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 18th May 2017
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Why is Pro Tools industry standard

Why is Pro Tools the industry standard?

What can you do with Pro Tools that you can't do with other daws?

For example, I use Cubase for film composing and it's great. I love the CC editing function it's fast and easy.

Haven't try Logic yet.

Pro Tools in my experience is good too, I like how it handles audio very well. I love the audio sound I loaded inside Pro Tools. They sound just as real as the sample itself. Problem is I don't have 10K+ hardware to use it on Pro Tools. Maybe it has something to do with hardware to called it industry standard?
Old 19th May 2017
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Owen L T's Avatar
ProTools became the industry standard at a time when consumer/prosumer hardware (ie computers) wasn't sufficiently fast or reliable to run the kind of big sessions that you need to be able to run - without crashes - in a professional studio. By pairing software with hardware, ProTools was able to offer a rock-solid performance - and extremely low latency - that you wouldn't get by installing a.n.other DAW on a PC running Windows 95/XP/whatever. (And not just because, prior to Windows 7, PCs were only able to access 3Gb of RAM, which had considerable limits even before you get into latency issues.)

But computers, and DAWs, have come a long way since then - and with a reasonably new, fast, well spec'd computer you can get very stable performance, and run a whole host of plug-ins, in whatever DAW you choose.

Cubase has long been the composers' tool of choice (composer friends of mine were using it in the late 90s) as has Logic. Indeed, for a while, I believe both of those - and certainly Cubase - offered considerably greater MIDI programming/editing facilities than ProTools, not least as Cubase started life as MIDI only, while ProTools was basically an in-the-box multi-track. I believe ProTools MIDI features are now basically on a par of those with Cubase - though possibly the latter still has the edge.

If you were starting from scratch, pretty much any DAW would do. If you already have, and use Cubase, and aren't in an environment where people come to your studio and expect/need you to have ProTools so you can mix/work on their existing ProTools session, then ... you're absolutely good to go. I'm a fan of Cubase myself, but I'm also firmly of the opinion that if you have a DAW as a composition tool, then whichever DAW you're used to is the best one for you (unless you hate it) and that any time spent learning another DAW is wasted time!
Old 19th May 2017
  #3
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by noobz View Post
Why is Pro Tools the industry standard?
because it already is the industry standard! A program would have to be MUCH better than Pro Tools for people who already use it as a standard to change. And really, no program is MUCH better - in fact most are fairly equal, with slight advantages to one or another at certain specific tasks and so on.

It would be incredibly expensive in money and TIME for these people to switch- and for what? Just to have a different "standard"? All these other programs are excellent - they all can do anything the others can do. Some as I say may have a slight edge here or there. But that's not enough to change standards.


Quote:
What can you do with Pro Tools that you can't do with other daws?
That's not it. Pro Tools was the first DAW to be adopted by major studios. Its workflow imitated the workflow of console-and-tape. From the very beginning, its user base included the top A-list engineers in the industry. Their feedback and feature requests influenced the development of the software to the point that it was excellent for the "anything can happen" environment of the traditional commercial studio. The kind of studio that is doing recording for clients.

And radio and TV stations and Post-Production houses as well.

Furthermore the ins and outs of the software influenced the way the studios and the engineers themselves approached their jobs. In addition to being influenced by standard industry recording practices, Pro Tools affected those practices in exchange. The Industry Standard works both ways - they become intertwined.

Quote:
For example, I use Cubase for film composing and it's great. I love the CC editing function it's fast and easy.

Haven't try Logic yet.
But if you had a commercial studio and someone wanted to book your place on a weekend when you were away at a family wedding, you will have a MUCH harder time finding a professional replacement that knows Cubase than finding a professional replacement that knows Pro Tools.

Because (once again) Pro Tools is already the Industry Standard. It is self-reinforcing... at least within the commercial studio category.

People get sour grapes about Pro Tools because they feel like it doesn't "deserve" to be the industry standard, and (surprise!) they want their software to be the new industry standard. But that would still leave out the other 90% of DAWs.

The industry needs "a" standard more than it needs the "best" standard.

Personally I love Pro Tools and I personally think it IS the "best". But that's not why I use it. I use it because:

1. Work comes in to my studio in the form of a Pro Tools session. Either Dropboxed to me or on a client-supplied drive. When someone asks us: "where do I send The Files?", they mean "The Pro Tools Files". Always.

2. Work is requested to go out of my studio in the form of a Pro Tools session. Not everything is started and finished here. Some stuff even goes back and forth multiple times If translation to a different software was required every time, it would be a nightmare.

3. As a free-lance engineer, being fluent in Pro Tools is just about the only Marketable Skill left in the business. The kind of places that are actually "hiring" are hiring Pro Tools guys. Not Cubase guys or Logic guys.

4. I have a teaching job. The school expects me to teach the program that the students are most likely to see if they get a job in a studio, TV station, radio station, post house etc. Guess which program that is? Because Pro Tools is already the industry standard... seeing a pattern here?

5. Pro Tools IS a great program. It has a number of features that make it excellent for banging out repetitive tasks. For doing "Work". I think it is quite intuitive. Sometimes it seems like other programs often had to pick something weird just so that they wouldn't be "copying" Pro Tools. It has tremendous flexibility and a well thought out one-key command system. Someone once said "it is the software you want when there is a client in the room".

IOW- use what you like when you are alone and there's no clock.


In the unlikely event that the studios where I worked and the schools where I teach suddenly all decided we are all switching over to a different industry standard, I would switch.

But I HATE learning new software. I HATE installing and authorizing new software. I HATE getting my computer and interfaces to work with new software. I HATE converting all my old files when I could be working on new stuff. So do a lot of other people. There would have to be a huge reason to switch- and everybody would have to agree on what we are all switching to or it will flop! Not going to happen soon.


Quote:
Pro Tools in my experience is good too, I like how it handles audio very well. I love the audio sound I loaded inside Pro Tools. They sound just as real as the sample itself.
DAWs do not make samples loaded into them sound "better". You do that.

It's just a piece of software. I would never say "Pro Tools sounds better". That's ridiculous. It sounds like what you put into it.
Old 19th May 2017
  #4
Gear Nut
 

That is a wonderful post, joeq! Well said!
Old 11th June 2017
  #5
Here for the gear
 

I disagree. If you throw an audio sample in FL vs Pro Tools, PT sound better like real audio whereas FL sounds cheesy.

You gotta be natural to think like that..without biased, but if you have deep feelings you can hear through it.
Old 13th June 2017
  #6
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobz View Post
You gotta be natural to think like that..without biased, but if you have deep feelings you can hear through it.
Statement of the year
Old 13th June 2017
  #7
Ultimately, most of the challenges encountered with using something other than PT is the fact that PT requires digitranslator to support OMF and AAF interchanges. Those formats allow you to move from one DAW to another (albeit with some limitations.)

So, if your intention is to be a for-hire studio, something I don't recommend in today's environment, PT is a must as is at least one other than handles the interchanges well. If your intention is to be a one-stop production house for making demos or something, PT is likely not the best way to go for a whole host of reasons, MIDI integration, built-in soft synths etc.

If your intention is to not work directly with other studios during tracking, I don't see a problem with skipping Alsihad (ProTools). For mixing, it doesn't really matter what you mix on as long as you can achieve a good mix. But, you probably need a version of PT in case someone drops that in your lap and you need to export each track starting at zero to bring it into your DAW of choice.

that being said, because the industry is in such a sad state of affairs, I don't think calling ANYTHING an industry-standard anymore is a good idea.

Joeq's got a point, but the odds are against you doing that kind of work.
Old 13th June 2017
  #8
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by noobz View Post
I disagree. If you throw an audio sample in FL vs Pro Tools, PT sound better like real audio whereas FL sounds cheesy.

You gotta be natural to think like that..without biased, but if you have deep feelings you can hear through it.


If your "feelings" are deep enough, you can tell yourself anything sounds like this and sounds like that, and surprise surprise, you will "hear" it.

But if you put on a blindfold and have someone else "throw" an audio sample into FL and into Pro Tool and let THEM switch it for you and not tell you which one you are listening to (blindfolded) this deep feeling difference will disappear entirely.

Furthermore if you bounce or export this file, neither Pro Tools nor FL will alter it in any way unless you tell them to. All three files, the original file, the one imported and bounced from Pro Tools, the one imported and bounced from FL, will not only 'sound' the same, they will be the same. They will null, which means every single 1 and 0 is identical.

This has been proven many many times over. You are living in a fantasy if you believe otherwise. Feel free to live in a fantasy if you want, but if you post your fantasy as a "fact", expect some blowback from the people who have actually tried the above.
Old 13th June 2017
  #9
Gear Addict
 

It was the first. Studios used it because it was the only one of its kind. Now that they all have it, it's too late to change.
Old 16th October 2018
  #10
Gear Head
 
ccmdav's Avatar
 

I'm both a Pro Tools and Logic Pro X operator... I prefer Logic for many reasons, and despise Pro Tools for a few, in spite of having learned Pro Tools first. I've heard and read passionate arguments by pros who firmly believe that Pro Tools is the industry standard because it actually is the best, though I remain skeptical because I know most of these people have not gone "all-in" on any other DAW.

I'm all-in on Logic and work fastest in it by far. But I keep a copy of Pro Tools on my computers and activate it as needed for the infrequent occasion I need to work with content from a PT session (usually one from a larger studio). My projects with my clients are all usually very self-contained, so interoperability is not that big of an issue for me. And on the rare occasion I need to work with someone not using PT or Logic, I just make them bounce their tracks into zeroed audio files. Not that big of a hassle.

I fully agree that the term "industry standard" is becoming dated, but when it comes to larger commercial studios (mostly remnants of the "good old days,") Pro Tools is unquestionably the DAW of choice. For engineers who really want to make it, fluency with Pro Tools is... dare I say it... essential. And that will not change until/unless the current digital audio workstation paradigm undergoes some kind of a radical change that allows a new company to disrupt the market.

I would have said that, even as recently as 7-10 years ago, Pro Tools was the unquestionable industry standard; but Avid has mismanaged their efforts in the "prosumer" market so badly, for so long, that just about everybody else has made significant inroads in that market - which could reverberate through the next two decades in a way that could threaten Pro Tools' dominance, even in the professional market.

Yeah, I wish Pro Tools would go away, but alas... it is here to stay for a while yet.
Old 16th October 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 
cjogo's Avatar
Still trying to do my best to change that standard to REAPER --
Old 16th October 2018
  #12
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmdav View Post
And that will not change until/unless the current digital audio workstation paradigm undergoes some kind of a radical change that allows a new company to disrupt the market.
and when that happens, that will be the company you 'love to hate'.

Quote:
Yeah, I wish Pro Tools would go away,
I have never understood this attitude. What's it to you? If you prefer Logic and are happy using it, why would you be happier if Pro Tools was not available for other people to use?

Logic has been around for decades. If Logic was the program that was going to "disrupt the market", it would have done so a long time ago. When the day comes that the "new industry standard" arises, the sour-grapes crowd will be just as pointlessly resentful of that program (whatever it is) as they are now with Pro Tools.
Old 16th October 2018
  #13
Gear Head
 
ccmdav's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
I have never understood this attitude. What's it to you? If you prefer Logic and are happy using it, why would you be happier if Pro Tools was not available for other people to use?
...merely what the irrational side of all of us wants... to not have to use any other DAW but the one we prefer. Sour grapes? Guilty as charged. But not because I'm jealous somehow. Just simple irritation with PT users who, unlike just about every other DAW user, assume that the whole world runs on PT, and don't even bother to ask about a preferred format for export in a collaborative scenario. 9/10 times, they just send the .ptx file, no questions asked. Which means I'm out $30 that month, since I've long since decided to suck it up. I know, cost of doing business, but that doesn't mean I don't WISH that that scenario would go away. A person can have their wildly unrealistic wishes, can they not?
Old 16th October 2018
  #14
Here for the gear
 

There's a kind of phenomena surrounding this question that has two parts. The first part, as kadeemusic so concisely put it, is that Pro Tools was first. Categorically stated, the phenomena would be something like, "First on the scene reigns forever", and it remains true whether the extended reign is deserved or not. The second part is that once users become familiar with an environment, they're inclined to stay, despite mounting aggravations. There's an inverse relationship between familiarity and incentive or willingness to change. This is perpetuated even further when a software becomes an industry standard, as PT was able to become in the early days. This works in favor of the software company, allowing it to become lazy in responding to criticism from it's users while, instead, concentrating the bulk of it's resources toward "Bigger and Better Things" to stay competitive.

Probably the greatest example of undeserved reign of a software is the Windows operating system, but before I go further and be assumed a Mac devotee, understand this: while music & music production have been passions for most of my life, my career for the past twenty five years has been in web design & development, requiring me to spend equal time in both Mac & Windows platforms, so I've live extensively in each one. I actually began on Windows before moving into the Mac OS and thought Windows was great because I didn't know any different. The fact that MS Windows dominates the field is because Bill Gates beat Steve Jobs out of the gate almost by mere minutes, and has reigned ever since, despite being the most dismally broken OS ever developed during its first twenty years. In the 70's & 80's we were all excitedly anticipating the coming computer revolution. The worst possible thing that could have happened to that dream was Windows getting there first and planting its flag. The past 28 years would be a whole different story of digital history had it been Apple instead.

I migrated away from the other DAW I've been working in for the past 10 years over to Pro Tools—which I had extreme problems with back in 2008—purely because I know I'll be taking my work into a pro studio soon and need to have my files in the "industry standard" to avoid any format collisions. I'm disappointed to find PT 2018 to be just as underdeveloped as in 2008, with many of the very same issues it had back then.
Old 16th October 2018
  #15
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

What exactly are the problems you are talking about?
Old 16th October 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
 

I'm not so sure Protools can claim industry standard anymore. I'd wager more published music is made in Ableton and Logic than Protools now, given that hip hop/electronic/pop now have the lion's share of the market.

Protools was the DAW that replaced tape/ADAT and got itself into the old school professional service studios as the industry standard replacement. But that whole system is a long long long way off as the dominant one now.

I've been doing this a long time and only needed to use Protools once, for a remix of a track that wasn't completed yet where they sent me the in-progress Protools session.
Old 16th October 2018
  #17
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmdav View Post
...merely what the irrational side of all of us wants... to not have to use any other DAW but the one we prefer. Sour grapes? Guilty as charged. But not because I'm jealous somehow. Just simple irritation with PT users who, unlike just about every other DAW user, assume that the whole world runs on PT, and don't even bother to ask about a preferred format for export in a collaborative scenario. 9/10 times, they just send the .ptx file, no questions asked. Which means I'm out $30 that month, since I've long since decided to suck it up. I know, cost of doing business but that doesn't mean I don't WISH that that scenario would go away. A person can have their wildly unrealistic wishes, can they not?
But that scenario won't go away, and not because Pro Tools is 'forever'.

When that glorious day finally arrives and the Paradigm-Busting New DAW "takes over" and becomes the "new industry standard", the odds are hugely against that P-BND being your DAW. Everyone "wishing" for the demise of Pro Tools thinks their DAW is 'next in line'. They can't all be right, in fact they all are wrong. Logic has been around in one form or another since the 90's. If it was going to bust any paradigms, it would have already done so.

That means that you will have the exact same issue with a new industry standard (whatever it will be) as you now have with Pro Tools. The people in the industry will be sending you ".pbnd" files and you will have to rent a copy of that new DAW to open them.

You are right back where you started, plus now you have to learn one more new DAW.

You know what would be a worse scenario? No industry standard at all. Then people would be sending you files from every DAW ever made and you would need a copy of each one of them to open those files, and a modicum of knowledge in how to get around in each DAW if only to set up a decent export.

Quote:
9/10 times, they just send the .ptx file, no questions asked.
That's not only the definition of "industry standard", it is the justification for having an "industry standard". It means that nobody has to own more than two DAWs. The one you like, and the Standard. Still beats the hell out of owning ten DAWs which is what the world would be like if there was no standard.

Want to get your DAW ownership down to only one? Here are your only realistic options:
1. stop collaborating with anybody anywhere
2. convince the entire world to switch to Logic
3. use Pro Tools exclusively

Last edited by joeq; 16th October 2018 at 10:07 PM..
Old 17th October 2018
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmdav View Post
...merely what the irrational side of all of us wants... to not have to use any other DAW but the one we prefer. Sour grapes? Guilty as charged. But not because I'm jealous somehow. Just simple irritation with PT users who, unlike just about every other DAW user, assume that the whole world runs on PT, and don't even bother to ask about a preferred format for export in a collaborative scenario. 9/10 times, they just send the .ptx file, no questions asked. Which means I'm out $30 that month, since I've long since decided to suck it up. I know, cost of doing business, but that doesn't mean I don't WISH that that scenario would go away. A person can have their wildly unrealistic wishes, can they not?
Learn to think of all the DAWS as one big daw, with PT as the master daw - like the big water tower atop the building - and then realize that all that research and development (started by PT) has filtered down and helped build the very DAW you know and love, and then imagine a world without PT and how little you'd now have to work with
Old 17th October 2018
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
That means that you will have the exact same issue with a new industry standard (whatever it will be) as you now have with Pro Tools. The people in the industry will be sending you ".pbnd" files and you will have to rent a copy of that new DAW to open them.

You are right back where you started, plus now you have to learn one more new DAW.

You know what would be a worse scenario? No industry standard at all. Then people would be sending you files from every DAW ever made and you would need a copy of each one of them to open those files, and a modicum of knowledge in how to get around in each DAW if only to set up a decent export.
We already live in a world of no industry standard. Everyone automatically asks "what DAW do you use, do you need it bounced to audio or can I send the session" for collabs. (Except Protools users, by @ ccmdav 's account I haven't collabed with a Protools user in years so I don't know. This is every other DAW user though.)

The extra step that sometimes happens is having to bounce audio tracks for the person you're sending to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
That's not only the definition of "industry standard", it is the justification for having an "industry standard". It means that nobody has to own more than two DAWs. The one you like, and the Standard. Still beats the hell out of owning ten DAWs which is what the world would be like if there was no standard.

Want to get your DAW ownership down to only one? Here are your only realistic options:
1. stop collaborating with anybody anywhere
2. convince the entire world to switch to Logic
3. use Pro Tools exclusively
4. The thing that's actually happening in the world: bounce audio for the next guy.

No one has to know more than one DAW, and everyone can use whatever they want.
Old 17th October 2018
  #20
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
We already live in a world of no industry standard. Everyone automatically asks "what DAW do you use, do you need it bounced to audio or can I send the session" for collabs.
I swear, no one ever asks me that question! They send us Pro Tools sessions and we send Pro Tools sessions back. People walk into the studio with a hard drive and guess what's on that hard drive? ccmdav is not alone in experiencing a segment of the business where Pro Tools is not only the standard, it is the default. It is assumed. The only difference between him and me is that he resents it, and I like Pro Tools and I don't mind staying in it. He only keeps it around because it is necessary to receive work.

He at least understands that if you want that work, you do not ask your potential client to jump through the hoop of consolidating the wavs for you! You get a copy of Pro Tools and consolidate the wavs yourself! And you send it back to him in the format that he expects.
Quote:
The extra step that sometimes happens is having to bounce audio tracks for the person you're sending to.
Rendered wavs are fine if you are burning your bridges behind you. It is one "extra step" only if the movement of the session is one-way. Otherwise it is multiple extra steps. For example, if you are done tracking and you are going to send to someone else to mix. But when files are being sent here to get some guitars and there to get keyboards and then back here to redo some vocals, doing the 'render dance' back and forth back and forth gets old pretty fast. It is also very useful when the client's levels, pans, preliminary automation and other stuff is kept throughout and does not need to be 'reconstructed' at the end.

What if the editor is not the guy who did the tracking? When was the last time you exported not only the main playlist but all the alternates? Now how many 'steps' is that? Keeping it all in PT means all the alternate playlists remain intact as well. Punches visible and auto-numbered, muted sections are muted but still visible. How do you render that? That can be huge for some clients. Some clients even bring their iLoks so they can open the session with their plugs.

Another one: You probably operate your "own" studio. But commercial studios often have staff. If every commercial studio used a different DAW and someone needed a substitute engineer for a day, this studio would need to search for a Cubase engineer and that studio would need to advertise for a Logic engineer. Considering how last-minute some of these freelance gigs are, it could end badly for everyone involved. What a huge advantage to only have to say: "we need an engineer for Saturday afternoon" and everyone understands what kind of engineer you are talking about. And there's a large pool of people trained in PT to draw from. They got that training because they wanted to be eligible for that kind of gig.

Quote:
No one has to know more than one DAW, and everyone can use whatever they want
You may be missing a sense of what the word "industry" in "industry standard" implies. It does not mean how many copies of each DAW Guitar Center sells. It does not mean buddies collaborating on a song. Or a one-way trip to the mix engineer. It's not about having the "best" DAW. The word "industry" is about business, and there are still people in the world doing this as a business and for whom interoperability is critically important.
Old 17th October 2018
  #21
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
I'm not so sure Protools can claim industry standard anymore. I'd wager more published music is made in Ableton and Logic than Protools now, given that hip hop/electronic/pop now have the lion's share of the market.
Wonderously myopic world view of music.
I’d love for you to pick out some actual numbers — say the artists at the top of Billboard and find out if they weren’t mixed or tracked in Pro Tools.
Old 17th October 2018
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
We already live in a world of no industry standard. Everyone automatically asks "what DAW do you use, do you need it bounced to audio or can I send the session" for collabs. (Except Protools users, by @ ccmdav 's account I haven't collabed with a Protools user in years so I don't know. This is every other DAW user though.)

The extra step that sometimes happens is having to bounce audio tracks for the person you're sending to.



4. The thing that's actually happening in the world: bounce audio for the next guy.

No one has to know more than one DAW, and everyone can use whatever they want.

Depends on the form of collaboration, I suppose. I highly doubt anyone would want to be comping vocals from a bunch of bounced tracks, or doing a dialogue edit. One of the innate benefits of DAWs over other recording devices like tape machines, or digital hard drive recorders, etc is that the process is non-destructive. Bouncing is destructive. I don't know anyone that does it by choice... they do it by shear necessity, and having no other option.
Old 17th October 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDStudios View Post
Depends on the form of collaboration, I suppose. I highly doubt anyone would want to be comping vocals from a bunch of bounced tracks, or doing a dialogue edit. One of the innate benefits of DAWs over other recording devices like tape machines, or digital hard drive recorders, etc is that the process is non-destructive. Bouncing is destructive. I don't know anyone that does it by choice... they do it by shear necessity, and having no other option.
Yeah depends on the form of collab. There’s no free lunch, down side to everything. If you need to send a vocal session to someone else to comp and engineer you’d want to use the same DAW. If you’re using tape you’d have to ship the tape, etc.

In general it works itself out though, sending audio files. Very common practice.

I’m more from the world of self-producing artists, not full service studios. I’m never getting paid upfront by sometime to do something, I’m collabing with fellow artists creatively to create works of value. But more music is published by self-producing artists these days, that’s increasingly becoming the way of the world (yes sometimes there’s a 3rd party mixdown on Protools, sometimes on Cubase and other DAWs too). Industry standard in my world to ask what DAW the collaborator is using and find a way to make it work.
Old 17th October 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
Wonderously myopic world view of music.
I’d love for you to pick out some actual numbers — say the artists at the top of Billboard and find out if they weren’t mixed or tracked in Pro Tools.
The myopia is found in the Protools users IME.

Go outside the billboard top 40 (where Protools shows up largely due to it being Serban’s and mannys current choice for mixdowns), into the Spotify playlists, iTunes Charts, Beatport charts, Hype machine charts, and modern music Sirius playlists and much of the music never touches Protools.

Most published music does not touch Protools these days. There is no dominant DAW, it’s a very even playing field. If i were to pull an estimate out my rear I’d say 30% or so of published music these days touches Protools. It was dominant during the rock era / full service studio era but most published music is not made that way anymore.

Last edited by newguy1; 17th October 2018 at 07:04 PM..
Old 17th October 2018
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Owen L T's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cayce View Post
The fact that MS Windows dominates the field is because Bill Gates beat Steve Jobs out of the gate almost by mere minutes, and has reigned ever since, despite being the most dismally broken OS ever developed during its first twenty years.
With Windows, Microsoft didn't beat Apple out of the gates, though - not at all. Windows came along well after the Mac OS was well established - hence the famous look-and-feel case when Microsoft replaced MSDOS with the very Mac-like Windows. In the late 80s, college campuses all over the US had an even mix of students using the now ubiquitous menu-bar Mac interface, while the other half were on IBM/clones running the entirely non graphic MSDOS - with little printed cards showing what each of the function keys did.

Geeky/fun fact: Microsoft's fortune was made almost entirely because of a licensing failure by IBM. IBM went looking for an operating system, which they ultimately licensed from Bill Gates' fledgling company - which in turn bought the DOS from another company, and tweaked it. (Microsoft didn't have an OS at thus point, but thought this might be an "in" for selling some software.) But IBM didn't bother to buy an exclusive licence, or the right to sublicence. So when all the IBM clones came out in the 80s, Bill Gates found himself in an incredible position: everyone wanted to make IBM compatible machines, and the only place they could get their OS from was Microsoft. By all accounts, Gates would happily have agreed to an exclusive licence, but IBM didn't even think to ask!
Old 18th October 2018
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1 View Post
I'm not so sure Protools can claim industry standard anymore. I'd wager more published music is made in Ableton and Logic than Protools now, given that hip hop/electronic/pop now have the lion's share of the market.

Protools was the DAW that replaced tape/ADAT and got itself into the old school professional service studios as the industry standard replacement. But that whole system is a long long long way off as the dominant one now.

I've been doing this a long time and only needed to use Protools once, for a remix of a track that wasn't completed yet where they sent me the in-progress Protools session.
You’re confusing markets.

PT has never claimed to be the “industry standard” for writers, beatnakers etc.

It’s the industry standard for recording. And still is - you don’t see commercial rooms running Live for ensemble recording.

Sure - there’s plenty of owner operator spaces running different DAWs, and yes smaller spaces/studio owning mix engineers make up a lot of the market.

But PT has never been “industry standard” there either.

Yes the “real recording in a proper studio” market has shrunk, and the number of people working at home grown. But there’s still really only one commercial studio world, and that world still runs PT.

There’s nothing else really with the same hardware, buffer free, low latency, integrated solution really. UAD is great for single overdubs, but I’d hate to have 40mics live on that system and try to keep track of it all through the cue mixer.
Old 18th October 2018
  #27
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
You’re confusing markets.

PT has never claimed to be the “industry standard” for writers, beatnakers etc.

It’s the industry standard for recording. And still is - you don’t see commercial rooms running Live for ensemble recording.

Sure - there’s plenty of owner operator spaces running different DAWs, and yes smaller spaces/studio owning mix engineers make up a lot of the market.

But PT has never been “industry standard” there either.

Yes the “real recording in a proper studio” market has shrunk, and the number of people working at home grown. But there’s still really only one commercial studio world, and that world still runs PT.

There’s nothing else really with the same hardware, buffer free, low latency, integrated solution really. UAD is great for single overdubs, but I’d hate to have 40mics live on that system and try to keep track of it all through the cue mixer.
You pretty much demonstrated newguy1's point. No mention was made in the OP of recording studios yet you made that assumption. (The OP actually mentions composing, not a recording studios).

Alistair
Old 18th October 2018
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
You pretty much demonstrated newguy1's point. No mention was made in the OP of recording studios yet you made that assumption. (The OP actually mentions composing, not a recording studios).

Alistair
Well, the thread title asks about the "industry standard". How can you not assume the relation with recording studios? Because someone says he likes to compose with DAW X in his home studio has no influence on the "strength" of the industry standard.

KA
Old 18th October 2018
  #29
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
You pretty much demonstrated newguy1's point. No mention was made in the OP of recording studios yet you made that assumption. (The OP actually mentions composing, not a recording studios).

Alistair
Not really. He’s saying it can’t really be considered the industry standard; I’m saying for the industry he’s talking about, it never was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KorgAddict View Post
Well, the thread title asks about the "industry standard". How can you not assume the relation with recording studios? Because someone says he likes to compose with DAW X in his home studio has no influence on the "strength" of the industry standard.

KA
Exactly. I’m assuming he’s talking music not post (the other industry it’s the “standard” for) but that’s about it.
Old 18th October 2018
  #30
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KorgAddict View Post
Well, the thread title asks about the "industry standard". How can you not assume the relation with recording studios? Because someone says he likes to compose with DAW X in his home studio has no influence on the "strength" of the industry standard.

KA
To me the industry is the entire industry, not just traditional band music (unless it is specified of course). So no, we should not assume it relates to recording studios especially as the OP mentioned composing rather than recording.

Alistair
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