why are TDM plugs double the price of Native plugs?

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by zakco

Assuming you're also running 100+ plugins at that point, what is your buffer setting then? Would you be able to record new tracks with plugin monitoring and no discernible latency?

Well I think you are trying to get me to say that native is the equal in all aspects of HD, which of course, it isn't, at least in LE until they get the delay comp thing added. I listed track counts, and I have never needed 100+ plug ins in my life, because things like back vox are bussed to AUX tracks and the processing is put on there, not on each track, which to me is just not necessary. But I understand other people work differently, and of course, other people need to record many tracks at once, which I don't, so it's hard to generalize.

As a composer doing this on his own HD is superfulous for me, but may not be for how you use it. I had an HD2, and it was wonderful, however, when I used Logic, and a Mac Pro, I noticed no decrease in my ability to do whatever I asked the system to do, so I have been much impressed by where a good native program with a Mac Pro or the like can take you. YMMV, as Fletcher says....

TH

[s.d.finley]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

You can run a 100 tracks in native now, it's 2009

TH

But can you punch in 20 tracks on a 80 track session? With very low latency?

(Well I think you are trying to get me to say that native is the equal in all aspects of HD, which of course, it isn't)

exactly

[zakco]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

Well I think you are trying to get me to say that native is the equal in all aspects of HD, which of course, it isn't

Actually I'm not. It was an honest question. And I'm very interested in the answer. As a PTHD owner, one of the things I like about the system is the ability to track with plugins at ANY stage in the production. If I'm essentially finished mixing and the client suddenly wants to redo or add something I enjoy the fact that there are no issues with this process. If native systems CAN do this, I'd be surprised and impressed. After all, this won't be my last rig and maybe the next one will be 100% native.

-Z-

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by zakco

Assuming you're also running 100+ plugins at that point, what is your buffer setting then? Would you be able to record new tracks with plugin monitoring and no discernible latency?

Originally Posted by s.d.finley

But can you punch in 20 tracks on a 80 track session? With very low latency?

I just did that, in a session with 100 tracks and 200 plugins - using the 32 buffer - and it was no problem at all. The CPU meters hardly moved (see image). And: I only have an 8-core. It seems that 16-cores will come later this year...

Adding 'normal' plugins don't add any latency (zero samples), because they are processed within the already existing buffer range (in this case, 32 samples) - but using software monitoring does, which you need if you want to track with plugins, unless you have one of these systems that have some DSP on the PCI card or interface for that specific purpose (to add effects during record)... in which case, they wouldn't really be 100% native systems.

Looking back only a couple of years, very few believers in the future of native recording (myself included) would imagine that such performance was possible in 2009. Even if I've seen the amazing performance of my DAW ever since around 10.5.3 or 10.5.4 was out, I'm still surprised when I see what it can do almost without taxing the CPU. If I would have seen a screen shot like the one below in mid 2007, I would probably think it was Photoshop'ed.

[s.d.finley]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

I just did that, in a session with 100 tracks and 200 plugins - using the 32 buffer - and it was no problem at all. The CPU meters hardly moved (see image).

Adding 'normal' plugins don't add any latency (zero samples), because they are processed within the already existing buffer range (in this case, 32 samples) - but using software monitoring does, which you need if you want to track with plugins, unless you have one of these systems that have some DSP on the PCI card or interface for that specific purpose (to add effects during record)... in which case, they wouldn't really be 100% native systems.

Looking back only a couple of years, very few believers in the future of native recording (myself included) would imagine that such performance was possible in 2009. Even if I've seen the amazing performance of my DAW ever since around 10.5.3 or 10.5.4 was out, I'm still surprised when I see what it can do almost without taxing the CPU. If I would have seen a screen shot like the one below in mid 2007, I would probably think it was Photoshop'ed.

But there is no audio in the session! Or does logic just draw waveforms weird?

[colinmiller]

I've heard the same claims Native audio makes 10 years ago as well. And of course followed by the same argument that before there wasn't enough DSP but now there is. So native has always surpassed hardware. Yet here we are using hardware because those of us who use native run into problems and go back, while the others continue to always claim unlimited tracks and unlimited plugins and never any latency, etc etc.

I was even surprised to find when helping a friend with her little USB native system that USB doesn't even allow monitoring of a source being recorded. Clearly using something like USB is going to be more limited but not even being able to monitor a single track was pretty sad.

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by s.d.finley

But there is no audio in the session! Or does logic just draw waveforms weird?

Of course there's audio in the session, but to do this test, I just recorded silence, not because I didn't have 20 musicians at hand, but because Logic doesn't know that it's silence. There's no performance difference between playing back a silent file and a file with music in it. (Also, when the when zoomed out above a certain level, waveforms aren't shown in Logic.)

Originally Posted by colinmiller

I've heard the same claims Native audio makes 10 years ago as well.

The first versions of Logic etc. didn't even come with native audio abilities - TDM was necessary, and I think everybody who actually tried using 'native' in the early days agreed that it was rather useless for real work... (the same was true about Pro Tools in the early days).

So native has always surpassed hardware.

With all due respect, you must be the only one who have heard someone claim that native 'always' have surpassed hardware'. Native offers a few things TDM doesn't - like dynamic DSP accloation, support for non-real time bouncing/freezing, and support for the the various and useful (read: performance increasing) interleaved stereo file formats, but: since a TDM system has to be installed in a computer, a combined system will always offer the TDM power + some native power. What quite a few of us have found is that with all the processing power available in current computers, we don't need to pay for extra DSP anymore.

"others continue to always claim unlimited tracks and unlimited plugins and never any latency"

Again - never heard any such statements, but in real life terms, even the most optimistic native users seem to be surprised over the performance in new 8-core Macs (when using the 32 buffer).

"USB doesn't even allow monitoring of a source being recorded"

I have heard people complain about too high real time latency when using USB interfaces on slow/old computers and high buffer settings, but how would they know if they can't even hear the signal? ;-)

[Dean Roddey]

If you do a 20 track punch in in a forest, and there's no one there to perform into it, does it really make a sound?

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If you do a 20 track punch in in a forest, and there's no one there to perform into it, does it really make a sound?

if you are doing it on a Native system there will be a discernable click, according to the TDM FOREST SERVICE.

TH

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

if you are doing it on a Native system there will be a discernable click

I don't know about other apps, but Logic actually had a little piece of silence at the punch out location until circa a couple of versions ago (fixed now).

Having said that - wouldn't it be great if these Viagra posts would automatically be removed when a spammer was detected and banned? :-)

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

The first versions of Logic etc. didn't even come with native audio abilities - TDM was necessary, and I think everybody who actually tried using 'native' in the early days agreed that it was rather useless for real work... (the same was true about Pro Tools in the early days).

The first version of Logic is much older than 10 years old. Version 4 is about 10 years old. And 10 years ago people were making the same exact claims.

With all due respect, you must be the only one who have heard someone claim that native 'always' have surpassed hardware'. Native offers a few things TDM doesn't - like dynamic DSP accloation, support for non-real time bouncing/freezing, and support for the the various and useful (read: performance increasing) interleaved stereo file formats, but: since a TDM system has to be installed in a computer, a combined system will always offer the TDM power + some native power. What quite a few of us have found is that with all the processing power available in current computers, we don't need to pay for extra DSP anymore.

Incorrect. Of course this was before gearslutz, but on the EQ forums which were the standard before gearslutz you couldn't go a week without people posting threads about how TDM is dead because native is just as good if not better. This was 10 years ago. And I was not the only one, the threads were everywhere jsut as they are these days.

Again - never heard any such statements, but in real life terms, even the most optimistic native users seem to be surprised over the performance in new 8-core Macs (when using the 32 buffer).

Again, people were saying this at the time the G4 came out (although most people making the claims were on PCs not macs).

"USB doesn't even allow monitoring of a source being recorded"

I have heard people complain about too high real time latency when using USB interfaces on slow/old computers and high buffer settings, but how would they know if they can't even hear the signal? ;-)

From trying to use it. Not being able to punch in on a track.

I am not saying one is better than the other because I really REALLY could care less. Such arguments have no bearing on my decisions and are for people who want to have pissing matches. I have work to do and could careless what others think. But my point is that everyone seems to think that these are new arguments and that now it's true. It needs to be pointed out that these same claims have been made for over a decade now. And when they were made over a decade ago (and just as often as they are now) those people also made the same arguments that "well this time it's true".

So I take them with a grain of salt.

Apogee sent us a whole package to work straight in Logic. And it was nice. But when it came to using hardware inserts it didn't cut the cheese.

[nativeaudio]

Some people may have claimed weird things 10 years ago as well, but among everybody I communicated with back then, there was a relatively massive agreement that native audio in Logic 4 was far from being able to compete with TDM. According to Wikipedia, Logic 4 was the first version of Logic to include support for native audio recording, and if I remember right, it was even less stable than the first version of Pro Tools.

Things started to change a little with the dual processor G4. You could actually mix an album natively even on a G4 (I tried, using DTDM).

Anyway - all this doesn't really matter... what matters is that audio hardware and software has undergone a revolution over the last 10 years - and especially over the last year or two. Whatever some fanatics claim on either side of the discussion, people are making great music on a professional level both on native and non-native platforms. Look at that pic again: when you can punch in on 20 tracks in a 100 track session with practically no strain on the computer, you'll see why I don't think what some un-informed people possibly claimed 10 years ago really matters. This screen shot is taken using the 32 buffer - 10 years ago you couldn't even use a 32 buffer in such a session.

[colinmiller]

People 10 years ago were not uninformed, however they DID make the claim that people before them who made such claims were uninformed, just as you are doing now.

Logic 4 was probably the most stable version of Logic there ever was. Logic has done audio since version 1.7 in the Early 90s. Around the same time Pro tools cam out. Also at that same time Pro Tools came out, Digital performer also added audio recording (while Performer was MIDI only). Opcode Studio Vision added audio about the same time as Pro Tools came out (Vision was MIDI only). There was no head start or anything like that. They all started at the same time and they all were touted to be ever bit as god if not better than TDM.

This argument has been going almost 18 years now.

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

People 10 years ago were not uninformed, however they DID make the claim that people before them who made such claims were uninformed, just as you are doing now.

Logic 4 was probably the most stable version of Logic there ever was. Logic has done audio since version 1.7 in the Early 90s. Around the same time Pro tools cam out.

Well, Pro Tools wasn't stable when it came out. The only way to use the first audio version of Logic was to use it with PT hardware. Logic 1.7 came out in 1994, and my first system could run only 4 tracks. The limit today is 255 stereo tracks + 255 software instrument tracks. That's more than 100 times as many audio tracks. Do we agree that this represent what most people would call 'major progress'? I also used forums 10 years ago, and except from fanatics

They all started at the same time and they all were touted to be ever bit as god if not better than TDM.

Did you use Logic with PT hardware back then? I did. The stability of today's Logic compared with the old versions is ten times higher, and the performance (in terms of track/plug-in counts must be something like 100 times higher or more. Anyway - I suggest we leave it at that, we apparently had different experiences, worked in different studios, talked with different people, and read different articles. No big deal - it truly doesn't matter... what matters is how Logic and other native apps perform today. You somehow seem to indicate that if someone claimed that native was as good as or better than TDM 10 years ago, and was wrong, people who claim the same today are wrong as well, and I don't follow that.... logic.

There are still areas where PT does a better job - there are also areas where native does a better job - but what some people may have claimed in 1999 simply isn't relevant. If they claimed that native performed as good as - or better than - TDM system, they were uninformed, because the claim was false, so they did not know what they were speaking about.

We'll probably see 16-core Macs this year, and we may see 32-Macs 18 months later (according to Moore's law), and within a few months from now, non-graphic apps are starting to take advantage of the GPU (so called GPGPU), Grand Central is also being launched with Snow Leopard, and like it or not: this - and everything that already has happened over the last couple of years will and have had major impact on how video and audio applications perform. If you disagree, my friend, you are - with all due respect - un-informed as well. :-)

It definitely seems that you and I disagree, and I have no problem with that. Let's move on. :-)

[colinmiller]

Yes I did. And I used it without. And the first versions of Pro Tools (SD) was only 2 tracks, and then 4 tracks. They all were clunky back then. But they were all on the same level just as they are today. You could only do 4 tracks in Logic, and Digital Performer, and Studio Vision, and Sound Designer.

Now you can do hundreds of tracks in all of them. And ever since there have been threads arguing over which is better and the arguments have not changed, just the overall numbers.

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

Pro Tools (SD) was only 2 tracks, and then 4 tracks. [...] And ever since there have been threads arguing over which is better and the arguments have not changed, just the overall numbers.

The arguments have changed dramatically - to the degree that native systems now offer lower latency, more DSP power and support for higher number of channels pr card than a you can get from a 'normal' TDM system (eg. HD3). Native systems also support interleaved files and offline bouncing/freezing, neither of which are technically possible in any existing system. Also, there was never such a thing as a two track "Pro Tools (SD)". Sound Tools could do two tracks.

The reason the arguments have changed are facts like these:

But they were all on the same level just as they are today.

I'm afraid I don't understand what that means, but nevermind.

There are some oldish threads on this board that compares the real differences between the two system types already. Let's just get the facts right and stick to what's relevant...


(Why am I wasting time on this?) :-)

You'll get the last word, Colin - I promise not to respond to your next message... whatever it contains. Deal? :-)

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

The reason the arguments have changed are facts like these

Apparently, the new Intel i7s (expected in the next-gen Mac Pros) outperform a HD7 system even on native Pro Tools, which seem to be less CPU efficient than Logic:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3895295-post74.html

The HD7 system could run 256 dVerbs, the i7 (the low end/quad core version) could run 344.

The 8-core version will possibly be unveiled tomorrow.

[Dean Roddey]

It's purely an issue of market size. If you have a market of, say, 50,000 potential customers of a new super high performance HD systes, and it costs you 50,000,000 to do the R&D and marketing and blah blah, to get it to market, and I wouldn't doubt it costs that much at all, then $1000 of the revenues of each system is already gone before you start, and before the actual costs of parts and labor and retail markup and all that start to come out of the potential profits. And you'll saturate that market in an uncomfortably short time probably.

Those are just completely made up numbers of course, but you get the point. OTOH, if you have a market of a couple billion, then even if you only clear $50 a pop, then it's probably way more than worth it, even if it costs a $5B in up front investment to do it.

So the R&D and marketing engines of the general purpose computing world are just an awesome number of orders of magnitude larger, because any improvements in their product can be applied in so many areas and therefore their market is vast. So there's just no way that proprietary hardware for a boutique market can keep up with that.

My company is very much benefiting from this phenomenon. Like various others before us, we are looking to push proprietary hardware based solutions out out of their lock on our particularly world, the automation world in this case. The software becomes the differentiating factor and the value. The hardware becomes commodity. We have the entire WinTel industry as our hardware R&D and marketing arm basically.

[daniel c]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

Also, there was never such a thing as a two track "Pro Tools (SD)". Sound Tools could do two tracks.

He means Sound Designer

Review: Sound Designer (Digidesign)

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by daniel c

He means Sound Designer

Review: Sound Designer (Digidesign)

No it actually WAS Sound Tools for awhile..

TH

[daniel c]

...

[Robert Randolph]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

Apparently, the new Intel i7s (expected in the next-gen Mac Pros) outperform a HD7 system even on native Pro Tools, which seem to be less CPU efficient than Logic:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3895295-post74.html

The HD7 system could run 256 dVerbs, the i7 (the low end/quad core version) could run 344.

The 8-core version will possibly be unveiled tomorrow.

It's 'tomorrow'

[OptyxProduction]

Stop arguing semantics at this point cause it's ridiculous. I've used Pro Tools HD for projects and I've recored plenty of stuff on a crappy desktop running Windows. I just got a Presonus Firebox for my MacBook and have been composing songs in Logic 8 since I bought the Mac. Honestly while Pro Tools HD is nice I can pick up and roll anywhere with my MacBook and Logic and not care about track counts anymore. On my old P4 HP desktop with 1GB of ram doing 8 channels of instruments and 10 tracks of vocals at a resonable latency was an issue for me. With Logic I'm working on projects now with 50 tracks streaming off a USB 2.0 disk and a latency of 64 while researching in firefox and talking on Adium and Logic is like W/E dude I got this. While there are a few things I'd love to see different in Logic the dramatic increase in my ability as a songwriter to make better and bigger pieces is invaluable to me.

Now I like Pro Tools and my old desktop has it just for the sake of collaboration, but as soon as I get my session opend I imediately disable all of the elastic audio and export it to an omf on my HFS drive. If someone needs a Pro Tools session back well they will get one cause I'm not gonna force them to convert it back after I had to so I'll play nice. I can't say I'm in the same league as some of you but damnit if I don't work my ass off to make my records sound just as good as the guy with and HD3 system and an SSL console in a million dollar room.

Who cares Native or TDM or both just do what works best for you it's that simple.

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by daniel c

He means Sound Designer

Review: Sound Designer (Digidesign)

That is correct. It was what Pro Tools was made from. By 91 they came out with the first pro tools which was 4 tracks. My statements was not a mistake or a misunderstanding. PT/SD/ST are all part of the same animal and even when PT first came out, we were still using SD2 at the same time. No one argues over the different name changes of Logic as it was the same animal.

This who stats argument is for people who mix by numbers. When it comes to real world use everything is different.

And as I said to Native from the beginning, these arguments about people trying to claim how much better their native systems are have been going on since day 1. And they have always been claiming how much their native systems own PT and are putting it out of business, etc etc. I just don't understand why people spend so much time trying to make themselves feel better about their decision. It's such an old and cliche argument.

[Dean Roddey]

But the point being made above, a number of times, is that it doesn't matter what people said in the past. The general purpose PC architecture is doubling in power every 2'ish years, if not even more so now that we are talking about multi-core/CPU architctures. That rate of growth has made the equivalency of native systems pretty much a fact, and that rate of growth will continue for some time. When we have 16 core machines, and each of those cores is twice the power of one now, think what will mean for anyone trying to sell a product like the HD system.

It seems to me that the fact taht Digi hasn't already put out a new system with a lot more power is possibly that they already understand that it's a losing proposition. Not because it wouldn't be a great system, but it wouldn't be great enough to justify the significant price differential that would be necessary to make it pay.

They may still take a whack at it. And certainly you COULD make a DSP assisted system that would smoke any native system. But the point is that once you have a certain level of performance, more isn't worth a lot more money. Even a lot more isn't worth a lot more money if you already have enough to do what you need to do.

[hipass]

Originally Posted by Jason Poulin

I just never got it.

When I browse my sweetwater mag, I've always wondered why the two are soooo different in price... most of time, it's exactly double the price.


???



Thanks


J.

Thanks because your looking at the wrong place to buy plug-ins ...

[MillaOllsen]

Ýêñêëþçèâíîå ýðîòè÷åñêîå âèäåî âû ìîæåòå ñêà÷àòü ñ âûñîêîé ñêîðîñòüþâèäåîïîðíî ñ æèâîòíûìè âèäåî ñìåøíàÿ ýðîòèêà ïîðíî âèäåî ñòàðóøêè ïåñíÿ ìîòî ìàäàãàñêàð ìàëîëåòíèå äåâî÷êè 14 15ëåò êàðòî÷êè ò 2 êóïèòü õðîíèêè íàðíèè êëàéâ îóåí vrotmnenogi

[MillaOllsen]

Ýêñêëþçèâíîå ýðîòè÷åñêîå âèäåî âû ìîæåòå ñêà÷àòü ñ âûñîêîé ñêîðîñòüþ

ïîðíî âèäåî ïîñìîòðåòü àçáóêà ñåêñà âèäåî íàïîèëè èçíàñèëîâàëè âèäåî
ïîðíîãðàôèÿ àíàëüíûé ôèñòèíã ôèëüì æåëåçíûé ÷åëîâåê ñêà÷àòü ïðîñòèòóòêè êðàñíîÿðñêà ôîòî www inosmi ru èãðà ãàðôèëä áåñïëàòíî
vrotmnenogi