Pro Tools|HD-TDM vs Nuendo-VST System Link vs Logic Pro-Distributed Audio Processing

[BrianT]

Originally Posted by Henchman

It's such a normal thing to have separate cue mixers, but somehow when used with a Native DAW, it's considered unproffesional.

But I still think it's a fair criticism, when comparing the solutions. In one case, PT, you can choose whether you want to use an outboard cue mixer, or not. In the other, Native, you have no real choice, unless you are willing to compromise in your monitoring options.

Please keep in mind, I've never owned a TDM system. I'm still not a fan of PT's sound, but I think you have to be fair when comparing features. PT hardware still gives it an advantage in the latency and monitoring areas, as of today. But as I said in an earlier post, CPU power will even that out sooner than later.

[aussie_techie]

Originally Posted by BrianT

I'm about to build a quad CPU system, using dualcore Opterons.

and what will you even run on it? XP Pro will only use 2 physical CPUs, or to you plan to run some obscule program on a unix system. no offence but i think you need to do your research.

ive been watching this thead and one thing i realy dont understand is why people are saying these distributed systems look good on paper when they dont. there is a certain checklist that a project needs to pass to be successfuly in a distributed model and audio processing requies the exact oppisite. i wont go into details here but to me it just seems stupid to even attempt to use such a system for audio. let alone the cost of such a system.

[BrianT]

Originally Posted by aussie_techie

and what will you even run on it? XP Pro will only use 2 physical CPUs, or to you plan to run some obscule program on a unix system. no offence but i think you need to do your research.

I feel pretty good about my research. I've already run Nuendo on Windows Server 2003 and variants of that OS can handle 4 physical CPUs with no problem. All versions of Windows tabulate CPU count by physical CPU, not by the number of cores, so 8 cores in 4 physical CPUs is no problem at all.

I expect I may have to resolve an issue or 2, but hey, somebody has to go first. AFAIK, I was one of the first end user on dual, dualcore Opterons back in June. It took Steinberg a few weeks to optimize for quad CPU, but they did it in a timely fashion. I'm now running 4 of those setups and am very happy with the results and Steinberg says they are now optimized for any number of processors in a system.

Come on, man, get in the spirit of the thing. This is a great time to be a geek. It's one of the last places the average guy can be a pioneer. And unlike earlier eras of pioneering, you don't even get yourself killed if you screw up

[Geert van den Berg]

Hello Brian, what would such a system that you are planning to build cost?

How about the system you currently use?

Sorry for going a bit offtopic...

[RhOdEz]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Come on, man, get in the spirit of the thing. This is a great time to be a geek. It's one of the last places the average guy can be a pioneer. And unlike earlier eras of pioneering, you don't even get yourself killed if you screw up

Good luck with that monster ,i hope we'll see some pics or geek-friendly "making of" - enjoy

[Rob G]

Brian T,

I as well as many others I presume would be interested in your findings. My studio has a Nuendo setup, & we're planning on expanding it early next year. I think the extended warranty/tech. support is about to expire on our current computer that runs Nuendo so any detailed info. you have would be of help in our purchase, & configuration decisions. Also if there's a particular person, or group of people at Steinberg you deal with the contact info. would also be good to know.

Rob G..

[BrianT]

The cost of building a dual, dualcore Opteron (or dual, dualcore Xeon for that matter) is really only increased over a standard dual CPU box by the price difference between the CPUs. All else is that same. So depending on the model, it's likely a few hundred dollar premium for basically double the CPU power.

OTOH, the quad dualcore is another story. The 8xx series Opterons carry a price premium, partially due to the additional Hypertransport links. The 875s I will be using are nearly $2500/each, plus about $2000 for the mobo, plus the extra $$$ for the quad CPU capable Server 2003 vs XP Pro.

So I'd say the 8 core system will carry a price premium over the quad core of about $9000. Like I say, a luxury at this point. However, in the most demanding settings, the system will have no equal.

Assuming of course I can make it all work like it's supposed to.

[Tibbon]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I've seen numerous studio's who use a bunch of external mixers as cue mixers.
And these are stduio's with SSL's etc.

It's such a normal thing to have separate cue mixers, but somehow when used with a Native DAW, it's considered unproffesional.

I think OceanWay in Nashville in Studio A has a modified Mackie on the side of their massive Neve for cue mixes.

[BrianT]

Ocean Way Nashville has a 16 channel Mackie at each musician/singer location as a personal Cue mixer, in essence, an analog precursor to the current Aviom setup.

But there is no Mackie or other outboard cue mixer used as a global feed. Cue sends come directly from the main Neve console and are then distributed to the localized Mackie. This info is based on having tracked at that studio.

[Geert van den Berg]

Originally Posted by BrianT

So I'd say the 8 core system will carry a price premium over the quad core of about $9000. Like I say, a luxury at this point. However, in the most demanding settings, the system will have no equal.

That's a lot of dough for a computer!

I'm very interested to hear how it works out and I sure there will a be lot of others. Keep us informed!

What housing are you using for these computers? Is it relatively quiet, or made for in a machine room?

[bigbaby987]

Originally Posted by gfx

Ive been through Powercores and UAD's and keep going back to my trusty TDM rig. Although I do still run a UAD alongside my TDM.

The two do live side by side quite happily in Logic an PT

FX teleport/wormhole/Logic Node/System Link is all well and dandy on paper.

The reality is somewhat different , latency , bugs.

I want to make music not mess endlessly with tweaking parameters.

The reason I run DSP is simple im tired of the update war thats prevalent on computers.

Same reason I dropped PC and went Mac.

Fiddly and updating and rebuilds......

TDM is expensive yes , Digi dont play nice yes BUT it works and for the most part better than the newer alternatives.......

Ill take hassle free over cutting edge anyday. Maybe the situation will change in a year or two as the other platforms mature. But today right now inmy humble opinion PT has the edge for me.

IF I run out of DSP then bounce or use less bloody plugins. Im still always amazed at how many plugins people think they need to use. Less is a whole lot more imho

I still have a good analouge outboard collection. I cant bear being 100% 'in the box'
Ill stick to the devil I know.


GFX

FXpansion Audio UK Ltd

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is exactly why i'm buying an hd system in early 2006!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's the most stable system that i've used.. no useless crap.. just works.. period, and yes i do use logic.. i use it to write but since PT has come up in the midi category.. things are going to change... bottom line.

well.. not the devil line, but i'll stick with pt

[johnjm22]

Forgive me for hijacking this thread...


But I don't understand how a PT TDM system minamizes latency issues during tracking better than a naitive system.

People in this thread have disscussed that adding processing power to a naitive rig (via distributed audio processing, or system link) doesn't work when trying to reduce latency to an exceptable level (during tracking), thus giving PT TDM a distinct advantage.

But I was under they impression that they only advantage of a TDM rig, over a naitive rig, was that a TDM rig has more processing power allowing you to run more plugins ect. during mixing.

So if it's not an issue of processing power when trying to reduce latency during tracking, than what is it? How exactly does a PT TDM system reduce latency any more than a naitive rig?

I would greatly appreciate an indepth anwer to this question. Thanks in advance.

[catfish11]

tdm rigs have nearly no latency, even while tracking through plug-ins
so as an example you can monitor with reverb, compression, eq while tracking, if you want, the latency is extremely little, unoticable
it is in the tdm architecture, in essence a pro tools rig is a real time mixer flowing in a linear fashion, processing along the way
the advantage is - monitoring, and a sort of mix as you go work flow, and stability along with power, though i imagine a native rig could have plenty of power these days

it is in this linear processing that protools has its strength

so one can also play guitar, keys,vocals through any number of effects echoboy, reverb, harmonizers, whatever, this is where people probably don't realize the full potential of tdm till they use it

though i imagine many people don't need this, but from a production/creation standpoint it's great

of course other's MMV

it is not an issue so if i have a nearly finished project, w lots of plugs, i can easily add something new, without having to adjust processing, it is all real time

i hope this helps

[johnjm22]

Thanks Catfish11.

So if I'm understanding correctly, its a TDM rig's type of processing that allows you to track through plug-ins and monitor with very little latency. As opposed to pure processing power alone (which native systems have a plenty of these days).

[catfish11]

this is correct,
the other thing to consider is how this relates to cue mixes
allowing one various cue set-ups w effects completely
ITB without the need for a seperate mixer/board

i am no proponent this way or that, but the tdm hd/accl system when taken as a total solution is really not that expensive when you get into account all the other stuff

and from a creative ITB trip it is hard to beat
though i personally stem out to my spider for mixing, into samplitude on a pc

[Rob G]

All,

TDM latency statistics are better than most but even within TDM you don't want to be doing live recording/over-dubbing with short, or long delay compensation settings. Now TDM with 'Quickpunch' engaged is some of the best I've worked with 'ever'. Better than similar quick punchin/out settings in Logic Pro, or Digital Performer. But I still do most of my tracking/over-dubbing with minimal plug-ins engaged(usually just reverb, chorus, & some delay to wet things up a little for the artist but, not inserted on audio tracks) during tracking/over-dubbing within Pro Tools TDM in 6.9.2 within OSX 10.4.2 on a Dual 1Ghz G4. Digidesign even recommends not using delay compensation in certain tracking/over-dub situations. So if you don't have the capacity to use delay compensation in most to all tracking/over-dubbing situations even in Pro Tools|HD-TDM then you 'know' you should'nt use it in Nuendo using VST System Link, or Logic Pro using Distributed Audio Processing. All of that being said the area where we all stand to benefit from Pro Tools|HD TDM, Nuendo VST System Link, & Logic Pro Distributed Audio Processing is in the mix stage of audio production where we can pack, & stack massive numbers of plug-ins, inserts, & etc. without being penalized due to delay compensation that's available in 'all' three described systems. Both Logic Pro working under Distributed Audio Processing, & Nuendo working under VST System Link have delay compensation available. So with those concepts, & workflow in mind the power of these other two systems 'can' evenly be put into the same race/competition with Pro Tools|HD-TDM. Although arguably the absolute 'best' plug-ins available are a handful that are 'exclusivly' available in Pro Tools TDM format. I can concieve/picture a properly configured Nuendo system working under VST System Link, or Logic Pro system working under Distributed Audio Processing out powering a maxed out Pro Tools TDM system due to the fact that to my knowledge neither Steinberg, or Apple have imposed limits upon the number of CPU's that can be linked together in their respective expanded CPU systems where as Pro Tools TDM systems have a cap on the number of process cards which are beyond the core card that can be installed within a Pro Tools TDM system. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong anywhere here.

Rob G..

[Rob G]

Brian T,

Now that 'Vista' is officially on the way what new things do you think we can look for in Nuendo(Maybe Nuendo 4). Also how do you think the processing via Nuendo VST System Link will benefit from 'Vista'.

Rob G..

[Methlab]

When you all mention Nuendo for audio only, is it safe to think of it as just the same as Cubase?

I think Cubase is great, and it seems like more and more MIDI based producers are using it. I just track a live bass or guitar and one vocal at a time, so my Cubase setup is very efficient. I plan to go dual core and add a UAD card this year.

[manning1]

just my 2 cents on networking etc in a studio.
ive built a few computer networks for industry......long before the internet even....
and i question whether studios should consider the downsides.
the problem being computer chips/smt can go wrong and bring down the house of cards/power supplies etc. i think that for many studios contemplating this route....
as they add more network "stuff".....so the possibility of problems escalates.
its simply murphys law of computing.
my advice would be to keep it as simple/controllable as possible.
once multiple core processors are commonly available at good prices over the coming few years ...hopefully this will simplify things.
and let the folks needing huge amounts of plug ins be happy to their hearts content.
in my own case i keep all native on one pc....without added dsp cards or anything else. just the pc and multitrack software. less headaches ive found.
cant beat the KISS approach imho.
networks of devices are strange beasts at the best of times even with the best forethought of very experienced computer engineers......and ive torn my hair out many times....so consider what its like for the studio owner who might not be "au courant" with networking.
distributed processing is nothing new....been around for years in the computer
industry including all the headaches. just ask any financial institutions system engineers on the headaches of maintaining an atm network.
not lots of fun imho.

[johnjm22]

Originally Posted by manning1

my advice would be to keep it as simple/controllable as possible.
once multiple core processors are commonly available at good prices over the coming few years ...hopefully this will simplify things.
and let the folks needing huge amounts of plug ins be happy to their hearts content.
in my own case i keep all native on one pc....without added dsp cards or anything else. just the pc and multitrack software. less headaches ive found.

[Rob G]

By the way. Do any of you reading this thread use 'Sonor'?

Rob G..

[tengu]

I truly wish they made Sonar for OSX and I wish Apogee had of made there new PCI-e cards with DSP capabilities more akin to the Digidesign HD cards.

HD is at the top with no competition and hence they can demand such high prices. $7000 US for a PCI/PCI-E card with some chips on it is too much. I hope someone comes out with a cheaper alternative that is open ended.

[Chris Kress]

Dual core Opteron 270's (2 ghz) price just dropped to $485 ea including fan. How much was that Accel card again? Quad core AMDs will be out this summer (mature and stable by end of the year). Oh BTW, does anyone wonder why there is no TDM version of Waves Tune??? Does Waves know something that we don't???? Just some things to think about for those who own 7 acccel cards. I think that we are shifting into a new era (host based)...

Quad core AMD Announcement
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...126111118.html

[ice5nake]

I am running Nuendo 2 with a Delta 1010. I have a second machine that I'd like to system link with.

Anyone know of an inexpensive card I can drop in my second machine and play around with this feature with?

[joris de man]

I think there are a few things that people forgot to mention here:

-logic nodes at the moment only work with Logic plugins, afaik. The idea is largely the same as VST system link, but VST system link allows you to run any VST plugin. That having been said, I've not heard anything great about it and the time I tried FX teleport for myself I found the latency to be too much of a hassle for it to be worth it.
It also needs host cpu time which adds an additional cpu load, for network access and streaming. My guess is that at some point in the future that kind of stuff will work well, just not right now with the current crop of machines and network cards.
Instead I run midi overlan and have the second machine come in with ADAT lightpipe. No latency and rock tight midi timing.

-There are a number of audio cards for native systems (namely creamware scope system or soundscape) that offer the same kind of dsp mixing as PT does..although they can't run PT plugins.
But since the system works largely the same (dsp mixer with i/o), one can have the same low latency as PT systems, *as long as you don't want to use any VST plugins for input monitoring*.
As soon as you do that, the audio will have to make a roundtrip through the VST mixer adding the additional latency to whatever your buffer settings are set to.
However, using outboard and patching it in would be extremely low latency and comparable to PT.

And, as BrianT mentions, this latency is getting lower all the time.
I would agree that a DSP system still has the edge, but then again the price is also way higher, and the difference in performance is getting less.

Distributed processing is a nice idea which, as people have mentioned here, sounds exciting but imho is still not a stable solution.
I think the newer dualcore processors are the future and it is better to keep everything in the box.

I run both PT|24 mix (on OS9) and didn't upgrade for exactly the reasons mentioned in this thread. If I had, I would have had to upgrade my machine twice and my software and plugins countless of times, let alone the dsp cards and hardware.
I now run it as a mixer with a dual opteron pc with Nuendo3 as my main machine and haven't looked back. Nuendo does everything that Logic didn't for me, and the only thing I miss from Logic are some of the plugins and synths.

[theother]

Why have some ProTools users the misconception that more plugins means more latency on a native system?

Let me clear one thing up for you: Latency is a fixed value on my system.

It's always the same for every project I work on. No matter how many plugins I use. More plugins need more CPU power. Period.

The amount of latency is determined by the quality of your computer and soundcard.

I use RME MADI and a powerfull 4 CPU AMD system and my typical latency 3 ms when I record. And 6 ms when I mix (to give me more CPU power)

All the plugins don't add any more delay than they do within ProTools. Some plugins like Waves L2 add more because they have a look-ahead feature.

ie. all the SSL Waves, URS or my Convulsion reverbs (Wizoo) I use with Nuendo add 0ms delay.

The only case when latency gets added is when you use a UAD-1 card, which doubles the latency when using it.

So I don't use UAD-1 when recording and that is the end of the story.

ProTools does not have 0ms latency BTW. What makes you think it has? Every computer needs time to process things. And so does PT.

ProTools does have latency like my PC Nuendo system. I don't know how much it is but it should be at least a couple of ms. Because that's what PT needs to go back and forth to the DSPs on the TDM bus.

I just heard that Yamaha will bring DSP cards for Cubase 4 and Nuendo 4, that will work with any VST plugin and it will be an open platform/format.

Very exciting times! I think that Yamaha bought Steinberg was a good move after all!

Yamaha = DSP and controllers
Steinberg = software

[theother]

Originally Posted by Methlab

When you all mention Nuendo for audio only, is it safe to think of it as just the same as Cubase?

I think Cubase is great, and it seems like more and more MIDI based producers are using it. I just track a live bass or guitar and one vocal at a time, so my Cubase setup is very efficient. I plan to go dual core and add a UAD card this year.

It is the same.

Yet, Nuendo has the new control room feature, which can be nice.
I like the extra listening bus you get with it. In addidion to the 'in place' Solo (S-button) you get a L-Button on all the channels. Cool to hear what's going on on fx-returns, where in-place solo is useless.
You can even assign a specific output for the L-Bus (if you want to).
You have talkback. Studio-sends in addition to the FX sends for headphone mixes. 2-track inputs, speakerswitch, level control, etc.

[joris de man]

Theother, not completely true...

I think you're confusing latency compensation versus latency on input channels.

If you're mixing, i.e playing back tracks, then your assumption that you can add as many plugins as you want without adding latency is true.
In fact, latency *is* added on every plugin you add; however, nuendo compensates for latency in its internal mix structure so that all tracks, synths etc playback in perfect sync.
Simply said, if one track has no plugins, and the other has 5 that add a total of 5 ms latency, the track w