What interface are you going to move to for Pro Tools 9?

[DigitalMetal]

Anyone of you know if the native HD supports only Avid's interfaces? Or can we connect other interfaces to it without problems? Because if it works also with 3rd part interfaces (like apogee, etc...) we can get the best of both world...zero latency and a very good interface, without spending 15k for an HD system.

In the simplest terms,

PT9HD means you need an Avid card - either Native card or HD Core

PT9 means you dont

As far as the interfaces connected to Avid cards go any of the ones on that market that spoof being a 192 (Prism, Apogee etc etc) should still work as they always have.

 

[::XeS::]

Native HD requires the HD Native card. Pro Tools 9 with the CPTK2 is essentially the same thing, and it doesn't require Avid hardware. This question, amongst many others, has been answered several times already. Please check the Pro Tools 9 thread, Avid Website and this feature chart for the basics: http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/Pro-Tools/compare

I know you need a native card pcie but HD Native and PT9 with CPTK2 are not the same thing.
The main difference is the zero latency monitoring via DAW...it could be a little thing for many users, but monitoring with 128/64 samples of latency could be a pain in the ass sometimes..
Also if you monitor through the dsp mixer of an interface, it's a limitative solution.

 

[DigitalMetal]

I know you need a native card pcie but HD Native and PT9 with CPTK2 are not the same thing.
The main difference is the zero latency monitoring via DAW...it could be a little thing for many users, but monitoring with 128/64 samples of latency could be a pain in the ass sometimes..
Also if you monitor through the dsp mixer of an interface, it's a limitative solution.

You are getting hardware and software features mixed up,

Low latency monitoring with HD native is a hardware feature of the card,

The software IS the same

 

[::XeS::]

Of course I know...I meant that.
So now, we have to check if Alphalink + mx4 card, can work with near zero latency monitoring. They say the system with MX4 has 4samples of delay (very good), but I don't know if it's related to their dsp mixer or if you can benefit this low latency also into PT.
The problem in my opinion is that you can't go down with that buffer in PT...

 

[DigitalMetal]

Minimum supported buffer size in PT9 with a 3rd party ASIO device is 32 samples,

My MOTU PCIe-424 will allow me to go down to 16 samples but PT9 prompts me to change to a supported buffer size of 32.64.128.256.512.1024 or 2048

So think you would have to use direct monitoring in your soundcard if you want to go lower.

TBH 32 samples is plenty low enough for me to monitor accurately

 

[::XeS::]

Yes 32 samples are good....actually my m-powered doesn't allow me to go below 128 samples.....way too much.

 

[GeertSamuel]

Minimum supported buffer size in PT9 with a 3rd party ASIO device is 32 samples,

My MOTU PCIe-424 will allow me to go down to 16 samples but PT9 prompts me to change to a supported buffer size of 32.64.128.256.512.1024 or 2048

So think you would have to use direct monitoring in your soundcard if you want to go lower.

TBH 32 samples is plenty low enough for me to monitor accurately

From what I seem to read you use the PT9 & Motu combo... and monitoring works fine but..how does the PCIe-424 & 2408 work in combination with PT9...any good?

 

[::XeS::]

But...you know what. Ok 32 samples are good, 16 better....but you're always at risk of cpu overload.
I mean...you're in the middle of a take, a good take, and the system stop for an overload due to the extremely low buffer size....it's not that good (and professional).
This is in my opinion, the big limitation of the native solution for a professional studio.
Of course if the system can handle a extremely low buffer size without stopping here and there.....it's ok

 

[DigitalMetal]

From what I seem to read you use the PT9 & Motu combo... and monitoring works fine but..how does the PCIe-424 & 2408 work in combination with PT9...any good?

Yes very good

But...you know what. Ok 32 samples are good, 16 better....but you're always at risk of cpu overload.
I mean...you're in the middle of a take, a good take, and the system stop for an overload due to the extremely low buffer size....it's not that good (and professional).
This is in my opinion, the big limitation of the native solution for a professional studio.
Of course if the system can handle a extremely low buffer size without stopping here and there.....it's ok

Yes and thats the whole point of PTHD, and a limitation of all other native systems,
If it matters that much to you you need PTHD and there no way around that.
I dont very often run at 32 even, most of the time im at 256 or 512 and never have any problems, but thats me and my work flow,
If you NEED very low latency realtime monitoring and you are afraid of native systems dropping out then go get HD, im not sure what else you want anyone to say

 

[Ermz]

Come on guys, anything below 128 is perfectly fine. I've had guys tracking guitars here at 512 because I left it higher for mixing by accident. Went fine.

 

[DigitalMetal]

Come on guys, anything below 128 is perfectly fine. I've had guys tracking guitars here at 512 because I left it higher for mixing by accident. Went fine.

My point exactly, like i said 256/512 is usually fine for me,
I think ::XeS:: might be getting caught up in numbers rather than whats actually usable.

 

[Ermz]

A buffer of 128 is 3ms at 44.1kHz.

3ms is the time it takes a sound to travel 1 meter under standard conditions. So you're essentially already introducing that amount of latency if the guitarist is sitting at least 1 meter from your monitors.

At a gig or rehearsal where someone may be playing 2 or more meters from their amp, the delay of the sound getting to their ears is ~5ms, which is roughly equivalent to a buffer of 256. Just for perspective on this whole thing.

 

[Seth Munson]

Im always at 512. I hate switching back and forth back and forth.
512 is fine for tracking for me, no one even notices and 512 is fine for me mixing

 

[::XeS::]

At 512 you clearly hear latency...I think it's useless being anal with musicians and click, and record them at 512 (expecially drummers...).
At 128 the delay is barely noticeable, right...but I'm not speaking about numbers and nothing else. If I monitor both with PT at 128 and the dsp mixer, I hear delay.
In my opinion a daw should go at 64, or at least it should give us the possibility to choose.

 

[jeid]

Anyone using any of the Focusrite or Mackie interfaces?

I'm looking for something with better pres than my 002R currently has.

Looking at these

http://www.mackie.com/products/onyxblackbird/

http://www.focusrite.com/products/audio_interfaces/liquid_saffire_56

The Motu 896 is also something I'd consider, anyone with experience with any of these things, I'd like to hear from you. I'd be running my Motu 8Pre alongside whatever other interface I get via ADAT.

 

[AdamWathan]

A buffer of 128 is 3ms at 44.1kHz.

3ms is the time it takes a sound to travel 1 meter under standard conditions. So you're essentially already introducing that amount of latency if the guitarist is sitting at least 1 meter from your monitors.

At a gig or rehearsal where someone may be playing 2 or more meters from their amp, the delay of the sound getting to their ears is ~5ms, which is roughly equivalent to a buffer of 256. Just for perspective on this whole thing.

That might be the reported soundcard latency but the real world round trip latency is higher... There is absolutely no interface out there PCI, FireWire or USB that does less than about 5.5-6ms round trip (which is tiny and insignificant).

A buffer size doesn't automatically equal a certain latency, it really depends on the device and drivers. 256 feels slow on my Profire for example, whereas on an RME interface 256 might be a lot faster

But yeah, 128 is perfectly great, 64 is even better.

 

[AdamWathan]

I really want a Steinberg MR816 CSX. It is sort of a hidden gem out there but apparently is one of the best performing devices with some of the best drivers according to some pro DAW builders I've spoken to.

Actually I still want a FF UFX more.

 

[HeadCrusher]

At a gig or rehearsal where someone may be playing 2 or more meters from their amp, the delay of the sound getting to their ears is ~5ms, which is roughly equivalent to a buffer of 256. Just for perspective on this whole thing.

Anybody who doesn't use in-ears in a setting like this is always off from the rest of the band anyway.

 

[HeadCrusher]

I really want a Steinberg MR816 CSX. It is sort of a hidden gem out there but apparently is one of the best performing devices with some of the best drivers according to some pro DAW builders I've spoken to.

I somehow suspect this to have RME converters maybe even more RME technology in it because they were raving about how good the conversion was on their website when it came out. They even hat sound examples to compare their conversion with that of other devices. Also this devices integrates perfectly into Cubase routing inputs straight to outputs if you set up the sends in Cubase accordingly. This way you don't have to worry about any latency at all. Doesn't help you a whole lot with Pro Tools though. :Spin:

 

[Astrikos]

I really want a Steinberg MR816 CSX. It is sort of a hidden gem out there but apparently is one of the best performing devices with some of the best drivers according to some pro DAW builders I've spoken to.

Actually I still want a FF UFX more.

I wanted to buy an mr816 but after reading the bad comments about the drivers especially in the cubase forums i changed my mind.Also some people complaining about noise in the di.