|
Post by jcoutu1 on May 27, 2017 22:38:53 GMT -6
Thx again guys for the info. So is anyone totally happy and running a stable pro tools 12 rig on a Mac? Not that your rig isn't stable Bill but you seem just a touch meh in the OS/PT version combo you're on. I bounced up to PT 12 on OS 10.9.5 and had issues. Reverted to PT 11 and stayed happy. NON-HD here, but happy with 11 until I get a new machine.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on May 27, 2017 23:21:32 GMT -6
Super stable on PT 10 with HW inserts and prints and can track even without the Apollo Console at 64 samples.. I have 16GB of ram in my 2012 9.1 MBP running Lion OSX..( even tho only pt can use 4 ). I have not tested 12.4 enough to put all my eggs in the basket, yet... Before I could test how stable 12.4 on EL Cap was Sierra was launched. Waves bundle was holding me back too but I have re upped the waves plugs I use for 64 bit so it just testing. Have heard PT 11 had lots of issues but from my use and others experience 12.4 & 12.5 are doing well in the bug and crash areas.. Gotcha. I didn't make the jump mostly because I know that a stable PT rig is actually measurable in $ for me so...I tend to ride a stable version until the wheels fall off. What do you mean here: "(even tho only PT can use 4)"? Was saying that even though PT 10 only uses 4 GB of ram ( all it can access due to the 32 bit limitation ) I enjoy my setup and it has been rock solid. 100 plus tracks with HW inserts and HW Mixbus is a breeze! Plus I use latent heavy UAD plugs and I am on a Mac book pro, not even the nMP. I agree whole heartedly, Having a rock solid stable setup enables me to sleep good at night 😂 My stable setup: PT 10.3.1 native 9.1 MBP 15" with 16GB ram 750GB HD for App and sample HD + SuperDrive 1 TB port has my big 29" screen, 1 FW800 my SF Apollo, 2 USB3 ports with OWC 3 TB Sata/ USB3 recording drives, and a powered USB3 hub for MIDI keyboard, trackball, ilok, and backbup drive.. Now I have to charge my MBP constantly however it will stay fully charged even under extreme load after 8+ hours! Does get hit and the fan can be audible to an AE however, my recording techniques have been perfected for my environment and all in all my MBP Has been a phenomenal machine 😀 Looking forward to the new " Pro " iMacs and New Mac Pro, hoping we actually know more concrete / tangible news this year.
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on May 31, 2017 22:44:35 GMT -6
FIgured I'd let y'all know I've decided on 48io of the Avid 16x16s WITHOUT an external clock...at least for now. I started out long ago 😂 as an apogee guy and as I developed a more hybrid/OTB (a hybrid of a hybrid) mix style I switched to 192s because they integrated with pro tools in a more efficient way. Life was easier. Thats pretty much the reason I'm sticking with Avid through this upgrade. I just don't wanna think about converters when I'm making records. I like thinking about gear and gear choices but converters? No thanks. I don't even understand them. So...Avid. Easy. Back to work. Thanks for weighing in everyone and thx Bill for the hook up. starting to wish I just went pt and avid from the get go. More problems with my other symphony device. It just never ends.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on May 31, 2017 23:54:45 GMT -6
Regarding the RADAR Studio, I just upgraded my RADAR 24 to the Studio and it is currently limited to 24 I/O only...there is no way to aggregate in more converters (like a Pro Tools aggregate device on Mac) with the current IZ ASIO driver. Limiting.... I've heard that IZ is working on their own aggregate I/O driver that would allow you to add more I/O but it could be a ways out. This is a limitation that I did not anticipate. Thing sounds amazing though, that's for damn sure.
I doubt OP could get by with 24 I/O come mix time. I will have to make due for now.
Keith
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 1, 2017 6:23:09 GMT -6
Regarding the RADAR Studio, I just upgraded my RADAR 24 to the Studio and it is currently limited to 24 I/O only...there is no way to aggregate in more converters (like a Pro Tools aggregate device on Mac) with the current IZ ASIO driver. Limiting.... I've heard that IZ is working on their own aggregate I/O driver that would allow you to add more I/O but it could be a ways out. This is a limitation that I did not anticipate. Thing sounds amazing though, that's for damn sure. I doubt OP could get by with 24 I/O come mix time. I will have to make due for now. Keith Yeah but it sounds so good 😊
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jun 1, 2017 11:45:25 GMT -6
Fwiw I didn't think about converters for 10 years until they started to fail. In the back of my mind was a tiny kernel of doubt about the quality of the 192...it is so roundly disliked, even though I saw them in almost every single studio I worked in. But I knew they were acceptable and paid them no mind.
I'm hoping once I'm up and running and fully configured that I don't think about them for 10 more years...except when I add more channels.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 1, 2017 11:52:50 GMT -6
except when I add more channels. haha!!! That's what I'm thinking about today Noah..... LOL Going to give GT a call this afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jun 1, 2017 12:06:25 GMT -6
except when I add more channels. haha!!! That's what I'm thinking about today Noah..... LOL Going to give GT a call this afternoon. Yeah...48i/o is a step down in channel count for me but ugh...the switch is SO MUCH money. I just need to lick these wounds for a couple months before I get back up to 64. Are you already running 2 cards Doc?
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 1, 2017 12:25:06 GMT -6
haha!!! That's what I'm thinking about today Noah..... LOL Going to give GT a call this afternoon. Yeah...48i/o is a step down in channel count for me but ugh...the switch is SO MUCH money. I just need to lick these wounds for a couple months before I get back up to 64. Are you already running 2 cards Doc? Yeah, I went to two cards because I've got 5 interfaces, and I also needed 8 Digital outs. So.....3 16X16's, and 2 192's - one using 8 dig out. So although I only have 64 ANALOG i/o (which one HDX card will handle), I needed to add a card due to the 5 interfaces. And actually, for a lot of the big orchestral VI templates I use, it's been awesome. But, hopefully today, I'm going to talk to GT, and see what it's going to take to go up to 80i/o, and put Sierra and PT 12.? on a new HD from him - pre installed so I can just switch boot drives and go. Woohoo!!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jun 1, 2017 17:51:40 GMT -6
Yeah...48i/o is a step down in channel count for me but ugh...the switch is SO MUCH money. I just need to lick these wounds for a couple months before I get back up to 64. Are you already running 2 cards Doc? Yeah, I went to two cards because I've got 5 interfaces, and I also needed 8 Digital outs. So.....3 16X16's, and 2 192's - one using 8 dig out. So although I only have 64 ANALOG i/o (which one HDX card will handle), I needed to add a card due to the 5 interfaces. And actually, for a lot of the big orchestral VI templates I use, it's been awesome. But, hopefully today, I'm going to talk to GT, and see what it's going to take to go up to 80i/o, and put Sierra and PT 12.? on a new HD from him - pre installed so I can just switch boot drives and go. Woohoo!! Solid state drives Doc? So sexy!!!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 1, 2017 19:06:39 GMT -6
Yeah, I went to two cards because I've got 5 interfaces, and I also needed 8 Digital outs. So.....3 16X16's, and 2 192's - one using 8 dig out. So although I only have 64 ANALOG i/o (which one HDX card will handle), I needed to add a card due to the 5 interfaces. And actually, for a lot of the big orchestral VI templates I use, it's been awesome. But, hopefully today, I'm going to talk to GT, and see what it's going to take to go up to 80i/o, and put Sierra and PT 12.? on a new HD from him - pre installed so I can just switch boot drives and go. Woohoo!! Solid state drives Doc? So sexy!!! Nah...I wish. I should at some point. I don't think I need em for the boot drive cause PT is completely operating in RAM now, but for the three VSTi drives that have to stream (mostly Kontakt libraries) - I'd love SSD's. But......3 2G SSD's = $$$$. YIKES!!! Almost $1k apiece. That's more than I really want to invest in HD's in 2017. Although thinking back....back when PT used SCSI drives, I had a bunch of those kingston trays (close to 25 I think) with 650MB (yeah, MB) drives in them, and the drive and chassis were close to a grand apiece. Maybe $750 or so. So.....what am I complaining about again??? LOL I had $20k+ locked up in drives at that point. And essentially they became worthless when Firewire hit the scene. PS - talked to GT today. I may try Yosemite and move up to 12.4 for a bit to see how that is. Give me a break to see how Sierra / 12.7 is going. That will give me a system that;s rock solid according to him. And in the meantime, take the i/o up to 80 and get the hardware side of things really dialed in. I told him you were a happy camper. LOL
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 1, 2017 19:30:51 GMT -6
Yeah, I went to two cards because I've got 5 interfaces, and I also needed 8 Digital outs. So.....3 16X16's, and 2 192's - one using 8 dig out. So although I only have 64 ANALOG i/o (which one HDX card will handle), I needed to add a card due to the 5 interfaces. And actually, for a lot of the big orchestral VI templates I use, it's been awesome. But, hopefully today, I'm going to talk to GT, and see what it's going to take to go up to 80i/o, and put Sierra and PT 12.? on a new HD from him - pre installed so I can just switch boot drives and go. Woohoo!! Solid state drives Doc? So sexy!!! SSD are fast and Sexy for System and work drives BUT you have to have Spinners for archive and archive / back up often! SSD System drive = fast boot, SSD Work = fast editing, remember non-linear means your data is written all over the place and Speed at read writing all over is what SSD is all about , So Bill should keep his big spinners and add some small SSD's a primary Boot and a couple of Work drives.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 1, 2017 21:23:49 GMT -6
Regardless of my suggestion of checking out digilink (LT-HD) equipped Aurora(n) convertors I'd probably also go with the HD I/Os if for no other reason than I could never bring myself to give Avid a single cent of the ridiculous $299 they are trying to extort for the cash grab that is their "digilink license" to allow third-party interfaces to work with PT. GRRRRRRR So insterad of giving them $300 for the "digilink" you're going to give them, thousands for their converters? HMmmm...
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 1, 2017 21:36:20 GMT -6
Regardless of my suggestion of checking out digilink (LT-HD) equipped Aurora(n) convertors I'd probably also go with the HD I/Os if for no other reason than I could never bring myself to give Avid a single cent of the ridiculous $299 they are trying to extort for the cash grab that is their "digilink license" to allow third-party interfaces to work with PT. GRRRRRRR So insterad of giving them $300 for the "digilink" you're going to give them, thousands for their converters? HMmmm... Yeah, but John think of it as paying them thousands for Converters that work with their software, then it seams sensible! I know a guy who loves his esoteric Converters and feels the Avid digital boxes are the best way for him to get his Converters to talk to HD, hell for a while on old HD that was me! Are there better Converters ? Hell yes! But there are no better Converters that work perfect with HD!
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Jun 1, 2017 22:55:04 GMT -6
So insterad of giving them $300 for the "digilink" you're going to give them, thousands for their converters? HMmmm... Yeah, but John think of it as paying them thousands for Converters that work with their software, then it seams sensible! I know a guy who loves his esoteric Converters and feels the Avid digital boxes are the best way for him to get his Converters to talk to HD, hell for a while on old HD that was me! Are there better Converters ? Hell yes! But there are no better Converters that work perfect with HD! [ Seems like they took a leaf from the APPLE tree. So you can have one 16x16 box with hd then use other converters on top of that and they work more reliably? Is this what you guys mean? I'm sorry but I am brand new to the current avid HDX PT world.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jun 2, 2017 3:54:35 GMT -6
So insterad of giving them $300 for the "digilink" you're going to give them, thousands for their converters? HMmmm... It's the principle of the whole thing. At least ALL of my money would be going to get software and hardware rather than paying for software AND third party converters AND a digilink license to make them work together even though, until recently, third party stuff worked without having a license. Man, the stuff you guys gotta put up with...
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jun 2, 2017 6:09:39 GMT -6
So insterad of giving them $300 for the "digilink" you're going to give them, thousands for their converters? HMmmm... Yeah, but John think of it as paying them thousands for Converters that work with their software, then it seams sensible! I know a guy who loves his esoteric Converters and feels the Avid digital boxes are the best way for him to get his Converters to talk to HD, hell for a while on old HD that was me! Are there better Converters ? Hell yes! But there are no better Converters that work perfect with HD! What are the advantages of HD? My understanding is that PTHD performs most of it's processes on the PCIe cards you put into your computer whereas standard PT performs them all on the computer's CPU. Anything else? I wonder what the breaking point is where modern CPU's can't handle PT + Plugins? I've never reached it on my system, with is non HD running 2 Aurora 16's with PT 11.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 2, 2017 6:42:37 GMT -6
Yeah, but John think of it as paying them thousands for Converters that work with their software, then it seams sensible! I know a guy who loves his esoteric Converters and feels the Avid digital boxes are the best way for him to get his Converters to talk to HD, hell for a while on old HD that was me! Are there better Converters ? Hell yes! But there are no better Converters that work perfect with HD! What are the advantages of HD? My understanding is that PTHD performs most of it's processes on the PCIe cards you put into your computer whereas standard PT performs them all on the computer's CPU. Anything else? I wonder what the breaking point is where modern CPU's can't handle PT + Plugins? I've never reached it on my system, with is non HD running 2 Aurora 16's with PT 11. True consistent low latency monitoring with plugins. That's what HD has always been about!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,934
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jun 2, 2017 6:45:24 GMT -6
Yeah, but John think of it as paying them thousands for Converters that work with their software, then it seams sensible! I know a guy who loves his esoteric Converters and feels the Avid digital boxes are the best way for him to get his Converters to talk to HD, hell for a while on old HD that was me! Are there better Converters ? Hell yes! But there are no better Converters that work perfect with HD! [ Seems like they took a leaf from the APPLE tree. So you can have one 16x16 box with hd then use other converters on top of that and they work more reliably? Is this what you guys mean? I'm sorry but I am brand new to the current avid HDX PT world. Digilink is technically a proprietary standard Avid wrote it Avid can change it anytime they want,any other Digilink interface has been reverse engineered so you don't really know if they got it all right!
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jun 2, 2017 7:46:57 GMT -6
What are the advantages of HD? My understanding is that PTHD performs most of it's processes on the PCIe cards you put into your computer whereas standard PT performs them all on the computer's CPU. Anything else? I wonder what the breaking point is where modern CPU's can't handle PT + Plugins? I've never reached it on my system, with is non HD running 2 Aurora 16's with PT 11. True consistent low latency monitoring with plugins. That's what HD has always been about! Thanks eric. Are you talking about during tracking? If it's regarding mixing, I'd love to hear the same song mixed with the same plugins using HD vs Symphony/Antelope/Lynx/Apollo and see if people can hear the difference. Has this been done?
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 2, 2017 7:51:40 GMT -6
I have no complaints about the Avid HD 16x16 i/o units that I have. They don't seem to impart any sound of their own and accurately convey what I send into PT10 noah shain same as you.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 2, 2017 10:06:57 GMT -6
It's the principle of the whole thing. At least ALL of my money would be going to get software and hardware rather than paying for software AND third party converters AND a digilink license to make them work together even though, until recently, third party stuff worked without having a license. Man, the stuff you guys gotta put up with... It's the price for greatness. HDX is pretty amazing.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jun 2, 2017 11:01:53 GMT -6
Yeah, but John think of it as paying them thousands for Converters that work with their software, then it seams sensible! I know a guy who loves his esoteric Converters and feels the Avid digital boxes are the best way for him to get his Converters to talk to HD, hell for a while on old HD that was me! Are there better Converters ? Hell yes! But there are no better Converters that work perfect with HD! What are the advantages of HD? My understanding is that PTHD performs most of it's processes on the PCIe cards you put into your computer whereas standard PT performs them all on the computer's CPU. Anything else? I wonder what the breaking point is where modern CPU's can't handle PT + Plugins? I've never reached it on my system, with is non HD running 2 Aurora 16's with PT 11. Accuracy of delay compensation across dozens of hardware inserts and multiple trips in and out of the computer is a big one too. Also, with big complex mixes on a deadline I do NOT wanna think about how my hardware is communicating with my software. I need it to work flawlessly all the time.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jun 2, 2017 11:03:42 GMT -6
Solid state drives Doc? So sexy!!! Nah...I wish. I should at some point. I don't think I need em for the boot drive cause PT is completely operating in RAM now, but for the three VSTi drives that have to stream (mostly Kontakt libraries) - I'd love SSD's. But......3 2G SSD's = $$$$. YIKES!!! Almost $1k apiece. That's more than I really want to invest in HD's in 2017. Although thinking back....back when PT used SCSI drives, I had a bunch of those kingston trays (close to 25 I think) with 650MB (yeah, MB) drives in them, and the drive and chassis were close to a grand apiece. Maybe $750 or so. So.....what am I complaining about again??? LOL I had $20k+ locked up in drives at that point. And essentially they became worthless when Firewire hit the scene. PS - talked to GT today. I may try Yosemite and move up to 12.4 for a bit to see how that is. Give me a break to see how Sierra / 12.7 is going. That will give me a system that;s rock solid according to him. And in the meantime, take the i/o up to 80 and get the hardware side of things really dialed in. I told him you were a happy camper. LOL 12.4 on sierra?!?! Oh man...
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 2, 2017 12:35:12 GMT -6
|
|