HDN and HD11 New Tracking Buffer Feature

[Barry Johns]

So does the new Buffer change in HD11 offer HDN the ability now to track at any stage of the recording process with no discernable latency aka TDM?

I was hoping that the new Tracking Buffer at one buffer while the Mix Buffer at another setting would change the game for HDN to actually make it truly viable for a tracking studio.

Am I right?

[nst7]

I'm not sure I fully understand your question. The latency at any given buffer will still be the same as it was before (however many milliseconds). If someone is fine at 64 or 32 on a native system, HD or otherwise, it will continue to be the same latency/milliseconds. And this is already a very viable option for many people in many situations, especially with a powerful computer.

The main difference is that they will be able to track at that low buffer with many more tracks and plugins going on than they could before, thanks to the dynamic buffer playing back all the tracks at the maximum buffer size, other than the ones being recorded on.

[Barry Johns]

I get that, but if I am still able to track at a 32 buffer, while the rest of the session is set to a 2056 as an example, and still be able to track at the 32 buffer while through plugins the same as I would with a 32 buffer at the beginning of the tracking stage that would be a huge turning point for HDN.

Today if a session was over 80 tracks with lots of VI's and you attempted to do an overdub, it would be very difficult to do through plugins with HDN. But, if you could keep that session at the higher buffer, but be able to track at a 32 buffer and through plugins, well that could be the option that could make HDN a "Real" option.

[nst7]

I see what you're saying now. I guess the question to be looking at is, assuming your session plays back at 1024, and is using a certain percentage of CPU, how much will it increase the CPU to have that one track playing back at 32. Hopefully people will start reporting results.

I have HD Native, but I don't have 11 yet. And I'm on Lion with HD10. I don't know if I want to go to Mountain Lion just to try the demo. But hopefully I'll get it before too long.

When I do, I'll be happy to try some tests and report the results.

[lancemcv]

I will try an overdub with the pt 11 demo session and set the buffer to 32 and see what happens and get back with the result. My 2008 mac pro 8 core with native card and omni, errors like crazy with a buffer of 32 when using pro tools 10. PT 11 at a buffer of 32 has been way more stable. I did try an overdub with 24 tracks and a buffer of 32 but I had no vi's or plugins running but it did work. The demo session will be a good test. My guess is that newer Mac pros will do this much better than the 2008s. The soon to be released Mac Pro may make it extremely doable to keep that buffer at 32 when overdubbing with tons of tracks but only the future will tell. If the new Mac Pro ships with Mavericks then it might be along wait to find out.

[Mark Dann]

I have HD2, and need to update to use PT11, which I have running off my motu 828mk3 at the moment. I borrowed an HDN card from a friend, and ran a whole lot of tests tonight.

The gear:
Mac Pro 2009 Nehalem, 15GB ram, alternating with HD2, HDN, and native (no card) feeding a motu 828mk3.

I found:

- Plugin count between native thru the 828mk3 vs. HDN thru my 192 was not very different. HDN was a little better, but not much. A draw.

- Latency - A buffer of 128 on HDN feels almost as good as my HD2 system, and only nut cases would have an issue with it. Really, it feels pretty good. The 828mk3 even at 32 was just barely okay. So HDN wins bigtime in that department.

- Now the dual buffer question. On HDN, I ran large band sessions with lots of plugins on both PT10 and PT11. At a buffer of 1024 (44.1hz), both PT10 and PT11 were similar. But doing an overdub at 1024 is out of the question. On PT10, it was acceptable at 128 (see above), but the CPU usage was way up there. At 64 and 32, the three large sessions I tested would not even play without crackles and error messages.

Booting into PT11, the CPU at 128 looked the same as at 1024. Putting a single track into record barely changed it. I could even go to 64 or 32 if I wanted to, but HDN at 128 is good enough I think. So, a monster win for PT11 in this test.

- Next, I created a session with 24 empty tracks, stacked a bunch of plugins on each, and hit record on all of them. At 128. No issues. Barely any CPU hit.

Next, I opened one of the large sessions I mentioned earlier, and put 24 tracks into record. Remember, this is a session with a full-blown mix environment. It was NOT happy at 128, but was at 256. Even HDN on PT11 has it's limits. For what it's worth, my HD2 system would have glided through that no problem.

My findings are basically unless you are running really large sessions AND need to put lots of tracks into record well into a dense mix, HDN and PT11 is pretty happening, and certainly in a different league that it is on PT10. If you need more than that, and you probably want to think about HDX. Unfortunately, I do, so this will take more though on my end.

[nst7]

Mark, thanks for those tests.

But also keep in mind you have a Mac Pro that's a few years old. It could be that the super-powered new Mac Pro in the fall could make it so that you still don't need HDX. Or a Windows equivalent.

[lancemcv]

Good info Mark, thanks for sharing. I will do some tests on my system, but as my Mac Pro is a 2008 I'm sure it will not perform quite as well as your 2009.
I think when the new Mac pros are compatible we will see a new level of stability at lower buffers and lots of tracks with HD native systems. I have a three days of solid work ahead so won't be able to do tests till after that.

[JFreak]

I've also found out that this new MacBookPro (retina) does miracles with HDN ThunderBolt. I don't have any hard facts, but the first feelings are spectacular.

[bortraws]

Originally Posted by lancemcv

Good info Mark, thanks for sharing. I will do some tests on my system, but as my Mac Pro is a 2008 I'm sure it will not perform quite as well as your 2009.
I think when the new Mac pros are compatible we will see a new level of stability at lower buffers and lots of tracks with HD native systems. I have a three days of solid work ahead so won't be able to do tests till after that.

Hi lancemcv,

Sorry to break the topic with a short question.

You have PT 11 running on the 2.1 Clovertown Mac Pro 8-core from 2008 with HD Native? That is running Lion only isn't it?

I have that machine and can't get Pro Tools 11 to recognize the HDN card. It runs fine with my 11R. Did you install the HD 11 driver?