I went to our local Avid/Pro Tools 9 product launch and may be able to give you a bit of clarity.

AFAIK, Pro Tools HD Native is basically HD without the TDM system. That's it. You still have to get their proprietary PCI card, which accommodates the Avid interfaces on the digi connector but all plugins and processing runs natively.

Then you simply get PT9. This standard version of PT9 runs any interface, just like any other DAW, is a HELL of a lot cheaper, and is a full featured version of Pro Tools with the exception of a few other "HD only" features like HEAT saturation. This is a complete list of HD features NOT in Pro Tools 9 (Please note that this list compares HD to PT9 with the Complete Production Toolkit):

HEAT (paid option)
TDM support
Input Monitoring
Track punch/destructive punch
SYNC HD support
9-Pin Machine Control
AFL/PFL solo
That's it.

So, my question is, is it really worth it to get PT9 HD Native when you can get almost the same features in the standard version?

Cheers :)

audiokid, post: 372128 wrote: The day they make a system where you do not have to use their converters will be a good one.
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://apps.avid.co…"]What Could You Do with Pro Tools|HD Native?[/]="http://apps.avid.co…"]What Could You Do with Pro Tools|HD Native?[/]

You don't HAVE to use their converters, there are several others that will work with an HD native system (as well as an HD TDM system) such as Apogee, Lynx, and SSL just to name a few. But even though those will work I would still recommend the new AVID HD I/0's or AVID Omni.

I had a chance to see HD native running for myself a few weeks ago and it ran much smoother and was more responsive than any TDM system I've ever used, and I've used quite a few...

PT9 is also limited in track count and simultaneous inputs. Native allows for up to 64 channels of simultaneous input depending on the interface you use. You can increase input count with an additional card and you can use any Avid approved interface. So, you are not bound to Avid A/D converters.

That all being said, I still get the occasional blue screen with PT9.

Ah, good to hear. I should rephrase this. I know I can use other converters with my TDM system but if I recall, I still had to buy the entire package.

So this new system, you are not forced to buy their converters anymore, only their PCIe card? And this is definitely different than the boxed software , Pro Tools 9? Now there are two more Pro Tools systems to choose on the market this year yes?

Hi Hueseph, just saw your post ( where have you been! :).

Is this the same version you have but I am thinking there is a new HD Native version now?

HD Native has all the features of HD with the exception of TDM. A lot of people like the new I/O boxes. Of course it's all a matter of taste. Unfortunately, I don't think the upgrade deal works with the card alone. I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. It would be nice to get just the card and use another front end like the SSL X Desk.

audiokid, post: 372166 wrote:
So this new system, you are not forced to buy their converters anymore, only their PCIe card? And this is definitely different than the boxed software , Pro Tools 9? Now there are two more Pro Tools systems to choose on the market this year yes?

I apologize. I forgot to add that you can't record more than 32 tracks simultaneously with PT9 standard. But to answer your question, Pro Tools HD Native is basically the entry level version of HD that is currently available. This means that you get all the features of HD without TDM support, but with the option of using any interface you want.

However, my point is that unless you need more than 32 simultaneous inputs, are desperate for HEAT saturation, need all of the other trivial things that PT9 standard does not support (see above), then what is the actual benefit in buying up to HD Native? Why not get PT9 and your interface of choice, and be done with it? The only REALLY worthwhile feature on that list is input monitoring but for the most part, you can work around it.

The HD Native core card is $3495. The core card plus the HD Omni is $5995. PT9 standard is $599. I'm pretty sure you could spend the extra cash on the killer converters of your choice.

Seriously, I'm not sold.

Cheers :)

Just FYI, here's a link to the product comparison page at Avid:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.avid.com…"]http://www.avid.com…[/]="http://www.avid.com…"]http://www.avid.com…[/]

Cheers :)

Mo Facta, post: 372174 wrote: ...The only REALLY worthwhile feature on that list is input monitoring but for the most part, you can work around it....

Absolutely agree with this, and I've gotta figure they are going to give in and include input monitoring eventually. All of their competitors have it.

Well, I can't help but think we'll be waiting a long while for input monitoring. Look how long it took for ADC.
At the AVID presentation they used latency as a selling point. 1.4 ms round trip. That's pretty good..........@192kHz. How many channels do you figure you could get on anaverage DAW at that samplerate?

Another thing was VCA faders and destructive editing. At any rate. I really like PT9. Would I invest in Native? Maybe. I can think of other things to spend the money on.

right on, thanks everyone. PT9 it is.

Hueseph, you say you are getting a blue screen. Is it PT9 bugs or do you think you have some conflicts or need a beefier CP?

The blue screens were due to version 9.02. I recently updated to 9.03 and everything's hunky dory again. The issue mind you, occurred only when creating a new session and changing the samplerate. After saving and restarting PT, it would blue screen. Everything seems fine now. This problem did not occur for me in 9.01.

hueseph, post: 372180 wrote: Well, I can't help but think we'll be waiting a long while for input monitoring. Look how long it took for ADC.

I totally agree.

At the AVID presentation they used latency as a selling point. 1.4 ms round trip. That's pretty good..........@192kHz. How many channels do you figure you could get on anaverage DAW at that samplerate?

Actually, latency decreases in all DAW's as you increase the sample rate. I think you can achieve similar latency results with any DAW at 192kHz. However, I'd like to point out that the 192kHz thing is nothing but a marketing angle which, for intents and purposes, is impractical and unnecessary. Dan Lavry:

Dan Lavry - Sampling Theory for Digital Audio wrote:
Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth.
What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy
above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick
up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not
reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the
objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre
ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz.

Sampling at 192KHz produces larger files requiring more storage space and slowing down the
transmission. Sampling at 192KHz produces a huge burden on the computational processing
speed requirements. There is also a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. Conversion at
100MHz yield around 8 bits, conversion at 1MHz may yield near 16 bits and as we approach
50-60Hz we get near 24 bits. Speed related inaccuracies are due to real circuit considerations,
such as charging capacitors, amplifier settling and more. Slowing down improves accuracy.

I know it's a little off topic, but it relates to the 192kHz marketing ploy propagated by Avid and other companies.

Another thing was VCA faders and destructive editing. At any rate. I really like PT9. Would I invest in Native? Maybe. I can think of other things to spend the money on.

Me too. And what exactly is the point of destructive editing? I dunno, I'm a Steinberg guy so I don't get it. While Avid has tried to give us a full featured DAW, they have still skimped on certain things to keep their products from overlapping and continue to gatekeep their customers.

Cheers :)

Mo Facta, post: 372153 wrote: Input Monitoring

Do you mean there's no input monitoring through the software at all?

Mo Facta, post: 372201 wrote: Actually, latency decreases in all DAW's as you increase the sample rate. I think you can achieve similar latency results with any DAW at 192kHz. However, I'd like to point out that the 192kHz thing is nothing but a marketing angle which, for intents and purposes, is impractical and unnecessary.

All I was saying is, most people don't have the drive space or cpu power to do 24 channels at 192k simultaneously. Or maybe they do. Most people won't. Of course it's a ploy. I'm not necessarily supporting Avid. Just regurgitating what they were trying to push as a selling point.

bouldersound, post: 372202 wrote: Do you mean there's no input monitoring through the software at all?

Nope. The feature just does not exist except in HD. I know it's odd. That is why latency is such a big issue in Pro Tools.

hueseph, post: 372205 wrote: Nope. The feature just does not exist except in HD. I know it's odd. That is why latency is such a big issue in Pro Tools.

So users are left with the monitoring arrangement of the hardware they use? That would be fine with me as I do a mult from outboard preamps to an analog mixer to get zero latency input monitoring. I went through some trouble to circumvent the input monitoring in PT7 and PT8 that doesn't turn off.

But what about users who are used to monitoring inputs through PT with the so-called "Low Latency Mode" on their 002R?

bouldersound, post: 372206 wrote: ...But what about users who are used to monitoring inputs through PT with the so-called "Low Latency Mode" on their 002R?

Still there on the Digi products - just not on the third party interfaces. So punchouts are a kludge, but other than that it's not so bad.

I hear what you are saying about ADC hueseph, but I am thinking that Avid will have to adapt to the new environment. They have to compete with RME on interfaces and with Steinberg, Magix, and Sony on software - and these are separate competitions. A lot of people like a lot of things about their software better, but I don't think they will put up with major features being left out when they can switch software for a few hundred bucks.

hueseph, post: 372203 wrote: All I was saying is, most people don't have the drive space or cpu power to do 24 channels at 192k simultaneously. Or maybe they do. Most people won't. Of course it's a ploy. I'm not necessarily supporting Avid. Just regurgitating what they were trying to push as a selling point.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were. I totally agree with what you're saying. I was just pointing out that you can achieve the same latency results in any other DAW, at 192kHz, with any converter, provided it can sample that fast.

That being said, I have to admit, the fact that you can have virtually latency free monitoring WITH the addition of realtime TDM processing (reverb, compression, etc) IS a strong plus in favour of Pro Tools HD. That is probably the sole reason that I would look into getting it and the core of the input monitoring dilemma here.

HOWEVER AGAIN, because of the advent of more and more powerful CPU chips, it's getting possible to run this processing on input natively. With that, combined with UAD cards and the like, and good converters, I believe it's possible to build a system that rivals any reasonable HD system for a lot less money and with your DAW of choice. You could always buy a copy of Pro Tools 9 and keep it for when you need it.

But look, I'm not trying to talk down Pro Tools, Avid, it's users or anyone. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I just think the DAW I use is best and the rest can go to hell.

That's all.

Cheers :biggrin:

hueseph, post: 372205 wrote: Nope. The feature just does not exist except in HD. I know it's odd. That is why latency is such a big issue in Pro Tools.

Yup. Always has been. It's also exactly why, IMO, LE was such a piece of junk and why HD always seemed so expensive for something so trivial. That, and ADC.

Cheers :)

Mo Facta, post: 372213 wrote:
HOWEVER AGAIN, because of the advent of more and more powerful CPU chips, it's getting possible to run this processing on input natively. With that, combined with UAD cards and the like, and good converters, I believe it's possible to build a system that rivals any reasonable HD system for a lot less money and with your DAW of choice. You could always buy a copy of Pro Tools 9 and keep it for when you need it.

Cheers :biggrin:

Mo Facta, fun having you with us.

I'm going to buy Pro Tools 9 to see what's going on with it more than anything. To broaden my knowledge and to help me understand what the Pro Tooler are talking about in threads. The input monitor won't effect me at this point but I can see if they don't include this soon, it will bite them where it hurts and/or force people to move up to the HD. I come from the mind set its better not to do anything at all if you can't do it well in the first place.

I hate annoying tier systems that don't flow with the crowd.

Don't forget there are other DSP cards out there now with their own version of tape saturation. UAD-2 with the A800 for example and now that they are an official RTAS developer there is bound to be more change. TDM isn't the only game in town and for that matter, I don't think it's the best sounding either.

There's an exchange old MIX version to HD Native [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.acoustic…"]System najwy[/]="http://www.acoustic…"]System najwy[/] what actually do I need to do that kind of exchange? I think it's cheap.

You need to be the registered owner of the mix system. When you make your purchase, you have 30 days to return the unit to Avid. At least that's the way it works over here. If you are the registered owner, they will have your system on file so they expect that you will ship it out in trust. The retailer should make the arrangements, otherwise you can contact Avid directly.