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
  #51  
Old 01-16-2017, 10:46 AM
29CountsNY's Avatar
29CountsNY 29CountsNY is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
Posts: 541
Default Re: HDN why 96k

I haven't had to do anything special. Just make sure if you go out channel #1 to come back in on channel #1. I/O channels need to be matched for it to be compensated for.
I think that was the same for TDM also though.
__________________
www.montabonsound.com
www.29counts.com

Pro Tools HD 2019.6 | HD Native PCIe & HD Native Thunderbolt | Lynx Aurora 16 HD | HD I/O | Digi 192 | 2010 Mac Pro 12 Core 3.46ghz | macOS Mojave 10.14.4 | 48 gigs RAM | Tascam DM3200 | Crane Song Avocet II | Antelope Isochrone OCX | Universal Audio Quad & Duo | Waves Mercury + Studio Classics v10 & Abbey Road Collection
Pro Tools HD2 8.1.1 | 2 x PCIe Core Card | 2 x Digi 192 | 2009 Mac Pro Eight Core 2.26ghz
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-16-2017, 11:45 AM
Barry Johns Barry Johns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 3,567
Default Re: HDN why 96k

Quote:
Originally Posted by 29CountsNY View Post
I haven't had to do anything special. Just make sure if you go out channel #1 to come back in on channel #1. I/O channels need to be matched for it to be compensated for.
I think that was the same for TDM also though.
Yep, same.....
__________________
HD Native Pcie, PTHD 11, PT12 Vanilla, Omni, Lynx Aurora 16, 192 I/O (16 in/8 out), 24 Fader D-Command, lots of preamps and compressors.

MacPro 5.1 (12) Core (2009 MacPro 8 Core Upgraded to a 12 Core MacPro), 56 Gig Ram, SSD System & 3 - 2TB Drives, OSX 10.9.5, Windows 10 Via Bootcamp
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-17-2017, 09:45 AM
Bushpig Bushpig is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 598
Default Re: HDN why 96k

Hey Barry,

Quote:
Well, I made the decision to stay with HD Native and Protools HD11. So I'm selling my HD TDM Cards.
Oooooo, interesting! What finally swung this decision for you then?? Are you now looking at a fairly hefty big spend to swap out plugs etc??

SB
__________________
2 x Systems: MacPro 5.1 (Nehalem) 2 x 2.26 Quad Core, OSX 10.9.5 (Mavericks), PT10.3.10HD, 32 Gig RAM, PCIe HD3, 192's, Sync I/O, Midi I/O.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-18-2017, 09:12 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 17,756
Default Re: HDN why 96k

It is not fair to compare TDM to HDN/HDX because they are two very different architectures.

TDM has very low latency with zero plugins, but once you keep adding plugins to your tracking session, the latency goes larger as you do your rough mix. It is not uncommon to see a 48k session with abour 500 samples of TDM plugin latency, which means that plugins alone contribute to about 10ms latency. Somehow it is just fine :)

I have no experience regarding HDX, I'm a HDN user myself, but I have let myself understand that HDX too has very low latency only without plugins on the mixer. Once you keep adding plugins, you are also making latency bigger because the playback buffer is then added to the equation. Someone else can crunch the numbers, I don't know what's HDX base latency.

HDN on the other hand only has hardware latency and playback buffer on the table, and you can keep adding plugins if your computer is up to the task, and it doesn't affect latency. Only the selection of playback buffer, or choosing LLM which I have never used, has an effect to the latency; and only the power of CPU dictates how many plugins you can use.

Simplify. HDN with a modern computer is a godsend.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-18-2017, 09:18 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 17,756
Default Re: HDN why 96k

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Johns View Post
One thing I've not put much to the test today, and am curious what I might find, is how will the fact that I use a lot of Hardware Inserts on my Rig? Its never an issue with TDM, will there be any latency or manual adjusting that needs to happen mixing through outboard hardware via Hardware Inserts?
No. Delay Compensation works just the same.
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-18-2017, 11:06 AM
propower propower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 2,203
Default Re: HDN why 96k

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
I have no experience regarding HDX, I'm a HDN user myself, but I have let myself understand that HDX too has very low latency only without plugins on the mixer. Once you keep adding plugins, you are also making latency bigger because the playback buffer is then added to the equation. Someone else can crunch the numbers, I don't know what's HDX base latency.
The way HDX actually works...

For example:
HDX latency with no plugins one track in REC (Buffer 1024)
0.45ms 96kHz

Add AAX-DSP version of Channel strip to Record Channel and Pro Compressor to Main output - monitor Main output
0.7ms latency

Add Native Reverb on an Aux. Send Record enabled channel to Aux.
RTL of the Direct signal is unchanged 0.7ms
The Reverb is delayed by the ~the Buffer
Acts as a predelay

Load session with 20 more Audio tracks and as many plugins as you can. Mix AAX-DSP and Native.

RTL for the REC enabled channel is unchanged.

RTL for the REC enabled channel will only change if you add plugs to that channel (and if you put a Native one there it will go up huge and now be dependent on the DAW buffer) - OR - if you add plugins to the Master (or SubMaster) that is sending the audio out.
__________________
2017 27" iMac 3.8GHz i5, 1TB SSD
Logic ProX, Studio One V4, PT current version, Apogee Ensemble TB
Musician: http://www.ivanlee.net/
Design Engineer: http://www.propowerinc.com/resume.html

Last edited by propower; 01-18-2017 at 11:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-18-2017, 11:02 PM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 17,756
Default Re: HDN why 96k

That is my point exactly; you don't have all plugins as AAX-DSP so you need to assume there will be AAX-native plugins in the mixer. So what is the real (delay compensated) latency for:

x tracks for drum kit
one kit fx aux
one kit group aux (route all x kit tracks and kit fx aux here)
out master fader (route kit group aux here)

let's say you have:
- some fancy plugin on master that is native and has -say- 2500 samples of processing latency
- DSP channel strip on all kit tracks
- some of the kit tracks have fancy native "vibe" plugins
- kit fx has a native reverb
- kit group has a native glue comp

What's the RTL on this demo kit recording session?
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-19-2017, 12:24 AM
propower propower is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redmond, WA
Posts: 2,203
Default Re: HDN why 96k

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
That is my point exactly; you don't have all plugins as AAX-DSP so you need to assume there will be AAX-native plugins in the mixer. So what is the real (delay compensated) latency for:

x tracks for drum kit
one kit fx aux
one kit group aux (route all x kit tracks and kit fx aux here)
out master fader (route kit group aux here)

let's say you have:
- some fancy plugin on master that is native and has -say- 2500 samples of processing latency
- DSP channel strip on all kit tracks
- some of the kit tracks have fancy native "vibe" plugins
- kit fx has a native reverb
- kit group has a native glue comp

What's the RTL on this demo kit recording session?
I hear you

Native plugins directly on Rec enabled channels or in the monitor chain (on a submaster or Master) will make the latency at least (2X the DAW buffer/ Sample Rate) - just like Native. A Native Reverb summed to the master is no problem even if a send from a REC enabled track is used. Native plugins on non-REC enabled tracks also no problem. If you want to get low latency with an HDX recording chain the Record enabled channels themselves and their submasters/masters must be populated with only AAX-DSP. There are many plugins to paint with for tracking AAX-DSP - but you may very well have to make substitution for mixing. And you also have a valid point that If you load enough of the higher latency AAX-DSP ones (40 to 70 samples is common with 3rd party) you can take a very nice 0.7ms RTL up to several ms. Still independent of DAW buffer though...
__________________
2017 27" iMac 3.8GHz i5, 1TB SSD
Logic ProX, Studio One V4, PT current version, Apogee Ensemble TB
Musician: http://www.ivanlee.net/
Design Engineer: http://www.propowerinc.com/resume.html
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-19-2017, 01:48 AM
JFreak's Avatar
JFreak JFreak is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 17,756
Default Re: HDN why 96k

So... what that means is HDX is inferior in tracking with plugins, compared to HDN. Native buffer being equal in both, HDX takes additional latency hit if you use AAX-DSP

Right?

That's probably why HDN@96k is popular
__________________
Janne
What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-19-2017, 09:25 AM
Barry Johns Barry Johns is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 3,567
Default Re: HDN why 96k

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFreak View Post
So... what that means is HDX is inferior in tracking with plugins, compared to HDN. Native buffer being equal in both, HDX takes additional latency hit if you use AAX-DSP

Right?

That's probably why HDN@96k is popular

My understanding was with HDX, that it only took a hit, "if" you introduced non-DSP plug-ins to your mix . Assuming you use nothing but DSP based plug-ins, there would be no latency due to the usage of those plug-ins.

Prior to starting this thread, that is one of the things that I had heard as it relates to the reason people record it 96, was that latency was much lower recording at 96 versus 44.1.
__________________
HD Native Pcie, PTHD 11, PT12 Vanilla, Omni, Lynx Aurora 16, 192 I/O (16 in/8 out), 24 Fader D-Command, lots of preamps and compressors.

MacPro 5.1 (12) Core (2009 MacPro 8 Core Upgraded to a 12 Core MacPro), 56 Gig Ram, SSD System & 3 - 2TB Drives, OSX 10.9.5, Windows 10 Via Bootcamp
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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:57 AM.


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