stian wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:17 am
Trensharo wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:02 pm
RX is used a lot in post production. You can't run Acoustica stuff on a Pro Tools HDX system without the "VST Latency" and high CPU use.
This made me curious -- would it be possible to elaborate on this? Audio restoration plug-ins tend to have rather long latencies in general, but as far as I know, our plug-ins have shorter latencies and lower CPU usage than the corresponding offerings from most competitors. Even our deep learning based plug-ins such as Extract:Dialogue are available as plug-ins with automation support. Why is it harder to use the Acon Digital plug-ins with an HDX system? You're of course entitled to your opinion, and I usually don't comment on these, but I just wanted to know if there's something we've missed.
RX has plugins that run on HDX DSP hardware.
Those plugins are offloaded from the host PC to the HDX hardware. They use practically no CPU and have practically no latency in those situations. I'm talking 3-5 msec latency recording through the plug-in...
You can record through these plugins and the latency will be less than the latency of a budget interface on a PC recording with no plug-ins.
This is important when recording dialog or doing ADR.
For home studio use, this is ignorable as most won't be using that hardware or comparable setups.
For the markets where RX truly dominates, it's kind of a big deal.
Citing price and price alone makes no sense, because the price is typically a result of competitors not going where that solution goes, leaving them with fewer competitors in a key market. RX isn't really priced for bedroom producers, beyond the Elements SKU (and promotions).
And personally, I would own both Acoustica and RX as they aren't solutions that target the same niches to me. But I already have WaveLab for the other stuff, and already own too many plug-ins.
They aren't harder to use. Just less efficient and less practical at the higher end of the market. Avid has Hybrid Engine, now.