|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
That's actually not new. I think it was even mentioned in the original presentation of the HDX card at aes.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Manny,
Quote:
Then there's the issue of doing full song edits with the "All" group enabled, but the underlying playlists don't follow. I know this drives some of the film guys crazy. Plus, I put one of our fellow users here onto the "voice stealing Instacomp®" method recently (can't remember who it was) after he'd been struggling with comp'ing using playlists, and he said the first couple of his regular clients that came in, loved it. It IS the most efficient way to work IMHO. Tidier, easier to keep track of etc.. Oh well, another good reason to stick with the ol' TDM system and ride it into the sunset. No money for Avid from me. I swear these guys have never worked on a "real" session. They all claim to be users of the software, but for frick's sake, they've got day jobs, that makes them amateurs and certainly doesn't subject them to the same client facing pressures that we all face when the software doesn't behave like it should. Still, I do love the software, just wish I wasn't being crippled by EOL (years of 32 bit memory crap and shxxty RTAS VI performance) on the older hardware. Cheers all. Steve Bush www.music180.com/pros/5887 MacPro 4.1 (Nehalem) 2.26 8 Core, OSX 10.6.8, PT10HD, 14 Gig RAM, PCIe HD3, 192, Sync I/O, Midi I/O. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Quote:
Yeah I get what you mean. What I remember from the presentation is that they said that it was a dynamic voice allocation system. I'm not sure if it pertains to it or not. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Quote:
FWIW, I've NEVER seen this if the Group was created BEFORE you've recorded anything and I've seen it often when you try to make the group after having already recorded something. For me, I see a major correlation. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Regarding DSP Cache, its main function was work around HD plug-in loading being slow. Plug-in loading in HDX is orders of magnitude faster, so we didn't feel it was worth the added complexity.
Regarding workflows involving the old voice sharing techniques, we're actively working on solutions in this area. We'll keep you updated.
__________________
Cheers, Paul Vercellotti Avid Engineering |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Still it would be great to have a choice to turn it off.
I hate it when I loose features ( Like Apple does to us )..... The voice thing does no bother me at all 512 voices on 2 cards is plenty :) |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Morning all.
Drew, Quote:
PaulV, Quote:
Quote:
Touchwood, Quote:
Cheers all. Steve Bush www.music180.com/pros/5887 2 x Systems: MacPro 4.1 (Nehalem) 2.26 8 Core, OSX 10.6.8, PT10HD, 14 Gig RAM, PCIe HD3, 192's, Sync I/O, Midi I/O. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Hey Steve, I know that this suggestion isn't an answer to totally replace your voice stealing workflow, but with so many extra voices being available in HDX, couldn't you just record takes to separate tracks and then just comp from them? Of course there're some extra muting moves involved but at least you wouldn't have to trust playlists.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Quote:
That said, hopefully we can add the drop-through track comping features using a different approach. Voice sharing was provided in Pro Tools 1.0 when you only had 4 voices and squeezing every last bit of bandwidth out of the interface was really important. The voicing was basically a hardware detail that was exposed to the user for working around its limitations. But over the years, folks have come up with creative ways to use this, such as track comping and a handful of post-production techniques. With HDX, the voice limitations are more or less gone (well, there are still a few post folks complaining about 768 tracks not being enough; but we're working on it!), but HD users still like the things that could be done with voice sharing, so we'll try to open up those workflows again. We'll keep you posted.
__________________
Cheers, Paul Vercellotti Avid Engineering |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Re: HDX And DSP Cache
Can I just say that this sort of exchange between users and Avid engineering is awesome!! Would be great to have more of it! Plus I am learning a lot!
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HDD 16mb cache vs 32mb cache | Matt Rushmore | Windows | 16 | 03-18-2011 12:44 PM |
Intel 2.8ghz (1mb cache) vs. 3,2ghz (512mb cache)? | Ralph K | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 3 | 04-27-2004 11:51 AM |
Western Digital 8MG cache vs 2MG cache? | Pops | Storage Subsystems | 1 | 11-09-2002 08:00 PM |
256k on-chip level 2 cache; 2MB level3 cache | bigsmile | General Discussion | 3 | 01-10-2002 09:58 AM |
256k on-chip level 2 cache; 2MB level3 cache | bigsmile | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 2 | 01-07-2002 11:41 PM |