Pro Tools 11

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Wow. So many words, so little meaning.

Exactly what I thought. 99 percent of that post meant nothing to me.

[Doc Mixwell]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

Exactly what I thought. 99 percent of that post meant nothing to me.

was the 1% -
"sorry fo my Eng"

??

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell

was the 1% -
"sorry fo my Eng"

??

Idk.. I'm not trying to be rude.. The post just didn't make sense or seem relevant to me in terms of my post of PT 11

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell

was the 1% -
"sorry fo my Eng"

??

That could have meant "sorry for my engineering" ie the above is complete nonsense...

[Doc Mixwell]

LOL
that was a bell ringer, Pmonkey

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

In the real world where more than 90% of all desktops run Windows. (And the percentage is even higher in the business world). You?

Alistair

I suspect in the audio world it's the other way around. As so much audio software out there does not even run on Windows.

[FunkyTek]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

I suspect in the audio world it's the other way around. As so much audio software out there does not even run on Windows.

oh, back to that one... kind of like the UAD vs. Wave thing... but more entertaining

Was never an MS fan until W7. Way better. I love that Apple's OS is built on UNIX now, but Apple is so proprietary. Getting better in some respects, worse in others. Both have the pros and cons.
My audio machine is W7 because I build my own systems. Might still choose it if Apple ever decided to just sell their OS, but their OS sells their hardware and they enjoy a very large margin, so that is not likely to happen.

We have a few thousand PCs (all either W7 or Linux) at work. A few Mac's but they are not supported by IT (other than syncing to iPhones). Our big dog engineering workstations are 8-12 core, SSD, 280something GB ram, overclocked. Naturally they run a serious work OS, Linux, no wimpy Apple or MS toy OS. ok yeah, I know...
By the way, we still occasionally run out of memory!

Back to the thread!
We are just speculating about PT11. Why the worry? Move when it makes sense.
I hope the timing works with the PI vendors.
I hope it has 64bit, frozen tracks and off-line bouncing. Then I would be very anxious to upgrade

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

I suspect in the audio world it's the other way around.

I don't see how that is relevant to my point about backwards compatibility. Anyway, I am guessing that outside of the PT world, you will find that Windows out-markets Mac OS for audio use. (And in my neck of the woods, even PT I see more often on Windows than Macs. About 4 to 1 if not more).

As so much audio software out there does not even run on Windows.

And even more that don't run on Mac OS. And of those programs that do run on Macs, many have only been ported recently. But all this is irrelevant to performance and backwards compatibility and, most importantly, doesn't tell us whether Avid will offer a 32-bit AAX/RTAS plugin bridge in PT11.

Alistair

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

...all this is irrelevant to performance and backwards compatibility and, most importantly, doesn't tell us whether Avid will offer a 32-bit AAX/RTAS plugin bridge in PT11...

When PT 10 was rolled out Avid made it very clear that they would not use a bridge like they had in 64 bit Media composer due to excessive latency issues. Now some third party could certainly step up but I think Avid would have gone that route if there weren't pretty big technical reasons not to.

According to internet chatter reaper appears to have the only solid plug-in bridge although it's hard to judge if that's true or just the same crowd taking endless swipes at reaper's competition.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

When PT 10 was rolled out Avid made it very clear that they would not use a bridge like they had in 64 bit Media composer due to excessive latency issues.

I don't think they made it very clear at all. I think their language was very carefully chosen so as NOT to give a clear answer yet let people believe they had.

Now some third party could certainly step up but I think Avid would have gone that route if there weren't pretty big technical reasons not to.

They have already proven that they can do it technically. I think that, assuming no bridge is included in PT11, the main reasons are commercial.

According to internet chatter reaper appears to have the only solid plug-in bridge although it's hard to judge if that's true or just the same crowd taking endless swipes at reaper's competition.

Avid should have an easier job than others as they have much more control over the plugins and the format.

Alistair

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by egoEgo

Only the deaf will not hear the engine FPGA superiority over all other technologies.

Brilliantly efficient and superb for configurability BUT if you think they sound any different then you do not know what an FPGA is! They only DO what an ASIC does but are reconfigurable; it's still an architecture to run a system on albeit one which you can reconfigure into whatever array you like (hey lets make an I7 or an M7 ). Now - FPAA you might make sense.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I don't see how that is relevant to my point about backwards compatibility. Anyway, I am guessing that outside of the PT world, you will find that Windows out-markets Mac OS for audio use. (And in my neck of the woods, even PT I see more often on Windows than Macs. About 4 to 1 if not more).



And even more that don't run on Mac OS. And of those programs that do run on Macs, many have only been ported recently. But all this is irrelevant to performance and backwards compatibility and, most importantly, doesn't tell us whether Avid will offer a 32-bit AAX/RTAS plugin bridge in PT11.

Alistair

This is all that I use:
Logic - Mac only
Avid Thunderbolt Native Mac Only
UAD Apollo - Mac Only
Waveburner - Mac only
UAD Satellite - Mac Only
Discribe - Mac Only
Magma with HDX Thunderbolt chassis - Mac Only
Plus I have a long list of plug-ins and other software I use all Mac only.
I have some stuff that Windows only - and Parallels with W7 takes care of the 2 pieces on Widows only things I use.
Oh and my Digidesign Venue in Widows only.
I have yet to see a Windows PT system in a studio - I am sure some one has one
I'll be at Skywalker next week I'll ask if they use them

[LarsSlate]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

This is all that I use:
Logic - Mac only
Avid Thunderbolt Native Mac Only
UAD Apollo - Mac Only
Waveburner - Mac only
UAD Satellite - Mac Only
Discribe - Mac Only
Magma with HDX Thunderbolt chassis - Mac Only
Plus I have a long list of plug-ins and other software I use all Mac only.
I have some stuff that Windows only - and Parallels with W7 takes care of the 2 pieces on Widows only things I use.
Oh and my Digidesign Venue in Widows only.
I have yet to see a Windows PT system in a studio - I am sure some one has one
I'll be at Skywalker next week I'll ask if they use them

I ran PT on Win7 64 for a while it ran perfect. But its a hard adoption since Mac has always been the main Protools and Graphics/Video platform for the pros.

Its like Beta vs VHS. A clean driected use Win 7 box will run as good as a mac. BUT since mac is the main stream for studios I switched to Mac so its famillar for guest engineers, etc.

So whatever your flavor with Win 7 its a moot point.

[joe_04_04]

So, lets get back to speculating about pt11...

[Juhannike]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

So, lets get back to speculating about pt11...

+1

What new? Anyone?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

So, lets get back to speculating about pt11...

More OO stuff? Started with the clip gain... might go to attached plugins? That'd be nice.

[joe_04_04]

Better have frozen tracks and offline bounce option!! Pro tools really really needs the first one. A feature that with a few clicks will render all plugins into the audio, clear the plugins used, yet allow you to recall the original with the plugins if needed. And it should do this offline.

As for 64 bit, can anyone tell me how 64 bit is going to help me? I have 16 gigs of ram and I know that 32 bit only allows for 3.5 gigs of ram to be used, but for someone like me, who struggles with CPU, but never ram, how will it improve session workflow? Honest question. I know some of my plugs store samples in ram so I could see it helping there. What would be best is if they threw in ram caching for free, then 64 bit along with my 16 gigs of ram would make sense.

[Aith]

Just get ve pro and 32 gigs of ram to cache your sessions with PT10 and 64bit is already "here".

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

...As for 64 bit, can anyone tell me how 64 bit is going to help me?...

64 bit will require a rewrite of the oldest DAW code that is in common use. Judging by the most recent DAW apps, this could well yield a significant increase in performance.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

64 bit will require a rewrite of the oldest DAW code that is in common use. Judging by the most recent DAW apps, this could well yield a significant increase in performance.

Correct X1000.

And not because of 64 bit. That code is old. Reaper is tiny and fast and I'm betting it's because the code is super efficient.

[LarsSlate]

As a developer myself its not a trivial task but its not super complex and would not require a re-write.

The most important thing slowing down the progress to 64 is the libraries the app uses some may be 3rd party. All of these must be ported to 64, etc and sometimes its more political the work load. A lot of the code itself starts with chaging the pointers and ints to 64 bit then working from there.

So to say the code would be re-written is not true just converted and they may see areas during the conversion to upgraded.

16 bit to 32 was a nightmare, 32 to 64 is much easier.

Also though PT10 can access gobs of memory on a 64 but platform it still is 32 and uses smaller memory slices at a time.


The biggest plus we may see with 64 protools is performance, but then again it already runs pretty dam good, so personally I do not see 64 bit protools something as great as everyone thinks it will be. Unlike video rendering such as premire or final cut, audio rendering gains with 64 will not be as spectacular.

[jc7]

Namm 2013? Herb eluded to something regarding Avid & Namm during the beginning of the latest Pensado's Place episode the one where JJP interviews Dave. Hope so, i'm wanting to get a MacBook system wondering if just bite the bullet now or wait until January.

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by jc7

Namm 2013? Herb eluded to something regarding Avid & Namm during the beginning of the latest Pensado's Place episode the one where JJP interviews Dave. Hope so, i'm wanting to get a MacBook system wondering if just bite the bullet now or wait until January.

This is intriguing. I hope some light is brought forth onto pt 11. Pt 10 didn't have enough features for me to care, at least not the ones I was looking for.. Some I'm hoping they will make the right choices on new features.

[Neil Pickles]

I would like to see a greatly improved fades editing box/system with higher res graphics etc.

A workflow in Audiosuite would be er .....sweet. As in have a preset of a chain of plug ins so you can just hit "go" once.

PT 11 64 bit might also encourage more TP developers to get off their buts and code more AAX preferably in DSP versions AND Native, Sound Toys and Waves being the obvious ones. This is more a side effect of PT11 rather than an benefit per say.

Given it's pretty much a ground up rewrite I'd be surprised to see it in January Namm but truthfully PT 10 has everything I need right now and is better than PT9 especially the audio engine/disc cache + clip gain.

[firubbi]

Originally Posted by Mite

ProTools 11.1 won't support PT11

this is too much...

[ProPower]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

Better have frozen tracks and offline bounce option!!

A feature that with a few clicks will render all plugins into the audio, clear the plugins used, yet allow you to recall the original with the plugins if needed. And it should do this offline.

+1

[joe_04_04]

I still fear for my future... I'm a small home studio owned whos invested a lot of money in pt and rtas. Some companies haven't developed aax yet, some are charging, some arent.. This is going to be an extremely long and complicated process if I decide to move from 9 to 11.. I don't want to lose any of the functionality of the plugins I've paid for or have to pay a ton to aax.. Very scary time.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

I still fear for my future...

I think this AAX issue is being blown way out of proportion. A 64 bit DAW requires 64 bit plug-ins. Every other platform has already made that transition. Of the ones that offer bridging to 32 bit plug-ins, the only one people haven't characterized as being a train-wreck with 32 bit plugs is Reaper however it also walks on water according to its fan-boys who will never say anything bad about it.

The only thing that makes Pro Tools any different is that because they invented plug-ins, some of the first generation probably aren't easily converted. My point is that if you want the unknown advantages of a 64 bit version of Pro Tools, there is no getting around the need to update all of your plug-ins and this is absolutely no different than any other DAW. Because AAX is only necessary for 64 bit operation, lots of developers aren't very likely to waste resources on converting to 32 bit AAX.

The good news is that third party plug-ins are no longer nearly as necessary for Pro Tools as they were a decade ago.

[joe_04_04]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I think this AAX issue is being blown way out of proportion.

It'd be different if I made thousands.. Or even hundreds of dollars a year off producing music... But I don't. I mostly produce my own music, which is rewarding, but doesn't cover the bills. I'm a small home studio owner. I do get some random kids in here and make some money, but this isn't a full blown operation, so it's really hard to justify spending all the money to make that transition. Some good companies like Massey and maybe slate will offer it for free I believe.. But I'll need to update my WUP to get back on track with waves.. So I might as well wait til the last minute to do so. Then McDSP and a slew of others lol. It's bad for small guys like me who have to constantly weigh options like this.

[drew]

Originally Posted by joe_04_04

It'd be different if I made thousands.. Or even hundreds of dollars a year off producing music... But I don't. I mostly produce my own music, which is rewarding, but doesn't cover the bills. I'm a small home studio owner. I do get some random kids in here and make some money, but this isn't a full blown operation, so it's really hard to justify spending all the money to make that transition. Some good companies like Massey and maybe slate will offer it for free I believe.. But I'll need to update my WUP to get back on track with waves.. So I might as well wait til the last minute to do so. Then McDSP and a slew of others lol. It's bad for small guys like me who have to constantly weigh options like this.

So don't. There's nothing your PT9 rig can't do that you need done right now. Simple. But you have to remove the desire to have the newest etc. Buy a book on Buddhism.