still no working x64 driver

[miketeachesclass]

It's been almost half a year since Avid "officially" released PT with support for Windows 7x64.

Yet we still have no driver for x64 that is working properly.

How Avid can be selling products today that indicate Windows 7x64 support while this problem still exists (in both v8.0.4cs2 as well as PT9) is absolutely beyond me.

This seems to me to be the stuff of potential litigation. (not that I'd be the one to do that; certainly not).

This seems to be beyond the simple formula of releasing a product that isn't 100% ready for prime time, and releasing bug fixes along the way. This seems absolutely disingenuous on Avid's part, as they're still selling hardware/software packages with this known issue today, yet I'm willing to bet that there is still an indication in the documentation that 8.0.4cs2 is working with W7x64.

I, for one, feel like we've been quite patient waiting for them to fix this problem that essentially renders useless the most fundamental application of a recording package: "Hey, I recorded something and it went in the timeline in the right place"!

Yes, they released a partial fix a couple of months ago. A partial fix does not absolve them of responsibility, however.

I would like to urge Avid to PLEASE release a fixed driver. I'm quite sure that there are a number of people experiencing this problem that don't know that it's a "known issue", and simply think Avid's writing bad drivers.

Please.

Fix this.

[albee1952]

What are you talking about? I know several folks(including me) that are running Windows 7 x64 with several interfaces, and without any issues. Pro Tools works under Windows 7 64 bit, as long as its setup correctly(both 8.0.4 AND Pro Tools 9). Maybe some more research, and post a Sandra report with a full description of your troubles will point to a solution.

[Bill Denton]

Eight paragraphs; none of which indicate which driver is at issue...

[miketeachesclass]

Indeed you are correct. Let me correct myself:

I am talking specifically about the Digi003 driver.

However, this is apparently an issue with the 002 driver as well (no surprise). I believe this has been reported with mbox drivers as well.

This issue has been acknowledged by Avid as a problem, which is an important part of this process, but I'm not sure how much good acknowledgement of a problem is if you're not going to fix it in a reasonable amount of time.

Yes, they (mostly) fixed the early timeline placement issue. However, there are still issues with timeline placement.

I didn't post a sandra report because this issue has been confirmed by Avid (DTS, specifically) in the "8.04cs2 WhoKnowsWTFWillHappen-ency bug" thread.

I'm really not being a crazy pain in the arse, but I WOULD like a working driver. How about you?

Again for emphasis:

I'm not dreaming this up.

This has been confirmed by Avid.

This needs to be fixed.

8.04cs2 WhoKnowsWTFWillHappen-ency bug

[albee1952]

Understood. The cs2 update solved the timing issue for me at all but the 48K sample rate. Testing showed a 1 sample latency, which is hardly a deal breaker(2 musicians are more offset than that at any given moment). I certainly agree that a perfect solution is in order, but I was able to get work done(I spend most times at 44.1K anyway, but you may need 48K). Meanwhile, I have to say I am digging PT9 and have no intention of ever going back

[miketeachesclass]

Originally Posted by albee1952

Understood. The cs2 update solved the timing issue for me at all but the 48K sample rate. Testing showed a 1 sample latency, which is hardly a deal breaker(2 musicians are more offset than that at any given moment). I certainly agree that a perfect solution is in order, but I was able to get work done(I spend most times at 44.1K anyway, but you may need 48K). Meanwhile, I have to say I am digging PT9 and have no intention of ever going back

Agreed. I really like PT9 otherwise.

And believe me, if I was off at 1 sample, I'd be jumping for joy. However, (particularly at 48k, as you mentioned), the incorrect placement is as high as the buffer setting (up to 512 samples). It also changes based on whether or not LLM has been activated or not. Go figure. I'm sure Avid will take care of it eventually, but I'm REALLY sick of testing latency and then having to nudge regions around.

[miketeachesclass]

Originally Posted by MikeLip

Just for the record, my rant is from watching the forum over the last month or two and seeing users post endlessly about timeline issues. Never a direct reply from Avid to the user like "we are working on it". It takes this community to break the news to the user that their product purchase is DOA. BS IMHO.
Mike.

I agree, mostly.

However, I have to say that there has been a direct reply from Avid indicating that they're working on it. (At least from DTS). So, I believe they're trying to be at least somewhat responsive, but they're still selling a broken product.

If I wasn't required to use PT as an educator where I teach, the likelihood is that I'd switch.

[miketeachesclass]

Originally Posted by MikeLip

"a" (a.k.a one) reply on a community forum (which is about to be shuttered) is not an adequate corporate response to a product defect. Well, thats how I see it anyway. Props to DTS.
Mike.

I agree that Avid needs to cop to the defect.

What doy ou mean that it's about to be shuttered, though? I haven't seen any indication of that.

[DigiTechSupt]

Originally Posted by miketeachesclass

I agree that Avid needs to cop to the defect.

What doy ou mean that it's about to be shuttered, though? I haven't seen any indication of that.

I'm not sure which threads you're reading, but the previous one referenced in this thread has at least one reply from me 'copping' to the defect.

As for being 'shuttered' - I'm curious what was meant by that as well.

[Keybeeetsss]

Every session I have is 48k; I have no issues & is off by 1 sample on W7 64 with 002r...