HD Native is an audio interface like any other CoreAudio or ASIO interface. And just like most of those interfaces, it has an internal mixer for monitoring purposes. What it does not, is mixing the host application streams on onboard processors like a TDM or Soundscape system.

Hi guys,

It is challenging comparing Pro Tools|HD Native v. TDM systems. On one hand, TDM systems have scalable DSP acceleration that is always in addition to what the fast multi-processors in your CPU give you—so they are more powerful. On the other hand, as was mentioned earlier, there are some limitations with TDM systems that do not affect native systems, like RTAS plugs—including VIs—eating away at playable voices.

So where's the sweet spot? It really depends on what you are doing and how you are doing it. Some of our biggest customers are pushing the limits of multi-card TDM systems and are asking for the next generation of more powerful cards. For this reason, Avid is not abandoning development of accelerated Pro Tools systems. At the same time, we all know that modern CPUs are capable of doing some serious work—lots of processing power, ultra low latency, and tons of I/O with awesome sound quality.

And the performance of Pro Tools|HD Native is undeniable. To try to paint a clearer picture, I took some measurements and pushed the system to it's limits and wanted to share them with you.

Below are two images showing latency measurements using a variety of hardware at 48k and 96k, both at 64 sample buffers. Also below are some max plug-in counts I was able to get at these two sample rates with my Mac Pro 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon (Harpertown).

* One note: the HD measurement was done using an HD I/O, which is about 20% faster than the 192 I/O. Also, mix systems had about a 4 ms throughput latency at 48k—I need to double check that but pretty sure. As you can see, HD Native is capable of the same or better latency than a Mix rig and delivers way more plug-ins than an HD 2, or more.

48k, 64 sample buffer
Dverb: 180
Renaissance Comp: 500+ (60% CPU)
Eleven: 31

96k, 64 sample buffer
Dverb: 48
Renaissance Comp: 240
Eleven: 11

Hi Ray,

The HD Native card plays two important roles: (1.) delivers ultra low throughput latency, (2.) offers a large number of I/O paths. With Pro Tools|HD Native, all the mixing is done by the host processor, unlike with TDM systems where the mixing is done by the DSPs. The HD Native card also handles any direct LLM mixes you create—but as displayed in my post above, you are rarely going to need that with the processing power of a current multi-core plus the low latency performance of HD Native.

Also, while we're at it, let's define our use of mixing here: any process done by the mixer, including levels, pan, solo, mute, plug-ins, etc.

Hope that helps.

Tony

Since the orignal poster is coming from Radar, here are the latency numbers as reported by iZ for reference:

Classic I/O
48k 1.19 ms

Nyquist I/O
48k 1.75 ms
96k 1.33 ms

S-Nyquist I/O
48k 1.75 ms
96k 1.33 ms
192k 1.11 ms

Using Radar as a converter for PT - Topic Powered by Social Strata

A TDM plug in activated in a live tracking situation still add latency to the throughput of the channel. TDM is not magic. For there to be zero latency through a plug-in, you would need a time machine. In most tracking situations (with bands anyway...), there is not a single processing/latency advantage to an HD system over native and the 64 bit resolution at the mixing stage is a tremendous advantage. In my mind, there is only one thing preventing me from upgrading all of my systems: The HD native will only be future proof for another year or so because PCI-E will be replaced by Light Peak technology.

After years of bashing Digidesign/Avid on forums like this one, I have to give them props for doing something extraordinarily well. That being said (despite what the Avid guys just told us) there will not be another hardware co-processing card from Avid to replace the TDM architecture as it would be cost prohibitive compared to what modern host Cpu's are capable of delivering (the only real reason pro tools became dominant to begin with). No one else in the world still manufactures a retail product using these chips (10 years old now?) and higher up's know better than to piss on their customer base all at once. Even if they made something twice as powerful in a single PCI-E slot, it would only appeal to 5% of their customer base and further perpetuate the limitations of the ancient legacy TDM architecture.

In some tracking situations, sure. I certainly agree with your reasoning on TDM plugins and time machines - it's just that the latency issue isn't affected by buffer size, which makes it a lot more reliable.

Don't forget that the DSP cards handle the mix engine too. Which means less strain on the computer, which means the machine's not going to fall over during a take - which, like it or not, happens occasionally with large scale native tracking systems, and whilst you might put up with it in a smaller facility (I certainly would), in a pro level facility with paying clients, that's not acceptable.

It's not the latency for me which makes a TDM system ideal, it's the bulletproofness of the throughput.

... that seems pretty clear!

If you are primarily mixing, HD Native is well worth considering. If you have a heavyweight computer you can get some serious plugin counts and there are a couple of fundamental improvements over TDM:

1. No pausing in playback when instatiating plugins

2. No problems with plugin type ordering or using rtas plugins on auxes in involved processing chains - this is huge!

ADC seems to work in the same way as TDM


If you're working on not too large sessions, native and a current 8 or 12 core is a pretty powerful mixing solution. It's certainly a load cheaper as you'll constantly run out of voices mixing on an HD1 rig...


I've been mixing an album on HD native in our second room. No one died...

Just thought I'd add -

I got my HD Native and HD analog I/O hooked up yesterday - and I'm extremely impressed.

I opened up a few fairly big (60+ audio tracks @ 88.2/24) mixes just to put the system through the paces, and it was very responsive. For me (mostly mixing, tracking limited to bands i.e. max 12-16 tracks at a time), this is the perfect solution.

And, not to hijack the thread, but when I listened to the HD I/O for the first time (coming from a 003R), I involuntarily said "holy $h1t" out loud. Nice job Avid.

Wow, that is a pretty strong statement that TDM is still alive ! Also something new on the horizon !? Great news thumbsup

By the way... still don´t see any reports from guys working Native on 32 samples latency. 64 samples is still not an acceptable monitor latency. 32 is.

Hello there,

Latency with HDNative card an two Lynx Aurora 16's....
Didn't measure it but experienced it as a bassplayer. 64 samples buffersize worked out perfectly well, didn't feel uncomfortable at all. Even the drummer felt totaly comfortable, he's not easy to satisfy but no comments whatsoever.

With a brand new 8-core Macpro recording 10 tracks at once and playing 20 or more is a breeze. The CPU-load is minimal and not s***** at all.
I have to test it but i get the impression that recording with 32 samples buffersize is also possible and reliable.... still have to test it.

That's because you haven't used the Native system with one of their new interfaces. At 128, I couldn't feel any latency, and would have on anything else I've used Native. At 64 it's a no brainer. Not your Father's old native system

TH

Yes. To elaborate, the new Avid interfaces are faster at the same buffer size than other interfaces. 128 is more like 64, etc.

However, Firechild, I'm puzzled by your statement about 64 not being acceptable. I'm on a 003R with an Imac on PT8. 64 works so well for me I don't even bother with 32 because I can hardly tell the difference. This includes vocal recording, and recording guitars through amp sims. I'm wondering if there's something else going on in your system.

Ok, it may be something with my system then. I went from Logic MOTU896HD to PT TDM which is the best move I have ever done, wish I hade done it earlier though...
Anyway, when tracking with MOTU interfaces you have to use their MOTU cue mix app to have "almost" zero latency monitoring but for the sake of it I made a test tracking through Logic and the lowest latency possible was 64 samples and that gave me a perfect slapback echo in my cans but as you said maybe the hardware introduced more latency and even Logic.

So , MOTU and Logic at 64 samples is a totally different story than 64 samples with PT HD Native and AVID I/O. Actually I think there is some truth in that.
Would love to test a Native HD system some day.

AFAIK Logic has a safety buffer which adds to the 64 samples.
64 samples latency will not give a slapback.

However, when using Cuemix for monitoring, you can't have an audible slapback at all, because it is not affected by the Logic buffer. Cuemix (and all other audio interface direct monitoring mixers) sends the input to the output, and this happens in its own close-to-zero latency dedicated DSP.

64 samples should NOT be giving you a slapback echo! think about it...there's 44.1 THOUSAND samples per second minimum...a 64 sample delay doesn't make a slapback!

Something else must be wrong in your system. 64 samples is fine for most tracking needs, unless you're a singer who's really sensitive to latency. Any guitar player used to playing through an amp won't ever notice it.

Since Firechild mentioned the Motu, could it be that maybe certain hardware interfaces can affect the speed in a negative way? Whereas the new HD interfaces are faster, could it be that certain other interfaces actually slow things down because of their design, which might account for discrepancies?

That's absolutely what it is, as the Native card was designed WITH the new interfaces for max speed. It would seem like marketing hype to me unless I had tried and heard it myself...no comparison.

TH

If Tony said they are not giving up on DSP solutions, then I would rationalize myself out of the obvious. We just don't know what it is yet.

TH

Correct. Some interfaces use a safety buffer, which can be relatively high. The MR816 has an input latency of over 6 ms with a 64 samples buffer @ 44.1k. Note that a "pure" 64 samples buffer latency without conversion should be 1.45ms @ 44.1k.

That could also mean only that Avid will continue to support (OS updates, drivers, etc.) the existing Accel cards.

Pro Tools 64 bit can’t be to far off. I don’t know what changes that might bring. Will TDM run 64 bit? Will everybody do 64 bit versions of TDM plugs? Etc. ?

[QUOTE=jamwerks;6322910]That could also mean only that Avid will continue to support (OS updates, drivers, etc.) the existing Accel cards."

No it doesn't mean that. He said:

"Avid is not abandoning development of accelerated Pro Tools systems."

Key word is development, not merely support.

"Pro Tools 64 bit can’t be to far off. I don’t know what changes that might bring. Will TDM run 64 bit? Will everybody do 64 bit versions of TDM plugs? Etc. ?"

I think 64 bit for PT is a ways off.

TH

It would have to be a pretty huge hardware latency to give you a slapback - in the region of 5-700 samples I should say. Bear in mind that I don't really notice a 128 sample latency (I mean..I do, but I can't hear it as an echo - just feel it as "sticky fingers" if you know what I mean). So if 64 samples buffer is giving you a slapback, your interface isn't just adding another 64 samples safety buffer.

The MOTU interfaces don't do this as a matter of course. Effectively, any interface that did would be unusable without hardware monitoring.

How is HD native playing with hardware inserts?
I need at least 12ch I/O for hardware. Any Issues I should know about?

Thinking about abandon my HD1 and Lynx aurora 16 and go for HD native with the new HD 16x16 I/O.

I mostly do mixing and vocal recording on this rig.

Cheers.

its working good! Lots of inserts here too!

Hi JonasW,

Using inserts with HD Native works the same as with HD with ADC on all hardware inserts.

Regards,
Tony

I get great results recording vox through a lynx. HD1 systems are very limited so I understand your desire to upgrade.

HD2 and HD Native offers sort of the sam features with the added support of TDM and HEAT via HD2. The 16i/o is a great converter but the lynx is no slouch.

You can easily get $2500+ for your lynx and $3000+ for your core.

Native and 16i/o will cost you $8000.

You spend out of pocket $2500 for a new system.

Accel card will cost you $2500 used.

Sell the core, keep the lynx and this wouldn't cost you anything! With a fast computer this system will run circles around an HD1......


Posted via the Gearslutz iPhone app

Is there something I am missing? I've recorded 10-12 channels (drums) at a time with plug-ins (compressors/eq) on every track and never had any latency issues in cubase.
What do you mean no other system other than protools can record mutable tracks with plugins inserted on each track being recorded with no latency? Is there something I am missing?
Sorry I am a NOOB when it comes to protools, only used LE in the past and mainly cubase/logic now.

There is no reason on earth why HD Native should be limited in voice count to same as an HD2. For 3500, that is just crazy.

TH

HD Native core card for $2800 on eBay - see item number 120693420062:

Avid Digidesign HD NATIVE core card PCIe Pro Tools 9 - eBay (item 120693420062 end time Mar-11-11 12:42:15 PST)