Pro Tools 10

[ChrisW]

If newer computers change, Avid has to change its products too...

Yes, exactly.
The problem for poor independent small businesses is that the changes tend to happen one after the other, whoever is responsible, Apple or Avid.
And often the developments lock out past versions. Like many music programmes not being directly portable to OSX Lion for example. Presumably TDM plug-ins are obsolete now AAX is the new format.

[The Tasmanian]

And at the rate/speed things are now changing it makes sense to keep one system going for many years - and run a seperate computer to backwards save, so that one can get long term value from the hardware that they have invested in. This is the way forward for me - keep an older mac going with my HD set-up and renew any laptop with native, then backwards save/consolidate to mix - and start using other software so that I am not totally dependent on Avid - and apple
thunderbolt this year - what else in 2 years?

[Drumstruck]

Support?

Support = running ONLY supported s/w and h/w - a very hard config to achieve on WinDoh!s. I can hear them now ... "O, you're running a Joebloggs video card sir? - we don't support that - it's probably what's causing your problems, have a nice day, bye"

A hard disk recorder is looking more and more appealing......

[Drumstruck]

Latency shouldn't be a problem if you use the s/w router and monitor the input signal - was never an issue with a Delta 1010 or a Profire 2626.

[Ben M]

As predicted. Pcie slots may be on the decline. In fact mac pro's may look like a mac mini.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11 ... c_pro.html

Anyone having joy with the HD Native PCie card?
Hearing mixed opinions on GS & the DUC.

Using HD native card at the studio with symphony i/o and 2011 mac pro with 12 gig ram. Has been working well.

[Manning]

Why don't Avid just build their own 'puter?

Better yet, adopt a client/server architecture. Put the user interface on a Mac or Windows box, but have the actual processing work done on mindless drone machines. The drones would run a customised Operating System (probably a retooled version of Linux). Even older processors can be pretty sprightly when relieved of the CPU overhead caused by Windows/OSX. By

Pixar (of Toy Story, Finding Nemo fame) do exactly this with their software platform RenderMan (used for 3D rendering - ie. very CPU intensive stuff). The main software is (really) costly, but buying drone licences is very cheap - (eg. Weta Digital have a server farm of over 2000 machines.)

Of course, this would require a complete change of Avid's entire business model ,so it's not likely (plus D2A/A2D would still require external hardware). But it would get rid of the whole constant obsolescence issue.

[Manning]

You've got to admire pure, unbridled optimism:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dl ... SS:US:1123

[Aearth]

He's got to be dreaming.

nIC

[lonearranger]

Why don't Avid just build their own 'puter?

Better yet, adopt a client/server architecture. Put the user interface on a Mac or Windows box, but have the actual processing work done on mindless drone machines. The drones would run a customised Operating System (probably a retooled version of Linux). Even older processors can be pretty sprightly when relieved of the CPU overhead caused by Windows/OSX. By

Pixar (of Toy Story, Finding Nemo fame) do exactly this with their software platform RenderMan (used for 3D rendering - ie. very CPU intensive stuff). The main software is (really) costly, but buying drone licences is very cheap - (eg. Weta Digital have a server farm of over 2000 machines.)

Of course, this would require a complete change of Avid's entire business model ,so it's not likely (plus D2A/A2D would still require external hardware). But it would get rid of the whole constant obsolescence issue.

Interesting idea - logic has a distributed processing options, and there are some plug in products that let you run plugins remotely - like FXTeleport. There would really be no need to have a special OS, renderman seems to run on mac/win or linux, and a farm can be made up of whatever mix you want. The only only difference between audio and render, is that of realtime/latency, the render farms would be handed off code for a time splice of video, compute and then return, this could take minutes or hours to happen. This is slightly different to real time session recording/mixing, though at mix down you could probably cope with a little more latency.

The saving grace to killing off the super macs, is the thunderbolt support, which would allow for remote PCIe chasis, which I guess would contain more cards, so in someways its a good money spinner for avid, as native processing was able to cover much of the processing once done by avid cards, if this gets cut back a bit they (and UA) get to sell some more cards. Audio IO could be via firewire/thunderbold or USB2/3, depending on the trackcount required.

Did also wonder to myself when I was reading about this somewhere else, if apple might do a deal with someone like HP, to provide highend workstations or servers that would be able to (legitamately) run OSX.

Alternatively, how well is protools working under windows these days?

[Drumstruck]

Alternatively, how well is protools working under windows these days?

So well that I just gave my W7 PC (8-core / 12GB / 1TB + 2TB i7) to my Mrs and sold my Vista PC (Quadcore / 8GB / 500MB + 500MB) - and replaced them with a MBP and a Mini....

[lonearranger]

Alternatively, how well is protools working under windows these days?

So well that I just gave my W7 PC (8-core / 12GB / 1TB + 2TB i7) to my Mrs and sold my Vista PC (Quadcore / 8GB / 500MB + 500MB) - and replaced them with a MBP and a Mini....

I am running cubase 6 on xp (q6600) + yamaha n12, 2 x UAD1 and the worlds longest powercore card, and its pretty solid, have more crashes on my wifes Mac using photoshop! BTW - have you noticed the ICON your mac shows for a networked PC when connected to your MAC?

Cheers

[Ender]

Hey Angus, I'm sure you're already aware but you're probably not giving that Mbox/PT10 rig the best chance just plugging it into any old PC laptop. If you want to go mobile, grab any Intel Duo MBP or later (newer the better of course) and, from what I've read, on PT10 you might not even need to get an external HD (although that was always recommended). Definitely drive speed would be the first suspect in an older laptop. Once you've got it setup, you shouldn't find any major issues.. other than any normal comparisons between a HD and MBox rig.

I'm quite interested to hear some reports on improvements the file management area of PT10 makes.. it would be nice to know if this fixes many legacy buffer related issues.

[mylesgm]

I've done many sessions on an mbox 2 pro and PT7/8 both recording overdubs and mixing. Not massive multitracks but certainly 24+ with effects etc. Can't see why you shouldn't be able to do lots on a recent mac with any basic interface and protools.

[Hookemeister]

I think if you are running a commercial business, the potential customers expect you to be up to date.

Yeah all those commercial studios better get rid of those out of date Neve consoles and all the really old Telefunken and Neumann mics... that gear is probably older than the potential customers!

[Manning]

I think if you are running a commercial business, the potential customers expect you to be up to date.

Yeah all those commercial studios better get rid of those out of date Neve consoles and all the really old Telefunken and Neumann mics... that gear is probably older than the potential customers!

Those Telefunkens are rubbish, they don't even have a USB adapter.

[Drumstruck]

Alternatively, how well is protools working under windows these days?

So well that I just gave my W7 PC (8-core / 12GB / 1TB + 2TB i7) to my Mrs and sold my Vista PC (Quadcore / 8GB / 500MB + 500MB) - and replaced them with a MBP and a Mini....

I am running cubase 6 on xp (q6600) + yamaha n12, 2 x UAD1 and the worlds longest powercore card, and its pretty solid, have more crashes on my wifes Mac using photoshop! BTW - have you noticed the ICON your mac shows for a networked PC when connected to your MAC?

Cheers

I have the windows PCs hidden on the internal wireless network - from the Mac I just map to a shared drive containing 2TB of older files.

[Manning]

So I've been looking at the costs involved in upgrading from HD to HDx. Along the way I began to wonder about Avid itself - regardless of how good the product is, the management of this new launch has been a bit of a debacle.

So I did some digging, and the company is not in good shape. High staff turnover, layoffs, 400% increase in the CEO's salary which the company is running at a loss and a plummeting share price.

Employee satisfaction is poor - here's a "feedback" site giving employee comments.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Avid-T ... -E2291.htm

Granted - unhappy employees are more likely to complain, but there are some troubling signs in those comments as far as I'm concerned. The reviews from a few other similarly sized companies that I'm familiar with (non-audio related, eg Cognos) were considerably better.

Bottom line, I'm going to stay with HD and PT9 for now. My 2008 Mac Pro won't support HDx anyway, and the Mac Pro might drop PCIe, or Apple might kill off the Mac Pro altogether. 3rd party vendors are yet to provide pricing for the AAX plugins. A year from now HDx might be the new standard, or there might be a massive migration to non-Digidesign platforms. I have no idea what will happen, and my HD rig still meets my needs.

[Manning]

PS - I'm not here to Avid bash, but I do love it when Hitler gets upset.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D12HCRQRGfY

[The Tasmanian]

I'm doing the same Manning, I have done every software and hardware upgrade since PT5 - now I will wait for a few years and let this all play out - technology (Apple) is moving at such a rapid pace - Avid could even go under..
So for HDX - I'm happy to wait and let the others be guinea pigs. But I may do PT10 - or wait until 11 for my laptop at some stage.
My gut feeling is HDX is a short term interlude for those willing to take a short term ride.
It will be fun to watch from the sidelines too.

[danander11]

I came across a discussion yesterday where the topic was the processors the HDX cards are using..

It was said, (and I'm not certain about any of this), that with the processors they were using, the chip could be optimized to allow for much faster operation than is currently being enjoyed.. (a development of the manufacturer).

The assumption was made that it might allow for HDX Accell at some point in the future..

But then again, I've seen argument that Avid should have used different processors altogether that would allow for increased performance now..

I'll stick with native and 10 for now. For a while too probably. Whilst $7-10k for a HDX system, (and it's inherent performance), may not be a bad deal, the ancillary costs can be considerable.

[Manning]

Hey Danny

I see you are selling your Waves Mercury... are you not going to use Waves any longer or do you have another package?

Following on from that, have you heard anything about the Waves AAX versions? I've googled around a bit but couldn't find anything concrete.

[Linear]

Hi,

FWIW I'm running a Nehelam 8 core Mac Pro with PT10, CPT and 20 gb ram using apogee Symphony 32 card AD & DA16X's.

It's pretty flawless, and I'd have to say that with the CPT it's more-or-less running like HD. I now officially ~don't~ hate avid or digidesign, I just wished that they did this years ago.

No doubt I'd be feeling a little differently if I stumped up the cash to buy HD, but I always thought that closed systems like that mostly don't work and have limited futures, particularly with things moving so quickly in terms of cards, formats, ports and the like.

Best thing about this system now is that it can load the whole session into RAM - so playing and recording is instant.

Chris

[Manning]

Cool idea - of course I'd have to stump up another $2K to get the CPT. Still being able to wean myself off Avid interfaces is very tempting.

[danander11]

Hey Danny

I see you are selling your Waves Mercury... are you not going to use Waves any longer or do you have another package?

Following on from that, have you heard anything about the Waves AAX versions? I've googled around a bit but couldn't find anything concrete.

Welp... Let's just say that I was selling the bundle.. I had some offers and started getting close, but then Waves dropped their 70% Black Friday sale announcement this morning.. It looks as if I'll be hanging on to it a bit longer..

The reason for selling is pretty simple really.. Of the 88 gazillion plugs you get with it.. I use maybe four all the time. There are others that I use occasionally and they're certainly handy to have.. but for the basics, I have my favorites.. Q10, C1, L2 are frequent guests.. I like the Puig comps and EQ's.. and the Classics bundle is great.

I guess I want to change how I'm doing things too.. I've begun really working on the sound I put down and I'm finding that the more time I spend there, the more I save everywhere else.. and the less I have to 'manipulate' the audio.. I'm sort of doing the same thing with gear too.. using less mics on drums etc...

I'm a self-taught guy with a home project studio. I've done alright and now that I'm moving and will have a larger and nicer space, I want to put money into the room (and more analog gear).

I guess I'm becoming a bit of a 'minimalist' in my approach.. Don't get me wrong though.. I like seeing 800 mics around my kit..

Also, there is the whole 'move' thing.. I seem to be trimming a lot of fat from everywhere.. Maybe next year I'll be scouring the for sales sections again.. but I've got a fair-few more JLM pre's and comps I want to build.. and a few other things as well.

Building is good therapy.


As far as AAX goes.. All that I am hearing is that AAX will be different in the coding from RTAS, but not any more efficient.. at least for awhile.. so there's no real gain there. For TDM plugs it's different. They have the advantage of being programmed a bit differently and have more room for advancement. Also, they work MUCH better between themselves and RTAS so they should not have the impact on the HDX chips that TDM/RTAS did.

Dave Tremblay is a programmer for Avid and has been coming into a thread over there going through a lot of the transitional stuff, and a bit about the 'under the hood' workings of AAX.

As it stands, I have a HD Native card and their 8x8x8 I/O using a 2008 2.1 Mac Pro.. I tried a test session recording 16 tracks at 96/32bit using the new channel strip on every channel with everything turned on. On this old MP it still only hit about 33% CPU usage which is brilliant... Adding Slates VCC to everything (channel only with no oversampling), took it to the mid 40's.. still beautiful for recording..

As the sessions load up I can see where this old mac might begin to bog, but for now it's smoking right along.. I think the AAX thing will work itself out over time but the real advantage will be when it finally hits 64 bit and can access more RAM. Doubt it will ever get more efficient though. at least not for the next year or so.

Going back to the Merc bundle, the great thing is that I should get all of the AAX upgrades for free... That will add a ton of AAX ability for no money.. so a good deal. Most plug developers are going to go the 'free' route, but I'm confident that they will recoup their costs somehow down the road. We pay, we always pay.

All of this, of course, is just my opinion and I could be wrong.. wouldn't be the first time.

Peace!

[danander11]

Cool idea - of course I'd have to stump up another $2K to get the CPT. Still being able to wean myself off Avid interfaces is very tempting.

I've read, (but haven't seen), upgrades around for 10HD that are selling at a better price.. just have to watch and wait... Black Friday is coming too so......................

[Manning]

Can PT10HD run on Apogee cards?

I tried googling it, but it's all as clear as mud.

[danander11]

Can PT10HD run on Apogee cards?

I tried googling it, but it's all as clear as mud.

X-HD cards? I would assume so, much the same as Lynx does.. I don't know anyone that uses them though so I can't answer with any certainty..

Ask around the DUC.. Someone is using them with Symphony as I recall..

[jkhuri44]

those cards are obsolete, the X-firewire is not supported by Apogee anymore. I think the same goes for the X HD

[danander11]

those cards are obsolete, the X-firewire is not supported by Apogee anymore. I think the same goes for the X HD

LOL.. Shows you what I know about Apogee.. They still offer the Symphony 64 though don't they? The older cards should work with 10 much the same as they used to with 9 or 8..

I'll ask around.

[audioio]

No doubt I'd be feeling a little differently if I stumped up the cash to buy HD, but I always thought that closed systems like that mostly don't work and have limited futures, particularly with things moving so quickly in terms of cards, formats, ports and the like

Does this reflect your workflow, though, Chris? I mean, you have lots of tasty toys and I'd be guessing you're not mixing in the box much or running as many plugs as some people.

Let's remember that HD came out at a time that native systems could not draw on such computational resources as we have now. I guess that's progress, but there's probably a whole bunch of people who really value those things at which HD shines, not least low latency. Interfacing is the bottleneck there I suppose, but (speaking from complete ignorance of low-level programming) I'm a bit surprised that HD Native needs to resort to tricks like mixing on the card, much the same way as certain audio interfaces have done for years, to achieve low latency while tracking.

As far as AAX goes.. All that I am hearing is that AAX will be different in the coding from RTAS, but not any more efficient.. at least for awhile.. so there's no real gain there. For TDM plugs it's different. They have the advantage of being programmed a bit differently and have more room for advancement. Also, they work MUCH better between themselves and RTAS so they should not have the impact on the HDX chips that TDM/RTAS did.

There seem to be efficiencies to be gained in development. It is said that the codebase will be pretty much the same for native AAX as HDx AAX. Presumably the main difference is compile-time. These days, the whole lot must surely be written in C (or some variant) and one supposes that the HDx architecture was designed with coding efficiencies in mind. At the time HD was being developed, real-time signal processing was really limited on G3/G4 CPUs and it was presumably justified to maintain an entirely separate development environment for the Motorola (later Freescale) DSP chips.