Login / Register
 
Sequoia vs Pro Tools
New Reply
Subscribe
#61
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #61
Lives for gear
 
lowfreq33's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,186

lowfreq33 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by zemlin View Post
More folks use PT than Samp/Sequoia. Which is better?
Chevy sells more cars than BMW. Which is better?
I drive a BMW. I use Samplitude.
I don't care what's more popular. I use what I think is best.
My wife used to have a BMW. It was in the shop all the time, and parts were wicked pricey. I drive a 96 Chevy Blazer. Runs like a champ, I doubt I've spent more than 5 grand on parts in 11 years, including things like oil changes and wiper blades.

Of course, if you love your beemer, more power to ya. Why should I be concerned about what someone else is driving?
__________________
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?!
#62
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 5,166

Ruphus is offline
PT was the first platform that worked somewhat stable due to the goo idea of hard- and software coming from the same manufacturer.

( Unlike Steinberg who due to the resignative mentality of todays average mind found themselves able to build up their company on a lie. On the lie of an actually working software. The truth was that their software wouldn´t really run on any computer. They were selling huge marketing for a phantom. Until the times before Windows XP that platform meant nothing than crashes and lost files.)

Samplitude however showed relativ stable already in Win95 times. Only drawback: It had no midi.

Stupid enough to expect midi / sampling of that time to be able of truthfully simulating instruments, I went with the only stable platform that could do both. That was PT.

PT shines in customer support, in the invention of playlists indeed, and before all with superp routing and automatisation.

But its editing and processing are sh!t and to my impression the only reason why PT is still market leader is the inflexibility of the users.

Let´s look at the cause for what it is. Learning a new DAW takes time. To reach up to full workflow and considerable knowledge of all the options many months will be needed.
The more even as most pros aren´t 18 year olds who could swap horses rather quickly.

Just look at how they clinch to Macs. The fear they have from a more complex and flexible system like a PC indicates the actual culprit, eventhough PCs aren´t that hard to handle anymore and much more of a versatile tool.

Samplitude is incredibly CPU-efficient, sounds better without doubt and supports a creative approach much better than PT.

The BIG drawback however is its f***ed up routing and its even worse, ... rather none-existing track automation.

Weren´t there those two, most dominant flaws of the program, Samplitude would have even overcome the biggest hurdle, namely the human inflexibility of PT users and might have well been dominating the market by now.

I really don´t get why they don´t fix these important aspects already.
There is a stubborness to the makers of that program that even overcomes their market goals. And that while they aren´t idealist monks at all. In fact I would rate Magix no. 1 ( and NI as no. 2, looks like "German tradition" ) among the greediest software makers.

Just look at their pricings ( especially Sequoia and the plugins. Incredibly irrational labelling that is!) and their squeezing upgrading policies and you´ll see why.

Anyway, the day they finally fix that crappy routing and the automation their program should be the best out there, IMO.

Ruphus
__________________
"Am I the only one that tires of this "everything is subjective" watered-down-pop-culture-pseudo-philosophy bullshit?" Bravin Neff

Wolgang Burr, former office leader of the German Chancellor before committee of inquiry: "You would not believe what unusual happens daily."


"Patience, young Skywalker - let the object of your desires come to you." JTR

"All thinking men are atheists." Ernest Hemingway
#63
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Gravity8058's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,814

Gravity8058 is offline
I use both daily. PT for editing multitrack sessions and mixing (back through the Neve never in the box) and Samplitude for mastering. I will say this: the first time I played back a mix file off Samplitude I could hear the difference. The same file played back off Samplitude sounds better than that same file played off PT.

I've got $65k invested in PT, and about $4k invested in Samplitude. Wish it weren't true, but it is. I think perhaps (if I remember correctly) PT's audio engine is 32 bit fixed and Samplitude is 64 floating. Is this right? If that's the case it may explain what I hear.
__________________
Doug McBride
www.gravitymastering.com
#64
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Gravity8058's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,814

Gravity8058 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
So this is the reason why Sequoia is the number one DAW program out there?
Oh that's right, IT'S NOT! That would be Pro Tools.
Oh yeah, one more thing: waving the banner of Protools is like waving the banner of Walmart -- what's the point?

#65
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #65
Lives for gear
 
lowfreq33's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,186

lowfreq33 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravity8058 View Post
I use both daily. PT for editing multitrack sessions and mixing (back through the Neve never in the box) and Samplitude for mastering. I will say this: the first time I played back a mix file off Samplitude I could hear the difference. The same file played back off Samplitude sounds better than that same file played off PT.

I've got $65k invested in PT, and about $4k invested in Samplitude. Wish it weren't true, but it is. I think perhaps (if I remember correctly) PT's audio engine is 32 bit fixed and Samplitude is 64 floating. Is this right? If that's the case it may explain what I hear.
LE is 32 bit floating, HD is 48.
#66
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #66
Lives for gear
 
AMIEL's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 3,829

Send a message via AIM to AMIEL Send a message via MSN to AMIEL Send a message via Yahoo to AMIEL
AMIEL is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdoranpalmer View Post
We always get into to these discussions about the best and PT normally is rated high because of how many organizations use it. It is not however the best.


When looking over the capabilities of the two, functionality, throughput, resources, upgrades, plugins, add ons, on and on. The Sequoia program is clearly superior.


.
I am a PT HD user, and I was using or years a PC with Sonar, Cubase,Ableton live and others ..
So I am not blind to believe PT is the only great DAW.

I never tried Sequia or Samplitude..I am sure are great!

But what I love about Protools is the stability and also I really think MacOS is much more stable than Windows.....so after all I have much more control and I do not have problems mixing or working when a PC is really having artifacts and weird playback issues. ..that make me lose control and focus.

I am very intrigued about Sequia....you mentioned that the features, fuctionality and others are much better than Protools HD...please can you specify which features and functionality in Sequia are much better than the ones in PT?
__________________
------------------

Peace.

Reuven Amiel

"There are no rules, just knowledge, good taste and experimentation"

"Music was designed to escape from reality for a moment, not to magnify our fears and problems"
#67
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #67
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
allencollins's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Rosedale Cemetery Singing Beach, MA
Posts: 4,868

allencollins is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundrick View Post
There have been a few similar statements in this thread...... Your "real world" metaphors don't apply here. You're refering to a completely different and larger group of consumers. People drive Saturns and Hyundais because they can't afford a Ferarri, not because they think a Saturn is better.
By that standard, Pro Tools should be the least popular, since it's well beyond $10,000, and most of these "better" competitors hover around and below a quarter of that.

and for the record, nothing does it for me like a big fat Strat tone, regardless of their "substandard" build quality

I like how you picked my 'metaphor' out of the 'others' that came 'after' mine.
Your point is weak..........

weak? why? cuz 99% of 'Protools' users use free LE with the $200 mbox. So spare me your "since it's well beyond $10,000" point cuz I know the truth. If I spent 10k on protools Id be pissed too cuz the users with the mbox get the same crappy sound. Luckily for us it is limited to 24 tracks of crappy sound.


'big fat Strat tone' ??? is that an oxymoron? single coil, hmmmm, Fat?
don't you mean huuuuummmmm?? Love that 'fat' tone from the four Bolts
putting a spike right where the tone is (was).

I'm curious. Does a 3 bolt 76 strat sound as bad as the four bolt models?
I wonder if that 1 less bolt give you more sustain??

Maybe thats why CBS changed the design.
#68
14th September 2007
Old 14th September 2007
  #68
Lives for gear
 
AMIEL's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 3,829

Send a message via AIM to AMIEL Send a message via MSN to AMIEL Send a message via Yahoo to AMIEL
AMIEL is offline
I am not here to defend any DAW because I think you can make great products in Protools, Sequia , Sonar, Cubase etc.

But I think is very important to realize the differences between the Protools system.

Just talking adio quality...you can not compare an mbox with an HD system...the converters in a HD systems sound much better.

Also the Digidesine interfaces have a sound! a unique sound that I will call the "Protools sound"...I can tell that sound when I open a Protools session that was recorderded with a different DAW o interface.....I think is an interesting unique sound...but I got my Protools with Lynx Aurora and sounds very different that using a Digidesign interface , the sound is much more natural/

The other day I open the same session in made in Ableton live....same monitors studio etc....one session was on my Mac with the Lynx Aurora , the other (same session) with my PC with an RME Multiface ....the difference was dramatic....the session thru the Lynx sounded much , much better, more defined, open, warmer etc ......So I guess the sound quality between Sequia and Protools must be very similar if you use a great converter as the Lynx......
#69
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #69
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
allencollins's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Rosedale Cemetery Singing Beach, MA
Posts: 4,868

allencollins is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundrick View Post
Didn't mean to "pick" on your post, I just wasn't going back to quote all of them.

Actually, since this is the HIGH END forum, and the thread began by comparing PT to a program that is relatively expensive itself, I assumed we were talking about HD.

I will agree that it is really well marketed.........And that being said, I'm going to tell everyone I know to quit using it, cause it sucks.........Anything marketed that much can't be any good.
I think is sucks. Their converters are better than rme but not much else
#70
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #70
Gear nut
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 85

PandaFOH is offline
( Unlike Steinberg who due to the resignative mentality of todays average mind found themselves able to build up their company on a lie. On the lie of an actually working software. The truth was that their software wouldn´t really run on any computer. They were selling huge marketing for a phantom. Until the times before Windows XP that platform meant nothing than crashes and lost files.)

Interesting opinion.

I use both platforms out of necessity. One for clients and one for getting work done. When I have time, I lurk here on occasion out of boredom and to see what the haps is gear wise.


I mix for for label touring bands who aren't interested in what I think - but rather is it getting done, and want to provide me the best tools for doing so. Fortunately for me, most of the time there are little budget constraints for accomplishing those tasks. I spend roughly 6-7 months on the road behind Digi's Venue console or a Midas and another 3-4 months in the studio either mixing, editing, or consulting. Lucky me. Which reminds me of another thing I will address at a later time.

I can assure you; after a sold out arena or shed show, most singers or musicians don't care whether it was captured on a particular platform. (Though they do tend to call every thing "protools") Most are simply interested in knowing that their performance was saved on a hard disk in the hopes that it will generate more revenue at a later time.

Having multi tracked over 600 shows in the last 5 odd years ... I will say this about the platform debate:

3 years in a semi - 4 mac g4s died, countless protools sessions crashed. Most crashes wiped out a whole show, resulting in my ass getting chewed by both band and management.

Before anyone reminds me about the service of the company, or claims that I was doing something wrong ... know that I and my system tech spent countless hours on the phone with Digi product specialists. With several coming out to shows to lend a hand on occasion. All very nice and knowledgeable people - and I can't thank them enough for their time and effort. They make a solid effort and their product and company are indeed the standard by which others are measured.

2 years in a semi ... on a 1000$ pc built from parts loaded with nuendo. No crashes .. no lost data. No time spent on the phone. No visits from specialists.

draw your own conclusions kids.

Panda

Call me crazy, but debating a platform/computer/os seems rather pointless, use what you dig and what works for you.
#71
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #71
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,334

oceantracks is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by PandaFOH View Post
( Unlike Steinberg who due to the resignative mentality of todays average mind found themselves able to build up their company on a lie. On the lie of an actually working software. The truth was that their software wouldn´t really run on any computer. They were selling huge marketing for a phantom. Until the times before Windows XP that platform meant nothing than crashes and lost files.)

Interesting opinion.

I use both platforms out of necessity. One for clients and one for getting work done. When I have time, I lurk here on occasion out of boredom and to see what the haps is gear wise.


I mix for for label touring bands who aren't interested in what I think - but rather is it getting done, and want to provide me the best tools for doing so. Fortunately for me, most of the time there are little budget constraints for accomplishing those tasks. I spend roughly 6-7 months on the road behind Digi's Venue console or a Midas and another 3-4 months in the studio either mixing, editing, or consulting. Lucky me. Which reminds me of another thing I will address at a later time.

I can assure you; after a sold out arena or shed show, most singers or musicians don't care whether it was captured on a particular platform. (Though they do tend to call every thing "protools") Most are simply interested in knowing that their performance was saved on a hard disk in the hopes that it will generate more revenue at a later time.

Having multi tracked over 600 shows in the last 5 odd years ... I will say this about the platform debate:

3 years in a semi - 4 mac g4s died, countless protools sessions crashed. Most crashes wiped out a whole show, resulting in my ass getting chewed by both band and management.

Before anyone reminds me about the service of the company, or claims that I was doing something wrong ... know that I and my system tech spent countless hours on the phone with Digi product specialists. With several coming out to shows to lend a hand on occasion. All very nice and knowledgeable people - and I can't thank them enough for their time and effort. They make a solid effort and their product and company are indeed the standard by which others are measured.

2 years in a semi ... on a 1000$ pc built from parts loaded with nuendo. No crashes .. no lost data. No time spent on the phone. No visits from specialists.

draw your own conclusions kids.

Panda

Call me crazy, but debating a platform/computer/os seems rather pointless, use what you dig and what works for you.

Panda, you're not crazy, but your situation is by definition unusual and not the norm, or PT would not be the standard of the industry, Nuendo would. I use PT day and night, as do hundreds and hundreds of others around the world (thousands?).....if it was crashing day after day and losing data no one would be using it.

TH
#72
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,612

fifthcircle is offline
To clear things up: Sequoia's engine is officially 32 bit float. However, a number of the internal processes use upsampling to make them sound better (like a number of Sascha's Analog/vintage plugins) and the resolution of certain processes reach 80 or more bits. Volker (the lead developer) is a DSP genius and has told me that he has figured out some "voodo" with the 32 bit summing engine to make it sound better.

Also, I think that the sound of the interface is a non-issue. I use digital interfaces and outboard converters. My judgements on sound are strictly summing. Most of my work is on PT LE systems (occasionally HD), and Sequoia. Sequoia's sound stomps on PT.

Now, that said, as I said in my first post, both systems have their good and bad points and I use both because of that. I've also heard plenty of good and bad projects done on both. Tony (despite his attitude he's showing here) mixes some pretty awesome sounding records in PT. If that works for him, all the better. S. Husky Höskulds does awesome mixes in Sequoia.

Use what works for you...

--Ben
__________________
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Long Beach, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
#73
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #73
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 2,401

colinmiller is offline
No crashes or dead computers here after many many years straight Panda. Sorry to hear you had such bad luck, but just because you had bad luck doesn't mean it is that way for everyone else. But I had that same run of bad luck, I would probably switch too. However I am a bit suspect that there weren't some other factors involved if you are having that many computers go down and that many crashes, but I have no way of knowing. I too spent a long time doing live recordings. I use PT and never had a computer die, never had a single crash during a recording, many of which were several hours long. The only incident was in the early days of PT when the power to the venue went out and when PT would record an audio file it would allocate the entire drive space meaning the drive was not useable when brought back up. However, it was simply an issue of popping in a new removeable drive and moving on. And I think they changed that method over 7 years ago.

Likewise I am more than confident that I could find someone who used PCs and Nuendo and had 4 computers fail and had multiple crashes while recording. Just like any platform or program.

What's sad is that these threads no matter what the formats being discussed are, always have to turn into various people bickering back and forth to defend whether they think PT or Nuendo is better (not directed at anyone in particular). If one thinks Nuendo is better, more power to em. But don't go running around thinking that everyone using PT is suffering and having endless crashes and hardware failures and all that. Most of us have a perfect record. And I am sure the opposite is true as well.
#74
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #74
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,334

oceantracks is offline
"Just look at how they clinch to Macs. The fear they have from a more complex and flexible system like a PC indicates the actual culprit, eventhough PCs aren´t that hard to handle anymore and much more of a versatile tool."


I don't fear PCs, I just think they are clunky and awful, they ripped off the MAC OS years ago and they do it in an ugly, unrefined manner that I find a huge turnoff.

I've run Macs and PCs and there is no comparison to me, my Macs have always been more stable than the PC, and much more enjoyable and intuitive to work with. Don't assume that because Mac users don't want a PC they are scared of them...they just don't need 'em.

TH
#75
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #75
Lives for gear
 
AMIEL's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 3,829

Send a message via AIM to AMIEL Send a message via MSN to AMIEL Send a message via Yahoo to AMIEL
AMIEL is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
"
I've run Macs and PCs and there is no comparison to me, my Macs have always been more stable than the PC, and much more enjoyable and intuitive to work with. Don't assume that because Mac users don't want a PC they are scared of them...they just don't need 'em.

TH
Yes! I also worked on PCs for years...and I still have a PC ..just because there are a cople of programs and plug ins that are not on Mac....and I would not bash a PC because that would be silly.

I am not gonna argue If Protools or Cubase is better o more stable..I like them both.

But after working with PCs and Macs,I do believe 100% that a Mac is much more stable and solid than a Windows PC...I had crashes everyday with PCs with mostly all DAWs and with a Mac I am so happy ...So if you use Cubase.....specially live ..I think the smart choice is a Mac not a PC!!!!! that is silly!!
#76
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #76
Gear nut
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 85

PandaFOH is offline
... if it was crashing day after day and losing data no one would be using it.

It (PT) was not crashing day after day. Unfortunately when it did crash, it would always seem to be at an inopportune time. For the most part, it has been my experience that protools IS a stable proggy. Macs, by their design on the other hand, are not exactly road warriors - quite flimsy in fact. As I can personally attest.

TH, my point wasn't to slam one proggy or the other, and I apologize to any one who may have construed it that way. Any of these tools are simply that, tools. They all have their merits and pitfalls. I like to think I can remain objective to my personal experience. Maybe I can ... maybe I can't ... but I can tell you first hand that I own both black and decker and sears ... and both hammers get the job done equally well, if you get my point.

However, after reading so many of these posts where the banner of a particular computer/os/program is waved in the face of common sense for what seems more like a personal agenda ... well ... I am sure you will agree: it does get a little tiring.

I, like most everyone here, am very interested in real world experience, tips, gear recommendations etc. It's the "my gear is better than your gear Rhetoric" that I personally find a little off at times - simply because I can't fathom the reasoning that leads people to their conclusions half the time. Such is the nature of the web ... I guess.

anyway ... have a good day ... I have plane to catch.

Panda
#77
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #77
Lives for gear
 
colinmiller's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 2,401

colinmiller is offline
Also in regards to why one has a bigger user base than the other, etc. It's not because one is better and one is worse, or one was there first, or one just had a bigger marketing campaign or is simply a big evil company.

PT has become a standard because it is a standard system. It's standardized in every way. The hardware, the commands, the work flow are all standardized. You can walk into any PT room anywhere in the world and your work is guaranteed to play back exactly the way it did in every other room anywhere in the world, and it's guaranteed to play the same way on every system as far as track count, etc and always work. There are no outside influences such as other apps running on the computer, or performance or track count effected by the amount of DSP being used, etc. You can go in any room in the world and know the key commands. No guess work or set up.

With other systems you have to make sure you're using the same interface and hard ware setups, hope you have the right drivers, and if you don't many of your plugins and settings may no longer work. You may have to set up your own key commands and lay out each time. Things which make going from room to room difficult.

And on the other side, these benefits of PT are the same things that make it undesirable for some. It's inflexibility makes it very un-customizable and not friendly to ones personal needs and use. Thus people who are working in thier own room and often the only ones using their system may prefer a system that can be better customized to that individuals needs. This makes the program much faster because it's set up specifically for them and more efficient.

Neither is better and both have their purpose and place.

PS - I have Sequoia and it works just great. But I honestly can't give an opinion on it or PT being better than the other because the comparison just makes no sense to me personally. It seems to have really good time /pitch stretching abilities.
#78
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 3,738

Tony Shepperd is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle View Post
Tony (despite his attitude he's showing here) mixes some pretty awesome sounding records in PT. If that works for him, all the better. S. Husky Höskulds does awesome mixes in Sequoia.

Use what works for you...

--Ben
Thanks for the compliment.

If Sequoia works for you, that's cool.
Personally, if I had to mix on a PC I would go back to mixing OTB on a CS 3000 Euphonix.

I just couldn't do it. I have a hatred for the PC operating systems.
IMO, it's cumbersome and convoluted to work in.
I guess maybe if you were raised on PC, it would be different, but I own 9 macs and I don't ever see myself using a PC.

And because Sequoia is PC only at this point... well, you do the math.
__________________
Hybrid mixing is the present for some and the future for us all!

http://www.groove3.com/str/RB-master-series-II.html

Ask me about Artist Endorsements for A Designs Audio and Pete's Place
#79
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Jake 2.0's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 620

Jake 2.0 is offline
Whatver works for you and gets the job done at the end of the day,

BUT..some clients may want you to have PRO TOOLs, because they heard and know that its the industry standard, like it or not. I mainly use pro tools for a few small things mainly Beat Dectecive and i work very fast to it as it is what i mainly use for sesssion. I own Logic and Cubase and love those programs as well in thier own right, logic for midi minaly and cubase for editing and tracking is pretty sweet overall. I don't belive different programs have a SOUND to it. Its 0's and 1's its not an SSL Or a Neve Or An Api. Unless the coding is serioulsy flawed there is no reason for it to sound different than slow tools, cutface, and Digtal Dancer, Sampletuts. Thier all great programs if they work for you and what you need to get done.

1-0 1 Cubase/Nuendo
2-0 1 Logic
3-0 1 Pro Tools
4-0 1 DP
5-0 1 Cakewalk
yadayadayada
Hmm i think the 3rd one sounds better beacuase i read in eq magazine that its the industry standard. haha
#80
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #80
Lives for gear
 
s.d.finley's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,144

s.d.finley is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd View Post
T
And because Sequoia is PC only at this point... well, you do the math.
Sebastion, any possiblity of a MAC version of sampletude?

So many mac users, myself included would love to demo your software!!!

#81
15th September 2007
Old 15th September 2007
  #81
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 317

XLR2XLR is offline
Pro Tools is fairly stable other than than it's an old dog of a system, people use
pro tools cause their neighbour uses it.

It is very very outdated in terms of editing tools and is showing it's age.

I have used both TDM and LE systems and I MUCH prefer using Nuendo for
virtually all jobs, SADiE pis*** all over PT when it come to mastreing and in genaral
audio editing, if you have not used Nuendo or SADiE then don't reply with some
blanket PT is good because lots of people use it, people are like sheep and use
what they think makes them a "pro".

It has some massive holes in it's editing feature set and even Cubase makes the
editing capability look like something from prehistory and what makes me laugh is that the die hard users
actually put up with this "editing from the dark ages" system.

it's strength and weakness is that it's toolset is antiquated but familiar in differing studios, oh my god it still writes fades to a file i/o in memory, no RT bounce (that is a joke) I like to decide my key commands PT (no choice your stuck with what DIGI think they should be, even freeware software allow you to customize your key commands)

The metering is unusable, no scaling WTF?

The zooming and navigation is beyond belief.

The price is too high.

European tech support is some stoned guy in Amsterdam.

I use it but not by choice, try Pyramix, SADiE, anyhing but don't just say its great
cause you own it, there is better this is beyond doubt, it's just hard to teach old dogs new tricks that all.

(Someone said it's the closes to a trad studio, is that really what you want your
software studio to work like? is it not better to design in and beneit from certain advantages in software?)

I have a Nuendo rig with the same convertor quality as PT HD, it's a third of the
price and does everything PT does no quuestions and it does it faster and better
and did I mention a LOT cheaper.

It's just a system that the unknowing keep on using cause they are too lazy,
too stubborn, not capable of, like to feel "pro" about not trying other better systems cause they like the status quo of using the path more travelled.

The mixer routing is ok though.

Quote:
It's standardized in every way. The hardware, the commands, the work flow are all standardized. You can walk into any PT room anywhere in the world and your work is guaranteed to play back exactly the way it did in every other room anywhere in the world, and it's guaranteed to play the same way on every system as far as track count, etc and always work.
That is the biggest crock I have ever seen, even PT is not compatible with PT,
if you don;t have the right version you are stuffed, OMF anyone? err that'll be
$500.00 for digitranslator, errr MP3 anyone, errr that will be chargeable, err tech support
anyone (stoned man in Amsterdam are you there?) err that'll be $xxx PER YEAR THANKS.

Money for old rope, no 2 ways about it.
#82
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #82
Lives for gear
 
AMIEL's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 3,829

Send a message via AIM to AMIEL Send a message via MSN to AMIEL Send a message via Yahoo to AMIEL
AMIEL is offline
I am probably one o the few guys that I will never give my back to other programs just because I have a Pro tools HD3 accell system.

I think is fool to don't check what is around.,,

Also i I would choose an OS will be a Mac ...so no chance or me to use any other program on a PC.

Now this seems like a war...I have to admit that hardcore Protools users are much less educated about different DAWs than guys that are not Protool users..I can tell that I have many Pro friends and Grammy winner that they are not capable to turn on a PC o kind of use decently another program besides of PT.
For the other had seems that non Protools users are trying to make everybody believe that Protools is crap and that sounds horrible...seems that they want to feel as Pro as some guys that believe they are just because they have a PT HD system...that is crap...use what is good for you!!!
...I am not gonna say that Protools is better.....because is not, but is not also worst than others....Protools excells in certain areas as also other programs like Cubase, Ableton, Acid Pro...sue Sequia.....etc

But come on ! to say Protools is crap and sounds horrible...that is crazy and insane....many top guys have the luxury to use anything , they have devoted assistants that can transfer the files to any format and leave the session ready for the mixers....but most of them use Protools...why?? again I am not gonna say because is better...but definetly if Protools would be crap and sounds so bad not even the best marketing would help.
This top guys use Protools because they consider is good and can do the job.

Yes I wish Protools can have some feautures that I have in other Programs....but stability is so important to me and give great control and feel confident that my session will run very smooth.
#83
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #83
Lives for gear
 
laser's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2003
Location: On the Road to Escondido
Posts: 682

laser is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMIEL View Post
But come on ! to say Protools is crap and sounds horrible...that is crazy and insane....many top guys have the luxury to use anything , they have devoted assistants that can transfer the files to any format and leave the session ready for the mixers....but most of them use Protools...why?? again I am not gonna say because is better...but definetly if Protools would be crap and sounds so bad not even the best marketing would help.
This top guys use Protools because they consider is good and can do the job.

Yes I wish Protools can have some feautures that I have in other Programs....but stability is so important to me and give great control and feel confident that my session will run very smooth.
I agree with this. I think this discussion is losing perspective.

I'm a Sequoia user (track on a RADAR). I auditioned several DAWs, including Pro Tools (previous to HD), Pyramix and Fairlight. At that time, Sequoia was clearly better sonically, which is why I bought it. Sequoia v7 was very stable and more functional than Pro Tools.

Since then, I've been to a half dozen studios with Pro Tools v7.x and each time walked away feeling that Digidesign has definitely, sonically speaking, narrowed the gap. Rick Krizman posted some clips a few months ago recorded and mixed on Pro Tools that were quite good.

Sequoia has become less stable as it increases its functionality. V7 was very stable. V8 lesser so. I don't have v9, but there have been numerous complaints on the Magix user's website--some users reverting back to v8. Pro Tools has gotten more stable. In fact, studio owners with Pro Tools I've spoke to are all extremely pleased with the reliability of their systems.

I think the key difference between the two is the method of workflow that the customer sees. Many studios I visited used Pro Tools as their primary method of mixing. From this standpoint, it's a no brainer. The hardware-of-choice, that most often used with Sequoia, is the mouse. Some Sequoian's may use a Mackie MCU (the only hardware controller that Magix sanctions), but Sequoia's functionality on the MCU is limited versus other DAWs like Logic, Cubase, Sonar and Nuendo. And, let's face it, you're not going to wow many clients when they show up and see a Mackie MCU. Pro Tools has several legitimate choices, depending on budget, with another in the works.

Many have noted industry compatibility, clearly Pro Tools rules here. But, also important, is compatibility with other software/hardware. When a piece of software/hardware is made for Pro Tools, and almost all of the premier ones are, it works (well, almost always). Look at how many pieces of software/hardware have Samplitude or Sequoia listed as DAWs they were made to be used with. Not many. Though they generally work, it's not as reassuring as having your DAW's name listed on the box, as it almost always the case with Nuendo, Logic, Cubase, and Sonar.

Pro Tools understands their customer base and have the resources to give them what they are looking for. They've made great strides into MIDI with Strike and other programs, better progress than Sequoia (though neither are as good as other DAWs). Score editor? Avid buys Sibelius--that certainly takes care of that. The score editor on Sequoia is a joke by comparison.

I would have switched to Pro Tools a year ago, but I do like Sequoia's object editing, source-destination editing and most important, the way it sounds--simple as that. Although I have better dithering and burning tools, I find the ability to burn CDs on Sequoia a great convenience. Besides, I already have excellent converters and don't like the fact that Digidesign requires me to buy theirs when procuring their software.

But I'd give anything to have a high-quality controller to operate it with. Every decent DAW has one: Pro Tools (several), Nuendo (two), Pyramix (two), Fairlight (several). I've been waiting 3 years and Magix is now promising on their next release better functionality with the---yeah, you guessed it--Mackie MCU.

Laser
#84
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #84
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 113

Sequoia Berlin is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.d.finley View Post
Sebastion, any possiblity of a MAC version of sampletude?

So many mac users, myself included would love to demo your software!!!

My Software?

I don't work for them anymore for just over 18 months.

But from outisde I don't see a reason to go dual platform at the moment. OSX has no advantages for professional audio, functionally. And Apple makes software for the segment themselves at a price that will be hard to bring another product into the market for the die-hard maconians.

Greetings,

Sebastian
#85
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #85
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 3,738

Tony Shepperd is offline
And there you have it.
At least 80% of the current music market place just walked away.
#86
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #86
Gear addict
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Maribor
Posts: 454

TAXS is offline
So sequoia is more easy to handle then Cubase SX?
PDC
#87
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #87
PDC
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,888

PDC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anderson View Post
Now a question to you. You seem so self-assured.

Did you even try Samplitude or Sequoia? I did. Had a Digi001 with LE for a few months when a student back when it just went out, I worked a lot on PT when an assistant, and use PT now and then when it is the main system installed. I also used Cubase, Nuendo etc in the past.

I am now a Samplitude/Sequoia loyal user since V7 and I have never used anything that comes even close to it in terms of functionnality, sound, reliability / stability. And don't come to me with no-latency & DSP crap etc when we are seeing quad and 8 cores CPUs and wonderful SSL Sydec interfaces coming to the market, which allow you to use whatever DAW you want (you heard me) on their powerful DSPs and I/Os.

These days I do 48 i/o on modest 4x MOTU HD192 @ 96kHz on a weekly basis, mixing on a LFAC (latency free monitoring available, though I don't need it since LFAC). It is absolutely stable.

That's one studio you can already put on your list of very happy users.

Also, your argument about the wild use of PT just doesn't stand. Magix does very little marketing for their products and yet, the user base for the Samp/Seq DAWS is increasing steadily. Digidesign is surfing on a wave of popularity thanks to heavy marketing and hammering, yet I feel that their client base is decreasing steadily. DOn't get me wrong, PT is a fine tool, just incredibly expensive for what it does, you're stuck on one platform and you have to keep up with expensive upgrades all the time.

Also, if I were you I would ask myself why so many great Mastering Engineers are using Sequoia and not PT or else. I know Bernie Grundman Mastering, Gateway Mastering (Bob Ludwig), Sterling Sound (Ted Jensen, Greg Calbi), Brad Blackwood (Euphonic Master) and others are using Sequoia as their main system. And The Library of US Congress. And symphonic Orchestra of Vienna. Most classical big guys are either on soundscape or Sequoia. And they are the most difficult customers.

Don't be a dick now. This is 2007. There are other DAWs that are more competitive price wise and in the absolute same league if not superior, which IMVHO is the case of Sequoia.

If you like PT and want to use it, fine with me, go ahead, keep doing great records with it. It works fine and if you are ready to live up to with the monopolistic ways of Digidesign, please by any means do.

Just don't diss products when I feel you haven't even used them and pbly would get a good kick in the butt from doing so.
Apples and oranges.

The OP did not specify whether he was considering an LE or HD system. Plug-in wise, HD is the champ with scalable DSP/number of plugs and latency that works as a system with no issues. Sure, you can buy Apogees, UADs and some other DAW, but there WILL be issues. Read the boards/blogs.
#88
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #88
Gear nut
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 85

PandaFOH is offline
Guys,

Just got back from Salt Lake ... wow ?!... still going eh?

Clearly, this is a hot button topic. I wish we could all learn something from all of this other than who prefers what etc.

I dunno maybe this is wishful thinking ... but perhaps the various mac/pc, protools/Sequoia/Nuendo, card/native, xp/ox camps can all call a cease fire long enough to exchange some useful universal information regardless of the box, program, or OS???

Christ fellas, I just got back from a USO tour over in Iraq and Kuwait a week ago and I tell you: Kirkut (one of the camps I visited) was hit by rocket fire while I was there ... and yet, it was seemingly less hostile than this thread.

Drummagog - now hopefully there's something we can all agree on ... maybe?

Panda
#89
16th September 2007
Old 16th September 2007
  #89
Moderator
 
toolskid's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: london
Posts: 3,036

Send a message via Skype™ to toolskid
toolskid is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR2XLR View Post
It is very very outdated in terms of editing tools and is showing it's age.
please expand upon this, this is a very strange statement...
#90
17th September 2007
Old 17th September 2007
  #90
Lives for gear
 
s.d.finley's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 4,144

s.d.finley is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequoia Berlin View Post
My Software?

I don't work for them anymore for just over 18 months.

But from outisde I don't see a reason to go dual platform at the moment. OSX has no advantages for professional audio, functionally. And Apple makes software for the segment themselves at a price that will be hard to bring another product into the market for the die-hard maconians.

Greetings,

Sebastian
Most unfortunate!

Your screen name made me think you still work for magix!

New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
stereotype / Music Computers
8
Sinewave / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
28
DivineMusic / Music Computers
7
laser / Music Computers
4
fifthcircle / Music Computers
0

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.