ND Native vs HDX Latency - lose - lose ??

[propower]

It seems to me that for the people wanting a Low Latency system for real time recording AND for VI's there is no "best" solution.

HDX can do low latency realtime but the reality that the lowest reliable buffer setting is 256 (or so as i have read in other threads) the VI performance for real time work is seriously compromised.

HDN can realistically keep 96/256 or 44.1/128 buffers going throughout all of a mix allowing for pretty good VI work but higher latency than HDX for real time recording (especially late in a project)

I currently have HDN and it performs well except for late in a project where a mix is almost done and buffers are high. Of course there are work arounds and i use them but what if i just didn't want to...

I have the $$ to fund HDX but with the need to house it in an external soundproof container somewhere and then the less than ideal native performance I can't see this as a clear win-win...

Note: I know many disagree with my latency preference - (<2ms RTL for realtime instruments) - but lets keep this as if $$ were unlimited and you wanted this performance tracking THROUGH PT11 - how to do it?? Sure there is analog monitoring and all manner of on board independent dsp solutions - total mix, apollo, Zen etc... but I want to do this with just pro tools... no extra app running...

[WernerF]

Unfortunately, at present the only way to do what you want is an old TDM system with enough Acell cards running Pro Tools 10 in order to have as many TDM plugins as possible. The VI performance is still ridiculous but the workaround is to take the VI input track and bypass Delay Comp on it when you are tracking and re-activate it when you want yo listen to your performance. Quite ridiculousness I admit but it works. You also need to make sure that all of the compensation box's in the midi preference dialogue box are unchecked.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by propower

HDN can realistically keep 96/256 or 44.1/128 buffers going throughout all of a mix allowing for pretty good VI work

Over here 96/64 using 32bit float sessions, no hiccups...

[WernerF]

How about, as the OP has asked, when you need to punch into an existing almost fully mixed large track. Never seen that done successfuly on a Native system.

[nst7]

That's true, but as some have pointed out, with PT11 having offline bounce, it's very quick and easy to bounce down and then deactivate tracks in order to record additional material, then reactivate the original tracks.

It's easier than it's ever been, but some might still consider this a workaround.

[WernerF]

Originally Posted by nst7

That's true, but as some have pointed out, with PT11 having offline bounce, it's very quick and easy to bounce down and then deactivate tracks in order to record additional material, then reactivate the original tracks.

It's easier than it's ever been, but some might still consider this a workaround.

I can't really think of anything else to call it, except maybe a PITA. This kind of requirement is hardly an accurate recreation of an analog workflow.

[Brandonx1]

I run hdx at 64 sample hardware buffer all the time on big sessions.

[vudoo]

I run huge film session with HDH and nMP at 32 buffer with VIs all the time. With that buffer setting the latency is lower than any hardware synth...

[WernerF]

Have any of you film guys tried this with a big fully mixed music session?

[gearhead2010]

Originally Posted by vudoo

I run huge film session with HDH and nMP at 32 buffer with VIs all the time. With that buffer setting the latency is lower than any hardware synth...

Care to share your system specs and what sample rate / bit depth you're using?

Thnx!