Propellerhead's RECORD

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by CDS

You go ahead and keep believing that if it makes you feel better lol.

It all comes down to the sound. Record delivers the same sound. If you need to score a film, then use the real thing.

If you had any clue of how an analog EQ or mixing board was actually built and how it works then you would never have indulged into this discussion. Your claims are absurd and physically impossible. I bet if propellerheads had stated that the Record mixer was modeled after a NEVE board you would claim that it sounded as one. Take a good listen to what many which are seemingly more experienced than you, are telling you in this thread and for Gods sake, read a few papers on how hardware is working and comprised and why. Such will prevent you from facing total humiliation in the future.

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

I don't want to be rude (I really don't) but how old are you? Honest question.

TMY

Age doesn't necessarily walk hand in hand with stupidity. Just watch a few interviews with George W. Bush and you'll know what I mean.

[George Necola]

uh oh.. it sounds terrible in the video. concept is good, marketing is cheesy

[clonewar]

Record looks cool, and Reason users should especially be excited..... but some of you who are getting really passionate defending it are going to have to realize that without VST/AU instrument and effect support there is a large subset of DAW users that will never be able to use it as their primary DAW. A change of pace or songwriting sketchbook maybe? Sure.

Originally Posted by CDS

If you need to score a film, then use the real thing.

Using the real thing comes down to the film's budget.. so unless you're working on big (or at least medium) budget films that's not an option. It's even less of an option for commercials and game soundtracks.

But you already knew that right?

[PhilR]

I really don't get some of the vitriol expressed in this topic at all. To me Record looks like a DAW aimed at non-engineer musicians with ambitions of learning to improve their mixing skills over time. If you've never used VST's then chances are you won't even know which ones are any good to begin with!

If it doesn't have a feature you depend on then don't buy it! The market is hardly lacking in alternatives. I'll be trying out Record if I get the chance.

[BosseBo]

Originally Posted by George Necola

uh oh.. it sounds terrible in the video. concept is good, marketing is cheesy

Yeah Pelle Gunnerfeldt who mixed it (the song We Get It On) is... terrible... good. But if you don't like the sound of bands like The Hives, he mixed their albums, then I understand that you don't like what you here. Though this really is a sound that’s more like Imarobot.

Originally Posted by 25ghosts

If you had any clue of how an analog EQ or mixing board was actually built and how it works then you would never have indulged into this discussion. Your claims are absurd and physically impossible.

And these facts are built on what? The same the theories that said train speed over 30 kilometers per our would kill you. Which was the latest “science” in the early years of the steam train. If you know all this then maybe you know that digital technology and programming is developing really fast. If you know enough about analog and digital technology, then share the science. Telling somebody that their stupid is not the same as proof of knowledge. My guess is that you assume the impossibility without having made a true A/B test. You know a blind test. But arguing with statements like these makes me feel like Don Quixote.

I don't want to drag an innocent man into the discussion but in the Swedish magazine MM George Massenburg said "I always mix "in the box" It's more precise. The science behind digital systems are better. If a mix doesn't sound as good digitally as when you run it thru an analog mixing console then it’s your fault. Your not doing your job good enough.” And later he continues.. “People would rather not hear that a mix made in a computer sound as good or even better. They want a story about some obscure magic analog technology that was used on the mix” Those are his words, and I still want to apologize for bringing his (your if you accidently read this) name into this. But it’s for a purpose. This man invented the parametric EQ in 1972 and has recorded a lot of the record industries album classics. Look up his name on wikipedia or elsewhere and you’ll see a CV that maybe a handful of people come up to. One important thing though, he has never stated that anybody has mad an accurate SSL clone.

Never the less my experience of big mixing consoles are limited to a few recordings done with Neve desks and one with a Harrison. I’ve only visited a studio with a big SSL console and at that time didn’t think it sounded “warm enough” (sorry that I must admit that I’ve been a stupid snob. I whip my self to sleep every night in shame) I can’t say if the cloning in Record is accurate, I can’t do the proper A/B test. But if it isn’t then I hope that SSL clones it them self because I’ve never heard filters that good in a computer or in hardware ever.

But this whole argument is not about facts it’s about beliefs. If some of your trying to convince us to buy a SSL or Neve desk for 100.000 bucks or more instead of spending a few hundreds on software. Well sorry can’t afford that. If your afraid that some people will produce hits and be successful. Join the competition instead and practice your own skill. If you don’t believe record sounds good, that’s not a biggie and it might just be your loss. I think people in creative business should be open minded and se new possibilities. Otherwise it will reflect on your own creations. One thing though a skilled engineer will always be a skilled engineer. That’s knowledge no software or hardware can change.

Walk in Peace
/Bosse (who’s stupid enough to think that anybody will read and actually think about what I wrote)

[andrewj]

Be cool guys.

A lot of us are dreaming about the day a hundred dollar software comes out and gives us the sound and the possibilities of a million dollar studio with all the outboard and mixingpower.

Until now, noone has found something like that. There are good softwares and impressive tools for some hundred dollars, but I still experience a better sound through my Brent Averill PreAmp than through a standard Pre and some virtual flavour instead. I still compress my 2buss (if needed) and my masters with my C2M and my Fatso, because not softcompressor I know competes with these units.

I am willing to try anxything new and would be happy if I could mix and master ITB withot additional tools and still get the same. I think this will not hapen in the next years. And when it will happen I do not know if I want to stop using the sexy babies I own.

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by BosseBo

Yeah Pelle Gunnerfeldt who mixed it (the song We Get It On) is... terrible... good. But if you don't like the sound of bands like The Hives, he mixed their albums, then I understand that you don't like what you here. Though this really is a sound that’s more like Imarobot.



And these facts are built on what? The same the theories that said train speed over 30 kilometers per our would kill you. Which was the latest “science” in the early years of the steam train. If you know all this then maybe you know that digital technology and programming is developing really fast. If you know enough about analog and digital technology, then share the science. Telling somebody that their stupid is not the same as proof of knowledge. My guess is that you assume the impossibility without having made a true A/B test. You know a blind test. But arguing with statements like these makes me feel like Don Quixote.

I don't want to drag an innocent man into the discussion but in the Swedish magazine MM George Massenburg said "I always mix "in the box" It's more precise. The science behind digital systems are better. If a mix doesn't sound as good digitally as when you run it thru an analog mixing console then it’s your fault. Your not doing your job good enough.” And later he continues.. “People would rather not hear that a mix made in a computer sound as good or even better. They want a story about some obscure magic analog technology that was used on the mix” Those are his words, and I still want to apologize for bringing his (your if you accidently read this) name into this. But it’s for a purpose. This man invented the parametric EQ in 1972 and has recorded a lot of the record industries album classics. Look up his name on wikipedia or elsewhere and you’ll see a CV that maybe a handful of people come up to. One important thing though, he has never stated that anybody has mad an accurate SSL clone.

So I guess George will seize building hardware then........

Never the less my experience of big mixing consoles are limited to a few recordings done with Neve desks and one with a Harrison. I’ve only visited a studio with a big SSL console and at that time didn’t think it sounded “warm enough” (sorry that I must admit that I’ve been a stupid snob. I whip my self to sleep every night in shame) I can’t say if the cloning in Record is accurate, I can’t do the proper A/B test. But if it isn’t then I hope that SSL clones it them self because I’ve never heard filters that good in a computer or in hardware ever.

But this whole argument is not about facts it’s about beliefs. If some of your trying to convince us to buy a SSL or Neve desk for 100.000 bucks or more instead of spending a few hundreds on software. Well sorry can’t afford that. If your afraid that some people will produce hits and be successful. Join the competition instead and practice your own skill. If you don’t believe record sounds good, that’s not a biggie and it might just be your loss. I think people in creative business should be open minded and se new possibilities. Otherwise it will reflect on your own creations. One thing though a skilled engineer will always be a skilled engineer. That’s knowledge no software or hardware can change.

Walk in Peace
/Bosse (who’s stupid enough to think that anybody will read and actually think about what I wrote)

I never claimed that Record wouldn't sound good. Just stated that it would be physically impossible for a digital eq to do exactly the same as an analog eq. Anyone can claim to have modeled their eq based on a legendary console and their claim will be true. But it remains a "Model". Many have tried it and many sound good but they still dont sound like the hardware they were modeled after. Its all marketing. My post was not in any way trying to demean Record. I haven't tried it and I dont think I ever will. Not that I am a snob or anything but Pro Tools does every little thing that I need done ;-)

[andrewj]

Originally Posted by 25ghosts

Just stated that it would be physically impossible for a digital eq to do exactly the same as an analog eq. Anyone can claim to have modeled their eq based on a legendary console and their claim will be true. But it remains a "Model". Many have tried it and many sound good but they still dont sound like the hardware they were modeled after. Its all marketing. My post was not in any way trying to demean Record. I haven't tried it and I dont think I ever will. Not that I am a snob or anything but Pro Tools does every little thing that I need done ;-)

That's true, like most hardware reincarnations that try to imitate others. If the parts are not available anymore the sound will e different most of the time. Look at the various Nevestyle Pres. Some are close some are not. That does not mean they are worse, but different.

[andrewj]

Does anybody know i it is possible to integrate external instruments via MIDI?

[xqtion]

FYI... Record does not support external synth via MIDI.

I know it would be cool to have that feature. Well well, still a dope program.

[andrewj]

Hah, no VST and AU suport of instruments or effects and no integraton of hardwaresynths via MIDI. Too bad

[BosseBo]

Originally Posted by andrewj

Hah, no VST and AU suport of instruments or effects and no integraton of hardwaresynths via MIDI. Too bad

That's the downside of it. I can't use some of my beloved BFD kits. The problem is that this weakness is also it's strength. It will mean less bugs, quick workflow (though different) and power. A friend of mine whose a die hard PT user just gaped at the performance of the beta earlier this. We were at a producers conference and he was talking about his projects in Reason and PT (and I was his humble moderator and sidekick). He was using PT 8 Le on a Macbook (Intel Dualcore) and it was really heavy on the computer even with everting on PT and no Reason and Rewire. The demo of record had 60 or 70 tracks audio and some reason. It was not even close to choking. The sound and the power is amazing. But it lacks stuff aswell. My musical projects will have record as its main tool. My other audio projects (my bread and butter) might have a sniff at the channel strip.
Propellerheads arent out to make the DAW till kill all DAWs. Record is a mainly musicians tool for people who doesn't feel at home with the programs around but still want to use a computer. But the props are also very thoroug and just by bieng so they happend to make a channelstrip and a streching algorithm nothing matches in the software world. So for me who always loved to write music in Reason but mainly likes guitarr, voice, drums and synths the choice is easy. But if you love your synths and plugs it's not that obvious. Tell you this though I don't miss my UAD plugs when using record. Installed the first RC yesterday. This is not for everyone, but it is for me.

Dyslektikk bad spelleing regards from Stockholm
/Bosse

[andrewj]

I tiotally understand their point with the plugins and I am with you that some people might be totally happy with that concept.

But I still do not get the clue why it is a proble to integr4ate external hardware synths and samplers. I can not even understand how tis coud cause stabilitiy issues in any way!?

Best regards,

Andrew

[CDS]

Originally Posted by 25ghosts

If you had any clue of how an analog EQ or mixing board was actually built and how it works then you would never have indulged into this discussion. Your claims are absurd and physically impossible. I bet if propellerheads had stated that the Record mixer was modeled after a NEVE board you would claim that it sounded as one. Take a good listen to what many which are seemingly more experienced than you, are telling you in this thread and for Gods sake, read a few papers on how hardware is working and comprised and why. Such will prevent you from facing total humiliation in the future.

You are way out of pocket addressing me like this. Let's get this straight, there has been no total humiliation because everyone here that choose to address me similar to your comment are too much of a coward to challenge me with Record vs anything else. The only experience anyone in this thread that has addressed me (like you just did) has more than me is being a coward.

Its simple. It's 2009. Phones are wireless, Lexus cars park themselves.

Everyone needs to stop hiding behind hardware made in the 70's to compensate for a lack of mixing ability. Just because you are using some eq that was used on "The Wall" does not mean your material will be any good, I think more time needs to be spent on finding and shaping talent than wasting time debating whether some old piece of tube gear can make the autotune on your non-talented artist sound better.

Record delivers and anyone with an inch of talent knows this.

I'm just saying, anyone reading this thread can clearly see I have done nothing but been willing to shred ANYONE who wants to have a go at Record with someone who knows what they are doing. Simple, no talk.

I just got the release candidate version of Record and it is much more solid than ProTools. It is what it is my friends.

[CDS]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

I don't want to be rude (I really don't) but how old are you? Honest question.

TMY

The only thing you could do to be rude to me is totally embarrass me in a mix challenge.

That goes to anyone addressing me in this tread without saying something neutral. Don't wast my time with cowardly comments.

[CDS]

Originally Posted by 25ghosts

I haven't tried it and I dont think I ever will.

Seriously, I admit coming back at you hard in the other post above, saying this because I do respect when you post comments in other threads.

Maybe you should try the software before posting opinions in this thread. So if you tried it and it doesn't work for you, ok I for one can respect that, but don't think for a second that records will not be made in this thing.

Sure a train requires more raw horsepower to run than a plane but a plane gets you to your destination faster.

Train = hardware

Plane = record

[CDS]

Originally Posted by andrewj

Hah, no VST and AU suport of instruments or effects and no integraton of hardwaresynths via MIDI. Too bad

Why not print stems and import them into record to mix?

No one is saying Record, ProTools, Logic ect... has to be the ONLY thing in your system, you can use them all to complement your process. These machines don't have feelings, they are only tools to get a job done, sometimes you need a hammer and sometimes you need a screwdriver, but you don't keep your toolbox empty because your favorite tool is a drill.

Too much power has made us blind to the possibilities of all the technology available today. The best records in history was made on 8 track machines. Those guys didn't nitpick over gear because there wasn't much of it at the time.

[kdm]

Well I guess we'll all know when Record hits the streets. If it's all you say it is, then most every studio in the world will switch simply to save overhead costs on a console, or other DAW + hardware combination, at least the ones that stay in business long enough.

If not, then it will just be another $200 recording app that simply lacks features of more expensive DAWs, and nothing more.

Having worked in this industry for 20 years, having a degree in engineering and experience actually writing DSP code and designing hardware, my bet is on the latter.

Record will be fine for Reason users who need a simple recording application. It won't compete with ProTools, Nuendo, Cubase, Logic, or even Reaper. A talented musician/engineer/producer can make a great product on any of the above with talented musicians, a strong front end, and strong engineering/mixing skills, but the question is whether the product gives you the tools you need to do it quickly, efficiently and creatively in a professional environment, or whatever your requirement is.

If Record meets your requirements, whether amateur or professional, more power to you/it. If not, then it would be unwise to stand resolutely behind the application itself instead of putting one's talents first and relegating it to its' proper status - a tool in the toolbox, nothing more.

[CDS]

Originally Posted by kdm

Well I guess we'll all know when Record hits the streets. If it's all you say it is, then most every studio in the world will switch simply to save overhead costs on a console, or other DAW + hardware combination, at least the ones that stay in business long enough.

If not, then it will just be another $200 recording app that simply lacks features of more expensive DAWs, and nothing more.

Having worked in this industry for 20 years, having a degree in engineering and experience actually writing DSP code and designing hardware, my bet is on the latter.

Record will be fine for Reason users who need a simple recording application. It won't compete with ProTools, Nuendo, Cubase, Logic, or even Reaper. A talented musician/engineer/producer can make a great product on any of the above with talented musicians, a strong front end, and strong engineering/mixing skills, but the question is whether the product gives you the tools you need to do it quickly, efficiently and creatively in a professional environment, or whatever your requirement is.

If Record meets your requirements, whether amateur or professional, more power to you/it. If not, then it would be unwise to stand resolutely behind the application itself instead of putting one's talents first and relegating it to its' proper status - a tool in the toolbox, nothing more.

With 20 years experience, then you must remember when everyone was "pro tape" back in 1999 when ProTools 24 first begin to hit big. Remember when all the audio guys swore by their 499's?

I want to be clear in saying that having a console and a studio environment will always be viable when you need to record a band performance or orchestra.

There should be no reason an all midi (of VI) musician and vocalist should be going to a studio in 2009.

I would love to know where all this studio economy is flowing at where there is even a studio scene left. I know the studio scene in NYC is a ghost town with the very few facilities left only have about 3 years left of breath in them.

Software needs to step up and sound good doing it, commercial music based studios are dying and all the engineers from them will be like a real life Jedi.

[CDS]

Here is something I read in Mix Magazine years ago and it happens to be online. This taught me a lot when I read it:

Tony Maserati

"Do you always work on SSL consoles?

Well, I used to say I could mix on a Mackie console in a bathroom. I think that's true of any good mixer. But now, the competition is really stiff and I use everything I can get, so I mix on an SSL J Series. I used to do a lot of work on the [Neve] VR — the Mary J. Blige stuff was on a VR — because I wasn't into the [SSL] G console with VCAs. I would gravitate toward anything that didn't have VCAs."

I believe the same point of view is true for Record and the other software tools, sure if you have access to an SSL then use it, but don't think that if someone does not use an SSL or Neve that they can't beat you in selling a record.

[kdm]

Originally Posted by CDS

With 20 years experience, then you must remember when everyone was "pro tape" back in 1999 when ProTools 24 first begin to hit big. Remember when all the audio guys swore by their 499's?

Yes, and that mentality is the same (albeit supporting the reverse concept) as saying a $200 software app is equivalent to an SSL console in sonic capabilities when other EQ and comp emulations require much more processing power to emulate the exact same hardware.

My stance is a bit different than most in this industry. I don't subscribe to the "have to have an SSL to make a hit record" idea, nor do I foolishly believe I am going to duplicate that hardware with Nuendo, UAD-1s, Waves, or any other software. What I do believe is that we are reaching an era of comparing apples and oranges. ITB has advantages over the older hardware/tape/console days, and outboard hardware has advantages over software versions and emulations.

The sound engineering approach isn't to isolate one's choices or opinions to one or the other exclusively, but to evaluate the pros and cons and make the best choice for the project at hand based on budget and time requirements, or more applicably, make the most of what you have available.

I want to be clear in saying that having a console and a studio environment will always be viable when you need to record a band performance or orchestra.

There should be no reason an all midi (of VI) musician and vocalist should be going to a studio in 2009.

I would love to know where all this studio economy is flowing at where there is even a studio scene left. I know the studio scene in NYC is a ghost town with the very few facilities left only have about 3 years left of breath in them.

Software needs to step up and sound good doing it, studios are dying worst than the Jedi.

Software has certainly made it's mark in the industry. I know the in-the-box vs. external gear argument still rages, and imho, it's time to put that one to bed for the above reasons I stated.

As far as the large studio model, I do agree it is suffering. There are still advantages to a large, beautifully treated room that can't be replaced as you noted, but the need to record a project start to finish there has declined significantly. At the same time, leaving a significant part of the production of a project in the hands of less experienced musicians can be a troubling prospect, and also a creatively refreshing one as well.

But, what I think is missing more now isn't a technical limitation within gear, software, etc, but in a large market of engineers (or aspiring engineers) that simply look to the gear to create a "sound" instead of their own ears, hard work, knowledge and experience. Regardless of the technology, there can be (and I hope never will be) a replacement for talent, great ears, experience and ingenuity.

[CDS]

Originally Posted by kdm

But, what I think is missing more now isn't a technical limitation within gear, software, etc, but in a large market of engineers (or aspiring engineers) that simply look to the gear to create a "sound" instead of their own ears, hard work, knowledge and experience. Regardless of the technology, there can be (and I hope never will be) a replacement for talent, great ears, experience and ingenuity.

This is all I am trying to express through my aggressive feedback to the other posters. A person has to be able to have their own niche and hope that it is appealing to others, the technology has always been 3rd behind inspiration and talent in my view.

1) You need the inspiration to do something new and exciting.
2) You then need the talent to get it from your head to something tangible for others to enjoy. Talent only grows with experience.
3) The technology are the tools needed to compliment your talent to convert the ideas into the tangible.

[kdm]

Originally Posted by CDS

I believe the same point of view is true for Record and the other software tools, sure if you have access to an SSL then use it, but don't think that if someone does not use an SSL or Neve that they can't beat you in selling a record.

I do agree with this in that the end product is what sells, not the gear behind it.

And likewise, Record isn't going to put the capabilities of a talented engineer into the hands of every 14 year old bedroom DJ either simply by claiming to be imitating an SSL (no offense to 14 year old bedroom DJs - you have to start somewhere).

I don't think it will sound "just like an SSL" for simple technical reasons. It seems silly to claim software emulation to that level when it isn't necessary to make a great recording, but if that suggestion appeals to Prophead's market and customer base to sell copies of Record, then that's the only reason they need.

Personally, I don't want a software app that is going to sound like a single console, however inaccurately. The option of going to whatever plugin I prefer, or going to outboard hardware if available and right for the track/project, makes more sense for me. But that's me, and I'm not a frequent Reason user (actually haven't used it in 2 years now).

[CDS]

Originally Posted by kdm

I do agree with this in that the end product is what sells, not the gear behind it.

And likewise, Record isn't going to put the capabilities of a talented engineer into the hands of every 14 year old bedroom DJ either simply by claiming to be imitating an SSL (no offense to 14 year old bedroom DJs - you have to start somewhere).

I don't think it will sound "just like an SSL" for simple technical reasons. It seems silly to claim software emulation to that level when it isn't necessary to make a great recording, but if that suggestion appeals to Prophead's market and customer base to sell copies of Record, then that's the only reason they need.

Personally, I don't want a software app that is going to sound like a single console, however inaccurately. The option of going to whatever plugin I prefer, or going to outboard hardware if available and right for the track/project, makes more sense for me. But that's me, and I'm not a frequent Reason user (actually haven't used it in 2 years now).

I think mostly the appeal for me with Record (and even the Waves plugin) is that for the first time a piece of software can give you that "sound", be it accurate by professional engineering standards or not, there is still that line of "the sound", i think you understand what I mean.

For years there has always been that hard line distinction between something done in a home studio and something done on a console in a studio facility, there was such a major noticeable difference.

With these emulations, you have to really be a seasoned 20 year pro to try to hear a difference, so trickle that down to consumer ears, who could care less about technicality and you have a big new world in audio tools.

[richardchasm]

Hearing about Record is very exciting for Reason users like me who constantly export to other programs just to record.

I put myself down for BETA-testing.

Like other sluts said, not excited about a dongle or lack of 3rd-party plug-ins, but it makes sense why and the FX in Reason are pretty damn good IMO.

If Record is stable, I will probably record and edit everything in Record and then mix OTB through a summing mixer and outboard FX. (Although some of my Reason projects are exactly how I want them to sound without having to export or do anything OTB!)

Hopefully Record will have plenty of send/bussing options so I don't have to export to another program just to mix OTB. Anyone know about this?

[topperf]

I'm beta testing for the moment and using Record in conjunction with PT 8.
And I'm truly enjoying it.

[rolo]

hummm.... i been on PT since Mix systems were first released... I started PT with a MIX sys that had 5 cards. I now have a HD ACCEL 3 card system... I also have Cubase 4, Cubase 5, Logic 8 and DP6... My PT systems have never given me any issues.... iPT has been my most solid system. My Mix sessions start at 40 tracks to 120...all with plenty o plugs... All the others CAN'T do that. I've tried... they all crash. even with less tracks and plugs the others are nowhere near as reliable as PT HD.
Every person I have talked to that has had issues with PT "not solid or reliable" is due to that face that they do not know how to A. work or configure computers B. Work the software or C. Own an LE system.
My guess is that you are comparing it to an LE system?

I just got the release candidate version of Record and it is much more solid than ProTools. It is what it is my friends.[/QUOTE]

[CDS]

Originally Posted by rolo

hummm.... i been on PT since Mix systems were first released... I started PT with a MIX sys that had 5 cards. I now have a HD ACCEL 3 card system... I also have Cubase 4, Cubase 5, Logic 8 and DP6... My PT systems have never given me any issues.... iPT has been my most solid system. My Mix sessions start at 40 tracks to 120...all with plenty o plugs... All the others CAN'T do that. I've tried... they all crash. even with less tracks and plugs the others are nowhere near as reliable as PT HD.
Every person I have talked to that has had issues with PT "not solid or reliable" is due to that face that they do not know how to A. work or configure computers B. Work the software or C. Own an LE system.
My guess is that you are comparing it to an LE system?

I just got the release candidate version of Record and it is much more solid than ProTools. It is what it is my friends.

[/QUOTE]

I have owned a real ProTools system since way back in the Session 8 days.

I am comparing it mostly to LE systems since this is what most users in this range use. ProTools HD does have it's advantage for anyone needing such power, 98% of the owners of an HD system could do what they do on an LE.

HD advantage is recording 80 tracks at once if an engineer needs to record an orchestra or man a film score and mix.

If you need to transfer 48 tracks of tape to digital , then HD is the only game in town. If you need to sync 8 old adat or DA88 machines to transfer to digital, HD is the only gig.

For common music making and simple band recording, HD extra power is useless. This can be handled by the Logic, PT LE and Record apps.

In terms of sound, out the box, Record sounds better than anything else in terms of making a commercial record (even better than mixing in PT HD in my opinion).

I think ProTools LE will take a market hit by Record, but ProTools HD will keep its level of users for some time due to diverse power to handle any kind of session without mystery.

Running Record through PT hardware is kickass though!

[Inca]

Okay, so I just started beta testing Record. I have been using Pro Tools for the past 8 years, and used 4 tracks before that. I have dabbled on a few "real" boards, but I am no means a professional engineer.

I will say that I am really, really impressed with Record so far. I just love the workflow during the whole recording process. I recorded a quick song idea by miking up my little Blackstar cab and laid down some vocals and bass, and I was seriously stoked on the sound.

I was stunned at how well my vocals (tracked sm7 thru EM Blue) sat in the mix right from the start. Everything is super polished and the "glue" everyone is looking for, is just there on the mix the whole time. The guitars were awesome sounding too (tracked 57 thru A Desgins P1). Gave them a slight eq'ing and again, sat beautifully in the mix.

The effects sounded really good too. I have Reason 4, and it always sounds better rewire to me, but Record sounds slick.

I love having the comps, eqs, inserts, and all right there on every channel. The 2 bus SSL comp sounds pretty good too after messing with it. It will be interesting to see how that translates once on a disk.

Well, just a quick heads up from my quick experience, and I will definitely be picking it up. If anything else, this is an awesome way to write in the DAW world.