Avid will announce new DSP product(s) next week!

[JingleDjango]

I just noticed this at the bottom of the FAQ:

Q: Is the Hybrid Engine available to HDX Systems customers?

A: The Hybrid Engine is coming soon to HDX Systems as part of a paid option.

UNREAL! That's gonna rustle some jimmies for sure.

[daeron80]

Mac only, and furthermore, Catalina only.

But, uh... Hardware by subscription? Am I missing something? That's what it sounds like, but that would actually be a lease, yes?

[nstu]

I really hope this interface has more i/o than 8in and 8out. At least there should be adat or anything to have min of 16/16 especially for a price range of 3k+ (if that is the deal)

But I am looking forward and hope to see a positiv sign with that box from avid. It is about time after the last updates (not bad at all, but not great enough against studio one and universal audio)

Happy to stay with pro tools.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Protootr]

Celemony today released Melodyne 5.1.

In the what's new info you can find the following sentence: "ARA improvements: The interaction with ARA DAWs has been optimized in various ways – partly to ensure compatibility with future DAW versions".

Wouldn't this be perfect timing for the future Pro Tools 2020.11 release?

Let's keep our fingers crossed for ARA 2 support in Pro Tools.

You can read the full What's new statement from Celemony here: https://services.celemony.com/cgi-bi...15&language=en

[Brandonx1]

Originally Posted by ZEUSS

But with newer computers do we REALLY need more DSP boxes??

Only for low latency monitoring. I can't max out my system when mixing.

[~ufo~]

Originally Posted by Brandonx1

Only for low latency monitoring. I can't max out my system when mixing.

I don't agree. We don't NEED it.

It's an option, and it works well, but you don't need it for low latency monitoring.

With a well tuned modern system, you can monitor DAW outs at indiscernibly low latency. There's no real need to even have hardware monitoring.

I hardly ever use it on my HD Native system.
If I need to do an overdub far in the production phase, I just freeze the heaviest plugins and record at a low buffer setting (I run at 96k), and that's on a 2012 5,1 6 core Mac Pro.
I definitely have to be careful which plugins I run on that machine at low buffers.
But I can record at low latency with some simple plugins on the tracks, no problem.

I'm keen to find out what my new 16 core AMD system will do.

Using DSPs on the way in is an option, a rather care free option at that, and providing you can ALSO run those plugins natively, I have no issue with it.
It's the UAD way I can't tolerate, the Avid way.... fine.

Still, you don't NEED it for low latency monitoring.
It is one way to do it and it works well.

[~ufo~]

Originally Posted by XJENSEN

No, it's not possible with proper cue mixes, etc. Something is fundamentally broken on the LLM (Low Latency Monitoring) side.

After years of troubleshooting and countless Avid 'support' tickets, they have never been able to sort it out. A very bad investment and sad situation indeed. It really did keep me from doing actual work.

The LLM function on HD Native was pretty broken at launch, let alone that it was a MAJOR let down that it was only stereo and not 8 channels worth of it.

Still, I hardly ever use it. I've tracked countless of bands at 96k 64 of if needed at 128.
No discernable latency.

There were a few years though where I couldn't. Two years worth of nightmare between 2017 and 2019.
On Mac, on my 2012 3.33 6-core it became UNUSABLE. Avid blamed Apple.
It was still useable on Windows though, so I started recording on PT in Windows.
On Mac it only got sorted for me from 2018.7 .

It is true that with low buffer recording, you are more at the mercy of the quality of your software's programming. But my system was already getting a bit old and it was a HUGE software problem. Not a normal situation.
If you keep a modern well configured system, you should have a powerful low latency recording machine that can rival a UAD or HDX system.
There will be situations where the DSP systems will be better, but there will be a lot of situations were the native system will be better.
I think.
Neither is perfect. They both have pros and cons.

[edwinstar]

Originally Posted by ~ufo~

I don't agree. We don't NEED it.

It's an option, and it works well, but you don't need it for low latency monitoring.

With a well tuned modern system, you can monitor DAW outs at indiscernibly low latency. There's no real need to even have hardware monitoring.

I hardly ever use it on my HD Native system.
If I need to do an overdub far in the production phase, I just freeze the heaviest plugins and record at a low buffer setting (I run at 96k), and that's on a 2012 5,1 6 core Mac Pro.
I definitely have to be careful which plugins I run on that machine at low buffers.
But I can record at low latency with some simple plugins on the tracks, no problem.

I'm keen to find out what my new 16 core AMD system will do.

Using DSPs on the way in is an option, a rather care free option at that, and providing you can ALSO run those plugins natively, I have no issue with it.
It's the UAD way I can't tolerate, the Avid way.... fine.

Still, you don't NEED it for low latency monitoring.
It is one way to do it and it works well.

I'm sorry, but Monitoring Delay at 96k with 64 Buffer is audible!
I think any professional Musician with a time-sensitive ear and experience with the current choice of Monitoring solutions (External Mixer, DSP, Native) will choose native only as the last option.
Try it yourself: When singing into a DAW monitored microphone at 96k 64 buffer, I hear a very unpleasant comb filter effect. I don't hear that when monitoring through apollo console.

[Emi]

Originally Posted by edwinstar

I'm sorry, but Monitoring Delay at 96k with 64 Buffer is audible!
I think any professional Musician with a time-sensitive ear and experience with the current choice of Monitoring solutions (External Mixer, DSP, Native) will choose native only as the last option.
Try it yourself: When singing into a DAW monitored microphone at 96k 64 buffer, I hear a very unpleasant comb filter effect. I don't hear that when monitoring through apollo console.

I did try it, in fact even at 128. I still have to find that musician that can hear it.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by Emi

I did try it, in fact even at 128. I still have to find that musician that can hear it.

LOL

Same here. We do pop songs though and the popstars from the US really dont have ”Time Sensitive Ears” so we are not in that boat Thank GOD

But if you wanna listen to some of the billboard artists out now which we a hand in and you hear that ”combing effect” I promise I will redo that recording