Digidesign--New 8 core Macs-somethings got to give.

[indie]

People, seriously, with the now standard 8 core Macs and the ridiculous amounts of memory you can add....Digi HAS to come out with a "Pro" Native solution.

What's the latest word on this yo?

p.s. PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS A BASH PT AND SWITCH TO ______ THREAD!!!!!!!

[drBill]

Originally Posted by indie

Digi HAS to come out with a "Pro" Native solution.

My experience with DIGI is that they feel they don't HAVE to do anything. When they feel ready and want to, that's exactly when they will do it. Do you remember how long it took them to go to higher sampling rates above 48k? It took them a couple of years. Everybody and their brother had 96k+ sampling on cheapo soundcards and PT was still 44.1/48k. For a LONG time. I wouldn't be holding my breath. Just get a HD system and be done with it.

[obscure object]

Originally Posted by drBill

Just get a HD system and be done with it.

Just get a native system with YOUR choice of hardware and YOUR choice of software and be done with it.

If YOUR choice is a HD system then go for it. If not, don't!

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by indie

Digi HAS to come out with a "Pro" Native solution.

They already have it...
HD1 Accel PCIe core + 96 I/O can be found for less than 5K.
That's pretty darn cheap IMO.

[indie]

People -- you're not listening. I'm asking if you've heard anything about a Pro native system.

I realize HD1 is cheap...If I wanted an HD system, I'd buy one.

[Tibbon]

They don't have to. They don't have to be competitive in the market if they don't want to.

I'd say first they should work on actually even supporting new Apple OS releases!

Putting out a "Pro Native" solution does no good if it can't even run on a new system released! You can't run Tiger on this system likely!

[peeder]

Even a "pro native" solution isn't going to have the latency specs the TDM system has.

It would take them a couple weeks to just take out the various #ifdefs that are holding back PTLE/MPTK in terms of track counts and Delay Compensation etc., and offer hardware expansion. This isn't a matter of technical incompetence, it's just a matter of financial models. It's getting somewhat embarassing though so I won't apologize for them.

The C|24 works with PTLE btw. I don't know why they wouldn't want the Icon to work with it too. Maybe they just don't feel like debugging that kind of mismatch yet.

With a C|24, the lightbridge (does it still offer >18i/o anyone?) and MPTK you can more or less do what you need to short of vast film scores and the like. Massenberg etc. are porting to RTAS. The segmentation is being broken down and will fall completely within a couple years.

[barryjohns]

They left a teaser when the 003 came out, implying that they will be coming out with a LE Pro system.

Contrary to the above comments, Digi will have to do something. The price of their used systems is dropping quickly. 25% over the last year alone. Last year Dutchmusik was selling HD1's new in the box for 5500.00, now he has them regularly for 4500.00. I bought my HD1 new in the box for 4k. As long as these systems are available, smart people are not going to buy new systems from dealers. As the power of native grows so much as it has over the last 2 years (Leaps and Bounds over that time), Digi is going to HAVE to do something. It is simple economics, Digi makes no money when people by used. IMHO, you have to be plain stupid to buy a new system from a dealer today, which would be flushing money down the drain.

I'm willing to bet in 2 years, you'll be able to by used HD1 PCIe systems for 2k. Digi will come out with a new HD card that is the same performance as an HD5, combine it with all the VI’s, Real Plugs that people will actually want to use, Structure, etc, and give existing owners great upgrade options to get all the potential used HD systems off the market, at the same time come out with a Protools LE Pro, that gives 48 tracks, ADC, and Zero Latency using Digi Converters like existing 96 I/O' and 192's. I suspect the new Protools LE Pro, minus converter, will be priced around 3000.00. They will still limit the number of tracks that can be recorded at the same time. Gotta keep a reason to still go HD. I suspect the new HD1 will be priced around 5500.00, without any conversion. The days of 15,000 systems will be a thing of the past. They will sell so many of these systems it will be crazy.

Digi will come out with new converters that compete with the Lynx Aurora's. Another thing they have to do quickly. Anyone today buying a 192 over a Lynx Aurora is also not very bright.

Guys think about this.

[SoundEng1]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

IMHO, you have to be plain stupid to buy a new system from a dealer today, which would be flushing money down the drain.

I'm willing to bet in 2 years, you'll be able to by used HD1 PCIe systems for 2k.

I'm willing to bet it will be much sooner than that.

[H-Rezz]

Originally Posted by peeder

Even a "pro native" solution isn't going to have the latency specs the TDM system has.

.

It can have , they invent one card with enough DSP to do your latency/trackcounts like a symphony system which you can use their converters or third party ones, accompanied by a second card just for more converters for recording big orchestra's if you need more than 16in/outs , sell the core card for $1500 with the software, the second card for more i/o for $800 and let the computer take care of the rest ....

Then the onus on them will be to make great sounding converters at a competative price not average sounding converters at twice the price of their competators if they want to sell more hardware as well...

[barryjohns]

Originally Posted by peeder

Even a "pro native" solution isn't going to have the latency specs the TDM system has.

Peeder, come on now. You know my thoughts on Protools HD. But I will tell you; my Symphony System has as good if not better Latency specs as my Protools HD rig. Right now. All Digi has to do is turn the existing HD1 into the new LE Pro, just not be abel to run TDM plugs on the Card.

To me TDM Plugs are obsolete on any Protools HD rig that’s on a MacPro. Exception, TDM only plugs, but that needs to change as well.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

......my Symphony System has as good if not better Latency specs as my Protools HD rig. Right now. .......

huh?

+/- 1 sample?

really?

Symphony can do that?

[JDN]

you all do realise we're less than 2 weeks away from NAMM...if anythings gonna happend in any near future, it'll be announced there...if not...than it's time to reevaluate and find a company that suits you.

Once NAMM hits, we'll know what all companys intentions are for at least the next year.

[colinmiller]

I never quite understood how people who seem to have systems that outperform Pro Tools in every way seem to be so concerned about a system that is so inferior to theirs. If their systems are so much better, why should they even care?

And I also don't see how faster computer CPUs are much of an issue when PT can use both the computer CPU as well as it's scalable TDM processing. Thus meaning that the increase in computer CPU gives PT that much more DSP as well.

[peeder]

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

It can have , they invent one card with enough DSP to do your latency/trackcounts like a symphony system which you can use their converters or third party ones, accompanied by a second card just for more converters for recording big orchestra's if you need more than 16in/outs , sell the core card for $1500 with the software, the second card for more i/o for $800 and let the computer take care of the rest ....

Then the onus on them will be to make great sounding converters at a competative price not average sounding converters at twice the price of their competators if they want to sell more hardware as well...

Well in that case why not just forego the R&D expense and just sell HD systems for $995? They could do so, but the market is still bearing the vast markup, and they have no reason to retreat yet. (It's on the way though.)

Originally Posted by JDN

you all do realise we're less than 2 weeks away from NAMM...if anythings gonna happend in any near future, it'll be announced there...if not...than it's time to reevaluate and find a company that suits you.

Once NAMM hits, we'll know what all companys intentions are for at least the next year.

Digi don't care about no NAMM.

[H-Rezz]

Originally Posted by colinmiller

And I also don't see how faster computer CPUs are much of an issue when PT can use both the computer CPU as well as it's scalable TDM processing. Thus meaning that the increase in computer CPU gives PT that much more DSP as well.

I think the point is why would someone spend extra dollars on P.Tools hardware if their computer can handle more than they'll ever need !? I believe P.Tools should capitalize in latency free cards with i/o options ....

I cann't max out a Mac Pro 2.6 dualcore , and that's with 90 tracks , plugins galore and barely pushing over half way , on the latest Mac Pro's that mix might not be pushing up to a quarter of what's under the hood .....

[drew]

As you're asking for Digi to make a pro native solution, the entire native world is adding dedicated DSP in the form of Duende, UAD, TC Powercore. Why are people doing this if 8 cores is more than enough? To get the plugins you say? So these cards are just dongles and ways to make money??

[Mosby]

Originally Posted by JDN

you all do realise we're less than 2 weeks away from NAMM...if anythings gonna happend in any near future, it'll be announced there...if not...than it's time to reevaluate and find a company that suits you.

Once NAMM hits, we'll know what all companys intentions are for at least the next year.

Digi's always marxhed to their own drummer, and, imo, as sort of ignored NAMM for releasing new products.

[UnDeFiNeD]

huh?

+/- 1 sample?

really?

Symphony can do that?

Errr, PT can't do that either...
1 sample @ 44.1 (slowest) = 0.02ms ....dream on
Don't have a PT HD system on hand, but I thought it was somewhere close to 3ms roundtrip, so a symphony can beat that.

As you're asking for Digi to make a pro native solution, the entire native world is adding dedicated DSP in the form of Duende, UAD, TC Powercore. Why are people doing this if 8 cores is more than enough? To get the plugins you say? So these cards are just dongles and ways to make money??

Since quad and octa systems...I guess so, I love my UAD, but my processor could run a whole lot more of those beauties than that little card ever could.
Not so long ago DSP was a real life-saver, but those times are also over, time to stablise and exploit the power of native systems.
If only latency wasn't that much of an issue. The problem is that a all-DSP system like HD has both processing and IO in the same card wich effectivly reduces latency. But if u go trough the native processor and RAM, it allways takes more time to compute. Thats why software monitoring on native systems is still so much inferior than DSP-mixer applications on most cards, the great thing about PT HD is that it combines the DAW and the "DSP-mixer" in one program, so u effectivly have a sort of digital mixer in your daw wich u can use for headphones, monitoring and even non-destructive plugins while tracking.
Native systems can do this too, but my experience is that u need a bloody good soundcard and loads of processor headroom to pull this off, like a quad-core and a RME HDSP card on PC or a symphony and an quad/octamac on MAC platform.

Since digi likes to offer solutions to studios wihout hasseling too much with cutting edge processors etc., I think they are gonna do the DSP-thing for a while, and just expand their native possibilities until computers become so over-powered that the cpu-headroom issue fades and they will become native.

Pzz

[ddageek]

Originally Posted by peeder

Even a "pro native" solution isn't going to have the latency specs the TDM system has.

It would take them a couple weeks to just take out the various #ifdefs that are holding back PTLE/MPTK in terms of track counts and Delay Compensation etc., and offer hardware expansion. This isn't a matter of technical incompetence, it's just a matter of financial models. It's getting somewhat embarassing though so I won't apologize for them.

The C|24 works with PTLE btw. I don't know why they wouldn't want the Icon to work with it too. Maybe they just don't feel like debugging that kind of mismatch yet.

With a C|24, the lightbridge (does it still offer >18i/o anyone?) and MPTK you can more or less do what you need to short of vast film scores and the like. Massenberg etc. are porting to RTAS. The segmentation is being broken down and will fall completely within a couple years.

Hey Peeder c24 and le yes M powered no go so It would have to be a 002 or 003!!

Digi will come out with something new when they feel they need to. They still dominate the market and they know it!

Digi is not going to give you an HD rig for LE Money as long as they can sell HD at the current prices. They Know their market better than you do. If you don't like it don't whine about it go Logic, DP or Nuendo!

[indie]

I agree it's almost a circular argument -- HD based card vs. Host based....with "outboard processing cards" like Duende, UAD etc. -- almost "six of one...".

The reason I bring this subject up, is NOT a hatred of HD, I dig it, I'm just intrigued by the super fast computer future.

I hear things from peeps "in the know". BUT I realize a lot of us have "people in the know" and the rumors abound constantly.

So that's the deal... I hear things. I hear it won't be ready for this NAMM though.

I'm a Radar guy, so I can wait.

[zboy2854]

Originally Posted by barryjohns

But I will tell you; my Symphony System has as good if not better Latency specs as my Protools HD rig. Right now.

But what if you want to monitor a live track with plugins on it?

To me TDM Plugs are obsolete on any Protools HD rig that’s on a MacPro. Exception, TDM only plugs, but that needs to change as well.

I agree, with the exception again of monitoring a live recorded track with plugins inserted for monitoring purposes. RTAS plugs get disabled when you record arm a track, so to monitor with, say, a compressor inserted on the live track you need to use TDM.

[nativeaudio]

Regarding the '1 sample' difference in latency between PTHD and a native system:

PTHD has 2.38 ms latency @ 44.1.
Tests have shown that a Symphony system @ 44.1 had less than 1 millisecond more (which is different from one sample) than a PTHD when using the 32 samples buffer. 1 ms equals the time it takes for sound to travel 30 cm/13 inches/1.11 foot through air. The native dilemma is that the (always dual) 32 samples buffer (or the always dual 64 samples buffer) isn't always usable without clicks and overload messages.

If you don't need to record through plugins, you don't even need to use software monitoring, and will get lower latency on a native system than on a PTHD system - not only one sample, it's more like half a millisecond less (in my tests).

According to the performance tests here, the new 2.8gHz 8-cores has circa twice the DSP power of the old Quad-core 2.66 gHz Macs (for musical work).

The new 3.2 hHz 8-core is 20% faster then the old 3.0 gHz, even if 3.2 is only 6.66% more than 3.0 - probably because the system is occupying the same amount of power of both computers, leaving more than 6.66% extra for processing audio.

The good thing about this for some people is that they can run 20% more plugins, for most other users it is that they can stay at the 32 buffer for a longer time than they could on a slower Mac. Since the memory bus is faster as well, maybe the 'native latency' (not the latency added by the two converters or the actual 2 x 32 samples buffers) could be lower as well?

Regarding comparing DSP power: using the DUAL core version, a test showed that a native system could run 200 instances of a plugin (URS CHannel Strip plugin) that a TDM card could run only 35 of. If a 8-core (with the same speed) can run for times as many, that's 800 plugins, and on a 3.2 gHz Mac it would probably be more like 20-25% more, even if we don't take the fact that the system doesn't occupy eg. 25% more on a 25% faster CPU. In other words, circa 1000 URS Channel Strip plugins on a native system and 35 on a TDM card. The test doesn't say which TDM card this was, but I assume it was a non-Accel HD card (Max, are you around?). Now, if this was not performed on a HD core card in a HD1 system (where some chips are reserved for plain mixing), but on a dedicated card running plugins, this test (if the numbers etc are correct), suggests that the new 3.2 hHz 8-core has DSP power equal to a HD28 system (1000/35=28) - or more than 9 HD3 systems, if the TDM test was based on a dedicated HD card. This makes me believe that my numbers must be wrong!!!

Anyway, I don't need 1000 plugins, but I need the 32 buffer!

[kooz]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

Since the memory bus is faster as well, maybe the 'native latency could be lower as well?

Right, as the technology gets faster and better integrated, the latency will slowly shrink to undetectable and non-annoying levels. Consider this:

These new MacPros are basically HD core cards that do a whole helluva lot more than a card...with one less processor for roughly a kilobuck less (before RAM) than a card! Digi will take notice of that when someone figures out how to network a couple or 3 MacPros together for PTLE or MP rather than buying HD cards. Or it could be that digi has already considered that, and the next step is to write/license the software for that.

Someone might have an inkling of what's next, but I assure you they're not posting here. Lurking perhaps, but not posting.

[DeathMonkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not just speed and power we are talking about with the PTHD, but parallel processing. Making it so the host computer doesn't have to do all the work, but that there's enough hardware paths for all processes to be completed at the same time. As long as there are enough processors for all the different tasks at hand, they don't need to be uber-powerful. If a plug only needs X amount of power to run, then allocating it to a separate but parallel processor should yield still better results (in aggregate with other plugs and processors) than having one processor set do all the computing at once.

You can force all the water through one big hose, or through a variety of smaller hoses.

If you're going to buy powered plugins for native anyways, why wouldn't an integrated system work even better, regardless of DSP power as long as they were robust enough to handle a significant portion of specific processes?

I'm sure new HD cards will come out with faster, stronger processors at some point, but how many people are really taxing their Accel3 systems?

[Eric Greedy]

Originally Posted by Mosby

Digi's always marxhed to their own drummer, and, imo, as sort of ignored NAMM for releasing new products.

they debuted HD at NAMM.

[colinmiller]

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

I think the point is why would someone spend extra dollars on P.Tools hardware if their computer can handle more than they'll ever need !? I believe P.Tools should capitalize in latency free cards with i/o options ....

I cann't max out a Mac Pro 2.6 dualcore , and that's with 90 tracks , plugins galore and barely pushing over half way , on the latest Mac Pro's that mix might not be pushing up to a quarter of what's under the hood .....

Different people have different needs. If you don't need the DSP, then you don't need it. But what about those that do? You're going 90+ 96k tracks? With several plugins on every channel? What about soft synths on top of that? For every limit, there will always be someone who needs more.

And it's simply not about how much DSP there is either, it's also about a standardized hardware system. But if someone has a system they think is better, I still don't see why they would really care about a system they feel is inferior, or why they should care if they think people are paying more for it.

[deuc647]

Originally Posted by zboy2854

But what if you want to monitor a live track with plugins on it?



I agree, with the exception again of monitoring a live recorded track with plugins inserted for monitoring purposes. RTAS plugs get disabled when you record arm a track, so to monitor with, say, a compressor inserted on the live track you need to use TDM.

Yes you can monitor through plugs with the symphony with no detectable latency, thats the great thing about it, it works off the macpro power, not dsp.

[Ironklad Audio]

As you're asking for Digi to make a pro native solution, the entire native world is adding dedicated DSP in the form of Duende, UAD, TC Powercore. Why are people doing this if 8 cores is more than enough? To get the plugins you say? So these cards are just dongles and ways to make money??

i was under the impression that the PCI cards for duende/UA/etc. were there as much for piracy protection as they are for DSP power...

and yes, digi is going to have to make some sort of changes in their product line in the next couple of years to match both the changing market and their competition...but i'm sure that they already know this, and have something in the works. if they don't have anything in the pipeline, then they're digging their own grave, and it's their own damned fault.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by deuc647

Yes you can monitor through plugs with the symphony with no detectable latency, thats the great thing about it, it works off the macpro power, not dsp.

How can that be? The conversion circle and the plugs themselves will have a certain amount of latency whether its macpro power or dsp (if I understand you correctly), plus the buffer in the computer itself.

-R