Login / Register
 
A Less-Flattering Review of ProTools 11
New Reply
Subscribe
Daedalus77
Thread Starter
#1
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Daedalus77's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,747
My Recordings/Credits

Thread Starter
Daedalus77 is offline
A Less-Flattering Review of ProTools 11

#2
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #2
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 22,449
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
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!
__________________
<Shameless Plug>

If I've ever helped you with a technical problem or provided you with advice you found useful, you can more than repay me by checking out, and maybe buying a couple of songs, by a singer I'm working closely with. It would be much appreciated!

http://itunes.apple.com/gb/preorder/...an/id513648911

http://www.amazon.com/Jack-Robert-Ha...robert+hardman

</Shameless Plug>
Quote
1
#3
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #3
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,337

oceantracks is offline
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
Quote
2
Daedalus77
Thread Starter
#4
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Daedalus77's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,747
My Recordings/Credits

Thread Starter
Daedalus77 is offline
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.
__________________
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing."
— John Milton (1608-1674)

"The aspiration to truth is more precious than its assured possession."
— Gotthold Lessing (1729-1781)

www.fugitivesounds.org
Quote
1
#5
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #5
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 10,041

Send a message via Skype™ to Doc Mixwell
Doc Mixwell is offline
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.
__________________
Adam J. Brass
DSPdoctor.com



__________________
If you enjoy reading my posts, please consider working with me and my shop DSPdoctor on your next studio upgrade

adam@dspdoctor.com

My Personal Web Page
Quote
2
#6
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #6
Gear nut
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 139

gonklives is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
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.
#7
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #7
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland,USA
Posts: 3,996

drew is offline
The moment that guy doesn't feel the need to review a PT release is the moment it's not relevant anymore.
__________________
.......................
Drew Mazurek
.......................
Quote
1
#8
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Player1's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 529

Player1 is offline
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.
Quote
3
Daedalus77
Thread Starter
#9
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Daedalus77's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,747
My Recordings/Credits

Thread Starter
Daedalus77 is offline
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.
#10
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 873

Mike Connelly is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalus77 View Post
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.
#11
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #11
Gear Head
 
verme's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 39

verme is offline
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
Quote
1
#12
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,140

work2do is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by verme View Post
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.
#13
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #13
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,337

oceantracks is offline
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
#14
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by work2do View Post
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.
#15
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,140

work2do is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
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.
#16
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceantracks View Post
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.
#17
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by work2do View Post
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
#18
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,140

work2do is offline
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 View Post
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.
#19
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by work2do View Post
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.
Quote
1
#20
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #20
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,679

narcoman is offline
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.
#21
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,140

work2do is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
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 View Post
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.
#22
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #22
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11,679

narcoman is offline
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).
#23
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
For PT I continue to point people towards VCA, sensible routing, automation, auto trims, audio trims and ICON as being its major assets.
Absolutely.
#24
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by work2do View Post
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.
#25
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,140

work2do is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
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.
#26
10th April 2013
Old 10th April 2013
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
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?
#27
11th April 2013
Old 11th April 2013
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Inside my brain...
Posts: 3,137

Lawrence is offline
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.
#28
11th April 2013
Old 11th April 2013
  #28
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,699

JSt0rm is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
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!
I absolutely agree with this. There is bashing for bashings sake and constructive criticism. People who hate protools aren't really in a position to give constructive criticism because they don't work with the software enough.
#29
11th April 2013
Old 11th April 2013
  #29
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 22,449
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
It's not a "review" either of course!
#30
11th April 2013
Old 11th April 2013
  #30
Gear nut
 
microstudio's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 146

microstudio is offline
The sad truth is that Pro Tools is deeply intrenched into the Pro sector and these people of all are not keen on learning a whole new DAW along with all its hardware. So AVID can move along at it's own pace and charge what every they want and first to please on their list is share holders.
__________________
Every note ever played is at your figure tips.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.