamp choices of running Unison Mode with the UA plugins. But the Apollo Quad doesn't have 16 analog in/out though, thats why we have both of them and a few Satellite Quad units for heavy UA plugin sessions

You can't go wrong there

[bengineer]

This is all very helpful, especially given I'm so far down the rabbit hole on this one. I've had a TDM system for many years, but the jump to HDX is simply not financially within reach.

A friend tells me he's running an Antelope Orion 32 with great results, and he loves the converters.

Most reviews I see on the Antelope are mix based reviews, not tracking based reviews, and having been in the TDM world for so long it's hard for me to get a handle on what amount of latency is workable or objectionable. Pretty new territory for me.

Thanks for any thoughts, and for the hand holding.

B

[VRW]

Another thing whats cool with the Apollos is that they are cascadable via Thunderbolt 2, up to 4 units.
So for example you could get 2 Apollo 8Ps as well as 1-2 satellites and record all 16 channels via the
Unison Neve 88RS which is the closest virtual approach to such kind of hardware I have heard so far.

Not an inexpensive solution for sure (about the costs of a former Pro Tools HD TDM system) but really
of the highest quality and much more affordable than any Neve hardware providing the same amount
of I/Os and pres. I am aware of that Neve hardware does so much more for your signal even the best
UAD plugins ever will be able to do finally but I love the idea anyway.
If one still owns no hardware of a Neve Caliber this might be a modern yet affordable recording solution.
Add a single chain of high end hardware (pre, comp, eq) for vocals particularly and you can have a pretty
cool recording facility for not more than approx. 20k (excl. room, monitors, mics etc.).

Guess thats what I would go for if I had the money. Many of you guys own this sweet hardware stuff anyway,
so this is not for you, I know. The very best to you all!

[bengineer]

Ok, I'm getting somewhere with this, and will all the researching I've done, I think it's narrowed to the Antelope Orion 32 with PT 12 vanilla.

I'm still trying to find out some latency advice on a system like this. Does anyone have any experience with this? Antelope (and others) say they have lower latency on their modified USB chip than a Thunderbolt interface.

Also, is there a difference in latency between PT vanilla and HDN?

Main thing is to have a whole band in the studio tracking, possibly 24 inputs, and have good, low latency monitoring.

Thanks, sorry to keep pecking on this one. Thank you all for your input, it's very helpful.

Ben

[Tim R.]

As someone who came down a similar path as you (I had a TDM system and didn't want to invest in HDX) I opted for the HDN setup, again, same as you are considering-OMNI with 192 (and an Apogee Rosetta with HD card). My decision was driven by a couple things. First I didn't want to deal with external "Direct" monitoring solutions when tracking. I'm an old school guy and want to run cue mixes from my session like its a console. My HDN system (running on a humble Mac Mini) has manageable latency (at a 128 buffer) and I don't have to run in "Low Latency" mode. I'm able, with a few clicks, to setup a headphone mix that matches the mains. ALSO, I rely heavily on the advanced automation features and Surround capability of HD when doing POST work. And (at the time anyway) I also needed disc cache/VCAs (though they are now available in Vanilla). Granted many HD functions are currently "trickling down" into Vanilla, I suspect that there will be some KEY new features coming that will be relegated to HD only since AVID does need to keep their HD user base happy with their investment somehow.

[JFreak]

HDN is great up to 64 i/o but you need to be mindful about plugin use, because it isn't a DSP system. Buffer setting of 256@48k or 512@96k is fine for most artists, but for a picky one you need to plan ahead and be able to switch to 128/256 if requested.

So unfortunately for tracking and use-whatever-you-want-without-thinking you will need HDX, but if that isn't the case HDN is just great.

(and as far as the picky artists go, I always test them before doing anything crazy. if they complain, fine, I go from 256/512 to 128/256 but if they keep complaining I go back to 256/512 and most of the time that second change is magically just perfect...)

[bengineer]

Tim R., I hear you on every point!

As much as I'd like HDN and may need to spring for it, looking at the comparison between HDN and Vanilla it looks like Vanilla will meet my needs, especially now that avid put VCA grouping into Vanilla. So, it the interface I'm struggling with, especially if both versions of the software have the same internal latency.

I've given up on the Omni/192 combination for now, thinking that hanging onto the blueface 192 only invests in older tech that Avid will (has already) abandoned.

I'm reading that the Orion 32 custom USB chipset is faster than Thunderbolt. if that's the case, I may head that way, but I am still digging around here and other places for information.

Your thoughts?

Thanks for your reply, and all replies!

Ben