Avid Gets Rid of All Consumer Lines Including M-Audio & AIR

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by WDM

That's general misconception. It seems logical that application needs to be rewritten to become 64 bit. But it's not required. The compiler makes application 64 bit. You just compile it with 64 bit compiler and it becomes 64 bit application. This process officially called "porting".

This is true,porting would add no extra resolution,features or bits.

Rewrite is to extreme,tweaking sound better.

It would add ram access with simple porting.

But let's hope they don't port after all this time,rewrite would be expected from all the waiting.

Sonar then cubase been been 64 bit,and I love loading up kontakt!my system has 16 gigs of ram.

But audio files and non-virtual instruments.never require more than 4 gigs.



Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by WDM

Well, our opinions could become facts at some point. It could be my opinion or it could be yours or anyone else..

and a broken clock is right twice a day.

[WDM]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Well, it's a funny thing, opinion and fact.
Are you a programmer. Or know someone who works for Avid? At least that would lend some credence to your opinion.
What is it that you do, that should make us take note of your "opinion"?

I didn't ask for extra credits, lol.

I am Avid customer, as we probably all are here. I invested my money in their products, I do have a concern about their future, and I have my opinion.

Is it ok guys?

You can take a note if it all makes sense to you.

[Henchman]

Thing is WDM, you have no idea wether its a complete re-write or not.
With a lot of "normal" computer programs, like word processors etc, I'm sure its quite easy to simply recompile.
A sophisticated audio program like pro-tools, with it's need for hardware DSP integration, synchronization and real time processing isn't quite so easy.
I guarantee you, if it was a simple Re-compile, it would have been out awhile ago.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Lumin

No need to be pathetic!... everybody's work is demanding!
...as I quoted on in my last post... just use whatever suits your needs if PT is not working for you
For our needs PT works just fine... and that does not mean PT can't be improved.

No not everyone's needs are equally demanding. That's why there are systems like HDX, and there are systems like...everything else lol. Everyone's needs are different.

There are some people who use a few of Pro Tool's own VIs, have zero problems, and wonder what all the VI fuss is about. There are others attempting to use Omnisphere, Superior Drummer, Slate, Kontakt libraries, etc, and see the problem rear it's head rather quickly, which is what Avid is trying to tell you. It is not a program optimized for modern day composing with VIs.

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

No not everyone's needs are equally demanding. That's why there are systems like HDX, and there are systems like...everything else lol. Everyone's needs are different.

There are some people who use a few of Pro Tool's own VIs, have zero problems, and wonder what all the VI fuss is about. There are others attempting to use Omnisphere, Superior Drummer, Slate, Kontakt libraries, etc, and see the problem rear it's head rather quickly, which is what Avid is trying to tell you. It is not a program optimized for modern day composing with VIs.

I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't really hold up IMO... It's like saying "So what if DAW X can only record 8 tracks, that's all I need!" The market for X user isn't great enough. That's exactly *why* DAWs have to be diverse. Broaden your market, and get greater profit and loyalty.

We understand that 'most' people might not need comprehensive VI implementation, but that's not the point. DAWs were made for *everybody*, not for X user. If you want to remain "Industry Standard", you have to get with the program.

I can assure you that the heads over there are wondering how they can make sure their new rewrite will remain as solid as their archaic DAW infrastructure... No offline bounce? It's cause their DAW can't support it; It's just too old, and the workaround is too severe. Anything else is just an excuse.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't really hold up IMO... It's like saying "So what if DAW X can only record 8 tracks, that's all I need!" The market for X user isn't great enough. That's exactly *why* DAWs have to be diverse. Broaden your market, and get greater profit and loyalty.

We understand that 'most' people might not need comprehensive VI implementation, but that's not the point. DAWs were made for *everybody*, not for X user. If you want to remain "Industry Standard", you have to get with the program.

I can assure you that the heads over there are wondering how they can make sure their new rewrite will remain as solid as their archaic DAW infrastructure... No offline bounce? It's cause their DAW can't support it; It's just too old, and the workaround is too severe. Anything else is just an excuse.

The logic actually is all around us, that's why there are entry level Covettes and "Good Grief" Corvettes out there.


Re offline bounce, the DAW CAN support it, and actually DID support it, in one bizarre version of PT (somewhere around version 5. something)....there was some free version that DID bounce offline. The hardcore out there may remember it. It worked, I remember using it, then wondering where the non real time bounce feature went when the next version came out.

There is no doubt the program is being worked on, the problem is, it's being worked on by an ever dwindling staff whose priorities are hard to figure.

TH

[jrhager84]

Did you ever stop to realize *why* they didn't keep it? From what I remember (not sure the version) The bouncing was extremely hit-or-miss in terms of errors and such. There were also numerous instances where you had to fight to do what you wanted to do. Now I know that every DAW has issues, and I totally don't fault DD/Avid for having issues. The problem is, they're so narrow-minded and out of focus, that they're losing their foothold, and interest IMO. A thousand dollars for 10 upgrade? Highway robbery. I'm not coughing up the money for HD11 unless it's a good value. That remains to be seen. Just my rusty two bits,

-Joel

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Did you ever stop to realize *why* they didn't keep it? From what I remember (not sure the version) The bouncing was extremely hit-or-miss in terms of errors and such. There were also numerous instances where you had to fight to do what you wanted to do. Now I know that every DAW has issues, and I totally don't fault DD/Avid for having issues. The problem is, they're so narrow-minded and out of focus, that they're losing their foothold, and interest IMO. A thousand dollars for 10 upgrade? Highway robbery. I'm not coughing up the money for HD11 unless it's a good value. That remains to be seen. Just my rusty two bits,

-Joel

Bouncing was hit or miss back then in Logic and Cubase as well, I know, I used them both.

The reason they didn't continue it is that they wanted to keep the software capabilities uniform, and they couldn't do that with TDM hardware because it was a real time DSP architecture.

Yes PT 10 was a rip, terribly mismanaged upgrade policy.

They missed the boat years back by not keeping up with the composer crowd, which is mainly responsible for the sales of most DAWS. The average studio interested in pure audio doesn't buy Logic, they buy PT. Not so with the composer types, who need the VI power and more developed midi aspects of all the other programs out there. I used to tell a friend who was at the then "Digi"...

"Good grief you guys are losing tons of people to Cubase, Logic, etc" and he'd say "We know, we know..."

Amazing.

TH

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Here's your new DAW. Priced right for those in the race to the bottom.
Auria

"Race to the bottom"... :-)

Given what the initial 4-voice Pro Tools "DAW" (it wasn't a DAW, it was an audio editor) used to cost, it's kind of fascinating if Auria can handle 48 tracks though. Here's a "DAW" which seems to be able to handle 24 tracks of 96k/24 bit on an iPhone. And even if both these companies are exaggerating and they can only do half of what they advertise, it's still both impressive - and somehow illustrate why both Avid and Apple needs to deal with the fact that most customers aren't willing to pay a lot of money for computing/processing power anymore.

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

"Race to the bottom"... :-)

Given what the initial 4-voice Pro Tools "DAW" (it wasn't a DAW, it was an audio editor) used to cost, it's kind of fascinating if Auria can handle 48 tracks though. Here's a "DAW" which seems to be able to handle 24 tracks of 96k/24 bit on an iPhone. And even if both these companies are exaggerating and they can only do half of what they advertise, it's still both impressive - and somehow illustrate why both Avid and Apple needs to deal with the fact that most customers aren't willing to pay a lot of money for computing/processing power anymore.

It actually WAS a DAW...Soundtools was the audio editor.

I bought two of the 442 units...giving me a whopping 8 voices...and let my friends buy Adats. It was just way too cool

TH

[nativeaudio]

In theory, yes, but practically nobody made music on only 4 tracks back then, so in real life, it as used as a way to edit tracks, just like it's predecessor Sound Tools. One could, and we did, also sync it up to tape machines to get an additional 4 tracks of course... with "mixed" results (the initial version of PT was very buggy).

At any rate, PT started out as an audio editor (Sound Tools) which grew into what we today call a DAW. It wasn't initially built to work as a full DAW, which wasn't technically possible back then, because a full DAW required more than 4 tracks. Remember - Digidesign started out a small company making drums sounds for drum machines, and of course nobody had the expertise current developers have.

If I would have been told that in around 20 years one could record lots of tracks of 24bit/96kHz audio on cheap pocket devices with touch screens, I probably wouldn't have believed it. :-)

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

In theory, yes, but practically nobody made music on only 4 tracks back then, so in real life, it as used as a way to edit tracks, just like it's predecessor Sound Tools. One could, and we did, also sync it up to tape machines to get an additional 4 tracks of course... with "mixed" results (the initial version of PT was very buggy).

At any rate, PT started out as an audio editor (Sound Tools) which grew into what we today call a DAW. It wasn't initially built to work as a full DAW, which wasn't technically possible back then, because a full DAW required more than 4 tracks. Remember - Digidesign started out a small company making drums sounds for drum machines, and of course nobody had the expertise current developers have.

If I would have been told that in around 20 years one could record lots of tracks of 24bit/96kHz audio on cheap pocket devices with touch screens, I probably wouldn't have believed it. :-)

In my real life, I called Peter Gotcher at the time, co-founder of Digi, and asked him if people were starting to use it as a multitrack device and he assured me they were and went on to name a few off the top of his head.

I used it to do lead vocal tracks, and guitar and bass tracks, synth tracks, whatever I could to save studio time, and brought them to the studio where we would lock PT to the Studer and continue to add on. People were indeed using it as a multitrack device, while studios in Miami I knew used Soundtools for two track editing. The 442's could be stacked to add additional tracks, at 3000 per 4 tracks.

This is exactly why PT evolved into the modern DAW, because it was indeed being used as a multitrack device by at least some of us back then. I will always remember the startled looks of singers who were used to waiting for the tape to rewind before trying another take!

TH

[nativeaudio]

We agree, oceantracks, I just mean that it was used more as an addon-product than a fully fledged audio production unit. People hooked it up to adats, Studers and what not. I had forgotten (or didn't know?) that one could stack several 4-voice units to get more voices and outputs. How many could you have?

Nevertheless, it's fascinating that those of us who are on 'the race to the bottom' :-) can record the sound of ourselves hitting the ground, in surround 24/96, when it happens, isn't it? :-)

Talking of adats - the company who bought M-Audio is the same company who bought adat/Alesis - the 'king of' modular digital tape, along with the more pro Tascam solution - and Akai, the 'king of' hardware based samplers (along with E-mu).

I doubt that they are planning a museum of obsolete products. :-) Maybe they are owned by some other company who wants to enter the recording/broadcast/post/DAW etc business?

[Lumin]

Originally Posted by Lumin

... everybody's work is demanding!
...as I quoted on in my last post... just use whatever suits your needs if PT is not working for you
For our needs PT works just fine... and that does not mean PT can't be improved.

Originally Posted by oceantracks

No not everyone's needs are equally demanding. That's why there are systems like HDX, and there are systems like...everything else lol. Everyone's needs are different.

There are some people who use a few of Pro Tool's own VIs, have zero problems, and wonder what all the VI fuss is about. There are others attempting to use Omnisphere, Superior Drummer, Slate, Kontakt libraries, etc, and see the problem rear it's head rather quickly, which is what Avid is trying to tell you. It is not a program optimized for modern day composing with VIs.

OK!... how can I help you?...

[Hyder boy]

Real men don't use VI's...

[Whitecat]

Originally Posted by Hyder boy

Real men don't use VI's...

Tell that to Hans Zimmer...

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Hyder boy

Real men don't use VI's...

You're right, real men go out an hire a real live Omnisphere lol

TH

[Roman Rowlands]

I sense he was being sarcastic

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Whitecat

Tell that to Hans Zimmer...

Or Inon Zur...

[jrhager84]

VIs are absolutely the way to go for orchestral mockups. I can't believe people are even hinting at anything different...

[Roman Rowlands]

Sir Ken Lewis tracking on Logic??? Never!!! Not you Ken!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvcuI...ayer_embedded#!

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by Roman Rowlands

Sir Ken Lewis tracking on Logic??? Never!!! Not you Ken!!!

Vocal Recording Chain - Nerd Blog 1 - MIGGS - Ken Lewis - YouTube!

Omg, and he's using a console and outboard gear, and compressing while he's tracking.
And if you check his website, you
L see he sees and SSl, pro-tools HD Accel 5! And a UAD quad card with all the plugins.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Gear List, Outboard Gear, Plug-In List, Instruments - Pro Tools Mixing

[Roman Rowlands]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Omg, and he's using a console and outboard gear, and compressing while he's tracking.
And if you check his website, you
L see he sees and SSl, pro-tools HD Accel 5! And a UAD quad card with all the plugins.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Gear List, Outboard Gear, Plug-In List, Instruments - Pro Tools Mixing

Dude, I saw that. Point is he is tracking on a native system there and you boys keep telling us big boys don't do that LOL

[Henchman]

Originally Posted by Roman Rowlands

Dude, I saw that. Point is he is tracking on a native system there and you boys keep telling us big boys don't do that LOL

No, now you a being dishonest.
The point is, that tracking and processing, ie compression, without a console, is a PITA.

And this clearly is a good example. Logic is simply the recorder. That's it.
I guarantee you the monitoring is all done throu the console.
So, you either spend 5-10k on a console, or you Mickey mouse your session with a mouse.

[jrhager84]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Gearslutz App

[Ken Lewis]

Originally Posted by Roman Rowlands

Dude, I saw that. Point is he is tracking on a native system there and you boys keep telling us big boys don't do that LOL

This was not recorded at my studio. Yes this was a Native rig, but i had insanely high quality mic pre's, mics, compression, EQ, etc.... going in, and very good convertors. Was all mixed on my HD rig thru the SSL. Big boys make whatever is in front of them work.

[Roman Rowlands]

Originally Posted by Ken Lewis

This was not recorded at my studio. Yes this was a Native rig, but i had insanely high quality mic pre's, mics, compression, EQ, etc.... going in, and very good convertors. Was all mixed on my HD rig thru the SSL. Big boys make whatever is in front of them work.

Thank you Ken for making it clear to all parties with your last sentence and big thanks for your videos, great video on 50cent.

[Tomiboy]

Originally Posted by cinealta

I agree. The Board needs to put new management in place for starters. Hearing many of their "rock star" engineers are jumping ship for other jobs.



Would there be any competitive advantage for Apple to buy Pro Tools?

If Apple made Protools a Mac only product and adopted the hardware side of things as well they could take the market by the balls and squeeze. They could call it Pro-Logic instead of Logic Pro, or MacTools! Yay.......iTools......maybe.....

But judging by all the classified adds running down the right side of this discussion board Avid should be fine when you all upgrade to the NEW IMPROVED PROTOOLS money trap.

[hosehead]

Originally Posted by Ken Lewis

Big boys make whatever is in front of them work.

You don't have to be big; just competent.