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
Avid circles the drain
Old 28th February 2014
  #151
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I am not angry. On the other hand you have, true to form, posted nothing of any positive value in this thread.

Alistair
oh I missed all this stuff. I won't clutter up the thread too much but I have contributed to this thread. Maybe you are angry I don't follow your "logic" but others have confirmed my contribution.
1
Share
Old 28th February 2014
  #152
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Psycho Monkey, in your explorations of a possible future event, people caught in those circumstances would only have to use an analog cue system. Frankly any old mixer that has a line in and direct out or pre-fader send (before the EQ circuit or just after if there is a bypassable EQ switch) with at least 2 aux sends (most will have more than 2 auxes) will work without hurting your audio due to the short path. Just add outboard for any tracking that needs it like a touch of verb for a vocal. Not much money to spend for a solution. Same way we have always been doing it for real no latency cues.
And the same can be done digitally. Personally I think the best approach would be to have a digital mixer with EQ, dynamics, saturation, reverb, echo etc inside the interface (like TotalMix) that is fully controlled from the DAW and the rest all runs natively.

Instead of running the whole DAW at 4 samples of latency (a waste of resources and money IMO) run the actual mix and everything that is being played back from disk natively and only use the on-board digital mixer for low-latency monitoring.

The DAW itself could have a large processing buffer, let's say 50 ms, which is compensated by playing all tracks from disk 50 ms early and only the live monitoring stuff is running on the DSP with 4 samples of delay. The 50 ms buffer means that the DAW is making very efficient use of the computer's CPU. As the DSP cue mixer is fully controlled from within the DAW you can use cue mix presets for quick and efficient workflows, you don't need to switch applications or setup complex cue mixes from an analogue mixer as it is all integrated in the DAW itself.

You wouldn't be able to use boutique 3rd plugins on the cue mix but I don't believe that that is really essential. I think it is mostly an unnecessary luxury in today's music market. But you would be able to EQ, compress, gate, echo, reverb, saturate etc the signals for the cue mixes using the built-in processing.

You could even have a few low-latency "live" tracks running natively if you really need to run a guitar amp sim or some special plugin for the cue mix to please the talent. Just don't run the whole thing at low-latency.

There are products out that that completely blow away the HDX cards for I/O and track count at a fraction of the price. Such a system fully integrated within PT would be an elegant cost effective solution.

Instead Avid implemented what I feel is last century's paradigm on old DSP chips. I don't think that was a good idea. It just means it is much harder and much more costly for developers to create plugins with as a result the absence of many favorite plugins on the HDX platform. It also means much higher and costly development costs for Avid themselves. Costs they apparently can't afford. It means that many potential buyers are not buying the costly systems. The situation is not good for anyone.

If anyone is in any doubt of the capabilities of a native system for the mix part (meaning running the full mix at a higher latency which can still be augmented with low-latency cue-mixing of the live signals etc with DSP/FPGA), here is a demonstration of Cubase on my 4 year old CPU running 384 stereo tracks (the maximum total track count of a HDX3 rig) with 384 stereo plugins (all active and passing audio). That is the equivalent of 1536 mono plugins running natively on my old CPU. If you look at the load meter you can see that there is room for more tracks and more plugins:



Alistair
1
Share
Old 1st March 2014
  #153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Psycho Monkey, in your explorations of a possible future event, people caught in those circumstances would only have to use an analog cue system. Frankly any old mixer that has a line in and direct out or pre-fader send (before the EQ circuit or just after if there is a bypassable EQ switch) with at least 2 aux sends (most will have more than 2 auxes) will work without hurting your audio due to the short path. Just add outboard for any tracking that needs it like a touch of verb for a vocal. Not much money to spend for a solution. Same way we have always been doing it for real no latency cues.
And when my client tells me he wants to monitor through a plugin...how do I do that?

I'm well aware of how to do pre-machine monitor sends...I am sitting in front of a VR most days! It's just not the way I'd like to have to do it.

I can already do things that way. I can also do things other ways, purely because of the DSP based system. It's a step BACKWARDS for me (and many others) to remove one of those options. Plenty of times when you'd want to monitor through the system (seamless drop ins, although I don't always do things that way depending on what is being performed and who by.

My current system is recallable, quick and easily changed around. When I have an artist in that I was recording last year (as happened this week) I essentially got them back the exact same cue mix they were happy with last time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
And the same can be done digitally. Personally I think the best approach would be to have a digital mixer with EQ, dynamics, saturation, reverb, echo etc inside the interface (like TotalMix) that is fully controlled from the DAW and the rest all runs natively.
So that's somewhere in the middle between HD and the UAD system really...I don't disagree (and that's really kinda how I run my HD rig when mixing) but at the moment there's not a way for that integrated system to be portable - ie if you're running an Apollo and using the plugins, you need to open it on another UAD-enabled rig. Now if UAD went native too...that's an option! But I can take my PT session and move it between any computer without losing settings and processing (assuming there's native versions available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
Instead of running the whole DAW at 4 samples of latency (a waste of resources and money IMO) run the actual mix and everything that is being played back from disk natively and only use the on-board digital mixer for low-latency monitoring.
The DAW itself could have a large processing buffer, let's say 50 ms, which is compensated by playing all tracks from disk 50 ms early and only the live monitoring stuff is running on the DSP with 4 samples of delay. The 50 ms buffer means that the DAW is making very efficient use of the computer's CPU. As the DSP cue mixer is fully controlled from within the DAW you can use cue mix presets for quick and efficient workflows, you don't need to switch applications or setup complex cue mixes from an analogue mixer as it is all integrated in the DAW itself.[/QUOTE]

Isn't that exactly how Logic and PT11 work - a dual buffer system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
You wouldn't be able to use boutique 3rd plugins on the cue mix but I don't believe that that is really essential. I think it is mostly an unnecessary luxury in today's music market. But you would be able to EQ, compress, gate, echo, reverb, saturate etc the signals for the cue mixes using the built-in processing.
I actually disagree with this. I get asked to use things like Autotune, amp sims on cue mixes all the time. When I'm working with international artists, I sometimes get a whole plugin chain to use, including send FX and the like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
There are products out that that completely blow away the HDX cards for I/O and track count at a fraction of the price. Such a system fully integrated within PT would be an elegant cost effective solution.
If they're stable and reliable, I'd support anything like that. But as soon as I have to make workflow compromises or tell a client "I can't do it like that anymore"...I'm less keen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
Instead Avid implemented what I feel is last century's paradigm on old DSP chips. I don't think that was a good idea. It just means it is much harder and much more costly for developers to create plugins with as a result the absence of many favorite plugins on the HDX platform. It also means much higher and costly development costs for Avid themselves. Costs they apparently can't afford. It means that many potential buyers are not buying the costly systems. The situation is not good for anyone.
Now we're getting beyond my technical knowledge for certain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertow
If anyone is in any doubt of the capabilities of a native system for the mix part (meaning running the full mix at a higher latency which can still be augmented with low-latency cue-mixing of the live signals etc with DSP/FPGA), here is a demonstration of Cubase on my 4 year old CPU running 384 stereo tracks (the maximum total track count of a HDX3 rig) with 384 stereo plugins (all active and passing audio). That is the equivalent of 1536 mono plugins running natively on my old CPU. If you look at the load meter you can see that there is room for more tracks and more plugins:
For mixing, a lot of my points are null and void, I agree, and I've never said otherwise. My comments are all to do with having clients and making things work for them without having to tell anyone "no I can't do that" when previously it was possible. I don't want to have to take any steps back.
1
Share
Old 1st March 2014
  #154
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
AFAIK Apple took some features from Shake and incorporated them into FCPX (eg image stabilization etc).
I think Shake kinda took itself outta the picture - you have After Effects, Smoke & Nuke lurking in the market. Made it difficult for Shake to survive. Shake was a bit cumbersome to use...
Old 1st March 2014
  #155
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
AFAIK FCPX was always intended to only get incrementally better. iirc it was a complete 64-bit re-write, not merely a GUI update on top of legacy Macromedia code, it was never intended to have all the features of FCP7 right from the start but a basic structure and increased capability added over time. Editors were always free to use both FCP7 and FCPX concurrently on different projects. imo FCPX is optimized for the non-tape based workflow (P2 cards, digital distribution etc) whereas FCP7 was optimized for the old-fashioned way of capturing tape in real-time and working with telecine'd film reels in bins etc.

p.s. were you the guitarist in Warrior? if so, how come you didn't stay in Ratt? S.D. had some good musicians back in the day. La Jolla's a nice spot!
Howdy Cinealta,

Ya know I agree with you regarding FCPX - I think it was a mistake leaving the gap in development between the two apps tho. They made just enough error to invite Media Composer to re-dominate the NLE world. For those of us that use Media Composer, that's just fine as I'm not wedged into using FCP by producers/companies that are trying to cut corners. You always pay in the end somehow by cutting those corners…

Yes sir, I started Warrior & was in the earliest incarnations of Ratt. Stephen & Robbin are my closest of friends. Ratt went thru a host of personnel changes thru the years, I moved on to TV & films. La Jolla is a great spot to retire in, but if you wanna career, LA is where it's at
Old 1st March 2014
  #156
Lives for gear
 

Psycho Monkey, I guess you would just have to tell that client that needs to track through that plug to learn to sing in tune LOL. We just gave a couple usable "plan B" options if PT was killed and a TDM/HDX user was moving on. It's not like it takes hours to set up a cue or read your notes of what you did a year ago. Chances are that if PT bites it completely someone like RME would see an unserviced market niche and make an interface with extra onboard DSP and memory to track with some lower latency plugs separate of the DAW app. RME would also have to improve it's Total Mix preset feature.

Nobody likes to "take a step back" from their standard workflow but PT's fate likely isn't in the hands of it's user base now. Most believe it's a small probability that PT will be killed.
Old 1st March 2014
  #157
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
And the same can be done digitally. Personally I think the best approach would be to have a digital mixer with EQ, dynamics, saturation, reverb, echo etc inside the interface (like TotalMix) that is fully controlled from the DAW and the rest all runs natively.

Instead of running the whole DAW at 4 samples of latency (a waste of resources and money IMO) run the actual mix and everything that is being played back from disk natively and only use the on-board digital mixer for low-latency monitoring.

The DAW itself could have a large processing buffer, let's say 50 ms, which is compensated by playing all tracks from disk 50 ms early and only the live monitoring stuff is running on the DSP with 4 samples of delay. The 50 ms buffer means that the DAW is making very efficient use of the computer's CPU. As the DSP cue mixer is fully controlled from within the DAW you can use cue mix presets for quick and efficient workflows, you don't need to switch applications or setup complex cue mixes from an analogue mixer as it is all integrated in the DAW itself.

You wouldn't be able to use boutique 3rd plugins on the cue mix but I don't believe that that is really essential. I think it is mostly an unnecessary luxury in today's music market. But you would be able to EQ, compress, gate, echo, reverb, saturate etc the signals for the cue mixes using the built-in processing.

You could even have a few low-latency "live" tracks running natively if you really need to run a guitar amp sim or some special plugin for the cue mix to please the talent. Just don't run the whole thing at low-latency.

There are products out that that completely blow away the HDX cards for I/O and track count at a fraction of the price. Such a system fully integrated within PT would be an elegant cost effective solution.

Instead Avid implemented what I feel is last century's paradigm on old DSP chips. I don't think that was a good idea. It just means it is much harder and much more costly for developers to create plugins with as a result the absence of many favorite plugins on the HDX platform. It also means much higher and costly development costs for Avid themselves. Costs they apparently can't afford. It means that many potential buyers are not buying the costly systems. The situation is not good for anyone.

If anyone is in any doubt of the capabilities of a native system for the mix part (meaning running the full mix at a higher latency which can still be augmented with low-latency cue-mixing of the live signals etc with DSP/FPGA), here is a demonstration of Cubase on my 4 year old CPU running 384 stereo tracks (the maximum total track count of a HDX3 rig) with 384 stereo plugins (all active and passing audio). That is the equivalent of 1536 mono plugins running natively on my old CPU. If you look at the load meter you can see that there is room for more tracks and more plugins:



Alistair
.

Freekin' awesome post, Allistair. And you're indeed preaching to the choir.

I've been anti Apple, Digi and Avid for all these proprietary hardware reasons - since the mid 90s.

I remember thinking, what a freeking ripoff, when Digi was offering those lame 4-track audio I/O cards,
when I was already running 12-16 tracks of audio in Cakewalk on a freeking Pentium II - and for SO MUCH less money!

Not only that, but Windows was backward compatible with third party apps, plugs and hw drivers,
when I was spending weeks begging tech support to find me workarounds for clients using Digi/PT systems.
Every record was a nightmare struggle with hw drivers and apps for every new Apple OS release. SCREW THAT!

It was then I swore never again - and went native with fixed hw summing and monitoring.
Since then, I've gone entirely native with summing and fixed hw monitoring.

For die hard PT clients, I always had studios and colleagues I could use if necessary,
but since I stopped doing large live band recordings over 15 years ago, PT has been irrelevant for me.

As for the Total Mix paradigm, I gotta say I freeking LOVE it! ...So smart! Those German engineers don't f&ck around! heh



.
Old 1st March 2014
  #158
Tui
Gear Guru
 
Tui's Avatar
I have it on good authority that RME is going to buy Avid, and all tech support will be in German.

Old 1st March 2014
  #159
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I actually disagree with this. I get asked to use things like Autotune, amp sims on cue mixes all the time. When I'm working with international artists, I sometimes get a whole plugin chain to use, including send FX and the like.

If they're stable and reliable, I'd support anything like that. But as soon as I have to make workflow compromises or tell a client "I can't do it like that anymore"...I'm less keen.

For mixing, a lot of my points are null and void, I agree, and I've never said otherwise. My comments are all to do with having clients and making things work for them without having to tell anyone "no I can't do that" when previously it was possible. I don't want to have to take any steps back.
I understand. Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the existence of HDX (except the choice of underlying technology). It caters to a particular market. If people need it and can afford it, by all means, use it. What I do have a major problem with is the way Avid try to force people to buy this niche market product they don't need by crippling all their other products.

The system I described is basically what I feel PT|HD Native should be and it should cost no more (for the card alone) as what is on the market today. I am comparing directly to the RME MADI FX which costs the same as a HD|Native card.

HDSPe MADI FX interface | Music & Audio Recording Gear Reviews | Tape Op - the Creative Music Recording Magazine

RME: HDSPe MADI FX

Price and technology wise, Avid are a decade behind RME. That is unacceptable for the "industry standard" and it shows in their failure to make a profit. And yes they are stable and reliable. I would say that RME products are MORE stable and reliable than anything from Avid.

With the exception of low-latency record dropping in in full mixes and allowing the talent to monitor through live plugins, my current native home system combined with a RME MADI FX outperforms even a HDX3 rig at a fraction of the cost. Isn't that ridiculous?

Avid should be making products that cater to the needs of the users not the other way round. That simply does not work in the 21st century. Avid should also be making products that are better than the competition to make people want to buy them. Their current strategy clearly isn't working from a business point of view. One of the most basic rules in business is to give the customer what they want. When will they learn?

Alistair
Old 1st March 2014
  #160
Lives for gear
 

Oh, now the funny DSP vs. native game again? Wake me up when it's over...
Funny that it's always the native die-hards that are getting all up in arms..

Meanwhile, some of you might want to have a look at Avid's last published numbers, which state f.e. that the storage / interoperability solution Avid offers (ISIS/Interplay etc.) make up a greater share of revenue than pro audio.

So where are the religious fights of CatDV vs. Interplay?
1
Share
Old 1st March 2014
  #161
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosmokrator View Post
Meanwhile, some of you might want to have a look at Avid's last published numbers, which state f.e. that the storage / interoperability solution Avid offers (ISIS/Interplay etc.) make up a greater share of revenue than pro audio.
The last official annual report from Avid is for 2011. 41.2% of revenues are for the Video side of things (which includes ISIS!). 39.4% for audio.

Which numbers are you looking at?

Quote:
So where are the religious fights of CatDV vs. Interplay?
I'm sure people argue about CatDV vs. Interplay somewhere... but often the choices between these kind of solutions are made by knowledgeable IT people that are more aware of the pros and cons of various technologies than the average musician or sound engineer... More fact based, less emotions based. Even the Avid CEO mentions the higher emotional involvement of people in the creative industries.

Ironically, he also talks about consumerization of the creative industries. About the consumers of Avid's clients dictating when and how they will consume what Avid's clients create. Avid should realize that the exact same thing is going on in their markets. They need to give their clients what they want. Not what they want to give! He talks about value chains being more interactive. The same applies to, or rather should apply to Avid's products. He also mentions increased competition. Etc etc.

Alistair
Old 1st March 2014
  #162
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tui View Post
I have it on good authority that RME is going to buy Avid, and all tech support will be in German.

.

Bring it on!

RME's German tech support staff speak WAY better English than their American tech "support" people.

Plus, they're SMART and KNOWLEDGEABLE and HELPFUL!

I'd rather speak with the Germans than the Americans at RME (or anywhere) ANYDAY!!!

.
2
Share
Old 1st March 2014
  #163
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I understand. Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with the existence of HDX (except the choice of underlying technology). It caters to a particular market. If people need it and can afford it, by all means, use it. What I do have a major problem with is the way Avid try to force people to buy this niche market product they don't need by crippling all their other products.

The system I described is basically what I feel PT|HD Native should be and it should cost no more (for the card alone) as what is on the market today. I am comparing directly to the RME MADI FX which costs the same as a HD|Native card.

HDSPe MADI FX interface | Music & Audio Recording Gear Reviews | Tape Op - the Creative Music Recording Magazine

RME: HDSPe MADI FX

Price and technology wise, Avid are a decade behind RME. That is unacceptable for the "industry standard" and it shows in their failure to make a profit. And yes they are stable and reliable. I would say that RME products are MORE stable and reliable than anything from Avid.

With the exception of low-latency record dropping in in full mixes and allowing the talent to monitor through live plugins, my current native home system combined with a RME MADI FX outperforms even a HDX3 rig at a fraction of the cost. Isn't that ridiculous?

Avid should be making products that cater to the needs of the users not the other way round. That simply does not work in the 21st century. Avid should also be making products that are better than the competition to make people want to buy them. Their current strategy clearly isn't working from a business point of view. One of the most basic rules in business is to give the customer what they want. When will they learn?

Alistair
.

Again, great post. Couldn't agree more.

It's been a part of the culture at Digi and Avid all the way through.

.
Old 1st March 2014
  #164
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Well they don't have any real competition in some markets. For instance out of curiosity I looked into how many video tracks you can have in logic. 1. Thats the total number of video tracks you can have. You would never be able to work like that. We got multiple vid tracks in protools le 7.2.
Old 1st March 2014
  #165
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
Well they don't have any real competition in some markets. For instance out of curiosity I looked into how many video tracks you can have in logic. 1. Thats the total number of video tracks you can have. You would never be able to work like that. We got multiple vid tracks in protools le 7.2.
Not in newer version of PT. You need PT HD to have multiple video tracks or multiple videos on the same tracks or be able to split videos etc.

EDIT: Is that regular PT 7 LE or is that augmented with a toolkit?

EDIT2: Cubase can also handle multiple videos. (Not sure about multiple tracks).

Alistair
Old 1st March 2014
  #166
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Not in newer version of PT. You need PT HD to have multiple video tracks or multiple videos on the same tracks or be able to split videos etc.

EDIT: Is that regular PT 7 LE or is that augmented with a toolkit?

EDIT2: Cubase can also handle multiple videos. (Not sure about multiple tracks).

Alistair
It was dv tool kit protools le. We need multiple tracks.
Old 1st March 2014
  #167
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
The way I see it is music people have plenty of daw options. Audio post people have like 3 and protools is the standard for the industry here in the states. It would be nice to be able to have protools be what we need and not what music people want.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #168
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
The way I see it is music people have plenty of daw options. Audio post people have like 3 and protools is the standard for the industry here in the states. It would be nice to be able to have protools be what we need and not what music people want.
I use PT exclusively for post but I don't need or want the Avid hardware. (Excluding control surfaces). It is amazing how complicated Avid make it to buy PT HD without the hardware. (But it is possible. I have PT HD 10/11 without any Avid hardware).

Making products that people want hard to buy is never a smart business strategy IMO.

Alistair
Old 2nd March 2014
  #169
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I use PT exclusively for post but I don't need or want the Avid hardware. (Excluding control surfaces). It is amazing how complicated Avid make it to buy PT HD without the hardware. (But it is possible. I have PT HD 10/11 without any Avid hardware).

Making products that people want hard to buy is never a smart business strategy IMO.

Alistair
.

There's that proprietary hw thing.

.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #170
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I use PT exclusively for post
So then you understand all the nuanced benefits this software provides us and how that level of support has a $ amount attached to it.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Psycho Monkey, I guess you would just have to tell that client that needs to track through that plug to learn to sing in tune LOL.
LOL indeed. Depends what position you're in I suppose! I've used AT on plenty of people who can "sing" because that's what the desired result is...and if I'm telling an experienced international producer to send their singer away until they "can sing in tune", I'm not gonna keep my job very long!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
We just gave a couple usable "plan B" options if PT was killed and a TDM/HDX user was moving on. It's not like it takes hours to set up a cue or read your notes of what you did a year ago.
No - but it IS slower (slower enough that it's a backwards step), and it can impede workflow. I've done it both ways; I know what I prefer!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Chances are that if PT bites it completely someone like RME would see an unserviced market niche and make an interface with extra onboard DSP and memory to track with some lower latency plugs separate of the DAW app. RME would also have to improve it's Total Mix preset feature.
I'm sure they would; isn't this what UAD's Apollo is doing now? I know at least one person who's taking this route instead of upgrading their old rig. But he can dictate how he runs his sessions (high end producer in his own studio). Different situation - and it's still not as portable as one session, everything included.

Not unworkable, but it's not progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I use PT exclusively for post but I don't need or want the Avid hardware. (Excluding control surfaces). It is amazing how complicated Avid make it to buy PT HD without the hardware. (But it is possible. I have PT HD 10/11 without any Avid hardware).

Making products that people want hard to buy is never a smart business strategy IMO.

Alistair
I agree with a lot of this. The thing about hardware - most people who have issues with PT are doing things like running 3rd party converters with HD, or running on unapproved PC builds. I've never had a problem on a Mac running all approved hardware that I couldn't fix (or that wasn't related to a hardware failure). Incompatibilities don't exist if you can close the system. That's why Avid like their own hardware. To an extent, that's why Apple shut down the PC branch of Logic (as well as to sell more Macs of course).

The closed system has a lot to recommend it. We're seeing it with "The Pro Tools PC", we see it with digital desks and so on.

I'm with you on the lack of HD software sales. 1st thing Avid should do is make HD software purchasable separately - fill the hole left by the lack of toolkits, and sell a bucket load of software...
Old 2nd March 2014
  #172
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
So then you understand all the nuanced benefits this software provides us and how that level of support has a $ amount attached to it.
I understand the benefits of this software, yes. (And not just in Post).

As for the level of support having a price, sure, but you have to pay for support (even though most other DAWs have free support) so that shouldn't affect the sales price of the software.

Anyway, where did I complain about the price of the software? I have been criticizing the price and feature set of the hardware! The hardware price isn't competitive. I have also been criticizing the crippling of the software. And the insistence by Avid that you have to buy the hardware to be able to use the HD software Etc... I have explained all this so many times even in this thread...

Alistair
Old 2nd March 2014
  #173
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
It is amazing how complicated Avid make it to buy PT HD without the hardware. But it is possible. I have PT HD 10/11 without any Avid hardware.
Not being cute, but I honestly had no idea you could run HD without at least *some* kind of HD specific hardware, and I've been using PT since version 6. Can you explain further? You've got me interested.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #174
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The closed system has a lot to recommend it. We're seeing it with "The Pro Tools PC", we see it with digital desks and so on.
Yes indeed but IMO it should be One of the options available, a customer choice.

Talking about the Pro Tools PC, that could have been another avenue to replace TDM: A turnkey PC solution enhanced with something equivalent to Merging's MassCore technology. That is a scalable solution that grows with the advances in CPU technology. Leave the hardware "DSP" R&D and development costs to a company like Intel that have gigantic pockets and benefit from economies of scale. (Much more so than Texas Instruments and that is without considering all the hardware development costs for the HDX system outside of the actual DSP chips from TI). Then Avid would only have to focus on the software side of things (something they already have to do anyway) and the actual I/O interfaces. Also due to it using the exact same CPU as native versions of plugins, albeit without the Os in the way, it should make development and porting costs lower for developers. Win win for everyone.

Maybe Avid considered this but somehow I doubt it.

Quote:
I'm with you on the lack of HD software sales. 1st thing Avid should do is make HD software purchasable separately - fill the hole left by the lack of toolkits, and sell a bucket load of software...


Alistair
Old 2nd March 2014
  #175
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
Not being cute, but I honestly had no idea you could run HD without at least *some* kind of HD specific hardware, and I've been using PT since version 6. Can you explain further? You've got me interested.
The HD software has been able to run without any Avid hardware since version 9 I believe.

On the license side, you have to find a supplier than can sell you a PT 10 or earlier CPTK license and then upgrade that license to an HD license and then upgrade that to PT 11 HD.

Alistair
1
Share
Old 2nd March 2014
  #176
Lives for gear
 

I sure hope that this does not come across as overly cynical.
But what happens to Avid development if the Ukrainian crisis escalates in a really bad way?

The outlook for the future looks pretty rough right now with Russia practically invading Crimea. There does not seem to be a strong stable leadership in Kiev at this time either.
If it doesn't calm down it could turn into a war.

I'm guessing some of the programmers will have other priorities right now, and if it turns worse then what?

Outsourcing can have its own issues for sure.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #177
Lives for gear
I'm running an HD rig with 10 year old technology and the native Logic kids who come to the studio are STILL to this day dumbfounded by what I can do with it. It's the brains of the entire recording studio. You just cannot build a real recording studio on a native platform without all kinds of other outboard gear and an impeded workflow. Sure it sucks that HDX stuff is expensive, but if you know why you need it, you understand that it's worth it. In fact as far as I am concerned Avid's only real competition is their last generation of hardware. Native is just not the same thing as Avid's DSP-based mix engines. I would rather run a 10-year old HD system than a native system of today.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #178
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
I'm running an HD rig with 10 year old technology and the native Logic kids who come to the studio are STILL to this day dumbfounded by what I can do with it. It's the brains of the entire recording studio. You just cannot build a real recording studio on a native platform without all kinds of other outboard gear and an impeded workflow. Sure it sucks that HDX stuff is expensive, but if you know why you need it, you understand that it's worth it. In fact as far as I am concerned Avid's only real competition is their last generation of hardware. Native is just not the same thing as Avid's DSP-based mix engines. I would rather run a 10-year old HD system than a native system of today.
Agreed 100%.
Old 2nd March 2014
  #179
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I'm with you on the lack of HD software sales. 1st thing Avid should do is make HD software purchasable separately - fill the hole left by the lack of toolkits, and sell a bucket load of software...
For instance, I would upgrade my Pro Tools and maybe actually use it if it actually did more than what my other, cheaper softwares do. There's some cool things about Pro Tools HD, but I can't buy it, and the other stuff is still crippleware.
Old 3rd March 2014
  #180
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
And the same can be done digitally. Personally I think the best approach would be to have a digital mixer with EQ, dynamics, saturation, reverb, echo etc inside the interface (like TotalMix) that is fully controlled from the DAW and the rest all runs natively.
This is what HDX does - running 256 tracks (for each DSP card) with a mixer and DSP that's 100% hardware based leaving 100% of the host CPU for native plug-in processing rather than tracks and mixer DSP eating up your host CPU in native based system.
Then pile on 64 I/O channels for each card again not eating up any of your host CPU.
A fully scalable system based on your I/O-Voice Count-DSP needs.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump