The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why is Pro Tools industry standard
Old 3 weeks ago
  #481
Lives for gear
 
weezul's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
you can build your own using various modular solutions.
Really? I've not seen a good solution for mapping plugin parameters on MIDI controllers yet that doesn't devolve into tracking the mouse, and turning midi commands into mouse drags? I'm all ears/eyes though if you know of something.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #482
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post

Whoever develops this will make bank, they’d be fools not to include Protools. It’s just a prediction though, based on the current existing needs.
He never heard of stems
Old 3 weeks ago
  #483
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u87allen View Post
What is "professional private"? Does this mean a studio with one guy running it that charges money?
Many/most producers of the songs in the charts work out of their own places now.

And many of those that may not be charting, but are making a living making music. You get your own setup somewhere, make music out of that, collab as you like, have the ability to go mobile and work at other's.

You make your money after things are done. You'll own publishing, and when a label picks up a song you'll get a producer fee. Get on a decent label, and sync's will come even years later. Over time it all snowballs and even on down years enough money comes in to keep on going.

Many professionals make a living this way. Basically the Max Martin thing except not at the quarter billion dollar level. A lot of people are making good six figure incomes working this way, in pop, hip hop, dance, latin, some indie, some rock, some country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
He never heard of stems
This is limiting compared to sharing sessions. That's what's done now cross platform, yes, but I'm pretty sure down the road that'll look like a telegraph next to an iPhone.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #484
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
To be fair Avid do this to themselves. Non-Eucon control surfaces anyone?! ****, how about just a well priced control surface that worthless peons like myself could even begin to afford.
I'm confused. The average Avid Artist costs about $900 or so for 8 channels of touch sensitive motorized control, expandable to 32. It looks nice, has a good clear scribble LCD (or whatever), and is low profile. These can sometimes be had for far less.

Or you can get your non-Eucon Mackie compatible controller for half that roughly.

Or an s3 at $4500 or so.. and so on..

There are options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
AVID will stop anything that potentially makes Pro Tools better without their involvement (and monetary cut!)
Ok, but look at it from their perspective though (and the other manufacturers): What's the incentive to opening up your software to the competition if you're a for-profit business?

'Cause look:

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
And look at all the great free plugins that are VST only.
That is what a lot of critics of Pro Tools are really all about - the drive to pay nothing for something great.

Some won't be satisfied until that's the case. It's a silly argument to make (or imply) in a capitalist system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
Let alone how one could debate back and forth about the true monetary value of anything in the AVID ecosystem.
I have no idea what that even means.

What do you suppose they used to create Avengers: Endgame? Reaper? Fruity Loops?

And what was the revenue of that film during even just the first weekend?

Now let's talk about whether or not there was any perceived value using the software they used making that film...

-----

People don't have to love PT, people don't have to use it, but to deny its place and value at the highest levels of the professional content creation industry is just... "uninformed"...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #485
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
What do you suppose they used to create Avengers: Endgame? Reaper? Fruity Loops?

And what was the revenue of that film during even just the first weekend?
It was composed and orchestrated all the way to the final cut edit in Cubase, then recorded at Abbey Road Studio with the London Symphony Orchestra using whatever they use.

Old 3 weeks ago
  #486
Lives for gear
 
weezul's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
People don't have to love PT, people don't have to use it, but to deny its place and value at the highest levels of the professional content creation industry is just... "uninformed"...
I'm not denying that, but it's the reason the thread goes in circles. It's worth the money for only the top 1% of it's users. That's fine, but out the other side of the mouth they sell their products to low earners like myself who can only sustain their own existence. My upgrade fee is worth just the same as theirs, despite what people might think of how I make a living. That's why people are allowed an opinion on how AVID spends their yearly chunk of money. I don't think they invest it wisely, which to me would be opening it up Pro Tools, focusing more on software and opening it to more competition in terms of interfaces, features, and control which increases the value of the software to the user.


Quote:
What's the incentive to opening up your software to the competition if you're a for-profit business?
Because people would be more willing to spend money with a company that values them. I don't personally feel AVID value the money they take from me that much, potentially a higher % of my yearly income than a large film studio who's PT licenses are probably just a blip on the radar compared to all the expenses involved in making a film. I just think if it went software only and was handed to a better development team it would really flourish. Imagine if the coders of Reaper were given the PT source code, and the salary of just one high-level staff member would probably fund them for ages. I think they'd knock it out of the park. Instead we get updates that are delayed, with new bugs each time they come out.

The VST thing was more a point for developers. If you're some fresh young mind with a great plugin idea, but no money, it's unlikely to be released as an AAX plugin due to the barrier to entry, as shown by the vast range of plugins which arent AAX, or even AAX-DSP. Pretty sure there's some great plugins which aren't AAX-DSP either. Perhaps they didn't find it cost effective to make them.

Just to finish, 900 dollars for a control surface without a transport section is madness to me. An example of where I feel AVID's idea of it's own value is only realistic for higher earners. Take money out of the equation, it seems like a bad idea in general maybe to re-configure a live desk and try and sell it as a well-priced product for the studio.

I'll probably keep paying my AVID tax as long as it doesn't increase a substantial amount. It still carries value for me. But I think a lot of pro tools users big and small have had their moments where they feel short changed in at least one or two areas, and just because we're not making multi-million dollar projects doesn't make our concerns less legitimate, IMO of course.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #487
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
I'm not denying that, but it's the reason the thread goes in circles. It's worth the money for only the top 1% of it's users. That's fine, but out the other side of the mouth they sell their products to low earners like myself who can only sustain their own existence. My upgrade fee is worth just the same as theirs, despite what people might think of how I make a living. That's why people are allowed an opinion on how AVID spends their yearly chunk of money.
Yeah but who cares about what we think about how Avid spends the revenue? It doesn't change the DAW landscape which is what the thread was about. And 'no', I don't own a PT license, I own a Nuendo license plus some other 3rd party plugins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
I don't think they invest it wisely, which to me would be opening it up Pro Tools, focusing more on software and opening it to more competition in terms of interfaces, features, and control which increases the value of the software to the user.
But you want them to lower the price, so there needs to be a net gain by doing that. Pretty much every time I see criticism of a company that is pretty much at the top of the game, be it Avid or Universal Audio, there's a lack of actual analysis of their books, showing exactly how they're spending their money.

If there was zero development by Avid of any of their software and hardware then you'd have a point, but it's not standing still, there is development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
Because people would be more willing to spend money with a company that values them. I don't personally feel AVID value the money they take from me that much, potentially a higher % of my yearly income than a large film studio who's PT licenses are probably just a blip on the radar compared to all the expenses involved in making a film. I just think if it went software only and was handed to a better development team it would really flourish. Imagine if the coders of Reaper were given the PT source code, and the salary of just one high-level staff member would probably fund them for ages. I think they'd knock it out of the park. Instead we get updates that are delayed, with new bugs each time they come out.
Ok, but are you really meaning what you say though? Are you really saying Avid should ditch their Artist Mix, s3, s6 controllers, the interfaces, all of that? And leave all the current owners in the cold?

Because if the answer is "no" then the issue is that there needs to be some sort of support. Those "1%" that buy the expensive stuff need to have support and new units available to swap out ones that need repair etc. And all of that costs money.

I think it's a pretty 'rosey' picture that's being painted where prices drop to near-zero, or at least a fraction of where they are, and magically all of these additional users would flock to the software and not just total revenue but total profits would go up. I just don't see that.

Let me give you a converse view for thought:

If PT is so far behind the others, then people are choosing those.
If being cheaper brings more revenue, then those should be bigger companies.

Right?

If for example Reaper is better and cheaper, and if being cheaper and better brings more users, and if all of that means greater revenue as you imply, then the owners of Reaper should be making more money.

Is that the case? Is it the case for any competing DAW? Honestly I don't know. Do you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
Just to finish, 900 dollars for a control surface without a transport section is madness to me. An example of where I feel AVID's idea of it's own value is only realistic for higher earners.
I know a lot of people ask for transport buttons, but to me the space bar does just fine.. or the zero key on the keypad.

I literally can't remember the last time I worked on a control surface where I consistently used the transport controls, if there even were any (as you point out). Yet I somehow managed to do my job just fine, without any problems not having access to them.

But really it only boils down to the way the discussion about control surfaces almost always goes; users who say there aren't good alternatives out there basically just want more for less. That's all there is to it. Take a look specifically at the threads about why Steinberg doesn't make a great controller for 'the people'. It's always the same thing;

- controller doesn't exist
- ok, it does exist, but it (Nuage) is too expensive
- no, don't save on faders, still need at least 16
- no, don't save on encoders, we actually need at least 1 more/channel
- no, don't save on software integration, it should be tighter
- no, don't make it bigger, it needs to be smaller
- now make it cheaper...

That's like every discussion about controllers from Steinberg / Yamaha, and it seems to be roughly the same with Avid. Give me more, lower the price. Well duh; consumers always want that. That doesn't make it a reasonable demand though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
Take money out of the equation, it seems like a bad idea in general maybe to re-configure a live desk and try and sell it as a well-priced product for the studio.
Well our mixers mirror analog consoles which were laid out logically according to signal flow, so I don't really see why they should be all that different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weezul View Post
I think a lot of pro tools users big and small have had their moments where they feel short changed in at least one or two areas, and just because we're not making multi-million dollar projects doesn't make our concerns less legitimate, IMO of course.
Well of course people have been miffed. Avid made some terrible choices towards users I think. It's been quite messy.

But it still has zero effect on to what extent it's the industry standard, or the standard in any relevant slice of the content production industry.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #488
Lives for gear
 
s.d.finley's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It was composed and orchestrated all the way to the final cut edit in Cubase, then recorded at Abbey Road Studio with the London Symphony Orchestra using whatever they use.

hahahahaha PRO TOOLS

Old 3 weeks ago
  #489
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Joe you raise many good points here, you are an articulate knowledgeable and fair debater, but you have to admit, "the Protools sound" is synonymous with bad digital recordings, like it or not. That's all I was really pointing out. The whole reason analog decks have made a huge comeback in the last 5 years is because Prootools hardware is so awful. Most People just don't understand that good digital hardware actually exists. They think that Protools is the only solution. Pro tools has given digital recording such a bad name. It really has done a lot of damage to the music industry as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
People always use that dumb argument that they need Protools becasue "my clients come in with Pro Tools sessions"...... sorry not a good reason now that everyone exports stems and virtually no one uses the same plugins.

It's pretty evident that the "commercial" studio is a near obsolete. So with popularity of exporting stems during most sessions, you will see Pro tools become obsolete as well. Cubase, Studio One, Reaper and Mixbus are killing protools on the feature side of things. They are all better softwares. Faster, more powerful and less expensive. Native Protools latency is pitiful. Their HDX is not even as low latency as Cubase and it is 10x the price. It's bizzare for something that is alleged to be the "Industry standard". The 1980s style UI is another joke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
I really only hate the sound of their hardware I actually started DAW tracking on Protools in the early/mid 90s. Used it for 5 years. Around 1998/99 I switched to Cubase, never looked back. No audible plugin latency, no audible recording latency, good midi/VI performance, great plugs and great price. I use Protools from time to time at other studios. It works well as a tracker/editor. Not much else though. The native version, chokes on big projects. It is totally unusable for some of the stuff I have to do. If it had better midi, lower latency and was free, I would consider using it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
All you have here is personal attacks ^^^ and insults and no facts. Move on, PT is a dinosaur. It always has been. What year is this?? and their latency is still and Issue? it's mind boggling. It's beyond bizarre. Cut your losses. Their software offers nothing. Their hardware sounds terrible. Their hardware sounds so bad it is used as a condescending adjective. "Pro tools sound" means something sounds bad. Their hardware is terrible. In a few years PT will be obsolete. People are smartening up. They are buying Burls and RADARs now. Native DAWs have plenty of horsepower now with i9 and SSD. DSP cards are not needed now. Eventually PT will have to stop making hardware since no one is going to buy it. Eventually they will go out of business. No one cares about Digidesign now. DAWs are going to be free in years to come. People will buy Burls and Antelopes and just use Reaper or Mixbus for free.

Nice photo though. Love the control surface. Yet another misguided waste of funds in 2019. In 5 years there will 2 or 3 mix rooms for post production. There will be 2 in L.A. and one in NYC. That will be the last 3 digidesign sucker customers left on the planet earth.

Any competent engineer can use any DAW and they same EXACT results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Their hardware sounds terrible. It has done major damage to the music bushiness. "Pro tools sound" is not hyperbole and you know it. People have been using that term for 15 + years now and it means something sounds digitized. Everyone knows PT hardware sounds like crap. There are a few deniers left though.. A few right here on this thread.

002, 192 and HD are synonymous with brittle and thin digital tone. These 3 units have done so much damage to the music industry it is indescribable.

Pro-tools hardware ==
I could reply to all your posts, but it’s really clear you’ve not actually used PT since the early 90s when it was the only game in town.

Everything you say is so far off the mark from the real world, it’s kind of funny. You’re so opinionated, yet you proudly state you don’t know who the biggest mix engineers in the world are.

The more you say, the more it’s clear your opinion is not based on actual experience I’m afraid. No point in debating with that!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #490
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It was composed and orchestrated all the way to the final cut edit in Cubase, then recorded at Abbey Road Studio with the London Symphony Orchestra using whatever they use.

I suggest you not quote people you don't know. Alan has Pro Tools systems in use for running picture and edits. He was sequencing in Cubase. (He was sequencing a few years ago in Logic. And before that he used DP. He likes a challenge.) It was recorded at Abbey Road on Pro Tools. It was mixed by Pete Cobbin on Pro Tools.

You are the classic outsider looking in and imagining how things work. You pretty clearly haven't worked in a commercial studio or know how they operate (and by gathering your skill set from this delusional thread, you would need to actually learn some in order to get a job at a commercial studio.) In the last six months I've been in a studio (multi facility) with Vampire Weekend, Taylor Swift, Sia, and St. Vicente recording. Last year, Adele, Bob Dylan, and Lady Gaga. The rappers: they're there too. These aren't my gigs but everyone's in the building. That's pretty common for some of the well known commercial studios in Los Angeles.

At one point you claim numbers of "charting" songs and when asked to provide proof for these stupid assumptions, you say you don't have time to run "scientific" reports. The exceptions don't make the rule (and making excuses that you can pretend Pro Tools didn't have an influence or a commercial studio on a whim, doesn't make that less relevant either.) And then re-claiming these silly numbers (still with no proof) is again meaningless. Repeating the same lie doesn't make it true.

You've spent a few years in music and you want to call yourself a "pro". That's cute -- doesn't mean much. i'm near your same age, been in the music business longer, and was let in day one into the big studios with the big artists in Los Angeles. I still don't think of myself a "pro" unless I have a few Grammies on the shelf and am first call for the artists I'd like to work with.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #491
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
It was composed and orchestrated all the way to the final cut edit in Cubase, then recorded at Abbey Road Studio with the London Symphony Orchestra using whatever they use.

Everything recorded at AR and other orchestral stages is PT, with maybe a very small amount of Pyramix or analogue sessions. Certainly all the big stuff like this is PT based - it’s literally one of the few areas you can’t say any other software has made any inroads at all, it’s literally the only game in town for large scale ensemble recording.

Last edited by psycho_monkey; 3 weeks ago at 02:35 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #492
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I could reply to all your posts, but it’s really clear you’ve not actually used PT since the early 90s when it was the only game in town.

Everything you say is so far off the mark from the real world, it’s kind of funny. You’re so opinionated, yet you proudly state you don’t know who the biggest mix engineers in the world are.

The more you say, the more it’s clear your opinion is not based on actual experience I’m afraid. No point in debating with that!
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have used it off an on for decades now. I actually respect you as and engineer (from the few clips I have heard of your work) and as a mod (since you are really a fair mod) but it is clear you are a Protools fan boy like others on this thread. So I feel like you are just having a hard time coming to grips that my points are all spot on.

TBH I would think a guy with your street cred and your stellar ears, that you'd be the first one to admit that PT hardware is terrible sounding and that other DAWS actually are more powerful. If anyone should know it would be you.

It always boggles my mind how much people have such a love fest with such a poorly designed software. I acknowledge it is the industry standard but it shouldn't be IMO. There is nothing PT can do that the other top DAWS can't do better/faster. It's fairly easy for someone not in denial to do research and get the facts, and uncover that apps like Cubase are much more powerful than native Proltools and as powerful as HD at 1/5 the cost. However, PT fanboys don't want facts, they want be coddled by other PT fanboys while silencing and trying to unfairly discredit the naysayers.

I honesty 100% think PT hardware is the single reason why digital recording has gotten such a bad name in some professional circles. Loads of highly acclaimed digital records have been produced since the late 70s. All through the late 70s into to the early 90s people made digital records. 44k 16bit no less. Yet once PT came on the scene suddenly the sound of digital recording was compromised. It's not a coincidence. Bad sounding digital recordings were the norm in the 90s all through till about 10 years ago. "Since the early 90s when it was the only game in town." You can't have it both ways. You can't claim since the early 90s it was the only game in town and then not acknowledges that pretty much any reputable engineer acknowledges 90s digital recordings are pretty much all weird sounding. If PT was the only game in town, then it's also because of protools that these records sound the way they do.


l
Old 3 weeks ago
  #493
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
I suggest you not quote people you don't know. Alan has Pro Tools systems in use for running picture and edits. He was sequencing in Cubase. (He was sequencing a few years ago in Logic. And before that he used DP. He likes a challenge.) It was recorded at Abbey Road on Pro Tools. It was mixed by Pete Cobbin on Pro Tools.

You are the classic outsider looking in and imagining how things work. You pretty clearly haven't worked in a commercial studio or know how they operate (and by gathering your skill set from this delusional thread, you would need to actually learn some in order to get a job at a commercial studio.) In the last six months I've been in a studio (multi facility) with Vampire Weekend, Taylor Swift, Sia, and St. Vicente recording. Last year, Adele, Bob Dylan, and Lady Gaga. The rappers: they're there too. These aren't my gigs but everyone's in the building. That's pretty common for some of the well known commercial studios in Los Angeles.

At one point you claim numbers of "charting" songs and when asked to provide proof for these stupid assumptions, you say you don't have time to run "scientific" reports. The exceptions don't make the rule (and making excuses that you can pretend Pro Tools didn't have an influence or a commercial studio on a whim, doesn't make that less relevant either.) And then re-claiming these silly numbers (still with no proof) is again meaningless. Repeating the same lie doesn't make it true.

You've spent a few years in music and you want to call yourself a "pro". That's cute -- doesn't mean much. i'm near your same age, been in the music business longer, and was let in day one into the big studios with the big artists in Los Angeles. I still don't think of myself a "pro" unless I have a few Grammies on the shelf and am first call for the artists I'd like to work with.
He asked "how was it created." Not "how was it recorded." Cubase served a big role in its creation.

Unless it was to tape, of course the final orchestra version was recorded into Protools in a commercial studio. That's what commercial studios use.

Of course some singers still use commercial studios. Its about 50/50. Said that. Said all this. Love the cherry picking for personal attacks and straw men.

"Pro" means you make a living at something. If you want to define it differently for yourself that has nothing to do with how me or anyone else in the world uses it, you'll just be using terms wrong according to everyone else.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #494
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Its about 50/50. Said that.
Once again random made up “numbers”
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
Said all this. Love the cherry picking for personal attacks and straw men.
Seems on top of everything you don’t know about Pro Tools and commercial studios, you also don’t know the logical fallacies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
"Pro" means you make a living at something. If you want to define it differently for yourself that has nothing to do with how me or anyone else in the world uses it, you'll just be using terms wrong according to everyone else.
The term looses all meaning when someone like yourself uses the term as an appeal to authority. Assistants and interns make money working on projects in music studios. None of them would be so bold as to refer to themselves as “pros.”

Work with actual professionals and learn something. Like many of us have coming up.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #495
Lives for gear
 

Yes 50/50 is a rough guess.

Here's more proof of the rise of home studios being used by pros. I feel like if you live and work in LA, its impossible not to come across this frequently, but perhaps there are still some lanes where this isn't common:

https://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/l...rding-studios/

The concept isn’t new—will.i.am even recorded Michael Jackson in his lavish Los Feliz home studio, which he calls “my private sanctuary creative space”—but it’s starting to look like the norm. Rocker Ryan Adams runs his Pax-Am Studio out of a converted Hollywood house that’s hosted Fall Out Boy and Liz Phair. Amir Esmailian, one of the guys who manages The Weeknd, records rap VIPs like Travi$ Scott and French Montana in the pool house of his Encino mansion. In Woodland Hills the Doghouse caters to old-timers, including Slash and Brian Setzer.

"Why would you put yourself in a big, dark, sad studio room that cost you ten times as much when you can be in a beautiful naturally lit house?”. <---- This is the conclusion most everyone reaches, even many at the top with limitless options, once they start working out of home studios.

More on LA: https://la.curbed.com/2014/3/4/10138...ording-studios

Now LA and neighboring cities comprise arguably the country's largest enclave of professional-level home recording facilities, many not—e the fact that's taken a big bite out of the commercial studio business that once reigned supreme.

"They did take a hit, definitely," says Ellis Sorkin, president of Studio Referral Services in Calabasas, CA, a company that's been matching clients' recording needs with the appropriate studios since 1980. Of the roughly 30 major commercial facilities that existed in the area a decade ago, a third have closed or been sold "to producers and artists that had the wherewithal to buy these million-dollar-plus facilities and have their own complexes," Sorkin says.

His company, which deals with some 700 studios worldwide, includes in that number LA residential studios that are "significant. There are a number of them that are pretty serious professional set-ups."

Nashville is trying to ban them they're hurting the commercial business there so much, though it sounds like many there charge hourly, old school style, which is different from LA: https://reason.com/2019/04/09/nashvi...ng-studio-ban/

"Nashville is one of the few places remaining in the world where some of the very best musicians get together face to face to make music," says Shaw, who has worked with recording artists ranging from Jack White to Wilco to Adele. "That's why I wanted to be here and why I wanted to create a home studio."

Last edited by newguy1; 3 weeks ago at 06:50 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #496
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have used it off an on for decades now. I actually respect you as and engineer (from the few clips I have heard of your work) and as a mod (since you are really a fair mod) but it is clear you are a Protools fan boy like others on this thread. So I feel like you are just having a hard time coming to grips that my points are all spot on.

TBH I would think a guy with your street cred and your stellar ears, that you'd be the first one to admit that PT hardware is terrible sounding and that other DAWS actually are more powerful. If anyone should know it would be you.

It always boggles my mind how much people have such a love fest with such a poorly designed software. I acknowledge it is the industry standard but it shouldn't be IMO. There is nothing PT can do that the other top DAWS can't do better/faster. It's fairly easy for someone not in denial to do research and get the facts, and uncover that apps like Cubase are much more powerful than native Proltools and as powerful as HD at 1/5 the cost. However, PT fanboys don't want facts, they want be coddled by other PT fanboys while silencing and trying to unfairly discredit the naysayers.

I honesty 100% think PT hardware is the single reason why digital recording has gotten such a bad name in some professional circles. Loads of highly acclaimed digital records have been produced since the late 70s. All through the late 70s into to the early 90s people made digital records. 44k 16bit no less. Yet once PT came on the scene suddenly the sound of digital recording was compromised. It's not a coincidence. Bad sounding digital recordings were the norm in the 90s all through till about 10 years ago. "Since the early 90s when it was the only game in town." You can't have it both ways. You can't claim since the early 90s it was the only game in town and then not acknowledges that pretty much any reputable engineer acknowledges 90s digital recordings are pretty much all weird sounding. If PT was the only game in town, then it's also because of protools that these records sound the way they do.


l
You’re entitled to your own opinion; you’re not entitled to your own facts.

Firstly, tape isn’t making a comeback. In certain areas, it never went away. In general record making, we used to track then transfer on bigger sessions. Haven’t done that in years; it’s continued to shrink in that area of use. Call up a few major studios and ask how much tape work they do.

Secondly - yes the 888s weren’t great. But “PT hardware” is a wry vague term - you are away that it’s not been necessary to use PT hardware for about 11 years now? Ever since PT9 was released....and the better studios have (as I’ve said) used apogee and prism in place of those 888s.

Now - the 192 is not poor at all. The HDio is stellar as far as transparent conversion goes. You say you think my work is good; the vast majority of it was recorded with 192s and HDios. So clearly they don’t sound bad. Yeah you can spend a bit more for colour in conversion if you want; I don’t want.

I’ve used plenty of other DAWs; I still feel PT handles audio better than any other option thus far. More importantly the integration, expandability, hardware support (no other system is IMO as suited for ensemble recording as an HDX setup) and control surface use. Every other software has its own advantages, but none of them do well enough in every area. But the lack of proper low latency, software integrated monitoring is a flaw that’s nonnegotiable for ensemble recording for just about any other software.

You say uniformity isn’t a problem when you can bounce stems, but I beg to differ. Whilst it’s possible to work that way, it’s far easier if you can keep the edits and setups. I just recorded an album in switzerland; I just plugged my own computer up and recorded straight in using their hdx rig. When I’d gone, they continued with doubles etc, and just sent me the additional tracks as sessions; I imported them and had access to all their takes, edits etc. probably 4-5hrs of prep time saved?

I’ve spent this week doing overdubs for a folk rock album; the artist brought PT sessions from his studio, we dubbed straight into them, he took it away for comping. I did some edits on his existing parts, tweaked his mixes and EQ settings etc. he can build on that.

Just 2 examples of how whilst you can work round these things, it’s much quicker (and thus cheaper), and easier if you don’t have to.

I don’t really think any of your points are spot on, sorry! Vintage digital was the 3348 and similar; digital recording had a bad rep long before PT, but a lot of digital recordings sounded poor because people expected it to behave like analogue and it doesn’t, so they’re not making adjustments for that. Conversion quality is only one piece of the puzzle.

And whilst you may be right in that early PT conversion didn’t help...we’re a long way from that now. If you don’t feel the HDIOs sound good, we’ll just have to disagree, because I don’t think they’re really the weak link ever.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #497
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
I was just stating a common consensus that the Protools sound has done a lot of damage to modern recordings
There are plenty of Haters out there, is that what you mean?
a lot of Sour Grapes? A lot of conspiracy theories? None of those things equals my idea of a 'consensus'.

Pro Tools is a software - so there is no such thing as the "Pro Tools Sound" and what 'sound' might be associated with their software via their hardware has
1. Never been 'unavoidable' and
2. Is more avoidable than ever in the last decade or so.

psycho_monkey is right, you talk about Pro Tools like the calendar on your wall says 2003!

Quote:
They are a very proprietary and controlling company.
And they stole your prom date, I remember. Hence the chips on the shoulders, hence the sour grapes.

Quote:
I would say up until 10 years ago 90% of the stuff recorded with Protools software was also recording with the digi hardware as well.
if you include the millions of demos that never saw the light of day, your guess might be almost plausible. But in the pro studios making the records you actually heard of it was much much lower. I am all googled out from proving newguy1 wrong about where Taylor Swift records her vocals, but I bet I could take a list of the recordings you think "all" have the 'pro tools sound' and find out if this or that album was actually recorded through Apogees or whatever.

In any case, your dislike of their hardware proves exactly nothing about whether PT is or is not a "standard" software. If anything, your whole rant is an admission on your part that you think it is.

Quote:
They have only been native for a decade.
The have been fully platform-agnostic for nearly a decade. But for ages before that people could - and did - hang whatever converters on them they wanted. That's how all these converter companies got going. Your generalization is unsupported, that's all.

You are the person saying "everyone" is going to tape in the last five years because of the Pro Tools Now you admit it's been a decade since anyone was forced to buy their hardware. And we are still waiting for you to admit it's been much longer than that since anyone was force to use that hardware.

The timeline for your 'theory' doesn't work. It is, in fact, exactly backwards

Quote:
Things have gotten better in recent years. but mostly due to outboard converters.
But outboard converters have been around forever, and tons of big studios used them as a matter of course. Did Pro Tools 'ruin' their sound as well?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #498
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
He never heard of stems
I will now refer you to my post #32 which replied to your appeal to "stems" as a viable substitute for having compatible software.

in fact, I will quote my own post, since I guess you either did not read it the first time, did not understand it, or decided to conveniently ignore it because you had no answer to the points raised.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
It's not a dumb argument to me. And more importantly, it is not a dumb argument to my clients.

No, I am sorry - exporting stems is a workaround and you know it.
Not "everyone" does it. Only the people who have to do it because they are working in incompatible softwares.

Plus exporting stems is a workaround that works best when everyone involved agrees that this "phase" of the project is over, we are crossing a bridge and burning it behind us. A one-way trip. Tracking is done, so export the stems to the mixer guy. But that's not the day-to-day reality around many places. As people keep telling you, there's back and forth. I am shocked that it doesn't occur to you that a client coming in to do some overdubs may not want to finalize all his edits and crossfades just yet.

On no planet is exporting stems "easier" than not needing to export stems in the first place! That would be my definition of a "dumb" argument.

my client who comes in to overdub the drums or grand piano on his tracks may not mind if his plug-ins are deactivated while they are here. In any case he is no worse off, the whole task is simpler. And keeping the project in the same software means that when he gets 'back' to where ever he came from, those plugs will open up again. While he is here, he may decide to add a verse or cut a chorus. What a pain if he had to re-do those cuts on his version of the song when he gets back.

And of course any automation, levels, pans, sends, subgroups, busses, tempo maps, markers, track heights, mix and edit groups will all be preserved with absolutely no effort or time put in. With no Workarounds.

No sorry, the claim that this is a "Dumb" argument is itself the truly Dumb Argument. You can say you 'don't mind' doing the extra work, but there is simply no way on Earth you can claim that it is not Extra Work. Of course its extra work.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #499
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I am all googled out from proving newguy1 wrong about where Taylor Swift records her vocals,
You find one small detail to nitpick and miss the point of everything. That's your MO.

Home studio use is so common among the pros that 1/3 of commercial studios in LA have closed down in the last 10 years and Nashville is enacting a ban on home studios to try to save the commercial industry there.

And this is something you're not even aware is going on!!

But you find a case where Taylor used a commercial studio recently, and claim a win. Its ridiculous. I'm just reporting the facts, its not even about winning and losing and proving wrong.

You should listen sometimes man. When Nashville is enacting bans on something because its changing the landscape of how music is made so much, and you're not even aware that any of it exists, its time to listen.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #500
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
There could always be a stylistic-type trend in that direction, but I don't see a reversal in the way that music is made back to all-at-once-no-overdubs. You wouldn't put money on that bet, would you? That's a "prediction," if we're talking predictions vs observations. In 2025, you really think the recording standard will be back to one-takes in full service studios?

Metaphorically, there are the oceanic size currents that are the movement of the cultural zeitgeist, and then there are smaller localized currents that can take off in any direction for any small amount of time. The oceanic currents are moving towards the freedom to make music wherever and however you like, with the service/engineering/design side of the industry increasingly catering to that.
Live long enough and everything comes back. Just sayin. Never say never and all that.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #501
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You find one small detail to nitpick and miss the point of everything.
Where hit records are recorded is not 'one small detail'. It was the thrust of your argument. I can come up with more small details to prove my point because there are more of them. Neither of us wants to conduct a comprehensive survey, but you and I both know you would be at a disadvantage.

Quote:
Home studio use is so common among the pros that 1/3 of commercial studios in LA have closed down in the last 10 years and Nashville is enacting a ban on home studios to try to save the commercial industry there.
Commercial studios are closing down because there is less money to be made in the music business. 99% of the closing of big studios is due to the drop in revenue experienced by labels with the end of Physical Product. When people can download your record for free, apparently they will not pay $18 for a piece of plastic that has that record on it. Who knew?

The "mammals" did not wipe out the dinosaurs. The asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and the mammals merely capitalized on the openings provided.

Quote:
But you find a case where Taylor used a commercial studio recently, and claim a "win."
As I recall, you found one rap song made in FL and claimed a "win". I found several cases where songs in the top ten were recorded at commercial studios. Even the very artists you tried to say were done at Max Martins "house". The Swift things were in direct refutation of your claim that artists like her did their recording at "home studios".

Quote:
When Nashville is enacting bans on something because its changing the landscape of how music is made so much, and you're not even aware that any of it exists, its time to listen
They are not enacting bans to "save" the studios! They are enacting bans to save their residential neighborhoods and recover tax revenues. Moving a commercial studio into a 'house' does not make it a "home studio" except in the sense that you might be able to get around zoning and tax stuff. LA tried this a ways back as well. Again, the proliferation of home studios is not a 'cause', it is an 'effect'. The potential rewards are lower, so the budgets for speculative work shrinks.

It is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, either way. In an "Industry", workers in the "factory" do not participate in the speculative risk of management. They get paid for their work.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #502
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Where hit records are recorded is not 'one small detail'. It was the thrust of your argument. I can come up with more small details to prove my point because there are more of them. Neither of us wants to conduct a comprehensive survey, but you and I both know you would be at a disadvantage.


Commercial studios are closing down because there is less money to be made in the music business. 99% of the closing of big studios is due to the drop in revenue experienced by labels with the end of Physical Product. When people can download your record for free, apparently they will not pay $18 for a piece of plastic that has that record on it. Who knew?

The "mammals" did not wipe out the dinosaurs. The asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and the mammals merely capitalized on the openings provided.

As I recall, you found one rap song made in FL and claimed a "win". I found several cases where songs in the top ten were recorded at commercial studios. Even the very artists you tried to say were done at Max Martins "house". The Swift things were in direct refutation of your claim that artists like her did their recording at "home studios".


They are not enacting bans to "save" the studios! They are enacting bans to save their residential neighborhoods and recover tax revenues. Moving a commercial studio into a 'house' does not make it a "home studio" except in the sense that you might be able to get around zoning and tax stuff. LA tried this a ways back as well. Again, the proliferation of home studios is not a 'cause', it is an 'effect'. The potential rewards are lower, so the budgets for speculative work shrinks.

It is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, either way. In an "Industry", workers in the "factory" do not participate in the speculative risk of management. They get paid for their work.
Read. This. Post.

Why is Pro Tools industry standard

RE the reasons for the mass Nashville commercial studio closures: https://www.tennessean.com/story/new...dios/19248511/

White said he is worried that a series of factors are conspiring to run commercial recording studios such as his out of business. He cited the rise in home recording studios and the collapse of the music industry, which has fewer and fewer record projects being funded.

In addition to 16 Ton, Sound Shop, Fireside Studios and the tracking room from Vibe Studio are among those that have been shuttered in recent years. And remaining commercial studios are facing an uncertain future.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #503
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have used it off an on for decades now. I actually respect you as and engineer (from the few clips I have heard of your work) and as a mod (since you are really a fair mod) but it is clear you are a Protools fan boy like others on this thread. So I feel like you are just having a hard time coming to grips that my points are all spot on.

TBH I would think a guy with your street cred and your stellar ears, that you'd be the first one to admit that PT hardware is terrible sounding and that other DAWS actually are more powerful. If anyone should know it would be you.

It always boggles my mind how much people have such a love fest with such a poorly designed software. I acknowledge it is the industry standard but it shouldn't be IMO. There is nothing PT can do that the other top DAWS can't do better/faster. It's fairly easy for someone not in denial to do research and get the facts, and uncover that apps like Cubase are much more powerful than native Proltools and as powerful as HD at 1/5 the cost. However, PT fanboys don't want facts, they want be coddled by other PT fanboys while silencing and trying to unfairly discredit the naysayers.

I honesty 100% think PT hardware is the single reason why digital recording has gotten such a bad name in some professional circles. Loads of highly acclaimed digital records have been produced since the late 70s. All through the late 70s into to the early 90s people made digital records. 44k 16bit no less. Yet once PT came on the scene suddenly the sound of digital recording was compromised. It's not a coincidence. Bad sounding digital recordings were the norm in the 90s all through till about 10 years ago. "Since the early 90s when it was the only game in town." You can't have it both ways. You can't claim since the early 90s it was the only game in town and then not acknowledges that pretty much any reputable engineer acknowledges 90s digital recordings are pretty much all weird sounding. If PT was the only game in town, then it's also because of protools that these records sound the way they do.


l

Jeepers. That must be one of the most brazenly arrogant posts ever made on Gearslutz.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #504
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDStudios View Post
Jeepers. That must be one of the most brazenly arrogant posts ever made on Gearslutz.
Not even top 100. :-)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #505
Gear Nut
 
MattiasSwe's Avatar
At least some of the songs she did with max and shellback were recorded in Max house in LA, and some in stockholm. There are videos of it on the internet.
Some stuff are also recorded at conway, probably vocals i would guess.


Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Where hit records are recorded is not 'one small detail'. It was the thrust of your argument. I can come up with more small details to prove my point because there are more of them. Neither of us wants to conduct a comprehensive survey, but you and I both know you would be at a disadvantage.


Commercial studios are closing down because there is less money to be made in the music business. 99% of the closing of big studios is due to the drop in revenue experienced by labels with the end of Physical Product. When people can download your record for free, apparently they will not pay $18 for a piece of plastic that has that record on it. Who knew?

The "mammals" did not wipe out the dinosaurs. The asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and the mammals merely capitalized on the openings provided.

As I recall, you found one rap song made in FL and claimed a "win". I found several cases where songs in the top ten were recorded at commercial studios. Even the very artists you tried to say were done at Max Martins "house". The Swift things were in direct refutation of your claim that artists like her did their recording at "home studios".


They are not enacting bans to "save" the studios! They are enacting bans to save their residential neighborhoods and recover tax revenues. Moving a commercial studio into a 'house' does not make it a "home studio" except in the sense that you might be able to get around zoning and tax stuff. LA tried this a ways back as well. Again, the proliferation of home studios is not a 'cause', it is an 'effect'. The potential rewards are lower, so the budgets for speculative work shrinks.

It is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, either way. In an "Industry", workers in the "factory" do not participate in the speculative risk of management. They get paid for their work.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #506
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDStudios View Post
Jeepers. That must be one of the most brazenly arrogant posts ever made on Gearslutz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Not even top 100. :-)
From that particular poster!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #507
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
You find one small detail to nitpick and miss the point of everything. That's your MO.

Home studio use is so common among the pros that 1/3 of commercial studios in LA have closed down in the last 10 years and Nashville is enacting a ban on home studios to try to save the commercial industry there.

And this is something you're not even aware is going on!!

But you find a case where Taylor used a commercial studio recently, and claim a win. Its ridiculous. I'm just reporting the facts, its not even about winning and losing and proving wrong.

You should listen sometimes man. When Nashville is enacting bans on something because its changing the landscape of how music is made so much, and you're not even aware that any of it exists, its time to listen.
To be fair, whilst there’s many larger studios shut, in recent years there’s also a few who’ve opened, and what’s more, there’s absolutely loads of production spaces that’ve opened - there’s been several buildings full in Sydney alone in recent years! Now some of those are dry hire (ie no gear), but some are fully equipped - and a lot of those are rented by producers who are bouncing back and forth to major studios, and so are running PT as their primary platform.

And some are self contained guys who use whatever of course, I’m not denying that.

I’d say whilst I know a few people with fully specced home rooms, or purpose built studios at home, as many if not more hire spaces in commercial units.

And whilst I certainly know a lot of pop producers who work in Live and in Logic (Live having taken over from Logic significantly), I know a lot more working start to finish in PT now than ever before - the development of 3rd party instruments and included packs from PT10 on has changed that. It used to be rare.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #508
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
From that particular poster!
Stop sinking to my level.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #509
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Where hit records are recorded is not 'one small detail'. It was the thrust of your argument. I can come up with more small details to prove my point because there are more of them. Neither of us wants to conduct a comprehensive survey, but you and I both know you would be at a disadvantage.


Commercial studios are closing down because there is less money to be made in the music business. 99% of the closing of big studios is due to the drop in revenue experienced by labels with the end of Physical Product. When people can download your record for free, apparently they will not pay $18 for a piece of plastic that has that record on it. Who knew?

The "mammals" did not wipe out the dinosaurs. The asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, and the mammals merely capitalized on the openings provided.

As I recall, you found one rap song made in FL and claimed a "win". I found several cases where songs in the top ten were recorded at commercial studios. Even the very artists you tried to say were done at Max Martins "house". The Swift things were in direct refutation of your claim that artists like her did their recording at "home studios".


They are not enacting bans to "save" the studios! They are enacting bans to save their residential neighborhoods and recover tax revenues. Moving a commercial studio into a 'house' does not make it a "home studio" except in the sense that you might be able to get around zoning and tax stuff. LA tried this a ways back as well. Again, the proliferation of home studios is not a 'cause', it is an 'effect'. The potential rewards are lower, so the budgets for speculative work shrinks.

It is irrelevant to the topic of the thread, either way. In an "Industry", workers in the "factory" do not participate in the speculative risk of management. They get paid for their work.
One really great studio down here in Ft Lauderdale closed years ago, it was one I used a lot doing various projects. Studer/Neve, great room, etc.

When they announced their closing, the owner said they didn't make their money so much from one month lock outs from major artists, they made them from local bands booking demo time, etc. throughout each month.

Once everyone had their own way to do this (starting with ADATS) they lost all that business and it killed them in the long run.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #510
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Very few recording studios have ever been built from the ground up. Abbey Road and Motown/Hitsville were both "home studios." Many were built in churches.
Most artists who built home studios in an effort to save money have wound up making their most successful recordings in commercial rooms and in many cases away from their home town. This is because there are far too many distractions at home.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump