Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

I had been looking at the Carbon, or possibly an HDX card. I had some questions about the Carbon, but realized that possibly the same question would apply about HDX.

I have never used an HDX or TDM system, always native. I went from a 003 to a USB interface, to HD Native/Omni. I have always been fine with a buffer of 64 for recording, regardless of what interface it was.

I was hoping to find out more specifically how bad native latency is for Carbon, being AVB. I guess my main concern is for using native amp sims, and also using a native reverb on an aux track. I know they mention you just have a little naturally occuring pre-delay that way, but does that still work ok? Has anyone tried it that way? Or have you tried using a native amp sim?

The reason I also mention HDX, is I realized that some of these issues could also be the case with HDX. I've never bothered to find out how HDX handles trying to record with a native amp sim, or using a native reverb on an aux. Is that doable on HDX?

The last question is along the same lines, regarding virtual instruments. Again, is that doable on HDX or Carbon?

I guess I'm trying to find out how much of any of these issues has to do with these being DSP systems in general, vs. specifically Carbon being AVB.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

For natively monitired audio the latency is about 17ms at 48kHz with buffer of 256. Virtual Instruments are around 9ms at that same buffer.

If you've always been happy with 64 buffer with various interfaces, then you've always been using 6-10ms round trip latency for audio and about 5ms for VIs.

If that's the case, you'll be thrilled with the low latency performance for audio with HDX or Carbon. HDX will provide HIGHER latency for audio, but lower for virtual instruments than Carbon.

If VI latency is your focus go with something different.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

Thank you Matt.

So if Carbon is 17ms at a buffer of 256, what would it be for 64? Not sure exactly how the math works. Or does Carbon actually go down to 64, or even 32?

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

Can't answer the question re latency at 64, but the both products have tons of info available on the internet(starting with the main avid.com site). But you skipped over what is likely the most important detail and that is the fact that Native plugins will never be able to run in the "near zero" latency format as DSP plugins(meaning that neither product is likely to make things better for tracking with amp sim plugins, unless you can find a DSP version). Also, since either product represents a fairly serious investment(around $4K), your money might be better-spent on a Kemper or Helix to go with your current setup:o The same applies to Virtual Instruments unless some companies start adding DSP versions to their products...

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

All of these product pages and the Avid video on the Hybrid Engine suffer from the same guff that UA did with LUNA - lots of talking about 'no latency' or 'zero latency' or 'near-zero latency' or 'imperceptible latency' but no actual figures.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

Albee, I'm aware that native plugins will not run at the near zero latency.

What I'm trying to determine is if I'd be no worse off, latency wise, with native plugins, with Carbon vs. the typical interface at a low buffer. Some things people have mentioned about Carbon lead me to believe it may actually be worse, latency wise, in native mode. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. I think someone also mentioned that the MTRX Studio was also not great for native latency.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

I'm also curious about these figures. I just recently upgraded my studio mac pro to a 7,1 (see specs in sig) from a 2010 5,1 12-core but kept the PCIe HD Native system with an 8x8x8, purchased in June 2011. I've read before of people being able to run at 32 samples with HD Native but i have NEVER been able to run at the buffer size without stalling, even when my system was brand spanking new.

Even with a decked out 7,1, I am still unable to run simpler sessions with the lowest buffer...this leads me to believe that my PCIe card just isn't cutting it as the nMP is clearly not the bottle neck in my system. I'm considering either:

1) "Downgrading" to a Carbon, and saving a couple hundred bucks a year on pro tools software or

2) upgrading(?) to an HDX1 system to take advantage of the hybrid engine and low latency. Low-latency monitoring on the HD Native system sounds funny and I don't like it. (It feels like the sound is out of phase). I do use some Native Instruments stuff in my sessions and would like to be able to keep a low buffer through the production process until we get to the full on mixing stage. (And yes, i'm aware that all my plugins thus far are non-dsp)

3) cross-grading HD Native PCIe to HD Native Thunderbolt. I did purchase HD Native shortly after it was announced and am wondering if the newer revisions of the hardware perform any better. Again, I have NEVER been fully satisfied with my system, even when it was all top of the line, brand new hardware. I've been envious of those who've been able to boast about how powerful their HD Native systems were.

Forgive the thread hijack. I figured replying to a related post would be better than starting a completely new thread. I'd love to read your thoughts and opinions on these options.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

"3) cross-grading HD Native PCIe to HD Native Thunderbolt. I did purchase HD Native shortly after it was announced and am wondering if the newer revisions of the hardware perform any better. Again, I have NEVER been fully satisfied with my system, even when it was all top of the line, brand new hardware. I've been envious of those who've been able to boast about how powerful their HD Native systems were."

HD Native Thunderbolt is not better than the PCIe card, same performance.It's the same card in a thunderbolt box for computers lacking PCIe slots.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

The low latency talked about with Carbon and HDX is solely based on using DSP plugins, then you get to the sub 1ms they talk about. That’s great for live instruments / vocals etc….

There are some DSP amp sims out there - I think Eleven Mk2 is an example - that will absolutely benefit from the Carbon Hybrid engine, but again, only while you’re recording and have the live track in DSP mode.
Sending an aux to a reverb or delay in DSP safe mode will bring back the system latency to those plugins, so if you’re at 64 samples that adds another couple of milliseconds.
With any other non-DSP mode plugins, you’re still at the system latency.
I never get near 64 samples, the benefit of Carbon is that I can have loads of things running, and still be able to overdub a cowbell at sub-ms latency in the middle of a complex session.

I had an HD Native card, I got Carbon. What I can recommend in addition to the low latency performance is (a) the sound. It sounds really excellent, and the instrument input is great. (b) the dual engines which allow me to run core audio in parallel (c) Carbon’s performance for me with VI’s has been (guesstimate) 15-20% better. YMMV.

Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon
 

From my experience the HDNative systems were extremely lackluster. If nothing else there are better solutions for native interfaces that will run at lower latency then the HDNative hardware. Depending on what HD interfaces you are already invested in, an HDX card(or 2) with the new Hybrid engine would rock on your system. But bang for the buck the Carbon is a no brainer.