PT9 HD & PT10 HD did not null

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by amost

More from the who cares if they null and or you're doing it wrong.


Two Identical Mixes about I dunno 30-40- tracks including Auxes. TDM. HD2 Accel pcie.

I pulled all the plugs and even turned off the read automation. There's some panning...same on each.

Bounced two identical mixes in PT9 HD & PT10 HD. 24/48, did not dither down. Opened a 24/48 session, imported...Inverted one. They didn't null.

I think AVIDs expectation of nulling goes down to -60db.

were you using the same playback engines? there will be a difference in the HD/TDM engine vs native engine....

[superwack]

Which one sounded better?

Actually, one thought - did you check the panning laws on each session? My copy of PT9 defaulted to 2.5 instead of my usual 3... Don't know if they are set the same but maybe that would make some minor difference?

[amost]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

I think AVIDs expectation of nulling goes down to -60db.

were you using the same playback engines? there will be a difference in the HD/TDM engine vs native engine....

Hi Charles...thanks. Yeah I used the TDM Engine for both.

[amost]

Originally Posted by superwack

Which one sounded better?

Actually, one thought - did you check the panning laws on each session? My copy of PT9 defaulted to 2.5 instead of my usual 3... Don't know if they are set the same but maybe that would make some minor difference?

No, I thought about that originally...and thought they were. I never changed 9s default I don't think...& didn't touch 10s. I gotta go check..& remember where that's at. .

TBC.

I didn't go as far as which one sounds better.

[amost]

Turns out panning on both was at -2.5db.

Could be operator error I dunno what though...they didn't null.
Mix bus is supposed to be the same exact thing...9HD &10HD using the TDM engine on both, right?

[dubrichie]

Were you using the Dithered Mixer plugin with HD9?

Perhaps it has reverted to the non-dithered mixer because of the installation of HD10?

But how much difference this would make to the sound in the particular session that you used for your test, I don't know.

[psycho_monkey]

Did you disable any plugins with modulation fx?
Did you try nulling 2 bounces from each system?

More details please!

[amost]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Did you disable any plugins with modulation fx?
Did you try nulling 2 bounces from each system?

More details please!

I pulled all the plugs, no plugs on any channel...and even disabled automation on everything.

I'm not saying there isn't room for operator error still...but I don't know what it is & by that time was pretty bored with the experiment.
I'm going to try again though.

[amost]

Originally Posted by dubrichie

Were you using the Dithered Mixer plugin with HD9?

Perhaps it has reverted to the non-dithered mixer because of the installation of HD10?

PT9 & PT10 are on two separate drives with two separate Mac OSs.

I'm going to try it again...just because.

[amost]

Later that same day: I redid the test with a different session...about 80 tracks which includes stereo auxes and groups. I consolidated the entire thing just to make sure the fade/clip gain issue was not a factor. No plugs...I pulled every plug & turned off automation. ADC was on & both sessions' pans were -3db showing 49 samples of delay.

Bounced about 30 seconds of the mix in PT10 using one Mac OS Drive, saved copy as PT9....started up on the PT9 OS drive and bounced the same 30 seconds in PT 9. Opened up a session and imported the two 24/44 bounced wavs into a 24/44 session & inverted one. They nulled. Yay.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by amost

Later that same day: I redid the test with a different session...about 80 tracks which includes stereo auxes and groups. I consolidated the entire thing just to make sure the fade/clip gain issue was not a factor. No plugs...I pulled every plug & turned off automation. ADC was on & both sessions' pans were -3db showing 49 samples of delay.

Bounced about 30 seconds of the mix in PT10 using one Mac OS Drive, saved copy as PT9....started up on the PT9 OS drive and bounced the same 30 seconds in PT 9. Opened up a session and imported the two 24/44 bounced wavs into a 24/44 session & inverted one. They nulled. Yay.

Well done! Someone who knows how to test things...

[elambo]

Originally Posted by amost

Later that same day: I redid the test with a different session...about 80 tracks which includes stereo auxes and groups. I consolidated the entire thing just to make sure the fade/clip gain issue was not a factor. No plugs...I pulled every plug & turned off automation. ADC was on & both sessions' pans were -3db showing 49 samples of delay.

Bounced about 30 seconds of the mix in PT10 using one Mac OS Drive, saved copy as PT9....started up on the PT9 OS drive and bounced the same 30 seconds in PT 9. Opened up a session and imported the two 24/44 bounced wavs into a 24/44 session & inverted one. They nulled. Yay.

So when Tony Maserati states in the GS advertisement at the top right of this page (referring to PT10), "it sounds better," what exactly is he talking about? If they null, not only does it not sound "better" it doesn't even sound different. Is he using and referring to Native?

[Jorg]

Originally Posted by elambo

So when Tony Maserati states in the GS advertisement at the top right of this page (referring to PT10), "it sounds better," what exactly is he talking about? If they null, not only does it not sound "better" it doesn't even sound different. Is he using and referring to Native?

He's probably referring to the money or free products he's getting from Avid for saying it.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by elambo

So when Tony Maserati states in the GS advertisement at the top right of this page (referring to PT10), "it sounds better," what exactly is he talking about? If they null, not only does it not sound "better" it doesn't even sound different. Is he using and referring to Native?

Maybe he's referring to Avid's cheque
A.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by Jorg

He's probably referring to the money or free products he's getting from Avid for saying it.

You beat me to the punch!
A.

[amost]

Originally Posted by elambo

So when Tony Maserati states in the GS advertisement at the top right of this page (referring to PT10), "it sounds better," what exactly is he talking about? If they null, not only does it not sound "better" it doesn't even sound different. Is he using and referring to Native?

I dunno... Maybe Native...maybe with plugs...maybe I dunno.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by amost

I dunno... Maybe Native...maybe with plugs...maybe I dunno.

HD 9 Native already had a floating bit mix engine...
A.

[elambo]

Ha ha!

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by elambo

So when Tony Maserati states in the GS advertisement at the top right of this page (referring to PT10), "it sounds better," what exactly is he talking about? If they null, not only does it not sound "better" it doesn't even sound different. Is he using and referring to Native?

It's marketing.

Having increased headroom could make things easier, therefore easier to make it sound better.

But it can't sound "better" if there weren't any mistakes to start with.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

It's marketing.

Having increased headroom could make things easier, therefore easier to make it sound better.

But it can't sound "better" if there weren't any mistakes to start with.

there are lots of places where that perception is possible- and it doesnt necessarily get limited to the actual recordings- If one is using the newer convertors, most people seem to think they sound better- the Native mix bus has more headroom than TDM as well- so thats another place, right off the bat where that comment could be true.

[mdoelger]

Originally Posted by elambo

So when Tony Maserati states in the GS advertisement at the top right of this page (referring to PT10), "it sounds better," what exactly is he talking about?

Money.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

there are lots of places where that perception is possible- and it doesnt necessarily get limited to the actual recordings- If one is using the newer convertors, most people seem to think they sound better- the Native mix bus has more headroom than TDM as well- so thats another place, right off the bat where that comment could be true.

I hear you, but the ad relates to PT10, not the convertors, and headroom doesn't equate to better sound (merely the potential for better sound), though through the magic of advertising it can be made to seem true, and I think that's what we have here.

For TDM, there's no improvement, is that accurate?

[elambo]

btw, I've been using the PT10 trial and it's disappointing. There are a couple of beneficial new features but it's generally the same as 9. I wouldn't have upgraded at the old price of $350 and I'm certainly not going to buy it after the trial ends.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by elambo

I hear you, but the ad relates to PT10, not the convertors, and headroom doesn't equate to better sound (merely the potential for better sound), though through the magic of advertising it can be made to seem true, and I think that's what we have here.

For TDM, there's no improvement, is that accurate?

I am not really sure if it sounds better for TDM, because I haven't used it with the old TDM Cards- I migrated to HD Native from TDM with PT9, and for that, I can say it really DID sound better- I do believe that the Native mixer is higher resolution, and the sonics, even with both my 192 i/o and using core audio were superior. the feature with 10 that may not have "sounded" better, but made the work flow faster were the disk cache, which provides a real performance boost and the realtime fades, which speed wise was pretty huge as well.

[amost]

Let me ask you this...whether or not (insert endorser's name) is on the up & up about what they're quoted as saying in an Avid ad is not my question.

I didn't want PT9 HD & PT10 HD to null so I'd have an excuse to pay $599 for not getting 16K ADC or the 32 Bit Floating Point Mix Engine(with TDM). I wanted to convince myself that there is a difference in sound...

so TDM 48 Bit Fixed summing is the same between the two, right?
How about once you insert plugs because isn't PT10 HD 32 Bit when it comes to the plugs(not the mix engine) and PT9 HD is not? This would suggest that when you use plugs, then there is a difference between PT9 HD & PT10 HD. Or am I thinking this wrong?

I'm not talking about Native or Native/HD...I get that, that there is a difference in theory.

Thanks!

[Brian Carter]

Originally Posted by amost

so TDM 48 Bit Fixed summing is the same between the two, right?
How about once you insert plugs because isn't PT10 HD 32 Bit when it comes to the plugs(not the mix engine) and PT9 HD is not? This would suggest that when you use plugs, then there is a difference between PT9 HD & PT10 HD. Or am I thinking this wrong?

I'm not talking about Native or Native/HD...I get that, that there is a difference in theory.

Thanks!

No changes with HD Accel Hardware in regards to processing. As you've stated, TDM 48 bit fixed summing is the same as its always been. If you insert a "native" plugin (RTAS) it travels into the 48 bit fixed mixer just as it has for the last 9 years.

There's no reason for PT10 to sound different than PT9 if still using HD Acell hardware.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by amost

I didn't want PT9 HD & PT10 HD to null so I'd have an excuse to pay $599 for not getting 16K ADC or the 32 Bit Floating Point Mix Engine(with TDM). I wanted to convince myself that there is a difference in sound...

so TDM 48 Bit Fixed summing is the same between the two, right?
How about once you insert plugs because isn't PT10 HD 32 Bit when it comes to the plugs(not the mix engine) and PT9 HD is not? This would suggest that when you use plugs, then there is a difference between PT9 HD & PT10 HD. Or am I thinking this wrong?

Thanks!

As long as you're using TDM plugs there's strictly no difference for sure, 48 bits processing dithered to 24.
It could be a minimal difference with RTAS if they're processing at 32 float and not dithering back to 24...? not sure about how RTAS work.
A.

[Brian Carter]

BTW - Tony Maserati is talking about his experience working with HDX hardware and PT10. Which will sound different since you now have 32 bit float processing and 64 bit summing. It's a totally different beast.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by Brian Carter

BTW - Tony Maserati is talking about his experience working with HDX hardware and PT10. Which will sound different since you now have 32 bit float processing and 64 bit summing. It's a totally different beast.

With a correct gain staging I doubt the difference between 48 fixed bits and 64 float mix engine would be clearly audible, I never did the test though.
A.