Is a modern studio 'handicapped' without Pro Tools or a DAW?

[Rodney Gene]

With all of the plug-ins, files and techniques being developed and shared around digital workstations, does a studio without the capabilites of sharing those files fall short?

Is it a must in order to stay abreast of current workng methods?

I realize it isn't a must in terms of a great product, engineer or great sound, but is a must for a successful 'modern studio'?

Thanks!

[TonyBelmont]

It is definitely a must for a commercial studio to have a DAW of some kind...

[Jules]

It might fall short of what clients expect.

Whats "needed' is a diffferent discussion altogether...

[Jules]

It might fall short of what clients expect.

Whats "needed' is a diffferent discussion altogether...

[RKrizman]

Originally posted by Rodney Gene
With all of the plug-ins, files and techniques being developed and shared around digital workstations, does a studio without the capabilites of sharing those files fall short?

Is it a must in order to stay abreast of current workng methods?

I realize it isn't a must in terms of a great product, engineer or great sound, but is a must for a successful 'modern studio'?

Thanks!

Well you can always rent stuff on a per project basis. Likewise, people might want to use their own systems, so make it easy for somebody to roll one in. But it's not a big deal. If you are already a large facility with a big investment, then it will cost relatively little to roll in some sort of DAW. OTOH, if you have a low budget, minimalist setup then a DAW could radically increase your recording quality and creative factor.

But really, I think you are answering your own question by definition. Certainly to be considered "modern" you must stay abreast of current working methods. Of course, nobody's saying you have to be modern.

-R

[bloodstone]

I've never owned or used Pro Tools, so I have no opinion on that. But as a person who uses an hybrid system (analog board & outboard gear) and records to a digital outboard recorder, I don't know how I survived without a DAW for so long. I was mixing to DAT & outboard CD-R. NOw that I'm mixing "into the box" I am amazed at what you can do with a few quality software programs at your disposal. I could never go back, although I'd also like to have a 1/2" 2 track!

[JohnMcD]

Interesting question. I walk this fine line every day. Let me start off by saying I'm one of the minority that does not use Pro Tools. The closest thing to editing I have during the tracking and mixing stage is with my Radar.

Plug Ins by default can be readily remedied if a big studio has lots of FX and other type of outboard gear. Most big studios have a list of them. No damage done.

But editing, now that is a whole new world. I'm personally familiar with Sonic Studio and the editing I can do with that. Absolutely phenomenal! With my Radar, I hate to admit, I'm handicaped. Rock solid performance, reliability and even speedy use. But it can't edit for the worth of its material ass. I guess this is where Pro Tools comes in.

I get clients asking me strange requests to edit their vocals in some exotic way. (Number one example) I hate saying I can't or won't, so I spend even more time with the client coming up with an alternative that will work just as good (or not)!!

Yes, it sucks for me, but my interface is much smoother, cleaner, and best of all, less cluttered. Everything has a high end purpose. I know when the cards are right, eventually I will HAVE to make a move to Pro Tools. But the best I see the use for Pro Tools is the editing. Now that clients are becoming aware of editing capabilities Pro Tools has, it makes my life a little more difficult.

But think about this, do they really want me to spend time doing crazy editing, when they can possibly try singing/rapping vocals in another take? Do they have to have me edit out one word in a line of lyrics that they thought was a little off. So you now have to tightly de-ess the word and EQ it so they like the word better?Micro-managing in other words.

Sorry for the rant. This stuff is for real and I've just recently been hit with it full force more than once. Sucks for me. On the flip side, with all this editing power, does that mean they have to take the easy way out with their music? Pretty soon we may be able to have the power of changing a power chord played by a guitar! Is this right?

I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this. To be honest, Pro Tools has made my life harder not easier. But this is only because I don't use it. I sometimes feel like I'm driving a big truck while my neighbors are driving a sports car. Egads!

-John

[LTA]

Originally posted by Rodney Gene
With all of the plug-ins, files and techniques being developed and shared around digital workstations, does a studio without the capabilites of sharing those files fall short?

I realize it isn't a must in terms of a great product, engineer or great sound, but is a must for a successful 'modern studio'?

Thanks!

You've got to define what you consider "success" concerning a modern studio. If you buy a protools rig over a seperate daw/hardware, you sink a lot of money into a protools rig; 20k+ easily once you start factoring in plugins and control surfaces. You can get into the PT game for maybe 8k, but that won't get you far at all.

Now, you need to be able to net enough profit to pay for that system before it is hopelessly outdated. I think the figure would be 2-3 years or so. If you are being smart, you won't owe more than the system is worth at that point. And if you are even smarter, it will have been paid off in full at that point.

Now, you'd be competing with the project and small commercial studios. I don't know what these people are thinking, but they will literally sink 100's of thousands of dollars into a studio, and let you use their facilities for maybe 10 dollars an hour (i've seen em go as low as 8). They just buy the gear and write it off. It works for the owners that are independently wealthy, but makes it tough for the people with more dreams than resources.

So, if you want to make money (success to me), you need to decrease costs in the beginning. I think it could be argued that the current generation of non-PT software is as good as the last generation of PT hardware, and will be at least half the cost of a similarly equipped PT HD accel rig.

Now, if you are in debt to your eyeballs, you can't afford to keep your studio up. And you definitely can't afford to improve it. While not as bad as boats, the facilities do not age gracefully. Stuff breaks. Things get dirty. Glass gets fingerprints on it. You'd also be missing the aire of success with this.

And finally, i don't consider 001/002-based studios to be protools studios. Functionality-wise, they are no different than a native studio. The relationship is much like that between a production Monte Carlo and a NASCAR Monte Carlo. They may share the same roof line, but after that there is little comparison.

This is a rant, btw. It is partially influenced by the increasing number of SSLs in small private and commercial studios. The ones that don't pay cash for luxury items just seem to, i don't know, disappear after a few years. I also may be biased thinking many smaller studios operate in the red. The Jones family is NOT REAL, so don't even think of keeping up with them.

[StuartMac]

I use a Radar and a DAW running either Samplitude or SX. In theory the DAW is for more advanced editing - in practice, the RADAR handles 95% of my editing work, and the DAW is used for extra tracks, "mastering" if there's no proper budget, and midi tracks once in a while.

I personally have no need for Pro Tools, and actually could get by with a couple of Radars the VAST majority of the time, and no DAW at all.

Obviously YMMVeryMuchV

[Rodney Gene]

Thanks for the replys!
Great to see different perspectives on this. I don't have PT but I have a smokin' DAW in terms of reliabilty, flexibility and sound but it has no plug-ins available for it. I have to go for the knobs and hardware style components which is still cool by me but much more expensive.
In the end I would prefer a rack of knobs and AC plugs than software but I feel envious when I see all of the plug-ins available for PT rigs.

Thanks!

[cjogo]

A DAW of some sorts is indispensible ...We mix a bit of the Old technology ( Tube pres-- TC /Lexi verbs with knobs ) and New~~ Roland VS system and A/D converters to a MasterLink. Clients are used to speed/cost value with us. Tape has becomne too expensive and time consuming. Plug-ins are nice-- but much prefer a rack of effects with knobs and seperate screens. We access our rack--- AES to RBUS to the DAW..clean and powerful.

[strauss]

Steve Albini's Electrical Audio is running without a DAW.

[warhead]

Originally posted by strauss
Steve Albini's Electrical Audio is running without a DAW.

Running from what? Technology? Don't get me wrong (I'm not picking on you I'm just running with this momentarily) I think he's done some really cool stuff but I think he purposely sets himself apart by not going digital (and talking about it in every interview etc), oh and saying things like the SM57 isn't a real microphone (not the biggest '57 fan here either but it's real all right). That's cool and all I guess for him, but he may be just developing a persona this way. Although he does portray himself as the anti-persona..."hey this is just me, I'm real, I only convey the real sound".

Walter Sear is doing fine as well staying all analog.

But then you can't tell me a Charles Dye or Mike Shipley (or thousands of other engineers) can't put out incredible DAW based music. So Steve and Walter are purposely dissing the medium (although I think Walter truly does despise it...he wants to start his own vinyl label and release 200 records I think!) for other reasons.

Sorry to rant...yes I think commercial studios should have some sort of DAW even if they're trying to reverse the tidal wave of technology single handedly.

War

[adamcal]

If you have another DAW of some description that you are happy with but you still want to be "pro tools" compatible, then get a cheap LE setup.

If pro tools files come in from other studios you can open them and get the audio to your preferred DAW to work on.

The same is true in reverse, if a session is to go to another studio, at the end of doing your work on your system, load the files into pro tools and send them on their way.

In my studio I like to work on 2"/hardware and Nuendo/Logic, for the times pro tools compatibility is required I have a 002R.

There are plenty of other great ways of recording, owning a big TDM system is not the only way, but being able to talk to them IS vital.

[LTA]

Originally posted by warhead
Running from what? Technology? Don't get me wrong (I'm not picking on you I'm just running with this momentarily) I think he's done some really cool stuff but I think he purposely sets himself apart by not going digital (and talking about it in every interview etc), oh and saying things like the SM57 isn't a real microphone (not the biggest '57 fan here either but it's real all right). That's cool and all I guess for him, but he may be just developing a persona this way. Although he does portray himself as the anti-persona..."hey this is just me, I'm real, I only convey the real sound".

Walter Sear is doing fine as well staying all analog.

It is kind of weird. I've felt Mr. Albini is anti-digital, while Mr. Sear is pro analog. Huge difference, imho.

That 2 track analog stuff one of them talks up really piques my interest. The rants of the other almost bore me to death.

I need more good new vinyl to play on the old Dual....

[warhead]

Originally posted by LTA
It is kind of weird. I've felt Mr. Albini is anti-digital, while Mr. Sear is pro analog. Huge difference, imho.

That 2 track analog stuff one of them talks up really piques my interest. The rants of the other almost bore me to death.

I need more good new vinyl to play on the old Dual....

I see what you're saying! Hey, when Walter releases that new vinyl man you can be hooked UP.

War

[hollywood_steve]

No pro tools, no DAW, can't see any reason to get one. I haven't had any jazz, classical or opera clients ask me to move beats, autotune vocals or record a few thousand "virtual tracks." I set up mics, record and then listen to the results back at my studio. I select the best takes and copy them to a CD, then hand that to the client. Where would a DAW help me?

A high end analog mixer would really make life easier......there's a little Studer 269 out there somewhere with my name on it. But do I qualify as a "modern" studio? I'd say that recording to a Genex GX9000 qualifies as "modern," even if every other piece of my signal chain is pre-1970.

[lucey]

Another way of looking at it:

"Is a modern studio "handicapped" by using a DAW?"


DAW is a commercial media, that makes commercial results.

Movie scores, car commercials, pop rock drivel, the next Madonna/dancer who can't sing

Software is programmed by a human, often to copy analog gear ... and when it's pioneering (auto tune/eventide) it's often for the worse, musically.

I see musicians getting lazy and not performing well.

I see engineers who can't do music justice, and lean far too heavily on the perceived 'power' of a DAW.

I see technolgy leading us around more often than it's serving our real needs, and music's real needs.



Not to be flip ... I really think the opposite question is as, or more valid

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by lucey
Another way of looking at it:

"Is a modern studio "handicapped" by using a DAW?"


DAW is a commercial media, that makes commercial results.

I remember guys back in the day saying the same about 24 track 2 inch machines, Midi keys and drum machines and later the Sony HR 48 track.

The DAW can be a great tool when used by talented individuals.

[Rick Sutton]

It's somewhat refreshing to read through this discussion and not see any flame war, Jr. high school level posturing going on. What's going on here? No shouting from the damning "alsihad" brigade?
Well what do 'ya know, maybe we're maturing a little bit in this industry. I'm aware that Gearslutz has always operated on a little more sane plane than most of the other pro-audio sandboxes, but I think that even the staunchest Pro tools haters are beginning to see the inevitable sea change that this industry is going through. Pro tools is a big part of that....not just any daw...I'll say it again, Pro tools is the dominant medium of exchange between professionals. It's up to you if you want to join it or fight it. Your call. Your decision WILL make a difference in your business. Maybe for the better...maybe not..but you will see a change.
I love analog. Been in the business 35 years, probably much longer than 90% of you. Give me a 2", an analog board, analog outboard and a good room with some great mics and I'm happy as a pig in...well, you get the idea. Oh yeah, give me all those things (which I have and dearly love) and take away Pro tools and I probably wouldn't still be in business. My market requires pro tools. Most of my competitors that went for "the same as Pro tools" or "better than Pro tools 'cause blah blah..." or worse "we don't need no stinkin' daw" have been severly crippled or have disappeared. Maybe it's different in your area...but I'll bet it isn't.
One fellow in this thread said that the low end Pro tools don't really count. Wrong. They put you in the game. I've got a TDM system, but exchange files with other small studios that use 001,02, mbox etc. A lot of my business comes from this capability. And really, many of the customers don't know the difference, or care.
We're talking business in todays climate. And that's my take on it. Cheers, Rick

[cjogo]

Rick --started back in 69 recording--well serious in 74--Yes DAW 's are making a difference in the business. Love 2" tape--but my clients just won't pay the added $ to their budget. So happy to stay with the ROLAND VS systems for our 3 studios....and a few tape machines lying around don't look to out of place.

[Rick Sutton]

cjogo,
Nice to hear there are some other "survivors" here. Yeah, I love the analog gear too but have very few chances to use the 2" anymore. Ahhhh, the smell of 2" tape in the morning! Still mix on a large hunk of steel and real knobs and i'll probably never give up my outboard rack. I'll be far to old by the time digital takes over and eliminates the sweet sound of classic outboard. That will be a battle for the young'uns coming up.......they'll have to pry my 1073's and squeezeboxes from my cold, dead hands. Hell, who am I kiddin', don't even try to pry my trusty tools away...no matter how crusty I get. Just gonna keep on using them even though I do comingle with the digital "Tools" on a regular basis. Best regards, Rick

[cjogo]

I started with 4 track carts--well not recordable in those days

>>>--to 8 track carts--one mistake on the recording (60+ minutes) and you comppetely had to start over the whole dam project...NO REWIND !! Finally got to mono cassettes by 1970..But seriously love the Roland stuff,,,amazingly fast to get around/ good automation/ new Massenburg ~ TC 3000 plug-ins and pretty crash proof. Still using analog pres and outboard gear for partial mastering .... But slipped over to all digital, with the Trap Kat drum pads..don't miss micing all those kits!

cjogo

[LTA]

Originally posted by Rick Sutton
One fellow in this thread said that the low end Pro tools don't really count. Wrong. They put you in the game. I've got a TDM system, but exchange files with other small studios that use 001,02, mbox etc. A lot of my business comes from this capability. And really, many of the customers don't know the difference, or care.

Heh, i said it once, i'll say it again. I can get my cubase sessions into PT just as easy as final cut pro users can get their audio into cubase (or PT for that matter). It just requires this little thing called "forthought." Which oddly ties straight into the "is a DAW a tool or a crutch" argument.

Although cubase (or whatever) can't save protools sessions, and PT can't open cubase sessions, you can still get cubase sessions into PT without using a secondary application or wasting time matching up EDLs. It is a team game though, and tends to be more a question of "won't" than "can't."

The only advantage of getting a PT le setup in addition to your loaded non-PT DAW is that you don't have to worry about the poseur PT operator at the next studio not knowing how to import a universal file that opens within the import submenu. But, if you get the LE rig, you can deal with PT sessions that didn't know they were going to show up at your studio. If the client is so aware of the technology, they should be able to plan ahead concerning what format their sessions should be in so they can open them at the next studio.

If only there was a drag and drop app that converted PT sessions to OMF. I bet Apple builds it into their next DAW. Remove the direct compatibility issue and you remove one of the major reasons to run PT (other than TDM plugs and stability). Apple did it to microsoft, they will do it to avid.

[squizz]

LTA

i agree i am a bit tired of "protools is the what the pro's use" argument. at this point choosing a DAW that fits you is more important that argument. i myself use nuendo i can easily transport sessions back and for between protools studio's, its just about knowing how to do it.

Lucey

i get your comment about technology leading us but i dont necessarily agree. Alot of modern music is based on the fact we have technology available, kind of like alot of rock is based on the fact we haved distored guitars available. there are alot of people that would call a DAW an instrument just like you would call a piano an instrument. i would not say its leading us but it is definaitely giving us more option more ways to make music. And along with new options always comes trial and error. Yes it gets over done somewhat now but it will die down some.

i think the day's of yesteryear get revered way to much just cause you didnt here all the stories of engineers doing all types of stuff to fix mistakes on records doesnt mean they didnt take place. its just alot easier now.

[enharmonic]

I think that a modern studio would be more handicapped if it was full of poorly maintained analog equipment than it would be with an earlier rev (say 2-years old) of PT or some other DAW that didn't have the latest greatest plugs.

You could probably still do a ton of things with a slightly "old" (remember, we're talking computer years...which are like dog years...lol) DAW, and book your room full of people who have to have PT files for instance.

If it's a room you're putting together for your own work, it's a much different story. If you have any hope of making money with your studio...you have to have some measure of compatibility/compliance with the industry...which right now it all about PT (fortunately or unfortunately...which is a whole other can of worms best left closed...lol)

[lucey]

i'm not anti-digital, i have a 002 for dumping Radar to tape or for importing from a Roland etc. Of course the mastering is TOTALLY dependent on editing ... thank god for 2 track digital editing.

Yes, certain music is very much a DAW based endeavor, nothing against those styles.

Yet the MAIN advantage with a DAW is making commercial music, or making music that sounds more commercian than timeless.

Timeless music takes a great composition and performance, period ... if recorded to sound good, all the better.

With DAW, musicians are getting lazy faster than they are getting more "creative". Engineers/producers are also not encouraging pre-production and performance as they are forced to do by linear recording. All of this is resulting in a different kind of music that is more perfected and more edited, yet less insipred and less timeless.



Of course every studio needs some DAW or it will be handicapped, yet every studio is also handicapped by the 'mindset' that comes with working to a DAW .

And no amount of trying on our part, even collectively, will stop the power of human lazyness.



I'll bow out, as I don't want to seem anti DAW, I'm not anti anything, i'm pro music.

IMO ... there are simply a few cases where DAW helps, but more often it hurts.

[toddro]

If you don't have PT around here, you are dead in the water. Some studios have Radar, but rhe Radars mainly get used for tracking only. A vast majority of all OD's and mixing (ITB or console) is done from PT...

[Rodney Gene]

With DAW, musicians are getting lazy faster than they are getting more "creative". Engineers/producers are also not encouraging pre-production and performance as they are forced to do by linear recording. All of this is resulting in a different kind of music that is more perfected and more edited, yet less insipred and less timeless.


And no amount of trying on our part, even collectively, will stop the power of human lazyness.



I'll bow out, as I don't want to seem anti DAW, I'm not anti anything, i'm pro music.

IMO ... there are simply a few cases where DAW helps, but more often it hurts.

Brian, don't bow out, you are spot on bro.
The DAW has definitely given engineers the opportunity to work differently, and that can lead to being lazy in the studio...but it doesn't mean that the DAW user's are lazy.

If someone is lazy now, they were lazy before.

On the other hand alot of engineers, producers, musicians etc. are striving to 'capture' thier own sound as honestly as possible and the medium just happens to be digital not tape. I know because I am one of them.

As an artist I recorded soley with 1/2" 1" and 2" tape..soley. It was all that was available to me and it's all we knew... I remember when you could get new 1" reels of tape at a record shop! But as a producer I have always known DAW's of some kind and learned how to record on them. I started to develop my engineering / producing skills in the digital realm...But I am not lazy, in fact I am trying to reverse engineer my ideas about 'digital editing' , auto-tune, multing, etc. etc.

Now....more than ever I am just trying CAPTURE sound the best I can...That is why I am here! Reading and learning from you and other experienced engineers about 'technique' and gear choice. Gear and technique that is meant to help us capture the 'sound'. Man it is really all about the sound!

My gear rack may be MOR (and in some cases worse) but I am beginning to correct the real weakness in my chain. Mics, mic placement, the rooms and me!

Forsaking the idea of making 'timeless' records is the only crime here and although the DAW makes it easier to do, it absolutley doesn't make it the reason why.

Thanks for your contributions I personally appreciate your insights!

[cjogo]

Originally posted by lucey
Yet the MAIN advantage with a DAW is making commercial music, or making music that sounds more commercian than timeless.

Timeless music takes a great composition and performance, period ... if recorded to sound good, all the better.

With DAW, musicians are getting lazy faster than they are getting more "creative". Engineers/producers are also not encouraging pre-production and performance as they are forced to do by linear recording. All of this is resulting in a different kind of music that is more perfected and more edited, yet less insipred and less timeless.
ll bow out, as I don't want to seem anti DAW, I'm not anti anything, i'm pro music.

IMO ... there are simply a few cases where DAW helps, but more often it hurts.

Eloquently said ---There is a reason that the "timeless" music is still on rotation across the worlds radio/net productions!! I am sorry to see it come to the DAW and the inherent performances thats being bred. But it is more business~~than inspiration. Yes I think of how much quicker the classics could had been recorded~ with a DAW. But with no real heart & soul ..with the likes of Brian lending that one ear to "Pet Sounds" --"Sgt Pepper-Rubber Soul" and the Boys with Martin ~labouring the bouncing of the tapes to machines. -- Jimmy working across the countries studios, finishing his Led I . The works of Zappa stretching the tape . Aretha hotter than the tubes she soared through. SYd Barret and his tribe, editing classics without the time-shift of a DAW. Tina Turner `peaking every meter` but analog smooth with every note...the list goes on. Mr Ray Charles..Elvis..Sinatra ..Ella...Marvin.. Stevie... For now we will just be happy to remember. Oh by the way..any one want a Tube Akai 900 * cheap
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...e=STRK:MESE:IT