The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
64 bit Pro Tools 10 is coming. This is HUGE!
Old 12th September 2011
  #61
Lives for gear
 
DR Music's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
All I need is to be independently wealthy.heh
lol!!! Ok that too!!!
Old 12th September 2011
  #62
Gear Nut
 

Not that it's a big deal to the people here, but if they implement these features at the current PT9 price point ($600) it will seriously outgun what Nuendo brings at $1800.
Old 12th September 2011
  #63
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B View Post
Not that it's a big deal to the people here, but if they implement these features at the current PT9 price point ($600) it will seriously outgun what Nuendo brings at $1800.
I'd not go as far as saying it outguns Nuendo, apart from on price, if they do release it at the PT 9 price point (which may force Steinberg to drop their prices).

There is a possibility they keep PT9 at existing price (as it's less than 1 year old) and bring this in as a higher-end product as a TDM/HD replacement (now they're effectively using RAM instead of Accel cards).
Old 12th September 2011
  #64
Gear Maniac
 

Sorry to be a pedant Tom but they don't appear to be replacing Accel/motorola DSP for RAM in any way.
They use the accel cards for your plugin and mixer architecture, RAM only gets used for caching playback of files off the hard drive.
RTAS and native processing for mixing and plugins is all about CPU power, not RAM and the IBC video didnt seem to infer any change to that from what I can see.
This proposed RAM playback feature was pitched at ISIS clients to help cache playback of files over a network, not change the plugin/mixer topology.
Old 12th September 2011
  #65
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent_in_Sydney View Post
Sorry to be a pedant Tom but they don't appear to be replacing Accel/motorola DSP for RAM in any way.
They use the accel cards for your plugin and mixer architecture, RAM only gets used for caching playback of files off the hard drive.
RTAS and native processing for mixing and plugins is all about CPU power, not RAM and the IBC video didnt seem to infer any change to that from what I can see.
This proposed RAM playback feature was pitched at ISIS clients to help cache playback of files over a network, not change the plugin/mixer topology.
Fair point. I was thinking along the lines of how After Effects uses RAM for previews, which is very different. I'm guessing RAM preview will also work for those using local drives. Since the audio currently has to be pulled from the hard drives into RAM for processing, having the audio already there will save the CPU a small amount of work.

On the mention of TDM though, with this being 64bit, they will have to drop support for old cards (unless they develop a 64 - 32bit bridge) or just force you to stick to 32bit on HD.
Old 13th September 2011
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Airon's Avatar
 

The TDM plugins don't seem to have anything to do with 64-bit or 32-bit CPU code.

They'd be bloody bonkers not to keep those cards running. It's more a matter of writing drivers for those cards, as it is for all their hardware on a local machine.

By the time Protools 10 actually appears, it's quite possible that you will be able to cache every last piece of media in a session in RAM. Actually it's possible now with $100-$200 worth of RAM. Bloody outrageous a few years ago, but a laughably cheap thing to do now.

It's a question of how good their codebase is or has become. This is completely new tech for them, though not for Apples video app division.

Best of luck to them. I do hope they make it happen.
Old 13th September 2011
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airon View Post
The TDM plugins don't seem to have anything to do with 64-bit or 32-bit CPU code.

They'd be bloody bonkers not to keep those cards running. It's more a matter of writing drivers for those cards, as it is for all their hardware on a local machine.

By the time Protools 10 actually appears, it's quite possible that you will be able to cache every last piece of media in a session in RAM. Actually it's possible now with $100-$200 worth of RAM. Bloody outrageous a few years ago, but a laughably cheap thing to do now.

It's a question of how good their codebase is or has become. This is completely new tech for them, though not for Apples video app division.

Best of luck to them. I do hope they make it happen.
Agreed. They can't afford to go "FCPX" and flush their high-end pro users, many of whom have big investments in TDM systems. I bet they have a plan, which is why they felt confident enough to go public with those new features. They can disclaimer all they want, but professionals have a very long memory for missteps in this field. I mean, we're still pissed about AudioVision!

phil p
Old 13th September 2011
  #68
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airon View Post
The TDM plugins don't seem to have anything to do with 64-bit or 32-bit CPU code.

They'd be bloody bonkers not to keep those cards running. It's more a matter of writing drivers for those cards, as it is for all their hardware on a local machine.

By the time Protools 10 actually appears, it's quite possible that you will be able to cache every last piece of media in a session in RAM. Actually it's possible now with $100-$200 worth of RAM. Bloody outrageous a few years ago, but a laughably cheap thing to do now.

It's a question of how good their codebase is or has become. This is completely new tech for them, though not for Apples video app division.

Best of luck to them. I do hope they make it happen.
Actually, you couldn't cache a whole session in to RAM currently (unless it's a very small session) due to the 4GB RAM limit of 32bit applications.

Considering Pro Tools has to send all audio through to the TDM cards, if it is working at 64bit and the cards only support 32bit, then a bit-bridge would have to be implemented in order for the data to be sent to the DSP chips. The only way it could otherwise do that is by running Pro Tools in 32bit mode, which would mean losing the RAM disk function.

This is exactly the same problem 64bit versions of DAWs like Nuendo have when working with 32bit plug-ins.

Since this is such a major leap for Pro Tools, it would be absolutely stupid to restrict it just to maintain compatibility with 10 year old TDM hardware. I'm not for one minute saying that lots of people don't use them, but the fact remains in computer terms they are very outdated. Would you want to run Pro Tools on a Pentium II PC or a G3 Mac?

Look at the demo, it was running on PT Native, which seems to be what they are now pushing. Far more likely, I think they will say if you want to keep your PT HD, the highest you can go is 9.0.5, those who want PT10, it's time to move on.

Expecting PT10 to work with TDM cards is a bit like expecting PT9 to work on a Digi 001 or original Mbox.
Old 13th September 2011
  #69
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
Look at the demo, it was running on PT Native, which seems to be what they are now pushing. Far more likely, I think they will say if you want to keep your PT HD, the highest you can go is 9.0.5, those who want PT10, it's time to move on.
.
If that is true, then it would be bad news for Avid. There are many very large facilities that are heavily invested in TDM and the editors who work with them are going to have to deliver sessions that those facilities can play back. In the current economic climate I would be very surprised to see those TDM facilities dump hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment that works quite well just to be on the bleeding edge of technology. If PT10 won't work with TDM, then migration is going to be painfully slow. A lot of the big facilities are still running 8.03, and look at how many aren't even working with PCIe cards yet, and why should they bother? They spent a lot of money on technology that is still valid. I can't imagine that Avid hasn't considered this.
Old 13th September 2011
  #70
Lives for gear
 
BIGBANGBUZZ's Avatar
 

No doubt avid will come up with a 64bit TDM bolt on alternative..

People can then start with a native rig and ad process power as you need..

Computer power has caught up.. TDM in the current form will soon be extinct..

I'm glad I went down the native route..
Old 13th September 2011
  #71
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
If that is true, then it would be bad news for Avid. There are many very large facilities that are heavily invested in TDM and the editors who work with them are going to have to deliver sessions that those facilities can play back. In the current economic climate I would be very surprised to see those TDM facilities dump hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment that works quite well just to be on the bleeding edge of technology. If PT10 won't work with TDM, then migration is going to be painfully slow. A lot of the big facilities are still running 8.03, and look at how many aren't even working with PCIe cards yet, and why should they bother? They spent a lot of money on technology that is still valid. I can't imagine that Avid hasn't considered this.
protools 10 will work with tdm
Old 13th September 2011
  #72
I kinda have some difficulties understanding what would be the practical benefit of 64-bit application architecture? My sessions play immediately when I hit the "Play" button. The automation works. Will it work better in 64-bit mode? Will it speed up my work? And I definitely don't understand what's wrong with TDM.
Apart from that, I think AudioSuite handles, multiple AS windows, new clip grouping and clip gain are a very important improvement for ProTools.
Old 13th September 2011
  #73
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
Actually, you couldn't cache a whole session in to RAM currently (unless it's a very small session) due to the 4GB RAM limit of 32bit applications.
The RAM disk could be a separate 64 bit process but anyway in the video it is perfectly clear that this is aimed at people using remote ISIS storage. PT is already perfectly responsive on fast local disks.

Quote:
Considering Pro Tools has to send all audio through to the TDM cards, if it is working at 64bit and the cards only support 32bit, then a bit-bridge would have to be implemented in order for the data to be sent to the DSP chips. The only way it could otherwise do that is by running Pro Tools in 32bit mode, which would mean losing the RAM disk function.
All that is needed is 64 bit drivers for the TDM cards. This has nothing to do with bit-bridging.

Quote:
This is exactly the same problem 64bit versions of DAWs like Nuendo have when working with 32bit plug-ins.
That is a different situation entirely. The plugins run on the same CPU and are loaded "into" the main process's address space so it needs to be compatible. The actual code running on the TDM cards is irrelevant as it just runs on the cards. As long as the drivers are 64 bit everything is fine.

Quote:
Since this is such a major leap for Pro Tools, it would be absolutely stupid to restrict it just to maintain compatibility with 10 year old TDM hardware. I'm not for one minute saying that lots of people don't use them, but the fact remains in computer terms they are very outdated. Would you want to run Pro Tools on a Pentium II PC or a G3 Mac?
There is nothing in the info we have so far about PT 10 that would indicate a problem with using TDM cards.

Quote:
Look at the demo, it was running on PT Native, which seems to be what they are now pushing. Far more likely, I think they will say if you want to keep your PT HD, the highest you can go is 9.0.5, those who want PT10, it's time to move on.
Although I'm all in favour of pushing Native, I find it highly unlikely that Avid would abandon their high-end users like that.

Quote:
Expecting PT10 to work with TDM cards is a bit like expecting PT9 to work on a Digi 001 or original Mbox.
What makes you think they don't?

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #74
Gear Head
 

It's just catching up to other DAWs, nothing special really
Old 13th September 2011
  #75
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
What makes you think they don't?

Alistair
Well, I've never heard of PT9 successfully running on an original Mbox or a 001, but maybe it is possible. To be honest, I never tried with an old Mbox and just moved on. I had a good 5+ years out of it.


As for all this talk of PT10 working on old HD Accel cards, Avid discontinued support for the old Mix 24 cards after 6.4.1 - people seemed happy to move to HD cards, why is this any different?
Old 13th September 2011
  #76
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branko View Post
I kinda have some difficulties understanding what would be the practical benefit of 64-bit application architecture? My sessions play immediately when I hit the "Play" button. The automation works. Will it work better in 64-bit mode? Will it speed up my work? And I definitely don't understand what's wrong with TDM.
Apart from that, I think AudioSuite handles, multiple AS windows, new clip grouping and clip gain are a very important improvement for ProTools.
I suggest you watch the videos by Celemony talking about the advantage of 64bit. Not running out of RAM during large sessions is an important one, lots of people here talk about memory errors in Pro Tools. Let alone finally being able to use the current crop of CPUs to their full potential.

The benefit of 64-bit. Part 1 of 2 (Celemony TechTalk) - YouTube
The benefit of 64-bit. Part 2 of 2 (Celemony TechTalk) - YouTube

As for TDM, there is nothing "wrong" with it so to speak, but considering it is a computer-based technology which is over 10 years old, in computing terms at least, it's pretty ancient and could be much more powerful (look at the UAD cards) or considering current Intel CPUs in netbooks are more powerful, Avid could just concentrate on getting the most from a multithread capable Mac without having to worry about legacy code to support old hardware. It'd be like trying to support PowerPC based Macs as well as the current Intel Macs, it would result in lots of unnecessary code that results in an application which isn't optimised for either platform. This is the reason Apple stopped support for PPC at 10.6 - they realise that you have to let go of the past to get the most from your software.
Old 13th September 2011
  #77
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
As for all this talk of PT10 working on old HD Accel cards, Avid discontinued support for the old Mix 24 cards after 6.4.1 - people seemed happy to move to HD cards, why is this any different?
Currently there is no alternative for anyone that needs more the 64 I/O or 192 audio tracks. if Avid come with a new card that allows bigger projects than the current HD|Native then of course that's a different story.

Even then, with so many people having upgraded to PCIe cards for their new Macs, Avid would make a lot of customers very unhappy if they didn't support TDM cards in PT10. I think it would be a very bad business move.

Anyway, technically speaking there is no reason for them not to support the TDM cards. They just need new drivers.

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #78
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branko View Post
I kinda have some difficulties understanding what would be the practical benefit of 64-bit application architecture?
Not much if you are not running out of RAM. There should be a very small performance benefit (maybe just in GUI responsiveness) but nothing shocking.

Quote:
And I definitely don't understand what's wrong with TDM.
One major issue with the TDM systems is the 4K samples hardware limit to delay compensation. That is needlessly holding back all the PT systems. Also the price of TDM cards is ridiculous compared to how little actual performance they provide compared to native solutions.

Currently a HD|Native is at least as powerful as a HD3 system at a fraction of the cost. (And even less cost if one uses a cheaper 3rd party interface with PT9). With native processing power doubling every 18 months or so it means that by some time next year native systems will be at least as powerful as a HD6 system for a fraction of the cost. DSP based systems are just not really cost effective any more.

Quote:
Apart from that, I think AudioSuite handles, multiple AS windows, new clip grouping and clip gain are a very important improvement for ProTools.
Agreed.

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #79
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
As for TDM, there is nothing "wrong" with it so to speak, but considering it is a computer-based technology which is over 10 years old, in computing terms at least, it's pretty ancient and could be much more powerful (look at the UAD cards)
I don't want to derail this thread but the UAD cards are not a great example IMO. UAD-2 cards were already underpowered when they were first released.


Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #80
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branko View Post
I kinda have some difficulties understanding what would be the practical benefit of 64-bit application architecture?
In addition to what others have said, one significant benefit will be for composers and producers using a lot of sample-based VIs that eat up a lot of memory (EW Play, VSL, Kontakt, etc), assuming Avid improves RTAS-VI performance for PT10/10.x.

I would think the Ram caching concept might benefit from greater memory space addressing, but it not be necessary since, as Undertow suggested, it might be allocated outside of PT as a separate 64-bit process. Hard to say at this point until Avid releases more info on this concept.

I have to ditto the request/hope/suggestion that the 4k ADC limit be lifted. It's well below some linear phase RTAS plugins, and certainly won't cover two.
Old 13th September 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
I can definitely see benefits to 64bit, but no one is claiming that it will make anything sound better, it's all about productivity. If you are running out of memory or voices, then it will be very beneficial.

I have an HD6 system and use mostly TDM plugins, so I almost never run out of memory. I do run out of voices sometimes, but it's not a big enough problem that I would abandon TDM - it was just too big of an investment to walk away from until it becomes useless technology. PT10 sounds like it will have a lot of other advancements in addition to 64bit that will make it worthwhile, so I'm still pretty excited.

I think composers using lots of VIs are going to be the first to make use of 64 bit because they will see the most benefits.
Old 13th September 2011
  #82
Lives for gear
 
KEYBEEETSSS's Avatar
 

I hadn't read the entire thread but I wanna clarify that PT10 is NOT 64bit. RAM access of course if huge but that doesn't make it 64bit. If it were, there'd be no need for the RAM access... U can believe me or not.. Ur choice of course... Just relaying over what is not clear info. But hey, we'll see when it gets hear...

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Gearslutz.com App
Old 13th September 2011
  #83
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by KEYBEEETSSS View Post
I hadn't read the entire thread but I wanna clarify that PT10 is NOT 64bit. RAM access of course if huge but that doesn't make it 64bit. If it were, there'd be no need for the RAM access... U can believe me or not.. Ur choice of course... Just relaying over what is not clear info. But hey, we'll see when it gets hear...

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Gearslutz.com App
They've not said it is, they've not said it isn't. Given a few months ago Avid had their little talk to industry pros saying they're committed to 64-bit, would seem a bit odd to not add it.
Old 13th September 2011
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Fajita's Avatar
I have seen Media Composer 6 running on Lion Mac OS 10.7 and in the process window it is indeed a 64bit application. I don't believe Avid would be coding a new whole number version of Pro Tools in 32bit.

But I am just speculating. And MC6 is DEFINITELY not ready for prime time, the GUI doesn't draw correct and some windows are missing close gadgets, so once you open them, they are there for good... It was a BETA.
Old 13th September 2011
  #85
Lives for gear
 
DR Music's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fajita View Post
I have seen Media Composer 6 running on Lion Mac OS 10.7 and in the process window it is indeed a 64bit application. I don't believe Avid would be coding a new whole number version of Pro Tools in 32bit.

But I am just speculating. And MC6 is DEFINITELY not ready for prime time, the GUI doesn't draw correct and some windows are missing close gadgets, so once you open them, they are there for good... It was a BETA.
Hmmm... I don't know if I believe a comment from someone who has an avid pic as there member pic...
LOL...
Old 13th September 2011
  #86
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Branko View Post
I kinda have some difficulties understanding what would be the practical benefit of 64-bit application architecture? ...
The main advantage would be for virtual sampling keyboards and other forms of synthesized audio that could benefit from being played out from RAM. There's actually a possibility they would be better served by streaming audio into the DAW from a separate 64 bit sub-application. This would work just fine with a 32 bit DAW.

What would be nice is new plug-in formats that hand audio off to each other in 80 bit float but its worth noting that this already works fine with a 32 bit OS and DAW!
Old 13th September 2011
  #87
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
What would be nice is new plug-in formats that hand audio off to each other in 80 bit float
What would be the point of that? Currently TDM uses 24 bit between inserts. I don't hear many complaints... 64 bit float is already a huge overkill. 80 bit float is just silly.

This is the number of values of the various bit depths:

HTML Code:
24 bit(/32 bit float):       16777216
64 bit float:                9007199254740992
80 bit float:                18446744073709551616
If we can't hear a problem with +-16 million values, what makes you think we need 18446744073709551616 values?

As I've said many times, I dare anyone to tell the difference between a 64 and 32 bit float mix engine in a double blind test. (Easily tested with Sonar as you can choose the mix engine bit depth when exporting).

Now if PT would support VST and AU that would be a real step forward.

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #88
Lives for gear
 
DR Music's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
What would be the point of that? Currently TDM uses 24 bit between inserts. I don't hear many complaints... 64 bit float is already a huge overkill. 80 bit float is just silly.

This is the number of values of the various bit depths:

HTML Code:
24 bit(/32 bit float):       16777216
64 bit float:                9007199254740992
80 bit float:                18446744073709551616
If we can't hear a problem with +-16 million values, what makes you think we need 18446744073709551616 values?

As I've said many times, I dare anyone to tell the difference between a 64 and 32 bit float mix engine in a double blind test. (Easily tested with Sonar as you can choose the mix engine bit depth when exporting).

Now if PT would support VST and AU that would be a real step forward.

Alistair
I personally need it to be 64bit so I can mix my 42 track song!!! It's frustrating not being able to add at least a eq and compressor.. reverb and delay even in an aux track! And I can not!!
Old 13th September 2011
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Geert van den Berg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philper View Post
Agreed. They can't afford to go "FCPX" and flush their high-end pro users, many of whom have big investments in TDM systems. I bet they have a plan, which is why they felt confident enough to go public with those new features.
Their plan is to push all the studios to use their TDM rigs as stem recorders heh

That was the proposed setup at IBC, 3 HD native DAW's into 1 TDM DAW. And they said they were working on the option to sync 12 systems together... (not that anyone would need that )
Old 13th September 2011
  #90
Lives for gear
 
KEYBEEETSSS's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DR Music View Post
I personally need it to be 64bit so I can mix my 42 track song!!! It's frustrating not being able to add at least a eq and compressor.. reverb and delay even in an aux track! And I can not!!
Sounds like u may need another computer 42 tracks is pretty small even if u had 5 inserts per...

Well I won't say pretty small but. Maybe average.. My small sessions usually run about 50 tracks & over half of those are usually stereo.. Many plugs & I normally mix @128..

Anyways, sorry to jump off topic.. Can't wait for 10¡¡¡
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Gearslutz.com App
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump