Quick question for ProToolsHD users.

[Mikaël-ange]

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)

In a perfect world yes...
You do some overdub with your low tracks count project, no or minimum plugins... Everything running fine at 32samples.
Now try to do some overdub on a 80+ tracks, with tons of plugins with PT HD native at 32samples. You see the point?
All report I read from various HD native user's converge to the same point: HD native is awesome for mixing but just PITA for massive projects recording/overdubing on the fly.
Most peoples here don't work like this but big budget/talent do.

 

[crillemannen]

In a perfect world yes...
You do some overdub with your low tracks count project, no or minimum plugins... Everything running fine at 32samples.
Now try to do some overdub on a 80+ tracks, with tons of plugins with PT HD native at 32samples. You see the point?
All report I read from various HD native user's converge to the same point: HD native is awesome for mixing but just PITA for massive projects recording/overdubing on the fly.
Most peoples here don't work like this but big budget/talent do.

Well i posted because he thought 128 samples is hearable which it isn't.


I agree with you and that is why PT HD will survive just for the post/film mix recordings who need latency free sessions with huge track counts.

I usually export a stereo stem if i need to do overdubs when the mix is done or use the unmixed PTF file and then use import session data.

 

[egan.]

So let's start:



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




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

There is some misinformation in your post.

Firstly, he didn't ask if he could run HD without an interface. He asked if he could use an HD interface integrated with a non-HD system.

Secondly, you only need 3 192's (not 6) to do 48 i/o. Why would you but twice as many instead of buying the expansion cards? You'd be spending an extra $9k(us) for presumably no reason.

On the other hand you make a good point that the DeltaLink (or HD-MADI) become more cost effective the more you expand your MADI system.

 

[Mikaël-ange]

There is some misinformation in your post.

Firstly, he didn't ask if he could run HD without an interface. He asked if he could use an HD interface integrated with a non-HD system.

I just wanted to say everything work together. You need the core card and converter (and a valid digilink) for run HD. So my 2 unexpected reply answered everything...

Secondly, you only need 3 192's (not 6) to do 48 i/o. Why would you but twice as many instead of buying the expansion cards? You'd be spending an extra $9k(us) for presumably no reason.

On the other hand you make a good point that the DeltaLink (or HD-MADI) become more cost effective the more you expand your MADI system.

I just wanted to keep it simple and I didn't mention AES/EBU I/O for all converter solution. You probably can run 48 I/O analog with 3 Digi192 and analog extension card.
Was just for prove a fact: SSL alphalink is cheaper

 

[::XeS::]

C'mon....I can hear perfectly 128 sample of latency...if I use togheter PT software monitoring and the interface direct monitoring, the delay is clearly noticeable...and the playing with a zero latency is way more accurate. Said that, there are instruments where this is more noticeable and others where you are fine.
Of course you work with a 003 and it means that you can use low latency mode in PT and it's like a direct monitoring. But I said that with PT9 if you don't have an avid interface you can forget the "low latency mode" and if you want (because you need it) a zero latency mode, you have to mute and unmute the tracks and use the interface mixer to monitor.

 

[::XeS::]

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)

C'mon....I can hear perfectly 128 sample of latency...if I use togheter PT software monitoring and the interface direct monitoring, the delay is clearly noticeable...and the playing with a zero latency is way more accurate. Said that, there are instruments where this is more noticeable and others where you are fine.
With an Alphalink probably you can go down at 32samples and it's pretty fine (of course I will not hear 32 samples) but I wanna say that with some interfaces like the profire 2626 PT goes down only at 128...and it crackles and produce noise also with a MacPro.
Personally a 128samples latency let me play less accurate than a zero latency. Period. And the same thing happened with some client.
Of course you work with a 003 and it means that you can use low latency mode in PT and it's like a direct monitoring, so you don't hear latency at 128. But I said that with PT9 if you don't have an avid interface you can forget the "low latency mode" and if you want (because you need it) a zero latency mode, you have to mute and unmute the tracks and use the interface mixer to monitor. And it's annoying.

And sorry man, but if I say that I hear 128 samples latency it's true. Of course it's not like 1024 latency but the playing is sloppy at 128. If you can't hear it (without low latency monitoring activated) it's you problem, not mine. No offense

 

[crillemannen]

Haha ok man I don't think i hear 128latency although i never did a commited test. For instance, recording a guitarist he often switch from being late to being before the actual note so then i guess it don't make that much difference at 128, of course if you go with higher latency. I record at 64samples as often as possible, and that is what?? 1,5ms? So i just don't see that is a problem, which some people keep raving about (Gearslutz anyone) like "OMG it can't go lower then 64 samples, then it is useless" haha C'mon man!!!

No offense always nice to have a discussion

 

[::XeS::]

I know it's a very low latency but when I use the 2 monitoring togheter, it's pretty hearable. Anyway, the worst cons is that with the very low latency sometimes the system produces some clicks and pops, some crackles...and I don't like it at all...you don't know if it's the interface, the firewire or something else...expecially now that you can use PT9 with every interface.

 

[crillemannen]

I never experienced any pops or cracks but i did with my old computer. PT stopped recording giving me the increase your buffer size error message on occasions but not with my quad core. I believe that is your computer probably that can't handle the audio writing? I also clock my 003 with my Spider, if i dont, i get clicks and pops all the time.

 

[::XeS::]

You said nothing Spider kicks some major ass...and I have a quad core too.

 

[Mikaël-ange]

Xeon quad core too... Run 64 samples buffer with no crack/pop all the time

 

[::XeS::]

I'm an unlucky guy
About the HD Native I've read it can handle a zero latency monitoring also with a very big session full of plugins and with HD Video processing. It's not that bad

 

[Mikaël-ange]

@Michele: my post had something ironic on it since I'm now on HD TDM camp

 

[::XeS::]

Ahah...now I get it

 

[C_F_H_13]

And sorry man, but if I say that I hear 128 samples latency it's true. Of course it's not like 1024 latency but the playing is sloppy at 128. If you can't hear it (without low latency monitoring activated) it's you problem, not mine. No offense

If you're recording at 44.1k, 128 samples is about 2.9ms of delay, which is roughly the difference of being 3 extra feet from your monitors. You're saying you hear a clearly audible difference if you stand in front of your speakers, then back up three feet?

Not trying to be a dick, just more curious then anything.

 

[::XeS::]

In my system 128 samples is = 4,3ms.
As I said, if I monitor with direct monitor and software monitor togheter, I hear clearly a delay. I did some test and I clearly play better with a zero delay monitor than with 128 samples, probably because I try costantly to compensate that little delay. Maybe at 64 it's way better but PT let me go down only at 128 (Reaper can go down at 32).

 

[::XeS::]

You know what? HD Native seems a big flop actually...I often search some info or some impressions about HD Native but it seems that no one is using it. All the threads are from november 2010 when it came out and all the info are suppositions etc...Don't know

 

[crillemannen]

You know what? HD Native seems a big flop actually...I often search some info or some impressions about HD Native but it seems that no one is using it. All the threads are from november 2010 when it came out and all the info are suppositions etc...Don't know

Well the thing is that PT HD is only attractive to those who want more then 32 i/o which is what PT Native can offer. And if you're in that league, wanting more i/o you probably have the money for PT HD anyways so.. Kind of a strange step for Avid to make, not giving anymore then more I/O for that amount of money, ok you can use D-command series whatever but then again if i would spend that kind of money i would go HD anyway

 

[DigitalMetal]

A little clarity here, as what im reading seems like some people are a little confused
(sorry if its not the case but thats how im reading it).

Firstly there are 3 configurations of ProTools 9

1)Pro Tools 9
(this will run on any decent soundcard via ASIO or Mac's Equivalent i forget the name)

2)Protools 9 HD Native
(this is Protools HD full software functionality without DSP for TDM plugins, It uses an Avid Protools Native Core Card and a 192io/96io or one of the newer interfaces, the core card offers incredibly low latency for tracking and editing purposed but no DSP power)

3)Protools 9 HD TDM
(The traditional full on all bells and whistles HD system with TDM plugins & Interfaces)

Secondly i believe some people are confusing PTHD9 Native with PT9 ASIO/Any_interface_you_like version (because that what we traditionally call Native)

Its Avids fault for not naming them properly but maybe this is by design.

And thirdly i believe many people are missing the point of Protools Native
"There is no TDM DSP chips so why the huge rip off on this native card?"

This card is for big studios that already have multiple HD Rigs maybe one for mixing and one for tracking or editing.

You dont need DSP plugins for tracking/editing but you do need low latency (as has been discussed in this thread) so the idea of the native core was so that these studios can move their DSP cards to their other systems to increase their power or sell them off to get a bit of money back and take advantage of the incredibly low latency of the HD native card (lower than any other card on the market apparently).
But still allowing you to run full PT HD interface compatibility etc etc
The card also comes with a copy of PTHD 9 which goes some way to try to justify the price.

Hope that helps clear things up a bit and apologies if you knew all of this already but it didnt look very clear to me.

 

[egan.]

DM, that was a worthwhile breakdown b/c there is obviously some confusion.

I'd add that Pro Tools Native (as in using the HD Native card) "Provides 64 channels of I/O with under 1.6ms latency."
So it isn't 32 as was suggested above.

Still, I don't think the Native cards are selling well b/c they are in competition with the used TDM systems.