HDX. Period.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by AllBread

Give me a break,we may all act like children but most of us on this site are professionals

Erm......no.

Not talking about you or anyone else in particular, but most on this site are most definitely not pro!

Many pro yes...also many well meaning amateurs, many talented (ie good enough to be pro) amateurs, and every other situation under the sun.

I also think its fair to assume many slagging off tools online have never used them, many responding to threads on "what is better - x or y" have never used one or either of what is being discussed, and many parrot replies they've never tried out or experienced 1st hand (cue recent list "who still mixes on an ssl?" - I'm pretty sure none of the mentioned engineers are chiming in personally). Again, this isn't a comment on anyone in this thread.

It would be interesting to see how many are truly pro on here, but it won't be "most"!

As you were.

[Winey]

PT users fighting with each other. Now I've seen it all.

[elambo]

Originally Posted by Greg Curtis

As for sonic improvement. That's arguable. I've heard that the new interfaces are "better," but I have not actually "heard" them. Example: Al Schmidt just walked out of here after tracking a session with our steaming pile of 192's. He was very happy, and I'm proud of that. He's happy because it sounded correct, and it was an error-free session. He will be back.

Good point. Al has created some of the most beautiful and pristine recordings in history and he very often uses the standard 192s. His magic doesn't rely on technology, which is a belief (a crutch) that many people have.

I believe that the new interfaces sound better, and that's advantageous, but the amount of focus put on that advantage is far out of perspective. It won't have much real-world affect on your music, though it might satisfy a need to stay current.

[drBill]

And let's not forget that the new interfaces are available for use on HD as well, making sonic differences minuscule at best.

[Andy_bt]

Softube about the EQF, one stereo instance per chip:

Alright guys, the new RTAS installer that fixes the settings issue should be up now. Sorry for the inconvenience!

About HDX usage: Yes, it could likely be optimized a bit further but this EQ model is highly complex and does demand a lot from the DSP. In fact, it took a quite a bit of work just to be able to fit one instance in stereo!

Cheers,
Torsten

I found that surprising!
A.

[Hyder boy]

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

We are in the age of four to twelve core processors inside Mac Pro machines that can hold upwards of 64 gigs of RAM.

Without a doubt, this is a massive amount power for any native system. It is no doubt more than enough to smoothly run most sessions.

It concerns me, however, that so many people seem to be bashing Avid and HDX. Saying things like, "It could not possibly be an HD5 on one card. They must be lying."

This is absurdity that is not based on anything other than hype or assumption. I know that this is gearslutz - where everyone are a self appointed professional - but please hear me out.

I was just recently maxing out an HD|3 system on a dual 2.5 G5. Maxing it out. It would often stop and say, "Not enough DSP or timeslots." I would try and add that last TDM plug and it would deactivate all of my plugins and take a few minutes to reactivate them, upon which I would need to close the session down, quit and reopen.

Jump ahead to a few weeks ago when I loaded up the same session in HDX with ALL NATIVE plugins. One of my sessions is 50+ Tracks (each with 10 playlists). Around 10 Busses. 15+ Mono and Stereo Sends. 16 Outputs (each with their own master out and plugins on each). 1 Stereo Return from Summing. Hundreds of plugins. All audio cached into only 40% of 9/12 gigs of ram (3 remaining gigs is used solely for PT10|HD). I am using 2.5 out of 18 HDX slots. Running just under 20% of CPU. 32 Bit Floating Point and using 16,383 samples of delay compensation.

Furthermore, this is not even the same session as what was on my HD3 session. It is way bigger with far more plugins since the HD3 session that was maxed out just a few weeks ago. So in a way the comparison is not even fair. Let us consider it as such to give the poor HD|3 system a little credit (hey, it was at one point the best, was it not?)

I guess the point that I really want to get across is that - even though the power of an HDX-1 inside a Mac Pro Twelve Core with 12-64 Gigs of ram might not be necessary all the time, it may not even be necessary most of the time - it is the sound, power and STABILITY of the new industry standard rig. You should just accept that. Stop debating. Stop bashing Avid. Stop the disbelief. This is real and there is nothing to debate. Most have not had the pleasure of using a TDM system, let alone an HDX rig. More than likely the bashing stems from a disbelief and/or lack of understanding of the power and sonic dimension that an HDX system brings to the table.

Do I NEED an HDX system? Not really, I guess. But my studio needs power and stability. HDX provides that and then some. If you do not need this level power and stability, then do not invest in one... but do not accuse Avid of falsely representing their new system. It is a serious system... and until you experience it first hand, I do not believe that you are able to comment on the power in which it can provide.

Peace.

What ever makes you sleep at night. Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself it was worth it. Someone must have hit a nerve. Showing such a defensive stance, would indicate regret, trying to justify a bad decision.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by Hyder boy

What ever makes you sleep at night. Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself it was worth it. Someone must have hit a nerve. Showing such a defensive stance, would indicate regret, trying to justify a bad decision.

haha.

[Zoot]

Haha.

This was a great thread, all.

Way to take my initial post - which was a few weeks into digging deep into HDX and being super excited about it and blown away that so many people do not believe the amount of power it can provide - as condescending.

I apologize if you took it that way. Really. All Apologies.

And trust me. I sleep very well at night with my new HDX system in the other room. Just as much as I slept well with my HD3 system.

And do you know why?

Because I still love the music I make with both cores of my studio.

...And I love playing, writing, producing, engineering, recording and mixing music.

And I always will. Regardless of the new HDX system.

But, again. This HDX system rocks.

[RighteousBustard]

The great thing about negative norbuses is that when they start chirpin, it usually means you are doing something right!

Good Luck with the new rig!

[syra]

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

Way to take my initial post - which was a few weeks into digging deep into HDX and being super excited about it and blown away that so many people do not believe the amount of power it can provide - as condescending.

I do think people overreacted a bit in your thread. I can't imagine there is doubt over HDX being a more advanced system compared to the HD series. I just think most people argued the need for it right now which is a valid point. After all you are comparing an HD3 in an old G5 to HDX in a 12-core MacPro running all native plugins. I'd say what you're experiencing is 90% MacPro and 10% HDX. Regardless... I think the argument should be made a year from today when AAX DSP offerings will be plentiful.

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

Because I still love the music I make with both cores of my studio.

...And I love playing, writing, producing, engineering, recording and mixing music.

And I always will. Regardless of the new HDX system.

But, again. This HDX system rocks.

Good for you. That is all that matters!

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

Way to take my initial post - which was a few weeks into digging deep into HDX and being super excited about it and blown away that so many people do not believe the amount of power it can provide - as condescending.
.

It's funny how people want to know about something then you tell them and they refuse to take your word for it.
a "famous" producer friend of mine said to me when he first heard his HDX system all he said was "HDX is amazing"

[syra]

Funnily enough I'm in the middle of this mix now and the 4K delay comp limit on HD is killing me. Wouldn't mind the 16K of HDX... although priority-wise my DSP plugs are #1.

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by Andy_bt

Softube about the EQF, one stereo instance per chip:



I found that surprising!
A.

I find it hilarious

What is the usage meter on a hdx card gonna look like when all these plugs get ported over

why isn't soft tube TSAR on hdx dsp .... oh thats right

have a think what the slate plugs are gonna do to an hdx card....

the real crucial factor in the success of the HDX platform (and probably avid) is going to rely of how much dsp horse power thay are willing to add the HDX accell cards , this will be the deal maker or the deal breaker for a lot of people.

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by syra

Funnily enough I'm in the middle of this mix now and the 4K delay comp limit on HD is killing me. Wouldn't mind the 16K of HDX... although priority-wise my DSP plugs are #1.

If you're going to to loose the use of your dsp plugs with hdx any way you may as well just switch over to the native engine and get the extra voices and delay comp that way

[drBill]

Originally Posted by CeretoneAudio

the real crucial factor in the success of the HDX platform (and probably avid) is going to rely of how much dsp horse power thay are willing to add the HDX accell cards , this will be the deal maker or the deal breaker for a lot of people.

That was the final dealbreaker for me. At the price they are/were charging, I expected not a 3 or 5X increase, but a 10-15X increase in DSP capability, and I wanted it on Thunderbolt - NOT a pci card. (Oh yeah, that will the the HDX 3 year upgrade when Apple tanks PCI slots). After 10 years, we deserved it. They are charging for it. Where is it? I want to start seeing some seriously hard core DSP plugins, and the current cards are not up to it. You know, stuff that takes a LOT of DSP horsepower, instead of the rehashed plugs that we've had for a decade. Bricasti, serious modeling, etc.. Oh well, time will tell.....

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by drBill

That was the final dealbreaker for me. At the price they are/were charging, I expected not a 3 or 5X increase, but a 10-15X increase in DSP capability, and I wanted it on Thunderbolt - NOT a pci card. (Oh yeah, that will the the HDX 3 year upgrade when Apple tanks PCI slots). After 10 years, we deserved it. They are charging for it. Where is it. I want to start seeing some seriously hard core DSP plugins. Stuff that takes a LOT of DSP horsepower, instead of the rehashed plugs that we've had for a decade. Bricasti, serious modeling, etc.. Oh well, time will tell.....

If I were a betting man i'd say accell systems will be here sooner rather than later whether its in the form of a card or some kind of external chassis.

Thats of course if they bother at all, the poor adoption of HDX may mean they dont.....

[passmore]

Originally Posted by drBill

I wanted it on Thunderbolt - NOT a pci card. (Oh yeah, that will the the HDX 3 year upgrade when Apple tanks PCI slots). After 10 years, we deserved it.

PCi evolved into PCIe
nothing is faster than PCIe so if they drop it for something better - the better technology has not been invented yet.

PCIe Capacity
Per lane (each direction):
v1.x: 250 MB/s (2.5 GT/s)
v2.x: 500 MB/s (5 GT/s)
v3.0: 1 GB/s (8 GT/s)
v4.0: 2 GB/s (16 GT/s)
16 lane slot (each direction):
v1.x: 4 GB/s (40 GT/s)
v2.x: 8 GB/s (80 GT/s)
v3.0: 16 GB/s (128 GT/s)

Thunderbolt Data Rates (In Case you did not know TB uses PCIe Data transfer Protocol)

Bitrate 2 GB/s PCIe -both directions (1 GB/s each direction)

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by syra

I do think people overreacted a bit in your thread.

I'd say what you're experiencing is 90% MacPro and 10% HDX.

Watch out, I think making so much sense might be against the forum rules judging by most of the posts being made here.

Alistair

[Firechild]

Sorry for hijacking the thread...but which sounds better...

HD + AVID HD I/O

OR

HDX + AVID HD I/O

?

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Firechild

Sorry for hijacking the thread...but which sounds better...

HD + AVID HD I/O

OR

HDX + AVID HD I/O

?

maybe the REAL question should be :

Which sounds better -

HDX w/ 192 OR HD w/ the new Avid I/O?

[Louis Richner]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the HD3 system is working for you, then stick to that. I know studios that are still running PT 8 HD and older systems. Any DAW is like buying a car... you decide on a car for its comfort, your needs, and how you feel using it. Same thing with a DAW. Use what makes you feel comfortable and what works for you. If I had too much equipment to carry in my sedan, i'd upgrade to a pick up truck. Same mentality goes with an HD3 - HDX rig. The car doesn't make you a better driver.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by Louis Richner

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If the HD3 system is working for you, then stick to that.

I most certainly agree with that.

Originally Posted by Louis Richner

The car doesn't make you a better driver.

I am super glad you said that. Because I totally disagree... and please let me explain why.

While I see where you are coming from.... have you ever driven a really nice BMW? A day behind a dope BMW will make you a way better driver and you will realize you can do things that you could not do in your ford escape. Yes, both cars require the same basic skills - just like a native system vs HD vs HDX - but when you step on the gas pedal and shoot around a tight curve at 80mph, it becomes evident that your skills are able to be both increased as well as refined.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

I am super glad you said that. Because I totally disagree... and please let me explain why.

While I see where you are coming from.... have you ever driven a really nice BMW? A day behind a dope BMW will make you a way better driver and you will realize you can do things that you could not do in your ford escape. Yes, both cars require the same basic skills - just like a native system vs HD vs HDX - but when you step on the gas pedal and shoot around a tight curve at 80mph, it becomes evident that your skills are able to be both increased as well as refined.

Put Mario Andretti in a nice stock BMW or Audi and he will make me look like a fool even if I'm driving the most tricked out F1 car out there. As they say....it's not the arrow, it's the indian. If you don't see that, then there's really nothing more to discuss from my perspective. Louis get it.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by drBill

Put Mario Andretti in a nice stock BMW or Audi and he will make me look like a fool even if I'm driving the most tricked out F1 car out there. As they say....it's not the arrow, it's the indian. If you don't see that, then there's really nothing more to discuss from my perspective. Louis get it.

Yes yes... but... Bill... the operator of anything will benefit from increased power.

haha. We are on the same side, here, Bill. I have never argued against you. The other GS people have. haha. My OP was about HDX being bomb. We have since digressed (in usual fashion). You and I agree. If your rig is rockin and stable. Right the F on. But we cannot be logically comparing the power of native to HDX or a neon to a BMW. Both will greatly raise the potential of the user. To different degrees, yes. But both will make something amazing happen

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by drBill

Put Mario Andretti in a nice stock BMW or Audi and he will make me look like a fool even if I'm driving the most tricked out F1 car out there. As they say....it's not the arrow, it's the indian. If you don't see that, then there's really nothing more to discuss from my perspective. Louis get it.

...and, Bill. Please. It is native american, these days

[T_R_S]

things about HDX I could not live without
* 16,000 Samples of delay compensation.
* 256 Voices @ 96K on HDX|2
* More I/O that what I could do on my old HD3 (128 vs 96)
* Smoother operation running more Native & DSP plug-ins than I ever could on HD3 due to the 32 bit clean DSP/Native Signal path vs eating up CPU cycles going back and forth between RTAS & TDM
* Far more mixer headroom than TDM
* More stable far less crashes than TDM.
* Super fast session load times - HDX session load times are unreal.
* nice when playing back and inserting plug-ins at the same time.
* More voices do not soak up DSP chips.
* DSP plugs and I/O has far less latency than in TDM.
* Lower cost upgrade than past hardware upgrades.
* The ability to load up several songs/versions in one session with DSP to spare

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

...and, Bill. Please. It is native american, these days

LOL. My bad.....

Cheers,

bp

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

* DSP plugs and I/O has far less latency than in TDM.

Actually HDX has higher latency than HD

The HDio converters are faster than the 192s but as far as the actual DSP system goes HD has lower latency.

[T_R_S]

The internal buss had 7 Sample Delay time in TDM it is Zero in HDX and many of my AAX DSP that had small amours of latency in TDM are now Zero in HDX.
So I don't know what specially you are referring too.

[heyman]

Omg... I have a headache.. I don't know how you guys even deal with any of this shit (and I work with computers every day).


When it comes to music and because I don't rely on recalls- I'll stick to my Radar.