give me 10 good reasons to prefer any leading DAW over PT

[djanogil]

My brother is about to buy a DAW , he's worked on PT LE and that's the only one he knows.
I told him he 'd have more options when buying say Cubase or DP, with the choice of any card as opposed to having to buy Mbox or Digi002/003.
What can you say in favour of this argument?

[Matteran]

I'd say that's one of the biggest arguments. It really depends on what he's trying to do. If it's just hobby stuff, and the limited software doesn't bother him, then have him grab a 003.

If he wants to be able to do some huge sessions then other software will allow virtually unlimited track counts, etc.

It's all about preferences, have him download demos of cubase, samplitude and others so he can check them out.

[juicylime]

I've worked with PT and Logic but I can think of no good reason to leave Cubase SX.

[Empty Planet]

1. Routing. Route any channel to ANY other channel, to as few or as many as you like.

2. The Routing Matrix. A graphical interface that enables you to perform complex routing functions from a single screen.

3. True sidechaining.

4. Extremely frequent updates. As in "a few each week."

5. Change order of tracks by clicking and dragging, change order of inserts within the track, also by clicking and dragging. Changes are instantly reflected in the mixer.

6. A 64-bit depth path for the audio throughout.

7. A performance meter that tracks the CPU eaten up by each individual channel, as well as how much RAM is being eaten.

8. FX Disable that actually turns off the effect, so that the CPU hit from that channel is removed.

9. Intelligent automation design, and multiple modes from which to select.

10. Elegant design, free of the "bloat" caused by a gigantic feature set of items I personally never use.

11. Varispeed. Slow down the entire production with a simple slider. Record your track at whatever speed you like, bring the track back to your target BPM. Enjoy the freakiness. Couldn't be easier.

12. The ability to suggest ideas that will actually be taken into consideration by the actual developer -- and a support community of users that has (at least at present) an astonishingly tiny percentage of wankers.

13. Renaming of inputs and outputs to reflect your actual gear. For instance, my inputs say things like "TAB-Funkenwerk V78m" and "Chandler Germanium," and my outs list things like "Mains," "NS10s," etc.

14. No dongle. Nor the extra code and, particularly, the extra CPU cycles required to maintain that protection scheme.

15. Customizable channel fx-chain presets, customizable hotkeys, customizable interface colors and shading.

16. Incredibly inexpensive.


All that said, I have to make clear two additional points. One, it's absurd to suggest that any list of features can or should make a person leave their audio application for another. There are many things that make an app "a good fit" for an individual, and what makes one app perfect for one person may be completely and totally wrong for another. There is no perfect app, only ones that suit or do not suit your workflow. I'm quite sure there are things that Pro Tools offers that are not, and will not ever be listed by this app, even if they get past the first stumbling block, that there is no Mac version.

Two, I did not list a "leading" app, because none of the leading apps have some of the critical features listed above. The app I'm describing is Reaper, for which I left Cubase SX 3 -- mainly because of the routing -- after using Cubase for more than a decade. Some of the above listed are trivial, it's true, but others, like the routing, are critical, and if the makers of these leading apps actually listened to or understood the needs of the mixers who use them, this sort of thing would have been implemented long ago.

This is not a "dream app." There are several areas in which it needs a lot of work -- for instance, the GUI, certain aspects of the MIDI, certain aspects of the automation, or the setting up of multiple outs for VSTi like Addictive Drums (which can be done, but it's more a roll-up-your-sleeves affair and should be automatic). Lots of things like that, but I liked the challenge of creating such a list, and it's probably instructive simply in an academic sense for engineers out there to know what's possible.


Cheers all.

[manning1]

dja....
if you want an interesting full featured alternative.
try reaper n powertracks that i use.
here are the advantages as far as i'm concerned. (assuming your on pc.)
1. both together cost less than 100 buks.
2. no dongles for either.
3. with both you can use any sound device.
sound quality of recorded traks will purely depend on the ADA in sound device.
4. bothoffer a huge range of fx plug ins....so you dont have to spend a fortune on
added plug ins. both also support third party plug ins.
believe me ive tried every combo under the sun. n with this combo i have more than i'll ever need.
if u doubt me ....for demos/loads of user references....
cockos.com for reaper
pgmusic.com for powertracks.
reapers track count is unlimited.
powertracks is 48....well actually in powertracks you can record 96 by doing two
instruments at a time to a trak recorded.
if your heavily into midi....particularly this is powertracks great strength.
both packages have built up a big fan base.
be open minded and youll be surprised.
all the best.....n sorry i cant go into huge detail on each as to features.
it would take me pages of typing....so just try em.
cant be beat imho.

[djanogil]

Sorry, I didn't specify;

Mac only.

Thanks for your comments

[exit2studios]

The screen shots for REAPER look exactly like n-tracks.

[davebl@dircon.c]

It has to be Mac surely if your going to do anything serious with it, how on earth anyone can put up with the problems that any Windows based OS gives you I cant imagine, anyway that aside.

Major reasons IMHO to look else where is 1. Digi are owned by Avid and seem to have inhereted poor support arrangments from them. 2. Cost. 3. Closed architecture.

Other than that I own two and both work pretty well for the most part.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

15. Incredibly inexpensive.

Originally Posted by djanogil

Sorry, I didn't specify;

Mac only.

Okay, enough cut n' paste fun, seriously, tho, I like Empty Planet's list a lot. Really, every DAW program should have all of these things, and it should really come down to personal preference of workflow and GUI.

Damn the man...save the empire.

[Empty Planet]

I agree, Alex. It's not that I'm so much a Reaper fan as I am a "THESE FEATURES" fan.

Originally Posted by exit2studios

The screen shots for REAPER look exactly like n-tracks.

Acknowledged. Addressed in my post, in fact.

Given that, though, one does have tremendous latitude within the program to alter its appearance. Here's what mine looks like (at least the one on my laptop)....







Not perfect, by a long shot, but better than I thought it could be at first. (Notice the font of the "items" -- Reaper's word for them -- in the arrangement window.)

Well, I'm not going to hijack this into a Reaper thread, I just wanted to address the GUI. I'm not an apologist or a spokesman for Reaper. The topic was about feature sets and I just wanted to see if I'm as enthused about this app as I thought I was. Turns out I am.

Now back to the topic...a better feature set than PT on Mac.


Cheers all.

[barryjohns]

It is completely about the way you work and what makes you the most comfortable when working. I started in Cubase 8 years ago, then went to Protools LE, then to Digital Performer 4.5, then to Logic for 2 years, back to Digital Performer 5.11, and then finally back to Protools 7.3. Back when I started in Protools LE, the performance was terrible and that is why I switched. Logic is a wonderfully powerful DAW, however, it just doesn’t make sense if the majority of what you do is audio, I find it to be the most frustrating DAW ever. Digital Performer, just didn’t sit well with me, couldn’t fall in love with it. Finally went back to protools and I absolutely love the way it’s laid out, the functionality is great and it is certainly designed for Audio. The only application I have not given a go around again is Cubase, which gets great comments here. However, Cubase 4 is not ready for prime time yet from what I read based on plugin issues.

Anyway, Protools does everything I need it to except ADC, that’s my only gripe. I have the music production toolkit, so track count is not an issue.

For the record, many of the things noted in emptyplanet’s post are done in protools.

#5
#8
#10
#13
#15 - $250.00 M Powered

[gsqd]

Originally Posted by davebl@dircon.c

It has to be Mac surely if your going to do anything serious with it, how on earth anyone can put up with the problems that any Windows based OS gives you I cant imagine, anyway that aside.

Major reasons IMHO to look else where is 1. Digi are owned by Avid and seem to have inhereted poor support arrangments from them. 2. Cost. 3. Closed architecture.

Other than that I own two and both work pretty well for the most part.

For someone who's a media pro you do show an ancient attitude and platform arrogance. I've used PT, Nuendo and Logic on both platforms on major and minor records for the last few years and I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt, that a well kept XP system is at least if not more stable than MacOS in everyday use. I see PT/Mac systems crash all the time and I've never seen soo many Mac restarts in my life as I have in the last year or so! Windows also has it's problems with regards to audio and these lead to almost equal frustration to myself and colleagues.

Now I use both platforms and any and all recording media on those platforms and I understand that each has it's own quirks and operational limitations but please stop the narrow minded BS about superior this and that just because you happen to like it. It's missleading and often simply wrong with regards to advising newcomers to the fray.

And before anyone mounts their high horse about this just re read it and see the general attempt to be nuetral and expand facts instead of personal bias and fiction.
Their all PC's gentlemen (and ladies). It stands for "personal computer!"

Pick your OS and go do some work.

GM

[dirren]

Cubase 4 / Nuendo.

* Totally customizable (layout, screens, tools, channels, hotkeys etc)
* Latency compensation that works
* Supports almost any soundcard

Easy.

Matt

[bobwarren]

1) MOTU PCI 424
2) MOTU 2408mkIII
3) MOTU HD192 x's 2
4) Nuendo 3
5) WAVES SSL
6) URS NEVE, API, PULTEC
7) 'Nuff said!

[UnDeFiNeD]

It has to be Mac surely if your going to do anything serious with it, how on earth anyone can put up with the problems that any Windows based OS gives you I cant imagine

Dumb remark, learn to operate a pc, then u will not have to pay double for the same stability and performance a windows based os will give u. There isn't a mac available that can match the power of my pc, stability on par with mac.

That aside, most native daw's will work for most people, pt just has the compatibility with worldwide studios that most native daw's don't.
I use Cubase and aside from sidechaining and bussing issues it workes really well for me (audio + Virt. inst.).

I also found empty planets arguments on using reaper very convincing and I'm testing the shareware version right now with great succes so far!

Pzz

[Kiwiburger]

Just look at that performance meter in that Reaper screendump ... this is rapidly becoming a very professional DAW.

I'm happy(ish) with Cubase4 on PC for the time being, but Reaper is the one to watch.

[SRR]

Reaper is I think in beta for the Mac. Look further down on REAPERs download page it might be there. EDIT: Look here, more Alpha then Beta, but Mac is coming I guess.....sometime.... http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthre...ghlight=reaper

That said add in UAD-1 support, most DAWs except Cubase have sketchy UAD-1 compatibility. Justin Reapers main man borrowed my UAD-1 card for two or three weeks sent it back, and with in a week from that had full UAD-1 support. I can max out the one UAD-1 card I do have and Reaper is stable as a rock.

[manning1]

to dave...in gloucestershire...
being a brit myself your post amazes me.
both platforms these days will give you a good experience providing you have it set up correctly. i'm happy as anything running what i run on now an amd dual core with xp. dave....i havent had a crash in ages in xp....all i do all day is write songs n record. i'm no huge MS lover but i DO have to be fair.
xp has been a v good experience. if i did get a crash in the past..i think one in
5 years....its cos i tend to do crazy tekky stuff for the heck of it.
none of it matters anyway cos the whole computing landscape will prolly change over the coming years makeing all pc/mac arguments moot anyway.
also i agree the new macs are v nice. because for the first time i feel they have some serious power in them to do serious work.

i'm hoping frankly that we will see in the future linux with something like wonderfull reaper on multi core array pc's. arrays of multi cores are i believe the future to look forward to.

[Lawrence]

1. Routing. Route any channel to ANY other channel, to as few or as many as you like.

2. The Routing Matrix. A graphical interface that enables you to perform complex routing functions from a single screen.

3. True sidechaining.

4. Extremely frequent updates. As in "a few each week."

5. Change order of tracks by clicking and dragging, change order of inserts within the track, also by clicking and dragging. Changes are instantly reflected in the mixer.

6. A 64-bit depth path for the audio throughout.

7. A performance meter that tracks the CPU eaten up by each individual channel, as well as how much RAM is being eaten.

8. FX Disable that actually turns off the effect, so that the CPU hit from that channel is removed.

9. Intelligent automation design, and multiple modes from which to select.

10. Elegant design, free of the "bloat" caused by a gigantic feature set of items I personally never use.

11. Varispeed. Slow down the entire production with a simple slider. Record your track at whatever speed you like, bring the track back to your target BPM. Enjoy the freakiness. Couldn't be easier.

12. The ability to suggest ideas that will actually be taken into consideration by the actual developer -- and a support community of users that has (at least at present) an astonishingly tiny percentage of wankers.

13. Renaming of inputs and outputs to reflect your actual gear. For instance, my inputs say things like "TAB-Funkenwerk V78m" and "Chandler Germanium," and my outs list things like "Mains," "NS10s," etc.

14. No dongle. Nor the extra code and, particularly, the extra CPU cycles required to maintain that protection scheme.

15. Customizable channel fx-chain presets, customizable hotkeys, customizable interface colors and shading.

16. Incredibly inexpensive.

[davebl@dircon.c]

My comment wasnt so much a Mac hardware issue but an OS issue. Hardware aside both platforms can be stable but when it comes down to shear ease of operation Apple have it every time. OSX is a very diferent beast than OS9. The other OS issue that seems to rear its head constantly and causes problems is partition size and max file size with, certainly this hasnt been an issue on Apple's latest OS for some while now, while is still seems to dog windows based systems. Each to their own I suppose but back to the origional question, IMHO I wish there were a mainstream contender to Protools and clearly it depends on what what tasks you are using the DAW, there's some great other apps out there but I dont yet see a clear alternative.

[Lawrence]

Hmm....

1. Routing. Route any channel to ANY other channel, to as few or as many as you like.

2. The Routing Matrix. A graphical interface that enables you to perform complex routing functions from a single screen.

3. True sidechaining.

That's good stuff.

4. Extremely frequent updates. As in "a few each week."

Well it's a version 1.x isn't it?

5. Change order of tracks by clicking and dragging, change order of inserts within the track, also by clicking and dragging. Changes are instantly reflected in the mixer.

Cubase SX 3 does the former and Cubase 4 does both I think.

6. A 64-bit depth path for the audio throughout.

Ok.

7. A performance meter that tracks the CPU eaten up by each individual channel, as well as how much RAM is being eaten.

That's good.

8. FX Disable that actually turns off the effect, so that the CPU hit from that channel is removed.

I'm pretty sure SX does that with FX and VSTI's. I can see the cpu meter go down when I power down FX.

9. Intelligent automation design, and multiple modes from which to select.

I like Cubase SX's automation and it's multiple modes.

10. Elegant design, free of the "bloat" caused by a gigantic feature set of items I personally never use.

Translation: Missing some stuff that other people need.

11. Varispeed. Slow down the entire production with a simple slider. Record your track at whatever speed you like, bring the track back to your target BPM. Enjoy the freakiness. Couldn't be easier.

BPM? With audio in realtime or you talking Midi? There is a tempo track in Cubase that allows you to change the tempo of a song all over the place.

12. The ability to suggest ideas that will actually be taken into consideration by the actual developer -- and a support community of users that has (at least at present) an astonishingly tiny percentage of wankers.

Let's see how that works when there's millions of users.

13. Renaming of inputs and outputs to reflect your actual gear. For instance, my inputs say things like "TAB-Funkenwerk V78m" and "Chandler Germanium," and my outs list things like "Mains," "NS10s," etc.

Like I've been doing in Cubase for years? And you say you've used Cubase for 10 years? You can name the devices in the connections screen whatever you want.

14. No dongle. Nor the extra code and, particularly, the extra CPU cycles required to maintain that protection scheme.

Because it's only 50 bucks. Wait until it cost $500.

15. Customizable channel fx-chain presets, customizable hotkeys, customizable interface colors and shading.

Like Cubase 4?

16. Incredibly inexpensive.

No doubt.

Reaper is a 'comer' for sure but it's got a ways to go before you can reasonably compare it to a pro app like Cubase. For the home recordist?

Hell yeah I'd use it for 50 bucks. It's pretty cool.

[Empty Planet]

Hey Lawrence,

Like I say, I'm no apologist for Reaper. If you love Cubase, if it suits your workflow, that's great. Believe me, I've been there. You're absolutely right about FX disable and output rename in Cubase. I disagree entirely about other points, but I'm not interested in a pissing match between Cubase and Reaper, or about some mythical "best app." As I say, there is no perfect app, only an app better suited to one's workflow. For me, flexible routing and design elegance are paramount. I'm delighted with Reaper and I'm actually working more efficiently and having more fun mixing than I have in years, and I hope Cubase does that for you, because that's really what it's about.


Cheers.

[Lawrence]

I agree, use what makes sense. I just hear people talking about Reaper (and leaving Cubase for it) while noting certain features that Cubase (and some other daws) already has.

I've been playing with the Reaper demo and it's quite cool and it runs very well, the developers should be proud.

It's a fantastic application and it will only get better. I'll be keeping a close eye on it for sure.

[Kiwiburger]

FWIW - Cubase 4.02 was released yesterday, with a page of bug fixes that makes it more useable. But there are 3 pages of known issues with no real fixes, just ways to avoid.

DAWs are getting far too complex and buggy - they are following the Microsoft model of releasing beta versions too early to maximise profits and create a continual demand for upgrades. But those upgrades are sooo slooooww to come, and so buggy when they arrive. These large DAW companies are tossed around from one investor to another, and all the politics and shit aren't helping. They are so out of touch with their user base, it isn't funny.

What I like about Reaper is that this is a new 64 bit platform that is lean, lightweight and efficient, and being rapidly developed by someone who is very in touch with user needs.

I'm staying with Cubase4, for now, but it will be interesting to see where DAWs go in a few years time.

[manning1]

dave.....
with respect your talking in generalities.....what issues in xp ??
seriously.... i dont get your comment on "issues" in xp.
i get no "issues" in xp. i just record songs n traks.
day after day.....been like that for years. just turn the thing on.
heres my experience.....brand new amd...dual core system/xp.
plugged it in.....loaded recording software. set up sound device.
i was literally recording in a few minutes. hows that for ease of operation ??
i dont see how it could be easier. reaper installs so fast ...its nearly a flash.
(just a few secs,.....totally brilliant.).
just as a matter of interest dave....i thought i might get a mac pro to play around with....and... went to a couple of different retailers....asked em to show me garageband running. each time it seemed to take long to load. dunno why. but it gave me pause. by comparison when i load up a song... reaper/xp....bam ....its there. instantly. couldnt be faster.
thus i dont know what your baseing your experience on dave.
i'm really happy right now.