Does anyone with a Mac Pro/HDX have a stable system at low buffer settings?

[Will Russell]

Hi all,

I have been a ProTools user for over 10 years, running a professional studio. I'm running a 2009 Mac Pro 4,1, 24 gig of RAM, solid-state hard drive, and a single HDX card. Mac OS 10.8.5, ProTools 11.1.3. All plug-ins are up-to-date. All recommended optimizations available on the Avid website have been applied. I have tried to clean installations on brand-new hard drives, yada yada yada

I cannot run the system at a buffer setting of 128 or 256 without intermittent 9171 errors stopping the system dead in it's tracks while playback or recording. I never ever had these types of problems with my HD 3 TDM system. Never.

I have seen the gigantic thread at the top of this forum category with people complaining about these errors since the big introduction of the HDXcard. My question is simple:

Does anyone with this or a similar configuration have a stable system at lower buffer settings? If so, what is the freaking secret?

[treason]

I've been running HDX (upgraded from HD Native) for close to a year now. Originally on a 2010 6 core, and now on a 2012 12 core w/SSDs, etc. I have been running a consistent 256 sample buffer on my 44.1kHz/24bit sessions. It runs solidly. I have found (for me) Mavericks (I'm on 10.9.1) is more solid than 10.8.5.

I do not have any of the -9171 errors you're experiencing.

I only have 2 outstanding issues:

• ADC Compensation Bugs (List detailing all variations posted in another thread)
• Intermittent Processor Overload (Appears to be related to the SansAmp Plug)

Once these two are fixed (and UAD gets their buffer architecture optimized - and Slate releases all their plugs in AAX-Native and AAX-DSP format) - I have not much to complain about.

I love PT11HDX and shiver at the thought of running any version of 32bit PT or a non HDX system.

Note: the 2010/2012 Mac Pros seem to be the most compatible with Pro Tools from my anecdotal research.

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by treason

(and UAD gets their buffer architecture optimized

Have you seen them acknowledge in public that they were working on it? I've only ever seen posts where they say they would need serious help from Avid to do this. Didn't sound like a current or even a near future project for them. Sounded like "buck passing" to me.

Which is weird because many former Avid people are now at UA including Dave Tremblay, one of the primary architects of AAX.

[treason]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

Have you seen them acknowledge in public that they were working on it? I've only ever seen posts where they say they would need serious help from Avid to do this. Didn't sound like a current or even a near future project for them. Sounded like "buck passing" to me.

Which is weird because many former Avid people are now at UA including Dave Tremblay, one of the primary architects of AAX.

Gannon replied to three options I suggested. Of the three, one was misunderstood (clarified in a followup), one was dismissed and the third was deemed possible, yet lots of work.

While I'm not holding my breath, I have seen an increase in concern regarding UAD's maxxing out of the PT11 Buffer. Yet - I think it will take an ADC style campaign to get action from UAD, Drew. (sigh)

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by treason

While I'm not holding my breath, I have seen an increase in concern regarding UAD's maxxing out of the PT11 Buffer. Yet - I think it will take an ADC style campaign to get action from UAD, Drew. (sigh)

Here's hoping!! Thanks for the reply.

[fsavell]

Originally Posted by Will Russell

Does anyone with this or a similar configuration have a stable system at lower buffer settings? If so, what is the freaking secret?

No.

Same issue here, can't run a decent mix on anything below 512, 90% of the time its on 1024. I'm running a beefy mid-2010 12 Core MacPro with SSD, but no love.

I remember running sessions maxed out on my G5 & HD3 where I couldn't raise the buffer size above 512 because my Altiverb RTAS returns would be delayed too much. Regularly ran 192 voice sessions on 256 buffer size.

Now though, 90% of my plug-ins are Native, only have a few DSP. Even if I throw everything I can at the HDX card, my Native plugin use still gets right up there, which I assume is the reason why I'm running into all the -9171 errors. At least the Delay Compensation can handle the multitude of Native plugs.

I'm getting frustrated at the moment by the multi-processor usage, whereby all my Native plug-ins want to use the 12th core, which tips my CPU into overload, rather than playing nice and sharing themselves around the 23 other available cores.

However, I am running massive mixes, way bigger than I ever have before, freely (to a point!) throwing plugins on wherever I want, which I could never do on HD3. So it is better. I guess we just use what we have to the limits, no matter how powerful our systems get.

Which means we'll never find happiness. Spewin'

Forrester

Protools 11.1.3 HDX2, MacPro 12-core 22GB Mem, OSX10.8.4
Interfaces: AVID HD I/O & 192

[WernerF]

The existance of more actual DSP plugins would help this issue wouldn't it? Is this an issue that we should maybe not be ignoring?

[Craig F]

Originally Posted by fsavell

No.

Same issue here, can't run a decent mix on anything below 512, 90% of the time its on 1024. I'm running a beefy mid-2010 12 Core MacPro with SSD, but no love.

I remember running sessions maxed out on my G5 & HD3 where I couldn't raise the buffer size above 512 because my Altiverb RTAS returns would be delayed too much. Regularly ran 192 voice sessions on 256 buffer size.

Now though, 90% of my plug-ins are Native, only have a few DSP. Even if I throw everything I can at the HDX card, my Native plugin use still gets right up there, which I assume is the reason why I'm running into all the -9171 errors. At least the Delay Compensation can handle the multitude of Native plugs.

I'm getting frustrated at the moment by the multi-processor usage, whereby all my Native plug-ins want to use the 12th core, which tips my CPU into overload, rather than playing nice and sharing themselves around the 23 other available cores.

However, I am running massive mixes, way bigger than I ever have before, freely (to a point!) throwing plugins on wherever I want, which I could never do on HD3. So it is better. I guess we just use what we have to the limits, no matter how powerful our systems get.

Which means we'll never find happiness. Spewin'

Forrester

Protools 11.1.3 HDX2, MacPro 12-core 22GB Mem, OSX10.8.4
Interfaces: AVID HD I/O & 192

22GB is an odd memory count also is your machine one that uses tri-channel memory

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Craig F

22GB is an odd memory count also is your machine one that uses tri-channel memory

Wasn't it 24GB? That would fit as you could have 3x4GB for CPU1 and 3x4GB for CPU2

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by WernerF

The existance of more actual DSP plugins would help this issue wouldn't it? Is this an issue that we should maybe not be ignoring?

I've been shouting about this for 2 years.

HDX is over priced. Get more cards into people's hands and drive demand up.

Bring back the Massive Pack. Remember those??

HDX cards should be $3995 and you should be able to buy one separately.

Problem solved.