|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Quote:
Regarding your observations with 192 tracks and a load of plugins, can I ask a really obvious question? Did you have any audio loaded and did you hit play? The reason I ask is I have come across this on another forum when talking about reaper, where a user using the same computer (i7 860 based) as I do stated that he could achieve insanely high track and plugin counts. Turns out he couldn't... He just hadn't loaded in any audio. Unlike TDM, native plugins use next to no resources when there is no audio being played. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
From my quick observations, it also is dependant on the degree of processing applied in the plugin. IE: An SSL channel doing nothing to the audio won't do much to the CPU load. Crank up the EQ and compressor and it will...
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Quote:
Kontakt is indeed badly coded. (All NI stuff seems to be.) On my Windows rig, running reaper, I went through 2 years of absolute hell until I realized (amazingly) that it was Kontakt causing all my crashes and loss of audio-card communication. ## The solution, in Reaper, was to run Kontakt as a separate process. This solved my woes instantly. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF PROTOOLS 9 OR 10 LETS YOU RUN A VI OR PLUGIN AS A SEPARATE PROCESS? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Quote:
Brandon, please if possible DO provide some details. Those of us trying to decide are pretty confused, since you & Jack report one scenario, and other posters say they HAVE to use a 1024 buffer. Some key info is missing, somewhere. (Yes, Jack, you did provide some excellent clarification, (thanks!) but I still need more specifics. this is a horribly difficult decision.) Because of Jacks report on incompatible plugins & VI's, and the other info on ow PT is optimized for audio, one has to take a deep breath. Running VI's on my old G5 / TDM rig has never been very workable. More latency than the audio, and midi timing-slop all over the place. plus just not enough dsp for more than ~ 2 VI's at once. Printing to tracks all the time doesn't work for me, if that's still going to be the case with the newest PT and a fast Mac, I may have to finally change software. I have been hoping that my new, fast Mac will help, with both of the above problems, but I'm starting to lose that hope. I'm actually SERIOUSLY thinking of switching to Reaper, and I've been a Protools user for 20 years! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Quote:
Why didn't I just use more native plug ins on the hd 4 accel mix you ask? I do for all disk tracks but I was limited buy the hugeness of a surround mix. The mixer dsp was probably 2 1/2 cards with adc. I ran out of voices as well. Those are the real limiting factors with hd systems, not CPU. Btw I could not my run my hd accel system at 256 sample buffer. That is the lowest it would go. Hope this helps. Best, Brandon |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Quote:
If I was just making a Demo for myself, & drinking a bottle of Red I could probably fool myself it was Ok, but I wouldn't want to inflict in on really good musicians who need to play 'in the pocket'. 'Direct monitoring' or 'LLM' is not an option for me, as I need multiple Cue sends from within Protools. Are you saying that a 64 sample buffer with an HDnative rig feels very different from this? Thanks
__________________
A Rig: (Studio) I7-7700k Hackintosh - OSX 10.15.7, PT Ultimate2023.6 Native PCI-e Card, AVID I/O16 Analog i/o x2, 40 fader D-Command ES B Rig: (Home/Office). M1 Mac Studio - 64gb ram - OSX 12.7.1, PT Ultimate2023.6, HD Native Thunderbolt, Omni, Avid Artist Control http://www.lostboysstudio.com |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Are you saying 64 is too much latency? I have heard some people say it is but I've wondered if something else was wrong in their system. Because I have used 64 with a 003, an Eleven Rack, and more recently a Komplete Audio 6 (the latter 2 being USB based). In all situations 64 was perfect and sounded like real time/no latency to me, whether singing or using amp sims, etc. in fact I never bothered with 32 because I didn't hear any difference from 64.
This was all on a 2007 Core 2 Duo Imac. Of course with larger track counts I would need to bounce down, print VI's, etc., but that was because of the computer resources. Now I'm on HD Native with a 2010 Mac Pro Quad 2.8 and the Omni. 64 still works great and is even a little faster because of the faster converters in the Omni (the new HD interfaces are a more efficient design and literally convert faster). And with a more powerful computer now, I can do much more before I need to bounce/print/bypass, etc. So I'm curious what issues you had with 64 in the past. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
I love these half conversations where there is just not quite enough information to compare even the most basic things.
e.g. when talking buffer sizes - its meaningless unless we all also state the sample rate. Darryl |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
It's not that people's contributions are worthless but PLEASE can we try to keep this related only to the HDN system rather than PT9 or 10 (native). It's just so difficult to make any concrete comparison if we start including other systems which are simply not capable of the same performance. We have half the people in the thread talking about native rather than HDN systems, which handle some IO on the card. It is different.
RE the instruments....Yes Kontakt is a bit of killer. I do use it all the time but it's not stable. The digi instruments are very stable. But of course most of us want to use Kontakt! Re the comment about some users requiring 1024...Of course it's machine dependant but I think the issue here is probably plug ins. So few people who are having problems REALLY go through their plug in folder and clear out the stuff which is not supported. I didn't. It took Avid support to go through my list and point out things they knew caused problems. SO does HDX cure this? The answer is I don't know. I do know that some people have had a lot of stability issues with HDX and I wonder if it might be the same issue...RTAS stuff that's not supported. It's very hard to tell because a lot of us are running new versions of PT that we weren't running with HD TDM. It's a really hard decision because the answers aren't 100% clear yet. If you want proven performance I think I'd add cards to your TDM system, because that's the one we all know works predictably at this point. And the cards are cheap. I'm happy with my HDN and I wouldn't change it, but it's still quite new in terms the number of users. Hard to give you good advice. J |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison?
Brandon,
Thanks for the details reply. VERY helpful. Jack, can you possibly list some of the plugins and VI's that were causing you trouble? This is still really hanging me up! -thanks. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HDX vs Native Comparison | Moviesound | Pro Tools 10 | 30 | 02-19-2013 09:08 AM |
Native power comparison new laptop/old desktop | reichman | macOS | 6 | 05-29-2012 06:10 PM |
Comparison chart of HDX and HD Native? | johnnyv | Pro Tools 10 | 7 | 12-12-2011 07:19 AM |
We need some Native/HD 10 vs PT/HD 10(w/TDM) Comparison Mixes Stat! | acmost | Pro Tools 10 | 3 | 11-12-2011 03:17 AM |