HD1 or native

[NewdestinyX]

Yeah- HD1 owner here too and the 48 'voices' at 96k has been 'hampering my gruve' to say the least. Even 96 voices at 48k after being allocated several busses needing plugins and some trips from RTAS to TDM and back practically gives me only about 45-50 'tracks' in a real world mix session. I love my HD but I can't afford another Accel card so it's onto a Native solution for me.

And let me clarify one thing about track count versus voice count in PT9 Standard versus PT9HD (or after adding CPTk2). In PT9 standard it's 96 stereo track OR 96 mono tracks - no more than 96 addable track slots in any combo. Now with the PT9HD asset or the CPTk2 asset you have 192 'voices' at 48k (96 at 96k). A mono track takes 1 voice. A stereo track takes 2 voices. So if all u did was ever use stereo tracks - the 'track count' you'd get in standard AND HD would BOTH be "96" tracks at 48k (48 at 96k). We clear?

Then in HD TDM hardware systems you have no real track count increases at HD1 or 2 from my knowledge; for sure not in HD1

[Keybeeetsss]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

Then in HD TDM hardware systems you have no real track count increases at HD1 or 2 from my knowledge; for sure not in HD1

HD2 is the same as 3 & up as far as voice count goes.. HD1 is the baby...

[antonis]

So, I guess we have to wait and see what Pro Tools 9 users have to say about performance. I just want to believe that a Quad-core Mac or PC would not be able to cope with 96 tracks and an abundance of RTAS, and that HD is still the way forward, but I doubt it. And even so, the computer processors in a couple of years would most probably outperform any HD system.

As a HD user, if there could be one request that I would like to put through is the ability to use my "HD" interface, through ASIO/ CORE AUDIO, and not chained to PT9HD. It would be just nice to have the option to flip as needed. That perhaps could justify the money spent for a HD system in the first place.

And of course bins in the Audio Regions list but that's a different post...

[Keybeeetsss]

Originally Posted by antonis

So, I guess we have to wait and see what Pro Tools 9 users have to say about performance. I just want to believe that a Quad-core Mac or PC would not be able to cope with 96 tracks and an abundance of RTAS, and that HD is still the way forward, but I doubt it. And even so, the computer processors in a couple of years would most probably outperform any HD system.


And of course bins in the Audio Regions list but that's a different post...

Man, I'm really hoping ur being sarcastic & hopfully not being serious.. then again, u did purchase an HD1 rig..

Computers have been blowing & continue more each day to blow DSP out the water for quite som time now.. so thatz why I say u hav to be sarcastically sayin a couple years..

96 tracks & tracks loaded on each along with Auxes & VI's is nuthin for computers nowadays.. try that on ur HD1 (or my HD3 for that matter)


Sent from Epic 4G Using Tapatalk on'eim...

[antonis]

It was presented more as an example than a sarcasm. Nothing to take too seriously really...

Could anyone remind me to what kind of HD systems Intel Macs are equal to? I think I have seen some posts mentioning examples but I can really recall them.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by antonis

It was presented more as an example than a sarcasm. Nothing to take too seriously really...

Could anyone remind me to what kind of HD systems Intel Macs are equal to? I think I have seen some posts mentioning examples but I can really recall them.

Well -- I hate to be the 'bearer' of bad news for us HD1 guys.. But I 'just did' THEE test.

Took my largest HD1 mix - limited only by TDM voices running out. It's about 50 audio tracks and 16 or so midi playing Reason and B4. I just opened it in PT9 with an MAudio USB Transit 2 channel USB interface. I hit play and not even a hiccup. I sorta expected that. But here comes the 'fun' -- I hit SELECT ALL and DUPLICATE TRACKS. duplicated ALL plugs and tracks.. Now other than overloading the DSP of my UAD2 I hit PLAY - and playback started immediately -- not even a hiccup - over 100 tracks and double the plugins. Processor went from 32% to 58%. This 8core ain't even breakin' a sweat. And playin' back thru a friggin' MAudio USB Transit only..

Bottom line -- PT9 -Native - on my 8 core Xeon - leaves my HD1 system in the dust - performance wise.

Oh an update -- The additional 50 tracks (all the tracks) need to be on an Internal SATA drive to play without a hitch. On my external FW800 (bus powered drive [7200rpm] - I got interrupt messages. On a separate internal audio drive -- no sweat.

[SDDP]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

Well -- I hate to be the 'bearer' of bad news for us HD1 guys.. But I 'just did' THEE test.

Took my largest HD1 mix - limited only by TDM voices running out. It's about 50 audio tracks and 16 or so midi playing Reason and B4. I just opened it in PT9 with an MAudio USB Transit 2 channel USB interface. I hit play and not even a hiccup. I sorta expected that. But here comes the 'fun' -- I hit SELECT ALL and DUPLICATE TRACKS. duplicated ALL plugs and tracks.. Now other than overloading the DSP of my UAD2 I hit PLAY - and playback started immediately -- not even a hiccup - over 100 tracks and double the plugins. Processor went from 32% to 58%. This 8core ain't even breakin' a sweat. And playin' back thru a friggin' MAudio USB Transit only..

I'll report back after I hit duplicate tracks again -- to make 150 tracks.

Bottom line -- PT9 -Native - leaves my HD1 system in the dust - performance wise.

So an 8 core Macpro running PT 9 on the HD OMNI is money well spent?

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by SDDP

So an 8 core Macpro running PT 9 on the HD OMNI is money well spent?

HD Omni hanging off of a 'what'?? The HD OMNI is one of Avid's new Audio Interfaces replacing the 96I/O and 192I/O - right? Or it's adding a 'third - different' choice for I/O anyway -- right?

If it's hanging off of an HD1-TDM rig -- then 'no' -- you'll have limited voices - still due to TDM limitations on voices(tracks). If it's hanging off of the new HD|Native card -- then yes - it will be a pretty powerful stable system as there will be lots more voices available and still allow you to connect to an OMNI Audio Interface.

I believe Avid will sell a lot less HD1's now that PT9 and the HD|Native card are here.

Keep in mind -- if you go with HD|Native you'll not be able to use TDM plugins. Though you'll have more voices.

So the main question you need to answer for yourself is do you want a TDM system or a Native system. If TDM - then get AT LEAST HD2.

[nikki-k]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

Keep in mind -- if you go with HD|Native you'll not be able to use TDM plugins. Though you'll have more voices.

Just to clarify..
This would be: more voices than an HD1 system ONLY.
Add an HD Process (HD2), and the voices are even.
HD Native and HD have the same maximum voice limitations; it is HD1 not having enough DSP to build the mixer(s) necessary for the maximum voice count that prohibits this.

PT HD still retains several exclusive features and greater capabilities over HD Native; for example, PT 9 HD allows for 160 simultaneous recording tracks (active), while HD Native is restricted to 64. I would suggest carefully reviewing these differences, and give deep, considerable thought before selecting an option.

[sdevino]

For less than the price of HD1 you could consider something like a Metric Halo ULN8 or LIO8 which augments your native capabilities with hardware DSP mixer and monitoring capabilities.

So you get all the track count of PT9 plus 18 sends to a whole other DSP based 80 bit mixer plus all the MH plugins.

You can even store the MH hardware setup and configuration as part of your individual PT sessions.

Steve