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 17th September 2011
  #121
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaschaP View Post
Well that's my point. Why would Avid bring out new dsp cards for TDM when know one is developing plug-ins for the format? They have shown over the last 10 years that they are moving in a native / prosumer direction. Until the new HD i/o's and native card came out the "HD" line has been unchanged since what 2003-4? I can't see them releasing a closed, super high end dsp based system for such a small market.

With the power of a 12 core mac, caching your audio files into ram, and dumping most of your processing needs on to DSP RTAS cards you could easily run at a buffer of 64 essentially eliminating the need for TDM's low latency architecture.
While I agree with everything you have said, saying native/prosumer is misguided. Lots of people don't like native as they see it as "not professional" - however they are forgetting just how rubbish the Accel cards are by todays standards, but because they cost more, they must be inherently "more professional".

Give me an i7 laptop and Nuendo over TDM any day. I suppose that classes me as a young, inexperienced sound editor in the eyes of many who frequent these forums, because I can see just what a rip-off this old TDM hardware is.
Old 17th September 2011
  #122
Lives for gear
 
amost's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post

Expecting PT10 to work with TDM cards is a bit like expecting PT9 to work on a Digi 001 or original Mbox.
We'll see.
Old 17th September 2011
  #123
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
While I agree with everything you have said, saying native/prosumer is misguided. Lots of people don't like native as they see it as "not professional" - however they are forgetting just how rubbish the Accel cards are by todays standards, but because they cost more, they must be inherently "more professional".

Give me an i7 laptop and Nuendo over TDM any day. I suppose that classes me as a young, inexperienced sound editor in the eyes of many who frequent these forums, because I can see just what a rip-off this old TDM hardware is.
I say "prosumer" not in regards to native systems, but rather the fact that Avid makes it's money these days selling Mbox's and M-Audio stuff and not high end TDM systems. I also believe native is the way of the future which is why I moved to an HD Native rig this year.
Old 17th September 2011
  #124
Lives for gear
 
Airon's Avatar
 

A facility that produces a show I mix dialogue for from time to time just dumped their HD3 computer and cards and changed to Protools 9 HD Native. They kept the interfaces and sync I/O AFAIK. Their D-Command runs with it. Everyone happy, especially my buddy who mixes the show. He was really hurting with that crash-prone PC-hooked-up-to-Unity craptastic setup. Worked but really aged you a little too much every day.

He also did some playouts of his HD3 sessions on his PT9 rig at home, that runs on an i7 iMac from last year. That thing basically strolled throught the session at %11 CPU use. So, that's a positive example for going TDM to native.

Thus, I'm looking forward to any Protools release that improves my workflow, like PT10 might actually do. For real. It's only catching up, but it's PT, so somebody's been lighting the right candles.
Old 17th September 2011
  #125
Lives for gear
 
BIGBANGBUZZ's Avatar
 

It doesn't make economic sense making TDM anymore.... The market would be to small, 99% of studios simply don't need it anymore.
Old 17th September 2011
  #126
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIGBANGBUZZ View Post
It doesn't make economic sense making TDM anymore.... The market would be to small, 99% of studios simply don't need it anymore.
Maybe that's so, but it would be a huge mistake for Avid to abandon the 1% that do need that kind of power (BTW, I think it's actually considerably more than that). For one thing, you don't want to ignore those who set the standards, practices and delivery requirements. For another, the advertising cache of being the system of choice for the major players is a major selling point. You get a lot more mileage out of being the system that people aspire to than being a make-do system for wannabes.

I don't in any way mean that as an insult to anyone, but I believe it is generally a universally accepted axiom that if you want to play with the big kids, you have to be able to play with big kids' toys, and isn't the desire to play with the big kids what drives demand? It certainly was a motivating factor for me.
Old 17th September 2011
  #127
Current and future computers (be it Mac or PC) will be silly powerfull. With streamlined methods of dealing with anything audio or video.

If latencies can get down to 32 samples (and they can and will) there is no need for TDM anymore. Maybe perhaps as dongle?

But if they put out a dedicated kit wich could emulate old designs way more accurate they might have a chance..... But I doubt it. With the arrival of PT10 we will all know.
Old 17th September 2011
  #128
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post

Expecting PT10 to work with TDM cards is a bit like expecting PT9 to work on a Digi 001 or original Mbox.
ok Nostradamus, I can promise you protools 10 will work with tdm cards.
Old 17th September 2011
  #129
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
It's also worth noting that TC Electronic have dropped Powercore too.
Ah yes! I was trying to remember who the 3rd one was last night when I wrote my post but my tired brain wasn't providing the answer. Thanks. :-)

Alistair
Old 17th September 2011
  #130
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
You get a lot more mileage out of being the system that people aspire to than being a make-do system for wannabes.
There is nothing "make-do" about a native system that is already more powerful than a HD3 system. By the next generation of CPUs native systems will be more powerful than any current HD systems except maybe a HD7. Your categorization of native systems is outdated. :-)

Hopefully for Avid, many think like you. It works for Universal Audio...


Alistair
Old 17th September 2011
  #131
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
ok Nostradamus, I can promise you protools 10 will work with tdm cards.
Don't get so over-protective!
Old 17th September 2011
  #132
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
Maybe that's so, but it would be a huge mistake for Avid to abandon the 1% that do need that kind of power (BTW, I think it's actually considerably more than that). For one thing, you don't want to ignore those who set the standards, practices and delivery requirements. For another, the advertising cache of being the system of choice for the major players is a major selling point. You get a lot more mileage out of being the system that people aspire to than being a make-do system for wannabes.

I don't in any way mean that as an insult to anyone, but I believe it is generally a universally accepted axiom that if you want to play with the big kids, you have to be able to play with big kids' toys, and isn't the desire to play with the big kids what drives demand? It certainly was a motivating factor for me.
Those who continue the mantra of "TDM is more powerful" are incredibly mis-informed and need to pull their heads out of the sand. It just shows how elitist some in the industry are, and to join their little gang, you need expensive, over rated, old, under powered hardware. The sooner they have their little bubble smashed, the better.

What you are basically suggesting, is that because some of the larger studios still like TDM, everyone should waste their money on it, because the big studios do. How about be more efficient, don't waste money, provide the same service for less money, start persuading clients, then they may realise what a rip-off the bigger studios actually are ;-)

In the meantime, I'm sure it keeps Avid share holders incredibly happy knowing they can flog old hardware at ridiculously inflated prices and have to spend a minimum amount on R&D.
Old 17th September 2011
  #133
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
then they may realise what a rip-off the bigger studios actually are ;-)
Ah, so this is the real subject.

The next step will be to question the necessity of the mixing console - it's cheaper to mix with mouse and keyboard, isn't it?
Old 17th September 2011
  #134
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Branko View Post
Ah, so this is the real subject.

The next step will be to question the necessity of the mixing console - it's cheaper to mix with mouse and keyboard, isn't it?
No, I totally understand the need for a large format console, or control surface. I think Avid's potential extension of S5 series is great. The same analogy could be made between TDM and older desks. I'm sure there are some who prefer big, expensive Harrisons and DFCs - but an Avid ICON or S5 can provide much more functionality for a much lower cost.
Old 17th September 2011
  #135
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Tom_lowe, I did not mean to disparage HD Native users. My comments have nothing to do with elitism or liking TDM, it's about being able to get the job done. I am fully aware of the shortcomings of current TDM technology, but until there is an alternative with at least the processing power of an HD6, I have to stick with it. Actually, ideally I could use the equivalent of an HD10 or HD12 running on a single system just for sound FX. That would be an improvement over having to run two HD6 systems, as I often do. Maybe that sounds over the top to you, but that is the reality I have to deal with. I look forward to the day when a native system can have that kind of processing power, but as far as I can tell, that time lies somewhere in the future. In the mean time, I also assume Avid will continue to offer PCIe based expansion solutions for those who need more processing power than native systems currently provide.
Old 17th September 2011
  #136
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
Tom_lowe, I did not mean to disparage HD Native users. My comments have nothing to do with elitism or liking TDM, it's about being able to get the job done. I am fully aware of the shortcomings of current TDM technology, but until there is an alternative with at least the processing power of an HD6, I have to stick with it. Actually, ideally I could use the equivalent of an HD10 or HD12 running on a single system just for sound FX. That would be an improvement over having to run two HD6 systems, as I often do. Maybe that sounds over the top to you, but that is the reality I have to deal with. I look forward to the day when a native system can have that kind of processing power, but as far as I can tell, that time lies somewhere in the future. In the mean time, I also assume Avid will continue to offer PCIe based expansion solutions for those who need more processing power than native systems currently provide.
Thanks for the clarification, if your work currently requires 2 x HD6, then that does change things a bit. What gets me is when people say Native is no where near an HD1, 2 or 3, when in actual fact, the opposite is true.
Old 17th September 2011
  #137
TDM systems will still be necessary, until they can figure out a way to get no-latency overdubs and/or punches on massive sessions - ridiculously complex pop mixes, or film mixes, for example. For me, that's literally the one feature worth many thousands of £'s (where it's needed).

Otherwise, I'm laughing with PT9 + the CPTK. It's silly even what I can accomplish on a laptop with it, let alone what it can do with a tricked out desktop.
Old 17th September 2011
  #138
Lives for gear
I think there is a lot of confusion here between a 64 bit data path, and 64 bit software coding. These two are not the same thing, all kinds of different data can be sent down a data path that isn't the same bit depth as the data itself. It may loose some amount of raw total bandwidth, but even 32/33 PCI is capable of around 1000 tracks streaming across the PCI bus. Each PCIe lane is capable of twice that (with workstation class machines looking at 20+ lanes to CPU).

Also even the old PCI-X HD cards actually are 64 bit PCI cards...

Regardless did anyone notice that PT 9 updates have a Thunderbolt_TDM.kext? I expect to see an Accel 2 type thing with thunderbolt, it would be compatable with current TDM and support a new thing. Digi also did a demo a while ago with a 192 connected directly to thunderbolt. I think we see an all thunderbolt system with I/O and DSP in the future.

DSP continues to develop too, there will never be a point where SOTA native alone is more powerful SOTA native + SOTA DSP and TB has enough bandwidth to go between the to with low latency and low CPU overhead.
Old 17th September 2011
  #139
Lives for gear
 
DR Music's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
I think there is a lot of confusion here between a 64 bit data path, and 64 bit software coding. These two are not the same thing, all kinds of different data can be sent down a data path that isn't the same bit depth as the data itself. It may loose some amount of raw total bandwidth, but even 32/33 PCI is capable of around 1000 tracks streaming across the PCI bus. Each PCIe lane is capable of twice that (with workstation class machines looking at 20+ lanes to CPU).

Also even the old PCI-X HD cards actually are 64 bit PCI cards...

Regardless did anyone notice that PT 9 updates have a Thunderbolt_TDM.kext? I expect to see an Accel 2 type thing with thunderbolt, it would be compatable with current TDM and support a new thing. Digi also did a demo a while ago with a 192 connected directly to thunderbolt. I think we see an all thunderbolt system with I/O and DSP in the future.

DSP continues to develop too, there will never be a point where SOTA native alone is more powerful SOTA native + SOTA DSP and TB has enough bandwidth to go between the to with low latency and low CPU overhead.
yes!
Old 17th September 2011
  #140
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
Don't get so over-protective!
I run hd|native. I'm just telling you that tdm will run on pt10.
Old 17th September 2011
  #141
Lives for gear
 
minister's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
Those who continue the mantra of "TDM is more powerful" are incredibly mis-informed and need to pull their heads out of the sand. It just shows how elitist some in the industry are, and to join their little gang, you need expensive, over rated, old, under powered hardware. The sooner they have their little bubble smashed, the better.

What you are basically suggesting, is that because some of the larger studios still like TDM, everyone should waste their money on it, because the big studios do. How about be more efficient, don't waste money, provide the same service for less money, start persuading clients, then they may realise what a rip-off the bigger studios actually are ;-)

In the meantime, I'm sure it keeps Avid share holders incredibly happy knowing they can flog old hardware at ridiculously inflated prices and have to spend a minimum amount on R&D.
Dude, you are seriously harshing my mellow.
Old 17th September 2011
  #142
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
Those who continue the mantra of "TDM is more powerful" are incredibly mis-informed and need to pull their heads out of the sand.
The top of the line systems still are! They won't be for very long though...

Alistair
Old 17th September 2011
  #143
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post

Also even the old PCI-X HD cards actually are 64 bit PCI cards...
You mean they process audio internally at 64bit? If that's what you mean, you're wrong. They process at 48bit.
Old 17th September 2011
  #144
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_lowe View Post
You mean they process audio internally at 64bit? If that's what you mean, you're wrong. They process at 48bit.
Hes talking about a 64bit wide pci bus.
Old 17th September 2011
  #145
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
DSP continues to develop too, there will never be a point where SOTA native alone is more powerful SOTA native + SOTA DSP and TB has enough bandwidth to go between the to with low latency and low CPU overhead.
Don't confuse high bandwidth with low latency. As soon as you combine native processing with DSP processing behind a PCIe bus, you don't have low-latency any more. (Just look at any of the currently available solutions). Thunderbolt adds two protocol conversion chips in the way of the PCIe stream so it can only have more latency than a PCIe card inside the host computer. (Not that that added latency should be noticeable on a level that counts for audio. I'm just pointing out that it can't be better than "native" PCIe). So in actual real world systems, for low-latency audio, native alone IS more powerful than native+DSP.

If latency is no issue then it is still more cost effective to stay native albeit by expanding with remote systems by using any of the network based load sharing solutions. (VST System Link, Distributed Audio Processing, VEP Pro...)

Or how about building an AMD system with four 12 core CPUs or an Intel system with eight 10 core Xeons? Especially as a remote processing server. What current audio DSP system can compete with a 48 or even an 80 core native box? You can build such a system starting at around 3,500 Dollars/Euros. (AMD 48 core, the Intel boxes are quite a bit more expensive! ) It should even work as a Nuendo box and, if it runs smoothly which I expect it should and Steinberg recompile Nuendo for more cores (now it only arbitrarily supports 32) then it could be quite a beast of a DAW. (Sonar supports any number of cores but Sonar is no good for post production work unfortunately. I don't know about Reaper or other DAWs).

If low latency and high track count is needed then 100% DSP based systems still rule as the only properly tested systems for the moment.

Anyone want to gamble on a 48 core AMD system? It should cost you less than 4K and you would be the first! ;-)

Alistair
Old 17th September 2011
  #146
Lives for gear
 
ggegan's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Regardless did anyone notice that PT 9 updates have a Thunderbolt_TDM.kext? I expect to see an Accel 2 type thing with thunderbolt, it would be compatable with current TDM and support a new thing. Digi also did a demo a while ago with a 192 connected directly to thunderbolt. I think we see an all thunderbolt system with I/O and DSP in the future.
I am really hoping Apple announces a Mac Pro with built in TB this year. That would solve a lot of issues regarding too few PCIe slots. It would also be cool to be able to connect a bus powered expansion chassis to either a laptop or a desktop using TB. Or how about a SSD SAN connected via TB?

Whew, I've got to go take a cold shower now.
Old 17th September 2011
  #147
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan View Post
Or how about a SSD SAN connected via TB?
Not a SAN but the biggest and fastest SSD system I am aware of: OCZ Z-Drive R2 p88 PCI-Express SSD *EOL - OCZ

(2 TB, 1400 MB/s read and write).

Alistair
Old 19th September 2011
  #148
Gear Addict
 

Any chance on a 128bit?

Or should I wait 10 years to inquire?
Old 19th September 2011
  #149
Gear Head
 

64 bit Pro Tools 10 is coming. This is HUGE!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggegan
I am really hoping Apple announces a Mac Pro with built in TB this year. That would solve a lot of issues regarding too few PCIe slots. It would also be cool to be able to connect a bus powered expansion chassis to either a laptop or a desktop using TB. Or how about a SSD SAN connected via TB?

Whew, I've got to go take a cold shower now.
Man, that would be too awesome....
Old 19th September 2011
  #150
Lives for gear
 

One thing I've never quite gotten - probably because I've never done huge film projects - is why overdub latency is an issue for native unless you're talking about overdub latency *through* software plugs. I guess what I'm suggesting is that there has always been a bit of a paradox there...

Hi-end users need ultra-low latency with massive input counts but those same users (unless I misunderstand) are more likely to be using hardware processors and not DSP on their input streams so... I never quite understood (for example) why any good PCI card with massive I/O at very low latency (hardware monitoring) not dependent on the computer's latency couldn't get that job done just as well... unless you use software DSP on the input signals where the system itself then has to run at 32 or 64 samples.

Granted, few (actually, hardly any) of the current solutions for that in native aren't nearly as integrated as PTHD, with the monitor controls right there in the software, so that's a big benefit for sure. But simply passing (multing, building cuemixes, etc) multiple inputs at low latency hasn't been a really big deal in native since 7-8-10 years ago with strong PCI cards handling that job.

Granted, if you're putting (and need) software based DSP on 36 of 72 live inputs that's a bit of a different case, and you'll need small buffers. But taking outputs from racks of high quality analog gear doesn't require the computer to run at low latency, if you use the hardware mixer. MOTU's PCI-424 (I think) does 96 96k I/O at the same time with 0 latency. Really no different from tracking through a 96 input physical console with the DAW being the recorder... and the console handing the monitoring, same thing.

The "next step" for native is the integration. Giving the workstation direct (internal) full control over the hardware DSP mixer. It's already happening.

But nothing quite matches PTHD (or dedicated hardware) for massive computer DSP plugs on massive input channels (at very, very low latency) so I can only assume that's what people are paying for.

But I've always (of late) kinda rejected the general idea that you need PTHD for that other kinda common thing, tracking through your analog outboard with low latency pass through. It's more convenient than most for that, no doubt, but it's not really necessary unless you track or monitor live through software plugs. If not, system latency is not a real factor.

So I can only assume most people doing that with HD are using software plugs in the monitor (input) path.

Sorry for the long and wordy post but that's baffled me a little bit for at least 7-8 years. Great discussion. Thanks.
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