I challenge you to prove that HDX sounds better than TDM!

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by cut

The null argument is compelling, however let me throw this out there. Perhaps just the 24 bits are nulling due to the fact that the last 8 bits are not in play. Actually I guess they would be present on the HDX file and not present on the TDM file. If we are going to phase reverse a 32 bit file against a 24 bit file, I am not sure this is going to prove anything.

We are comparing files of different resolution here ... correct?

No. 32 bit float has a 24 bit mantisa. Same resolution.

Anyway your 32/64 bit float mix gets converted to 24 bit fixed point for your converters. There are no floating point converters. You can't hear 32/64 bit float.

Alistair

[DimaK415]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we discuss a system's mix engine (24 bit fixed or 32 bit floating) we are discussing how the system internally handles and merges audio files. When we discuss bit depths in the plugin world, we are discussing how the sound is processed WITHIN the plugin. The fact that it spits it out at 24 bit is irrelevant. You are getting more precise summing and greater dynamic range. Right?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by DimaK415

You are getting more precise summing and greater dynamic range. Right?

Not more precise, no. You do get more dynamic range (1536 dB) but that is rather irrelevant as 144 dB of dynamic range (24 bit audio) is already way beyond the dynamic range of our ears. (And converters typically offer only about 21 bit worth of dynamic range). And the final dynamic range is ultimately determined by the dynamic range of 24 bit audio anyway.

There have been DAWs with fully 64 bit audio engines for years already. (Full 64 bit paths from input to output including plugins). In both Sonar and Reaper you can chose to do a mixdown at 32 or 64 bit. Even with large mixes containing over a 100 tracks, they null down to -140 dB or so regardless of the mix engine bit depth if you have anything vaguely resembling proper gain staging.

So does HDx sound noticeably different to TDM? Only if you were clipping your mixes all over the place. Otherwise: Several thousand dollars worth of placebo effect.

Alistair

[Yetti]

Originally Posted by Zep Dude

"I would like to propose a test mix to settle this sound quality question:"
"I feel the sound quality claim is more about marketing"

I started following this thread with mild curiosity about the original posted sound quality questions...
Has anyone done the proposed A-B sound test yet?

[DimaK415]

Still trying to get enough interest in it to be worth my time. So far, maybe 2 people in the LA area would attend. I need 100 :(

I will say this, I work at a place that sells at least 2 of these a day. We work with post houses and studios all over the world. The new systems have been recieving very positive reviews in terms of sound quality. Heres the thing... it sounds just like native.

The only thing (as far as I understand) that seperates Native from HDx is the DSP and the ability to use multiple cards for more than 64 channels of IO.

HDx isn't for everyone, but those that have purchased it knew what they buying (as you should when you are shelling out 5 figures)and a huge majority is upgrading from TDM systems.

I don't need HDx at home. I am planning on purchasing the appollo and maybe an additional UAD card and BAM, my system at home with PT 10 and CPT can compete with Native, and in some regards TDM. I would rather shell out 5 K for some monster Xeon hackintosh than 10k-20k for HDx, but I don't need 64 channels of IO.

[DimaK415]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Not more precise, no.

I would thing that floating point would allow lower level material to be more detailed, but it is probably beyond the range of human hearing.

I used to use Sonar and have done lots of awesome mixes on it, but as I started working out of other studios and collaberating with other producers and artists, PT became a necessaty.

I can't confidently say that Sonar sounded better than PT, because my ears weren't as trained and my mixes not as good, but I can say that as far as i remember, I had to get used to something about PTs sound that was a bit different.

[Andy_R]

Originally Posted by DimaK415

The only thing that seperates Native from HDx is the DSP and the ability to use multiple cards for more than 64 channels of IO.

There's the tracking piece too! Man, it's great for overdubs/tracking.

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by Andy_R

There's the tracking piece too! Man, it's great for overdubs/tracking.

Looks great but in practice it's only really valid if all the plugs you want go AAX-DSP. Once native plugs go on auxes the HDX rig might slip as far down as last place...

Personally, if I am going to monitor through the DAW, I want to monitor ALL of it. Other wise you have to turn off 18 plugins, mute some auxes, adjust some levels and then put it all back. In that scenario a dedicated foldback mixer just works better (one set of settings for each task), at least for me.

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by Andy_R

There's the tracking piece too! Man, it's great for overdubs/tracking.

If you notice in that link the HDX is measured with the HDio (which has much lower conversion latency) and the HD Accel is measured with the old digi 192, AFAIK HD accel with the new HDio is faster than HDX with the new HDio

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by DimaK415

Still trying to get enough interest in it to be worth my time. So far, maybe 2 people in the LA area would attend. I need 100 :(

I will say this, I work at a place that sells at least 2 of these a day. We work with post houses and studios all over the world. The new systems have been recieving very positive reviews in terms of sound quality. Heres the thing... it sounds just like native.

Wouldn't that mean that Native sounds better than TDM?

Being that HDX is supposed to sound so much better than HD?

So everyone with an mbox has had better sound quality than me?

Just curious.

[CeretoneAudio]

Just found the old latency figures Avid posted before HDX was released and they changed the graph

HD accell + HDio = 0.44 ms at 96k
vs
HD accell + Digi 192 = 0.96ms at 96k
vs
HDX + HDio = 0.7 ms at 96k

[Demor]

Strange that the latency has gone up but seriously,....... same difference.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by TheKnow

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow

So does HDx sound noticeably different to TDM? Only if you were clipping your mixes all over the place. Otherwise: Several thousand dollars worth of placebo effect.

Alistair

you have no idea what you are talking about...really, that is an absurd statement coming from someone who hasn't use the gear...you have to use it to have an opinion, failing that, you just have an idea what it "should" be like...really

Hey Alistair, you don't have a clue, HDX is better than sex...
A.

[cut]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Not more precise, no. You do get more dynamic range (1536 dB) but that is rather irrelevant as 144 dB of dynamic range (24 bit audio) is already way beyond the dynamic range of our ears. (And converters typically offer only about 21 bit worth of dynamic range). And the final dynamic range is ultimately determined by the dynamic range of 24 bit audio anyway.

There have been DAWs with fully 64 bit audio engines for years already. (Full 64 bit paths from input to output including plugins). In both Sonar and Reaper you can chose to do a mixdown at 32 or 64 bit. Even with large mixes containing over a 100 tracks, they null down to -140 dB or so regardless of the mix engine bit depth if you have anything vaguely resembling proper gain staging.

So does HDx sound noticeably different to TDM? Only if you were clipping your mixes all over the place. Otherwise: Several thousand dollars worth of placebo effect.

Alistair

Ridiculous, that is all.

[cut]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Not more precise, no. You do get more dynamic range (1536 dB) but that is rather irrelevant as 144 dB of dynamic range (24 bit audio) is already way beyond the dynamic range of our ears. (And converters typically offer only about 21 bit worth of dynamic range). And the final dynamic range is ultimately determined by the dynamic range of 24 bit audio anyway.

There have been DAWs with fully 64 bit audio engines for years already. (Full 64 bit paths from input to output including plugins). In both Sonar and Reaper you can chose to do a mixdown at 32 or 64 bit. Even with large mixes containing over a 100 tracks, they null down to -140 dB or so regardless of the mix engine bit depth if you have anything vaguely resembling proper gain staging.

So does HDx sound noticeably different to TDM? Only if you were clipping your mixes all over the place. Otherwise: Several thousand dollars worth of placebo effect.

Alistair

One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six bits!!!! I had to spell it out just to see how ridiculous that is. The rule is 6dB per bit. That is math, and it is absolute - just like gravity. fFor One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six bits you would need 256 bit architecture.

[cut]

Originally Posted by cut

One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six Decibels!!!! I had to spell it out just to see how ridiculous that is. The rule is 6dB per bit. That is math, and it is absolute - just like gravity. fFor One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six Decibels you would need 256 bit architecture.

I fixed the above, it is dB not Bits.

[drew]

Originally Posted by cut

I fixed the above, it is dB not Bits.

FYI, you can edit posts.

[DimaK415]

What I meant was that the only difference between HD Native and HDx is DSP. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Supposedly, they have the same summing architecture.

[drew]

Originally Posted by DimaK415

What I meant was that the only difference between HD Native and HDx is DSP. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Supposedly, they have the same summing architecture.

Avid has NOT advertised this but the summing is the same in HD Native and native Pro Tools and has been since version 9. PT10 hasn't changed anything in this regard.

[Demor]

Originally Posted by DimaK415

...the only difference between HD Native and HDx is DSP.....

And the latency and the maximum I/O is different.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by cut

One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six bits!!!! I had to spell it out just to see how ridiculous that is. The rule is 6dB per bit. That is math, and it is absolute - just like gravity. fFor One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six bits you would need 256 bit architecture.

As I understand it he's speaking 32 bit floating point which do have more than 1500dB resolution, check your math.
A.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by drew

Avid has NOT advertised this but the summing is the same in HD Native and native Pro Tools and has been since version 9. PT10 hasn't changed anything in this regard.

That's why I said this improvement they're advertising is not specifically related to PT10, from what I get HD9 Native already had a 64 bit floating point mixer (I think standard native has a 32 bit mix engine though?).
Funny because I never heard anyone saying native HD9 sounded so much better than TDM...
A.

[anodecathode]

Originally Posted by Zep Dude

For what it's worth I'll tell you what I'm doing with Andy who so kindly offered to be the HDX part of our test:

Style: All live instruments recorded through high end converters (JCF AD's). Using ITB VI's, samplers and digital synths will not have the complexity and detail of pure analog sources.

Track count: As many tracks as possible to test how the mix bus deals with density.

Levels: 2 versions: 1 following the -6db peaks rule (no peaks on plugins, sends, buses and master more than -6db). 2 hotter levels but nothing red lined.

Plugins: 1 mix without plugins to strictly hear the mix engine, second mix with plugins. Plugins should identical between TDM and HDX (not RTAS/Native). We will probably stick to just the Avid EQ's & comps.

Reverbs: Ideally only live rooms and/or external verbs which have been printed so that the mixes have the potential to phase cancel (live room, plate, 480L etc).

Sample Rate: 44.1 or 48k. These are my default sample rates (48k these days) however I would also do 88k or 96k if I had any songs at these rates.

I welcome any other suggestions for our test.

Unfortunately it will take me a bit of time to redo some existing mix as I will have to convert most of my Oxford EQ's to Avid and also print the external verbs. I'll try to get to this next week and will keep everyone posted.

Really appreciate you and Andy taking the time to do this Angelo. I LOVE my HD I/O, but haven't started swigging on the jug of HDX sounds better kool aid yet. If it sounds better, I'll buy it. But if the test shows that the mix nulls, there's no way I'm spending 15k (plug-in upgrades included in that price) for an HD3 when I can drop 3k and get an expansion chassis loaded with accel cards. (Can't believe how cheap they are on Ebay right now. ) As for my VI's, VE Pro is working just fine.

[DimaK415]

I have a client now that uses 4 lynx Auroras on a PPC with HD4 on PCIx cards. He wants PT10, and needs 64 channels of analog I/O and 8 channels of AES.
The options are as follows:
New quad or 8 core with:
HDx2 and keep Lynx Auroras
HDx2 and swap for 4 16x16s and 1 8x8x8
HDx1 and lose 8 AES or 8 analog (not really an option)
OR
New Magma PCIx to PCIe chassis

Heres the crux of gonig the cost effective TDM route. You are putting money into a system with a known planned obsolecense of 1 year tops. The price difference is between $11k (straight HD4 to HDx2 upgrade), or $2k for Magma Chassis. Ironically, the client will be in the same position 3 years down the road, when PT10 is old news and Avid comes out with some awesome new features that he can't use in ProTools 2015. If you don't have old TDM cards and can get a Chassis cheap, you can get HD3 on TDM with PT10 for $3000 or less, but the reason the price has dropped so dramatically is because we all know now that TDM is legacy and will not be supported in future versions of Pro Tools. Tough decision...

I am trying to find him a solution that works and doesn't cost $16,000, but its proving difficult. An HDx card support UP TO 64 channels of i/o per card. so a second one would be necessary, and shelling out $6k for DSP he doesn't use sounds ridiculous.

My point is, sure you can go buy Accel and TDM and chassis and find them all on CL or FleaBay for dirst cheap, but your buying into dead technology that will see no support or future releases, driver updates, firmware updates and will not support the latest software. The decision is yours and yours alone to make.

[RyanC]

Originally Posted by DimaK415

I have a client now that uses 4 lynx Auroras on a PPC with HD4 on PCIx cards. He wants PT10, and needs 64 channels of analog I/O and 8 channels of AES.
The options are as follows:
New quad or 8 core with:
HDx2 and keep Lynx Auroras
HDx2 and swap for 4 16x16s and 1 8x8x8
HDx1 and lose 8 AES or 8 analog (not really an option)
OR
New Magma PCIx to PCIe chassis

Heres the crux of gonig the cost effective TDM route. You are putting money into a system with a known planned obsolecense of 1 year tops. The price difference is between $11k (straight HD4 to HDx2 upgrade), or $2k for Magma Chassis. Ironically, the client will be in the same position 3 years down the road, when PT10 is old news and Avid comes out with some awesome new features that he can't use in ProTools 2015. If you don't have old TDM cards and can get a Chassis cheap, you can get HD3 on TDM with PT10 for $3000 or less, but the reason the price has dropped so dramatically is because we all know now that TDM is legacy and will not be supported in future versions of Pro Tools. Tough decision...

I am trying to find him a solution that works and doesn't cost $16,000, but its proving difficult. An HDx card support UP TO 64 channels of i/o per card. so a second one would be necessary, and shelling out $6k for DSP he doesn't use sounds ridiculous.

My point is, sure you can go buy Accel and TDM and chassis and find them all on CL or FleaBay for dirst cheap, but your buying into dead technology that will see no support or future releases, driver updates, firmware updates and will not support the latest software. The decision is yours and yours alone to make.

Or option nr 5, 2600k on the Jetway board (which will take all 4 of his HD cards), dual boot hackintosh/w7 machine (if he isn't using VI's go w7). This easily buys him a few years until the dust settles on all this and runs about 1k. I think this is kind of a no-brainier personally.

[DimaK415]

I build hacks and have an i7 920 at 4GHz and 24 gigs of ram running Lion and PT 10.0 with CPTK. We were dabbling with the idea. Maybe I sould run it by him again. Is there a DSDT for Jetway's N5?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by cut

One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six bits!!!! I had to spell it out just to see how ridiculous that is. The rule is 6dB per bit. That is math, and it is absolute - just like gravity. fFor One Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Six bits you would need 256 bit architecture.

You are confusing fixed point audio and floating point audio.

Educate yourself: Let me google that for you

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by TheKnow

you have no idea what you are talking about...really

Really? So you like the emperor's new clothes? ;-)

So explain to me, in technical terms, how come HDX will sound different. Let's see your clear demonstration of you knowing what you are talking about. Good luck! :-)

If you can not explain things in technical terms it basically means you are just believing it for what amounts to magical thinking. It is new, it is very expensive so it _must_ sound better. That is just ignorance.

that is an absurd statement coming from someone who hasn't use the gear...you have to use it to have an opinion, failing that, you just have an idea what it "should" be like...really

It is digital audio. Understanding digital audio and the specifics of the particular systems being discussed is all I need to know to know that there will be no audible difference. (Clipping, absurdly bad gain-staging and uncompensated plugin delay aside).

I have worked on fully 64 bit mix engines before. I own a couple of DAWs with fully 64 bit mix engines and have been using them for years... No surprises. No huge sound difference. Actually, with proper gain staging, no measurable sound difference in a 24 bit mixdown. That is how little difference this all makes.

Also a basic knowledge of psychology 101 will tell you that absolutely everyone in the world is subject to expectation bias and placebo effect. It doesn't matter how experienced you are as sound engineer, how many grammys you have, how many platinum records, you are subject to the exact same things every other human is subject to. If you believe otherwise you are fooling yourself big time.

The only reason people think HDX sounds better is because they have spent a lot of money on it (or other people have for them) and because of egos. Egos that make people believe their hearing is infallible. It is those emperor's new clothes.

Of course this will be unpopular with many people. People that a lot of money assuming/hoping there would be a sonic difference or people that thought they heard a difference after listening to the subject but are unwilling to admit to themselves that they could be wrong. I fully expect derisory comments in response to this post. :-)

Btw, one of the studios I work at have ordered a HDX system. I'll do some null tests once it arrives.

Does this mean I think HDX is pointless? Not at all. I think the extra power for those that need it is a great thing. It will of course be even more useful when there are more plugins ported to the AAX DSP format or entirely new ones written for it but already now I think it will be a good platform with a long future ahead.

One thing that would make sense from Avid's perspective is to write some AAX DSP only plugins to make the platform that little bit more interesting. Not that it would make me happy personally as I don't intend to buy a HDX system for my home studio in the near future but it would make sense for Avid IMO.

Alistair

[DimaK415]

There are lots of things that affect the quality of a digital representation of an anolog signal. Dithering, clocking, jitter, multiplexing, aliasing. These days, it is not that hard to create a quality ADDAC, the ones in MBox Pros costs something like 5 dollars to manufacter.

I think of it this way:
You can get to that 90% mark in your studio with as little as a few thuosand dollard for a decent computer, interface and software.
Each additional percent improvement is harder to hear and exponentially more expensive.

Again, my experience, and this is not as a sales person, this is as a gearslut, is that the people we have sold HDx systems to hear an overall improvement in the quality of sound. PERIOD

[Demor]

Originally Posted by TheKnow

so lets see a yamaha LS9 "digital" console sounds the same as a Venue "digital console???........

If you go in and out digital, use the same converters for both, and put the faders at zero, yes, they should sound the same, if not, there is something wrong.