New DAD interfaces

[LukeHoward]

True. I never got DVS or the Avid CoreAudio Server working reliably on a MacPro7,1. Perhaps things have changed. Instead, I use an AVIO adapter for general listening, and a separate MADI interface for DAPS or other DAWs; expenses I'd have happily avoided were there native Thunderbolt support.

In a post in the DAD FB group, a DAD representative indicated that Thunderbolt option card support for the AX32 would not be forthcoming.

[antonis]

If Pro Tools Ultimate - via Core audio gives out - 64 tracks I/O that's equal to the HD Native. Essentially, if someone does not want the high I/O they can get AX64 and get down with it!

But as the M-class processors for the MacOS promise to yield a lot of power (and in general, the modern CPU processors offer oodles of power for the audio professional), we just might be closing towards the time that Avid throws the towel on the HDX-DSP concept. There has been a steady effort for Avid to get out of the hardware business (with the exception of the Euphonix derivatives) so why not just be done with? I would assume that the biggest market for 128 plus I/O is for Dolby Atmos work and it starts feeling a bit of ransom having to purchase two HDX cards for Dolby Atmos work. That is at least while modern computers seem to genuinely break no sweat running high track counts and many plugin instances (I could be wrong though - perhaps we need to hear more fron Nuendon users and what problems they might be facing).

Having typed the above though, I would definitely be interested in an updated HDX version, with more DSP card and track count in *one* card.

[RobertDorn]

Originally Posted by paulo m

You have to understand that people may have other DAWS or apps that they may want to use as well, besides PT.

Yep! Sinnce pro tools still can't delay compensate bpm-synced plugins correctly, for modern music production other DAWs next to Pro Tools HDX are needed.

And HDX is about the worst thing latency-wise you can do to running native apps. Dante DVS, I consider that more as a work around for it than a solution. So the answer to the question if thunderbolt3 would be a welcome addition to the MTRX interface seems quite obvious to me.

[antonis]

Originally Posted by antonis

If Pro Tools Ultimate - via Core audio gives out - 64 tracks I/O that's equal to the HD Native. Essentially, if someone does not want the high I/O they can get AX64 and get down with it!

But as the M-class processors for the MacOS promise to yield a lot of power (and in general, the modern CPU processors offer oodles of power for the audio professional), we just might be closing towards the time that Avid throws the towel on the HDX-DSP concept. There has been a steady effort for Avid to get out of the hardware business (with the exception of the Euphonix derivatives) so why not just be done with? I would assume that the biggest market for 128 plus I/O is for Dolby Atmos work and it starts feeling a bit of ransom having to purchase two HDX cards for Dolby Atmos work. That is at least while modern computers seem to genuinely break no sweat running high track counts and many plugin instances (I could be wrong though - perhaps we need to hear more fron Nuendon users and what problems they might be facing).

Having typed the above though, I would definitely be interested in an updated HDX version, with more DSP card and track count in *one* card.

Well, I think then new Pro Tools 2022.4 Flex justiifies the above - as a lot of people I am sure have been thinking along the same lines. 256 tracks natively!

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by antonis

Well, I think then new Pro Tools 2022.4 Flex justiifies the above - as a lot of people I am sure have been thinking along the same lines. 256 tracks natively!

256 IO native on Flex aka Ultimate not just 256 tracks. Finally! A good move.

[LukeHoward]

Also, no AES on the new interfaces, which is less than ideal. I’ve lots of stuff that uses AES, nothing ADAT. Of course, I’m not going to trade in my MTRX for something without DigiLink anyway!

[Darryl Ramm]

OK kudos to Avid for heading in the right direction with large IO support.

What was most impressive is they implemented what I was suggesting in only a few days

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

The world is kinda inverted. Pro Tools requiring HDX for large IO counts, but with HDX DSP that is increasingly a boat anchor for large mixing. Different thing for low latency tracking.. but it's mind numbing that large post shops have to go DigiLink to MTRX etc. to get large IO count.

Yet another innovator's dilemma for Avid, yet another one I'll never be surprised if they keep on doing the wrong thing. But they need to decouple high IO counts from Digilink, and show a clear roadmap for the future high-end, is that Dante AVB or both or what? DigiLink needs to die. We are on the edge of interesting new computers like the Mac Studio, and hopefully soon the Mac Pro that make the processing power of a maximum config HDX system look so stupid.

[RobertDorn]

Originally Posted by LukeHoward

Also, no AES on the new interfaces, which is less than ideal. I’ve lots of stuff that uses AES, nothing ADAT. Of course, I’m not going to trade in my MTRX for something without DigiLink anyway!

Let’s wait and see if there perhaps will be a MTRX version of the AX64 with digilink chassis connectors.

I could use the the ADAT connectors for integrating my UAD Apollo setup which I use for production with LUNA a lot. (Yes, I find it more creative and delay compensation hassle-free to produce music with virtual instruments in LUNA then in Pro Tools. But I like pro tools more for mixing and everything ‘zero latency’ audio recording with HDX)
But my monitor speakers need AES.
DAD stated they won’t be doing an ADAT card but they do have an AES card already. So the AX64 can have both ADAT and AES. Thunderbolt 3 on the chassis will do away with the DVS workaround for system audio. And with the new PT ultimate version, if you need more than 64 simultaneous outputs, the Thunderbolt connector will be the ticket for that.

Record audio with HDX, and switch over to the Thunderbolt engine for doing an immersive audio mix, all in one box.

I’d buy such a chassis the moment it will become available.

[basehead617]

A 256 channel DigiLink successor would solve so many issues

[LDS]

Originally Posted by basehead617

A 256 channel DigiLink successor would solve so many issues

Makes you wonder why tossing 2, 3, 4 HD native PCIe cards into a system couldn't just provide 128, 192, 256 channels of Digilink natively.