5th July 2012
|
#1 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Cortland, New York
Posts: 166
Thread Starter | HDX. Period.
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.
| 
|  | |
5th July 2012
|
#2 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jul 2006 Location: So Cal
Posts: 13,879
 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Caminitia15  It is a serious system... and until you experience it first hand, I do not believe that you are able to | Cool. I'm happy for you. A Dual G5 was ancient. Moving to an HDX on a modern computer - no wonder you're stunned.  But my HD3 PCIX running in a magma chassis on a 2010 dual8 Nehalem is rock solid as well. And I don't think there's anyway, no matter how hard I've tried that I can even get it close to 70% maxxed. AND, it will run ALL the plugins that I still need that have not been ported to AAX and may never be.
All that said, I sometimes do wish I had the 512 voices of a 2 card HDX system, but other than voices, and draining my bank account, I can't really see any reason to move up. At least not until everything I need is ported to AAX and PT has truly gone 64 bit. I probably will at some point, but for now, the system I have does everything I need and then some.
Enjoy it!
Signed,,,,
Happy as a clam.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#3 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Canuk
Posts: 5,700
|
I have 3 HDX cards (i sold all my HD-TDM systems)
- you will not be disappointed.
- RTAS Spikes gone - you will be able to run a lot more plug-ins
- More voices does NOT use any of your DSP
- More I/O
- working at higher sample rates with large sessions was simply not possible in TDM
Sold HD3 (with PT HD 10) PCIe system for 4.5K
bought HDX card w/ HD 10 Paid 6K
Final upgrade cost 1.5K - it was a no brainer upgrade for me
| 
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#4 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jul 2006 Location: So Cal
Posts: 13,879
| Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S I have 3 HDX cards (i sold all my HD-TDM systems)
- you will not be disappointed.
- RTAS Spikes gone - you will be able to run a lot more plug-ins
- More voices does NOT use any of your DSP
- More I/O
- working at higher sample rates with large sessions was simply not possible in TDM
Sold HD3 (with PT HD 10) PCIe system for 4.5K
bought HDX card w/ HD 10 Paid 6K
Final upgrade cost 1.5K - it was a no brainer upgrade for me | Reasons why HDX is not in the cards anytime soon.
A good buddy sold all his TDM systems, & upgraded within a couple weeks of announcement of HDX availability. Months later, he's still working without several essential tools that were invaluable to his workflow. That's not an option for me. He also had HUGE bug-hardware-k-panic type situations in the implementation of the system. Took the better part of TWO MONTHS to straighten things out and get back working without systemic catastrophes. Not an option for me either. This is a guy who is closely tied to avid and demos stuff for them, and gets hand held tech support. Not just some joe off the street.
But to answer your specifics :
- I'm not disappointed now
- I'm not having RTAS spikes now
- Move voices WOULD be nice, but not essential. 
- I've got more i/o than I currently need with the system that's paid for - an upgrade to a system that made sense for me to upgrade to would cost me $15-20k not 1.5k
- I personally see no reason for doing a SRC from higher sample rates unless I'm mixing analog thru a console, (which I'm currently not) so no benefit for me there. I'll continue @ 44.1/48k thanks.
- I'm not an avid reseller like you, Replacing my working, rock solid system would cost me HUGE $$$. (see above)
So,,,,,color me :
Happy as a PTHD clam.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#5 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 181
|
Dr bill, amen brotha.
My workflow is working now. I don't want to give up my tools, spend $$ like its going out of style, for what? More voices? (The only draw for me at this point)
And downtime isn't going to be an option for me till 2014 at this rate, and by then i'll probably be booked solid again.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Gearslutz App
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#6 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Canuk
Posts: 5,700
|
I am quoting street prices ( not retail ) that anyone get get without too much digging.
While depending on your system if you own a PCIe system you are far better off selling then buying a new HDX at a cash discounted price.
Plus you can still use Digi 192's with HDX so upgrading your I/O is not totally necessary to do right away as well.
and
No, I am not an Avid dealer but I do buy dealer overstocks and studio closings.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#7 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jul 2006 Location: So Cal
Posts: 13,879
| Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S I am quoting street prices ( not retail ) that anyone get get without too much digging.
While depending on your system if you own a PCIe system you are far better off selling then buying a new HDX at a cash discounted price.
Plus you can still use Digi 192's with HDX so upgrading your I/O is not totally necessary to do right away as well.
and
No, I am not an Avid dealer but I do buy dealer overstocks and studio closings. | Quoting $1.5k for an upgrade is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
-What about the interface that you MUST buy to upgrade?
-What about the MULTIPLE interfaces you will need to get the i/o you currently have?
-What about needing 2 HDX cards to equal the power your HD 3/4/5 system you currently own outright? (And no, I don't want to hear any more avid hype about how an hdx1 = a HD5. It may in certain circumstances, but not in my real world.)
-What about having to buy new plugs to replace those you can't upgrade to AAX, what about the cost of upgrading existing plugs that are moving to AAX? Big $$$.
-What about systems with large i/o? While you CAN run your old 192's, from what I've seen, that opens a whole new can of worms in interfacing that causes problems and slowdowns. New interfaces are in order for an HDX system. Period.
The upgrade cost is not just what ONE HDX card will run you. It's about how much you're lawing down until all the dust settles.
No, for real people in real studio's with real systems, and HDX upgrade is a serious financial investment.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#8 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jun 2007 Location: Zurich
Posts: 1,185
|
The biggest reason for Avid is it's ultra low latency while laying down tracks / tracking. Honestly the native bus I/O to the cores ("bridge") is still to slow... And also DSPs are now so cheap, Apple should include some..
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#9 | | Gear addict
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
|
HD3 PCIe sold $3975.00 (less ebay/paypal fees) net sale $3748.00 DIGIDESIGN AVID HD3 PCIe 1 Core, 2 Accel Cards | eBay
here is a HDX card with software that I am sure you could get it for 6K with shipping AVID HDX Protools PCIe w/ Pro Tools 10 HD software | eBay
Net upgrade cost $2252.00.
I found this info in 30 seconds I am sure if you dig harder you get an even better deal. 
The perception that HDX is over priced is a total myth. I paid $30,000 for a Pro Tools Nubus 24 track system. In today's dollars that is probably close to $50,000.
I have the opposite problem my HDX are filling my bank account not draining it.
For the weekend warrior it's out of reach but since this is the High End forum most guys shopping here have no problem dropping this a dime compared to what some of my other gear has cost me. It's all relative to where you are at.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#10 | | Lives for gear
Joined: May 2010 Location: München, Germany
Posts: 1,398
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by drBill No, for real people in real studio's with real systems, and HDX upgrade is a serious financial investment. |
That maybe true Dr. Bill, but you can't speak on any features of an HDX or performance advantages or disadvantages of any system you do not have ample experience.
I don't own any HD system. We use a 4 or 8 core (can't remember exactly... It maybe hyperthreaded :???) Mac Pro with PT 9 with CPTK 2 with a powercore and uad duo and that about makes me happy; although, I do most of my mixing in logic because I prefer it.
More dsp with the plugins I love is never bad...
Peace  | |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#11 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jan 2004 Location: out in the dirt.
Posts: 15,766
| Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill Quoting $1.5k for an upgrade is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
-What about the interface that you MUST buy to upgrade?
-What about the MULTIPLE interfaces you will need to get the i/o you currently have?
-What about needing 2 HDX cards to equal the power your HD 3/4/5 system you currently own outright? (And no, I don't want to hear any more avid hype about how an hdx1 = a HD5. It may in certain circumstances, but not in my real world.)
-What about having to buy new plugs to replace those you can't upgrade to AAX, what about the cost of upgrading existing plugs that are moving to AAX? Big $$$.
-What about systems with large i/o? While you CAN run your old 192's, from what I've seen, that opens a whole new can of worms in interfacing that causes problems and slowdowns. New interfaces are in order for an HDX system. Period.
The upgrade cost is not just what ONE HDX card will run you. It's about how much you're lawing down until all the dust settles.
No, for real people in real studio's with real systems, and HDX upgrade is a serious financial investment. | why do you need to buy a new interface? I am using a 192 and an old sync i/o with HDX.....
as to needing 2 HDX cards to do what you do on an HD5- why would you need that? I can only see it being the case if you were using more than four interfaces....
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#12 | | CEO - Z-Shift LLC
Joined: Oct 2008 Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 2,202
| 
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#13 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Cortland, New York
Posts: 166
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill Quoting $1.5k for an upgrade is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
-What about the interface that you MUST buy to upgrade?
-What about the MULTIPLE interfaces you will need to get the i/o you currently have?
-What about needing 2 HDX cards to equal the power your HD 3/4/5 system you currently own outright? (And no, I don't want to hear any more avid hype about how an hdx1 = a HD5. It may in certain circumstances, but not in my real world.)
-What about having to buy new plugs to replace those you can't upgrade to AAX, what about the cost of upgrading existing plugs that are moving to AAX? Big $$$.
No, for real people in real studio's with real systems, and HDX upgrade is a serious financial investment. |
I own and operate my own studio. I also work another full time job because my studio is not nearly full capacity. I buy all my own equipment, record, edit and mix everything.
I entirely agree that it is a serious investment.
If you want to know what I spent, it is as follows:
I formerly used an apogee rosetta 800 and lynx aurora 8 with HD cards. I have yet to sell them, but they will offset the cost.
I traded in an HD|3 system and purchased (on ebay) a Blue 96 for $675 for the trade in toward an $11,000 HDX-1 system. HDX, PT10|HD, HD IO 16x16.
$11,675 after the trade in, shipped to my door (thanks, DSP Doctor. You rock face.)
Upgraded to a Mac Pro 12 Core = 4550
Currently at $16,225
Ebay (After ebay/paypal fees)
Lynx = 1800
Apogee = 1600
Selling old TDM Plugs = 1000
Buying new native plugs = 1000
Total Upgrade = $12,825
Bank Loan = 10,000
Up front from my pocket = 3K (but I utilized both of my credit cards, and I have fairly good credit and a decent amount, so this was even more offset)
In YOUR real world, maybe an HDX does not equate to an HD5. But in MY real world, where I was maxing out an HD|3 and suddenly have more power than I could ever possibly use, HD5 seems like a fair assessment.
To me, an HDX2 system would be like having a B&W 7.1 system and feeling the need to go 14.2. Maybe not for someone else. But for me.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#14 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 998
|
Thanks for starting a thread and finally shutting down the argument over HDX once and for all. You are a true hero! Now we never again have to debate DAW hardware and software. All my plugins are either Waves or UAD, neither of which will run on an HDX card but thanks to your post I now know that I should buy one anyway. Period.
| |
| | |
5th July 2012
|
#15 | | Gear addict
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
| Quote:
Originally Posted by AllBread All my plugins are either Waves or UAD, neither of which will run on an HDX card | I run Waves and UAD plugins everyday on my HDX systems
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#16 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 998
| Quote:
Originally Posted by passmore I run Waves and UAD plugins everyday on my HDX systems | But they don't use the dsp on the HDX card so they don't care if it's there or not.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#17 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Aug 2004 Location: Up here
Posts: 6,733
|
This thread will be a flippin' fustercluck in 24 hours or less.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#18 | | CEO - Z-Shift LLC
Joined: Oct 2008 Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 2,202
|
Why?..... Why!?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#19 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 580
|
Thank God for DrBill. I concur with him. Period.
I don't need more voices or DSP for plugins because I don't use them. I was faced with the choice of upgrading to HDX or getting better converters for my HD3 system. I went with the later and bought an Apogee Symphony i/o (and had money left over to buy a Bricasti, Buzz preamp and ADL1500). The sound quality is absolutely stellar now and the system is very stable. it has not crashed once with the Apogee i/o. I could not be happier with my HD2 and Apogee i/o. It serves my needs.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#20 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Cortland, New York
Posts: 166
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo This thread will be a flippin' fustercluck in 24 hours or less. | Well, you know... everyone needs to weight in on how much they think HDX sucks without ever using it  | |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#21 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Cortland, New York
Posts: 166
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhager84 Why?..... Why!?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App | why are you posting meaningless comments?
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#22 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Cortland, New York
Posts: 166
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by waldie wave Thank God for DrBill. I concur with him. Period.
I don't need more voices or DSP for plugins because I don't use them. I was faced with the choice of upgrading to HDX or getting better converters for my HD3 system. I went with the later and bought an Apogee Symphony i/o (and had money left over to buy a Bricasti, Buzz preamp and ADL1500). The sound quality is absolutely stellar now and the system is very stable. it has not crashed once with the Apogee i/o. I could not be happier with my HD2 and Apogee i/o. It serves my needs. | I was faced with a similar situation. The HD3 trade-in to upgrade to HDX will likely go away in a year or so, and what you will be able to sell your HD cards for on evilbay in a few years will be less than 500/card. I weighed the pros and cons of staying HD and getting an Apogee Symphony... I even weighed HDX with a symphony... but I do not want to get locked out of PT11 when it is 64 bit and anyone who uses all of this old gear will.
Extended delay compensation in HDX is huge... and with an HD IO, I know that I am going to be smooth sailing into PT11 when it drops, and anyone rocking anything else that is admittedly a little better - like a symphony or burl mothership (I want one so badly) - will be locked out until they can reverse engineer it and get it all working.
The point of this thread was not to attack other people's systems. I used to use UA plugs and loved them. I use Waves and dug them, not too too much, but I did. All of this stuff is totally professional, but I think it is foolish and misguided for people to think that HDX sucks just because it is a daunting upgrade and mandates getting rid of tdm only plugins. Trust me. I lost a lot of great plugins. C'est la vie. I like my new system. It sounds great. I see no reason why I could not potentially add a UAD-2 in the future, because they have some great plugins.
So much hostility and negative sarcasm from some of these people. Geesh!  | |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#23 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,525
|
First of all there is a specific Pro Tools subforum here and that is where this belongs. The whole Avid marketing claim of 5x was already discussed heavily here and per Avid's own numbers and some simple math proved to be just marketing shenanigans (a lie). Many here are smartly going to wait until 64 bit Pro Tools comes out to see if an upgrade then makes sense. Frankly it's sink or swim time for Avid with recording studios and no amount of marketing or fanboy chatter is going to change that.
A great 64 bit release has the chance of saving the company, with a bad release the writing is on the wall. One smart move for Avid would be to just use the already universal VST and VSTi format for plugs with the new 64 bit release. They can keep encouraging plug developers to do a 64 bit DSP AAX (or 64 bit DSP VST/VSTi) port but I don't see enough of that happening in time as smart developers will probably wait to see if Avid is going to survive. Let's see if Avid's greed gets in the way of that decision. Given Avid's top management's parasitic high salarys and stupid decisions they are the ones that need to change the most and hopefully this latest sell off and downsizing will act as the good kick in the ass they need to save Avid. A top management large pay cut would certainly help the moral of the remaining work force as they need to galvanize them to deliver a stellar 64 bit release.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#24 | | Banned
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 91
|
didn't we already go through this
Avid had made all the right moves, have great products and aren't misleading anyone.
You really think advertising that your studio is powered by Logic is going to fly?
Avid isn't going anywhere.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#25 | | Gear maniac
Joined: Mar 2009 Location: Cortland, New York
Posts: 166
Thread Starter | Quote:
Originally Posted by RighteousBustard
didn't we already go through this
Avid had made all the right moves, have great products and aren't misleading anyone.
You really think advertising that your studio is powered by Logic is going to fly?
Avid isn't going anywhere. | I would not say they have made all the right moves, per se, but I agree with the logic comment.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#26 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jul 2006 Location: So Cal
Posts: 13,879
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Caminitia15 everyone needs to weight in on how much they think HDX sucks without ever using it | Never said it sucked. Just that it was a waste of smart $$$. A major difference between us is that my income comes from my DAW (and musical skills) - not from a day job. So it's got to PAY for itself. And HD has. HDX??? I'm just not sure at this point.
Listen, we all knew that DAW technology was reaching the threshold where "improvements" would be more sales gimic's than needed tools. We've waited patiently for a decade, and the power of DAW's has reached that apex with HD / RTAS / and modern multicore computers. The final hurdle is 64 bit, but even that has easy workarounds with current NON-HDX technology.
If you combine a little BUSINESS sense and the state-of-the-industry statistics, and what you will find is smart money holding back unless HDX is somehow demanded.
Of course, those buying a DAW for the first time or having a broken system that needs replacing, etc., THOSE people are prime candidates, and should consider HDX.
But, for professionals with working HD systems that are making money every day.....why? I see no compelling reason. Avid's upgrade policy going away in a year??? Not likely. They've pulled the same rabbit out of the had a dozen times. On again, off again, on again. I've been on their upgrade train since 442's. I bet you don't even know what those are. I've got a pretty good idea of what they will do. Offer me "amnesty" (what a ******* way to put it) whenever they see some cash waving in the wind.
Anyway, they way I see it (and the majority from what I've seen) is that until PT becomes 64 bit or avid once again squeezes us out of the loop and forces an upgrade, we will sit happily and make music with what we got. At which time, all the blah, blah, blah about the 192 interfaces working will come home to roost, and there will be another huge ****storm of bad PR for avid.
Anyway, no one said HDX sucked. Just that's it's nice and for most people, not needed. I don't need a new car this year either. I'm not rushing out to buy one because of the new color schemes or minor body changes. | |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#27 | | Gear addict
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 416
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr First of all there is a specific Pro Tools subforum here and that is where this belongs. The whole Avid marketing claim of 5x was already discussed heavily here and per Avid's own numbers and some simple math proved to be just marketing shenanigans (a lie). | Actually is not 5 times - On all our old sessions it's more like 8 times more powerfull. You can even run MORE native plug-ins than on TDM because the HDX mixer is so much more efficent. On a TDM system when you used an RTAS plug-in it converted the audio from 24 bit to 32 bit then back again to 24 bit. All those converions needed extra CPU cycles. In HDX all that is gone as the entire processing chain is 32 bit. no extra conversions are needed. That alow allows for tons of extar Native plug-in power in HDX. Now the DSP engine does not need any processing chips either so you ALL your DSP chips are allocated to mixer and plug-in DSP.
Unless you have sat behind an HDX system you can armchair quarterback all you want - but your just showing off to world how clued out and zero knowledge on the subject.
You are never going to make it in this business if remained closed minded about something that is new.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#28 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Aug 2004 Location: Up here
Posts: 6,733
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Caminitia15 Well, you know... everyone needs to weight in on how much they think HDX sucks without ever using it | No one is saying that it "sucks." The issue is price and necessity. Some suggest that it's essential, others suggest that it's completely unnecessary, and most are somewhere in between.
ProTools users are largely able to judge for themselves, withOUT using HDX, whether or not HDX makes sense in their situation. This can be assessed quite easily without spending a dime if you have a grasp on the platform.
In my situation, where HD is entirely adequate (with the exception of the RAM ceiling), HDX would be a complete waste of money. Bump PT to 64-bit, then we'll talk.
As Bill said, for new users and those who need more from their current PT rigs, HDX might be a wiser option, though the prices of used HD rigs are tough to ignore.
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#29 | | Gear Guru
Joined: Jul 2006 Location: So Cal
Posts: 13,879
| Quote:
Originally Posted by passmore Unless you have sat behind an HDX system you can armchair quarterback all you want - but your just showing off to world how clued out and zero knowledge on the subject.
You are never going to make it in this business if remained closed minded about something that is new. | [edit] Dude, I edited what I posted, but just let me say that what you posted is extremely condescending to a lot of long standing, hard working professionals. Myself included. HDX is not manna from heaven.....
| |
| | |
6th July 2012
|
#30 | | Lives for gear
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,525
|
Actually Avid's own numbers were 2 to 3 times for most the important metrics between HD and HDX (not that it is hard to look up those threads here or look at Avid's specs at their site). One HDX card is not going to replace a HD5 rig as the 5x marketing eludes to (probably not even a HD3 rig). Now you are saying 8x, LOL. HD8 rigs better upgrade right away to that 1 HDX card. Cherry picking a metric for marketing just won't fly as most here will look at the big picture (the pros and cons). Many have studied it carefully and come to the conclusion the smart action to take is to wait and see what the 64 bit update will offer and what strings come attached.
| |
| | | |
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
