HDX vs HD Native Performance Using Only AAX Native Plugins

[avidous]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

You do not need to mix hundreds of tracks. Mix two. The detailed digital analysis/comparison of the mix quality is beyond the skill level of a typical DAW user.

I'm not a typical DAW user... I'm a weirdo!

[lexaudio]

Originally Posted by avidous

I'm not a typical DAW user... I'm a weirdo!

No. You are just doing it wrong.

I once got 160 channels of FX for a movie because the FX editor thought every single element had to be on its own track.

Very old old school thinking. You can have multiple things within the same range of tracks.

If you are doing music, you don't need the verse kick and chorus kick on different tracks.
That is what automation is for.

Maybe read up a bit to see what you are doing wrong.

[avidous]

Originally Posted by lexaudio

No. You are just doing it wrong.

I once got 160 channels of FX for a movie because the FX editor thought every single element had to be on its own track.

Very old old school thinking. You can have multiple things within the same range of tracks.

If you are doing music, you don't need the verse kick and chorus kick on different tracks.
That is what automation is for.

Maybe read up a bit to see what you are doing wrong.

Ha well I appreciate it man, but as far as that goes, I know what I'm doing.

I understand what you're saying, however I use lots of audio tracks because I layer, not because I inefficiently use space on the sequencer grid. :)

My verse kick, for example, would be 3 or 4 layers.

[avidous]

Originally Posted by lexaudio

Very old old school thinking. You can have multiple things within the same range of tracks.

If you are doing music, you don't need the verse kick and chorus kick on different tracks.
That is what automation is for.

When pro tools talks about track limitations, I believe they mean simultaneous voices. having two separate tracks that play audio in different sections (verse and chorus) is therefore equal CPU-wise to having verse and chorus audio in the same track. any necessary automation here would strain the cpu more in fact.

regardless it's irrelevant because I layer things at the same time and need many simultaneous voices.

[lexaudio]

Originally Posted by avidous

Ha well I appreciate it man, but as far as that goes, I know what I'm doing.

I understand what you're saying, however I use lots of audio tracks because I layer, not because I inefficiently use space on the sequencer grid. :)

My verse kick, for example, would be 3 or 4 layers.

I layer kicks, snare guitars, whatever. I don't need 16 tracks for a kick though.

I get it. I know what you are doing. However, remember, there is a point where you continue to add and it doesn't do anything.

You can layer 60 tracks of synths. But 4 would probably cut through and have a voice.

Also, since I'm sure I'm right on this. You'll get more voices if you stop using stereo samples for everything that doesn't need to be stereo.
Stereo kicks, snares ect.
A mono does the same thing. Now you have double the voices.

[avidous]

Originally Posted by lexaudio

Now you have double the voices.

Good point, thanks!

As for this 64 bit processing... I'm so curious...

Another reason I'm obsessed with a high track count is that I've read the "clarity" of pro tools is more apparent the more tracks you have running... but who knows, it will probably end up being gearslutz nonsense.. i will find out....

[Meads]

I'm going to hijack this thread with a related question:

I have an HD Native system, and some latency issues when tracking with it. LLM doesn't work at all in PT11 (telling me I have a multichannel output path and therefor LLM couldn't be activated - whereas under 10 it works fine), and the lowest buffer size that works more or less reliably is 128. With 64 or 32 PT stops with an error message ever so often during a record pass.

My CPU is an i7 3930K, which I thought should be able to handle tracking at lower buffer sizes, but it apparently doesn't. Does anybody here know if an upgrade to the new i7 generation (5xxx) would solve this issue for me?

[Rob Ruce]

Originally Posted by avidous

Ya'll are hilarious

Do you think or know if there is a difference in the headroom between Pro Tools 11 and Pro Tools 11 HD?.......................

Here's a null test (no surprises) which might be useful for settling fistfights about one vs. the other sound-wise - but doesn't answer the headroom question directly.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by avidous

Good point, thanks!

As for this 64 bit processing... I'm so curious...

Another reason I'm obsessed with a high track count is that I've read the "clarity" of pro tools is more apparent the more tracks you have running... but who knows, it will probably end up being gearslutz nonsense.. i will find out....

All this 'advice' or gearslutz nonsense is why we are here? You need to spend less time reading crap on the Internet.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Rob Ruce

Here's a null test (no surprises) which might be useful for settling fistfights about one vs. the other sound-wise - but doesn't answer the headroom question directly.

There is nothing to really answer about headroom, that is simple math, and we know the mixer is 64-bit float in all versions of Pro Tools 11 (it is not in say Pro Tools 10 HD with TDM). Trying to prove there is 1,000 dB mixer headroom by getting it to clip is going to be uh pretty difficult... (And that is a good thing).