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 14th March 2014
  #241
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
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
So PT needs 10 rigs to do a quarter of what a single instance of Cubase can do? What is your point?

Anyway, it isn't about the 2000 stereo tracks. I just did that test because TSR asked.

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #242
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
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?
Thanks for running the test!

It seems that PT11/HDX has improved things significantly in this aspect. Of course the Native plugins inserted after the DSP plugins add latency based on the buffer settings so it isn't a panacea but still, much better than I expected based on tests I ran on TDM systems.

This is good news because native plugins post DSP plugins remain active when you record enable tracks. Of course you need to use a lower buffer size for this to be practical...

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #243
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Thanks for running the test!

It seems that PT11/HDX has improved things significantly in this aspect. Of course the Native plugins inserted after the DSP plugins add latency based on the buffer settings so it isn't a panacea but still, much better than I expected based on tests I ran on TDM systems.

This is good news because native plugins post DSP plugins remain active when you record enable tracks. Of course you need to use a lower buffer size for this to be practical...

Alistair
Still no latency compensation in ProTools?
Old 14th March 2014
  #244
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
So PT needs 10 rigs to do a quarter of what a single instance of Cubase can do? What is your point?

Anyway, it isn't about the 2000 stereo tracks. I just did that test because you asked.

Alistair
That was trs that asked. You cant "actually" run that session in cubase without some serious hurdles to overcome.
Old 14th March 2014
  #245
Lives for gear
 

JStorm,

Amazon.com: VisionTek 2-way PCIe SSD 480GB Small form factor - 100K IOPS Solid State Drive (900601): Computers & Accessories

$550 for the 480 Gig capacity ($1.15 per gig) PCIe SSD card. They also sell a 240 Gig capacity card for around $2 per gig (no bargain there as you can get twice the space for about the same money with the 480 gig card), and a 960 Gig capcity card (a hair over $1 per gig). With uncompressed files you are looking at a 600-700 MB/s transfer rate. With compressed files you are looking at their posted 700-800 MB/s transfer rate.

here is a review link (I have no affiliations with products or sites, just listed for help):

VisionTek Data Fusion 480GB PCI-E SSD Review | Overclockers


Given you can afford that room and desk I think you can swing either a SATA SSD raid array or a PCIe SSD card for a project drive should you choose to go native LOL.
Old 14th March 2014
  #246
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalle789 View Post
Still no latency compensation in ProTools?
Of course there is but latency is a problem (in any setup) for tracking when monitoring through plugins or overdubbing.

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #247
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
You cant "actually" run that session in cubase without some serious hurdles to overcome.
What hurdles? Drag tracks into Cubase, (duplicate, ) press play. There are much bigger hurdles in PT to do large track count sessions.

But again, this wasn't about running 2000 stereo track sessions, it was just to show that Cubase can do it as someone seemed to believe Cubase couldn't play back 512 mono tracks.

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #248
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
JStorm,

Amazon.com: VisionTek 2-way PCIe SSD 480GB Small form factor - 100K IOPS Solid State Drive (900601): Computers & Accessories

$550 for the 480 Gig capacity ($1.15 per gig) PCIe SSD card. They also sell a 240 Gig capacity card for around $2 per gig (no bargain there as you can get twice the space for about the same money with the 480 gig card), and a 960 Gig capcity card (a hair over $1 per gig). With uncompressed files you are looking at a 600-700 GB/s transfer rate. With compressed files you are looking at their posted 700-800 GB/s transfer rate.

here is a review link (I have no affiliations with products or sites, just listed for help):

VisionTek Data Fusion 480GB PCI-E SSD Review | Overclockers


Given you can afford that room and desk I think you can swing either a SATA SSD raid array or a PCIe SSD card for a project drive should you choose to go native LOL.
I went native a long time ago. Hd|native card over here. I showed that super expensive one to be as compelling as showing a 2000 stereo track session

also you must mean MB/s transfers. The 100 thousand dollar card I showed has a 6000MB/s transfer rate.
Old 14th March 2014
  #249
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
What hurdles? Drag tracks into Cubase, (duplicate, ) press play. There are much bigger hurdles in PT to do large track count sessions.

But again, this wasn't about running 2000 stereo track sessions, it was just to show that Cubase can do it as someone seemed to believe Cubase couldn't play back 512 mono tracks.

Alistair
350MB/s is a lot of data and you are working at 16bit? I doubt it.
Old 14th March 2014
  #250
Lives for gear
 

Yep, edited a "M" for the "G", thanks for catching that. I think you may get a few more tracks with the card you pointed out for only $99,450 more to shell out LOL.
Old 14th March 2014
  #251
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
350MB/s is a lot of data and you are working at 16bit? I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
But again, this wasn't about running 2000 stereo track sessions, it was just to show that Cubase can do it as someone seemed to believe Cubase couldn't play back 512 mono tracks.
Anyway, however you spin it, there are less hurdles to playing back 2000 stereo tracks in Cubase then there are in Pro Tools.

Alistair
Old 14th March 2014
  #252
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Yep, edited a "M" for the "G", thanks for catching that. I think you may get a few more tracks with the card you pointed out for only $99,450 more to shell out LOL.
I would hope so!
Old 14th March 2014
  #253
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Anyway, however you spin it, there are less hurdles to playing back 2000 stereo tracks in Cubase then there are in Pro Tools.

Alistair
Im spinning it into how one would actually work? ok. You got me. I don't really care about what if scenarios that have no real world applications.
Old 14th March 2014
  #254
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

Techology moves fast and it's really easy to get blinded along the way. I remember my early teens when buying an 8-track tape machine and a smallish mixer cost a small fortune. Adding one reverb and one compressor to the setup was another small fortune. LOL

Regardless of which DAW plays back the highest trackcounts I am still kind of amazed that I can have the functionality of a studio that, back in the day, would have required a 30 feet wide console, a house filled with outboard and a millionaire to pay for it - in a laptop! Still remember the days when a 16-track felt hopelessly out of reach.

Any DAW can play back more tracks than I need but only one allows for the analog-like workflow I'm so used to and that is PT TDM/HDX. So I buy it and use it and I'm very thankful it exists. I also don't think it's all that expensive looking back at the pricetags on studio gear when I started out..
Old 15th March 2014
  #255
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
Any DAW can play back more tracks than I need but only one allows for the analog-like workflow I'm so used to and that is PT TDM/HDX.
PT HD is great at what it does. I have no issue with that and fully understand why people use it. (I use it myself for the things it is good at). My issue is with the way Avid sell PT and the needless limitations they impose.

Quote:
So I buy it and use it and I'm very thankful it exists. I also don't think it's all that expensive looking back at the pricetags on studio gear when I started out..
I understand this but personally I prefer to compare to current technology and current products rather than old technology, products and pricing. I think most people do and that is why Pro Tools is losing overall market share.

Alistair
Old 15th March 2014
  #256
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
PT HD is great at what it does. I have no issue with that and fully understand why people use it. (I use it myself for the things it is good at). My issue is with the way Avid sell PT and the needless limitations they impose.



I understand this but personally I prefer to compare to current technology and current products rather than old technology, products and pricing. I think most people do and that is why Pro Tools is losing overall market share.

Alistair
virtually every bit of commercial software out there has light versions. Even cubase does this. Limitations help sell the more expensive product.
Old 15th March 2014
  #257
Lives for gear
 
gainreduction's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
PT HD is great at what it does. I have no issue with that and fully understand why people use it. (I use it myself for the things it is good at). My issue is with the way Avid sell PT and the needless limitations they impose.



I understand this but personally I prefer to compare to current technology and current products rather than old technology, products and pricing. I think most people do and that is why Pro Tools is losing overall market share.

Alistair
I totally get what you're saying and I agree that Avid's way of running their business is a little interesting at times.

I guess they get away with it as long as there is no comparable product on the market. As far as I know HDX is the only dsp accelerated DAW with total hw/sw integration. The only "system" if you will for better or worse.

While native is very capable and works for many it doesn't for me. So I'm left with one product to choose from and will happily buy it so I can work the way I like to.

But I think it's great that there are a lot of products on the native side that fill the needs of lots of noise-makers out there.
Old 15th March 2014
  #258
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
As far as I know HDX is the only dsp accelerated DAW with total hw/sw integration. The only "system" if you will for better or worse.
There is Fairlight (aimed at the post-production market and soon live sound), Merging Pyramix (aimed at post-production, classical music tracking/mixing/mastering) and SSL Soundscape (aimed at music tracking/mixing). How well any of these might fit anyone's needs is another story of course...

Fairlight are entering the live sound market with their EVO.Live product: FairlightAU

If Avid goes under and PT becomes orphaned I suspect these players will up their game in the music tracking/mixing markets for those that need DSP based systems in the future.

Alistair
Old 15th March 2014
  #259
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
virtually every bit of commercial software out there has light versions. Even cubase does this. Limitations help sell the more expensive product.
Even the flagship PT HD software has track count, I/O and PDC limitations and Avid make it near impossible to buy it without the hardware. Cubase could be considered the light version of Nuendo but has no such limitations.

In theory limitations should encourage people to buy the more expensive versions but that doesn't work when you can't actually buy the flagship version. Especially when the feature set and price of the flagship software+hardware isn't competitive in the market. All it does is encourage people to buy competing products from competing brands.

If Avid had not been making a loss for the last ten years their strategy might be debatable but as they are bleeding money year after year their strategy is clearly not working.

Alistair
Old 15th March 2014
  #260
Moderator
 
matt thomas's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gainreduction View Post
As far as I know HDX is the only dsp accelerated DAW with total hw/sw integration.

I normally use Logic, and I did a session on pro tools HD the other day, it was quite nice to use playlists, and have (virtually) latency free monitoring, without having to worry about it. Also some parts of the audio editing is nice.

But Nuendo kind of has a DSP integrated system, if you use it with RME products it can integrate with their on board DSP for latency free monitor sends within Nuendo (or so I've heard), and you could add a UAD card for DSP effects.

Not the same thing I admit, but it is another interesting option.

I'm surprised no one has come up with a standard protocol for doing this across different DAWs and interfaces.

matt
Old 16th March 2014
  #261
Gear Maniac
 

Digidesign always had a built-in conflict of interest foisted on their customers by creating and maintaining a bright red line between their professional product and their consumer/project/prosumer products. They arbitrarily withheld features from their professional product to create the lite versions. This only ever worked when their professional product was state of the art and so far ahead of the competition that their stripped-down product could compete reasonably well with other DAWs. But that timeframe was tiny. Even the 001 was so artificially handicapped compared to products like Digital Performer that it was a tough sell on the merits, and only did well based on the reputation/prestige of the pro product.

Meanwhile, even the professional product--being built around rapidly dated technology--couldn't keep up with many of the features being implemented on competing DAWs. Crucially IMO, the competition had/has no similar handicap of trying to create two different product levels. If they come up with a great new feature, 100% of their user base is able to enjoy it.

I thought AVID was going in the right direction for a minute with PT Native, and making many features that were standard on every other DAW included with the lower-level product. Competition is fierce and you either step up and play ball or get out of the game. It seemed like they finally realized they needed to get dirty and start competing. I was hopeful they would eventually only have one version of the software.

Then HDX came out and they did the worst possible thing--they retreated back to their old business model by resurrecting the tired conflict of interest, having a very expensive "pro" product and a lesser product with a feature set they deign to dribble out to the unwashed masses--many or most of whom are fully aware they are getting crippleware.

Whatever Avid wants call their non-HD product market, it labels them loudly and clearly by saying "YOUR'E NOT A PROFESSIONAL", and that's a turn-off to many potential customers IMO. The reality is that the lines between professional and semi-pro/project/etc are completely blurred nowadays, and anyone even TRYING to make a living in audio in the current market doesn't want to be considered a "project" studio or "semi-pro". I think it's hard to overstate the importance of this factor on Pro Tools sales. People want to be proud of their purchase, and cats that can't justify HDX cards don't want to be made to feel less professional. It's just off-putting.

The nail in the coffin is surely that the market for the flagship "pro" product is most likely shrinking rapidly.

Before anyone starts basing me as someone who is only complaining b/c they can't afford HD, I've only ever had HD systems. I still think it's lame how Avid creates this awkward situation by trying to divide their customer base and control who can be considered "pro" by charging ridiculous prices for their flagship product as a sort of right-of-entry. To me, it's not a sustainable business model anymore. It's a vestige of Digi's glory days when they really were the only game in town. If they shrink so small that they only cater the highest-end professionals, I think Pro Tools will simply slowly disappear as it gets passed by eventually by companies with deeper pockets and more resources for innovation.

I agree with Alistair that the only reason 99% of the people who get HDX nowadays is for the latency issue. And that's fine. But it shouldn't stop Avid from trying to deliver as much value as possible for users who don't need that functionality--even if that means HDX users have FEWER overall features than native users. Avid have it backwards nowadays because of the power of modern CPUs. HDX should be the sacrifice you make because you need the low latency, with it stated up front that Avid will try to provide all the features it can to that user set, but that it will go full speed ahead with development and implementation of whatever it can dream up with respect to native systems and the software itself.

At least when the original HD/HD Accel systems came out, people needed the DSP to do proper mixing. But like Alistair said, now they're forced to try to induce people who don't otherwise need it at all to purchased a horribly overpriced product they can't afford anyway.
3
Share
Old 16th March 2014
  #262
Gear Maniac
 

deleted duplicate post
Old 16th March 2014
  #263
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Of course there is but latency is a problem (in any setup) for tracking when monitoring through plugins or overdubbing.

Alistair
except that v.11 has a dual buffer so even when I have 10,000 plus samples of delay in the session there zero latency in the monitors.
There are a thousand thread that Avid/Digi is going out of business - simply put Avid has a million registered Pro Tools users that part of the company is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Old 16th March 2014
  #264
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
PT HD is great at what it does. I have no issue with that and fully understand why people use it. (I use it myself for the things it is good at). My issue is with the way Avid sell PT and the needless limitations they impose.



I understand this but personally I prefer to compare to current technology and current products rather than old technology, products and pricing. I think most people do and that is why Pro Tools is losing overall market share.

Alistair
ProTools isn't losing market share where it matters, which is with professional recording facilities. It was a mistake for them to try to market to home users, as these kind of goofy threads clearly show. If you need HDX, you will know you need it. If you don't need it, you should be on cubase or garage band whatever other home user program you want.
Old 16th March 2014
  #265
Lives for gear
As a funny side comment, I had clients in the studio last night who were telling horror stories about the previous studio where they had recorded.... the singer kept talking about how her voice was coming out of her mouth ahead of the music. Hah hah... I knew exactly what had happened to them, and thought of these goofy threads, where some of the people obviously don't understand why low latency is sine qua non in a pro recording environment.
Old 16th March 2014
  #266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
As a funny side comment, I had clients in the studio last night who were telling horror stories about the previous studio where they had recorded.... the singer kept talking about how her voice was coming out of her mouth ahead of the music. Hah hah... I knew exactly what had happened to them, and thought of these goofy threads, where some of the people obviously don't understand why low latency is sine qua non in a pro recording environment.
The sad thing is that there's a whole group of performers who've never had a good headphone mix. Some don't even notice the latency, or don't speak up if they do. But they almost always perform better when it's not there.
Old 16th March 2014
  #267
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
ProTools isn't losing market share where it matters, which is with professional recording facilities. It was a mistake for them to try to market to home users, as these kind of goofy threads clearly show. If you need HDX, you will know you need it. If you don't need it, you should be on cubase or garage band whatever other home user program you want.
It's goofy posts like this that show why so many professional recording studios are circling the drain. There are many professional engineers that mostly mix and don't track enough to warrant HDX systems. That doesn't mean they should be using Cubase.

Also, many (probably most) professional recording studios that already have HD/Accel systems aren't upgrading to HDX. Why would they need to? So while you say Pro Tools isn't losing market share with professional recording facilities, they also aren't selling much to them either. If they were, it would be reflected in their stock performance.

It's annoying when people act like they're such big ballers that buying a new Avid DSP-based DAW is a trivial purchase. I've worked in lots of the best rooms in L.A. and the ones that are still around count every penny and would consider the purchase of any new HDX system a major purchase that they would only make if clients forced them to.

I used to have an HD3 Accel system. I needed the cards for mixing. Now I don't, so I have a Native system. I would have made the switch much sooner than I did, but I couldn't because Avid had to protect their DSP product and didn't come out with a proper native system with a proper software feature set until Pro Tools 11. I've wasted countless hours having to print mix stems in real time all so Avid wouldn't have to upset people who bought the card-based system.

I don't remember the thread but a rep from Avid posted that the chips in the cards already have two years of R&D behind them before they're released. So they're obsolete in a way before they even hit the market. HDX has only been out a little while but I'd bet good money there are already improvements/features they could implement on native systems but not on HDX systems because of the limitations of the card architecture. And vice-verse no doubt.

They need to just make the software be as good as possible on as much hardware as they can, and forget about trying to carve up the market into tranches of pigeonholed users. They need to sell Pro Tools the SOFTWARE on its merits, and stop trying force users who don't need HD to have to pay $$$ for hardware they don't need.
3
Share
Old 16th March 2014
  #268
Gear Maniac
 

Oh yeah, there's one more card Avid could play, the simplest one and the one that IMO would give them the best chance to solve all their problems but hardly ever seems to get mentioned on threads like these -- they could simply charge much much less for the HDX systems. I can't see any reason why an HDX card should cost much more than a reasonably high-end graphics card materials-wise. Maybe $600? Tack on some extra for the specialized R & D. F*ck it, doubt it. Call it $1200. Sounds about right to me.

Would that put them in the black? Dunno. But I do know they would sell many many more units. Studios that are currently using older DSP systems would likely upgrade, they'd sell lots more to project studios, etc. No one likes to deal with latency so anyone doing a decent amount of tracking with a reasonable budget would probably bite. If Avid is slowly going under anyway, seems like the only downside would be pissing some pro users off by give the hoi polloi easier access to the same tools they use. So what. If the ability to purchase a certain piece of gear is the only thing giving you a competitive advantage in the studio biz, you'll be out of business sooner than later anyway.
1
Share
Old 16th March 2014
  #269
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
ProTools isn't losing market share where it matters, which is with professional recording facilities.
Matters to what exactly? Avid is a business, what matters is how to make money.

And they might not be losing _much_ market share but that whole market is shrinking rapidly which has the same net effect on their bottom line. Ignoring this is just ignoring reality.

Quote:
It was a mistake for them to try to market to home users,
It is a continuing mistake of them not to do it properly but you are also ignoring the growing pro market that doesn't need DSP based systems.

Quote:
If you need HDX, you will know you need it. If you don't need it, you should be on cubase or garage band whatever other home user program you want.
This is just plain ignorant. The PT HD software has many strengths that have nothing to do with the HDX hardware.

Alistair
2
Share
Old 16th March 2014
  #270
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

KFunk makes a lot of good points. I think instead of using the word "professional" and using "commercial", many people using PT for commercial work are moving on or not considering it for their future. A lot of the smaller studio's that pop up around here have gone with something else besides PT. A lot of people who make music that is released commercially would never need a HD system for what they do as well, so as Avid keeps changing their business model/philosophy around both the HD and non HD setups, a lot of us are loosing faith. I will likely not ditch PT myself, atleast in the near future but I have decided that until things get sorted out, and not just the immediate issues, I will not upgrade. I have yet to go with another DAW comparable to PT but the reality is that a lot are more appealing, and some are far less that what it would cost me to get to the latest version if I wanted to.

I don't want to say that PT will not survive if they only target the users who are doing something professionally/commercially but it's becoming less and less appealing. I think we have gone well beyond the point where the user thinks "once I open my commercial studio, I am going to get PT HD ASAP".

Some will still argue about DSP but that is going to be less and less of an issue over time. For myself, it's almost a non issue with a 3-4 year old, $600 consumer PC. I still have yet to max my ram out, nor have a switched to an SSD. For my needs, I really am quite surprised how well this works. If I have to, I also have my board setup for latency free monitoring anyway but I normally don't have to deal with this. Even if I didn't already have the equipment, many people could do this for around $150.

IMO, a truly native system that functions as well as anything DSP based is in the near future. Pair that with the fact that the project studio, up to the small professional studio doesn't likely need what HD has to offer, the likely hood of someone feeling the need to transition to that is just going to diminish over time. For me, that isn't a big reason to switch, I like how I can still send my PT files out but once more and more people switch, I will likely switch to what they are using.

I would love it if Avid could try to understand the consumer. That is what will make me stick with them or not. They said they were listening and did some well needed changes. However, I feel in the process, they discluded many loyal customers and many have voice their opinions on that. Again, the did it in a way where many felt taken advantage of, both due to quick decisions that were not made public in a reasonable time frame, and also kind of swapping back to some Digidesign days.
2
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump