Quote:
|
Originally Posted by True North Now this a loaded gun waiting to be fired. 
Pro Tools establised itself early on when most of the other players didn't really step up. PT was one of the first systems that didn't rely on Native CPU power to run. Things are a little different today, with the advent of dual cpu machines and multi core CPU's we are beginning to approach acceptable processing power to run a DAW natively.
It just was not an option to run a professional session with a native solutioned DAW rig when hard disk recording first came into play. Because it was a system that was adopted early, many professional AE's learned it and it quickly became the DAW of choice almost by default - they weren't many other viable options at the time. People loved it's editing features and the automation. It's user interface was well designed.
There might be other opinions on this matter, but these are the factors that I think led to it's dominance.
There is no doubt that using almost any other product PT is way more flexible and a better option in many instances. Because PT is still a standard in professional studios, arguments have been made that it is the better choice in commercial studio environments, but that is a whole other can of worms.
Cheers! |
I work everyday in a proessional studio and try to keep up with the latest in technology.
I know of know no other system that can give me a large scale recording enviroment at a price that works for me. That can work in also every situation that I can throw at it. As I am typing right now I am re-bouncing a mix running 92 tracks @ 96 k with a ton of outboard processing, burning some reference mixes and sending another finished product to a mastering studio via Digidelivery all at the same time.
I can't speak for others but I know what works for me. All I can say is that there is no tool in music that's a "One Size Fits All" solution you just have to use what works best for you and go with it.
