does Alpha-link Madi works with PT9?

[coloquinte]

hi,
do you know if PT9 works fine with SSL or Sydec Alpha-Link and Madi-Xtrem cards ?
if it's works it's cool,i can have 24 channel AD/DA !!!
thx

[rossirossi]

Yes I Have MadiXreme 64 Pcie and a AlphaLink Madi Sx. All working fine.

[yvessg]

Hi,
What about the buffer size ?
Any audible latency ?

[rossirossi]

Latency is like another Host (cubase logic...) but now any plugs or instruments are compensated with delay compensation. for users UAD too !!!! no more ATA , no more Ping.

[offslip]

Hey there, I'd like to know how you went about setting up the Alphalink to run on Pro Tools 9.

I've got 2 Alphalinks AX and the madixtreme 128 PCIe card.

Now, I try to set them up on the Pro Tools Aggregate, but unless I have my M-Audio 410 plugged in it just crashes while loading.

Please help.

Many advanced thanks

Dan

[offslip]

Oh ye, just to clarify I can run them on Logic 9 no probs. So, I know they do work.

Thanks

[TCM]

Originally Posted by rossirossi

Latency is like another Host (cubase logic...) but now any plugs or instruments are compensated with delay compensation. for users UAD too !!!! no more ATA , no more Ping.

I am also interested whether it can go down to 64 or even 32 in PT9!????

[offslip]

Hey there, I'd like to know how you went about setting up the Alphalink to run on Pro Tools 9.

I've got 2 Alphalinks AX and the madixtreme 128 PCIe card.

Now, I try to set them up on the Pro Tools Aggregate, but unless I have my M-Audio 410 plugged in it just crashes while loading.

Please help.

Many advanced thanks

Dan

[jstaczek]

Originally Posted by TCM

I am also interested whether it can go down to 64 or even 32 in PT9!????

I'm running PT9HD on OS X with an RME HDSPe card and the alphaLink. I can only get to 64 buffer in PT9 (48k). And at 64, PT is giving me occasional "CPU overload, please increase your buffer size" errors. This is an 8-core Mac Pro and the test session is one stereo track playing back pink noise, no plugins. Very disappointing.

In Nuendo 5 on the same machine, I can get to 32 buffer with no complaints.

Two possible conclusions:

1. Digi withholds the lowest latency settings in order to coax customers toward their own hardware. At another studio I work in, PT LE and Digi003 go to 32 buffer on a dual G5. Why should PT9HD on a Mac Pro do worse, especially when Nuendo does 32 no problem?

2. PT9 has efficiency issues. It's not the RME driver that's choking at 64--it works fine at 32 with Nuendo.

I hope that #1 is not true. If it is, I would urge Digi to compete on features and price to give us reasons to buy their hardware.

#2 has been an issue for me with every non-HD version of PT I've ever used, from the first MBox to Digi003. I've been swearing at that CPU overload dialog for the last five years.

Jason

[TCM]

Originally Posted by jstaczek

I'm running PT9HD on OS X with an RME HDSPe card and the alphaLink. I can only get to 64 buffer in PT9 (48k). And at 64, PT is giving me occasional "CPU overload, please increase your buffer size" errors. This is an 8-core Mac Pro and the test session is one stereo track playing back pink noise, no plugins. Very disappointing.

In Nuendo 5 on the same machine, I can get to 32 buffer with no complaints.

Two possible conclusions:

1. Digi withholds the lowest latency settings in order to coax customers toward their own hardware. At another studio I work in, PT LE and Digi003 go to 32 buffer on a dual G5. Why should PT9HD on a Mac Pro do worse, especially when Nuendo does 32 no problem?

2. PT9 has efficiency issues. It's not the RME driver that's choking at 64--it works fine at 32 with Nuendo.

I hope that #1 is not true. If it is, I would urge Digi to compete on features and price to give us reasons to buy their hardware.

#2 has been an issue for me with every non-HD version of PT I've ever used, from the first MBox to Digi003. I've been swearing at that CPU overload dialog for the last five years.

Jason

Thank you for your input!