HDX smokes HD2

[Frank Kruse]

A more interesting question for me is how does HDX1 compare to HDN assuming native-only plug-ins?

The fact that HDX1 smokes HD is not really surprising since HDN already smoked HD3 at least.

Frank.

[Kaneepa]

Originally Posted by Kaneepa

Hi Firechild, I've redone the test without disk cache... I'm uploading the video on youtube right now...

It works perfectly... only thing that disk activity went up to 50% .. and in only one little spot went to 79%...

editing the tracks (cutting, doing a fade) it's pretty fast, considering the number of the tracks..

Video following soon..

Regards.

Here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BC-Q...1&feature=plcp

[Frank Kruse]

Originally Posted by Kaneepa

Here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BC-Q...1&feature=plcp

I wonder if you have maxed out session terms of voices will those 1500-something time-slots last to set up a complex mix session as well? (talking about a film mix here)
Just wondering...

Thanks,

Frank.

[The golfer]

This thread is getting really interesting.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by johnnyv

Phatbeat...just as an FYI, Native power has smoked TDM power since the introduction of multi-core Mac Pro's. I've done the tests with my HD3/Harpertown. Using Waves SSL plugs, for instance, I can get 8-10 times more plugs using RTAS than I can using TDM on my HD3 Accel. Similar results came with whatever Digi plug I tested with (can't recall right now).

The point being, and perhaps I'm missing something here, Native plug count is most likely exactly the same on HD versus HDX, simply because, in both cases, you're using the host computer for the plugs.

Sounds all good and all, and I'm a native user, not HD, but sure you get 8-10 times more native plugins, however, doesn't the TDM have higher quality sounding plugins? Isn't that the point? Being able to provide higher quality sound through the higher end hardware, which native can't do? Are numbers all that matters?

[nst7]

Generally, TDM or DSP plugins are supposed to sound identical to their native versions. Most manufacturers have stated this when the subject comes up. In the past, some people have claimed to hear subtle differences, but generally they are supposed to sound identical. The design of TDM or DSP is simply to allow the processing to be handled by the cards, and that's all.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by nst7

Generally, TDM or DSP plugins are supposed to sound identical to their native versions. Most manufacturers have stated this when the subject comes up. In the past, some people have claimed to hear subtle differences, but generally they are supposed to sound identical. The design of TDM or DSP is simply to allow the processing to be handled by the cards, and that's all.

OK! Got it! So any quality advantages are based on the hardware only I guess?

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by nst7

Generally, TDM or DSP plugins are supposed to sound identical to their native versions. Most manufacturers have stated this when the subject comes up. In the past, some people have claimed to hear subtle differences, but generally they are supposed to sound identical. The design of TDM or DSP is simply to allow the processing to be handled by the cards, and that's all.

Well - that's not what Avid/Digi marketed for almost 15 years. TDM plug-ins were supposed to "sound better". And that's why we are paid 20 times the price of native versions. In fact there are quite a few closed and deleted threads at this forum when many of us a few years back started to reveal the fact that native versions sounded identical or even better than their TDM counterparts. It's only been recently that this re-posture has existed of the only difference between TDM and native systems is in the hardware for recording and playback (mix buss allegedly better). But for years we bought TDM systems and the TDM version of the plug-ins because we were told the TDM plugins "sounded better". It was written right in Digidesign's ads that way! Most of us have agreed that TDM 'hardware' and reliability/stability was better.

But for the purpose of the focus of this thread; yes, the only reason to go with the HDX systems is the better hardware and, of course, the massively higher plug-in counts you'll achieve because of your HDX AAX DSP plug-in power combined with your CPU's power. There are a lot of reasons to go HDX; just one of them is 'not' plug-ins (which will still cost you more than the native versions!!?@&?) sounding better in HDX.

[carlone]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

Well - that's not what Avid/Digi marketed for almost 15 years. TDM plug-ins were supposed to "sound better". And that's why we are paid 20 times the price of native versions.

It's worth mentioning that a big factor in TDM plug-ins costing more is that they are harder to develop in terms of writing the code. Companies factored that into their prices.

It's also worth pointing out that HDX and HD Native "sound better" for multiple reason but one major reason is 64 bit summing. That's where the majority of the increased headroom is coming from.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by carlone

It's also worth pointing out that HDX and HD Native "sound better" for multiple reason but one major reason is 64 bit summing. That's where the majority of the increased headroom is coming from.

Yes. I agree. And was an HD1 owner for that very reason. But I thought in PT10 we all get better summing.. No?