Turtlerock Forum

just wondering who here has made the upgrade.
and if they went native or X.
thoughts? feelings?

obviously i have read a lot, and for a number of reasons planning on jumping... just wanting to jump the right way, and hopefully avoid any nasty surprises.

please share!

I'd be interested too. I'd also like to know whether the original HD interfaces will work with the HDX cards. Avid just says they're "unsupported".

Oh yes. I have walked along the edge of that there minefield!

It seems for every claim, there is a counter claim... followed by an argument. Followed by someone saying "Its not my fault you have been conned by AVID marketing, TDM sucks! Look at the AVID native system. The proof is in the pudding, it can do lower sample buffers than your TDM system! Even Avid says so!". Followed by more arguing.

Is there anything about your HD system that isn't cutting the mustard? That seems like the most logical place to start. It is also worth noting that protools systems will get a bit of a performance kick in a lot of aspects when the 64bit HD11 is introduced.

Ps. according to Adrian Haselhuber from AVID, you can run your Blue interface with HDx and HD native. The interfaces won't be supported beyond HD10 though.

Sammas wrote:
Ps. according to Adrian Haselhuber from AVID, you can run your Blue interface with HDx and HD native. The interfaces won't be supported beyond HD10 though.

At the PT10 presentation I went to they were actually more explicit, the blue boxes will not work with PT11.

Manning wrote:

Sammas wrote:
Ps. according to Adrian Haselhuber from AVID, you can run your Blue interface with HDx and HD native. The interfaces won't be supported beyond HD10 though.

At the PT10 presentation I went to they were actually more explicit, the blue boxes will not work with PT11.

Oh yeah, sorry. I should have been a little more direct. At least I knew what I meant.

Digidesigns "won't work' and "not supported" are sort of like non-core promises!
Digidesign have been building their own obsolescence into every product for eons !

audioio wrote:I'd be interested too. I'd also like to know whether the original HD interfaces will work with the HDX cards. Avid just says they're "unsupported".

I don't know how you'd connect a 96 or 192 to an HDX card anyway... I'm pretty sure the connector on the cards is different.

We're going down the HDX road at work in the near future. I'll post back here when we're rolling and let you guys know what I think.

this is the crux of the matter for me...

"I've heard good things about HD|Native but honestly it's half way in price to HDX so if I was considering that I would go all the way."

i have my reasons for wanting to upgrade.. the question is when and how far.
which is why i was looking for others thoughts who had actually made the transition.
is there ANYONE on the board with either a HD native rig or HDX system?

We've just purchased a HD Native system, with the AVID MADI card.

Haven't actually got around to taking it out of the box yet - we were waiting for a new Mac Pro is going in to arrive, and now I'm off for ten days. And the new room is still being built too...

Still... We should have it up and running in about 6 weeks... ish.

I was at Park Road Post in NZ a few weeks ago, and they have both Native and HDX systems.
__________________
Simon "Smash" Ashby

gigpiglet wrote:i have my reasons for wanting to upgrade.. the question is when and how far.

That is the $64,000,000 question.


I have hd native in a 2011 8 core Mac at the studio, a hd2 system at home in a 2009 8 core and an older TDM Mix plus 32 IO system in a silver Mac running PT 5.1.
To me (and for my purposes) they all achieve about the same result and operate with about the same restrictions. If anything the TDM system kicks a bit of ass for its age in both sound and performance.
I'd be happy with the TDM system if I could use modern plugins and share files easily through that older silver Mac.
Shame they keep F@#$ing with compatibility.
I'd say if you want to run a million plugins on a million tracks then HDX is for you Gareth. If not, then be happy that you didn't spend the money and go on a nice holiday.

I use HD and can't see a reason to upgrade right now. Coloursound has Native where I track larger ensembles. Had no probs. Maybe Mat could chime in re mixing on native, Mat...

waitup wrote:I don't know how you'd connect a 96 or 192 to an HDX card anyway... I'm pretty sure the connector on the cards is different.

Maybe with one of these?
http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/DigiLinkF-MM/

While flipping through audio technology at the newsagent this morning I noticed there is a review/comparison of HDx/HDnative/TDM. It had some interesting points... but I strolled away when they started saying things like "HD native ran my crashing TDM session when I increased the sample buffer on the HD native system running 10 cores" yadda, yadda.

It would be really handy if they actually kept things like for like in the comparison. Same computer. Same number of available cores. Same session. Same sample buffers.

Sammas wrote:It would be really handy if they actually kept things like for like in the comparison. Same computer. Same number of available cores. Same session. Same sample buffers.

True

I updated to HD Native 12 months ago and it is awesome.

I was only using LE interfaces so obviously the leap for me was pretty big, so comparing old HD sessions on the Native card won't really work. I can say however that I can quite easily track with plug ins going. Im using a 2008 Mac Pro which in my opinion is the weak link in the system. Once AVID certify the thunderbolt PCie chassis's I will be trading to an iMac.

Just my 2 cents happy to answer any questions

hi thephil

so - say you have a 32 channel recording set up (full band, drums, bass, keys, guitars etc)
and you track a song
then want to drop in and re-record (say) a chorus on that song
can you drop in and out across all 32ch simultaneous with no latency problems?

i know that might sound like a tough/ strange situation, but for what we do, its not unusual at all...

would be keen to hear your thoughts on native in that respect

tjanks

Honestly I only have 16 I/O at the moment, but that situation has happened to me with all 16 and it has handled it no worries at all. I have been tracking and mixing with the "system usage" window open at the moment out of interest, and 16 tracks recording hardly even registers.

I will put the specs of my mac up later today if you like. My understanding of HD Native is that the more grunt your machine has the better it will perform.

I'm pretty sure HD native also has 2 channels of ultra low monitoring avail, so even in a large session there are always 2 record tracks available at very low latency.

NYMo wrote:I'm pretty sure HD native also has 2 channels of ultra low monitoring avail, so even in a large session there are always 2 record tracks available at very low latency.

you are correct, thats what the native card processes the monitor path.

hmmm interesting
but still not exactly what i need... really need to be able to punch across a whole band

i might need to borrow a studio with it, try a session, before i do a big upgrade spend...

gigpiglet wrote:hmmm interesting
but still not exactly what i need... really need to be able to punch across a whole band

i might need to borrow a studio with it, try a session, before i do a big upgrade spend...

Hi Gareth
This shouldn't be a problem. I occasionally punch in drums (10-14 tracks) using the HD Native system using a 64 or 128 sample buffer and it doesn't flinch (running on a newer 8 core Mac btw).
If you've started a mix and you're running a bunch of plugin's and you want to punch in/out a sizeable amount of tracks then you may start to feel the squeeze. But if you can keep your sample buffer down as low as possible (e.g.. 32, 64 or 128) then latency shouldn't be a problem. It's only when you start to go above 128 buffer that the HD Native system latency become apparent. There are ways around this last scenario as you may well know.

thanks ben
like you say - it all "sounds" like it should be ok
but its an interesting thing to actually then DO your workflow on a different system and see what happens.

if i make the move soon ill keep everyone posted!

We will be forever facing the issue of upgrading to the
Next new kick ass platform to do what we already do with
The last kick ass platform. I upgraded to hd native purely
Because my pci Mac was dying and hd native had just come out.
Specs looked good and was an affordable option.
Before that I was considering buying a new Mac, tracking with my
Old hd and mixing on the new Mac with an mbox. Haha.
So timing was everything for the bassis of my decision.
Anyway, hd native works great. If I'm happy making records
With it, then I won't be upgrading anytime soon.
I'd rather buy more guitars. Haha.

I'd love to know if there's any more thoughts on HD Native vs HD X from you guys
ie, people with actual experience! Very hard to filter the true from the trash on the rest of the web

gigpiglet wrote:hi thephil

so - say you have a 32 channel recording set up (full band, drums, bass, keys, guitars etc)
and you track a song
then want to drop in and re-record (say) a chorus on that song
can you drop in and out across all 32ch simultaneous with no latency problems?

i know that might sound like a tough/ strange situation, but for what we do, its not unusual at all...

would be keen to hear your thoughts on native in that respect

tjanks

not a strange thing at all to most of us I'd guess!

No you can't - at least, not with plugins, or not unless you've got enough processing power to be able to keep the buffer size down at 64 samples.

HD Native is still native - yes it has low latency monitoring options (ie no plugins like with the LE interface low latency modes, but would get you through for eg a percussion overdub on a nearly complete mix), yes it's a great integrated system, but it's still a slave to buffer settings - you can't just take it for granted you can drop in on a near-finished mix, with plugins for monitoring and expect zero latency.

I own an Omni/HD Native rig, and it's fabulous for mixing - but I'd rather have a TDM rig for tracking by far.

HDX is a direct replacement for TDM - it's only current limitation being the lack of DSP plugins available (Native plugins still bypass in record like with TDM to maintain low latency performance).