MacPro HDX OMNI to MacStudio M2 Carbon?

[smurfyou]

Darryl you know what it means. They're coming from HDX Omni so everything is controlled within the PT Hardware setup.

But that's not how any of the current Avid interfaces work any more. For the better I'd say. Except for the glaring lack of video sync...

I do agree Carbon is not what I'd recommend. Just didn't want to be the first to say it

[Darryl Ramm]

No Will I really don't. Does it mean integrated preamp control? Drivers from Avid? Other hardware setup? Perfect emulation of HD IO latencies? etc. Clearly now the MTRX II and MTRX Studio are king of the hill for many Pro Tools users especially in post. Yet they are not integrated with Pro Tools in some ways, yet offer nice features that can cover many needs like DADman routing and EUCON integration etc. So details of what people are after does matter. And yes I agree things are actually better in how these boxes work now.

And personally with Avid being acquired and who knows what happening there... I think it's a positive that the hardware, DADman, CoreAudio drivers etc. come from DAD. Or course that's a risk of something happening to DAD but they give me the warm fuzzies, and Avid did a very good job picking them as a partner (and in the case of the MTRX Studio getting DAD to do an even better packaging than their own products).

[paulo m]

There is no point in getting a MTRX II/MTRX Studio if you pretend to ditch the HDX card, unless you want to pay an extra 800 bucks for the Thunderbolt card option for either unit.

My advice to you would be to keep your Omni/HDX for the time being and invest in a MAC Studio Max. You´ll need to buy an external TB enclosure for the HDX card of course.

Regarding displays, you can use the builtin HDMI port on the MAC Studio for the main picture display and buy a TB Sonnet to dual HDMI or Display Port, for your computer displays:

https://www.sonnettech.com/product/t...techspecs.html

This advice is based on a existing working setup.

Leave the investment on a MTRX II/MTRX Studio to when you really need it, for instance going to a larger setup than 5.1, like Atmos. Then the Omni would need a replacement.

All the best,

[LDS]

Originally Posted by paulo m

There is no point in getting a MTRX II/MTRX Studio if you pretend to ditch the HDX card, unless you want to pay an extra 800 bucks for the Thunderbolt card option for either unit.

My advice to you would be to keep your Omni/HDX for the time being and invest in a MAC Studio Max. You´ll need to buy an external TB enclosure for the HDX card of course.

Regarding displays, you can use the builtin HDMI port on the MAC Studio for the main picture display and buy a TB Sonnet to dual HDMI or Display Port, for your computer displays:

https://www.sonnettech.com/product/t...techspecs.html

This advice is based on a existing working setup.

Leave the investment on a MTRX II/MTRX Studio to when you really need it, for instance going to a larger setup than 5.1, like Atmos. Then the Omni would need a replacement.

All the best,

I would toss it out there that even a HD Native thunderbolt interface would be a good, interim solution. I really like the Omni for what it does. A HD Native TB box is pretty easy to find for $500 on the used market, and it still has over 4 years of support left on the cards.

I would love to say keep HDX, but I have always had a philosophy of getting rid of gear that is superfluous. Once upon a time HDX was mandatory to achieve voice counts and low latency monitoring. Since the introduction of the Hybrid engine, changes to voice counts, and crazy fast computers, I have found it totally useless. Even worse than useless. Useless with additional hurdles compared to other, much cheaper alternatives.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

No Will I really don't. Does it mean integrated preamp control? Drivers from Avid? Other hardware setup? Perfect emulation of HD IO latencies? etc. Clearly now the MTRX II and MTRX Studio are king of the hill for many Pro Tools users especially in post. Yet they are not integrated with Pro Tools in some ways, yet offer nice features that can cover many needs like DADman routing and EUCON integration etc. So details of what people are after does matter. And yes I agree things are actually better in how these boxes work now.

And personally with Avid being acquired and who knows what happening there... I think it's a positive that the hardware, DADman, CoreAudio drivers etc. come from DAD. Or course that's a risk of something happening to DAD but they give me the warm fuzzies, and Avid did a very good job picking them as a partner (and in the case of the MTRX Studio getting DAD to do an even better packaging than their own products).

Will is totally right, though. Particularly in shared studio spaces, DADman can be a massive sticking point because it is a huge departure from how Pro Tools has worked for the last 30-odd years where every aspect was defined inside the Pro Tools app. Preamp control, monitoring profiles for the Omni, fold downs, I/O, clock and sync sources, etc. All of it, inside Pro Tools. In many ways, I wish MTRX devices were still just as integrated into Pro Tools as previous HD I/O stuff was.

The main reason MTRX stuff is king of the hill is simply because it is more economical in most circumstances. Focusrite charge almost $6K USD to get 64 channels of Dante out of a HDX system. Grace Designs charge $8.5K USD for an Atmos monitor controller. JBL charge $3.5K USD for a monitor tuning system. An Avid HD I/O with 16 analog I/O was $5K USD new.

Compare that to a MTRX Studio for $5K that includes SPQ room tuning, and immersive monitor control and 64 channels of Dante and 16 analogue I/O. Its a no brainer... if you need those things.

If you don't need those things, and you just want something simple like an Omni, there are better choices out there. Including sticking with the Omni.

[paulo m]

Originally Posted by LDS

I would love to say keep HDX, but I have always had a philosophy of getting rid of gear that is superfluous. Once upon a time HDX was mandatory to achieve voice counts and low latency monitoring. Since the introduction of the Hybrid engine, changes to voice counts, and crazy fast computers, I have found it totally useless. Even worse than useless. Useless with additional hurdles compared to other, much cheaper alternatives.

That´s true, but to use the Hybrid Engine you need the HDX I guess. Otherwise it just runs on the computer CPU and not in hybrid mode sharing resources between both processing units.

[SD2]

Thanks for all the valuable advices!
Really helpful.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by paulo m

That´s true, but to use the Hybrid Engine you need the HDX I guess. Otherwise it just runs on the computer CPU and not in hybrid mode sharing resources between both processing units.

You need to be in a position where sharing resources is a requirement before DSP is useful though. Like I said previously in the thread, I ditched HDX2 after running tests in a powerful new computer late last year. I can comfortable run 400-500 voice sessions natively on my system at 32 sample buffers, and there is still enough CPU power left over to allow punch-ins on a greater number of channels than what a single HDX card can manage.

Upgrading a computer from a 5,1 Mac Pro to a new shiny Apple Silicon Ultra based machine is going to make everything a different ball game, including the impact and worth of DSP even being in the system...

[SD2]

Hello,
I'm about to order a Mac Studio M2 to start running tests and decide wether or not I will keep the HDX card.

I could use some advices/experiences regarding what model to choose.

Is Max enough? Is Ultra really more powerful (I know it is on paper but will PT take full advantage of that extra power)?
Is 64GB enough or should I pay the extra bucks for 128GB?

Thanks in advance.

[Darryl Ramm]

We really don't know what you are doing or what config Mac you have now so how would folks be able to offer detailed advice?

Yes Ultra is really more powerful and Pro Tools is able to leverage that increased power…. *if* the sessions need it/have suitable signal flow/use suitable plugins that can scale well leverage the extra cores then you might get use out of that extra capacity.

You are running Pro Tools 2020 with HDX1, so that's before the Hybrid release in 2021 so you can only be running HDX, but unclear how much native plugin load you have running as well.

You need at least as much memory as you have now. Don't assume Apple silicon systems use less memory. And since nothing is upgradable, at least yet (maybe SSD will be upgradable in future) buy all you think you'll need fro multiple years.

If you can afford it get a well sized internal SSD so that sessions and samples and everythign else fits there, if you already have large external storage for Video maybe keep that. You cannot get any faster external storage, and the internal storage is likely just less hassle if you can afford it.

What interface are you going to test with on the new Mac if you don't bring across the HDX Card? ... sure start with the Mac headphones as playback engine for some tests but then you'll need to make a decision.