PT9 Native not an option for me yet

[Chris Watkins]

I don't have time to test this, but I suggest someone does.
This nulling completely does not sound accurate.
I guess if the total level never went above a certain amount, perhaps there
were no math differences, but I could swear I've seen digi people say different and that's an awful lot of calculations to be identical.

The gain staging, especially between plugins and the rtas vs tdm versions of those plugs is a fairly big deal at large levers, just listen/watch the video about Dave Hill talking about developing heat.

And as to this processing wall, I will just say this:

I ran nuendo and cubase for TEN years every day before switching to a mix system. I actually thought the explanation of what the poster experienced was really good for what tends to elude most native people and continues to fill native vendors pockets.
Yes, some of it may be system optimization, but you will instantly see native guys changing workflow by only using certain plug combos or changing buffer size or bouncing and claiming that's just what you do.
While on the TDM size of things, if I see the gui even seem jerk, struggle or slow, I've instantly paying attendtion, because 99.99% something else is happening that shouldn't, because it never does that.
I start/stop with lightning speed, change plugs on the fly, etc. I'm sure post people probably notice it the most and then when they used a loaded native system, whether that' 25% or 50%, but when it starts to lag, they notice.

Ok, so now we're talking 12 cores @ what 3ghz? to solve the issues, well here is what they aren't telling you, one of the reasons native is still not putting a bullet in all this is cause more's laws slightly broken these days....
Meaning, you can add more cores, but they are not faster and you continue to struggle with thread overhead.
So, for instance, if there was 36 ghz processor, I probably have a shot at decent performance at say a 32 buffer, but not with all the mp stuff.
Not to mention, that we are noway's close to sample level TDM type delay.

So, until a native system can offer a OS or hardware system that can boast absolute track #'s and roundtrip minimums given a certain load(load = basic professional daw mixer @ 24+ channels, eq, fairly minimal processing, it will not beat out TDM for any serious comparisons.

It doesn't even have to be TDM technology, it just has to be a DAW and a DSP configuration that has guaranteed processing, like most digital mixers or some of the fx units, etc..

But yeah, it's not just tracking, I spent years mucking with "native" type issues in my native studio and with TDM it went away and now with a "B" system running 9 since the TDM is MIX, I have those problems in the native box and see them every day.

[midnightrambler]

Originally Posted by Chris Watkins

I don't have time to test this, but I suggest someone does.
This nulling completely does not sound accurate.

Well, it's a shame you don't have time, then you could make these assertions with some sort of proof in hand, instead of just going with what you read on gearslutz.

[Stuart P.]

Originally Posted by midnightrambler

Well, it's a shame you don't have time, then you could make these assertions with some sort of proof in hand, instead of just going with what you read on gearslutz.

gotta agree.

[dmh]

There is no way I would go to Native ... Pro Tools is just terrible with CPU management...

Here's my issue:

Setup: Protools 9, firewire 7200 rpm drive, and a brand new audio computer from Sonica. My PC is Windows 7 64 bit, i7 960 4 cores at 3.2 GHz with 24 GB of RAM, using a digi002 or M-audo 1824. I can't get above 3 or 4 plugins without choking up the CPU, regardless of what I do.

My typical settings are:

24 bit 96 kHz session
Buffer size 256
8 processors
85 to 95%

Waves and NI plugins seem the worst.
Setting to 1 processor helps sometimes, but it isn't very consistent. Moreover, the system frequently crashes.

I can run the same thing in LIVE or Nuendo with now problem !

Somebody please help us ! Spent a lot of money on Pro-Tools (I've been a user since ProTools LE first came out, but I'm thinking of switching now...)

[Bill Denton]

It's not one processor, it's one fewer than the number you have available.

Do you really need to use 96 kHz?

Waves and NI are both known to be quite processor intensive...

[Stuart P.]

Good point Bill.

A lot of the issue is the chasm between actual needs and perceived needs. People aren't generally receptive to that type of "criticism", no matter how valid.

[danander11]

DMH, drop your processors to 7 @ 99%, and you should see an improvement.

[Barry Johns]

Originally Posted by dmh

There is no way I would go to Native ... Pro Tools is just terrible with CPU management...

Here's my issue:

Setup: Protools 9, firewire 7200 rpm drive, and a brand new audio computer from Sonica. My PC is Windows 7 64 bit, i7 960 4 cores at 3.2 GHz with 24 GB of RAM, using a digi002 or M-audo 1824. I can't get above 3 or 4 plugins without choking up the CPU, regardless of what I do.

My typical settings are:

24 bit 96 kHz session
Buffer size 256
8 processors
85 to 95%

Waves and NI plugins seem the worst.
Setting to 1 processor helps sometimes, but it isn't very consistent. Moreover, the system frequently crashes.

I can run the same thing in LIVE or Nuendo with now problem !

Somebody please help us ! Spent a lot of money on Pro-Tools (I've been a user since ProTools LE first came out, but I'm thinking of switching now...)

Again, people have been doing this in LE for years and it's been working just fine. I do it all the time in LE on remote recordings, I never have issues.

[fasttraxx]

I was able to test on a freinds PC Dell 490 quad processor (sorry don't know pcessor speed) with one of my HD PCIx core card. The voice counts seems to be a big problem, limitation. TDM performs much better for voice count. Of course sample rate plays a part in this (higher sample rate, less voice count). I have also tried my MAC Powerbook 2.0 core duo and have had similar results (minus HD core card) with my 002 unit.
At first was interested in how many RTAS plugs I could use, as I keep hearing people say how their native system can revial any TDM system and do even more. Well I was impressed with how many RTAS plugs I could run on both systems (PC Dell quad and MAC powerbook). But then I tried this on my regular system which is a G-5 dual 1.8 HD Accel 3 and I was able to get basically the same amount of RTAS plugs as both the PC system and Powerbook. The PC did get a few more plug counts then the other two systems, but not by much. I was thinking just having a quad core verse a dual core would be a much bigger advantage, not so in my mind in this test. The voice count is a real problem with native. Of course if you want to pay Avid for their Complete Production Toolkit 2 you can get a few more voices. http://www.avid.com/us/products/fami...-Tools/compare
I did learn one thing that is very useful to me. The voice count per track is 1 and adding an RTAS plug uses 1 in and out 1 which makes total 3 voices used. If you add more RTAS plugs on the same track/channel it doesn't use anymore voices count. Big benefit. So you could add lots of RTAS plugs this way and keep voice resources down. If you use AUX's for RTAS plugs they use more for some reason, so it's better to put them on a track to conserve voice count.
My opinion as native isn't close to TDM. TDM allows you to just work without alot of thinking/worrying about voice count. And tracking is a no brainer with TDM to clearly be the winner. I still might buy a PC quad because they will allow me to use PCIx slot still for my cards without having to dig deep into the pockets and get a newer MAC (which I would love to get) or a magma expansion chassis. The PC ran just fine with Pro Tools with no problems, and having TDM Accel 3 plus the quad processor can't go wrong. Until I know what is going to happen with TDM, are we going Thunderbolt/light peak, newer TDM cards, etc... This seems like a safe low cost alternative that should have great results, and I can keep my PCI-x cards around for a bit longer. They do everything I need them to do anyways.

[dmh]

Thanks for the ideas.

I tried dropping just one processor, from 8 to 7, and increased CPU usage to 99%. Unfortunately the performance didn't change ... I only get a slight performance boost with 1 processor.

As for 96kHz, I record lots of material directly to protools, so would like the extra clarity of sound. 44kHz would be an option, but I'd rather not revert to that just yet...

LE version 7 seemed to work fine for me .... version 8 was a bit buggy .... 9 seems OK, if it wasn't for this CPU issue.