HDX. Period.

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think you will find you are mistaken

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

[T_R_S]

I was referring to internal I/O and Plug-in delays more the hardware I/O delay - I moved from HD / 192 to HDX Avid HD I/O which is a bit faster - I am not concerned about .3 mSeconds. I would not give up HDX for that...

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by elambo

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.

Couldn't agree more. Many big films, many hit records, from the "lowly" 192s.

[oceantracks]

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.

It's a simple explanation of his position, it doesn't sound defensive to me, though perhaps to someone who doesn't have that system it might.

[CeretoneAudio]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

I was referring to internal I/O and Plug-in delays more the hardware I/O delay - I moved from HD / 192 to HDX Avid HD I/O which is a bit faster - I am not concerned about .3 mSeconds. I would not give up HDX for that...

Thanks im glad we got that sorted

There's norhng worse that spreading mis information on the internet.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by 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

They ADC is insane it really is. I can just stack and stack plugs and it does not matter. Anyone running a UAD card with Pro Tools should be most stoked about this. You could stack those plugs as well and probably never hit the 16K of compensation.

Operation is incredibly smooth. Scrolling around, dragging/copying+pasting plugins during playback does not affect anything - AND it is instantaneous. Literally, not figuratively. Which is incredible. Maybe this is just PT10. I do not know.

Session load times are, as TRS said, unreal. It opens up like a new firefox session. Seriously.

Again, just said this, but adding plugs during playback is flawless. Unless it is a big native reverb, then you need to toy with the buffer, otherwise you can run 256 without any issues. Lexicon native is stopping playback if I load it up during playback at 256. I doubled it and it is fine. Sidenote: Lexicon Native PCM is f-ing incredible. F-ing incredible You can stack em across the board on the new macs. Pretty much seems like 3ish instances raises CPU (native) by 1% in this 12 core.

Originally Posted by T_R_S

* The ability to load up several songs/versions in one session with DSP to spare

What?! I did not even know you could do this.

~~~~~~~~~~

I understand a lot of people are frustrated with the lack of aax plugins. It is pretty lame. Indeed. I was very let down when I realized I would have to give up my precious TC Electronic VSS3. I know it is not the most amazing reverb out there, but it is pretty awesome and I used it all the time. But... C'est la vie. The sound is well worth it, and native plugins are so much better because they do not have the 24->32->24 conversion going on as they did in TDM. So it is always rockin' and super smooth.

I am going to demo eventides 2016 room, as it is an aax verb. Interested to see how much dsp is eats up.

[Andy_bt]

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

I am going to demo eventides 2016 room, as it is an aax verb. Interested to see how much dsp is eats up.

Unfortunately I think Eventide's plugs are native only.
It would be interesting to see how much power a good algorithmic reverb eats on an HDX card...?
A.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by Andy_bt

Unfortunately I think Eventide's plugs are native only.
It would be interesting to see how much power a good algorithmic reverb eats on an HDX card...?
A.

Description:
Reverb Plug-in with Eventide SP2016 Algorithm, EQ, and Controls for Decay, Predelay, Diffusion, and Position - Native (Mac/PC),AU, VST, AAX

Thus, you are correct. It is native AAX. (this threw me for a loop seeing AAX. I need to get used to looking for AAX native or AAX DSP)

I am very interested to see how a reverb is going to work on DSP chips in HDX. Looking forward to the day, but I guess it is kind of irrelevant right now. Lexicon PCM is rocking my world. So is valhalla

[amost]

Entertaining on!

[AllBread]

Starting to sound to me like your just digging having pt 10 on a 12 core Mac - is that card actually doing anything yet ( besides making everything sound much better, scoring you dozens of new clients with unlimited budgets and adding a bunch of totally untapped processing power that you dont seem to need to your system)?

Originally Posted by Caminitia15

Description:
Reverb Plug-in with Eventide SP2016 Algorithm, EQ, and Controls for Decay, Predelay, Diffusion, and Position - Native (Mac/PC),AU, VST, AAX

Thus, you are correct. It is native AAX. (this threw me for a loop seeing AAX. I need to get used to looking for AAX native or AAX DSP)

I am very interested to see how a reverb is going to work on DSP chips in HDX. Looking forward to the day, but I guess it is kind of irrelevant right now. Lexicon PCM is rocking my world. So is valhalla

[AllBread]

Originally Posted by 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

It's becoming obvious that what is happening here is that people are upgrading their entire systems at once (hdx card, new HD I/O and PT 10) and attributing all the benefits to the HDX card.

Everything sounding better than our TDM rig? Most likely because the HD I/O sounds better than the old 192s that you replaced at the same time. Don't need HDX to run that interface.

Love all the extra delay compensation and extra voices? Guess what - those are PT HD 10 features and not HDX features - an HD Native card gets you the same amount of both.

Love the way it handles processing? Well, welcome to native processing on a modern Mac! Since few plugins seem to be running AAX DSP yet most are probably running RTAS or AAX native plugins yet praising the card for the extra power. My hd native system also routinely stomps TDM 3 and higher systems - I know because when I open up sessions at the studios I work I have to deactivate tracks and plugins to free up voices and dsp power.

In fact, according to Avids comparison chart the only difference between an HD Native card and a single HDX card is an extra millisecond (.7 vs 1.7) on round trip latency and, of course, the processing power that few are writing software for (except or avid - wow, unloading the digi de-esser onto the HDX card must really open things up!).

Oh yeah, faster load times, more stability and ram caching to make navigating around real snappy? All software features - nothing to do with the card. Same with 32 bit float processing and 64 bit float mixing.

Love running giant, 96k, plugin heavy sessions at a buffer setting of only 256 samples? So do I - on my HD Native system!

Now, of course, if you might need more than the 256 voices, 256 tracks, and the 64 channels of I/o that both the HDX card and HD Native card offer then the HDX card is the way to go - you can slowly bump up those numbers in $7k increments as you add new HDX cards!

For actual facts about what the HDX card can do compared to a HD Native card, pease refer to this handy chart: http://www.avid.com/US/products/Pro-...Comparesystems

[grouphome]

one of the reason I will upgrade to HDX is Sonnox Oxford EQ with GML option.
Just love that plugin!

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by AllBread

I
Love running giant, 96k, plugin heavy sessions at a buffer setting of only 256 samples? So do I - on my HD Native system!

Maybe you can - but my 96K sessions would never load on a HD native system.

[charles maynes]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

Maybe you can - but my 96K sessions would never load on a HD native system.

same here....

[scott petito]

Well if you really want the answer Hdx is better all around with a new mac it is untouchable... Ihad my tdm hdn and hdx all here at once i would foolishly guess that hdx is more comprable to at least an hd6 maybe an 8!... if you can't justify the expense thats one thing but no question about the power...lower latency longer delay comp all the protools 10 improvements...high voice counts etc...i use lynx converters worked right out of the box and with the new drivers it has the same latency of the latest avid interfaces... So no interface upgrades needed .. Traded my cards for a better than advertised price for a very reasonable upgrade dollar amount
Not a single issue with installing or operation with all my plugs...
This thing just works....really well

Cheers
Scott

[Mike O]

Scott,

Do I recall that you use HDNative or did you make the move to HDX? Or did you keep both for different rigs/needs? Just curious.

[scott petito]

Originally Posted by Mike O

Scott,

Do I recall that you use HDNative or did you make the move to HDX? Or did you keep both for different rigs/needs? Just curious.

Yes i do have both but I am selling the HDN only because i dont currently need both systems.. I still stand by everything I've written concerning HD native
In fact under almost all situations so far you could tell tue difference between the two



Cheers
Scott

[raal]

well, after almost reading through the whole thread, think i'll still be waiting for Waves to go AAX before i go HDX. the bottelneck for me in HD is 96k sessions, as someone mentioned. other than that, PT 10 and HD do fine as we've been watching gain structure within DAW/plugs for years.

[Firechild]

Originally Posted by drBill

maybe the REAL question should be :

Which sounds better -

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

No, that is obvious. I had a 192 before and it sounded crap and I mean it, worse than low end stuff like MOTU 8 Pre. The new AVID I/O HD sounds great, so great I could sell my Benchmark AD.
I really want to know if HDX + AVID I/O sounds better than HD + AVID I/O.

[charles maynes]

the cards shouldnt sound differently I would think- its all digital data- the AVID i/o is certainly better than the 192 in the analog realm though.

a more interesting question would be if there was a difference in the interface when outputting a digital stream (AES/ADAT/TDIF/SPdIF)

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Firechild

No, that is obvious. I had a 192 before and it sounded crap and I mean it, worse than low end stuff like MOTU 8 Pre. The new AVID I/O HD sounds great, so great I could sell my Benchmark AD.
I really want to know if HDX + AVID I/O sounds better than HD + AVID I/O.

I don't know what was wrong with your 192, I'm guessing some issue with the db25 snake being 1-legged.

I've used 192s extensively, and I'd never describe them as "crap- worse than a motu".

I also a/b'd in detail against the avid io. Which sounded clearer to me, but in a 2-3% way, not in a "night and day" way.

Not saying you're wrong, just that the problem sounds limited to your setup. I couldn't tell you how many places I know with 192s that sound absolutely fine.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I don't know what was wrong with your 192, I'm guessing some issue with the db25 snake being 1-legged.

I've used 192s extensively, and I'd never describe them as "crap- worse than a motu".

I also a/b'd in detail against the avid io. Which sounded clearer to me, but in a 2-3% way, not in a "night and day" way.

Not saying you're wrong, just that the problem sounds limited to your setup. I couldn't tell you how many places I know with 192s that sound absolutely fine.

I entirely agree.

Brendan O'Brien, during every single production and mix at Southern Tracks, mixed with Blue 192s and an HD3 (in a G4!!!!). Brendan F-ing O'Brien. Granted, this is not an issue of power because he mixes entirely out of the box on an SSL G+ Ultimation with as much outboard gear as he wants, but the point is that these records sound incredible. All of them. Way better than a Motu 8Pre. haha. I used to rock a Motu 192 (much better than an 8Pre's conversion) and the switch to apogee rosetta/lynx aurora HD3 was night and day... and the switch from rosetta/lynx HD3 to HD IO HDX was NOT night and day, but a significant improvement.

Motu 8Pre. haha. Get out of here, man. Seriously. A comment like that is just bogging down this already insane thread that I started (and did not think it would become what it did.). Motu's converters are not nearly on the same playing field. But I will give a shout out to Digital Performer any day of the week. I used it for ages and love it. If I did not use PT10 HDX, then I would still use it. Loved it. 8 Pre is better than a blue 192. haha.

[Zoot]

Originally Posted by AllBread

It's becoming obvious that what is happening here is that people are upgrading their entire systems at once (hdx card, new HD I/O and PT 10) and attributing all the benefits to the HDX card.

Everything sounding better than our TDM rig? Most likely because the HD I/O sounds better than the old 192s that you replaced at the same time. Don't need HDX to run that interface.

Love all the extra delay compensation and extra voices? Guess what - those are PT HD 10 features and not HDX features - an HD Native card gets you the same amount of both.

Love the way it handles processing? Well, welcome to native processing on a modern Mac! Since few plugins seem to be running AAX DSP yet most are probably running RTAS or AAX native plugins yet praising the card for the extra power. My hd native system also routinely stomps TDM 3 and higher systems - I know because when I open up sessions at the studios I work I have to deactivate tracks and plugins to free up voices and dsp power.

In fact, according to Avids comparison chart the only difference between an HD Native card and a single HDX card is an extra millisecond (.7 vs 1.7) on round trip latency and, of course, the processing power that few are writing software for (except or avid - wow, unloading the digi de-esser onto the HDX card must really open things up!).

Oh yeah, faster load times, more stability and ram caching to make navigating around real snappy? All software features - nothing to do with the card. Same with 32 bit float processing and 64 bit float mixing.

Love running giant, 96k, plugin heavy sessions at a buffer setting of only 256 samples? So do I - on my HD Native system!

Now, of course, if you might need more than the 256 voices, 256 tracks, and the 64 channels of I/o that both the HDX card and HD Native card offer then the HDX card is the way to go - you can slowly bump up those numbers in $7k increments as you add new HDX cards!

For actual facts about what the HDX card can do compared to a HD Native card, pease refer to this handy chart: Avid | Pro Tools HDX

TDM cannot handle the extended delay compensation.

HDX DOES sound better (to my ears) than HD. As a friend said... HD is a little more harsh... more GRRRR to it... HDX is way more fluid and full. More vibe in this weird sonic dimension that I have never heard and cannot explain.

HD Native is not comparable to HDX, so the comparison does not entirely make sense. They are two different beasts.... both are really dope. But not exactly comparable.

[yrplace]

Originally Posted by raal

well, after almost reading through the whole thread, think i'll still be waiting for Waves to go AAX before i go HDX. the bottelneck for me in HD is 96k sessions, as someone mentioned. other than that, PT 10 and HD do fine as we've been watching gain structure within DAW/plugs for years.

Then you should email WAVES and ask for AAX DSP plugs. At the moment the word from them is they won't be doing anything but the native versions because of "lack of demand" by WAVES owners.

[PMoshay]

Originally Posted by Firechild

I really want to know if HDX + AVID I/O sounds better than HD + AVID I/O.

that was my quest when I first got my Avid I/o with my TDM HD3 rig. After swapping the TDM with a HDX with a fresh install drive, I got my answer...... As well as got my AMEX card out.
There's little to miss with my old TDM vs HDX, only at first I was worried about the plug in situation, but I have to say months later I have not really thought about it anymore...... There's plenty of plugs that I had that I didn't really use that I found are fantastic to take the place of the ones that are not ready yet....

Bottom line: I'm so glad I made the upgrade, it made everything sound better and life much easier now that I have so much more headroom to work with which was a moderately annoying issue in TDM.
caveat:-it's all great stuff and you can make excellent recordings with nearly all the modern DAWs out, HDX & Avid I/o OS clearly a top level audiophile system with features that hardcore pros appreciate and require.

[TRJanuary]

Originally Posted by Firechild

No, that is obvious. I had a 192 before and it sounded crap and I mean it, worse than low end stuff like MOTU 8 Pre.

User error.

[MonoBrow]

Originally Posted by TRJanuary

User error.

Indeed ...Many many top studios use them and make stellar Records.

Only on Gs lmao.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by MonoBrow

Indeed ...Many many top studios use them and make stellar Records.

Only on Gs lmao.

Not only DID many top studios use them for MANY years making MANY hit records, most of the movies with the boffo FX (let's talk low end) used them as well. Let's not get crazy.

[work2do]

Originally Posted by yrplace

Then you should email WAVES and ask for AAX DSP plugs. At the moment the word from them is they won't be doing anything but the native versions because of "lack of demand" by WAVES owners.

That's not what Waves official statement said. They stated "AAX-DSP is not planned at this time". They are doing AAX Native and I'm pretty sure once that is done and 64bit PT 11 shakes out we will see another statement. PT 10 is a transitional version and Waves has entirely too many plugs to make a statement based on a transitional product.

BTW, our spot is going all HDX by year's end.

[sessionatstudiom]

Upgraded to HDX at the beginning of the year. Wanted to move from PT8 to PT10. I went from HD4 on PC to a single HDX on a mac. For what I do I have not noticed a huge performance difference. I am running 2 SSL Delta link madi converters to a Euphonix System 5 without Eucon.

The system works well. It is just as stable as PT 8 was on PC for me. Waves is native for my system because of no AAX support. I can run more of them now. But that is the mac not the HDX card. I wanted PT 10 for the features and realized that the DSP would be in the same ballpark as I had. I rarely find that I am pushing the DSP on either system. Track count on the other hand was an issue. Now I have 64 more voices to use. It is great for that. Also the DAE is on one chip as opposed to 6 chips like before. So that seems more efficient.

The cost of the upgrade was about 7k total from the trade in and the new computer cost. Everything else remained the same. If I go to PT11 I will need to upgrade my Sync, and move from the delta links to the MADI I/O from Avid. So that is the next expense in the future.

I enjoy having the new system. The processing is great via the 12 cores on the Mac and 64 gig of ram. Makes for processing long files a breeze. Clip based gain was a long time coming. (My main reason for the upgrade).

Mike