Will PC's triumph in the end? What's to become of Proo Tools?

[Jules]

Well?

[MCal27]

Will PC's triumph in the end?. answer: no, because Microsoft will never put ease of use and maintainence high enough on their priority list for Windows to become as Musician friendly an Environment as MacOS (9 or X) Plus various flavours of Unix (Linux/OSX etc, etc...) will start to make serious inroads into windows area's once a) Apple get the processors issue sorted. + b) when folks see what Microsoft has instore for them in a few years.
I do believe Apple will switch to AMD or Intel CPU's in a few years, and this together with Linux being able to run on the same hardware as Windows (+ once it's Geeky area's are smoothed out) will make this OS much more attractive too.

As regards ProTools.... It's clear that Digi will HAVE to start stacking the features onto their Software now, rather than hoping that the Hardware will sell stuff for them...... ProTools is great for Audio.. But they need to get more Software Instrument support happening.. and soon!!! I hope rewire in 6.1 is just the start.... I truely hope they allow AU support after that (VST for Windows guys) Then they need something like the Offline bounce/Freeze tracks in Logic, or the f/x rendering feature in Nuendo too....

If they still hope that as many people will splash out on their hardware, then they'll have the same shock that Avid did when Final Cut Pro came out in store for them..... and as Digi is Avid (or the other way round...) I'm sure they're aware of this.

At the momnet there's still nuthin like working on a nice TDM rig.. but Native systems will and are catching up.. and just how many tracks, and how much DSP do we all need to do a track huh?

Just my thoughts folks.... lets here yours...

Al.

[jivebrown]

that's a great question. i use protools on both, pc (at home), and on a mac (at the studio). i definately get a higher plugin count on my pc, but with so many companies not catering their plugins to pc users, macs still have that edge. i do not see any performance benefits for either machine. they both do their job perfectly. the mac is only loaded up with protools at the studio, but at home, my protools rig is also my main and only computer, with my web design software and other music software, plus internet. i never can understand people who argue about which is better. in my opinion, neither is. if you dropped both off of a building, neither would work. i wish more plugins would come over to the pc side, because with the processor speeds going up and up, pc's may actually get some more respect. i am somewhat biased to pc's, because i understand them better and am more used to them. plus i can build a great pc for next to nothing these days. but, as i said, i'd like to see some more plugins ported to work on xp. whoops, babbling again.

[BevvyB]

(remembers rant in kebab shop)

[hammer]

dunno, It's kinda hard to say, like thie whole IT industry changes so rapidly. One thing is fur sure though, computers are going to get faster! One thing fur sure also, digi won't rest on their laurels, specially after getting their arses whipped with final cut. TDM almost certainly will be getting the boot, but when? I dunno. 2 years is unlikely but 10 years is probably certain. The higher sample rates require truckloads of juice, so expect dsp cards to hang round for a while. However when digi does finally drop TDM they can just switch to their very successful product model B. DIGI 001 anyone? They can just Make huge interfaces that work with their software, just like they do now. Digi will be around for ages, cause everyone knows it and everyone has truckloads of (very expensive) files saved in pts format sitting on their HD.
My 2c
H.

[davemc]

It really depends where the software is..I started on PC with my TDM rig although went to Mac just on 5.1 release as I was sick to death of the low plugin count. Otherwise I would not of moved..

The speed issue for native users is the key although the new macs should catch up....Although now Logic is Mac only and DP is Mac Only.. It wil be interesting to see what happens..

I crashed just as much with the PC as I did with the Mac as if you keep your crap of the PC it works fine.

[Chae Ham]

Even just 3 years ago I'd hear things like "...well we still have a little more work to do in Avid..." Now, whenever I'm on the phone with a director, its Final Cut Pro this, and Final Cut Pro that...
And if you were to even mention Final Cut Pro back then, the big guys would snicker and quickly label it a toy.

I hope the same fate isn't in store for Pro Tools. Then again, even the Roman Empire fell.

[BrianT]

I think there is little chance of predicting this question correctly at this point. I would not hazard a guess, though I would have a year ago (and been wrong). There are an amazing amount of variables forming up right now into the "Nexus of Cluelessness".

Athlon64, newer (9nm fab) P4s at 4GHz+, PPC970 Macs in both dual and quad, OSX Panther, Windows64, Digi moving beyond the current TDM architecture, further consolidations/platform support decisions that defy Logic (pun intended), surplus of CPU power, deficit of said CPU power due to insane developers and users, SATA and Firewire 800 supplanting both IDE and SCSI soon, VST3, PCI-Express (there's a biggie), and surely there's something else we haven't thought of yet but somebody will soon, etc...............

I think there are a few specifics that are fairly predictable, but the big picture questions are a crap shoot right now. The next year holds more potential changes for DAW users than we've seen in a long time.


Regards,
Brian T

[BevvyB]

Throw this into the "Nexus of Cluelessness".

Is this a bit like another thread where we discussed audio formats and delivery? That thread kind of reached a point where what could be delivered was more than anyone needed.

How much do we need? And what happens when native reaches the ability to give?

Is it when we can have this all running:

1. 96 tracks at 192k
2. A 'very good' eq on each track
3. A 'very good' compressor on each track
4. 96 'other very good plugs as good as TDM plugs ins if not better'

..at the same time.

When we can do that native, will Digi then release a box that does 196 tracks and 172 plug ins at 256k?

I don't think so, because there really is a ceiling with this.

What is that ceiling? Because that alone will determine 'when' it's 'game over'.

If we can work out what we need, we can look at the way computers are developing and probably give ourselves quite an accurate projection of when it's

bye bye Digi.

And at THAT point, perhaps the boutique converter market will be well underway and we'll be arguing about converters and IO boxes as opposed to Digi hardware and tdm farms.

(BTW Final Cut Pro is a brilliant example of how things can turn for the better after getting a lot of initial flak - Apple does own Emagic now so WHO KNOWS what they're up to)

[jimlongo]

ProTools, like Apple has been pronounced dead more times than I can count.

Like Apple they use well designed software to sell premium hardware.

No matter what happens with computers I predict they will stay ahead of the curve, find a way to charge $$$$$ to pro market, leverage that with low cost solutions mostly aimed at the semi-pro and hobbyist markets, and leave the wuarez market to vst.

As for computer clock speeds it's all meaningless in the end if the bus speed isn't radically improved. The answer to that could be hypertransport.


_________________
check out my Gumbo page.

[smoothmoniker]

PT has a serious edge on the basis of intertia alone. It doesn't matter where I track, mix, or edit, whenever I move between studios, I pack the tracks in a PT session, because everyone has one. Anyone new who wants to play in the game has to at least have a digi01/LE setup, and most will ebay an 888/24 just to be considered "pro".

What will it end up looking like? I'd bet hard on mac, because of their philosophy of design, not their current technology. I'd also put a little side bet on them designing a legit hardware side to Logic, to make it competitive on the pro market. I'd sell short on cubase and digital performer. I don't think they can compete longterm with the bankroll and the r/d of logic.

-sm

[blackcatdigi]

Great topic.

Some of the reasons I really like PT are exactly why I really dislike PT...

PRO: PT is extremely stable due to the closed nature.

CON: PT is extremely costly due to the closed nature.

P/C: PT's dongle boxs are way overpriced and mandatory.

P/C: I can use any convertors I want, but I have to keep the 'friggin' dongles.

P/C: I can update s/w, OSs, computers, or not. I have friends that have been using the same setup for 2 or 3 generations of upgrades. It ain't broke, so they don't fix it. They get paid.

I expect some official news from Digi on this particular subject by NAMM, if not sooner...

If Apple attempts to do with Digi what it did with Avid (via Final Cut Pro), it would not suprise me to see them drop Apple support, and produce their own hardware box ala (gasp) Radar, and subsequently REALLY close the system... As jimlongo mentioned above, the great s/w sells the relatively inexpensive h/w, but at a premium.

And that could be really good or really bad for all concerned.

[Chae Ham]

Don't get me wrong, I love my computers, but I think its somewhat inevitable that apple and digi will part ways because of apple's involvement with Logic--a perfect example of this is Final Cut Pro(which was once thought of as a toy!). Apple bought it up, put in the big corporate muscle, and now its just about the de facto standard in post.

However, this may actually lead to a much better Pro Tools system(read:more stable!). If digi were to design an all-in-one protools box, that doesn't rely on a computer(ala radar) they'd have more control in design. It might even be much better in terms of upgrading as well--especially if its just a matter of swapping out a few cards from the digi box, instead of having to upgrade computers every few years AND upgrade digi hardware.

I think one of the biggest deciding factors to digidesign's future will be their development partners. The platform with the most 3rd party support will win. There are quite a few plug-in manufacturers that develop strictly for digi, but that could change with Apple pushing Logic. It'll come down to who's got deeper pockets. Apple is getting pretty aggessive in their plans to "take over" the music industry. These are interesting times.

[BrianT]

Originally posted by jimlongo


As for computer clock speeds it's all meaningless in the end if the bus speed isn't radically improved. The answer to that could be hypertransport.

Funny you should mention that.

Hypertransport, developed by a group headed by AMD, is in fact the FSB architecture used for the new IBM PPC970 inside the new G5s, or whatever other name Apple may decide to call them.

It is an excellent choice and as implemented by Apple, will move the PPC970 Macs to the head of the class, exceeding even the bandwidth of the 800MHz FSB on the Intel P4.

I do wonder if confusion over this fact may have contributed to the notion that Apple was going to use AMD CPUs. It is AMD architecture, but it has become an industry spec, much like ASIO for DAWS.

In any event, the FSB bandwidth of Macs is about to improve by more than a factor of five! From last place to first place there. And dual or quad CPU models should each have their own FSB pipeline. Efficiency of multi CPU Macs should be drastically improved.

If they can get the speeds up past 2GHz quickly, Apple can likely hold top spot in performance across the board, in the real world, not just in Steve Job's mind. And you know, I would actually dig that. Pushes everybody forward, and heaven knows you Mac users could use some horsepower bragging rights for a change. Only seems fair.


Regards,
Brian T

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by Chae Ham
However, this may actually lead to a much better Pro Tools system(read:more stable!). If digi were to design an all-in-one protools box, that doesn't rely on a computer(ala radar) they'd have more control in design. It might even be much better in terms of upgrading as well--especially if its just a matter of swapping out a few cards from the digi box, instead of having to upgrade computers every few years AND upgrade digi hardware.

Exactly. Now that's plug and play. Digi would save alot of money on R&D (approving various components) and support. And sell more Hardware. The customer gets a box that just works. No researching, diddling with settings, trying out different card slot orders, etc. Plug in, get to work. Firewire port or CDr for s/w upgrades, pop the top, pull out/plug in the card for h/w I/O & DSP upgrades. Seems inevitable (to me as well), at least for the high end of PT...

My only concern with the aforementioned would be if they closed the loop on outboard conversion. IOW, no multiple dig I/O options. I think they're a little more clever than that, however. They like selling those overpriced h/w dongle boxes! And people will continue to (begrudgingly) buy them, cause they have to in order to be able to plug in their 'good' convertors...

However, I'd think they'd also continue to develop the LE computer-based products for the lower end market.

[BrianT]

I really don't see Digi building their own standalone unit. Reinventing the wheel, but without the benefit of economy of scale. Keep in mind that Radar is really a PC on BeOS. You still need an OS and a computer in any event and the level of sophistication PT requires is much greater than Radar.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see Digi and Apple part ways, but it wouldn't be overnight. Overyears is more like it.

Back when Apple bought Emagic, I predicted we would see Digi begin to bring WinXP support up towards parity with OSX support, including urging more WinXP plugin support from developers. Not so much to take a hike on Apple as to keep options open and not be forced to eat out of Apple's hand.

To be honest, given equal effort and commitment from Digi, it really wouldn't matter if you ran PT on a Mac or on a PC. WinXP is an extremely stable OS, at least as stable as OSX. Once inside the app, OS becomes pretty much a nonissue, assuming it's stable. I know this from Paris, which was developed on the Mac, has always had identical revs and features on Mac and PC and would not bother me in the least to run on a Mac, assuming it had equivelent or greater power than the PC it replaced. Once you're working on a session, it just doesn't really matter. The app is the app.

Outside of some emotionalism in the community, there is no reason that Digi could not happily exist on WinXP in place of OSX. Digi will certainly try and make that clear to Job's and friends.


Regards,
Brian T

[C.Lambrechts]

I fully agree with Brian ... be it that the over years splitting up between digi and apple will hurt my feelings to some extend.

Maybe I need more time ... a couple of years ago I hated PC, windows , and everything it was related to ... these days I have the internet / office stuff etc etc on a well configured PC with windows XP professional on it and I love it. I'm not ready to switch for my audio / video / graphic stuff yet. But I've seen all those apps run on PC's and some of them actually run better on a PC. It's been a while now that digi has been putting efforts on the PC platform and my prediction is similar to Brians ... wouldn't surprise me a bit if at some point PC versions of the soft would be launched prior to the mac versions .... I just keep hoping it's after my retirement ... which is in approximately ... OUCH ... 50 years or so ...

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by BrianT
I really don't see Digi building their own standalone unit. Reinventing the wheel, but without the benefit of economy of scale. Keep in mind that Radar is really a PC on BeOS. You still need an OS and a computer in any event and the level of sophistication PT requires is much greater than Radar.

I don't know, Brian.

Of course you'd still need an OS and a computer.

But that's childs play. We all know a lot of guys that can put together a screaming PC, in an afternoon, for well under a thousand bucks. Why can't Digi?

There are already several 3rd party guys building PT spec'd, rackmount blackbox DAWs out there, ready to rock... What would stop Digi from developing the same? You know they'd build in a healthy profit margin for themselves. And eventually pull the plug on the others. We all know Digi likes to keep the whole game to themselves. Why is this aspect different?

They certainly have much deeper pockets than the custom builders, can buy in bulk all the various components (re: economy of scale) and increase their portion of the DAW system pie. In fact, they would then have their own whole pie.
This is potentially a new sector of the DAW market, for them. IOW, why wouldn't digi want to reduce their 3rd party R&D costs, and increase their HW sales? HW is where their bread is buttered...

Seems perfectly logical to me, from all aspects. Then again, what the heck do I know; I got out of manufacturing to open up a studio! More crack, anyone?

I do look forward to hearing your thoughts...

[BrianT]

Here's why I think not.

You still have to pick a platform and OS to run on.

Radar runs on BeOS, which is no longer developed, unless IZ has changed their OS. But since Radar has realtively simple functionality, that's not a problem.

PT will have to run on OSX, WinXP or Linux. Think of the gargantuan task of porting PT to Linux. And then do you just cease supporting pre-existing users? Seems like a nightmare to me.

So I think it ends up being OSX or WinXP for a standalone. OSX is out, since you can't build your own Mac. That leaves WinXP. And if you're going to support WinXP anyway, why not continue the current business model?

Here's the problem with a standalone. Computer hardware is changing too fast too often, and within 12-18 months, your beautiful and expensive box becomes a pig in comparison to current CPU/RAM/etc speeds. Why not let the PC companies duke it out at the bottom while you sell your own hardware/software at a premium? You can still spec what components are approved. That's the current model and it seems to work. Honestly, but for the emotional attachment to a given platform, the whole thing is not really that complicated. At least it seems so to me, on the outside looking in.

RADAR is a poor comparison, since it does one thing well, and is by design far simpler and less complex than a full DAW. Once it has enough power to do that one thing well, you're set. A DAW is by definition, always in search of more power as plugins and softsynths evolve. And Native CPU power is too great to ignore now.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.


Regards,
Brian T

[Bob Olhsson]

I'd like to offer a few comments.

First, Windows is no longer a second-class digi citizen except for lack of some plug-ins.

According to my old silicone valley buddies, DSP chips are going away because they cost too much to program. We'll probably see dedicated audio processors but they'll be regular processor chips because of the high-level programming support available.

I look for dedicated hardware but not so much a Swiss Army knife as hardware dedicated to specific tasks. This would be products such as vocal compers, big tracking date applications, remote recording systems, film mixers, record mixers, drum editors, sound effects spotting library applications, etc.

ALL of these things could be done far better with a dedicated application and hardware interface. Hardware has become too cheap for Swiss Army knife workstations to make as much sense as power screwdriver workstations.

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by BrianT
Here's the problem with a standalone. Computer hardware is changing too fast too often, and within 12-18 months, your beautiful and expensive box becomes a pig in comparison to current CPU/RAM/etc speeds. Why not let the PC companies duke it out at the bottom while you sell your own hardware/software at a premium? You can still spec what components are approved. That's the current model and it seems to work. Honestly, but for the emotional attachment to a given platform, the whole thing is not really that complicated. At least it seems so to me, on the outside looking in.

RADAR is a poor comparison, since it does one thing well, and is by design far simpler and less complex than a full DAW. Once it has enough power to do that one thing well, you're set. A DAW is by definition, always in search of more power as plugins and softsynths evolve. And Native CPU power is too great to ignore now.

Good points. The very fact that "computer hardware is changing too fast too often" is exactly the reasoning behind my thought process.

Forgive me if I ramble around, (I'm a little tired this evening) but I'll try to expound on my thoughts.

Digi's selling points have always been the software and the power of the dsp cards. Digi H/W. This has allowed folks to continue running PT on (what would be considered to be, by current standards) 'obsolete' cpus. My 'black box' theory is based on the assumption that as long as the horsepower is drawn from the cards, the computer is essentially just handling the bus flow and screen redraws. Not too processor intensive. As long as you can plug in more horsepower (buy more cards), you can continue to expand the power of the system. The OS and computer are (best case scenario) transparent. When the S/W evolves past the point of being able to run on whatever version 'box' you've bought, Digi either sells you a new 'MasterCard' (motherboard), or your box is out and you can trade it in for the new greatest thing (Sound tools to Pro tools to PTIII to PT24 to PT mix to HD, anyone?). PT has historically been in the unique position of being able to pull this off, over and over.

By producing their own platform (obviously based on existing technology), they could focus their attention on developing their products for their own particular needs, instead of chasing the larger computer industry, trying to remain compliant, and testing every possible configuration for approval with their product.

As far the evolution of PCs and native horsepower, you're absolutely right. The technology will continue to evolve with shorter and shorter useful lifespans. This is inevitable. This is also precisely the primary reason I believe Digi will, or at least should, take this route. The current model is attempting to hit an ever increasing, speeding target.

The way I see it, Digi has but two real choices:

A. They completely close the loop, secure the system, make it easier and more bulletproof, and IMHO likely increase their marketshare, and their earnings, and further elevate themselves among the masses.

OR

B. Slowly but surely, be forced to go completely native, crawl down into the muck and fight it out with the rest of the software companies for a share of the market they invented.

Of course, there's always

C. Do what Avid did.

As a side note, just to clarify where I'm coming from:
I'm evolving into a born again luddite... Personally, with regards to computer based DAWs, I've grown weary of the care and feeding involved. I don't really care if Bill and Steve volley gigahertz and terrabytes. I just want a bulletproof solution to my needs. I don't want to increase my tech chores. I just want to record. I enjoy computers, I even consider myself somewhat of a techno-geek. I was an early adapter and a huge proponent of digital. But I've come full circle, and arrived at considering the whole DAW race a waste of my limited time and energy. I don't want to troubleshoot anymore. I just want to record. I don't really use plug-ins or softsynths anymore. Hardware sounds better. Somebody give me a wakeup call when that changes... I just want to record.

Maybe I'm the only one...

[faeflora]

Where's my top shelf Linux DAW???

[MCal27]

I'd like to butt in here....

As for the Hardware solution Blackcat goes on about.... well for the last couple of years this has been, and forever will be a niche solution I'm afraid..... they will always be around, but will never sell in numbers unless the price is dropped to the levels of a computer + audiocard etc. A recent example thats as near to a computer DAW as u get is the Tascam SX1.Audio + Midi in a beautiful Tabletop unit.. but Its more expensive than a decent computer system..... I work for a popular DAW dealer and we've never ever been asked for one.... its dead. So blackcat there's your options... you might be best building a system that u know well (software version/OS etc and sticking with it.)

Regarding Windows.... I spent quite abit of time recently getting into this for the purpose of our company marketing custom built/configured Gigastudio systems. And as far as Windows XP being accepted as a top line DAW (certainly in the uk) it isn't. We get maybe one call a month from people with Low budgets asking if we can do an XP system as an alternative to our Mac systems.
XP is no where near as solid as a properly setup OSX system. It has weird quirks that occur with even the best Hardware setups (Intel modo etc) plus it feels on screen very imprecise in operation compared to a Mac. Musicians go by the feel of the system, and 99 percent of our clients say they don't like the feel + look of windows compared to a Macintosh. And I haven't even gotten started on the maintainence aspect of Windows.. even a good Windows tech will advise a complete re-install alot of the time before going into the windows OS and getting his 'hands dirty'
99 percent of the time.. I can talk a Computer Luddite through operations that affect the deep operation of their systems over the phone. From what I've seen this isn't true of Windows.
This is my professional experience over 5 years of doing this nearly 365 days a year.

I dont honestly want to put anyone off trying a Windows DAW.. But a rekon a large percentage of you would come running back to the Mac when you see some of the weirdness you can be in for .

All IMHO guys


Al.

[alphajerk]

i see final cut pro mentioned several times but has anyone seen/used Matrox Incite w/ the pryamix system. it BLOWS FCP out of the water...

[MCal27]

Alphajerk wrote: "see final cut pro mentioned several times but has anyone seen/used Matrox Incite w/ the pryamix system. it BLOWS FCP out of the water..."

Hhhmmm.. no I haven't seen that.... does it do all that for $999.00 though?

Al.

[Logan]

I'd go for the black box option. Brian alluded to the shit storm over the buggy Nuendo 2 release and this is, I believe, what stops Steinberg from challenging PT for serious space in commercial shops. I've been waiting for Nuendo to reach it's promise as a DAW since it came out and Ver 2 seemed like it would reach that promise with complete latency compensation tools, but the implimentation seems so wacked that I'm not going to buy the update until it gets sorted out some and if a few major things don't change then I won't buy it at all. It seemed like Steinberg had turned a page when Nuendo first came out, it was pretty solid and they seemed as if they were developing a serious commercial tool. Alliance with RME for decent hardware and sound card stuff was a promising step in the right direction and when the UAD-1 started give high quality plugs at a reasonable price, the future looked bright indeed. But then came the Cubase SX is really N2 and the whole frigging thing went to shits and Steinberg is back to releasing shite that only appeals to computer geek nerds who actually want to **** with their boxes all the time. I actually think they have market studies to show they can sell more units to geeks than AEs, in fact there is probably a fully functional Nuendo in a vault somewhere, that has been reverse engineered into the geek wet dream for commercial release
As some one else already said I just want to record. If Steinberg wants to sell units to Commercial studios then their stuff has to work better than the initial releases do. I have said on the Steinberg forums that they should adapt a killer box based on either AMD or Intel and program for that one box and not release the app until all the features work on that box. Same in the Mac stream, if they want to continue to support it. The geek nerd crowd would still buy the acme turbo wing ding and try to get the app to run on it, but us folks who want to record music, could buy with confidence. I'd buy that box for sure and confidently buy upgrades because I knew they would work on the supported box. The box could be upgraded as faster CPU's and increases in FSB came on stream, it might even be possible that manufactures would look at a possible 1 million Steinberg users and tailor CPUs and Mobos to that market. Pipe dream ? I guess, but wouldn't it be refreshing if the App actually worked on the box you have when it was released.
It seems to me that Radar with it's great sound and solid preformance could win all the marbles if they piggy backed a full featured DAW with with multiple UAD type cards supported, on their system. A wet dream for sure. Take care Logan

[BrianT]

It's worth noting that, AFAIK, Nuendo was developed initially outside of Steinberg and aquired by them at a relatvely late stage of development. Hence the fact that it was initially an SGI product in design. If that's true, as I believe, then what they have contributed to it since aqusition seems to be a feature bonanza at the expense of seriously reduced reliability.

Somewhat sobering for the future, I would think. Please note that though I'm not a fulltime user, I've been a big Nuendo fan and predicted it as the only real shot at taking on Digi when it first shipped. This hyper buggy release will really hurt them, IMO. Bummed me out, since I've been pulling for them.


Regards,
Brian T

[BrianT]

Though I may be an exception (I don't know) I've had an amazing number of pro musicians and producers who were recording or mixing at my place tell me that my Paris/PC setup was surprisingly more stable than anything else they had worked on. This is with 128 tracks in hardware via 8 Paris EDS cards, over 100 analog inputs on 8 hardware I/O units, quad video monitors, 1 AGP and 14 PCI cards in the system. Somewhat complex. Many of those who commented are longtime Pro Tools/Mac owners/ users and were almost bummed to see their presuppositions destroyed.

Though I hand build all of my own comps, I would say that in the US, if a person were to spend equal $$$ on a Mac and on a specifically DAW targeted PC built by any of a number of reputable dealers these days, the reliability and ease of use would be about equal. Elegance of OS might go to Mac, depending on mindset, horsepower would go to the PC.

Al, I'm not doubting your personal experiences at all, and 2 or 3 years ago I would have agreed. But currently in the US, I would say Mac and PC enjoy similar reliabilty in general, especially with equal money spent. Comparing a first timer's home built PC that cost 1/4 of a new G4 is not really fair. I think that is often the comparison made.

In fact by all accounts I've heard, except for the lack of equal plugin support Pro Tools on XP seems at least if not more reliable than PT on OS9 or OSX. Check the DUC for yourself. Not that I would run PT on XP. Gotta have the plugs.

One last thing, regarding the Tascam SX1. Red herring, IMO. It has a fatal, inexcusable flaw. $6,000US for a DAW with only 16 tracks, that's not expandable? Who the heck wants that?


Regards,
Brian T

P.S. And so begin the Software Moderator Games! Hey Jules, can we get some Mac and Wintel logos over there, so we can have the little monkey pee on the other guy's comp?

dfegad

[Logan]

Ah ha that explains a lot of things. Too bad because I had the same initial feeling as you. I am a full time user and did a full band session two hours after installing the app, without cracking the manual. I ran it without a crash for a year and a half and did many sessions with it. I can mix through my console, but the lack of delay compensation for groups was a major drag. All I wanted was the delay compensation and the solid performance that I was used to. Unfortunately we got a bunch of ill thought out features and broken monitering and stupid group implimentation and a wack of other stuff that once worked and now is broken. Pretty obvious that Steinberg is strong on geek programmers and very weak on anyone who has any experience using this stuff in recording environments. Take care Logan

[BevvyB]

throws an apple at Brian

(, try throwing that windoze flag back)