Do you have the plugs on the new HD system?

The software is still 5.x on the HD but when it goes 6.x and OSX that could be a different matter. MixPlus should also get PT6 support but for how long?

The point of using the new HD is that the interfaces are better .... are they??? So to do a Mix in PT at 44 or 48 on HD seems pointless.

If you do a mix on HD but use the I/O for analog stuff there is still the issue of latency because the software is still 5.x ....

I think this HD thing is more about getting ready for PT6 and OSX support and the new features it MIGHT bring , like auto latency management and just plain better mixing and sound.

Very confusing times....

I have 2 x Mix + rigs and wonder which way to jump.

Talk about ear to the gound, I have daffodils planted in one!

I am down here..... listening for the WORD.

Very interesting! How about all of you? Will you abandon 44.1 for 96k for the better sound and more ressource-eating bandwidth, or keep it low and compatible?
I like the Idea of upgrading the mix-room to HD to take advantage of the better mixer, but to be compatible to home-systems and personal resources, I propably stay with 44.1 and more tracks for the next time!

Niko :w:

sorry for the blak post rea the next one!

Here is the test I need done.
1. Copy 12 tracks to Mix3 using Appogee as the clock sourse from analoge 2" machine
2. Copy the same session to a PTHD at 96k
3. Mix both sessions on the PTHD at 96k. ( 192 would take up far too much drive space and The difference between 96 and 192 is so very subjective I truely think it will be used only for classical recordsing etc..
4. Place both mix to a Masterlink at 48k
5. Have them Mastered by a Pro. mastering lab.
6. Now lets compair.
I'm not saying that I don't see the need for upgrading I just am trying to run a profitable buisness and with all the upgrade plug in problems and the fact that neither system will sell any more records than the other. It Makes it hard to deside.

The test I heard about was compairing PTHD 96k to Radar II throught a Euphonix 5000 desk. The difference was very subjective yet the difference between 48k was noticed. I still want to know if the problem it's mixing on a Mix3 and not the interfaces and sample rates. Lots of records were recorded last year that sure sold and sounded great, even before there was 192k or 96k PTHD. We still end up at 44.1 and note that MP3 is gaining ground.
The test I've asked for I believe would grealy affect a lot of minds, or at least mine!!!

Jump Jules!!! Jump!!! You wont be dissapointed!!

It IS getting kind of cold up here on the high board...

I am with Jules this time.

I have never before hesitated when it was time to upgrade.
PT III to PT24/ PT24 to PT 24 MIX/ Then added mix farms.

Last week I sold it all.
I am living Native for a while (yes its lame)

I need to see improvement in the Digi mixer to jump in the HD waters.
It seems that the limitations in the mixer are based on limitations in the TDM2 chip to chip bandwidth (or lack there of).
My guess is that all too soon DIgi will have another upgrade to a card with wider faster dsp chips.
I hope I am proven wrong and that PT 6 will pass 48 bits from chip to chip. (currently truncated or dithered to 24)

The times are a changing fast and all bets are off on how long digi will fend off Native Daws.
Nuendo seems to be making all the right moves currently and it is worrysome to see an inferior system gain so much ground so fast.

A sony DMXr100 and Digital performer are starting to look real tempting. Especially since a used dmr is around what a HD system would cost.
hmmmmm.

Just out of curiousity, what moves has Nuendo made lately? To my knowledge, they have not updated anything for almost 8 months. Nuendo only works on 50% of Macs and then only when you disable some Quicktime stuff. I like the ease of audio editing in Nuendo but to me it seems like MOTU has been really on top of their development.