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
HD Native really Works!
Old 11th September 2011
  #61
Here for the gear
 

“ and more proof to me was today I opened a file on my native system recorded at real world at 88.2K on a HD7 with only TDM plugins

I could not open this file on my HD3 last month I had to create a new session and import the audio at 44.1K

any questions?”
Yes-
What would happen if before you opened the session on an HD3 on a new mac pro you changed enough of the TDM plug ins to RTAS format that only 3 cards worth of TDM was being used? - Other than flexibility this most recent example doesn’t illustrate the advantages of one system over another.
If a session is in danger of maxing out due to voices native could have advantages. Many sessions never are close to maxxing out voices but are close to maxing out dsp power, in which case a TDM system with an equally powered computer could be more powerful.
Regarding voices, if having a TDM plugin after an RTAS eats up voices, if all your plugins are both TDM and RTAS simply convert the TDM plugins which follow to RTAS and on audio tracks your Native vs TDM voice count is the same.
Market price medium level new mac pro+ used native card <$6k>
Market price HD3 with the same new mac pro plus new Magma Chassis ($2.2K) + used PCI-x core+2accel ($2k) <$8k>, HD6 then about $9.5k). TDM versions of plugins can drive up the cost.

If you receive a session with any of the following plugins in TDM they will not open up with their settings intact automatically in a Native session. Many of these are not uncommon plugins.

Acess Virus Indigo
Amp Farm 3.1
Antares/Microphone Modeler
Aphex Aural Exciter/Big Bottom
Avid Heat
Avid/Reverb One
Bruno
Cranesong/Phoenix
Drawmer/Drawmer Dynamics
Eventide/Anthology II Bundle
Focusrite/Liquid Mix HD
Impact
No-noise
Reso
Reverb One
Revibe
Soundtoys/Soundblender
Soundtoys Timeblender
TC/DVR 2
TC/Harmony 4
TC/Master S
TC/MD 3
TC/Non Lin 2
TC/Tube Tech CL 1b
URS Double Precision EQ's
Indigo
Serato Rane series Dynamics, Compressor and gate
Waves PS22
eventide factory
eventide octravox
eventide 949
TL space TDM (long/medium/short)
Old 11th September 2011
  #62
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

Good thing I don't have any of those plugs or use any of them any more...

Once again I don't know how an hd3 will behave in my new mac.... Because my cards and anyone else who has rev e cards will not work on new macs...

Avid does not make this public knowlege it took 2 days searching and a $ 79 phone call to confirm..... my system is now at avid with a 10 to 20 day turn around.... in my world that is 10 to 20k in time...

Each card will cost a minimum of $250 to " upgrade". Yet the new macs are qualified by avid....

As for the hd7 file it was a lot easier to save as and reduce the sample rate then spend hours deciding which plus or tracks to disable not to mention I would not have been able to do much as far as mixing anyway...

On the native system it opens, it plays, and I can add more plugs at 88.1 and actual do work with no changes except possibly replace a few plugs I don't have anyway

Cheers
SP
Old 11th September 2011
  #63
Lives for gear
 
mykhal c's Avatar
 

the resistance to facts is really amazin'!!!
Old 11th September 2011
  #64
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
Found this
Place a TDM plugin in the first insert, and the audio must use a Voice to get into the TDM Environment, and then once there, it will flow to the proper DSP chip(s) for the TDM plug-in processing. If you place an RTAS plugin in any insert slot AFTER that TDM plug-in, what will happen? Well, the audio must enter first, do the TDM process, and then exit, receive RTAS processing, and then enter once again. That means you need three of those "one way, single lane portals" for each track width of audio. For ten mono audio tracks that have a TDM plug-in in the first insert, followed by 3 RTAS plugins in insert slots 2,3,and 4...well, you have ten lanes. And you have to enter for the TDM process for each. That is Ten Voices so far. But, you now need to exit for the RTAS processes. Once out, all 3 of those RTAS processes can be done in the host BEFORE returning to the TDM Enironment. Getting back in will require a Voice for each track width. If only mono plug-ins were used, then it is: ten voices to get in, do TDM processes, and then ten voices to get back out to do al the RTAS stuff, and then ten more to get back in once again. 30 Voices total.

Say you used a Mono-Stereo TDM plugin on each of those ten mono tracks. To get in, it is still only a mono signal entering. So, ten voices. But getting back out? Well, the signal width has been ncreased from 1 to 2. So, you now need 20 voices for them to exit for the RTAS processing. And another 20 to get back in. Total for those ten tracks of mono audio, that receive mono->stereo TDM processing, and then stereo RTAS processing? 50 voices.

My new native system is still using only ten voices.. Regardless of computer
That's how I see tdm in a sense crippling the native implementation

Do it at 96k then look at your tdm voice count

Cheers
Scott
Yes, I know ALL of this. That's why you don't use TDM plugins before RTAS if you can possibly help it! and with most plugs being TDM AND RTAS now...that's not a massive hassle most of the time. The problem is only really if you're using RTAS on aux sends. your example above is extremely bad practice, the same way someone who gainstages their mix incorrectly complains about headroom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
and more proof to me was today I opened a file on my native system recorded at real world at 88.2K on a HD7 with only TDM plugins

I could not open this file on my HD3 last month I had to create a new session and import the audio at 44.1K

any questions?
Yes. If you'd opened this session on an HD3 rig on your current mac with all plugins deactivated, you could have reactivated them, changed as many as possible of them to RTAS, and the session would have worked fine. This is what I mean by a fair comparison. Your computer was the thing that meant you had to switch to 44.1, not your HD rig. IF you still had the same issues when running an HD rig on the same computer (and yes, I'm aware it's a faff to switch all plugins to RTAS, though you could have prepped it on the Real World rig), then I'd say fair enough.
Old 11th September 2011
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykhal c View Post
the resistance to facts is really amazin'!!!
but it's not facts though, it's user experience, with variables that aren't constant. I'm constantly surprised that people who call themselves "engineers" don't understand the importance of isolating the variable that is being questioned!
Old 11th September 2011
  #66
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

Ok I keep hearing everyone say.. But all you have to do is...

In effect you guys keep proving my point

Why would digi have made the tdm system expandable by by adding cards if an Hd3 was all you needed to open and work on any session?

If I'm going to go into my track and change everything to rtas then why use or have tdm at all? For the extra power that I don't need?

Let's not even begin to talk about the fact I now haw 2 uad quads in the same computer and what that gives over the tdm processing power

You guys are really making Native hd look pretty pretty good...

Cheers
Scott
Old 11th September 2011
  #67
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

Oh and ps

I of course never do the tdm rtas plugin scheme I outlined...it was an example

But once again if I want to put a tdm eg before my rtas compressor for sonic reasons I should be able to do that without losing voice count

My parallel drum busses and other aux are full of rtas on my tdm rig it sometimes forces me to make choices that I don't need to do in the native system


Flexibility is also power
Old 11th September 2011
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
Ok I keep hearing everyone say.. But all you have to do is...

In effect you guys keep proving my point

Why would digi have made the tdm system expandable by by adding cards if an Hd3 was all you needed to open and work on any session?
Well, at the time you couldn't use the RTAS power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
If I'm going to go into my track and change everything to rtas then why use or have tdm at all? For the extra power that I don't need?
For the tracking advantages - and for the fact you may well need that power some day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
Let's not even begin to talk about the fact I now haw 2 uad quads in the same computer and what that gives over the tdm processing power

You guys are really making Native hd look pretty pretty good...

Cheers
Scott
As I've already said at least once, maybe twice - I think Native is a great product, and I'd buy one myself in a heartbeat if I could afford it! And amy well yet do so...I just didn't think your original comment was a fair comparison, and I still don't! But it's obviously been a success for you, so it was the right decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
Oh and ps

I of course never do the tdm rtas plugin scheme I outlined...it was an example

But once again if I want to put a tdm eg before my rtas compressor for sonic reasons I should be able to do that without losing voice count
My parallel drum busses and other aux are full of rtas on my tdm rig it sometimes forces me to make choices that I don't need to do in the native system


Flexibility is also power[/QUOTE]

Well as I said, I agree - Native is the right product for you. If you were doing large scale tracking, or on the sort of session where you can't call the shots (eg client wants to jump around a lot, and is used to being able to do that without having to wait, as opposed to you at your own rig where you decide the working routine) then you might feel differently.

I'm really not anti-Native!
Old 11th September 2011
  #69
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

Well as I said, I agree - Native is the right product for you. If you were doing large scale tracking, or on the sort of session where you can't call the shots (eg client wants to jump around a lot, and is used to being able to do that without having to wait, as opposed to you at your own rig where you decide the working routine) then you might feel differently.

I'm really not anti-Native![/QUOTE]


yes I know and most of this is really just good sport....

but to take one last shot across the bow I have not seen or experienced any difference in workflow between these system and these are pretty big sessions Im talking about... and I would challenge any client or engineer to tell me if I was running native or tdm.... no looking at the screen!
in fact Most of the best musicians never even ask what I'm recording to... why would they? they should be busy creating the music

the other nice thing is as a producer and mixer with some clout ,I work as a partner with the artist they don't tell me what to do....

I realize not everyone's career has evolved to that stage ... so i'm the one who needs confidence in my gear choices ... I don't care what studio Im in, I bring my own mics stuff like that.... I feel comfortable with a tdm system and now I can add a native HD system to the list of gear I feel good or confident using

And I will also Add I'm not anti TDM!


cheers
SP

what is curious to me are the people who have mentioned problem running a stable native HD system... I would be interested in knowing more about that
Old 11th September 2011
  #70
WDM
Lives for gear
 
WDM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
It would be nice to know if you would be able to run your project on your OLD computer with HD native installed the same way as you used it with tdm cards?

Im am quite certain I could not get anywhere near the performance on my now 4 plus year old mac using Native HD...
Well - that's your answer. You're basically sayin that your project was done mostly on tdm rather than on your old mac.

So, if you would upgrade just a mac in your old setup, you would get the same power for your old project plus extra new mac power for everything else.

As far as track counts for both HD and HD Native, those are the same numbers except with HD you can record simultaneously 160 tracks vs. 64 with HD Native. (It's not a big issue for most users IMHO).

I am not against HD Native either. And it's cheaper, yes.

But, so far, you're having fun with HD Native (smoking) as a multitrack tape recorder. What will happen if you'll start to get addicted to soft synths like omnisphere? How many tracks you'll really get on HD Native? Would it be still as good as HD?
I just don't know...
Old 11th September 2011
  #71
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
yes I know and most of this is really just good sport....

but to take one last shot across the bow I have not seen or experienced any difference in workflow between these system and these are pretty big sessions Im talking about... and I would challenge any client or engineer to tell me if I was running native or tdm.... no looking at the screen!
in fact Most of the best musicians never even ask what I'm recording to... why would they? they should be busy creating the music

the other nice thing is as a producer and mixer with some clout ,I work as a partner with the artist they don't tell me what to do....

I realize not everyone's career has evolved to that stage ... so i'm the one who needs confidence in my gear choices ... I don't care what studio Im in, I bring my own mics stuff like that.... I feel comfortable with a tdm system and now I can add a native HD system to the list of gear I feel good or confident using

And I will also Add I'm not anti TDM!


cheers
SP

what is curious to me are the people who have mentioned problem running a stable native HD system... I would be interested in knowing more about that
Oh, it's ALL good sport!
Old 11th September 2011
  #72
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

Heh heh

I'm lucky this is not the Porsche forum...Those guys are really tough they try to find you and kill you...
I have a boxster it gets me where I want to go, chicks dig it and I can get plenty of speeding tickets with it...

It's no 911 but it works for me and still has the Porsche logo on the hood

Now does anyone know anything about lawn tractors... Mine blew up today
One thing... I'm not ever gonna compare my new one to the old one

Cheers
Scott
Old 12th September 2011
  #73
Lives for gear
 
lozion's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
Heh heh

I'm lucky this is not the Porsche forum...Those guys are really tough they try to find you and kill you...
I have a boxster it gets me where I want to go, chicks dig it and I can get plenty of speeding tickets with it...

It's no 911 but it works for me and still has the Porsche logo on the hood

Now does anyone know anything about lawn tractors... Mine blew up today
One thing... I'm not ever gonna compare my new one to the old one

Cheers
Scott
LOl heh
Old 12th September 2011
  #74
We've done an excellent job here at beating a dead horse into a pulp.

There have been some valuable posts here and some utter tripe.

As the Psycho Monkey stated TDM is Native + TDM's DSP at the same time.

Just a couple things I wanted to clarify.

HDN (or TDM's very own Native mode) is more practical for mixing IF using higher sample rates on large projects (100 tracks) where voices actually become a concern.

CPU performance is superior on TDM. I HAVE had an identical machine comparison between HDN and TDM and the project could not even play on HDN, while it played at 90% CPU on TDM.
Side note: as a last little bonus, let's also not forget that TDM allows you to set your buffer higher for EXTRA power without affecting monitoring latency (like punching in a last second brass section during a 100 track mix).


And, as I'd mentioned before, regardless of HDN or TDM, the second biggest enemy (behind CPU) is the delay comp cap of 4096 samples. It's easy to overpower PT's delay comp engine (NOT talking about TDM DSP delay comp usage here).


@Scott - gotta say I'd be happy with a Boxter. I'm not going to say what Porsche I used to own (so I'm not hunted down and killed), but it was no 911 Turbo.
Old 12th September 2011
  #75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
@Scott - gotta say I'd be happy with a Boxter. I'm not going to say what Porsche I used to own (so I'm not hunted down and killed), but it was no 911 Turbo.
924?!

I know a guy who owns a purple 911. I park beside it every now and then when I visit my friend....I have to say, it's hideous!
Old 12th September 2011
  #76
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

I promise I'm not going back in for more but matt makes a good he was unable to open a native session on his computer when a tdm session did open...

I have however just done a last minute vocal on a song with 88 track/voices 15 aux tracks 5 vis a master fader or 2 and a few vcas. ..an a 150 plugins engaged. On a 2011 8 core mac pro... 22% rta CPU usage

I kept my buffer at 64 Did not use low latency monitoring... full headphone mix

No problems no delays... done


I can only imagine the possibilities with the next gen sandy bridge processors. Out in a few months....add a thunderbolt interface and an ssd and look out!
Old 12th September 2011
  #77
Lives for gear
 
mykhal c's Avatar
 

see you TDM cats back here in 6 mos to a 1 year...can't wait to see what Avid unveils in that time. give some of you more time to open your eyes to Avid's 'new, native' direction... adaptin' to change 'can' be hard heh
Old 12th September 2011
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Kingtone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mykhal c View Post
see you TDM cats back here in 6 mos to a 1 year...can't wait to see what Avid unveils in that time. give some of you more time to open your eyes to Avid's 'new, native' direction... adaptin' to change 'can' be hard heh

what a stupid attitude.
The op didnt start the post to say TDM didnt work. He was started it to say that the new native system he got is doing the job great for him.
Just because someone sticks to TDM does not mean they are resistant to change. I've been using TDM since my first mix3 system back in the late 90s. I now have an HD3 on pcie. Does that make me unable to adapt to change? No.
It means i bought the tool that would do the job properly for me at the time and STILL DOES. When it comes to the time that i need a bigger better faster system, i will evaluate whether i will go to HD native or simply add more tdm cards to my system.
I think it is a hobbyist mentality to say that anyone using 'old technology' is not adapting. The discussion was whether Native really works. And for the OP it sure does. I know many folks for whom it doesnt.
Each to their own tools.
I'd hate to think what you say about people that only use consoles and tape machines
Old 12th September 2011
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mykhal c View Post
see you TDM cats back here in 6 mos to a 1 year...can't wait to see what Avid unveils in that time. give some of you more time to open your eyes to Avid's 'new, native' direction... adaptin' to change 'can' be hard heh
Have you read ANY of the posts I've made on the topic? specifically the ones that say that HD Native is very much THE tool for some situations/jobs?

I'd imagine our studio will still be all TDM in a years time, even if we have added a native rig or two by then (might be worth a floating rig for the odd logic session that crops up, if nothing else. Plumb in place of the HD3 system and it's a 48io Logic setup using the existing 192s). As I said before, we've only just installed a new one..I doubt it'll be out of date in a year!
Old 12th September 2011
  #80
Lives for gear
 
mykhal c's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingtone View Post

what a stupid attitude.
The op didnt start the post to say TDM didnt work. He was started it to say that the new native system he got is doing the job great for him.
Just because someone sticks to TDM does not mean they are resistant to change. I've been using TDM since my first mix3 system back in the late 90s. I now have an HD3 on pcie. Does that make me unable to adapt to change? No.
It means i bought the tool that would do the job properly for me at the time and STILL DOES. When it comes to the time that i need a bigger better faster system, i will evaluate whether i will go to HD native or simply add more tdm cards to my system.
I think it is a hobbyist mentality to say that anyone using 'old technology' is not adapting. The discussion was whether Native really works. And for the OP it sure does. I know many folks for whom it doesnt.
Each to their own tools.
I'd hate to think what you say about people that only use consoles and tape machines
sad and stupid that you felt the need to attack me when all i've done was try to point out the merits and power of the new native line compared to TDM. i don't think i 'ever' said there is somethin' wrong with TDM. clearly there is not...
Old 12th September 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
mykhal c's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Have you read ANY of the posts I've made on the topic? specifically the ones that say that HD Native is very much THE tool for some situations/jobs?

I'd imagine our studio will still be all TDM in a years time, even if we have added a native rig or two by then (might be worth a floating rig for the odd logic session that crops up, if nothing else. Plumb in place of the HD3 system and it's a 48io Logic setup using the existing 192s). As I said before, we've only just installed a new one..I doubt it'll be out of date in a year!
yes, i've read 'em and disagree on 'some' of your take. but that's all good. and no, i wouldn't imagine your studio will be outta date in a year either
Old 12th September 2011
  #82
Lives for gear
 
scott petito's Avatar
 

Boys! Boys! Play nice!


I have no idea when tdm will see it's end time... I'm just trying to report that we protools users have options and we are clearly on the edge of another tech upgrade cycle which in my opinion has been delayed to some degree by the state of the economy and the music business in particular...

Another thing i will say big studios have always been hesitant to jump into new technology... They were by and large laggers as opposed to leaders in the adoption of protools to begin with.... I did one of the first commercially released protools in the mid nineties on 2 cascaded 442 systems .. I was one of the people who was indirectly responsible for things like the smpte slave driver... The result of of trying to lock those above systems to 2" tape....no one had given a thought about what happens to sample rate when it slaves to an unstable sync source talk about the mother of all phase shifters
I've had every version of protools except PT 24 somehow I escaped that one...

I was called " midi boy " .....i once had a big time engineer ask me if I was still playing around with that protools thing in like 99 !!
As I recall Bearsville studios finally had one a few month before they closed a few years back...

A lot of nuendo users in Nashville would think we are all crazy... they have been doing fine work and serious projects for years all native...

So in many ways this is just another evolution in the protools world a bigger one than I would have suspected just a few weeks back

By the way tdm bought me the afore mentioned porche. So what's not to like?
Old 13th September 2011
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
924?!

I know a guy who owns a purple 911. I park beside it every now and then when I visit my friend....I have to say, it's hideous!
Haha, it wasn't a 911, 928, or 914. ;-)
Old 13th September 2011
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
I have however just done a last minute vocal on a song with 88 track/voices 15 aux tracks 5 vis a master fader or 2 and a few vcas. ..an a 150 plugins engaged. On a 2011 8 core mac pro... 22% rta CPU usage

I kept my buffer at 64 Did not use low latency monitoring... full headphone mix

No problems no delays... done
That's pretty impressive. I ran Natively for years, but always relied on DSP for monitoring to avoid latency. TDM took that to the next level for me. If you use the new HD converters at 64 buffer then latency is only a couple ms longer than TDM. Useable, for sure. With a 192 or any off the shelf interface it's just enough latency to bother me - even at 64. I notice it immediately. AVID did a great job on the new converters.
Old 13th September 2011
  #85
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarkham View Post
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either .. the MIX engine is running on an FPGA on the Native card. The rest of the processing is done in RTAS ... which will undoubtedly have latency for the plugins that are used in-track.
The mix engine is running 100% natively on the CPU. The FPGA chip only does the I/O and LL headphone monitoring.

Quote:
If there are no plug ins on any of the tracks, busses or master faders, then the Native system will perform as a TDM system does.

If there are plug-ins .. it will most certainly not be free of latency. It
may be quite short (given the buffer size).
It depends of the plugins but many plugins can do all their processing within the buffer time so they do not increase latency when inserted.

Quote:
One benefit of the Native Mix engine is usage of double precision
floating point...
I'm still waiting for anyone to be able to tell the difference between a 32 and 64 bit mix in a double blind ABX test....

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #86
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
I think an interesting exercise would be to load a session with 64 mono tracks on a TDM system (or whatever the max number of voices your HD system can handle divided by three) and insert a simple TDM plugin on the first insert of all those channels. What is your (native) CPU load on playback?

Now insert an RTAS trim plugin in the 2nd slot of all those tracks. What is your CPU load now? In other words, how much CPU load does the system use to shuttle the audio streams from the TDM cards back and forth to the CPU. (If the Trim plugin is not doing anything, it shouldn't be using much if any CPU itself so the load increase will be mainly about shuttling the audio streams).

Do this test at the lowest hardware buffer setting. What are the results?

Alistair
Old 13th September 2011
  #87
Lives for gear
 
amost's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by scott petito View Post
A lot of nuendo users in Nashville would think we are all crazy... they have been doing fine work and serious projects for years all native...

True...but many of them because it's uuuhhh 'free'.
Not all of them! Just sayin'.

Congrats on the Roy Haynes/Chick thing! Lowly HD2 Accel old Mac Pro user here. If I ever upgrade the Mac I'll give a look at Native although I haven't looked back since moving to HD years back...granted my needs are not anywhere near yours! Congrats.
Old 13th September 2011
  #88
Lives for gear
 
amost's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
That's pretty impressive. I ran Natively for years, but always relied on DSP for monitoring to avoid latency. TDM took that to the next level for me. If you use the new HD converters at 64 buffer then latency is only a couple ms longer than TDM. Useable, for sure. With a 192 or any off the shelf interface it's just enough latency to bother me - even at 64. I notice it immediately. AVID did a great job on the new converters.
But your "Natively" isn't the exact same thing as Scott's newer Avid Card "Native", right?
Old 13th September 2011
  #89
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hepworth View Post
That's pretty impressive. I ran Natively for years, but always relied on DSP for monitoring to avoid latency. TDM took that to the next level for me. If you use the new HD converters at 64 buffer then latency is only a couple ms longer than TDM. Useable, for sure. With a 192 or any off the shelf interface it's just enough latency to bother me - even at 64. I notice it immediately. AVID did a great job on the new converters.
I believe a TDM system with a 192 I/O has a rountrip latency of 105 samples. (Correct me if I'm wrong). A PT 9 system using a Lynx AES16e + Aurora has a roundtrip of 95 samples at 64 samples buffer setting (Just an example). If TDM+192 I/O worked for you, a Native system with current converters should be even better.

Alistair
Old 10th December 2011
  #90
Rea
Lives for gear
 
Rea's Avatar
 

as someone who is considering adding PTHD to my logic pro/symphony setup, please help me understand:

do you attribute the power of the HDNative VS. HD3 to the new computer or is it a completely different architecture for utilizing the host?

because otherwise it is true that the HD3 should be able to utilize both the TDM cards AND the Host power which must be more, certainly not less...

please help a PT newbie understand this.

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