Here's is what HDX can do!

[T_R_S]

Mix @ 96K
lots of tracks
Headroom to spare
I just wish i did not need 128 channels of I/O one card is many times more powerful than my old HD3 system.
There is no way this mix would even be possible on my old HD 3 system.
UAD super stable plus the whole system is rock stable.

[electricsky]

Interesting !
What type of mix was the limit with your HD3 (accel pcie ?) , in 44k and 96k , that you can do with the HDX ?

I don't understand, you don't use the UAD-2 with pro tools HDX card i suppose, what do you use it with ?

[T_R_S]

I bought 4 Satellites last year for two of our HD3 systems - I could never use UAD cards as Mac Pro's only have 3 slots.
HD 3 was limited to 96 voices @ 96K now we have 256 (with 2 cards)
We finished up tonight with all the vocals and mix.
192 voices cracked the DSP on the 2nd card
75 Native & DSP plugins plus 31 UAD PI going. still lots of DSP headroom.
The only observation I see is that you will run out voices before you'll run out of DSP.
Fatso, EMT, Manley Studer, ATR, Dim. D on the UAD

[electricsky]

I still don't understand why you use UAD cards whereas you have some pro tools HD3 and HDX (although HDX has few plug-ins released for the moment i agree !) , unless you use it with another software ?

Although if i remember well ( i bought a pro tools HD recently but i'm much more used to Logic), Pro tools can use Native plug-ins on top of its DSP plugs , i had never head about someone mixing HD cards and TDM plug-ins with UAD cards and plugs !

By the way, you seem to use FW versions of the UAD cards, which i wouldn't trust as much as a PCI version or as an HD /HDX cards + plug-ins, especialy for latency .

Was there some plug-ins available on the UAD cards you could not get on TDM or was it just to expand the power of the HD3's by adding some CPU power , using the UAD's in parallel ?

[work2do]

Originally Posted by electricsky

i had never head about someone mixing HD cards and TDM plug-ins with UAD cards and plugs

You need to get out more. It's pretty standard.

Originally Posted by electricsky

Was there some plug-ins available on the UAD cards you could not get on TDM?

All of them. UA does not make plugs for TDM/RTAS/VST/AU, only UAD. Manley, Ampex, Studer, Fatso, etc.

[RyanC]

Why is the buffer set so high? At 1024, can you reliably run this same session in core audio native mode, and if so where does the CPU meter jump up to?

[T_R_S]

The buffer is set as there are a lot of PI running and the session is @ 96K.
Rock solid on Autotune crash while graphing out a couple of vocals.
But no crashes during the mix.
The CPU went only to 35-45% ( see screen shot of CPU meter)
Can that session run on a native system?
Name me a native system that can do 192 tracks @ 96K with 75 plug-ins and the CPU is running @ 40% with 128 channels of I/O.

[electricsky]

i had not seen the buffer setting was 1024 !
For me it would be unuseable, i cry when i can't work with 64 or 32 buffer size ! lol
i can accept up to 3 or 4ms but it already seems important by today's standard 's !

Yes, i need to go out more into the digital world, that not wrong ! lol

for the last 6 or 7 years , i have been buying mostly only vintage and some recent analog gear but no digital interfaces, no plug-ins (except a VSS3+ DVR2 + FABRIK R for my powercore cards two ot three years ago ) nothing until i upgraded my Recording station in december (what i had planned to do for several years but had no need for that) ! lol
The only digital things i bought for teh last 7 years are some external effects units (for my personal music / studio) as i work with an analog mixing desk ( a lexicon 300 , a TC4000 and i had a DP4+ as well) but nothing else.
So, since last summer, i have been checking all what 's been released these last years as audio cards, DSP cards , plug-ins ... etc and bought the two recording stations (to open a commercial studio, a long time project but i will also use that for my music) in december but it's true that i had never heard about some people using pro tools and an UAD card.

I wouldn't trust a fire wire dsp card or audio interface in a professional studio.
I have been working with a G5 PPC with motu pci424e +2x HD192 +1296 +2408MKIII
with 2x TC Powercore pci V1 + UAD-1 , for my personal music, for the last 7 years more or less and it was working quite well but i wouldn't have bought a FW UAD (the PCI ones could interest me though, if they can be used with low buffer size )

[T_R_S]

this is a mix session - tracking is done I am not concerned about latency.

[UnderTow]

Well correct me if I am reading this wrong but you screen grab shows 124 voices allocated which means the equivalent of 62 stereo tracks. (Minus between 28 and 56 voices allocated for the UAD plugins depending on whether they are stereo or mono. And Minus whatever voices are used for your native plugins) This is at high latency for mixing and thus no I/O. So to answer your question:

Originally Posted by T_R_S

Name me a native system that can do 192 tracks @ 96K with 75 plug-ins and the CPU is running @ 40%

Every one of them I would imagine.

I just did a quick test with Cubase. 64 stereo tracks (or 128 "voices") at 96Khz. A compressor and EQ on every track (DMG). (So that is 128 stereo plugins or the equivalent of 256 mono plugins). About 40% CPU usage. And I certainly don't have as many cores as you do... (read half).

For kicks and giggles I doubled the number of tracks to get 128 stereo tracks at 96Khz (or 256 voices, more than doubling your session), 128 stereo EQs and 128 stereo compressors (or the equivalent of 512 mono processors). CPU peaks at around 75%. No issues.... So I added 8 stereo reverbs (Aether). Still going fine. If I ever feel a need to push my system further, I'll turn off my 20 or so browser tabs, FTP server, Email client, MSN Live, Skype, anti-virus etc etc. ;-)

Alistair

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Well correct me if I am reading this wrong but you screen grab shows 124 voices allocated which means the equivalent of 62 stereo tracks. (Minus between 28 and 56 voices allocated for the UAD plugins depending on whether they are stereo or mono. And Minus whatever voices are used for your native plugins) This is at high latency for mixing and thus no I/O. So to answer your question:



Every one of them I would imagine.

I just did a quick test with Cubase. 64 stereo tracks (or 128 "voices") at 96Khz. A compressor and EQ on every track (DMG). (So that is 128 stereo plugins or the equivalent of 256 mono plugins). About 40% CPU usage. And I certainly don't have as many cores as you do... (read half).

For kicks and giggles I doubled the number of tracks to get 128 stereo tracks at 96Khz (or 256 voices, more than doubling your session), 128 stereo EQs and 128 stereo compressors (or the equivalent of 512 mono processors). CPU peaks at around 75%. No issues.... So I added 8 stereo reverbs (Aether). Still going fine. If I ever feel a need to push my system further, I'll turn off my 20 or so browser tabs, FTP server, Email client, MSN Live, Skype, anti-virus etc etc. ;-)

Alistair

But can your system do the same thing while being able to run that much I/O? Granted he is not likely using that much I/O at mixing stage, but easily could in the tracking stage. I'm not sure if he is using an outboard mixer or any outboard I/O, which most native systems would have a huge issue with. Not the outboard mixer, but the Outboard Send/Return.

In fairness, I would like to see a screenshot of the mixer window, to see the full extent of what is being used, how many aux, etc.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

But can your system do the same thing while being able to run that much I/O?

I left out the I/O specifically because these were mix sessions. TDM/HDX is great for high I/O and/or track count at low-latency. That is where these system shine.

That said, with the right interface (RME) I'm sure my system could handle that, yes. Maybe not at the lowest latency though. (Note that a HDX system isn't exactly low-latency as soon as one uses UAD or native plugins). Unfortunately I have no large I/O RME interface to test with.

I'm not sure if he is using an outboard mixer or any outboard I/O, which most native systems would have a huge issue with. Not the outboard mixer, but the Outboard Send/Return.

I've never had any issues with either Sonar or Cubase using external inserts. I haven't really tried it with PT native.

In fairness, I would like to see a screenshot of the mixer window, to see the full extent of what is being used, how many aux, etc.

T_R_S's or mine? Anyway, I don't think it makes that much difference. A track and an aux do more or less the same thing from a coding perspective. If anything, a track should be more sensitive to bandwidth bottlenecks due to the disk I/O. I've spoken to a few developers (not Avid) and they have told me that the track and bus/aux objects are essentially the same in their DAWs. This makes sense. Why rewrite code to do the same thing?

Anyway, my point isn't to knock the HDX system. I'm sure it is great! But I do feel that many people underestimate the power of modern native systems and T_R_S asked specifically whether native could do what he is doing in his mix session. The answer is an absolute yes!

If my PC that is now about 2 years old and never was top of the range can easily do this, whatever is the bee's knee's today (or later this year when the new Intel chips come out) will be able to smoke my system!

Alistair

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I left out the I/O specifically because these were mix sessions. TDM/HDX is great for high I/O and/or track count at low-latency. That is where these system shine.

That said, with the right interface (RME) I'm sure my system could handle that, yes. Maybe not at the lowest latency though. (Note that a HDX system isn't exactly low-latency as soon as one uses UAD or native plugins). Unfortunately I have no large I/O RME interface to test with.



I've never had any issues with either Sonar or Cubase using external inserts. I haven't really tried it with PT native.



T_R_S's or mine? Anyway, I don't think it makes that much difference. A track and an aux do more or less the same thing from a coding perspective. If anything, a track should be more sensitive to bandwidth bottlenecks due to the disk I/O. I've spoken to a few developers (not Avid) and they have told me that the track and bus/aux objects are essentially the same in their DAWs. This makes sense. Why rewrite code to do the same thing?

Anyway, my point isn't to knock the HDX system. I'm sure it is great! But I do feel that many people underestimate the power of modern native systems and T_R_S asked specifically whether native could do what he is doing in his mix session. The answer is an absolute yes!

If my PC that is now about 2 years old and never was top of the range can easily do this, whatever is the bee's knee's today (or later this year when the new Intel chips come out) will be able to smoke my system!

Alistair

I was referring to TRS' screenshot. My thinking was I'd like to see the extent of CPU intensive plugins used.

Side note, many folks are compelled to work in Protools, some reasons personal, others is to be easily comparable, so real question for me, would be to see the same mix on HD Native as well as Native protools, both on the same computer. We know TRS has a smokin computer.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

I was referring to TRS' screenshot. My thinking was I'd like to see the extent of CPU intensive plugins used.

Indeed. He is using at least the following (running on the HDX cards):
2 Revibe II
2 Tube-Tech CL 1B
1 Channel Strip
1 Metal Amp Room

Does anyone know what "DSP Shared x*" in the system usage means exactly?

Side note, many folks are compelled to work in Protools, some reasons personal, others is to be easily comparable, so real question for me, would be to see the same mix on HD Native as well as Native protools, both on the same computer. We know TRS has a smokin computer.

That would certainly be an interesting comparison. Not least the difference between a HD Native session and a Native session with best of breed low-latency interfaces on both Mac and Windows. I wonder how much difference the HD Native card makes if any. (RME also has FPGA chips handling the I/O. Not sure about Apogee or other Mac-centric solutions...).

Alistair

[JSt0rm]

1024 is fine for mixing.

And thats more like 512 latency if you are normally working at 48khz as 96khz 1024 is half the size.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Every one of them I would imagine.

You edited out the part of 128 channels of I/o I use plenty of I/O when mixing lots of outboard (40 channels) plus mixing out to 16 stereo stems (32 outputs just for that alone) all at the same time.
I can expand down the road 3 cards will do 384 voices @ 96K and 256 Channels of i/o is possible.
Also consider all those tracks are playing with zero stress on the CPU ( HDX Hardware based audio engine) and no stress on the drive be the 10GB of sounds files and fade files are playing out RAM.
Running this systems with ergonomics of the Icon it's like dream.
Like I said nothing can do this except HDX.
Now off to my holiday in Hawaii ! (paid for with this rig)

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

You edited out the part of 128 channels of I/o I use plenty of I/O when mixing lots of outboard (40 channels) plus mixing out to 16 stereo stems (32 outputs just for that alone) all at the same time.

Because you didn't mention the hardware inserts and 16 stereo outs before. :-)

I can expand down the road 3 cards will do 384 voices @ 96K and 256 Channels of i/o is possible.

Give me a couple of RME HDSPe MADI and I have the 256 I/O covered but guess what, you can stack three of them for 384 I/O and your HDX system can't match that.

As for 384 voices at 96Khz, I can already do that natively on my system let alone a computer as powerful as yours. I just launched a project running 512 stereo tracks at 96Khz. That is the equivalent of 1024 voices. Your HDX system can't match that.

And again for kicks and giggles I doubled that. 1024 stereo 96Khz tracks or the equivalent 2048 voices. Running fine and loads of overhead to spare. Is that a HDX rig I see in my rear-view mirror? Nope, the HDX rig was long lost behind the horizon. That is another native rig.

Also consider all those tracks are playing with zero stress on the CPU ( HDX Hardware based audio engine) and no stress on the drive be the 10GB of sounds files and fade files are playing out RAM.

There is no stress on my drives either. (All audio played from RAM). As for not stressing the CPU... so what? That is what it is for. :-)

Running this systems with ergonomics of the Icon it's like dream.

This has nothing to do with HDX. You could pair a big Euphonix desk with Cubendo if needed. Or you could use an Icon with PT Native. But yes, the Icon is a nice control surface. :-)

Like I said nothing can do this except HDX.

It is good to see you have your mind completely made up despite not having any evidence for your claims. On the contrary, I have clearly demonstrated that you are underestimating the power of Native by a very long shot.

Cubase can outperform your HDX rig in many aspects. I am guessing most native DAWs can do the same.

Alistair

[passmore]

haha! cubase is joke.
I was is Blackbird Nashville last month - i should have asked them for a Cubase rig!
Gearslutz haha!!

trs why argue with some who obviously has no concept of What HDX even is?

[passmore]

sorry DP

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by passmore

trs why argue with some who obviously has no concept of What HDX even is?

It is rather clear what it is to some: Religion.

Alistair

[norbury brook]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

It is rather clear what it is to some: Religion.

Alistair

+1

I'm sure pro tools 10 HDX is great, but I agree with Alistair, there's so much prejudice around native DAWs and especially if they're windows as well.

I've been watching pro tools for over 10 years now and at no point in those 10 years have a I found a convincing reason to switch. I own Pro tools 9 HD but use it for transfers only. I mean a lot of what pro tools 10 can now do is stuff we've been doing with Cubendo for years, but because it's now in pro tools it's suddenly 'WOW look at this new feature'

i could write a book with the uninformed/prejudiced twadle I've heard in pro studios over the last 15 years, from people who are supposed to be intelligent, independent professionals, and, with the rise of the internet the level of miss-information seems to be growing as the new generation can't even be bothered to read a f***ing manual never mind actually test something out for themselves and make an informed choice.


MC

[manysounds]

Seriously?

/yawn


also, the snare sounds like crap in the intro
IMO

[mirrorboy]

From my own experience, I'd have to agree with Alistair on this one.....at least for the most part (see i/o below- can't comment on that).

I run a Mac Pro 12 Core 2.93Ghz | 64 GB Ram | All SSD's | Pro Tools 10.0.1 HD Native | 3 x UAD2 Quads PCIe

I can't test that much i/o since I only have one Lynx Aurora 16 so I can't comment on that aspect. (although 16 Analogue outs and 16 Digital Outs are no problem- also to note: it doesn't seem to tax anything more or less when I am or am not using the 16 analogue out).

As for the rest of the stuff, I have very little doubt that my rig could handle the session he described. And do so at a buffer of 512 (I've never run 1024 before- never needed to).

And just out of curiosity, I think it'd be interesting to see how my system would handle that exact session (minus the audio files for privacy reasons of course- they're all cached into RAM anyways).

I'd be willing to open that session (as I have just about all those plugs except metal amp room- but I'm sure I could demo it) and post a screenshot here.

I know there's probably all kinds of reasons why this wouldn't be an exact, scientific comparison but it could be interesting regardless.

Cheers,

Scott

P.S. I'm not some super Native lover or anything....in fact, I'd love to have HDX!! If I had money to burn I'd trade my Native rig in for HDX in a second!! My post is simply an observation from my own experiences with an HD Native rig coupled with the most powerful Mac Pro that Apple sells.

[so serious]

So has it all come down to this? HDX engine specs, and screenshots ? how many plugins and tracks we can possibly run on HDX vs native? Videos of 256+ tracks of air on youtube.

Anyone who thinks that native has not caught up to DSP processing is mistaken, or maybe just needs to justify an HDX purchase (with no new DSP plugs yet after 4 months, and not many DSP coming from the looks of things).

Avid cant even fix the audio dropouts in PT10 (after 4 months, 4months to fix a major bug?) come on now, enough of the nonsense
HDX is good for what it is but its certainly no longer a night and day advantage over native.

I've heard a couple of HDX mixes online and so far I'm not impressed,
I've also heard some native mixes lately that sound better than what I've heard from HDX so far, (maybe its the engineering)

So if theres something better, or I've missed something, someone please post a link to a great HDX mix. I'd really like to hear it since I doubt a million people will ever download a million copies of a screenshot, or a recording of 256 tracks of air

Ok, back to work

[so serious]

Originally Posted by mirrorboy

I run a Mac Pro 12 Core 2.93Ghz | 64 GB Ram | All SSD's | Pro Tools 10.0.1 HD Native | 3 x UAD2 Quads PCIe

And with that rig your records will sound as good or better than any HDX rig

[oceantracks]

The computers are fast enough now to get serious work done.

The problem is the intrusiveness of 3rd party "Low Latency Mixers" you have to deal with, and the buffer size dance.

In HD/HDX, you just press record.

Other than that though, it is indeed impressive what can now be done with native systems.

I still like having guaranteed performance though, and that is what HDX gives.

[so serious]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

The computers are fast enough now to get serious work done.

The problem is the intrusiveness of 3rd party "Low Latency Mixers" you have to deal with, and the buffer size dance.

In HD/HDX, you just press record.

I dont know much at all about low latency mixers since I track in HD,
in regards to the buffer size dance, I agree, it seems that is still the advantage of DSP , although I have had good experiences tracking vocals and guitar in native.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by so serious

And with that rig your records will sound as good or better than any HDX rig

And cost just as much lol

TH

[drew]

Originally Posted by so serious

I've heard a couple of HDX mixes online and so far I'm not impressed,
I've also heard some native mixes lately that sound better than what I've heard from HDX so far, (maybe its the engineering)

So if theres something better, or I've missed something, someone please post a link to a great HDX mix. I'd really like to hear it since I doubt a million people will ever download a million copies of a screenshot, or a recording of 256 tracks of air

I can now discount EVERYTHING you've said or ever will if this is your line of thinking. Crazy.

Maybe it's the engineering? Ya think??

And HDX isn't just about DSP.

[so serious]

Originally Posted by drew

I can now discount EVERYTHING you've said or ever will if this is your line of thinking. Crazy.

Maybe it's the engineering? Ya think??

And HDX isn't just about DSP.

Discount if you like Drew , but until some plugins show up for HDX, its only (empty) DSP to me,
I know, I know, 64bit mix engine, 32 bit float, etc .. its sooo much more than dsp,
ok I agree, but sonically native now sounds as good or better, ( so yeah, engineering, I think?) you got me on that one, it's always engineering.
Anyway, when I hear some better HDX mixes or some plugs show up, I'll adjust my position. The only reason I've been hanging around these sites lately is to see how HDX is shaping up, I like the OP's rig, looks promising, and for the record, I still prefer my HD3 rig, but that's not my point.
When you have a moment, post a link to some great HDX mixes that are sonically better than what can be done in native, but make sure it's not the Alecia Keys session used at the HDX launch, because that wasn't recorded or mixed in HDX, that was just more smoke and mirrors from Avid,
compare that to the launch of the HD system,
from what I remember the 192k session from that launch was an actual recorded and mixed HD session and was sonically superior to anything I had previously heard from a protools rig.

I'm not trying to be overly critical of Avid or any ones opinion , just stating my mine.
It may be crazy to you, but a pair of barefoots and a protools rig doesn't make your opinion the only valid one (nice rig though...)
Now back to my TDM mix