Why not Master in Protools?

[Bob Loblaw]

What do all these other DAWs(Sonic,Sequoia,etc..) do that protools can't? I know that protools doesn't encode disks ~yet~.

Follow up:
What business does a ME have with an HD rig?

[TRA]

PT is fine for the signal processing and editing, but it doesn't generate the PQ documentation or export a ddp file.

You'll end up using PT for your processing and then another program like SoundBlade, Waveburner, Bias, etc to put your master together and generate the ddp file.

Correct me if I'm wrong...I'm just beginning to dabble in mastering.

[studioland]

For Processing I don't see any reason why not using ptools.
You can use external gear easily and use every possibilities that the mix interface provides. Yet for creating the cd you need something else such as wavelab or samplitude ....

[MT Groove]

I know I'll get flamed for this but using Pro Tools for Mastering is like using a butcher knife to do surgery! :D When it's all said and done, you still need another program to do the PQ coding and burning. Also, doing fades in PT is a joke. But i know there are many successful MEs doing mastering in Pro Tools. Different strokes for different folks.

[bobwarren]

I imagine most engineers use Sonic Solutions but have Pro Tools or Nuendo so last minute edits can be made. Not sure why they don't use PT, but the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kinda applies here, eh?

[MAzevedo]

Basically two reasons: you can't do PQ coding and the editing really, really sucks. If you don't think the editing sucks, you probably haven't spent enough time using a mastering-focused DAW like Sonic or Sequoia. I probably shave 30 mins to an hour off a session by having the cleaner load-process-edit-burn workflow in Sonic that having to do steps one and two in PT then export to something else for steps 3-4.

[carlsaff]

There's nothing stopping you from using ProTools for mastering. There are some pretty big names that do.

Your DAW choice should be about what you're most comfortable using, what empowers you do to good work efficiently, and with the fewest limitations. That's going to be different apps for different folks.

I use Nuendo for editing, routing, capture, assembly, plugin processing, automation and export. Then I use simple CUE/WAV burning software to create the final PMCD (not doing DDP yet, but also have yet to receive a single request for it).

[hummer]

if you don't do a lot of editing, the 2-step protools shuffle is probably fine.

but matt is right.. once you use an elegant editor like sonic/sadie/sequoia, it's hard to go back to protools.

i use PT every day, and i think it's incredibly powerful for almost every aspect of audio production... and i've definitely witnessed PT gurus edit and navigate just as fast as i can in sonic.

but for mastering, it's really great to be able to see the big picture as you work, integrating PQ coding into the processing and editing stages.

waveform display starts to really, really, really suck in PT as you get zoomed in, IMO. and it kills me that PT doesn't latch horizontal and vertical zoom tools. crossfading is also a lot more cumbersome in PT than it is with the other DAWs mentioned.

[masteringhouse]

I won't disagree that there are better solutions than PT for quick editing/fades, and being able to burn a CD from the same application that you are using for processing is a big plus. There are several applications that are add-ons to PT that can accomplish this quite well.

OTOH I haven't found many applications as versatile as PT for routing, automation, and processing, as well as support from many third party software developers. Given that most of the time spent mastering is associated with processing I would rather have the flexibilty there.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

PT is a great recording and mixing engine.

It is not IMHO a very good or even adequate mastering product and I have seen too many mixers decide to "master" their stuff in PT and take what was a good sounding mix and make it into something that was not so good sounding by trying to master it in PT. I don't believe that Digidesign ever envisioned PT as a mastering platform or they would have included CD burning as part of the package.

Best to use something like Sequoia, Samplitude or Wavelab for your mastering and let PT do what it does best.

Best of luck!

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

PT is a great recording and mixing engine.

It is not IMHO a very good or even adequate mastering product and I have seen too many mixers decide to "master" their stuff in PT and take what was a good sounding mix and make it into something that was not so good sounding by trying to master it in PT. I don't believe that Digidesign ever envisioned PT as a mastering platform or they would have included CD burning as part of the package.

Tom, I've heard bad masters from Wavelab and the other packages as well, blame the driver, not the car.

Digidesign did have a package for CD burning long ago (masterlist) but decided for whatever reason not to continue. I would guess because there were and are other packages that competed, did this well and could easily be used in its place. Creating the CD with Waveburner, Sonic's new offerings, as well as any one of the other packages is a pretty minimal investment, and offers great flexibility when used with PT for processing. There's no reason why PT can't be used as an integral part of the mastering process. Many here do.

[brethes]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

PT is a great recording and mixing engine.

It is not IMHO a very good or even adequate mastering product and I have seen too many mixers decide to "master" their stuff in PT and take what was a good sounding mix and make it into something that was not so good sounding by trying to master it in PT. I don't believe that Digidesign ever envisioned PT as a mastering platform or they would have included CD burning as part of the package.

Best to use something like Sequoia, Samplitude or Wavelab for your mastering and let PT do what it does best.

Best of luck!

Tom, you should know better!

Tools are tools, and the fact that many top mastering engineers choose daily to work with Pro Tools HD (even though it was not specifically designed for that job and may be "less elegant" a solution as it is not all in one and requires another application for assembling & writing codes). This should be enough of a clue that it can be a perfectly fine tool for the job. Unfortunately, like the Waves L2, it doesn't come with a health hazard warning sticker and can be prone to miss-use and operator's error... But you can say that of any other similar application.

BTW, Digidesign was one of the first companies to offer a professional application for producing P&Q CD Masters. It was called Masterlist CD, and unfortunately was shelved by Avid when they took over and it was time to re-write the code to port it to OSX.

[Thomas W. Bethe]

Yes I know it is the driver and not the car but for some reason PT comes with 37 plugin (exact quantity unknown) and for some reason most people decide that they have to use everyone of them when they master....<GRIN> If I had to be stranded with only one program for mastering on a deserted island I would choose WL since I have used it from version 1.6 and feel comfortable with it and it does not get me into trouble with out a lot of stupidity on my part.

I basically do not like any Digidesign products and the reason is that early on in my mastering career I bought a system from Digidesign called Sound Designer II. I paid, in 1990's money, a great deal for the program and the hardware. Shortly after I purchased it and Digidesign banked the check they told me that it would not be updated and what I had bought was basically an orphaned product that they were no longer going to support. They failed to mention this when I was buying the product. I called them to complain and got the national sales manager for Digidesign products. He was arrogant and haughty and basically told me that I should upgrade to ProTools and that I would be getting a superior product. I asked him what my equipment would be worth in trade and he told me NOTHING since it was no longer in their product lineup. He also informed me that there were studios in California that were making $3500 per week using ProTools and that I should be able to do the same here in Ohio. He was in nice terms a "prick" and I vowed after talking to him to never buy another Digidesign product. I have stuck to that vow ever since.

The other problem is when people say they are mastering on a PT system you never know what "system" they are talking about and it could be anything from a USB dongle to a fully rigged ProTools HD system. I will keep to Samplitude and Wavelab until something better comes along. FWIW

I hate to say it but dfegad on Digidesign

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

I basically do not like any Digidesign products and the reason is that early on in my mastering career I bought a system from Digidesign called Sound Designer II. I paid, in 1990's money, a great deal for the program and the hardware. Shortly after I purchased it and Digidesign banked the check they told me that it would not be updated...

I'm sorry to hear about that Tom and don't blame you for not supporting them. However people went through the same with both Sonic HD and recently almost Sadie. Obsolescence whether planned or not is inevitable with just about any digital platform, sometimes not even with the OEM. Take PCI cards and Macs. It costs somewhere around $3k to upgrade PCI PT cards to PCIe and other than being able to run PT hardware in a newer machine gets you nothing. Same for changes in operating systems and any other software. It's all part of the cost of staying current and doing business.

All the same it doesn't mean that you can't use PT as part of a mastering setup.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

... I called them to complain and got the national sales manager for Digidesign products. He was arrogant and haughty and basically told me that I should upgrade to ProTools and that I would be getting a superior product. I asked him what my equipment would be worth in trade and he told me NOTHING since it was no longer in their product lineup.

That sounds very odd and like the person you talked to didn't know what he was talking about and was very possibly lying about his position. SD2 was orphaned when Mac system ten came out however the hardware that ran it was supported running ProTools le for a long time after that.

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

What business does a ME have with an HD rig?

Bwaaaahahahahahahahhaha........

The truth is that PT works just fine for the job.

The shortcomings are:
1. no CD burning (as it's been mentioned a zillion times)
2. only works with dual mono aka .L and .R files for stereo
3. PT won't relinquish it's grip on CoreAudio when you're working with another app.
4. won't open 32-bit files
5. limited fade choices (although better than it gets credit for)
6. the 13 year old kid next door is probably a PT expert

The positives are:
0. sounds good & it's relatively stable
1. industry standard DAW environment, who hasn't at least dabbled with it?
2. very very flexible routing and I/O, esp with PT HD
3. plug-in choices galore (if you're into that)
4. good+ editing capabilities
5. excellent automation esp when used with a control surface
6. Consolidate Selection command (option-shift-3)
7. Export Region command (command-shift-K)
8. decent sounding Tweak Head SRC, check the comparison charts
9. AudioSuite processing
10. Sonic NoNoise works with it
11. and many many other positives, maybe you'll find a few that I've missed

Best Regards - JT

[Bob Loblaw]

Thanks everyone for the posts... Generally I feel reaffirmed in using pro tools if nothing more than for the fact that I find it comfortable and user friendly... granted, I don't have experience using anything else (other than Sonic PMCD for my disk encoding/ DDP). I am a GREEN ME, but super eager to learn, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't shooting myself in the foot with my DAW choice. Mucho Respectivo.

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

Thanks everyone for the posts... Generally I feel reaffirmed in using pro tools if nothing more than for the fact that I find it comfortable and user friendly... granted, I don't have experience using anything else (other than Sonic PMCD for my disk encoding/ DDP). I am a GREEN ME, but super eager to learn, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't shooting myself in the foot with my DAW choice. Mucho Respectivo.

Pro Tools and Sonic's PMCD are a wonderful match if you want to continue to use pro tools, but add basic stereo mastering to your setup. Of course there are some workflow and editing advantages to using a true mastering DAW like soundBlade for the whole process instead of separating it into two apps, but a PT/PMCD combo is certainly capable when done right. Some PT caveats include converters, unintended SRC, truncation, plug-ins that are optimized for quantity rather than quality, etc. All these issues and more are avoidable, but you have to be aware of them and react accordingly. Know your tools.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Some PT caveats include converters, unintended SRC, truncation, plug-ins that are optimized for quantity rather than quality, etc.

Wouldn't these be caveats with any DAW?

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Wouldn't these be caveats with any DAW?

Most, but some are particular to, or at least particularly insidious in pro tools; take the unintentional sample rate conversion on import for instance. I can't believe it doesn't ask you, or at least warn you that it has decided in its infinite wisdom that you must want the quick, mediocre version of its SRC to be applied to everything you pull in. I've asked them a bunch of times to offer a warning, but I guess nobody else cares... or notices...

The truncation from the TDM bus is another pro tools specific issue, though 48 to 24 is not as bad as it could be, and there may be unwanted truncation traps in other DAWs too.

Like I said - know your DAW! Every one has some skeletons in the closet somewhere. It's worth your while to find them!

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Most, but some are particular to, or at least particularly insidious in pro tools; take the unintentional sample rate conversion on import for instance. I can't believe it doesn't ask you, or at least warn you that it has decided in its infinite wisdom that you must want the quick, mediocre version of its SRC to be applied to everything you pull in. I've asked them a bunch of times to offer a warning, but I guess nobody else cares... or notices...

A case of not only knowing your DAW, but knowing your source. It's not unlike clocking from the wrong sample rate on any DAW.

The truncation from the TDM bus is another pro tools specific issue, though 48 to 24 is not as bad as it could be, and there may be unwanted truncation traps in other DAWs too.

Again, assuming that most MEs work with outboard gear you are going to have to dither to 24 bit on output since the converter will be at 24. Yes, the plugs are limited to 24 bit I/O, but unless you are "plug heavy" and totally in the box it isn't going to be an issue anymore than other DAWs.

As you said Jay "know your DAW", but this applies to all of them. Each have their own advantages and disadvantages and have to be weighed on all merits. In some cases it's best is to have a hybrid setup so that you can have the benefits of both without disadvantages that are specific to one. Singling out a DAW for it's specific issues without comparing it's advantages isn't really being particularly objective. Let's talk about stability of the software and the company that provides it. Few DAWs have as successful of a history. What about versatility, ease of use, workflow, third party support? These things also have to be measured against the issues raised above.

I'm sure that this won't be the last "why can't PT be used for mastering" thread. It would be nice, just once, to see a thread where PT benefits were the main topic.

Best,
Tom

[jayfrigo]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Again, assuming that most MEs work with outboard gear you are going to have to dither to 24 bit on output since the converter will be at 24.

The problem is that so few plugs bother to give you dithering options, let alone dither to 24. With outboard, yes indeed we go to 24, but we can dither appropriately, or at least I do, even if, as I said, going from 48 to 24 isn't that a big a deal if you only do it once or twice. The bottleneck is the lesser issue; it's that it's a truncated bottleneck that is worthy of note.

I'm sure that this won't be the last "why can't PT be used for mastering" thread. It would be nice, just once, to see a thread where PT benefits were the main topic.

I have plenty of nice things to say about pro tools, especially in a recording and mixing context. It has developed into a very nice DAW over the years. It may have a few limitations from a strict mastering perspective, but that doesn't mean that it's not a very powerful and capable DAW. We have 4 pro tools rigs to our 2 Sonic rigs, so technically, I guess it's actually in the lead at our place!

There were some rough times for a while, but that's mostly history. Even the new 192 converters are not nearly as bad as people like to say. Yes, the old 888 boxes were nasty, but these current 192s, while not Lavrys, really are just fine in most situations. I don't ever feel concerned about multitrack production with stock 192s. Start a new "pro pro tools" thread if you like and I'll join in. I'm sure there will be some bashers too, but that's the unfortunate nature of the beast!

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by jayfrigo

Most, but some are particular to, or at least particularly insidious in pro tools; take the unintentional sample rate conversion on import for instance. I can't believe it doesn't ask you, or at least warn you that it has decided in its infinite wisdom that you must want the quick, mediocre version of its SRC to be applied to everything you pull in. I've asked them a bunch of times to offer a warning, but I guess nobody else cares... or notices...

Hello Jay, as always thanks for your seasoned perspective. It's interesting how us MEs approach the same task from different angles.

Let's take the Pro Tools "Import Audio" technique for example. When importing the client's audio files I'll use the "Import Audio Dialog" ( command-shift-i ) from withing PT (v7.3), which brings up the familiar import window. When you highlight an audio file to import (or add or copy) the field below the list of audio files tells you the attributes of that file; type, length, size, bit depth, sample rate, number of channels. I usually scroll down the list of files to make sure they're all the correct sample rate.

I think they fixed the Import Audio SRC warning issue, from the PT Reference Guide v7.3 page 214:
Pro Tools allows you to add files to a session that are at a different sample rate than your session. In the comments field of the Import Audio dialog, a warning is posted that these files will play back at the wrong speed and pitch if they are not converted.

If you do need to import an audio file that's at a different sample rate, in the lower right corner of the same "Import Audio Dialog" you can set the conversion quality to Tweak Head which actually sounds pretty decent, and fares pretty well in the "infinitewave" SRC comparison charts. Of course I would generally work at the audio files' native rate, or at least use Sample Manager to SRC if absolutely necessary.

Being an old PT dog, it's my default DAW... so easy, quick, & intuitive to use. I'm also enjoying soundBlade which I find quite fascinating, but still more tedious, just depends on what one is accustomed to. Perhaps a little like adding an Epiphone Sheraton to one's guitar collection after 20 years playing Telecasters, it just feels different for a while!

Best Regards - JT

[andsonic]

Without being a basher; I just wanted to flesh out some details on why Samplitude/Sequioa (and others) might be "superior" mastering apps.

I use Sampliquioa for recording/mixing & mastering. Besides (as others have mentioned) Samplitude/Sequioa being able to author CD's, there is also an additional "layer" of editing called the Object Editor. When doing an assembly edit for mastering, the OE allows you to link levels, processing, & fades directly to the audio clip/file non-destructively. In addition, you can still to track-based automation & processing (like PT). I find this streamlines my mastering/editing workflow. While I could do the same thing with PT/PMCD, it would take longer and not be as efficient.

Sequoia also includes Source/Destination editing, which is a boon if you are editing classical music or live shows.

Lastly, I will not say that Sampliquioa "sounds better". I will say that it is designed to maintain the highest quality sound.

I am currently working on my first full length CD in PT (HD & LE) in years. I'm enjoying it's capabilities. For me, this recent experience emphasizes why it's "the driver, not the car".

[Brad Blackwood]

Mastering doesn't always include processing, but it does typically include the creation production parts. IOW, PT might be great for processing (something one does most of the time, but not all the time), but it can't create parts.

Good processing plat-form, not a mastering plat form, imo. Gotta be able to cut parts to be mastering...

Does that mean it's useless? Nope. If you are willing to jump through extra hoops, I'm sure it's fine. I'd just prefer to do all the recording/editing/parts in one complete bit of software.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by andsonic

I use Sampliquioa for recording/mixing & mastering. Besides (as others have mentioned) Samplitude/Sequioa being able to author CD's, there is also an additional "layer" of editing called the Object Editor. When doing an assembly edit for mastering, the OE allows you to link levels, processing, & fades directly to the audio clip/file non-destructively. In addition, you can still to track-based automation & processing (like PT). I find this streamlines my mastering/editing workflow. While I could do the same thing with PT/PMCD, it would take longer and not be as efficient.

The object based editing is one of Sequoias most powerful features. You would have to use the RTAS (real time audio suite) in Protools, creating a new file each time, or put the files on a separate tracks with inserts. With Sequoia simply add EQ or other processing to an audio region and it stays with the region when you move it- to change settings double click on the region. You can even 'freeze' the region to save CPU and click 'unfreeze' to restore settings.

Also, I much prefer sequioas powerful fade and cross fade features. I do many albums that have tracks fading into one another, and can exactly place the track ID with CD text in the one session. If I need to make changes it's all in the one application.

The best feature is mixed sample rates/bit rates in one session and the ability to import stero files without any additional processing.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Ben F

The object based editing is one of Sequoias most powerful features. You would have to use the RTAS (real time audio suite) in Protools, creating a new file each time, or put the files on a separate tracks with inserts.

Not really true Ben. You can use snaphot automation in PT to store any plugin settings on a single track as well as other automation features. Additionally you can change automation settings in realtime of any plug (or routing) along the timeline of a single track if needed. This is handy for example if you need to change the threshold of a compressor based on extended dynamics of a song.

[Ben F]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Not really true Ben. You can use snaphot automation in PT to store any plugin settings on a single track as well as other automation features. Additionally you can change automation settings in realtime of any plug (or routing) along the timeline of a single track if needed. This is handy for example if you need to change the threshold of a compressor based on extended dynamics of a song.

True, but you can only see one automation variable at a time with Protools, where as with other software (such as Logic and Sequoia) you can see several layers at once. I may forget about the automation if a session is opened 6 months later. I find Protools automation annoying for compiling regions as it resides with the track and not the audio region, which makes sense for mixing, but not for moving audio files around in a session. Anyway, no point really in this debate, whatever gets the job done and I'm sure everyone here can create a decent master regardless of software choice

[siriusbliss]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Not really true Ben. You can use snaphot automation in PT to store any plugin settings on a single track as well as other automation features. Additionally you can change automation settings in realtime of any plug (or routing) along the timeline of a single track if needed. This is handy for example if you need to change the threshold of a compressor based on extended dynamics of a song.

In Sequoia you can snapshot by region, object, or track - not necessarily just track-driven approach. Same for preset or insert groups. I've even tested clipping in just crossfade regions in other projects with good results. Very fast.

Greg

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by siriusbliss

In Sequoia you can snapshot by region, object, or track - not necessarily just track-driven approach. Same for preset or insert groups. I've even tested clipping in just crossfade regions in other projects with good results. Very fast.

Greg

You can automate by region or track in PT as well. There are no objects.

Can you automate the parameters of a plug-in in Sequoia so that they ramp up or down gracefully in realtime? Or is it a "chunky" approach where you have to create multiple objects or regions?

I find being able to use "rubberband" automation against the waveform more intuitive and easier to manage. Also you can write or trim automation by adjusting any parameter in realtime. If you use a controller it's even easier. If you want different versions you can create playlists and jump back and forth for comparisions or generations of work in progress by just selecting the version from the list.

BTW I'm pretty sure that the automation moves with the region as well as being able to copy and paste automation elsewhere.

Anyway, I have nothing against any DAW. If it sounds good, is reliable, has good support, and it does the job in a workflow that you like, it's all good.