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
PT 10 HDX System vs TDM PT 10 with same converters-- any sound difference?
Old 6th September 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 

PT 10 HDX System vs TDM PT 10 with same converters-- any sound difference?

is there any sonic difference between a PT 10 HDX System vs TDM PT 10 with same converters-- any sound difference?

and a TDM system sounds better with PTHD10 vs PTHD 8 or PTHD9?
Old 6th September 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 

Anybody?
Old 6th September 2012
  #3
It is subjective, zak7, as to what a human ear can pick up on. The thing is, they are different mix engines, so it's logical that it may sound and perform differently at the mix bus.

I am not sure you will ever hear one correct answer. Some people may not hear a difference, some people are. I can tell you, I trust my ears, and almost ALL of my clients are saying the same exact thing about HDX. "I think it sounds better"....I believe them, because I also, "think it sounds better"...

In my experience, I have perceived a difference with the same HD I/O's on a TDM system, with the same audio, on an HDX system. I heard the sound as more fluid, less "tense" as the mix approached higher levels. It is more opaque/round and seems to have amazing headroom.

I have also perceived a difference in sound from HD Native systems from TDM, and past LE grade systems. The Sound quality has been improved from older PT systems. HDN with the PCIe card, and with 3rd party converters, sounds the same to me. But I think it sounds different from TDM too. Again, more fluid, round and clear, is how I would subjectively describe what I am perceiving working with these systems.
Old 6th September 2012
  #4
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Oy! I thought a mix bus was a mix bus was a mix bus..... (in digital land)

Just numbers adding together - right?

No disrespect Doc, but I bet the two sound files would null. I'm sure that 98% of any perceived difference is perception bias or the conversion. But I'm sure there's someone here to prove that (me) wrong.
Old 6th September 2012
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Oy! I thought a mix bus was a mix bus was a mix bus..... (in digital land)

Just numbers adding together - right?

No disrespect Doc, but I bet the two sound files would null. I'm sure that 98% of any perceived difference is perception bias or the conversion. But I'm sure there's someone here to prove that (me) wrong.
No disrespect taken,

Though I would disagree about proving subjective opinion's one way or the other. I don't quite understand the dismissal of subjective and perceived differences, without the same first hand experience as the other person.

I think since pro tools 9, I heard a difference in the native mix bus, when compared to the TDM mix bus and yes, the PT8 LE systems that I was used to using. I think different software sounds different with the same converters, yes, I can make this happen extremely easily in my studio with DP, Pro tools, Reaper, etc.

The same audio, same converters, nothing changed, besides the software. Extremely slight, and hard to hear. But I can hear it. And the DAW demons are NOT getting by me on this one. I use Pro Tools, because it sounds the best to me. I appreciate them trying to make it sound better.

In truth, I couldn't think of a more boring pastime, than trying to null the same exact Pro Tools Mixes, with different systems. To each his own, I suppose. Me, I'd rather compare these systems for actual projects to determine the emotional and subjective differences I hear/feel experience.

But, to my dismay, I have confirmed this many times, between native digital workstations, rather easily [on purpose and not on purpose]

I am just testifying to what I experience, having used all of these systems.

peace
Old 6th September 2012
  #6
Gear Maniac
 
Deviated's Avatar
 

OMG, not again. A whole year later and still no proof that there is a difference.
Old 6th September 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 

So Doc, are you saying that clearly PT HD10 with lets say Aurora converters sounds better that PT HD 8 with the same converters??
Old 6th September 2012
  #8
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak7 View Post
So Doc, are you saying that clearly PT HD10 with lets say Aurora converters sounds better that PT HD 8 with the same converters??
No, that is not what I am saying. But I am saying TDM "has a sound"...compared to the other systems. I am also saying DP, reaper, Logic "has a sound" compared to other systems. A TDM system is not using the same summing engine, as HDNative 9/10 or HDX system. Which also "have a sound"...

The PT9/10HD software, does not change the summing architecture of a TDM system, therefor there should be no difference with the above, unless you open PTHD10 Natively without the TDM cards and use something else. Then you are using the Native Host processors with PT's 64/32 Bit Float Mix engine.
Old 6th September 2012
  #9
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
In truth, I couldn't think of a more boring pastime, than trying to null the same exact Pro Tools Mixes, with different systems.
I couldn't agree more. Too busy for that silliness. BUT, there are many who have the time, and are ardent ministers of the null, and they will happily set you on your a** should you intimate differently.

As far as I'm concerned, when working, if I FEEL it's different (don't care if I'm wrong or right) it IS different. Makes work way more fun and productive. Able to make much more progress than getting out my micrometers and microscopes.

Once upon a time, I got tired of their (the every system is identical and we'll null to prove it police) whining, and did a test that I knew to be true - PT TDM vs. DP running on PT TDM hardware. The results did not null, and it caused a ****storm, namecalling (directed in my general direction), dismissals, accusations of fraud, and a bunch of other fun stuff. So I generally try to swear off these discussions.

STILL, I think that as far as PT is concerned, any discernable difference between an HD system and HDX system is down to 97% converter changes - with the nod going to the new converters on the HDX. Expectation bias comes into play on the remaining 3%, and there's probably a minute difference for the remaining percentage. Still.........some people measure in gnat's hairs though so......





bp
Old 6th September 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
It is subjective, zak7, as to what a human ear can pick up on. The thing is, they are different mix engines, so it's logical that it may sound and perform differently at the mix bus.

I am not sure you will ever hear one correct answer. Some people may not hear a difference, some people are. I can tell you, I trust my ears, and almost ALL of my clients are saying the same exact thing about HDX. "I think it sounds better"....I believe them, because I also, "think it sounds better"...

In my experience, I have perceived a difference with the same HD I/O's on a TDM system, with the same audio, on an HDX system. I heard the sound as more fluid, less "tense" as the mix approached higher levels. It is more opaque/round and seems to have amazing headroom.

I have also perceived a difference in sound from HD Native systems from TDM, and past LE grade systems. The Sound quality has been improved from older PT systems. HDN with the PCIe card, and with 3rd party converters, sounds the same to me. But I think it sounds different from TDM too. Again, more fluid, round and clear, is how I would subjectively describe what I am perceiving working with these systems.
Ok, so what we are saying here is that the HDX mix engine sounds slightly better than the TDM mix engine, ok, lets say it is true.
Also it should mean that a native core audio driver would sound equal to HDX mix engine as they use the same floating point maths, right?
Now, lets say we track with the TDM engine ( and AVID 8x8x8 ) but mix with the native core audio drivers, what about the mix? I mix with whatever core audio driver available, in my case I can choose MOTU 896HD driver and mix in Pro Tools HD 10! Jippie my bounced stereomix sound as good as a HDX mix!!!
Am I right?
Old 6th September 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
DarkSky Media's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechild View Post
Also it should mean that a native core audio driver would sound equal to HDX mix engine as they use the same floating point maths, right?
Not necessarily. All implementations have to handle errors and different hardware (as well as software/driver) implementations may aggregate errors differently - which may produce audible differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechild View Post
Now, lets say we track with the TDM engine ( and AVID 8x8x8 ) but mix with the native core audio drivers, what about the mix? I mix with whatever core audio driver available, in my case I can choose MOTU 896HD driver and mix in Pro Tools HD 10! Jippie my bounced stereomix sound as good as a HDX mix!!!
Am I right?
Not as I understand it, as noted above.
Old 7th September 2012
  #12
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviated View Post
OMG, not again. A whole year later and still no proof that there is a difference.
When using stock Avid plugins, I posted proof that they didn't null a while back. No one seemed to notice tho... ^_^

From a more subjective POV, as a composer who has been using the same mics, and pres to record various instruments into both HD/192i/o (for 10+ years) and on HDX/OMNI (for the last several months), I can tell you there is no comparison—HDX sounds much better than HD.
Old 7th September 2012
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_R View Post
When using stock Avid plugins, I posted proof that they didn't null a while back. No one seemed to notice tho... ^_^

From a more subjective POV, as a composer who has been using the same mics, and pres to record various instruments into both HD/192i/o (for 10+ years) and on HDX/OMNI (for the last several months), I can tell you there is no comparison—HDX sounds much better than HD.
Out of interest, did you a) record the same things in parallel and b) use the Omni with the HD rig as well as with the HDX?

I'm sure the omni sounds better (I hope it does - I own one!) but I'm just not sure if the software itself could make a difference.

I didn't see your null proof...where is it?!
Old 7th September 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_R View Post

From a more subjective POV, as a composer who has been using the same mics, and pres to record various instruments into both HD/192i/o (for 10+ years) and on HDX/OMNI (for the last several months), I can tell you there is no comparison—HDX sounds much better than HD.
CONVERTERS the Omni i guess and hope is way better than the HD192 AD and DC !



Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Out of interest, did you a) record the same things in parallel and b) use the Omni with the HD rig as well as with the HDX?

I'm sure the omni sounds better (I hope it does - I own one!) but I'm just not sure if the software itself could make a difference.

I didn't see your null proof...where is it?!
Agree!!
Old 7th September 2012
  #15
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
a) record the same things in parallel and b) use the Omni with the HD rig as well as with the HDX?
Super scientific testing is not my forte... ^_^

But, let me explain what I'm basing my comparison on.

When I record my Steinway B, or guild acoustic, and this, or that local singer, being a creature of habit, I do it in the exact same ways, in the exact same locations. Over time, I compared recordings of these instruments/singers made on both systems, and the HDX/OMNI sounded superior by a lot. More importantly, I was spending WAY less time trying to make mixes 'sound good'—they sounded good immediately. Although admittedly, I'm no perfectionist. I don't care how I get the sound I want.


Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I didn't see your null proof...where is it?!
Third party tracks mixed with only digidesign plugs.



For reasons unknown to me, the other players in the null test didn't post results of the test without plugins...so I don't know if that nulled. To me, hey, we all use plugins... so who cares about a mix without them.

FYI, I'm wrapping up an indie film I've been working on since March using HDX with VEP (Mac Pro 8core 24GB), and wearing a lot of hats... score, sound design, foley, eventually a mix in October, and I have many of the scenes in one session... meaning the score, the SD, the dialogue, the foley—everything—in the session running at the same time. No way could I have done this with my HD3, or have it sound so good, with minimal effort.

Other than the MIDI bugs Avid continually ignores year after year, I'm a happy camper. Cost of the crossgrade was a no-brainer.
Old 7th September 2012
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_R View Post
Super scientific testing is not my forte... ^_^

But, let me explain what I'm basing my comparison on.

When I record my Steinway B, or guild acoustic, and this, or that local singer, being a creature of habit, I do it in the exact same ways, in the exact same locations. Over time, I compared recordings of these instruments/singers made on both systems, and the HDX/OMNI sounded superior by a lot. More importantly, I was spending WAY less time trying to make mixes 'sound good'—they sounded good immediately. Although admittedly, I'm no perfectionist. I don't care how I get the sound I want.




Third party tracks mixed with only digidesign plugs.



For reasons unknown to me, the other players in the null test didn't post results of the test without plugins...so I don't know if that nulled. To me, hey, we all use plugins... so who cares about a mix without them.

FYI, I'm wrapping up an indie film I've been working on since March using HDX with VEP (Mac Pro 8core 24GB), and wearing a lot of hats... score, sound design, foley, eventually a mix in October, and I have many of the scenes in one session... meaning the score, the SD, the dialogue, the foley—everything—in the session running at the same time. No way could I have done this with my HD3, or have it sound so good, with minimal effort.

Other than the MIDI bugs Avid continually ignores year after year, I'm a happy camper. Cost of the crossgrade was a no-brainer.
Good to hear you're happy! I think your improvements are more from converter and workflow improvements, but who cares if it works?!
Old 7th September 2012
  #17
Gear Maniac
 

Ugh, I didn't read the thread title carefully... lol I thought we were comparing to 192s... doh... Sorry about that guys. >_<

It never occurred to me that we were talking about new interfaces and old cards that won't be supported in the near future.

Anyways, yeah, beyond the increase in functionality and continued support of HDX by Avid, probably not much difference between the two rigs.

Last edited by Andy_R; 7th September 2012 at 07:51 PM.. Reason: left out a word
Old 7th September 2012
  #18
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I think your improvements are more from converter and workflow improvements, but who cares if it works?!
I care. It spreads dis-information. Ill informed conjecture. I'd agree that an HDX system sounds better than an HD system with 192. But as psycho says, and I agree with, I (we) believe it's the conversion. Glad the system is working out. I may up my game to HDX after 64b and when critical software I need works in AAX.
Old 8th September 2012
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
Can we please stay on subject, I am really interested as I´m on HD10 / AVID HD 8x8x8 but old HD3 Accel cards.
Of course the new AVID 8x8x8 sounds better than Digi192, but that is totally irrelevant information in this thread.
Old 9th September 2012
  #20
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechild View Post
Can we please stay on subject, I am really interested as I´m on HD10 / AVID HD 8x8x8 but old HD3 Accel cards.
Of course the new AVID 8x8x8 sounds better than Digi192, but that is totally irrelevant information in this thread.
I'd be interested to know just what the subject is... Are we talking about nulling a print or requesting the results of a blind listening test?

Mind you, the thread starter asks for results for PT8,PT9 and PT10,as well.

Also, bare in mind that even if the sound of the TDM/HD interface compares favorably, they would be no upgrade path for future versions of Pro Tools, and it's respective software, 3rd party software, and Apple hardware.

I've already answered at least one of the thread poster's questions. PT 10 HDX and PT10TDM do not null, regardless of what interface is used.
Old 11th September 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 

Honestly I am tired of the null thing...that is not necessarily the answer!
Old 11th September 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I care. It spreads dis-information. Ill informed conjecture. I'd agree that an HDX system sounds better than an HD system with 192. But as psycho says, and I agree with, I (we) believe it's the conversion. Glad the system is working out. I may up my game to HDX after 64b and when critical software I need works in AAX.
AMEN
Old 12th September 2012
  #23
Here for the gear
 

What is best system for small budget in Protools?

I have to change my system because i have a Power Pc with protools 7.4...I want to move on but I'm not shure what is...I have an 003 interface...What do you recommend? ...Thanks!
Old 12th September 2012
  #24
Here for the gear
 

What is best system for small budget in Protools?
I have to change my system because i have a Power Pc with protools 7.4...I want to move on but I'm not shure what is...I have an 003 interface...What do you recommend? ...Thanks!
Old 12th September 2012
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScorpionHook View Post
What is best system for small budget in Protools?
I have to change my system because i have a Power Pc with protools 7.4...I want to move on but I'm not shure what is...I have an 003 interface...What do you recommend? ...Thanks!
Mac of your choice and pt10 upgrade is the obvious choice. No need to change 003 unless you want to. Every mac currently available will be a massive power increase to you.
Old 15th September 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechild View Post
Can we please stay on subject, I am really interested as I´m on HD10 / AVID HD 8x8x8 but old HD3 Accel cards.
Of course the new AVID 8x8x8 sounds better than Digi192, but that is totally irrelevant information in this thread.
One important factor in the HDX and HDN is a 32 bit clean system running into a 64 bit mixer.
In a TDM system audio on a system gets converted back and forth from TDM plug-in to RTAS plug-in then say if use elastic audio there is another conversion then back to 24 bit in the mixer.
This making TDM use more CPU cycles for all those bit rate conversions.
I unloaded all my TDM systems last January and got HDX just for the speed gain alone it's worth it.
And yes it sounds better. I was finishing a mix for Universal when we heard HDX we immediately converted all the sessions and remixed it in HDX.
It was quite impossible to directly a/b the mixes because we had to change a number of plug-ins - but it was well worth the extra work. We already had 3 Avid HD 16x16 convertors and sold our PCIe HD systems so the upgrade cost was pretty low for us.
Everyone is in a different situation, if you can cost justify it - yes HDX is better no question.
Old 18th September 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
One important factor in the HDX and HDN is a 32 bit clean system running into a 64 bit mixer.
In a TDM system audio on a system gets converted back and forth from TDM plug-in to RTAS plug-in then say if use elastic audio there is another conversion then back to 24 bit in the mixer.
This making TDM use more CPU cycles for all those bit rate conversions.
I unloaded all my TDM systems last January and got HDX just for the speed gain alone it's worth it.
And yes it sounds better. I was finishing a mix for Universal when we heard HDX we immediately converted all the sessions and remixed it in HDX.
It was quite impossible to directly a/b the mixes because we had to change a number of plug-ins - but it was well worth the extra work. We already had 3 Avid HD 16x16 convertors and sold our PCIe HD systems so the upgrade cost was pretty low for us.
Everyone is in a different situation, if you can cost justify it - yes HDX is better no question.
Ok, thanks for the input.
Then I could mix my songs with the Native audio engine using a standard Firewire audiointerface just to hear what I´m doing , right , and get the same quality as a HDX system when bouncing down the master even though I tracked with the TDM engine ( including the HD I/O 8x8x8 ) ?
Old 18th September 2012
  #28
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

There are potentially three differences.

1. it's easy to clip TDM plug-ins

2. running the dithered mixer in TDM can sound better than not dithering the output of an HDX system.

3. Some plug-ins sound a bit different in their TDM versions. My opinion has always been that the native versions sounded better provided the output to the DAC or written to a file was properly dithered.
Old 18th September 2012
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechild View Post
Ok, thanks for the input.
Then I could mix my songs with the Native audio engine using a standard Firewire audiointerface just to hear what I´m doing , right , and get the same quality as a HDX system when bouncing down the master even though I tracked with the TDM engine ( including the HD I/O 8x8x8 ) ?
Well, the difference then is that the HDX card is accelerating the summing engine, with dedicated DSP. Same summing engine, yes, but the HDX card itself is handling the job, and with a Native system, it is handled by your host processor.

Designing the mixing architecture the same way, certainly achieves better translation between them, for sure. I personally would not stress about any subjective sonic quality between these two Pro Tools systems. The choice has much more to do with workload necessity, environment&power, channel counts, reliability/stability, lower latency, etc.
Old 19th May 2013
  #30
Gear Maniac
 

I just upgraded my HD2 cards to HDX but kept the same converters (Apogees), and I always monitor through the DAC of my Avocet anyway, so the only thing that has changed in my system is the mix engine. I haven't done null tests etc but to my ears the HDX mix engine sounds better, after loading up the same sessions that I was previously working on in HD. Clearer, more depth. It's not "in your face" night and day difference, but it is nicer to my ears.

Topic:
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Bassline / So Much Gear, So Little Time
2
kissingonstilts / Live Sound
6
PapillonIrl / So Much Gear, So Little Time
6
Dopamine / Music Computers
15
rhjohnson2 / Live Sound
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump