Here's is What HD native can do

[scott petito]

additional Info:

there is an 8 channel headphone mix going to a hearback system no LLM involved

the Lex 300 is a hardware insert adds 147samples of delay

44.1K sample rate Latency would be even better at higher rates with little extra strain on the system

CT4 adds 1 sample of delay
Massenburg Eq adds 27 samples

cheers
Scott

[Doc Mixwell]

Pretty cool Scott, I am also using the MDW 3.0, on every session. Love that thing.

The HDNative PCI-e system with an 8-core is pretty powerful. Interesting on your comment about HD6. I tested the system pretty extensively, and also found, that LLM was not needed with an 8-core machine and low buffers.

I'm thinking any of these new mac pro's have the juice behind the system, but yea, I am loving the endless middle finger that my 8-core has been giving me.

Having also had a great experience with the HDNative system, with Avid, Apogee and Lynx Converters, I think many current TDM users will see an upgrade, when entering into a new Mac Pro [unless already procured] along with the HDNative system.

If you currently use a G5 and TDM cards, it is very easy to see that your native power will increase quite substantially, with a new mac pro. So HDNative might be a better upgrade for many people. If you have enough DSP horsepower, you can run that sucker without a problem.

Using the Avid card, allows for DAE driver stability at low buffer sizes compared to 3rd party driver options with PT+CPTK. It has a very low profile to the environment so your workload is unaffected and the environment retains all the raw horsepower where it needs it.

[scott petito]

And remember i will and have gone on to overdub many more tracks on these live tracks...

I have never used LLm mode yet and only raised my buffers to 128 on a hugh mix and only then because of a large number of Vis running...


These are protools hd 9 figures i have heard that overall speed is even better in PT hd10


And im now convinced the 64 bit mix engine sounds better than the tdm hd3 engine. And headroom is close to infinite...

Cheers
Scott

[Doc Mixwell]

The sonic "perceived difference", that I experienced with HDNative, was really good headroom for the bussing, firstly, [no problem mixing inside the box with accurate DAC] and I would say compared to the TDM system, with the same Accurate DAC.....HDNative sounds more "opaque", to me. We are not talking a mind blowing difference here, but a noted difference never the less. Which has also been agreeable from clients who have upgraded. This is a highly subjective call though, and I encourage users to test it for themselves.

[scott petito]

I agree Adam I was reluctant to say i thought it sounded better... it was more of a feeling ... More open on top, mids seemed tighter and since i had the same mix running on the same harware on both native and hd3 it was apparent... I recently printed mixes from both systems and could consistantly pickout the native mix as just a little better sounding... But as you say this is a subjective one


Cheers
Scott

[jonathan jetter]

hey scott-

are all your clients are ok tracking with HD Native + Hearback? that's been the biggest worry for me......

also- if you pop the buffer up to 256 or so.....what sort of CPU drop do you see?

[scott petito]

Not a single complaint

And my recent clients include Steve Gadd, Chick Corea, Danny Gotlieb, Warren Bernhardt, Tony Levin, David Darling, Larry Campbell, Richard Shindell ,Cathie Ryan and Anna Maria Jopek...

All pros no issues during live tracks overdubs or even last min overdubs

Cheers
SP

Ps I mix on an icon so basically in the box

[scott petito]

As for buffers at 256.

Never needed to even try it...


Cheers
SP

[ddageek]

Scott
Great to hear, more and more I keep thinking HD Native is the perfect fit for me. Your input has only added to that conclusion !
Now I just need to find the funds!

[raal]

Originally Posted by scott petito

As for buffers at 256.

Never needed to even try it...


Cheers
SP

wow. i'm understanding latency has never been an issue with overdubs, even on big mixes?

[STARSKI]

What about using a plugin during tracking. Something like an Eq or Compressor or efx autotune etc. Something like that on a vocalist? If you set the buffer low can you use any plugins such as those? I know I definitely can't on a firewire pro tools device but I can on an HD1 system.

[scott petito]

Starski


see my screen shots all of these plugs were engaged during a LIVE tracking session....
there are about 30 plugs active on this session....

cheers
Scott

[anguswoodhead]

Interesting....
Maybe HD Native is enough.
HDX may not be needed.

[scott petito]

Again Guys the Key Word Here is NATIVE.... you really need to have a FAST modern MAC clean install, as much ram as you can afford.... no extra shit... although if you look at my tool Bar you will see I have Logic DP and Sonic Solutions on there as well

The Computer is doing the work make sure it is up to it and the card will keep your latency low

I use VEP pro to host most of my instrument plugins.. Protools still does not handle VIs nearly as well as Logic or DP but this helps a lot...

also a coming firmware update to my Lynx's should decrease Latency further since they were slowed down to work with 192's... so it should only get better

cheers
SP

[soundeq]

Ok I'm being swayed to HD native by this at the moment.

I have the latest 6-core mac pro... and the voice stealing thing for RTAS on Aux's is killing me on HD

[D.Don]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

Interesting....
Maybe HD Native is enough.
HDX may not be needed.

You're starting to get the idea here m8!

[clip6]

UA card users what buffer setting works for you on version 6 with the HD Native card?

I think 6 is the most current.

[scott petito]

I have a uad quad card in this machine... Same buffer 64

But some Uad plugins can have large internal latencies ... Thats is true on all systems native or dsp

Cheers
Sp

[Spare Monkey]

I just purchased HD Native (special bundle deal w/ omni) but need to get a mac pro..would a new quad core get similar results? I would only need a few plug-ins for tracking but more would be great..

Was thinking about getting a refurb 8 core from 2008 or so. Dont have a ton of cash but want something that would last a few years..

[Andy_bt]

Double check the 2008 Mac Pro compatibility because it seems to be a bit of confusion about it being qualified with HD native & HDX, unless I missed some recent news...?
A.

[D.Don]

Originally Posted by Spare Monkey

I just purchased HD Native (special bundle deal w/ omni) but need to get a mac pro..would a new quad core get similar results? I would only need a few plug-ins for tracking but more would be great..

Was thinking about getting a refurb 8 core from 2008 or so. Dont have a ton of cash but want something that would last a few years..

In terms of performance, no idea, I would've aimed at getting as much computer power one possibly can, and don't forget to check this list no matter what:

Pro Tools HD 10.0 Qualified Apple Computers

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by D.Don

In terms of performance, no idea, but don't forget to check this list no matter what:

Pro Tools HD 10.0 Qualified Apple Computers

The list would imply it is but I remember Max saying the contrary somewhere on the Duc...
A.

[anguswoodhead]

I would buy a Nehelim or Westmere (2009 onwards).
Personally I just bought a 4,1 2009 Nehelim (2.93 Xeon Quad Core) just in case I go HDX - that way I have covered all my basses.
It was AU$2500 with 16GB DDR3 ram and 3 Yr Apple Care.
It's an Apple Recon model.
Hope it's got enough grunt to run a HD Native system with high track count and lot's of plugs and VI's.

[jslevin]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

I would buy a Nehelim or Westmere (2009 onwards).
Personally I just bought a 4,1 2009 Nehelim (2.93 Xeon Quad Core) just in case I go HDX - that way I have covered all my basses.

I researched this pretty substantially at the start of the year and came to the same conclusion. The Nehalem systems are where there was a real break in technology and performance vs. the earlier models. The 2010 and 2011 models are just incremental improvements on the 2009 under-the-hood redesign.

Based on Scott's experience and screenshots, it would seem that a Quad system should be more than adequate.

JSL

[jslevin]

Thanks for posting this, Scott. Funny thing, I was just now logging in here to dig up your recent posts on this exact subject, and here I find this thread started by you just today.

Let me ask you, do you really even need HD Native, or can you run HD on a really great Firewire interface?

JSL

[vudoo]

Scott,

Are you tracking bands or just a few inputs at then time ???

I have been testing an HD native with HD I/O 16x16 rig with the latest MacPro 12 core, 24 GB ram and i definitely feel some delay with the buffer set at 64. If i lower it to 32, it feels more like my HD3 TDM rig, but at that setting i sometimes get clicks/pops and as i'm piling up tracks, the system feels sluggish and not as stable. This is me tracking drums (12 inputs).

HD Native is great for mixing but i still won't rely on it for professional client supervised tracking session. I guess the other alternative is to get a killer small mixer for tracking.

[STARSKI]

So none of the people that are recording in the situation you posted Scott are having any problems with latency even with all those plug ins active and busses being used during tracking?

[anguswoodhead]

It would seem that tracking small numbers of inputs on HD Native works ok especially if you use the LLM.
Plus of course Mixing with the Latency up high. (128 or above)

But for serious 'band' day in, day out tracking HDX would be the go.

Mostly I only track 1 or 2 Ch's at a time and 1 person at a time so 1 x cue mix is enough.
So I'm going to give HDN a go for a few months I reckon.
See if my 2009 Quad Core Mac Pro will do the job.

[Bradley Prakope]

Originally Posted by Roc Mixwell

I am loving the endless middle finger that my 8-core has been giving me.

+1 on that for sure!!!