Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Hardware > Pro Tools | Carbon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-09-2021, 08:56 AM
Matt Hepworth's Avatar
Matt Hepworth Matt Hepworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 527
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
Albee, I'm aware that native plugins will not run at the near zero latency.

What I'm trying to determine is if I'd be no worse off, latency wise, with native plugins, with Carbon vs. the typical interface at a low buffer. Some things people have mentioned about Carbon lead me to believe it may actually be worse, latency wise, in native mode. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. I think someone also mentioned that the MTRX Studio was also not great for native latency.
Yes, worse than a regular interface for native. That's the case for both HDX and Carbon. That's just not their focus.

UAD is a middle ground there. Not the fastest native performance, but solid.

Go Quantum or RME if native is your focus.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2021, 11:32 AM
digiot digiot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: NYC,NY
Posts: 397
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
Yes, worse than a regular interface for native. That's the case for both HDX and Carbon. That's just not their focus.

UAD is a middle ground there. Not the fastest native performance, but solid.

Go Quantum or RME if native is your focus.
Not following what you are saying. The only time latency is an issue on native systems is when live tracking. With the Hybrid engine that is taken care of.
VI’s have a much lower latency then live inputs. You don’t need to run VI’s at super low buffers (64 or lower)to not perceive latency.
RME and Quantum are solid on low buffers but still not as solid as HDX/Carbon.
As for UAD, if you are fine with rerouting everything through their 3rd party mixer just so you can track with no latency then cudos to you.Their workflow is horrible not even counting their lackluster DSP. I love their plug-ins but unless you have tons of their DSP chips they are not usable in a full mix.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-09-2021, 12:27 PM
glennaudio glennaudio is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 120
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFO View Post

HD Native Thunderbolt is not better than the PCIe card, same performance.It's the same card in a thunderbolt box for computers lacking PCIe slots.
got it. thanks for this. I always wondered if there was a difference.
__________________
Pro Tools Carbon | HD Native 2021.12 | HD I/O 8x8x8 | UA 4-710D | Avalon VT737 | Waves Mercury | Komplete 13 Ultimate Collector's | Kontrol S61 | Maschine Studio | Eleven Rack | Pro Tools Control w/ 9.7" iPad Pro | Pro Tools Dock | S1 | MacPro 7,1: 16-core 96GB RAM W5700X GPU OS 11 1TB SSD +OWC 1m2 2TB SSD (samples) +Sonnet M.2 4x4 4x2TB Samsung Evo Plus SSDs in RAID 0 (sessions)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2021, 01:55 PM
albee1952's Avatar
albee1952 albee1952 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 38,449
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
Albee, I'm aware that native plugins will not run at the near zero latency.

What I'm trying to determine is if I'd be no worse off, latency wise, with native plugins, with Carbon vs. the typical interface at a low buffer. Some things people have mentioned about Carbon lead me to believe it may actually be worse, latency wise, in native mode. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. I think someone also mentioned that the MTRX Studio was also not great for native latency.
Well, from my own experience on a friend's HDX rig, this may not be totally accurate. Several plugins I use in native on my own HDN rig(that show zero latency on my rig) do show serious latency when used on the HDX rig.
__________________
Gigabyte X79/intel i7 3930K, 32GB RAM, HD/Native, 192 IO
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/...0sound%20works


The better I drink, the more I mix

BTW, my name is Dave, but most people call me.........................Dave
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:04 AM
Matt Hepworth's Avatar
Matt Hepworth Matt Hepworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 527
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiot View Post
Not following what you are saying. The only time latency is an issue on native systems is when live tracking. With the Hybrid engine that is taken care of.
VI’s have a much lower latency then live inputs. You don’t need to run VI’s at super low buffers (64 or lower)to not perceive latency.
RME and Quantum are solid on low buffers but still not as solid as HDX/Carbon.
As for UAD, if you are fine with rerouting everything through their 3rd party mixer just so you can track with no latency then cudos to you.Their workflow is horrible not even counting their lackluster DSP. I love their plug-ins but unless you have tons of their DSP chips they are not usable in a full mix.
Native is subject to buffer, protocol, converter delay, and driver. VIs are only affected by output latency, true. At 256 buffer that's about 9ms with Carbon and about 6ms with HDX. An Apollo WITHOUT LLM enabled (monitoring straight through PT and not using Console) is 6ms output latency at 256. Quantum is 5ms.

I agree Carbon and HDX aren't terrible for VIs, but if that's the focus they should be avoided, since native systems will provide superior latency for less investment.

However, HDX minimum buffer at 48kHz is 64 still, IIRC, while native interfaces are 32.
Taking all the above into consideration, the *absolute minimum* output latency is 4ms for Carbon, 2.5ms for HDX, 1.5ms for Apollo, and sub 1ms for Quantum.

Keep in mind this whole thread is about *native* plugins for input monitor paths with Carbon/HDX vs Native interfaces. Native is built for this and performs better. If we're talking audio input monitoring then DSP would come into play and Carbon (and, to a lesser extent HDX) would prove far superior to native RTL.

Last edited by Matt Hepworth; 06-10-2021 at 01:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:39 AM
Matt Hepworth's Avatar
Matt Hepworth Matt Hepworth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Utah
Posts: 527
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
Thank you Matt.

So if Carbon is 17ms at a buffer of 256, what would it be for 64? Not sure exactly how the math works. Or does Carbon actually go down to 64, or even 32?
I've not tested 64. Others have stated 8ms.
The math is simply 128 samples for buffers in (64) and out (64), plus ~20 samples for conversion, plus protocol and driver (which I haven't tried to test). Take whatever that sum is and divide it by the samplerate (48) and you get your latency in ms. For the 8ms to be correct that last number (protocol and driver) needs to be 4-5ms alone.

~5ms would seem to be correct according to what I know of 256 (256+256+20+250=782 divide by 48=16.3ms, so pretty close).

Last edited by Matt Hepworth; 06-10-2021 at 01:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-10-2021, 09:48 AM
digiot digiot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: NYC,NY
Posts: 397
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
Native is subject to buffer, protocol, converter delay, and driver. VIs are only affected by output latency, true. At 256 buffer that's about 9ms with Carbon and about 6ms with HDX. An Apollo WITHOUT LLM enabled (monitoring straight through PT and not using Console) is 6ms output latency at 256. Quantum is 5ms.

I agree Carbon and HDX aren't terrible for VIs, but if that's the focus they should be avoided, since native systems will provide superior latency for less investment.

However, HDX minimum buffer at 48kHz is 64 still, IIRC, while native interfaces are 32.
Taking all the above into consideration, the *absolute minimum* output latency is 4ms for Carbon, 2.5ms for HDX, 1.5ms for Apollo, and sub 1ms for Quantum.

Keep in mind this whole thread is about *native* plugins for input monitor paths with Carbon/HDX vs Native interfaces. Native is built for this and performs better. If we're talking audio input monitoring then DSP would come into play and Carbon (and, to a lesser extent HDX) would prove far superior to native RTL.
Yup all of that makes sense except for the fact that I don't understand people using Protools for composition with massive VI loads!? There are much better alternatives to Protools for that
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-10-2021, 11:51 AM
uptheoctave uptheoctave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiot View Post
Yup all of that makes sense except for the fact that I don't understand people using Protools for composition with massive VI loads!? There are much better alternatives to Protools for that
Some people have 30 years acquired knowledge in PT and changing DAW might just not be practical.

Not me, I use Logic for VI composition and then mix in Pro Tools.
__________________
James Richmond

2019 Mac Pro
Avid HDX, MTRX, Focusrite Rednet PCIER, Red 16Line, UA Apollo X8, Trinnov MC8 Pro.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-10-2021, 12:44 PM
LFO LFO is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: France
Posts: 159
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by digiot View Post
Yup all of that makes sense except for the fact that I don't understand people using Protools for composition with massive VI loads!? There are much better alternatives to Protools for that
Well, for myself I prefer to to everything from beginning to end in Protools (although I also use Ableton Live but for things impossible in Protools) and you're right VIs are not really easy inside ProTools, so I use VE Pro mostly using a second computer to host VIs. To me it's a very convenient way.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-10-2021, 01:28 PM
nst7 nst7 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 9,844
Default Re: Question regarding both HDX and Carbon

Quote:
Originally Posted by LFO View Post
Well, for myself I prefer to to everything from beginning to end in Protools (although I also use Ableton Live but for things impossible in Protools) and you're right VIs are not really easy inside ProTools, so I use VE Pro mostly using a second computer to host VIs. To me it's a very convenient way.
Just curious, you guys using VE Pro, especially on a second computer, are there advantages to that vs. hosting your instruments in another DAW, such as Logic?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question on New Carbon License... tomhartman Pro Tools | Carbon 4 05-06-2021 12:36 PM
Question re Carbon and Using Two DAWS... tomhartman Pro Tools | Carbon 2 05-04-2021 11:03 AM
Carbon DSP Plug-Ins Question Tweakhead Pro Tools | Carbon 17 12-18-2020 12:58 PM
Carbon Copy Cloner question WildHoney Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 3 01-05-2009 09:49 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com