Dump Pro Tools to go Native?

[ToddS]

So lets say Apple revamps Logic to have this really cool, intuitive "Apple-esque" user interface... With the power of the new G5s, lets assume you now had parody in performance with PT (latency was super low, track count high). Would you be willing to go native the next time you upgraded?

[Magnus]

I don't think that it's a question of going either ProTools or Native these days, since if you decide to get something like Nuendo or Logic, you can buy a UAD-1 or a Powercore DSP card (or several cards) in addition to using native plugins. These cards are really cheap ($500-600) so in comparison they are only a fraction of the total cost of a ProTools system, even if you have to buy a soundcard and some AD/DA.

That way you'd get a really powerful system and quality wise IMO they are equal, if not better.

[The MPCist]

Originally posted by ToddS
So lets say Apple revamps Logic to have this really cool, intuitive "Apple-esque" user interface... With the power of the new G5s, lets assume you now had parody in performance with PT (latency was super low, track count high). Would you be willing to go native the next time you upgraded?

No. I would have to follow whatever the industry standard is. For the time being, it's Pro Tools.

But I do doubt that Digi will have the advantage for long though, seeing how Native is getting better and better... HOPEFULLY one day it will be about the same!

[kittonian]

MPCist makes an excellent point. It's not what you like it's what your customers are asking for and what is most compatible with other studios. Right now it's ProTools and probably, due to the investment needed to get into a ProTools setup, it will remain as such for some time. I do see native getting better and better and computers get more powerful. PT was awesome when it first came out in TDM because everything was on the cards and it didn't really matter how much power you had on the computer. Nowadays systems are getting so powerful and there is so much outboard gear being used along with a DAW that in a couple of years it really won't make sense to spend that much money with Digi when you can spend it on analog outboard gear and use a native environment.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. No one knows until we know.

[Jack Ruston]

FWIW I very nearly ditched my PT rig recently. I had a buyer lined up and everything. I had begun to check out various native systems, but while they each had features that I loved over PT, when it came down to it, they simply didnt do the job as well as PT. I am so sick of digi, but their product is good. Give native another couple of years.

J

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Sly
...while they each had features that I loved over PT, when it came down to it, they simply didnt do the job as well as PT. ...

This is many peoples' experience.

I'm afraid I still have a very hard time thinking of Digidesign as being expensive.

[Boogle]

There have been many threads on PT vs Native. Basically it is agreed PT is the undisputed industry standard. Though it's always amazing how many lovers of native systems there are on these boards. They both have pluses, here's a few:

PT -industry standard, non host dependent, satbility, great 'high end' 3rd party plugin development

Native - variety/flexibilty (choices in i/o hardware & platform etc), much lower price entry point, large 3rd party plugin support (some apprently very good like uad,powercore etc),

There are of course downsides with both- but I'll leave that to between you and the trusty search button ...

[Aloha]

I have had very few problems with the native systems I have tried. Can someone give me an example of something pro tools can do over a native program?

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Aloha
I have had very few problems with the native systems I have tried. Can someone give me an example of something pro tools can do over a native program?

By Pro Tools, I mean "real" TDM hardware based Pro Tools. Things it does better than pure Native are:

1. Monitor all manner of plugins and FX in realtime, at very low latency on an input channel, without any concern for dropouts, pops, clicks, etc.

2. Use Beat Detective (which I detest, but some enjoy).

3. Access certain desirable plugins that are TDM only, i.e. Access Virus, etc. But that is less and less of an issue at this point.

4. Use superior control surfaces, at least until Steinberg and ID arrive together. There is currently nothing as elegant as the Pro Control for Native DAWs.

Maybe most importantly, non technical clients only know to ask for "Pro Tools". Lots of people are using the Digi 001 or 002, Native DAWs I consider to be generally inferior to Logic, SX, Nuendo or Samplitude, just to be able to use the magical incantation of "Pro Tools". Like it or not, that name carries weight. Some of us are in the position to not be questioned on our choice of gear, but many users are constrained by industry "norms" to succesfully compete.

Digi has been brilliant in leveraging Pro Tool's name value to their advantage, and I have to grudgingly admire the marketing saavy, even if I think the homogeny of it all is generally bad for music, on a creative and in most cases, even sonic level.


Regards,
Brian T

[Renie]

Originally posted by BrianT


2. Use Beat Detective (which I detest, but some enjoy).


Digi has been brilliant in leveraging Pro Tool's name value to their advantage, and I have to grudgingly admire the marketing saavy, even if I think the homogeny of it all is generally bad for music, on a creative and in most cases, even sonic level.


Regards,
Brian T

Brian

I'm curious why you detest Beat Detective...
and very curious about why you think the Pro Tools market share is bad for music and creativity....? If you'd be wiling to explain?

thanks

Rene

[alphajerk]

man, i like the ceiling on native. i max things out. and there are things i just cannot give up to switch to PT. if i ever did buy their hardware, i would still run DP in TDM mode. i dont really care about beat detective or sound replacer [tho there are other options for that]

so wtf, i try and get it right going in now rather than relying on the mix and plugins [which requires the majority of CPUsage].

but it depends on what your studio is and what you can get away with. i dont have a demand for PT. i can do as i deem necessary. and now that im mobile, i can choose other studios as well... but im not going searching for a place with PT.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Aloha
Can someone give me an example of something pro tools can do over a native program?

Pay your bills?

[doug_hti]

I tried being native...the most annoying and uncomfortable thing that seemed like it happened almost every session, was doing any sort of overdubs after you started mixing the track.

It was always such a pain deactivating tracks, plugins or printing tracks or chaging buffer modes, etc.

PT (TDM/HD) has brought stability without the latency to the table more than anything. Huge sessions are just as stable as small ones.
Native was always a time bomb for me. I also always wanted to upgrade my computer. I would feel shafted if I didn't have one of the fastest. In PT, I can get used or end of line computers to get the best deal and have plenty of juice.

As far as functions and GUI. I could get used to most any of the programs if I had to. Although, PT has such a easy to use GUI.

[jbuntz]

"2. Use Beat Detective (which I detest, but some enjoy)."


Drumagog and certain daw features kind of make this argument invalid.

Pro tools is more of a selling point on studios without a reputation. If you stuff sounds good and bands like working with the engineer/producer (whatever the case) word of mouth and repeat customers will get you business.

[RhOdEz]

I still use Recycle / Logic combo for all that .Recycle extracts timing template based on transient spikes ,and spans regions over keyboard,so you can rearrange pattern and quantize /use other timing templates etc ...You can use that timing template with other audio/midi tracks in logic too,and you can treat these small chopped audio files as individual audio objects in audio track (just import REX file ) or (much easier ) as midi notes when used with EXS24 sampler .
Its time waisting process sometimes when i got lotsa percussion tracks/loops cause i always need to correct detected timing points manually cause ****in' Recycle hates compressed or even low volume 16th notes (yes i know whuts sensitivity slider used for )

Question is :
Is all that easier/faster with Beat Digestive/Disgustive (spell checker performed illegal operation ....stike
How good is its timing detection algorhytm ¿

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Renie
Brian

I'm curious why you detest Beat Detective...
and very curious about why you think the Pro Tools market share is bad for music and creativity....? If you'd be wiling to explain?

thanks

Rene

Well, in my experience, I can hear Beat Detective when it's "working". Subtle phasey artifacts. And really, great drumming is all about the feel "inside" of the 1/4 and 1/8 notes to me. It's the 1/16 notes, and even smaller value ghost notes that make one drummer great and another pretty good. To me, Beat Detective is the great equalizer. It makes mediocre drummers sound....pretty good. And it makes great drummers sound....pretty good. I'm not a huge fan of "pretty good". If more engineers and producers knew which was which, it would probably help.

As far as the impact on creativity part. I just think that great audio engineering, done right, is unavoidably a symbiotic parasitism. A what? I said a symbiotic parasitism.

That is, the interaction with and exploration of music, IMO, should be coupled with a Star Trek Scotty-like relationship with the gear. Poking, prodding, rolling-your-own now and then, almost empathizing with it emotionally. In a sense, both parties using the other to it's advantage, but in a caring way. Sounds weird when it's written down, I guess.

But when everybody uses the same thing, and conformity to the "industry standard" is nearly required to succeed, I think that most of the pioneering mentality towards gear *by the end user* is dulled and muted. I'm sure many might disagree, but I think there's a "safeness" bred in the whole scenario, from "got to have THIS setup, or else I'm out of the loop" to the "go easy on those levels and faders" demands made by gear that lacks robustness when slapped around a little, sonically.

In my view, sonic compromise *in the gear* is tolerated, almost even dismissed as a factor because of, admittedly, very good functionality combined with the "you got to have this exact gear to get any work" environment.

I think PTHD demonstrates my point. Many of the very people who staunchly defended Pro Tools Mix series as sounding just dandy and dismissed complaints about it's sound as baseless, are the same people who are now talking about how much better PTHD sounds. So really then, it's not about the sound. It's about the product. Better sound is a welcomed, but not required, bonus. That is secondary. First on the list is, "Yeah, we have Pro Tools".

OK, now I probably have some grief coming, but you asked.....
And please note that I listed a number of Pro Tool's real world advantages earlier in this thread, pretty objectively I think. This post is a requested editorial, so let's keep it friendly, can we? Thanks.


Regards,
Brian T

[BrianT]

Originally posted by doug_hti
I tried being native...the most annoying and uncomfortable thing that seemed like it happened almost every session, was doing any sort of overdubs after you started mixing the track.

It was always such a pain deactivating tracks, plugins or printing tracks or chaging buffer modes, etc.

Personally, I think that is the single most valid and quantifiable aspect when comparing any hardware DSP based system to Native based systems.

That fact is really and truly going to change this year, after all the false claims to date. But to date, and for yet a little while longer, hardware DSP continues to be less fiddly for a stand alone professional DAW under combat conditions. I have hundreds of channels of each to play with and if you're recording human beings in front of microphones, expecially more than one at a time, it's just becomes very obvious.


Regards,
Brian T

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by BrianT
That fact is really and truly going to change this year, after all the false claims to date.

How so, Mr. T?

[Jules]

It can be really hard to track the sound improvements made by Digidesign

Here's a quiz for those that think they can and a question for them about the future sound of PT....

1) Bounce to disc - was it's sound quality improved in any revision of PT Mix + version 5 ?

2) PTHD - is the bounce to disc sound the same, 'better', what?

3) PTHD 6 - what exactly were the sonic improvements in HD over Mix + ?

4) Rumour has it there may have to be a digital mixer overhaul to enable Automatic Delay Compensation for plugin delay & bussing in & out of PT. What further SONIC improvements are possible / likely within this overhaul? Please speculate.

[Renie]

It is hard to track the progress.

1) ?

2) ?

3) This one bugs me. I'm pretty sure a lot of the improvement is down to the Digi convertors, it seems that, higher sample rates and minor tweaks has improved things. No great shakes for those who had decent convertors on Mix systems.

4) My money is on the panning law issue. Wider will feel deeper and higher too. I hope.

[merlin17]

1. I never had a problem with BTD

2. IMO it´s the same

3. HD DOES sound a LOT better than Mix (more open, better imaging), but I, too, think it´s mainly the new converter (I had 888-24s, now 192 I/O).

4. I´d have SONIC improvements when I do an acoustic overhaul to my rooms at the same time... ;-)

Peter

[BrianT]

1) No.

2) Fixed. PTHD BTD sounds the same as recording the AES output, which Mix did not. BTW, recording the AES output looped back in to an AES input is the BTD workaround in Mix.

3) Better, but not quite as much as many people think, IMO. A good portion of the improvement *during use* is the improved A/D and D/A. The A/D improvement is permanent, obviously, but the D/A improvement is a sizeable portion of what sounds better to me, and that portion is only realized during monitoring in the CR, if mixing in-the-box. Once an in-the-box project has been printed, the benefits of the improved D/A, as compared to Mix, are gone. I'm not saying the improved D/A is a bad thing, obviously, just that I think in a comparison of Mix vs HD, it's a factor that is overlooked. Ideally, comparison would be made through the same D/A. If you use an analog summing device, obviously, the D/A improvement is captured.

4) I can't imagine Digi not taking the opportunity of implementing plugin delay compensation (PDC) to sell new hardware. At least a new core. It's a "must have" upgrade in functionality, IMO, and presents the perfect inducement for hardware upgrade. I think there may well be a legitimate case for that neccesity, if you think through what is required for PDC. In a Native system such as Nuendo, all internal routing is already in software only. You can do as you wish, assuming you pay the price in time. In Pro Tools, the hardware has some fixed features which can present problems in restructuring signal flow. The question is, can you get a delay buffer *in each and every seperately configurable element* in which you need one in order to implement PDC? If not, can you work around that in the app itself, and at what price? For a hardware system, the problem is not just in figuring out how much to delay what and where in the signal path, the problem is, once you have determined what and where to delay, you have to find out, "Can we do that?"

Of course, regarding the specifics of PT's PDC issues, this is merely semi-informed speculation on my part, though the generalities I describe are universal. But I would think if I was wholly wrong on the specifics, we would have seen PDC by now. Digi cannot be too happy about being out-featured in this department for this extended a period of time.


Regards,
Brian T

[ToddS]

I agree, Brian. Digi I think would already have delay compensation if it could.

I guess from the posts though that most people feel true native performance and consistency on par with Pro tools is still a year or so away?

[Tim Halligan]

Originally posted by doug_hti
Although, PT has such a easy to use GUI. [/B]

IMHO Protools has one of the worst (if not THE worst) user interfaces on the planet. After using proprietary hardware devices (AMS/Neve + Fairlight) and only recently getting into Protools, I can honestly say it is a major pain to accomplish any work at all in anything that resembles a speedy manner. My hat is off to all that soldier on with this annoying, poorly-designed, glorified word processor.

I recently asked a chap that had previously worked for Fairlight, and had jumped ship to AVID/Digi about the UI, and his response was that it will not change significantly over time due to the huge numbers of "legacy" users. He also admitted that the fastest editor - still - for carving up anything is the Fairlight MFX3+, and only when Digi address the interface problem will that have any chance of changing...and his job is to sell Digi.

Rant over. Sorry.
Cheers
Tim

[Robotnik]

Too bad the MFX3 is a closed and overpriced system. Where's the support? Would you want to invest money in a DAW from a manufacturer that declares bankruptcy every 6 months? I would've asked people how working on Fairlight is, but I've never came across any. I've never been to Australia either.

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Robotnik
I've never been to Australia either.

I've been to Paradise
But I've never been to me

[BrianT]

Originally posted by ToddS
I guess from the posts though that most people feel true native performance and consistency on par with Pro tools is still a year or so away?

That depends on the reference points.

In many areas, PDC being one of them, Native has advanced over Pro Tools, because of Native's inherent flexibility because of being purely built in software.

But when it comes to stability under load, with the lowest possible latency, yes, it's a year away.

Some will disagree with that statement, but as soon as you demand the ability to monitor through the plugins that you like to use, and *would* use while recording if Native systems could reliably do so, it becomes clear.

Direct Monitoring is a compromised workaround, to accomodate the issues that arise when recording with small buffers for low latency. That is all the information needed to reach the conclusion about Native vs Pro Tools in this area. When Native systems no longer require that workaround to record with as low a latency as Pro Tools, under any and all CPU and HD load conditions, Native will not only be equal, it will be superior, because of it's architectural advantages which are already demonstrated by the plugin delay compensation issue.

That's probably a year away, sooner for the brave, later for the safe.

[hammer]

[QUOTE]But when it comes to stability under load, with the lowest possible latency, yes, it's a year away.

Nope. not true Brian. I use a native system here every day just as I would a TDM daw. NO comprimises. If I want to listen to a plug on input, I can. There is of course latency but not enough for the singers to percieve it (just like a TDM system).

The only catch is that I'm using protools, a 001.

If I go to an ASIO based system, It's the same old routing mumbo jumbo, monitoring issues that we've all become accustomed too, with native systems. The upside is that I can run twice as many plugs on a ASIO sytem than a DIGI. This side of the industry is getting better tho, and here I definately agree with Brian. I suspect it won't be untill we see the dual core monster chips that Native systems catch up to TDM in the latency dept.

Anyway, It can be done and has been for quite sometime. An LE system on a Athlon64 or G5 is a wonderous little beastie.
.....That only supports 32 tracks.... grudge

Interesting times ahead!

I love watching all this stuff.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by BrianT
... When Native systems no longer require that workaround to record with as low a latency as Pro Tools, under any and all CPU and HD load conditions, Native will not only be equal, it will be superior, because of it's architectural advantages which are already demonstrated by the plugin delay compensation issue...

Of course at that point Digi will just release THEIR full-blown native version using the Intel co-processor cards.

Myself, I expect to see plug-in applications that are dedicated to specific tasks. Who wants to use a Swiss Army Knife if a power screwdriver is available? Pro-Tools in my opinion is a remarkably effective jack of all trades but a master of none I'm aware of. THAT could change...everything...

Latency is also a lot bigger deal than computer jockeys like to admit. I've got a friend who has to still use a 16 bit NuBus Pro-Tools system with some artists because there is too much latency in all of the later Pro-Tools systems. The difference lies in how long it takes the artists to get an acceptable vocal track that feels right to them. A lot of people forget that overdub sessions are REALLY important, career making or breaking performances to artists.

[Reslo00711]

Originally posted by doug_hti
I tried being native...the most annoying and uncomfortable thing that seemed like it happened almost every session, was doing any sort of overdubs after you started mixing the track.

It was always such a pain deactivating tracks, plugins or printing tracks or chaging buffer modes, etc.

Does the latest version of Samplitude offer any relief for the problems mentioned above (especially during overdubbing) over any of the other "native" systems?