Please Help Me Upgrade My Old TDM Rig

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

maybe the OP can define what their definition is of “without latency”.

Sure. Because zero latency can only be achieved on analog... by definition digital will always have some

[ProTooler]

Thank you JFreak, the.engineer & Darryl Ramm for responding. I really appreciate you guys helping me.

I guess that I’m afraid that if I lose my TDM processing, I won’t be able to mix big sessions or track without noticeable latency with a native system. I would define latency as “noticeable” latency. Once things start sounding phasey in the headphones, it’s hard for me to look at the drummer or singer and tell them to just deal with it. I don’t get any noticeable latency with my TDM system unless I have a big native plugin on my master bus.

I read compatibility specs and I’m finding that most new plugins require a higher version of PT and Mac OS and aren’t supported on my system.

I also need longer delay compensation. I can’t run a big native plug like Slate VTM without getting into the red.

From what I understand, only 4 GB of ram can be allocated to PT 10. I was under the impression that PT 10.3.8 was as high as I could go without my rig "blowing up”. So, even though I have 10 GB of RAM in my computer, I’m only using 4 of them for PT.

Can a current native system perform as well as my old TDM system when it comes "noticeable” latency and plugin processing? I'm so used to using mostly all TDM plugins, loading up those TDM chips and everything runs just fine with no errors. Admittedly, I’m ill-informed with what native can do these days. If I can get by without having to drop the $4500 on an HDX card, I’d be ecstatic.

Regarding my interface: I was also under the impression that my blue 192 interface would not be compatible with a newer version of PT. Am I wrong?

Thanks again you guys!!

[Darryl Ramm]

Blue 192 today runs fine with all DigiLink systems and all newer versions of Pro Tools.

Pro Tools 10 and earlier is 32-bit software and an up to ~4GB. Pro Tools 11 and later can use much more. You want a minumum of 16 GB on a modern system.

You should be able to upgrade your system. More CPU, more memory and more disk (put your sessions on the *internal* SDD from max performance).

What is perceptible/annoying latency is totally arguable/very dependent on the performer. You will not make any progress asking here for something that is "not noticeable", we are not working with your artists, have no way of telling what they will perceive and all you'll do is start another latency argument thread. If you want the best blanket guarantee/flexibility you will get a high-end HDX system... but that may not be needed at all, and might be less flexible that say investing in more CPU or modern interfaces etc.

You can test latency issues with talent by injecting 64 or 128 sample latency into your current system. Try it blind, without advertising what you are doing to talent. If you and your talent can live with 64 sample delay and resonable plugin choices (no bad internal latency, no nasty upsampling etc.) then you should be able to operate on native. Maybe with CPU upgrades. You should be able to operate at 64 samples on a very well set up systems. You can also easily freeze/commit all other tracks on modern versions of Pro Tools and save a lot of CPU load.

You likely want to be on 2019.6 (or later soon?) and Mojave. Lots of plugin processing improvements there over 11/12/2018.x Seriously do not waste time on 11/12/2018.x, even if you go with HDX. What *exact* model code/EMC is your Mac Pro? Do you have a Metal compatible GPU? (You can find all you need to know online about upgrading a Cheesegrater to Mojave).

[edwinstar]

Hello!

- It seems you have a Mac Pro 5,1. This one is DIY upgradable to 6-core 3.64GHz with more than enough RAM. Add a Metal compatible Graphics Card and you can even install Mojave (but High Sierra works fine as well)

- Tracking Drums with Plugins and with no noticable Latency for the Instrumentalist works great with either HDX or UAD Apollo. With HDX, it's the most TDM like workflow. With UAD you have to use the external App "Console" and use only UAD plugins.

- I would advise against a native System with monitoring through the DAW, as i always hear a phasey latency when doing that, even with a modern iMac Pro for example.

- If you have 192 I/O interfaces, you can still use those with an Adapter, so you could consider only buying a HDX card.

- To get started I would: Upgrade Mac, buy HDX Card and PT 2019 License, use stock Avid Plugins (as the are more than enough to achieve a great Drum Sound for the Player).

- to consider: if you use other DAWs like Logic or Ableton Live from time to time, UAD Apollo is much more universal, as you can keep your monitoring setup always running on the external App "Console". But you have to buy UAD plugins, and they are expensive (but great).


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by ProTooler

I guess that I’m afraid that if I lose my TDM processing, I won’t be able to mix big sessions or track without noticeable latency with a native system.

I use HD3 on live gigs and every time I get back to working with it feels like I'm feeding a dinosaur. It is so bulky and slow compared to modern systems, but sure, latency is a non-issue.

Originally Posted by ProTooler

From what I understand, only 4 GB of ram can be allocated to PT 10. I was under the impression that PT 10.3.8 was as high as I could go without my rig "blowing up”. So, even though I have 10 GB of RAM in my computer, I’m only using 4 of them for PT.

4GB for PT plus 4GB for disk cache, leaves 2GB for OS

Originally Posted by ProTooler

Can a current native system perform as well as my old TDM system when it comes "noticeable” latency and plugin processing?

Yes. If you have 96kHz session with 64 playback buffer I bet nobody complains.

Originally Posted by ProTooler

Regarding my interface: I was also under the impression that my blue 192 interface would not be compatible with a newer version of PT. Am I wrong?

Yes you're wrong. They are compatible and work well, just not supported.

[the.engineer]

Hey ProTooler,

I had exactely your system way back when (quad-core 2010 5,1 and two 192 'blue' interfaces).

Take a look at my signature now and you'll see exactely how I've upgraded each component, I can tell you I haven't been happier with my system.

With regard to latency I'm afraid I can't comment on Native systems as I exclusively use HDX (and I love it!).

If you have any questions about how to upgrade your 5,1 then you're in the right place.

James

[the.engineer]

One thing I would say: with Catalina coming out very soon I would get yourself a copy of Mojave ASAP.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by the.engineer

One thing I would say: with Catalina coming out very soon I would get yourself a copy of Mojave ASAP.

Catalina is out already

[ProTooler]

Thanks so much you guys! I've learned quite a bit here.
I have a lot to think about moving forward.
I'll let you know what I decide on.

[jasonkalman]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Sure. Because zero latency can only be achieved on analog... by definition digital will always have some

Analog has latency. Just because the speed of light is relatively fast, there is still latency. I mean if you had a cable say 186,000 miles long, you would get a full second of latency. Better to stick with hdx and smaller cables for less latency than analog!