Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Hardware > Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-27-2011, 10:21 AM
mikevarela mikevarela is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 571
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Track counts look promising. seems like an hd1 now competes in a real space, and while 10k is expensive, 256 tracks is a better case for the expenditure than the paltry 96 on previous systems.

on a side note... try wrapping the VO through a mult or board back to cans, keep it in the analog realm and you'll never notice the latency issues.

And on another side note.... been hearing that 10 has the ability with CPTK to run input monitoring and that avid has found a way to bring the latency down to negligible amounts... anyone want to chime in on weather this works. specifically the 'I' input monitor button now shows up on regular PT10 CPTK session windows.

cheers
__________________
NuanceTone.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-29-2011, 09:32 AM
Rich Breen Rich Breen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Burbank, CA USA
Posts: 1,621
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Quote:
Originally Posted by Postman View Post
I'm going to go to HDX. Not today, but when I do I will buy dsp hardware. Low latency is one reason, but really it is about reliability. Maybe time will prove my opinion wrong but RTAS has never had the rock-solid performance that TDM has had. I've had tons of random glitches and audible hickups over the years through RTAS. Not show-stopping just annoying. TDM has been more reliable.

Why would I expect HDX to be any different?

I am not at all happy about costs, and really, really, really don't understand the need to add tons of HD interfaces to the world's landfills. But, all-native? Not for me.
Hey Richard - Aside from latency, this is a big issue for me too; an all-TDM session is more solid than a session with RTAS plugs in it, but these days it's almost impossible for me to get away with all TDM; there's just too many interesting and useful plugs out there (DMG, Lexicon reverb, IRCAM verb, Fabfilter) that are RTAS-only. As soon as a few of these get into a session, I'm back to the usual RTAS issues. I too will almost certainly go HDX, but it will really be for latency and just to stay on the curve.

best,
rich
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com

----------------------------------------
MacPro 5,1 Dual Hex, OS 10.12.6, PT 2018 HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, Avid C24.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-31-2011, 05:56 AM
Postman Postman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 2,370
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Hi Rich!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-31-2011, 07:17 AM
BobbyDazzler's Avatar
BobbyDazzler BobbyDazzler is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,000
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Quote:
Originally Posted by jyanisko View Post
My experience using Native (HD:Native) in post, is that recording VO in the booth, the latency is enough to annoy professional talent. Non-professionals don't notice at all, and seem to be fine. Professionals always tend to care a little more about small details...


Everything else seems to be fine - though it's not something I use every day, just some experience working at one place once in a while.

-James
Haven't had anyone notice on mine until I get to 128 plus. (With some very experienced talent too.)
__________________
5,1 Mac Pro Dual Hex Westermere 3.6Ghz, 24gig Ram, Pro Tools HD Native 2018.4, Sierra, Blackmagic Decklink HD Extreme 3D.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-31-2011, 09:38 AM
froyo froyo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,862
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Hello. I'd have to agree with BobbyDazzler on this. I've recorded on both the old LE and the regular Pro Tools 9 (native), and the VO talent really can't tell at all. Today's computers, specially the beefy ones will definitely get you a buffer of 64 or even 32. That will take care of even the most finnicky VO talent.

If the idea is to go Native, even HD Native, I would imagine it would all hinge on getting a supercomputer, correct? Any of the big beefy multicores of today will do what you need for VO recording, with tons of power to spare. I've done it.
__________________
froyo
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-31-2011, 09:51 AM
Rich Breen Rich Breen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Burbank, CA USA
Posts: 1,621
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Quote:
Originally Posted by froyo View Post
Hello. I'd have to agree with BobbyDazzler on this. I've recorded on both the old LE and the regular Pro Tools 9 (native), and the VO talent really can't tell at all. Today's computers, specially the beefy ones will definitely get you a buffer of 64 or even 32. That will take care of even the most finnicky VO talent....
Has anyone actually *measured* the real-world latency of an HD-Native rig at buffer settings of 64 at 48k? I have measured PT9 with an RME UFX800 and it's 6msec at 48k; this is too much for music recording headphone mixes. Sub-2msec works OK, and 6 or more is too much - somewhere in between is a grey area where musicians I work with begin complaining (and where I start to notice it with a finger snap through headphones). I believe some of that throughput latency is due to the FW buss too on native rigs, so I'm very interested if anyone has actually measured it on an HD-Native rig, as I don't have one to measure.

best,
rich
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com

----------------------------------------
MacPro 5,1 Dual Hex, OS 10.12.6, PT 2018 HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, Avid C24.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:00 AM
froyo froyo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,862
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Hello. I haven't measured the milliseconds, but I wanted to point out that I thought they were talking about VO recording, which is different from a musician. Even then, I have recorded musicians on LE and PT 9, and at a buffer of 32 things tend to be OK for everybody. However, if you're going to do overdubs on a session with a lot of plug ins, etc, maybe just monitor through a console and skip the software latency. But for VO, it's more than adequate. Good luck.
__________________
froyo
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:02 AM
Rich Breen Rich Breen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Burbank, CA USA
Posts: 1,621
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Quote:
Originally Posted by froyo View Post
Hello. I haven't measured the milliseconds, but I wanted to point out that I thought they were talking about VO recording, which is different from a musician. Even then, I have recorded musicians on LE and PT 9, and at a buffer of 32 things tend to be OK for everybody. However, if you're going to do overdubs on a session with a lot of plug ins, etc, maybe just monitor through a console and skip the software latency. But for VO, it's more than adequate. Good luck.
Yes, I imagine VO is slightly less demanding in that regard - still, would love to know if anyone's actually *measured* an HD-Native rig.

FWIW, here are my measurements of a PT9 native rig with the RME UFX800 on firewire @ 48k:
w/64 sample buffer: 300samples = 6.25msec
w/128 sample buffer: 446 samples = 9.2msec

best,
rich
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com

----------------------------------------
MacPro 5,1 Dual Hex, OS 10.12.6, PT 2018 HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, Avid C24.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:10 AM
jeremiahmoore jeremiahmoore is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 469
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Good idea to get some real specs in ms at 48k.

What's the best practice for measuring io latency? (I'd submit: patch in a mic and record it. Simultaneously re-record the system's analog output of the same signal, what would be the talent's headphone feed, to a parallel track. After recording measure the difference is Ms between the two tracks.)

what's our ideal target latency? 3ms? 2ms?


Word from RME is that USB now allows for lower latencies than FireWire, if you code for the host chipset as they purportedly do.

To paraphrase the developer I spoke to (who wrote the USB driver for rme, in competition with his brother who wrote the FireWire driver):
"because USB is now implemented directly into the intel chipset, its faster because the I/O is closer to the southbridge. "

-Jeremiah
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:25 AM
Rich Breen Rich Breen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Burbank, CA USA
Posts: 1,621
Default Re: The real-world Case for HDX Hardware

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremiahmoore View Post
...What's the best practice for measuring io latency?...
what's our ideal target latency? 3ms? 2ms?
...
In order to get around any uncertainty WRT partial-path latency, I measured it by generating a click from an electronic metronome, splitting it into two with a y cable, feeding one path through the subject rig in record, and then recording the output path and the 'y'-d signal into two tracks of a *second* DAW and measuring the latency between the two paths. That seems definitive to me.

AFA target latency; different applications/users have different needs, but my experience is outlined in the previous post - so for me, anything above 2msec is not useable.

best,
rich
__________________
http://www.richbreen.com

----------------------------------------
MacPro 5,1 Dual Hex, OS 10.12.6, PT 2018 HDX, Avid HD I/Os and Metric Halo ULN8, Avid C24.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Real World TDM sucker002 Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 5 05-22-2007 01:11 AM
need real world info ... john1192 Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 3 09-15-2005 10:47 AM
OT, the real world sbs 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 20 11-22-2004 06:01 PM
Real World xqtion 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 3 09-23-2002 07:14 AM
A Real World Test..... DOUBLE EDGE 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 0 03-20-2002 04:26 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com