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 5th March 2014
  #211
Lives for gear
 

Agreed. The real questions are:

Will it be sold as a whole company? And to who?

Will it be shredded into divisions or even IP property in a bankruptcy process?

Between those scenarios lie a lot of different possibilities that could (likely will) determine whether Pro Tools, itself lives on and what sort of support/upgrades will be coming and at what rate. Same for the video side of things.
1
Share
Old 5th March 2014
  #212
Lives for gear
 
jjdpro's Avatar
 

The Avid saga is just another example of a technology company in a small market that’s based around creative professionals. A company like this has no business being public in the first place as it’s growth will be capped by the market size sooner or later. A public company is more beholden to its stockholders than its customers, especially when things go bad, which is a bad recipe when it comes to the entertainment industry.
5
Share
Old 5th March 2014
  #213
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdpro View Post
The Avid saga is just another example of a technology company in a small market that’s based around creative professionals. A company like this has no business being public in the first place as it’s growth will be capped by the market size sooner or later. A public company is more beholden to its stockholders than its customers, especially when things go bad, which is a bad recipe when it comes to the entertainment industry.
Kinda a Mickey Mouse comment…
2
Share
Old 6th March 2014
  #214
Lives for gear
 
jjdpro's Avatar
 

It was the last paragraph in the Forbes article.. Sorry, I should've referenced the source..


Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy_asakawa View Post
Kinda a Mickey Mouse comment…
Old 6th March 2014
  #215
Lives for gear
 

http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/mark...Technology-Inc


doesn't look too good....

Hope pro tools finds a good home!
Old 7th March 2014
  #216
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr XY View Post
Avid fundamentals and financial ratios analysis|AVID


doesn't look too good....

Hope pro tools finds a good home!
not that your link isn't interesting and has lots of numbers i would never know how to decipher this little bit from the bottom has me laughing:

Quote:
Avid competes with ACTIVISION, SUNGAME, INTL, KONAMI, and GIANT.
Old 7th March 2014
  #217
Lives for gear
 
brockorama's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjdpro View Post
It was the last paragraph in the Forbes article.. Sorry, I should've referenced the source..

think he meant the avatar...its all a bit goofy really....
1
Share
Old 10th March 2014
  #218
Lives for gear
 
Benprogfuse's Avatar
-I imaged 3-4 years ago that Avid would build interfaces similar to the Universal Apollo and run the TDM or now AAX plugins on them using the interface's DSP. They would then allow other manufacturer’s plugins to run on them, like WAVES.

-Then you could purchase multiple interface’s and stack them together for more I/0 and DSP channels/instances, etc.
- This would then entice people to want to purchase Avid interfaces/hardware over other manufacturer's.

-Latency may not be as good, but maybe this wouldn't be an issue with Thunderbolt?
Old 10th March 2014
  #219
Moderator
 
matt thomas's Avatar
I haven't read the whole thread, so I imagine this has been mentioned elsewhere

People here seem to think that Avid is in a bad way because of Pro Tools.

From what I have read (which I admit isn't much), Pro Tools is the good part of their business, and it is the other parts that are going badly. Avid is a lot more than just Pro Tools.

matt
Old 10th March 2014
  #220
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt thomas View Post
I haven't read the whole thread, so I imagine this has been mentioned elsewhere

People here seem to think that Avid is in a bad way because of Pro Tools.

From what I have read (which I admit isn't much), Pro Tools is the good part of their business, and it is the other parts that are going badly. Avid is a lot more than just Pro Tools.

matt
The last financials we've seen (which are back in 2012) show that audio is about half their revenue, video the other half...

In terms of that split, Pro Tools is only part of the audio side - the live console stuff is another part...
Old 11th March 2014
  #221
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
No it isn't. Maybe you didn't understand my explanation.



This is not true. Shuttling data from RAM to the DSP cards and back (or the other way round) costs CPU. The lower the latency, the more CPU it costs.



Not as scalable as any native DAW with unrestricted track and I/O count. Of course if you need the low latency to do live monitoring of large projects, HDX is a good solution.

Alistair
Ok 92% of your CPU is free for plugs when you running 512 tracks in Pro Tools
sorry but the voice & Mixer DSP is hardware based in HDX it is not host CPU based.
FWIW a regular 100 track session needs about 3% CPU
Old 11th March 2014
  #222
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
Ok 92% of your CPU is free for plugs when you running 512 tracks in Pro Tools
sorry but the voice & Mixer DSP is hardware based in HDX it is not host CPU based.
FWIW a regular 100 track session needs about 3% CPU
]
Well you do need a HDX2 to run 512 tracks right?
Old 11th March 2014
  #223
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
Ok 92% of your CPU is free for plugs when you running 512 tracks in Pro Tools
sorry but the voice & Mixer DSP is hardware based in HDX it is not host CPU based.
FWIW a regular 100 track session needs about 3% CPU
First that image says 8% CPU. Secondly, that is a lot!

Here is Cubase playing 100 stereo tracks using 1% CPU:




Anyway, how about you compare this: Insert AAX native plugins on each of those 100 tracks and see what the CPU load is. Then insert an AAX-DSP plugin before each of the native plugins to force the audio to go back and forth between the CPU and the HDX card and compare the CPU usage. According to you there should only be 8% difference for 512 tracks (although we already know it is 8% for 100 tracks without plugins. Not a good start). Let's see what happens in a real test.

Alistair
Old 11th March 2014
  #224
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikG View Post
Well you do need a HDX2 to run 512 tracks right?
256 tracks per HDX card @ 44.1/48
512 = 2 cards, 768 = 3 cards.
Old 11th March 2014
  #225
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
First that image says 8% CPU. Secondly, that is a lot!

Here is Cubase playing 100 stereo tracks using 1% CPU:
So you can't get Cubase to 512 tracks?
1
Share
Old 11th March 2014
  #226
And another thread circles the drain
4
Share
Old 11th March 2014
  #227
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_R_S View Post
So you can't get Cubase to 512 tracks?
Aah that will teach me for posting stuff just after waking up. I read the last line with the "100 tracks". Hence my choice of 100 tracks and my comment about the 8% CPU usage.

Anyway, as you asked, here is Cubase playing 2000 Stereo tracks.



That is already 5 times more than the max any PT rig can handle and there is still plenty of CPU to do many more tracks but why bother? I think the point is more than proven.

It is clear some people have no idea what is possible with a good native rig.

Alistair
2
Share
Old 11th March 2014
  #228
Lives for gear
 
Benprogfuse's Avatar
Sombody should start a "Max Your Rig Out" thread with descriptions and screenshots..
Old 11th March 2014
  #229
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benprogfuse View Post
Sombody should start a "Max Your Rig Out" thread with descriptions and screenshots..
It isn't about maxing out rigs. The point is to dispel myths about what different systems can or can't do (because clearly many people don't know). I'm still curious about the test I proposed to TRS to see how much extra load using native plugins post HDX plugins causes. In the TDM days it was significant. I wonder how PT 11 and HDX fare.

Now if only Avid would remove the limitations in PT (HD), they could actually make it an attractive proposition again on the native side of things. Whatever Avid have been doing, it isn't working. Time to change course.

Alistair
2
Share
Old 11th March 2014
  #230
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

That test is not relevant as it is not a real world workflow. If you mix native and dsp plugins on a track you go native first followed by dsp, not the other way around.

I can test it for you if you're dying to know but it has zero relevance for anything out in the real world.
Old 12th March 2014
  #231
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
That test is not relevant as it is not a real world workflow. If you mix native and dsp plugins on a track you go native first followed by dsp, not the other way around.
I don't know about you but I decide the order of plugins based on what they do and how the order will affect the sound not which format they are in. Unfortunately not all plugins are available in DSP version which means very often that AAX native plugins will end up after AAX DSP plugins (or alternatively you forgo a DSP plugin for a native plugin but this is still a work around). Certainly in the case of many of the studios I work at that rely heavily on Waves bundles.

That is the real world.

And having to think about the format/order or plugins isn't exactly the "you don't need to think about it" argument that many present in favor of HDX systems. Ironically the only rigs on which I never have to think about these things are fully native rigs.

Quote:
I can test it for you
Please do. Thanks!

Alistair
Old 12th March 2014
  #232
Lives for gear
 

There ARE actual real world implications. At least for me. I would love to see the results of these tests, as I am in a holding pattern on new Avid upgrades until the dust clears a little.

Anything that points me toward a viable longer term future alternative is well worth it. And to any that do undertake any testing, and those who have already posted initially, my thanks. My head spins when trying to decide what to do if/when Avid finally spins out of control and is sold or chop-shopped into IP in a court proceeding.
Old 13th March 2014
  #233
Lives for gear
 
jjdpro's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

Amen!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
It isn't about maxing out rigs. The point is to dispel myths about what different systems can or can't do (because clearly many people don't know). I'm still curious about the test I proposed to TRS to see how much extra load using native plugins post HDX plugins causes. In the TDM days it was significant. I wonder how PT 11 and HDX fare.

Now if only Avid would remove the limitations in PT (HD), they could actually make it an attractive proposition again on the native side of things. Whatever Avid have been doing, it isn't working. Time to change course.

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #234
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Aah that will teach me for posting stuff just after waking up. I read the last line with the "100 tracks". Hence my choice of 100 tracks and my comment about the 8% CPU usage.

Anyway, as you asked, here is Cubase playing 2000 Stereo tracks.



That is already 5 times more than the max any PT rig can handle and there is still plenty of CPU to do many more tracks but why bother? I think the point is more than proven.

It is clear some people have no idea what is possible with a good native rig.

Alistair
thats 550MB in transfer rates by my math? You running your session on a SSD? Are you actually running this or did you make a bunch of tracks and take a screen shot?

2 channels (stereo) of [email protected]=281.25KB per second x2000 = 549MB

550MB/s is a lot of data. Im having trouble finding a SSD that can do that data rate in the real world:

Old 14th March 2014
  #235
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Yes you would need to be using a pci SSD to get anything over 500MB/s

Fusion-io ioDrive Octal | SolidStateWorks.com


^^^ makes protools hdx3 look like chump change.
Old 14th March 2014
  #236
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
Are you actually running this or did you make a bunch of tracks and take a screen shot?
This is actually running. 2000 stereo tracks playing at the same time. Not a problem at all. Anyone on Cubase with a fast enough system can try this themselves.

Quote:
2 channels (stereo) of [email protected]=281.25KB per second x2000 = 549MB

550MB/s is a lot of data. Im having trouble finding a SSD that can do that data rate in the real world:
It would actually be 336,4 MB/s (These are just tracks dragged in from my music collection so they are 44.1Khz / 16 bit ). That lies within the specs of my SSD project drive.

Anyway, it was a test of Cubase not my disk system so just like TRS I duplicated tracks. Although I suspect I am using more original tracks than TRS. In his picture I only see one stereo file (loaded into two mono L/R tracks) duplicated. Of course the rest could be outside the picture.

Also, if I needed the speed to run more than 2000 individual stereo tracks I wouldn't get a Fusion I/O Drive. I would just get a few "cheap" SSDs and RAID them.

Does it really bother you so much that Cubase can do many more tracks that PT?

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #237
Lives for gear
 

You can get 800-900 MB/s transfer speed with PCIe SSD which is basically 2 or 4 raided SSD's with a better controller on a card that uses a better bandwidth highway (deals on these are $1 per gig cost), or close to that speed with 3 or 4 standard raided SATA SSD's (striped, not mirrored)(deals on these are $.50 per gig cost).

The jury is still out on longevity of using SSD for project drive function (use backup regardless). No one is going to be making 2000 track songs, however it does show what a cheap native DAW rig is capable of nowdays.
Old 14th March 2014
  #238
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

Ok, here's a quick HDX test as requested by Undertow. I am a little surprised by the outcome but leave it up to someone more intelligent to determine

What I did: created a session with 110 mono tracks (all playing audio) and on every track there is 2 instances of the Avid Channel strip.

Screenshot 1: All plugins are dsp, CPU meter shows 2%

Screenshot 2: On all channels the first plugin is native, followed by dsp. CPU meter shows 11%

Screenshot 3: On all channels the first plugin is dsp, followed by native. (this is the scenario that should be causing an extra hit on the CPU due to extra data-shuffling). CPU shows 10%

EDIT: Just noticed that there is a voice-penalty in scenario 3: dsp followed by native: it says 156 voices used instead of 110.


This is with the buffer on 256 samples, computer is a 2009 MacPro 4,1. PTHD 11.1.2 / OS 10.9.1.

So this very unscientific test might at least indicate that the CPU hit does not seem to change all that radically depending on the order of native/dsp plugins.

Thoughts?
Attached Thumbnails
Avid circles the drain-hdx-dsp-dsp.jpg   Avid circles the drain-hdx-native-dsp.jpg   Avid circles the drain-hdx-dsp-native.jpg  
Old 14th March 2014
  #239
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
You can get 800-900 MB/s transfer speed with PCIe SSD which is basically 2 or 4 raided SSD's with a better controller on a card that uses a better bandwidth highway (deals on these are $1 per gig cost), or close to that speed with 3 or 4 standard raided SATA SSD's (striped, not mirrored)(deals on these are $.50 per gig cost).

The jury is still out on longevity of using SSD for project drive function (use backup regardless). No one is going to be making 2000 track songs, however it does show what a cheap native DAW rig is capable of nowdays.
I would love to have one for my project drive. I'm using the 10k wd raptor for my project disk now because 1tb is $300 instead of $700. I dont think any pci-e ssd is less then $1500 for small space.
Old 14th March 2014
  #240
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
This is actually running. 2000 tracks playing at the same time. Not a problem at all. Anyone on Cubase with a fast enough system can try this themselves.



It would actually be 336,4 MB/s (These are just tracks dragged in from my music collection so they are 44.1Khz / 16 bit ). That lies within the specs of my SSD project drive.

Anyway, it was a test of Cubase not my disk system so just like TRS I duplicated tracks. Although I suspect I am using more original tracks than TRS. In his picture I only see one stereo file (loaded into two mono L/R tracks) duplicated. Of course the rest could be outside the picture.

Also, if I needed the speed to run more than 2000 individual stereo tracks I wouldn't get a Fusion I/O Drive. I would just get a few "cheap" SSDs and RAID them.

Does it really bother you so much that Cubase can do many more tracks that PT?

Alistair
It doesnt bother me. The track count you showed tickled my nerd brain and I had to figure it out. We can run 1000 tracks in protools as well its called 10 protools rigs synced together running into a Harrison

Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump