HD Native vs HDX
Old 2nd January 2012
  #1
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
HD Native vs HDX

Okay Team,

First, my current setup:

Dual 2.0 GHz G5 (PPC)
PT 8.0.5
HD3 (PCIx)
96 I/O
Command|8

Next, what I use the system for:

It's almost exclusively a mix machine, all audio, almost universally 44.1, usually between 75-125 tracks. I default to TDM as much as possible, but have found myself using a lot more RTAS recently, and this system just can't keep up with the latency anymore.

The dilemma:

Having read what I could find here on the topic, there seems to be a lot of debate as to which is "better", with regards to HDN vs HDX. Different strokes for different folks, obviously, but for what I use my system for, it seems like HDN would be better bang for my buck.

What experience does anyone have with either of these systems? Would you say your system usage is similar to mine?

I've heard good things about the newer converters, some people saying they're better than the Symphony. Thoughts?

Any help would be greatly suggested. You may be able to help save me a decent chunk of change!

Nick
Old 2nd January 2012
  #2
Gear interested
 

I was in the exact same situation as you, G5 2.0 HD3 PCIX, I had several mixes that were maxing out my HD3 PCIX. I was using a combination of TDM and RTAS plugins, usually pushing TDM until my cards were maxed and then starting in on RTAS. The more RTAS I used, the more unstable protools became. I decided to go the HD Native route. I just purchased a 12 core Mac Pro Westmere and 32 gigs of ram. I loaded up one of the larger sessions I had recently mixed, 112 voices, 2 instances of Kontakt, master bus effects etc. There were a couple of instances of Eventide Factory that I substituted a similar effect out of the Soundtoys range. This particular session maxed out all 3 tdm cards, ( I was unable to insert any more tdm plugs and I was at 60% cpu on rtas) The system was very sluggish and unstable (would crash often on closing the session.) On my new HD Native system, with the buffers set at 512, I'm at 38% cpu. If I lower the buffer to 64, I'm at 50%. With the timeline cached, I'm able to jump around and navigate the session so much easier. I was really worried about what sort of performance I'd see with HD Native, and so far I'm happy with the increase in mixing power. I haven't done any serious tracking with the new system yet, as I just got it up and running in the last week. However, I'm hoping to post screen shots of system usage on a variety of sessions in the next few weeks as I put it through the paces. I'm not affiliated with Avid or any dealer. I paid for my system using the hardware exchange program. The track that I'm referring to can easily be found on Itunes artist: Endless Tribute, Song: Supernatural Touch. Just wanted to be transparent.
Old 2nd January 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
I would rather keep my HD3 cards buy a Magma PE6R4 and get an intel machine MacPro HD 3 is going to have more power than HDN
Old 2nd January 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
BradLyons's Avatar
 

The world of Pro Tools HD has changed dramatically! The new HDX systems are significantly more powerful than the previous HD ACCEL, and less money at the same time. HOWEVER there is no denying that with today's latest Mac 12-cores (and moving forward what we'll see!) natively there's so much processing power available. With the new AAX plugin format, you now have a plugin that is identical to their DSP-based counterparts where previously TDM and RTAS were not exactly the same quality for MOST developers. There were only a small few who coded them to be nearly or truly identical, but most did not. The previous TDM systems, while very powerful with their DSP, didn't give you full allocation of the native processing the way the HD NATIVE and HDX systems do. This is why AVID has put so much effort into the HD NATIVE systems in both the application and promoting of it. I was one of those that "didn't get it" when it was first announced to me. So by the time it was announced to the public many months later, I was hesitant of how it would do. Then it was released and I got a chance to fully see it in action and realized DANG---this is a great system!

Obviously moving from a G5 to an Intel machine itself is going to be a significant jump forward and either direction will be a dramatic improvement. Without talking with you one on one I can't say exactly what the best upgrade path is for you----but I deal with these scenarios daily with some pretty major studios and artists. I've put similar upgrade paths out there with HD NATIVE even upgrading from previous Intel machines----with flying colors and NO regrets. BUT the key here, IMHO, is you really need to do a 12-core computer because you'll not have the DSP processing. With that said, if you decide to add the DSP cards----all the better :-)
Old 2nd January 2012
  #5
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
Masaki,

Thanks for the info. That's EXACTLY the type of feedback I was looking for. Also, I wasn't sure on 8-core or 12-core (for the money) but it sounds like, based on what both you and Brad have said, regardless of the route I choose, I should probably go with a 12-core machine, simply to stay ahead of the times.

So, a few others questions for everyone, what happens in either move with regards to plugs? I've got a series of VST plugs, as well as TDM and RTAS plugs. I remember reading that HDX uses a new format. Does that simply mean downloading updates for the TDM plugs and waiting on updates for the others? Will my VST plugs be useless? I know making the switch from PPC to Intel some of that was bound to happen anyway, so I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row. And, if I go to Native, do I lose the TDM plug functionality? I'm imagining the bigger names are on top of compatibility. My primary concerns are SoundToys and McDSP, and I'm pretty sure they're covered, but what's the story with the rest of them?

Have also read a little about HEAT. Seems pretty cool thus far. Anyone who went that route have anything positive or negative to say about it?
Old 2nd January 2012
  #6
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Just got HEAT installed and I think I love it. But I still have to use it in a few projects to make sure of that....;-) Anyway if you want HEAT you need DSP processing either older HD cards or the new HDX.
Old 2nd January 2012
  #7
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyNoNo View Post
Masaki,

Thanks for the info. That's EXACTLY the type of feedback I was looking for. Also, I wasn't sure on 8-core or 12-core (for the money) but it sounds like, based on what both you and Brad have said, regardless of the route I choose, I should probably go with a 12-core machine, simply to stay ahead of the times.

So, a few others questions for everyone, what happens in either move with regards to plugs? I've got a series of VST plugs, as well as TDM and RTAS plugs. I remember reading that HDX uses a new format. Does that simply mean downloading updates for the TDM plugs and waiting on updates for the others? Will my VST plugs be useless? I know making the switch from PPC to Intel some of that was bound to happen anyway, so I'm just trying to get my ducks in a row. And, if I go to Native, do I lose the TDM plug functionality? I'm imagining the bigger names are on top of compatibility. My primary concerns are SoundToys and McDSP, and I'm pretty sure they're covered, but what's the story with the rest of them?

Have also read a little about HEAT. Seems pretty cool thus far. Anyone who went that route have anything positive or negative to say about it?
Hi! I am not as experienced using this stuff as pretty much anyone else in this forum so I hesitate to even provide an input. But I worked through some similar issues so let me throw out what I can in the "for what it's worth" department.

First, I have a 12-core Westmere Mac Pro (which is effectively a 24-core machine due to hyper threading - Pro Tools reports seeing 24 cores), 16gb, 4 1T hard drives (3T in a software RAID configuration) machine. I believe Pro Tools doesn't know how to actually utilize MOST of those cores. Implementing parallel processing is nothing short of an art form and most software companies, even those who advertise support like Avid with Pro Tools are actually utilizing them in an unsophisticated, minimal usage sort of way. There's a function in Snow Leopard and Lion called "Grand Central Dispatch" that allows non-specialists to design software that accesses parallel processing on Macs but I'm told its pretty unsophisticated itself. Large scale developers like Adobe don't use it on products like Photo Shop (a major parallel processing suitable app) or so I'm told (they code it themselves bypassing GSD). However, I do agree with your comment about staying ahead of the times. As improving processing power gets harder and harder to do in conventional processing hardware due to physical limitations, pressure to rely on things like parallel processing is going to increase on software manufacturers and as they get better at utilizing it, it will be good to have a machine that can be utilized.

My first system was PT9HD+HDN on that machine so I don't have any experience with HD. I can say that the only time I got close to using up my available resources was during an attempt to do so. I can't quantify this but I put a LOT of tracks up with LOTS of plugins and it finally started running out of juice. I just finished upgrading to PT10HD+HDX and the one useful thing I can report so far is the amount of native resources it uses to get the same job done appears to be no more, and possibly even slightly less than the HDN system for the same amount of Native plugins instantiated. They may have improved their multi-core utilization technology in PT10. So it seems to me that going from HDN to HDX is basically adding HDX power on top of HDN power for things that can run on the HDX dsps (in other words, nothing seems to be sacrificed on the native side - at least). And of course, the HDX dsps are doing the the mix/bus work so the load on the Native side starts off lower to be begin with. For what its worth, I haven't got anywhere near close to loading up the HDX system and probably never will.

TDM does not run on HDX (or HD Native). VST does not run on any Pro Tools system without a third part wrapper. I have no experience doing that so nothing to report.

Regarding support for the new AAX formats, software manufacturers are reporting everything from "we haven't gotten around to working it all out yet" (Massey for example) to "we will absolutely do it, and soon, and cross grade everyone for free" (McDSP for example - cudos to these guys by the way!). Sound Toys says they will develop AAX versions (any company that plans to sell to PT users will have to) but haven't decided for sure if they will charge existing users for them but they say they probably will. RTAS, TDM and and Audio Suite will continue to run on PT10/PT10HD but will not be supported by the next major PT release. TDM requires HD card(s) and does not run on HDN. The reason Avid introduced AAX is they're trying to move to an all 64-bit implementation and they can't with those two fundamentally non 64-bit formats. They had to update them. Apparently folks like McDSP can do their -> AAX port in 64-bit right off, then when 64-bit PT comes out, those plugs will "just work" without any further development. So we're in a transition period now that we all asked for and need but that is going to be painful for everyone. I am assuming I'm going to have to shell out some dough to get all my plugs in AAX form over time. Avid has not ported most of their plugins to AAX either, a few come with PT10 and a few more are available for download from their site. From what I can tell, all my existing licenses work with those plugs in the new format (though there's something weird going on with Purple Audio's version of the 1176??). They claim they're working on the rest - but of course, we're talking about Avid here so you can't believe anything they say. Ever.

HEAT is technically not a plugin and in any case only runs on HD or HDX systems because it runs directly in their dsps. There's always been talk about HEAT being developed in a native format but I personally don't believe it will be, at least in the near future. HEAT is amazing. It was developed (at least in part) by Dave Hill who developed Phoenix and a lot of other incredible stuff. I've never heard of anyone who wasn't pretty impressed with HEAT. Its worth watching the Dave Hill video on it on the Avid site (Avid | HEAT)

That's about all I have on the things you asked about. I hope that was helpful and GOOD LUCK !!!!!!!!!!!
Old 3rd January 2012
  #8
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
rus5,

EXTREMELY helpful!! For someone who claims to be unexperienced, you dropped a LOT of great info. So, if I'm understanding correctly (regarding AAX), it is basically the shiny-new TDM/RTAS. From what I've read, there are HDX (TDM) and Native (RTAS) versions, it just won't be backwards compatible, so any existing software I have will basically be useless (once I move beyond PT10). Kind of crappy, but I've come to expect nothing less from Avid/DigiDesign.

rus5, what's your current hardware setup? You using an 8x8x8 or 16x16x16, or something else?
Old 3rd January 2012
  #9
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyNoNo View Post
rus5,

EXTREMELY helpful!! For someone who claims to be unexperienced, you dropped a LOT of great info. So, if I'm understanding correctly (regarding AAX), it is basically the shiny-new TDM/RTAS. From what I've read, there are HDX (TDM) and Native (RTAS) versions, it just won't be backwards compatible, so any existing software I have will basically be useless (once I move beyond PT10). Kind of crappy, but I've come to expect nothing less from Avid/DigiDesign.

rus5, what's your current hardware setup? You using an 8x8x8 or 16x16x16, or something else?
No, you don't really understand that well! Why would your existing software be useless? It'll be upgradable, some for free, some for a small charge.

The same way everyone charges for upgrades, in one way or another, because software doesn't code itself.

Aax was a necessity. Rtas/tdm could not be recoded to 64bit, so a new format was needed. Of course, there's always something for people to moan about. Personally, I'm excited about the forward steps.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #10
Ps I wasn't hugely impressed with HEAT. It's cool, it's useful, but I was far more impressed wit slate VCC. Owning slate means I don't really care if HEAT ever makes it to native - I don't think I'd use it anyway.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 

Personally I think Native will get its own DSP cores and be available as PCIe and Thunderbolt. I think the true different will be native will never gain the ability to have multiple cards. Even when Pro Tools goes 64 bit the dsp plug ins will really help with large sessions in the professional field of recording. Then again with 8 cores and 32-64GB of ram in the near future I could see the CPTK being removed and their simply being to software options PT12 and PT12 HD, cards purely optional if any at all. It would probably still come in at like $3-4k but that's just what I predict. I think it all comes down to if you need the dsp plug in processors for sessions or not. Also if you need more IO that's another thing to think about. Most local studios only need native.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz.com
Old 3rd January 2012
  #12
Gear interested
 

Thread Starter
Psycho Monkey,

I hear you, and I apologize for the skepticism. I'm sure AAX will be great, and I will take full advantage of it. However, you can't look at it and tell me it's not extremely opportunistic for Avid. Based on your current version of PT, you're looking at at least $1000 to upgrade, likely purchasing new hardware, and in order to take full advantage of it, you're looking at additional hardware costs. I'll continue using PT, and I'm sure about 99% of the people who have also been using it for years will also continue... And I think Avid knows this.

These are the necessary evils of working in a software market, I understand. I guess the biggest question from me would be why PT upgrade pricing has SPIKED in their most recent release, when there are a LOT of other expensive additional upgrades that need to be made along-side it (... in order to fully utilize it). Did PT10 really take 4 TIMES the work to complete? Of course it did, because of the introduction of AAX... That's kind of like car makers all deciding not to make gas-powered automobiles anymore and moving to fully electric... UNIVERSALLY. They're creating a market for themselves. I tip my hat to them, but it's still a lot of money out of my pocket, so I'm entitled to be a little skeptical, right?

It's no secret that you're paying for what AVID IS, just as much (if not moreso) as what ProTools DOES... And I think we've all come to accept that that is the case in this industry (Apple being another great example). But that doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to what's going on, does it?
Old 3rd January 2012
  #13
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyNoNo View Post
Psycho Monkey,

I hear you, and I apologize for the skepticism. I'm sure AAX will be great, and I will take full advantage of it. However, you can't look at it and tell me it's not extremely opportunistic for Avid. Based on your current version of PT, you're looking at at least $1000 to upgrade, likely purchasing new hardware, and in order to take full advantage of it, you're looking at additional hardware costs. I'll continue using PT, and I'm sure about 99% of the people who have also been using it for years will also continue... And I think Avid knows this.

These are the necessary evils of working in a software market, I understand. I guess the biggest question from me would be why PT upgrade pricing has SPIKED in their most recent release, when there are a LOT of other expensive additional upgrades that need to be made along-side it (... in order to fully utilize it). Did PT10 really take 4 TIMES the work to complete? Of course it did, because of the introduction of AAX... That's kind of like car makers all deciding not to make gas-powered automobiles anymore and moving to fully electric... UNIVERSALLY. They're creating a market for themselves. I tip my hat to them, but it's still a lot of money out of my pocket, so I'm entitled to be a little skeptical, right?

It's no secret that you're paying for what AVID IS, just as much (if not moreso) as what ProTools DOES... And I think we've all come to accept that that is the case in this industry (Apple being another great example). But that doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to what's going on, does it?
Hi NickyNoNo,

Yes, I think you understand perfectly. I don't agree with a comment made earlier - it is NOT necessarily the case that the only thing involved is that at worst we'll have to pay a small fee for AAX cross grades. There's a lot of concern out there that various "favorite" plugins and VI's will never be ported and people will either have to stay with aging technology or abandon plugins they love. So there is an "existing software becomes useless" case that some people are quite concerned about.

For what it's worth, I (and an absolutely HUGE number of others) totally agree with your frustration with Avid. Despite what some people try to believe, Avid did not get its reputation as the result of some bizarre conspiracy of people with bad attitudes. There aren't any posts like that in this thread but you only need to read a few elsewhere in GS or anywhere else in the audio oriented internet to find legions of people really angry at Avid for its upgrade policy for PT10 and beyond, along with a lot of other things.

As for my case, I started with an Omni, then added an HD I/O 16x16 and then added an 8x8x8 with my PT10 upgrade because it seemed so silly to trade in my Omni, for another Omni !! I don't really need the added 8 analog/8 digital channels right now but I come from a generation where recording channels were a precious commodity and actually having more than I need for once is comforting so I dug up the extra money.

Good Luck!!!
Old 3rd January 2012
  #14
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickyNoNo View Post
Psycho Monkey,

I hear you, and I apologize for the skepticism. I'm sure AAX will be great, and I will take full advantage of it. However, you can't look at it and tell me it's not extremely opportunistic for Avid. Based on your current version of PT, you're looking at at least $1000 to upgrade, likely purchasing new hardware, and in order to take full advantage of it, you're looking at additional hardware costs. I'll continue using PT, and I'm sure about 99% of the people who have also been using it for years will also continue... And I think Avid knows this.

These are the necessary evils of working in a software market, I understand. I guess the biggest question from me would be why PT upgrade pricing has SPIKED in their most recent release, when there are a LOT of other expensive additional upgrades that need to be made along-side it (... in order to fully utilize it). Did PT10 really take 4 TIMES the work to complete? Of course it did, because of the introduction of AAX... That's kind of like car makers all deciding not to make gas-powered automobiles anymore and moving to fully electric... UNIVERSALLY. They're creating a market for themselves. I tip my hat to them, but it's still a lot of money out of my pocket, so I'm entitled to be a little skeptical, right?

It's no secret that you're paying for what AVID IS, just as much (if not moreso) as what ProTools DOES... And I think we've all come to accept that that is the case in this industry (Apple being another great example). But that doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to what's going on, does it?
I do agree (I'm no fan of paying money), but I think it's also a case of it's popular to Avid-bash. In the eyes of some, they can't do anything right - and it's usually those who don't really understand how they're paying for things (you think Apple don't tack a few quid onto the price of every iphone sold to cover R+D for their pro products? Cos $200 doesn't pay for the R+D for Logic X).

Bottom line is if you want 64bit PT, you need RTAS/TDM to be redesigned (and in this case, rebranded).

The car analogy doesn't really work (as per usual with car vs software analogies!) but it's more like the transition from unleaded to leaded fuel. you pay to upgrade your car (catalytic converter) or you buy a new car. eventually no forecourt stocks leaded fuel so you have to buy a new car or cycle. At the end of the day, progress is made.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #15
Quote:
Originally Posted by rus5 View Post
Hi NickyNoNo,

Yes, I think you understand perfectly. I don't agree with a comment made earlier - it is NOT necessarily the case that the only thing involved is that at worst we'll have to pay a small fee for AAX cross grades. There's a lot of concern out there that various "favorite" plugins and VI's will never be ported and people will either have to stay with aging technology or abandon plugins they love. So there is an "existing software becomes useless" case that some people are quite concerned about.
So who's fault is that - Avid's, or the 3rd party developers? Bottom line is that if a product is popular and the company is still in business, it'll be ported. If the company is losing money on the product, it won't. Same as the next OS upgrade will cause the same thing to happen. Can't imagine anything being ported to Lion will not be ported to AAX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rus5 View Post
For what it's worth, I (and an absolutely HUGE number of others) totally agree with your frustration with Avid. Despite what some people try to believe, Avid did not get its reputation as the result of some bizarre conspiracy of people with bad attitudes. There aren't any posts like that in this thread but you only need to read a few elsewhere in GS or anywhere else in the audio oriented internet to find legions of people really angry at Avid for its upgrade policy for PT10 and beyond, along with a lot of other things.
I disagree. I make no bones at being pro-Avid - their products have made me my income over the years. There's a LOT of people who jumped ship to Logic, moaning about TDM/LE limitations, and now those same people are bitching about prices (of software they don't use?)

For as many disgruntled users, you'll find popular reports. You'll find most of the pros who have upgraded are very happy with their upgrades (read a few in this forum). You find the whingers are often those who don't even use PT, or who have bought above their station (2nd hand cheap PCI TDM rigs they didn't need or couldn't afford). Lots of people who don't really understand Avid's core market, or how the Apple business model differs (and why it can), or how any of the small companies they champion couldn't do really do business in the high end world without becoming more like Avid.

I'm not attacking you directly or claiming you are any of these things, but just pointing out that a lot of ignorant anti-Avid ranting is just that - angry and ill-informed. Peoples on internets is stupids.

But then - maybe this is just pro-Avid internuttery
Old 3rd January 2012
  #16
I have had an Native HD Card and PT 10 setup in my studio for demo for a week now. The setup that i own is an HD3 Accel PCIE system on a Dual Core Xenon.

Simply put, for mixing Native HD was very good, very close to my system at least running at buffer's of 512. For tracking, it's no contest that the HD Accel system was better. And i'm not talking heavy tracking here, just a simple vocal and guitar. I found it clunky in comparison and just felt too much like a downgrade from TDM to Native.

If you're recording clients, i can't see them being impressed with recording through a native system, in fact when recording through plugins it just gets worse and worse, and through some impossible to do. If you're just doing your own thing then Native is an excellent option to get one close to a no latency pro setup.

One of the other deal breakers for me was having to spend 2k to get disk caching...choke.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
otobianki74's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by engmix View Post
Simply put, for mixing Native HD was very good, very close to my system at least running at buffer's of 512. For tracking, it's no contest that the HD Accel system was better. And i'm not talking heavy tracking here, just a simple vocal and guitar. I found it clunky in comparison and just felt too much like a downgrade from TDM to Native.

If you're recording clients, i can't see them being impressed with recording through a native system, in fact when recording through plugins it just gets worse and worse, and through some impossible to do. If you're just doing your own thing then Native is an excellent option to get one close to a no latency pro setup.
my experience runs parallel with the mixing comment made here, but for recording, which I have been doing much of on my native system, I'm not encountering any issues. issues start to occur if I'm adding tracks late in the mix game, and even then there seems to be a workaround. right off the bat tracking though, full band, no issues.. same clients I've had for years and not one has mentioned anything about latency issues when monitoring. it's just biz as usual.

I realize there was a trade-off from the beginning, but for me I'd rather jump ship now as I don't know what the value of my HD cards will be in a year or two. plus I want to stay compatible with all the latest versions of plugins, etc. maybe an hdx card in the future, maybe not. bottom line is I'm still working as I have been.

it's all about your own workflow...
Old 3rd January 2012
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by otobianki74 View Post
my experience runs parallel with the mixing comment made here, but for recording, which I have been doing much of on my native system, I'm not encountering any issues. issues start to occur if I'm adding tracks late in the mix game, and even then there seems to be a workaround. right off the bat tracking though, full band, no issues.. same clients I've had for years and not one has mentioned anything about latency issues when monitoring. it's just biz as usual.

I realize there was a trade-off from the beginning, but for me I'd rather jump ship now as I don't know what the value of my HD cards will be in a year or two. plus I want to stay compatible with all the latest versions of plugins, etc. maybe an hdx card in the future, maybe not. bottom line is I'm still working as I have been.

it's all about your own workflow...
Agreed it's all about workflow and to each their own. I gather you're not tracking anyone through autotune (on the monitor side)...it's impossible. Some of the producers i work with demand it, and i have not found a workaround for it.....do tell if you have. Also, i can't tell you how many records that i mix where there's last minute tracking...well actually i can, i would say just about 90%. Yes, the value was an issue for me from the get go, but i'm finding giving up my system for a lesser system just doesn't make any good business sense. PT 10 is has not changed the way i make records or even mix them, and i can't see that being the case 2 years from now, or maybe 4 years from now. I feel like there are going to be so many big changes with Apple within that time frame, that i would rather play the wait and see and carry on making records with no compromise or work arounds....as you say, working as i have been.
Old 3rd January 2012
  #19
Lives for gear
 
otobianki74's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by engmix View Post
Agreed it's all about workflow and to each their own. I gather you're not tracking anyone through autotune (on the monitor side)...it's impossible. Some of the producers i work with demand it, and i have not found a workaround for it.....do tell if you have. Also, i can't tell you how many records that i mix where there's last minute tracking...well actually i can, i would say just about 90%. Yes, the value was an issue for me from the get go, but i'm finding giving up my system for a lesser system just doesn't make any good business sense. PT 10 is has not changed the way i make records or even mix them, and i can't see that being the case 2 years from now, or maybe 4 years from now. I feel like there are going to be so many big changes with Apple within that time frame, that i would rather play the wait and see and carry on making records with no compromise or work arounds....as you say, working as i have been.
no tracking through auto-tune, and never have... but then you have requests from producers, so your game sounds a little different than mine. sure I auto-tune, but tend to that after I track.

I have actually had a lot of luck tracking at a 64 and even 32 buffer setting with a full blown mix for a quick punch in. sometimes I'll need to kill a plug or two to allow for this, and usually it's something hoggy like g-fx on the master.

I've also gotten into the (good) habit of audiosuite'ing certain things, like amp sims and auto-tune when done. keeps the system rocking.

the funny thing is I ran into different types of problems with my HD2 setup, but stability in tracking is what I need the most. I feel like I am 95% there and that's good for me, as long as I'm not crashing during basic tracking when I have the full band and performers here... knock wood.

this is where each individual will have to take a long hard look at their workflow and clients' needs and make their decision based on that.
Old 4th January 2012
  #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by otobianki74 View Post
no tracking through auto-tune, and never have... but then you have requests from producers, so your game sounds a little different than mine. sure I auto-tune, but tend to that after I track.

I have actually had a lot of luck tracking at a 64 and even 32 buffer setting with a full blown mix for a quick punch in. sometimes I'll need to kill a plug or two to allow for this, and usually it's something hoggy like g-fx on the master.

I've also gotten into the (good) habit of audiosuite'ing certain things, like amp sims and auto-tune when done. keeps the system rocking.

the funny thing is I ran into different types of problems with my HD2 setup, but stability in tracking is what I need the most. I feel like I am 95% there and that's good for me, as long as I'm not crashing during basic tracking when I have the full band and performers here... knock wood.

this is where each individual will have to take a long hard look at their workflow and clients' needs and make their decision based on that.
Got ya, so you're streamlining your work flow a bit, never a bad thing if it's getting the job done. Did you try PT 10 HD? That's next up for me...i'm looking forward to the disk caching and a couple of other bells and whistles with HD. For the most part i did find Native to be more solid with RTAS, but i did crash a few times on a few simple things that made me nervous. One of them was duplicating an audio track, and i think the other was elastic audio related. I'm hoping to get the better RTAS that native seems to have and also be able to lean on TDM as well for no latency. I still found even at 64 and 32 which sounded almost identical, a little to ringy sounding from the latency. Either way i'm glad it's working out for you, Native is a really nice system.
Old 4th January 2012
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by otobianki74 View Post
I have actually had a lot of luck tracking at a 64 and even 32 buffer setting with a full blown mix for a quick punch in. sometimes I'll need to kill a plug or two to allow for this, and usually it's something hoggy like g-fx on the master.
Even with a TDM system you need to bypass mixbuss effects, or anything on masterfaders (which are not delay compensated).
Old 4th January 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
otobianki74's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Even with a TDM system you need to bypass mixbuss effects, or anything on masterfaders (which are not delay compensated).
yep, my bad... but anything hoggy in general, sometimes a VI... I've also found auto-tune a bit iffy in both 9 and 10 on my native and pci-e HD system, not sure why. but my computer has had issues with that plug running in real time in the past.
Old 4th January 2012
  #23
Quote:
Originally Posted by otobianki74 View Post
yep, my bad... but anything hoggy in general, sometimes a VI... I've also found auto-tune a bit iffy in both 9 and 10 on my native and pci-e HD system, not sure why. but my computer has had issues with that plug running in real time in the past.
I agree. Autotune is the only plugin that seems to cause my system grief and even to crash. I've fault reported it with them, but it's nothing too specific - it just randomly hangs and quits, and I'm pretty sure it's autotune at fault.
Old 11th January 2012
  #24
Gear Head
 

Hmmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I agree. Autotune is the only plugin that seems to cause my system grief and even to crash. I've fault reported it with them, but it's nothing too specific - it just randomly hangs and quits, and I'm pretty sure it's autotune at fault.
Adrian, Autotune seems rock solid on my system (HD9 Native), I've only had issues from Melodyne or Kontakt, and since a fresh install of Lion I've had even less issues. About to don HD10 though, so will let you know it goes...

My aging mac pro probably needs an update soon though...
Old 11th January 2012
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyFullzy View Post
Adrian, Autotune seems rock solid on my system (HD9 Native), I've only had issues from Melodyne or Kontakt, and since a fresh install of Lion I've had even less issues. About to don HD10 though, so will let you know it goes...

My aging mac pro probably needs an update soon though...
Cheers for that man the other potential problem on my system is slate vcc....I've not yet updated to the latest version though, mid project right now!
Old 11th January 2012
  #26
Gear maniac
 
drumster's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyFullzy View Post
Adrian, Autotune seems rock solid on my system (HD9 Native), I've only had issues from Melodyne or Kontakt, and since a fresh install of Lion I've had even less issues. About to don HD10 though, so will let you know it goes...

My aging mac pro probably needs an update soon though...
I'd be interested to know if you've been using it alot in graphical mode. That's where the majority of the problems have always been with Autotune. I actually had another crash last night while tuning a vocal in graphical mode, and I'm on OSX 10.7.2 using PTHD 10.
Old 13th January 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
mirrorboy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyFullzy View Post
Adrian, Autotune seems rock solid on my system (HD9 Native), I've only had issues from Melodyne or Kontakt, and since a fresh install of Lion I've had even less issues. About to don HD10 though, so will let you know it goes...

My aging mac pro probably needs an update soon though...
Yes, upon first instance especially, Melodyne is pretty much a guaranteed crash. I think this may be because it takes up too much memory and requires that you deactivate tracks, restart, THEN open Melodyne....who knows tho...just guessing...


Scott
Old 13th January 2012
  #28
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumster View Post
I'd be interested to know if you've been using it alot in graphical mode. That's where the majority of the problems have always been with Autotune. I actually had another crash last night while tuning a vocal in graphical mode, and I'm on OSX 10.7.2 using PTHD 10.
I only ever use Auto-tune in auto mode actually, never in graphic - always use Melodyne for the graphic stuff.

As you suggest, this must be where the problem lies.

T
Old 13th January 2012
  #29
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirrorboy View Post
Yes, upon first instance especially, Melodyne is pretty much a guaranteed crash. I think this may be because it takes up too much memory and requires that you deactivate tracks, restart, THEN open Melodyne....who knows tho...just guessing...


Scott
Hmm not sure about this - how much memory can one instance take up? I've got 10 gigs and it crashes even in sparse sessions. It's never been especially stable (when they first updated it to the 'Editor' version it crashed so much I had to install a dodgy version of the old plugin version just to get through the session I was working on at the time!). Better now than it used to be though.

T
Old 14th January 2012
  #30
Lives for gear
 
mirrorboy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyFullzy View Post
Hmm not sure about this - how much memory can one instance take up? I've got 10 gigs and it crashes even in sparse sessions. It's never been especially stable (when they first updated it to the 'Editor' version it crashed so much I had to install a dodgy version of the old plugin version just to get through the session I was working on at the time!). Better now than it used to be though.

T
Yeah....like I said, I'm just guessing.

But it is buggy as all hell. For sure the buggiest plug I have and it crashes PT more than anything. Including PT's own issues.

You'd really think that for a plug that wins so many awards they'd get the bugs sorted. And it's not for lack of brains.....that's for sure. These guys are brilliant!

Cheers,

Scott

P.S. It doesn't really matter how much memory you have as long as you've got at least 4GB (I've got 64GB for example). PT and anything nested within this app (32 Bit) can only handle 2.5GBs. It would be great if it used it's own Memory Server, sorta how Kontakt and VE Pro work.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
solidstate / Pro Tools 10 + HDX
27
karljohnson / Pro Tools 10 + HDX
74
Trailerman / Pro Tools 10 + HDX
15
andonwego / Music Computers
60
St├ęphane / High end
17

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.