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 > Legacy Products > Pro Tools 10

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-12-2013, 11:49 PM
Shan's Avatar
Shan Shan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 13,544
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhartman View Post
But one thing Avid does that others don't, is guarantee track counts, and this is one reason they can do it.

TH
Guaranteed track count is very different than the actual ability to playback the audio on the track. This old argument needs to be put to rest. Audio streaming is dependent on the hard drive and CPU, not the DSP on the cards. 256 tracks on my HD Native system only takes a mere 1% of my CPU(and it's guaranteed), same with my HDX system. Both will only playback the amount of audio in those tracks that my drive and CPU can handle.

Only when we start to add plug-ins things start to change. Guaranteed track count doesn't mean a system can actually playback and stream all the audio populated within those tracks. This was old digidesign marketing from back in the day that was simply untrue when inspected.

Shane
__________________
Pro Tools Power User Editing

Give your plug-ins a facelift...and skin 'em!
__________________

"Music should be performed by the musician, not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM

__________________

Pro Tools|HD Native 9.0.1 | Pro Tools|HDX 10.2 | Studio One | REAPER 4.22 | HD OMNI | HoboMac Pro 2.26Ghz Quad-Core | W7 Ultimate 64-bit
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-12-2013, 11:52 PM
Zarabozo's Avatar
Zarabozo Zarabozo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 495
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm View Post
No you don't have the per track input monitoring green "I" button being referred to here.



Darryl
Yes, I do. Here's a screenshot.

Francisco
__________________
The audio world is full of (mainly very expensive) placebos.

Latest (subscription) Pro Tools Ultimate on Windows 10 Pro x64
Mbox 3 Pro + Eleven Rack (ERXP)
Asus Prime 299X Deluxe
Intel Core i9-7940X 4.3 Ghz (14 cores / 28 threads)
Ram 8 x 16GB each (128 GB total) Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 3400 MHz
Dual Samsung 970 Pro M.2 1TB (OS and WIP)
2 x Seagate Barracuda Pro 10TB mirrored for archive and backup
Asus/Nvidia GTX 1080 TI with a single 4K monitor Dell P2715Q
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-12-2013, 11:54 PM
Darryl Ramm Darryl Ramm is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 13,227
Default HDX vs Native Comparison

Yes but because have HD software or CPTK...

Darryl
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-12-2013, 11:58 PM
Zarabozo's Avatar
Zarabozo Zarabozo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 495
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm View Post
No you don't have the per track input monitoring green "I" button being referred to here (unless you have HD software or CPTK). Neither can you track at very low latencies with plugins (you can with some native plugins if not using the Mbox mixer or you can use the Mbox mixer with effects but neither are the same--but if that is all you need it's fine).


Darryl
Oh, you edited the post. Yes, I have CPTK, that must be it.

In 90% of the cases, all I need is reverb and delay, which I can use via sends with Low Latency Monitoring with not perceptible latency at all (since the source is at zero latency and any latency on reverb or delay while tracking with a 256 or 128 samples buffer is simply not noticeable).

In another 5% of the cases I may need guitar amp emulations, like cabs or distortion, which works very well at 128 or 256 samples buffer. So far I haven't had a guitar player that notices that latency while playing.

Also, I'm talking about recording at 96 Khz most of the time, which means even lower latency at those buffer settings than at 48 or 44.1 Khz.

Francisco
__________________
The audio world is full of (mainly very expensive) placebos.

Latest (subscription) Pro Tools Ultimate on Windows 10 Pro x64
Mbox 3 Pro + Eleven Rack (ERXP)
Asus Prime 299X Deluxe
Intel Core i9-7940X 4.3 Ghz (14 cores / 28 threads)
Ram 8 x 16GB each (128 GB total) Kingston HyperX Fury DDR4 3400 MHz
Dual Samsung 970 Pro M.2 1TB (OS and WIP)
2 x Seagate Barracuda Pro 10TB mirrored for archive and backup
Asus/Nvidia GTX 1080 TI with a single 4K monitor Dell P2715Q
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-13-2013, 09:10 AM
Hugh-H Hugh-H is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 188
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Hello,

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhartman
But one thing Avid does that others don't, is guarantee track counts, and this is one reason they can do it.

TH
I'm not here to bash ProTools, we use and make money from ProTools along with other applications that best get a given job done. We work in large television productions which sometimes require ProTools, sometimes not. All that is to say I'm not flaming anything - I'm speaking from (long) experience.

The old bit of "guaranteed track count" simply isn't valid. Nice marketing buzz but not accurate. HDX's added dsp is nice but it does not guarantee I can run the session I want playing back every track I'd like.


Quote:
always need 128 I/O or 64 I/O???...I can see 64 I/O, but not 128 In AND OUt.
We do large television productions with large multitrack counts. Our latest workstations have 192 in and out because that's what folks are looking for, with more sessions surpassing the 128 mark. Not that it's always necessary...

Hugh
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-14-2013, 06:09 AM
tomhartman tomhartman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: boca raton, FL USA
Posts: 1,659
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
Guaranteed track count is very different than the actual ability to playback the audio on the track. This old argument needs to be put to rest. Audio streaming is dependent on the hard drive and CPU, not the DSP on the cards. 256 tracks on my HD Native system only takes a mere 1% of my CPU(and it's guaranteed), same with my HDX system. Both will only playback the amount of audio in those tracks that my drive and CPU can handle.

Only when we start to add plug-ins things start to change. Guaranteed track count doesn't mean a system can actually playback and stream all the audio populated within those tracks. This was old digidesign marketing from back in the day that was simply untrue when inspected.

Shane
Really good point. So it makes one wonder....why does anyone buy HDX then? For the low latency ability to track with plug ins? That's a lot of money for one feature...
__________________
iMac 27
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-14-2013, 06:16 AM
YYR123's Avatar
YYR123 YYR123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 13,664
Default HDX vs Native Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomhartman View Post
Really good point. So it makes one wonder....why does anyone buy HDX then? For the low latency ability to track with plug ins? That's a lot of money for one feature...
That's a nice feature - all under 1 roof - no secondary program - it's really the Cadillac version - I myself have to go to Focusrite and mix my headphone sends from there - sans plugs - meh
It's definitely more affordable than a HDX card/interface combo
__________________
Daniel
HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8
Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii
D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue


http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-16-2013, 07:42 AM
WernerF WernerF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 3,049
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Not even having to think about latency and HEAT. Two features that come in super handy ALL of the time with a DSP based system. The best workflow is one that is all about creating music and not about creating workarounds.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-16-2013, 07:55 AM
TOM@METRO's Avatar
TOM@METRO TOM@METRO is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 16,905
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

Quote:
Originally Posted by WernerF View Post
Not even having to think about latency and HEAT. Two features that come in super handy ALL of the time with a DSP based system. The best workflow is one that is all about creating music and not about creating workarounds.
+1
__________________
~ tom thomas

Formerly hobotom

Pro Tools Ultimate 2019.6 HDX
HD Omni and 192 I/Os
Windows 10
Intel Hexcore i7
All Samsung Pro SSDs
Ampex MM1200 2" 24 trk tape
Outboard: UREI, Eventide, Lexicon, Yamaha, TC Electronics, Orban, ART, EchoAudio, Dolby, Hughes, API, Neve, Audio Arts, BBE, Aphex, Berringer, MOTU, dbx, Allison, etc.
Plug-ins: Too many to talk about.

www.metrostudios.com
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-18-2013, 08:54 PM
WernerF WernerF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York City
Posts: 3,049
Default Re: HDX vs Native Comparison

It's the old chestnut once again. That being that a DSP based system combined with Native processing power will always outpower a strictly Native based system. It's really just commen sense.
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Protools native vs Accel - total DSP comparison? Allan Speers Pro Tools HDX & HD Native Systems (Mac) 50 09-20-2012 07:57 PM
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
Native Plug-in CPU Usage "comparison chart"...? kirkbross 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 1 01-14-2008 08:48 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM.


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