Motu 1296 as good as HD 192

[narleysoundz]

Ok, from what you heard? But who out there really knows, who's worked with the new DP with the 1296 interface, and compared? Protools owners get up in arms when someone mentions an inexpensive native system beating out their life savings investment, but sooner or later, I'd say atleast within the next two years it's gona happen, the writting is on the wall. The question is, has it happened already. The DP salesman made some pretty large claims, and judging by some of the replies to my original post, nobody's outright refuted his claims, based on credible tests and experiences. So, is it time to give these other systems a try?

[Joris Vincken]

I have a dual 800 mac and once tried doing a song with just the Native stuff. I wanted to see how far it would get me, because maybe it would be interesting for a notebook.

Although Logic allows a fair amount of plugins on a native system, it did not even come close to what I normally use. I use a mix3 system. On a native system it's hard to get a large track count, combined with a lot of plugs.

Apart from this, it's the solid performance that TDM offers that makes the big difference for me.

[ejsongs]

[QUOTE] [Oh, and as I understand it, if you're runnning DAE under DP (using your mix system with Performer) you're still using the TDM mixer plugin, TDM plugins, and ProTools hardware. Same inputs, same outputs, same processing.

--------------------

Philthy

I can't tell you why but when I use my tdm hardware with logic the same audio files sound completely different. The platform in which you use the tdm hardware makes a huge difference to the sound.

let's face it guys the time is coming when you will be able to buy a native system for $7,000 and it will sound as good if not better than the mix system or even the hd system. the question is "is now the time or will it happen two years from now?" who knows but things are a lot closer now then they ever were.

ej

[rtcstudio]

Back when ProTools was only 16 bit, a lot of people I knew were using Logic as the front end, using the PT hardware, and it did sound better. My mastering engineer even had a name for ProTools' covered sound back then: The ProTools Phenomena.

This is an old argument, some will say they should sound the same, but there is number crunching done in the software as well, and at least at that time, Emagic was doing a better job of crunching the numbers because it WAS night and day different, with Logic winning every time. It wouldn't surprise me to see this same phenomena today.

Having said that, I don't think that a native only system would do what I need: 70 plus tracks with voice sharing, Tons of plugins, Large mixers with all 256 TDM connections used up, sessions that are 6 hours long (live shows). I need the extra DSP power and reliability that the TDM cards give me.

I know a guy using Paris, and it comes close, but there again it uses outboard hardware. A native only system will need a faster CPU and more RAM than is currently available right now to do my work. I'd love it though...

[digiengineer]

narleysoundz,
After I stopped laughing early this afternoon, I arraged a 3-way shootout between PT|Legacy TDM, PT|HD, and MOTU 1296 w/AudioDesk. The test was setup at a L.A. studio using an API console and all 3 systems ran a session files created on a Tascam MX 2424 in 24/48k SDII format. All 3 systems were configured to be 24 ch. systems running on interanal clock.

"And now, tasting and judgement." -Iron Chef

The MOTU 1296 sounded much better than the 888|24's. Drums sounded tighter and Ac. GTR had much more detail. However, when compaired to the 192's, the 1296's almost sounded sloppy and bland. I would attribute this result to the new clock the 192's are running. Had I heard the 1296 before the release of PT|HD, I might have recommend that system {MOTU 1296} over a PT system.

Now, as far as a latency issues goes, I couldn't make a fair judgement due to a lack of HD plug-ins [img]images/icons/mad.gif[/img]

You may want to arrange a test on your own, everyone has diffrent taste, but as I said before...You get what you pay for.

[MattiMattMatt]

I too heard the latency line from the MOTU rep. The story I got from MOTU is that data that doesn't have to travel to a PCI card for processing will have less latency since there's less distance to cover. However, I would figure that software design, and processor strength impact latency more than the physical distance data must travel. The MOTU rep is essentially claiming that the time it takes electrons to travel to and from a PCI card increase latency more than the boost in speed from increased horsepower.

As my friend used to say, "oh fishy fishy fishy fish oh, It went wherever I did go." But that's sort of irrelevent, as is the distance electrons travel with respect to audio latency.

But I am interested in this whole "when is native just as good for less money?" thing, and I'm usually on the side of more hardware and more money = better.

There's always a lag -- today's native system = yesterday's PCI system. But the lag seems to be diminishing. My guess is the next milestone will be multicore/ multiprocessor Mac G5s.

When those arrive, I would expect Digidesign to up the ante by coming out with a high-resolution system in the neighborhood of 96K or even higher.

[insert emoticon of choice]

-M.M.M.

[fabian]

I think what the MOTU rep meant is that the plugin delay is compensated for automatically. What he didn't say is that native plugin latency is measured in the milliseconds rather than samples (ouch).

[evanbrubaker]

The TDM rig is good insurance against processing hungry customers but the fact remains that if the files sound better, you need less processing to get the same result. Isn't that part of why so many of us still hit 2 inch before PT?

And that may end up being the irony of the 192 interface and the new PT. You've got even more power but your source files will sound better and you won't need it so bad. At least, that's my hope. Especially, when Digi updates the internal mixer. More important to me is, is the software easy and fast to work with and so far, PT is that for me.

And the natural fact is, more important than any gear is the music, how you work with clients, and whether their records blow up!

evan
spectre

Think back to when you didn't have a compressor on every channel.

[narleysoundz]

So does that mean when I use an RTA plug-in that I'm getting latency in the milliseconds as oppose to the TDM version which would only be samples off? The RTA's use the host processor. I was under the impression that utilizing the host processor could only help latency issues caused by hardware, due to the limitations of the PCI busses. Whats the real story?

I also thought that HD 192 interface 96k was Pro-tools answer to the high fidelity pro users work station. You mean when the new G5 comes out they are planning an even more pro updated version?

[narleysoundz]

Digiengineer,
Aah but now your'e not laughing quite as loud, and thanks for running that test, greatly appreciated. I'd be curious to see what happens when you run the 1296 to an ardvark clock? Could that be the trick that closes the gap on the HD 192?