Thunderbolt?? Super low latencyHDX..Moot Technology.

It is really an HDX Card 5-7 times more powerful than an Accell card?

I think my HD Accell 3 can handle more.

Look at the number of voices 325.
That session is using a ton of mixer DSP.
Even with half the number of voices your going to have a ton DSP even is a single card system. Avid claims 5X the DSP of HD3 in a single card. I am sure that will be pretty accurate.

NO 1 HDX card is up to 5x the power of 1 HD accel card

and what does "up to" mean?

specs-wise it´s about 2-4 times

Aren't AAX suppose to require less cpu power? If so maybe that's how
they go up to 5 times, 3 times more powerful (the card itself) plus the less
cpu demanding plugin format.. Just guessing

It depens on which sample rate and bit?

Dose it say anything anything about that?

And how many tracks??

Still Dverb takes 43% of a chip and Revibe 58% . They both take 50% of an Accel Chip . There is twice the number of chips on a HDX . don't see 5 times the power there . For Reverb one it sure is optimised that's probably the "up to" (ie for certain plugs) .

Yea twice the chips but they are also clocked faster as well.

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz.com

Bottom line: can you confidently say is 5 times more powerful ???

Come on guys at ths point you can not trust Avid at all.

When HD Native was released ther said that the Native system have more advantages over a DSP system and way superior in many areas.

Now they say the opposite in every single area, come on!

Ditto.. I was there at one the Native Sweetwater events. THat's what they stated..

some numbers:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7160646-post50.html

400 theglue instances on modern intel mac and 36 on single hdx.

Improvements should be done on other things because CPU power is NOT a problem with today's machines, plus, most of us using HD/HDX mix hybrid or mostly analog, wtf do I need 400 plugin compressors for??

Avid made a very smart move: came out with PT9, so the ones who weren't using PT because bond to the proprietary HW jumped it, now they're gonna
make everyone pay for the new AXX format which will become the new standard.

400 native comps now equals 40 much better native comps in 2 years. Impossible for HDX!

This suggests that the statement from someone who insisted that a fast Mac is five times as fast as a HDX card must be wrong...

Are you also screaming at the many plug in manufacturers who still aren't 64 bit?

The thing to remember about my tests is that i don't need 4 samples of latency with plugins during tracking. If you DO, then hdx can do it and with 36 instances.

I think it would be great IF hdx wasn't fixed at 4 samples and could leverage that processing power come mix time for much higher instance counts. I don't think that's the case though. :(

But note the main point of a HDX (or any hybrid DSP based system): the 400 instances are on a system with a buffer size of 1024 samples, which is unusable when doing an overdub. Even when mixing I think this is too high.

HDX has a 4 sample buffer, and as Andy states, it is a different thing, for a different market.

in 2 years new computers will eat HDX-3 system power for breakfast...

As for the 64 bit, i really wonder how many companies purposely postponed the upgrade to 64 because they knew AAX was coming out..

Yep, but i did test at 64 samples buffer and got 200 instances. Check out this post where Scott describes recording Steve Gadd and Tony Levin at 64 samples buffer on his HD native setup and no one complaining about latency:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7164467-post1620.html

200 is still a lot more than 36 and my iMac is currently two generations old. :P
Imagine in a year or so what native will do... at a fraction of the cost of HDX too.

Also consider you may need to upgrade your Mac Pro to use HDX on top of it!!!

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7164677-post234.html

Can you explain to me why setting your buffer to 1024 when mixing is a problem? I was unaware that it is.

Good news for VST fans.

I can't remember the last session I needed 400 comps

That's good news, the wrapper didn't get any update in ages

I didn't need to set buffers in a native system higher than 128 since 2003. Using a 1024 buffer (which I use to test regularly) feels a bit sluggish. That is not a dogma, just a personal thing.

I'm really pissed off..... I'm using ProTools 9 / Nuendo 5.5 almost 60:40, but the direction Avid is heading towards is simply stupid. A card based system...again?.....should I upgrade my HD2 to HDX for $$$ just to get more "power"?? Why? EVERY computer system is able to handle hundreds of tracks nowadays.

I LOVE using ProTools, but I cannot at all understand why this company is making 2 steps back to where they've been 10 years ago....
Seems like Nuendo (with full 64bit support) native is the way to go in audio post to get things done. At least for me. Anyway
this new version looks like they've copied Steinberg in some parts...

Can you still run 400 native AAX glues on a HDX system when mixing and stick to AAX DSP for tracking mainly? Would each native AAX quickly eat up your available 256 voices on HDX1?

If not then you have the best of both...ultra low latency for tracking when using dsp then switch to the native versions of plugins for mixing, increase your native buffer size if you need to, as long as your not running VI's all is good right?

This. It's the question I'm trying to get answered since day one and I'm still in the dark. AVID should have taken their HDX-introduction serious and should have been prepared for the sh*tstorm and the avalanche of questions people have. It seems they don't know themselves, or are still working on the cards?

Aaaah but does it make the lyrics to the song better???..Logic has a new plug in coming out that does!!!....On a more serious note anything that makes PT sound better is great in my book, just feel sorry for all those people who have just bought new systems before Oct 1...they must be stewing

Woof

Running native (Host CPU DSP) plug-ins on HDX will have zero impact on the number of available voices as the audio engine as the HDX hardware DSP is used for audio and the CPU DSP is used for audio plug-in processing not voice allocation.
You still will have plenty of HDX DSP even with 256 voices allocated. The HDX card is very powerful.