Gearslutz.com

Gearslutz.com (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Pro Tools 11 (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-tools-11/)
-   -   A Less-Flattering Review of ProTools 11 (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/pro-tools-11/828247-less-flattering-review-protools-11-a.html)

Daedalus77 10th April 2013 02:27 AM

A Less-Flattering Review of ProTools 11
 
Pro Tools 11 Harumph | Fugitive Sounds

psycho_monkey 10th April 2013 04:35 AM

Mmmm...points 1-3 are fair enough, but why whinge when you're given what you want? point 4 is a misunderstanding technically (monitoring with plugins using your motu system are you?). Point 5 - again, that's called an added bonus isn't it? Point 6 - personal opinion. Point 7 - that's surely a temporary whinge, we know some are on the way....

So yeah...I don't think there's much worth in that little rant.

And all that from someone who's not even used the software yet.

He doesn't really even mention that the new audio engine SHOULD be way more efficient, and that very few pro users have these mystical dae errors. I can't remember the last time I had one!

oceantracks 10th April 2013 05:00 AM

I don't understand people who keep pointing out other DAWS which have "had these features for years." If we wanted to use them, we would, right? What don't they get?

TH

Daedalus77 10th April 2013 06:30 AM

Yep. I concur with the posters above. Exciting update. We wanted to present a couple divergent opinions (reactions) on the blog to the news of the release—hence the two articles, side-by-side.

Focalpress 10th April 2013 12:01 PM

people keep talking about how pro tools has only just caught up to the opposition in terms of features. What should be understood is that many daws claimed certain features for a long time..... But how well they actually implement them is really where the value add is...

offline bouncing is a perfect example. the new pro tools offline bounce is very different in quality from the one offered by Logic 9. Same goes with the sample accuracy of audio editing and flex tooling. logic had this for ages, but how well does it actually work? in my experience its basically unusable for a full multitrack live band with 40 recorded tracks.

so yes before you complain about the feature set, just give it some time for pro tool 11 dust to settle and we shall see if their "features" work flawlessly.

even if you have identical features. its protools 11 turns out to be more stable, higher sound quality and more bug free than the competition, then its worth the price-tag.

Cubase 7 is out and shown its card. so the remaining question is what we will see from logic X. will it be head and shoulders above the rest in terms of features but buggy as hell to use? im getting the dejavu, cause this was exactly the same position i found myself in 4 years ago.

Doc Mixwell 10th April 2013 01:26 PM

Reviewers who are actually making records day in and day out with Pro Tools software are the only opinions I would consider reading. There are only a handful of people who have used PT11 at this point.

Reviewers who have not used the product, and don't have any real credential in the game, or for that matter, a real name behind their forum post, I will roll my eyes and move along. No snide comments needed, just a quiet dismissal of these misinformed statements.

gonklives 10th April 2013 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell (Post 8932781)
Reviewers who are actually making records day in and day out with Pro Tools software are the only opinions I would consider reading. There are only a handful of people who have used PT11 at this point.


drew 10th April 2013 02:45 PM

The moment that guy doesn't feel the need to review a PT release is the moment it's not relevant anymore.

Focalpress 10th April 2013 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell (Post 8932781)
Reviewers who are actually making records day in and day out with Pro Tools software are the only opinions I would consider reading. There are only a handful of people who have used PT11 at this point.

Reviewers who have not used the product, and don't have any real credential in the game, or for that matter, a real name behind their forum post, I will roll my eyes and move along. No snide comments needed, just a quiet dismissal of these misinformed statements.

then why are you here?

Player1 10th April 2013 03:01 PM

Player1
 
The problem is not Pro Tools but the need for some guys to be able to compete in the professional arena for $59.95! I have made a very good living for the past 20 years in my studio of which the last 11 years has been using Pro Tools and the other years with Sonic Solutions. I have been frustrated from time to time with Avid but all in all the product has been excellent! I don't care what the other semi-pro programs can do cause I don't use them. Having upgraded from HD3 system to HDX there has been a significant increase in speed and horsepower and this system should last me the next decade.

Daedalus77 10th April 2013 04:29 PM

As the guy who posted Mr. Glass's article, I'll just weigh in briefly: I did so to generate conversation, not to support his premises necessarily.

I agree with what others have said, and it's quite simple:

I'd assert that if you actually work in audio production—and you are not a "famous" engineer/producer and could thus do anything you want—you use ProTools. Doing otherwise would be an unsound business decision, creating all sorts of headaches involving the stability and portability of your sessions. It's just EASIER. Hobbyists care about esoteric features and have the time and luxury to consider what's the newest and coolest audio toy; professionals do not and care not.

For such perspective, go here:

ProTools No Longer The Most Popular DAW? | Fugitive Sounds

Keep on keeping on.

Mike Connelly 10th April 2013 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daedalus77 (Post 8933402)
if you actually work in audio production

If by "audio production" you mean things like video post production, sfx work, dialogue editing, and music work that's primarily tracking live instruments, sure.

For things like music composition, particularly things like big orchestral mockups, you use something else. Because it's just easier.

Portability is definitely an issue to some, but there are plenty of people doing audio work for a living where it simply isn't needed. And the "stability" of any given app relative to the competition is always going to be debatable.

verme 10th April 2013 09:54 PM

Personally (as a serious hobbyist using PT and Cubase every day in my studio) I am OK with the update. Most of the hyped features have been available on other DAWs for quite some time so sometimes the marketing BS hyping many of them as revolutionary, amazing and "cool" feels a bit funny but that is the way marketing goes, I guess. What I was expecting from Avid was a proper implementation of Track Freeze (the number 1 feature request ever). They now have all the bits and pieces (functionality in the core engine) in place and all they would have to do is offer a proper "one click" (track menu to select "freeze track"/"unfreeze track") user experience to make it work as it should. Instead you still have to bounce by hand to create another track and hide the original etc. Basically you have to do by hand what they could have very simply implemented as a feature. From the workflow perspective, that is just not professional (and you could see in the Avid Q&A session how the product manager was a bit ashamed to answer the question regarding track freeze). Since the functionality is there and all they would need is for somebody to add some fairly simple UX wizardy, I hope they fix that in PT 11.1.1

work2do 10th April 2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by verme (Post 8934658)
Basically you have to do by hand what they could have very simply implemented as a feature. From the workflow perspective, that is just not professional

That's how studio one does it, they keep the VI track active and give you a new audio track underneath. You can go back and make changes if needed with the VI.

It is actually very professional. If you want to bounce multiple audio tracks or drum tracks to one stereo, 5.1, 7.1 bus/stem you can do that. You can stack 4 string VI's and make then bounce down to one stereo string track instead of still having 4 frozen string VI's and then having to take those 4 frozen VI tracks and bus them to one stereo string track. Also, it doesn't take but one mouse click to mute or de-activate a VI track.

oceantracks 10th April 2013 10:13 PM

I never freeze in Logic, always bounce in place. ALWAYS commit midi to audio. Learned the hard way once, never again. Always turn them to audio. For others it might be fine.

TH

Lawrence 10th April 2013 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by work2do (Post 8934726)
That's how studio one does it, they keep the VI track active and give you a new audio track underneath. You can go back and make changes if needed with the VI.

Nope. That's direct instrument bouncing, not Transform (e.g. "freeze").

Transform bounces the instrument clips to audio clips in place (same sizes, positions), creates a new audio track, places the new combination clips (midi and audio in the same clip) on the new audio track, unloads the instrument or audio plugs completely (optionally with both of course), and destroys the midi track. It literally "Transforms" a midi track into an audio track, and back, including turning a single midi track into multiple audio tracks if it has multi outs, and back to a single midi track on unfreeze.

Additionally, you can edit frozen bits, unfreeze, and keep your edits... and extract the midi data directly out of any frozen audio bit to a midi track.

No "daw war" stuff, just correcting bad information. People very often confuse boucing or stem rendering with freezing when they're really two different things.

work2do 10th April 2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence (Post 8934793)
Nope. That's direct instrument bouncing, not Transform (e.g. "freeze").

Transform to audio gives you the option to keep the VI track active and muted or remove it. It gives you the new audio track right below it. I do it all the time. Just correcting bad information. Stem rendering or whatever is what PT gives you the option to do which is perfect for Post and those of us who bounce string stacks, other instrument stacks, or drum busses. Studio One does not do that. Not to mention Studio One bounces mono VI's to stereo. There is no option for mono yet.

Lawrence 10th April 2013 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceantracks (Post 8934750)
I never freeze in Logic, always bounce in place. ALWAYS commit midi to audio. Learned the hard way once, never again. Always turn them to audio. For others it might be fine.

TH

6 of 1, half dozen of the other.

In many (if not most) cases, freeze actually does give you committed audio regions that you can use, export for backup, whatever. Cubase is one exception I know of that doesn't. It's freeze files are condensed edit files and cannot be used on the timeline or for anything else.

But in most other places, freezing a drum track (for example) is just a track render that also stores the midi setup for the reverse round trip (unfreeze). The audio file you get is exactly the same as a bounce... the bounce function just doesn't store the round trip and unload the instruments and/or plugs from RAM.

Lawrence 10th April 2013 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by work2do (Post 8934837)
Transform to audio gives you the option to keep the VI track active and muted or remove it.

Nope. That option is to keep the instrument loaded in RAM. The midi track always gets destroyed, that's why they call it "Transform". The other option is to save the midi track state for later recall (the default). You'd uncheck that if you didn't want to save the midi track state for some reason.

Quote:

Just correcting bad information.
Not really. You're adding more bad information.

Quote:

Not to mention Studio One bounces mono VI's to stereo. There is no option for mono yet.
Wrong again. If you're going to compare things you should at least know what you're talking about.

Quote:

Stem rendering or whatever is what PT gives you the option to do which is perfect for Post and those of us who bounce string stacks, other instrument stacks, or drum busses. Studio One does not do that.
Of course it does, lol, what the heck are you talking about and more importantly... why? You don't even have PT11 yet so you can't compare them yet... especially since you obviously have no clue how Studio One actually works.

How did a simple correction of your misinformation on freeze turn into a daw war over stem rendering? lol

work2do 10th April 2013 10:55 PM

If that's not the case with Studio One then it pales more in comparison to the new PT 11 bounce features. I was wrong in comparing that feature. Studio One is worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence (Post 8934861)
Wrong again. If you're going to compare things you should at least know what you're talking about.

Also, there are ways to communicate on a forum. We are all men here. Take it easy.

This is OT but you gonna have to show me how this works. You have Impact. Mono kick, mono snare, stereo crash, stereo, perc all to there own outputs. mono for mono, stereo for stereo. When you transform the wavs all come out in stereo and on stereo tracks. They have issues with that here too.

Lawrence 10th April 2013 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by work2do (Post 8934920)
Also, there are ways to communicate on a forum. We are all men here. Take it easy.

lol :) Dude, all I did was politely correct your comment that was wrong. You seemed to want to argue that point (even though it was still wrong) and then you go running off into other totally unrelated areas (stems? what does stems have to do with freeze?) where you were also wrong.

That's my fault? I dont think so. :)

Jeeze man, at least wait until you actually get you hands on PT 11 and actually use it before you start arguing over what it does and doesn't do better than everything else... and maybe also use the things you intend to compare so you at least make some kind of reasonable and factual comment.

Fair enough? PT11 looks great to me.

narcoman 10th April 2013 11:04 PM

I really thought they were going to extend the clip gain thing and do a Reaper style OO plugin state. Be awesome for dialogue.


Other than that - what a daft review. As you may notice in the comment I posted - all DAWs lag behind each other in certain areas. For PT I continue to point people towards VCA, sensible routing, automation, auto trims, audio trims and ICON as being its major assets.

ReaperUser 10th April 2013 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceantracks (Post 8931722)
I don't understand people who keep pointing out other DAWS which have "had these features for years." If we wanted to use them, we would, right? What don't they get?

TH

I think it has more to do with the fact that Pro Tools is "the industry standard" and therefore somehow viewed as better/the best so it's more a case of; "huh, we've had that for years, how can it be the best?" type of thing.

If it wasn't a case of it being "the industry standard" then most likely no one would care to mention it, would be like if Fruity Loops just came out with some new stuff that everyone else has had for years........"so what".

The Pro Tools bashing is because it has the rep of being: Pro Tools...then... Everything Else (everything else having the impression of being inferior to it somehow).

The Emperor's new Pro Tools.

work2do 10th April 2013 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence (Post 8934960)
Fair enough? PT11 looks great to me.

Fair enough, but I need you to explain how to transform mono Impact tracks to mono audio tracks using multiple outs. I am in the middle of a project that starts mixing on the stage 2moro. I knows it's OT but you seem to be the only one who knows how to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by narcoman (Post 8934961)
I really thought they were going to extend the clip gain thing and do a Reaper style OO plugin state. Be awesome for dialogue.
Other than that - what a daft review. As you may notice in the comment I posted - all DAWs lag behind each other in certain areas. For PT I continue to point people towards VCA, sensible routing, automation, auto trims, audio trims and ICON as being its major assets.

Indeed. I thought they would expand on the clip gain with object editing.

narcoman 10th April 2013 11:10 PM

Well, industry standard does not, in any way, mean the best!!

But I can't helping thinking that all people who bash anything seem to do it more as an unconscious statement of their feelings about there own work position..... I've rarely heard people doing okay moan about much.... Well - not in the way that I see some of the PT bashers in GS. Just seems rather pointless!


My own feeling is I'd like to see a few of Reapers things (OO, batch processor and tempo merging) in PT. I love some of Reapers features, just don't like the messy implement ion (still very very good but cluttered - if you see what i mean).

Lawrence 10th April 2013 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by narcoman (Post 8934961)
For PT I continue to point people towards VCA, sensible routing, automation, auto trims, audio trims and ICON as being its major assets.

Absolutely.

Lawrence 10th April 2013 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by work2do (Post 8935004)
Fair enough, but I need you to explain how to transform mono Impact tracks to mono audio tracks using multiple outs. I am in the middle of a project that starts mixing on the stage 2moro. I knows it's OT but you seem to be the only one who knows how to do it.

This is a PT11 thread, where people interested in PT11 are discussing it, not a PT11 vs. Studio One 2 "my daw is better than your daw" argument that goes on and on until someone gets the last word. Been there, done that.

Go to the Studio One forum if you want to know how to operate that daw better, or maybe start a new thread.

work2do 10th April 2013 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence (Post 8935030)
I'll pass on that even though it's easy enough to do ... because this is a PT11 thread, where people interested in PT11 are discussing it, not a PT11 vs. Studio One 2 "my daw is better than your daw" argument that goes on and on until someone gets the last word. Been there, done that.

Go to the Studio One forum if you want to know how to operate that daw better, or maybe start a new thread.

I'm asking a legit question. Something that is a real issue for many. We have 7 PT rigs here. This is not about that but you gave me the answer I thought. Thanks. peachh

Lawrence 10th April 2013 11:35 PM

Jesus Mother of Mary. :)

Let me tell you how to do the thing I actually corrected from your initial comment, not this new strawman you're tossing at me now, okay? Will that end this circular nonsense? I really hope so. :) I aim to please.

Your comment that I politely corrected...

Quote:

Not to mention Studio One bounces mono VI's to stereo. There is no option for mono yet.
Render a stem. If the instrument output is mono, you get a mono audio file. It's automatic, it renders mono and stereo at the same time.

Is that easy enough for you? Is not a stem also a bounce of a VI track to an audio file? Do you not get a mono audio file on the timeline? Is that so hard to do? If you want to use CTRL+B instead you can do that and then bounce it to mono easy enough by switching the track to mono first... easy enough with a macro... and direct bounces are 32-bit float so you lose nothing... and your macro can trim the clip -6 first.

Okay?

The reason "direct bounces" are stereo is to preserve the mix, since you can't capture panning in a mono file, so if you bounce a mono VI that's panned 30% right, the stereo bounce will not change the mix in any way at all, the new track (post-fader, post-FX, post-pan bounce) is at unity gain and pan and everything will sound exactly the same. Make sense?

Can we move on now and get back to PT11?

Lawrence 11th April 2013 12:38 AM

On topic: As to the OP's linked blog article, that's not exactly what I'd personally call a "fair and balanced" overview. :)

He pretty much just stated the clearly obvious to anyone but Stevie Wonder, that they did what they actually "needed" to do to modernize the product, as if that's somehow a bad thing.

I'm personally (with any kind of software product really) a big fan of "less marketing flash & more useful and practical functions"... mmv as usual.



SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.