Quick question for ProToolsHD users.

[tempe]

I'm looking at eventually making the move to PTHD in whatever form it is in once I can afford / justify it. I was curious though, is it possible to use the converter without a HD card an using its IO to connect to another interface for use with PT9. I basically want to smooth out the expense of the upgrade process and figured having an awesome new converter for a while with the option of upgrading to PTHD later would be great!

I've searched around online for an answer and no such luck!

 

[egan.]

I'd consider getting something more flexible that offers the option of an HD output card but also offers the flexibility you want now. Check out the lynx aurora and the old apogee AD-16 stuff. You could also go with the PT HD native card but I think the converters I mentioned before will be more cost effective in a growing system.

 

[crillemannen]

SSL alphalink seems to be the best affordable interface. 24 I/O, cheaper then the Aurora 16 and from what i've read it is as good or better as the aurora.

 

[egan.]

Does SSL make a PT HD compatible card crillemannen? My reco's were with the understanding that he wants to get converters now that will ultimately fully integrate with an HD rig-- not just converters.

 

[crillemannen]

Yeah i belive SSL is fully PT HD compatible

 

[AHChris]

Yeah with this box it´s fully compatible

http://www.thomann.de/de/ssl_x_logic_deltalink_eu.htm

 

[::XeS::]

If you wanna use the alphalink with PTHD you need also a deltalink...it means that you spend 5000€ + the cost of an HD system (192/96, core card and accell card). Not the best way to smooth out the expense in my opinion.
If you wanna use PTHD you need at least 1 core card and a 96 interface. This way you have an HD1 system. If you need more tracks/voices you have to add an Accell card. If you wanna use an external converter you have to add the cost because with PTHD some components are not interchangeable.

 

[tempe]

Oh just to clear things up, I would most likely be going HD native, unless AVID release a upgraded TDM system that is just to amazing not to pass up. The only reason I am considering the move is that even working on between one and two projects a month, I'm really starting to feel the pressure of deadlines. I would love to able to mix as I track, and be able to track on a busy session with a half finished mix and not worry about latency. I'm still a fair while away from needing the large amount of I/O that I would get with HD, but it would be nice to have the option to expand.

 

[tempe]

Also I really like the look of the Deltalink solution for when I want to move to HD, that way AviDigi only gets my hard earned money for the fucking card!

 

[::XeS::]

I would prefer to buy a used HD system than a new Native HD. At least I've not read entusiastic opinions about it yet. My main concern about it is the latency

 

[egan.]

Honestly I just spec'd a PT9 system and went with the Apogee Symphony. If you don't want TDM processing etc. it's hard to justify getting locked into the "HD Native" thing.
I think the SSL Alpha + One of their MADI cards would also be a worthwhile option.

All of that said, an Aurora with an HD card is a lot cheaper than an Alpha+Delta system and is a pretty vetted directed substitute for the Digi192 (Protools "sees" it as a 192) if you really want to one go the HD Native route.

Edit: Just for the record, I think it's misleading to say that the Alpha is compatible with PTHD b/c you can buy a Delta to go with it. I just looked it up and the Delta is going for $3900us most places! By that rationale you could say anything is compatible if you just buy an HD i/o ($2500 for 16x16 digital). I realize that the Delta is far more powerful, but I still think this illustrates how the logic is flawed.

 

[::XeS::]

The problem with a native solution is the latency.... In my opion is ridicolous pretending that a musician have to play perfectly in time with the click when you record him with 128 samples of latency...the 2 things can't work together.
With a native HD it seems you can go down with latency like an HD system.
The SSL way is not that bad but it's the same problem: PT let you use the low latency monitoring ONLY with Avid interfaces so if you wanna record with zero latency you have to MUTE the tracks everytime and monitor with the interface panel... and let me say it's very very annoying.

 

[tempe]

Yeah I'm starting to think I just need to man up and go the Avid route, as my only concern is the latency and being able to rough mix and track simultaneously. I don't think I'm going to purchase a TDM system just yet, I think in the next 12 months or so its going to get a major overhaul. It would be nice if I could get a 192 and use the conversion via ADAT in the meanwhile though!

 

[egan.]

It would be nice if I could get a 192 and use the conversion via ADAT in the meanwhile though!

I feel like a broken record, but that is exactly how the Aurora can function. You can buy a FW, ADAT or HD card for it. With the HD card it functions exactly like a 192 (or HD i/o) in a PTHD system. It's true that each of those cards is sold separately, but if you buy the Aurora 16-HD the HD card is preinstalled and you can buy the ADAT card for around $200 (and swap them out until you are ready for the HD move). So you would have the option of 16 analog i/o with either HD or ADAT connectivity for $1500 less than Avid's HD i/o with the same number of converters.

 

[::XeS::]

Yeah the Aurora can do it, but you still need an HD Core card + (eventually) an Accell card.
It's only a good 192 substitute

 

[tempe]

Thanks guys, sorry its a bit confusing when you enter into this realm for the first time! Thanks for all your help!

 

[Mikaël-ange]

Sorry to post on your thread (I'm like the thread broker, each time I post on a thread, nobody will post ever again on it) but let's give some advices/POW as new PTHD user's.

So let's start:

I was curious though, is it possible to use the converter without a HD card an using its IO to connect to another interface for use with PT9.

PTHD can't be instaled without a HD core card.
PTHD didn't open without AD/DA converter connected and powered.

SSL alphalink seems to be the best affordable interface. 24 I/O, cheaper then the Aurora 16 and from what i've read it is as good or better as the aurora.

If you wanna use the alphalink with PTHD you need also a deltalink...it means that you spend 5000€ + the cost of an HD system (192/96, core card and accell card). Not the best way to smooth out the expense in my opinion.

You are both right but let's do some math for see why an SSL alphalink is cheaper:

First you need to understand this: Alphalink was designed for highend studio, with big console to interact with.

So standard need are 48I/O analog.

You can get this with:
2 alphalink with deltalink= 7521 euros
6 digi 192 (without AD/DA extension card)=16664 euros
3 aurora 16 with LTHD card=9003 euros
6 Mytek 192 with HD dio=21288

Now let compare deltalink vs LTHD card for the same configuration:
Deltalink=2855 euros
LTHD=1029 euros
HD dio=3894

Off course all price are brand new

 

[DigitalMetal]

The second hand market is looking great right now for anyone looking to et into HD,
Im considering getting together a used HD sytem again after selling mine last year.
You can pick up a used:
192io for around £600 - £800
96io for around £400-£600
A PCI core for around £700
PCI Accel cards for aroung £500

PCIe stuff is still a fractio more expensive.

As a PC user im lucky in the fact that there are still plenty of PCI motherboards being produced most have 2 slots but some have 3.
I already still own a Magma P7R4 PCI expansion chassis i could use up to 7 cards in.

Im kinda missing using my TDM plugins and would like VCA faders to use, could just get the CPTK but HD is an option,

Doubt il do it anytime soon, i also want a C24 so that might take preference.

 

[tempe]

I really think I'm just going to sit on this for a bit, as I have a feeling Avids going to do something very interesting to HD soon, perhaps something with thunderbolt connectivity. I'd hate to buy into a TDM system and spend a lot of money only to have the week later AVID bring out a new system. Thanks for all your help though guys! I'm thinking of going the Alpha / Delta link route the only issue is the low latency monitoring...

 

[crillemannen]

The problem with a native solution is the latency.... In my opion is ridicolous pretending that a musician have to play perfectly in time with the click when you record him with 128 samples of latency...the 2 things can't work together.
With a native HD it seems you can go down with latency like an HD system.
The SSL way is not that bad but it's the same problem: PT let you use the low latency monitoring ONLY with Avid interfaces so if you wanna record with zero latency you have to MUTE the tracks everytime and monitor with the interface panel... and let me say it's very very annoying.

I'd say that is bullshit. So you claim to hear 128ssamples of latency?? Don't think so. Even so, you can go down to 32samples with the alphalink and if you can hear that then you are full of shit (no offense man)