Hi,

I'm making a switch from RADAR 24 and Soundcraft Ghost. I'm used to not dealing with latency and being able to track a full band with no worries.

I recently bought a Mac Pro 6 core with 24 GB's of RAM.

My question is: Will the HD native card be able to do all that I'm used to doing? Or do I need to go with a full HD system?

Thanks.

is there any advantage to going full HD?

Hi ray,

Using HD Native you can get throughput latency, with software monitoring enabled, down to 1.6 ms. That's well below the threshold of noticeable latency.

In addition, Pro Tools|HD Native running on a 6-core machine will provide an enormous amount of processing for EQ, dynamic, delay and other effects, which your computer can manage without adding additional latency.

Only thing I'd add is that since you may be used to having faders at your fingertips, you may want to consider adding a control surface, like the Artist Series, C|24 or ICON.

Hope that helps,
Tony

* TDM only plug-ins
* lots of tracks with zero CPU usage
* 160 channels of I/O

Your answer is saying that AVID is going to discontinue the TDM cards ?

Going with the Native HD card is a NO GO for all serious studios regarding multitracking and monitoring issues.

Correct me if I´m wrong if you can still use 1.6 ms latency in a middle of a project when tracking 15-30 channels along with 70-80 playbacktracks with a current Mac Pro.

For post production it will work with a semi pro native solution.

Please give us a HD5 core card instead
Thank you.

If you require Sony 9-pin with SYNC HD, HD Native won't bring it. It is not supported and won't work.

... yes. After 8 years, surely it's time?

In a short time (1-2 years) daw’s will be able to effectively use all cores on a multicore native cpu (Logic seems to be there, or getting there). Add that to a unlimited number of cores available (soon 32, 64, etc.) and one can see that the current Accel cards lifespan is limited.

Lots (most) of the lasted plugs don’t even make TDM versions.

To pay for itself, a new HD card would have to be sellable for several years, which is why we’ll never see them imo.

That won’t stop current HD users from being productive for a few more years with there current systems.

so perhaps the best solution for me is going with the HD native card and seeing how it goes. if it's not a good solution for me i can always sell it and move up to the TDM cards.

not true Leon- the sync HD and sync i/o's are supported with the HD Native Core.

from the AVID site-

Key benefits
Create bigger sessions with up to 192 audio tracks and up to 64 channels of I/O using a single PCIe card
Record, edit, and mix with ease using Pro Tools HD software, the industry’s most trusted toolset
Attain the highest performance and lowest latency of any native digital audio workstation
Get the ideal tracking experience and set-and-forget direct monitoring with an integrated low-latency monitor mode
Achieve ultimate audio quality with a Pro Tools HD Series interface (sold separately)
Boost your capabilities with advanced automation, surround mixing, input monitoring, AFL/PFL solo, destructive punch, and other professional features
Get better sounding mixes with RTAS plug-ins and Automatic Delay Compensation on hardware and software inserts
Share sessions with Pro Tools|HD users without any loss of data
Synchronize to timecode and video reference, with frame-edge accuracy, when using SYNC HD (sold separately)
Get the ultimate hands-on control over your mixes using ICON or C|24 control surfaces
Total flexibility—work with Mac or Windows, Pro Tools HD or third-party software, and more

I'm running HD Native with a current 8 core.

It's hugely powerful. MUCH more powerful than my G5 HD3 combo that I had before.

I'm finding it generally very stable and you can run high track counts with low sample buffers easily.

As with all PT rigs it's not very efficient with instruments.

With LLM mode it's lower latency than TDM HD but you cant monitor through plug ins obviously. You need an OMNI for this to operate.

There are none of the quirks associated with having heavy usage on the cards...like delay compensation going crazy.

PT9 is possibly the most immediately stable version of PT in recent years but as with everything there are a few little bugs but nothing that's disrupting my work really. It's stable by virtue of the fact that it isn't a huge functional change from 8.

Native plug ins are much cheaper and I've been enjoying being able to grab thing's I've wanted for a while at bargain prices.

Firechild, I think you're wrong and I don't believe you've used an HD Native rig in anger...correct? I'm not saying it's perfect, but neither is TDM and I've had my fair share of sticky moments with that over the years.

I'm happy I switched.

J

Correct, never used native HD, but coming from Native land / Logic I just love everything that says TDM at the moment.
Running a rather fast 8 core 3.2 ghz machine but still TDM just feels more solid but again this is more a Logic vs TDM comparison so I may be wrong. But if you can´t track through guitar amp plugins as AmpFarm without using horrible low latency modes there is just a no go for me.

Of course a a new Mac Pro Native is better than G5 + HD3, but you have to compare new Mac Pro TDM vs Mac Pro HD Native.
With TDM you have ALL Native PLUS TDM.
Can´t find one argument that says HD Native is better than "real HD" except cost at the moment.

I don't believe "better" was the intention, regardless of the marketing. "Cheaper" is certainly something that matters to ALOT of people, especially in today's spending climate.
Not everyone NEEDS everything that a TDM based HD rig offers, and can satisfy their requirements with a lower entrance price.

Yeah, I think you're right if you take money out of the equation. I think HD Native has a lot to recommend it if you're in an HD3 sort of budget. To put things in perspective I opened 768 SSL channels in a session as a test and was at about 75% CPU. Pointless in real terms of course, but in practice it means that processing is more or less unlimited (if we ignore instruments). With HD3 you can run out quite easily and then find that running RTAS causes you other problems with increased latency as it mixes with TDM and a loss of voices which is a more pressing limitation in a lot of sessions. Once you start looking at HD5 (as you mentioned) I think these things go away. But it's a lot more money and those of us doing music rather than film or TV work are tending to find that stuff harder to come by these days! So my vote for people in the HD3 budget would be to buy native and spend the extra cash on other more interesting things. Horses for courses. I'm not totally disagreeing with what you say except that I think you'll find that HD Native handles serious tracking work quite easily. I've also found logic problematic in that regard. I think the future will be quite interesting...I forsee a situation where the new version of pro tools consists of an HD Native type card as the 'core' with UAD style cards running RTAS plug ins as the new process cards. But hey. Who knows!?

J

^^I'm almost in that situation.

I'm (impatiently and extremely anxiously) awaiting delivery of an HD Native card and a 16x16 analog. But I'll run a UAD card and a Duende mini with it (on an 8-core). I'm super excited to see how it performs. Hopefully next week - all this snow has really slowed down gear travels.

EDIT: To elaborate a little more - HD Native came at the perfect price point. Sure, I could've chirped out for HD2 or similar, but I would have been buying things that I don't need. TDM systems are amazingly useful if you have the system demands for them, but for my needs, I don't. However, I enjoy working on the the HD software (esp. for the automation, compensation, etc.). Native HD, assuming it's stable, is the ideal situation for me right now.

I understand where you are coming from. Just to provide some perspective, I recently sat in a a demo of the Native system with a quad core Mac Pro the session was running 96 tracks. Each track had 4 plugins assigned, including the Waves SSL G-Channel (384 total plugins).

While recording additional tracks and on playback the system didn't break a sweat! In fact, it was running at 54%. I tend to think that would cover the power/speed needs of 99% of Pro Tools users out there. Sure, there is that other 1% that will need more tracks. I think what Tony was saying is the Native is a completely viable and professional solution for a fraction of the cost.

-Josh

Charles, you misunderstood me, indeed my post can be read in two ways. Sorry to be unclear.

SYNC HD and SYNC I/O are supported, but the 9-pin functionality of those units is not available in PT HD Native. All 9-pin functions are greyed out in the software. This is a strategic decision by Avid, which unfortunately is not communicated straightforward (the Avid text you quoted is correct) but can be found in the HD Native manual.

Tracking bands? HD TDM no question.

I love the idea of Native, and if you were mostly mixing, producing, tracking vocalists or small setups, I'd recommend it...but if you mainly record bands, I wouldn't recommend anything other than a TDM setup.

how many additional tracks did you guys record? I wanna be able to record 24 tracks anytime in any kind of prodution ...

Only tdm will do that.

With any other system, you'll be trading off processing power against latency, like any native system.

Would you mind enumerating your reasons? Just curious. BTW - Have you used a HDNative card?

Thanks!

P.S. I'm not trying to imply that "HDNative does everything anyone can possibly imagine" (it doesn't), just trying to understand your particular issues at 24 tracks integrated with a console (monitoring with effects, etc.).

As we all know, you can't even say 'A TDM system will do everything' since with smaller TDM systems you lose RTAS voices and need to get a 'bigger TDM'.

that may very well be- which would be a reason to purchase HD- As would having a large ICON surface- at that point, the HD/TDM vs HD Native cost becomes somewhat trivial.

No I haven't used a native card. I have used general native systems of course, and I fully understand how the HD Native card works, it's limitations etc. I've even done troubleshooting remotely for them. In my opinion it's a system aimed at people who mix or work mainly with smaller ensembles.

I've worked in plenty of high-pressure, client-focussed situations where a TDM rig is the only thing that would do the job. Yes, of course TDM brings it's own issues to the party as well - which is why I made the comments above - if I was mixing in my own space (which I do, where we have regular PT9) I'm not sure I'd ever want HD TDM - I'd be happier with the fully functional native system, or possibly just the CPTK. Instruments can be a pain with a TDM system, the voice limitation can require work-arounds, and that's before you get to the cost.

At the same time - I've NEVER had a TDM rig fall over due to lack of processing power mid session, I've never had to fiddle with buffer sizes or de-activate plugins to be able to add an overdub to a half-way mixed track, I've never had to tell a paying client "wait while I juggle my session" or "no, we can't do that here" because of the PT rig, and more to the point I've never felt nervous that the rig might let me down. All those things have happened when using a native rig. In my own space, where I make the rules, it's different and I'd be more than happy with an HD native rig.

Thanks for the reply. But don't you think implying that PTHD Native is not suitable for recording a full band when you have not used one to be a little strong?

Gearslutz is awash whith people advising against/for systems/plugs/tape machines/outboard/consoles, etc. they have never actually used. Doesn't seem productive to me. Without a single specific reason given for your advice that advice is not instructive. I was hoping you would tell me WHY you think what you do as I am in somewhat the same situation (nice console, Radar). Please don't get me wrong, I believe there ARE particular situations where TDM is the only choice. I was just hoping to find out why you draw the line (TDM needed here) where you do. THAT would be helpful (and much appreciated).

I do understand people having predispositions/preferences and using what you have, what works and what are comfortable with or your studio requirement requires. But what I bolded in your reply seems to apply to "conventional" native systems that really are not directly comparable to the HD Native card. If I don't understand you it is due to the lack of specifics.

But I do understand and share your concern for stability. For that reason (and the "juggling" you refer to with RTAS voices etc. even on TDM) I have a Radar. THAT is stability, but brings it's own workflow/compatibility issues for some people. Especially those without consoles.

I suppose we'll see as I've decided to add a PT HD Native card to go into a Mac Pro. Will it satisfy clients that want to use PT instead of Radar? Who knows. But in addition to running PT it will run virtually any other (native) app anyone needs to use so that's a plus.

If it doesn't satisfy the TDM engineers then TDM it will be traded for....and I will know based on actual experience with the system in question not some other software/configuration.

In the mean time make some great music with whatever you have!

As good as HD Native is already, another benefit is by upgrading your computer every year or 2 (as more powerful ones come out) it's like getting more and more powerful cards.

For you engineers who track through TDM plug ins, please tell me why you do this.

I guess I'm just used to using the RADAR, but I can't imagine wanting a plug-in between my source and the recording.

I track through compression, delay, reverb, Eleven, all the time. Very rarely through eq though.

I don't know too many vocalist that don't at least want some verb in their headphones, save Rap, which I never record.

You may be using outboard and/or a console for this?

Yeah - I use outboard for compression when tracking on some tracks (bass / vocals).

And of course I add reverb and/or delay in the phones for vocalists. But that's so easy to do with outboard that I doubt I'd care to do it in PT. At least when I'm tracking a full band I wouldn't risk it.

You would change your mind about that quickly if you used a PTHD system. Keep in mind you are not committing the effects to "tape" for lack of a better word.

Excactly.

It is important to be clear ( for AVID ) that they have to continue TDM development since there is no native solutions ( other brands included ) outhere that will live up to the task of tracking loads of channels simultaneously.

I´ve been there and will never return to native land using SEPARATE applications for configuring which channels that should be in low latency mode. That is a no go in a recording studio. MOTU CueMix Apogee Maestro, RME TotalMix...uhhh all give me the creeps.