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

[stevegalante]

Originally Posted by ~ufo~

Oh, and by the way.... that is NOT the thunderbolt logo.

You sure ?

[~ufo~]

Originally Posted by RobertDorn

Have you ever worked with dsp based systems?

Yes I have, extensively.
I've used them professionally for well over a decade and I still own a system (PT TDM)
I've been running 100% natively since 2012 though and do not WANT to go back to DSP based. It would hinder my workflow more than it would help it.

Dedicated audio dsp can do things even the fastest generic computer processors simply can’t do.

I honestly haven't a clue what that might be.
Both are just computers calculating something. There's advantages and disadvantages to both. Are you sure you haven't been drinking too much of the UA marketing KoolAid? Perhaps you don't quite realise just how much more powerful X64 processors are compared to the DSPs in HDX, let alone Apollo.

Try to track something through even an entry level Apollo solo with DSP processing , compared to the lowest buffer 32 or 64 sample buffer size native real-time processing. That’s 2 different worlds. Only the first workflow can compare with the feel of tracking through analog gear.

FYI you can achieve similar or even lower latency WITH processing on native than you can get with your 'near-zero latency' apollo system, so I'm afraid your idea of 'different worlds' may not be entirely realistic. Even through the console, Apollo's are not as low latency as you might think, plus some UAD plugins add quite a bit latency to that. You can have a Native DAW return through processing at similar or even lower latencies, providing you have a suitable computer.
Sure, the Apollo system's performance will likely be more 'guaranteed' because you're generally running it at higher buffers and are using the input monitoring function through the 'console'. This works well for most UAD plugins but creates latency problems if you DO want to track through native plugins, or high latency UAD plugins. It is far from perfect. It mainly just works well if you use only (certain) UAD plugins on your inputs. It's NOT a particularly good solution for tracking through native plugins.
It can be a GREAT solution for some, and a POOR solution for others.
I'm not here to bash Apollos at all, but your comments seem a little... Unrealistic.

Even my ten year old six core has ample performance to record at 96k 64 buffer on my HD Native system with some plugins.
Not each plugin surely, but certainly a wider variety of plugins than what can run on an apollo. The workflow is much simpler too. You don't have to deal with the console, moving plugins from there to the channel when you're done etc.
You just use the DAW mixer and monitor the output, at no discernible latency.
Of course, it has downsides too, but I'll personally take them over the downsides of DSP systems.

Listen, if you like your DSP system that's great, there needn't be a native vs dsp discussion here. The point I'm trying to make is that native and DSP both have advantages and disadvantages and for a lot of people, native just makes more sense than DSP. DSP is not better per definition, not anymore, that's just simply a myth at this point and has been for a loooong time. DSP is the better solution for some workflows and native is the better solution for other workflows.
It's as simple as that.

So I'm arguing that it's not fair to the many pro users for whom native is actually the better solution, to be stuck with a more limited IO and feature set, just because the DSP based system is the highest end. Certainly because that DSP based system has SERIOUS disadvantages too when mixing native and DSP plugins.

So I'd much rather see a situation where voice count, IO count and feature set is not not limited in the native side, or basically IS native.
And only for those who require it, DSP (or X64 or ARM) offloading is available as an add on.
To each their own. Work with what makes sense for YOUR workflow.

[~ufo~]

Originally Posted by stevegalante

You sure ?

That green lightning/power symbol on the channel strip?

Yes I'm sure that that is not the thunderbolt logo.
Just google thunderbolt and see for yourself.

It's not a little different either. It is quite different.

I'm not saying there won't be a thunderbolt product, I'm just saying that that does not seem to be a 'thunderbolt' button.

[stevegalante]

Originally Posted by ~ufo~

That green lightning/power symbol on the channel strip?

Yes I'm sure that that is not the thunderbolt logo.
Just google thunderbolt and see for yourself.

It's not a little different either. It is quite different.

I'm not saying there won't be a thunderbolt product, I'm just saying that that does not seem to be a 'thunderbolt' button.

Interesting !!!

[massivekerry]

Originally Posted by Marsdy

New video
https://connect.avid.com/Avid-Audio-Events.html

Looks like a major graphics overhaul or at least Mac OS Dark mode support.

Oh Thank G. Let's hope! That'd be a nice option. especially if you can grade or vary the color intensity.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by kwerk

Luna and Studio One are a problem for Avid.

I feel like it could be the complete opposite in reality. Avid seem to have entirely stepped away from the markets that Luna and Studio One exist in over the past decade. Nobody is buying a StudioLive desk instead of an S6L, or a faderport instead of an S4 or S6, nor is anyone buying a Quantum or an Apollo instead of a MTRX or MTRX Studio. Avid have pretty well been focusing entirely on post production and immersive formats like Dolby Atmos for the past half decade or so, if not longer, and its a market that they totally dominate.

It makes sense from the standpoint of HDX at least. I highly doubt any stereo music facility really needs a HDX3 system worth of I/O or DSP to get by. It is total overkill. Given that most of these teaser videos seem focussed on music-centric plugins, if Avid are about to reenter the stereo music market with new hardware and DSP options I think Luna and Studio One may well have a big problem on their hands. I guess we shall know soon.

[innesireinar]

Originally Posted by ~ufo~

Yes I have, extensively.
I've used them professionally for well over a decade and I still own a system (PT TDM)
I've been running 100% natively since 2012 though and do not WANT to go back to DSP based. It would hinder my workflow more than it would help it.



I honestly haven't a clue what that might be.
Both are just computers calculating something. There's advantages and disadvantages to both. Are you sure you haven't been drinking too much of the UA marketing KoolAid? Perhaps you don't quite realise just how much more powerful X64 processors are compared to the DSPs in HDX, let alone Apollo.



FYI you can achieve similar or even lower latency WITH processing on native than you can get with your 'near-zero latency' apollo system, so I'm afraid your idea of 'different worlds' may not be entirely realistic. Even through the console, Apollo's are not as low latency as you might think, plus some UAD plugins add quite a bit latency to that. You can have a Native DAW return through processing at similar or even lower latencies, providing you have a suitable computer.
Sure, the Apollo system's performance will likely be more 'guaranteed' because you're generally running it at higher buffers and are using the input monitoring function through the 'console'. This works well for most UAD plugins but creates latency problems if you DO want to track through native plugins, or high latency UAD plugins. It is far from perfect. It mainly just works well if you use only (certain) UAD plugins on your inputs. It's NOT a particularly good solution for tracking through native plugins.
It can be a GREAT solution for some, and a POOR solution for others.
I'm not here to bash Apollos at all, but your comments seem a little... Unrealistic.

Even my ten year old six core has ample performance to record at 96k 64 buffer on my HD Native system with some plugins.
Not each plugin surely, but certainly a wider variety of plugins than what can run on an apollo. The workflow is much simpler too. You don't have to deal with the console, moving plugins from there to the channel when you're done etc.
You just use the DAW mixer and monitor the output, at no discernible latency.
Of course, it has downsides too, but I'll personally take them over the downsides of DSP systems.

Listen, if you like your DSP system that's great, there needn't be a native vs dsp discussion here. The point I'm trying to make is that native and DSP both have advantages and disadvantages and for a lot of people, native just makes more sense than DSP. DSP is not better per definition, not anymore, that's just simply a myth at this point and has been for a loooong time. DSP is the better solution for some workflows and native is the better solution for other workflows.
It's as simple as that.

So I'm arguing that it's not fair to the many pro users for whom native is actually the better solution, to be stuck with a more limited IO and feature set, just because the DSP based system is the highest end. Certainly because that DSP based system has SERIOUS disadvantages too when mixing native and DSP plugins.

So I'd much rather see a situation where voice count, IO count and feature set is not not limited in the native side, or basically IS native.
And only for those who require it, DSP (or X64 or ARM) offloading is available as an add on.
To each their own. Work with what makes sense for YOUR workflow.

I agree with you that today the smallest domestic processor is more powerful than what a dsp based system can do, but... but... with dsp sys you are able to record many tracks with no latency and at the same time you can set the hw buffer to a high level for having lots of native processing on the no rec armed tracks. I have worked on many native sys (PT, Cubase etc) and with heavy sessions you have to manage the buffer depending on if you are tracking or mixing. On dsp based sys you can forget about it. Just for using VI you have to take care of this but if you are familiar with the TDM sys you already know this.

[corp]

Originally Posted by Southsidemusic

Sorry but I don’t get why this ARM business is soo stressing for people. Most of us who needed new Macs just bought them with INTEL so if it takes 6months or more for Avid to catch up with Apple then so be it. I only see one person mentioning this ARM talk on the whole forum so I doubt Avid is ready for that on this side of 2020/2021

The new MP7.1 was under design from Apple for about 3 years and Avid was aware and we still have a 10 year old HDX card. Avid is always behind the ball and to say design within 6 months is laughable.

[Southsidemusic]

Originally Posted by corp

The new MP7.1 was under design from Apple for about 3 years and Avid was aware and we still have a 10 year old HDX card. Avid is always behind the ball and to say design within 6 months is laughable.

I said 6 months OR MORE ....

[YYR123]

I say it’s another compressor