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 the Pro Tools Hate? Audio Interfaces
Old 5 days ago
  #241
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
I'm not full of it am I, because you've just reiterated my point.

It's embedded. It's habit. It's become the default.

That doesn't make it the best, and it certainly doesn't protect it from competitors that actively and aggressively decide to go after it, especially when those competing systems can be bought into for fractions of the price with zero quality loss.

It's all about translation between studios.

Studios don't care about ProTools. They care about efficiency, and no downtime/reliability, and the ease with which they can move stuff around between other stakeholders.

In fact, the overwhelming feature of this discussion is that people use it because they need to be fluent in Studio World.
Not because it's the best product.
As soon as any other product offers that fluency, Avid are DEAD.

Which is why they are rinsing you for everything you have right now.

I don't care about the 40 millions, or whatever.
I've had enough insight into major revenue accruing companies to know, that most of them got there because of timing, not because of acumen.

The amount of complete cowboys running multi-million pound businesses is insane.
Bringing in lots of money doesn't mean, I'm afraid, that you're not a complete ****ing idiot, and that you couldn't be a) doing things better, and b) have a chance of continuing long into the future.

But there really has been no lack of Pro Tools haters over the last two decades. All of whom have prophesied the death of Avid and Pro Tools, and all of whom have offered up really nothing more than condescension towards it's users. It is like some weird bid to suggestion that Avid's place in a lot of studios and facilities is based on nothing more than ignorance. It is ridiculous really, and possibly far more indicative of that individual's ignorance of Avid and Pro Tools than anything else.

When exactly should I expect something more efficient and fluent to hit the market? I mean, even the process of handing a project from video editor to sound becomes startlingly convoluted on most other platforms. FCP doesn't natively support OMF or AAF formats. It relies on substantially stripped down EDLs as an alternative, and an additional $150 application to blast out an OMF or AAF. Premiere Pro offers native AAF or OMF export, but for whatever reason it strips out the metadata and timecode from the audio. That means I still rely on EDL files for conforming, with another $500 for conformaliser or $650 for EdiLoad.

I can throw an Embedded AAF file from Media Composer into Pro Tools and conform all of the audio from location within a matter of minutes. The Field Recorder Workflow really is as elegant a feature as you will find. It would take a user of Studio One probably about a week to do it manually. Efficiencies matter. A lot. So much so, that they justify the higher initial investment because it works out cheaper in the long run. Far cheaper. Whether you like it or not, there is a correlation between efficiencies and quality of output. Every professional has time restraints, and tools that work in favour of their time allow for higher quality work to be completed in that time.

Anyone can arbitrarily declare the death of Avid when something better comes along. It is just absolutely meaningless. It isn't an alternative to working professionals, it isn't answers to questions about how Pro Tools users can better do their jobs. It is literally nothing more than a beef.
Old 5 days ago
  #242
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
I fully acknowledge that using the word 'dead' was extreme, but if the only reason that ProTools has that market is because of the fluency between professionals, as soon as they do not hold that position, then I think they will find themselves in real trouble.

Maybe not, who knows, but what you need to acknowledge is that a lot of the negativity towards ProTools comes form Protools users.

Do you really think the average home producer, pro or not, gives a **** about ProTools, and who does or doesn't use it?

We don't care.

There are no end of ProTools users on this site that would very much like to use their preferred platform outside of ProTools, but can't because then they lose that fluency.

You just went on one about video, but that in itself is a subset, and not representative of most ProTool users.
The games industry outranks the movie industry in terms of gross revenue, and the people producing music for games do not primarily use ProTools.
I'm happy to stand corrected on that, but last time I looked, Cubase was actually the preferred platform of choice for those producing music for games.

Sounds in Sync are a 3rd party developer for Avid, which means you are still paying for the Edi products, rolled into Avid's pricing (I think, but again, happy to be corrected there).

I'm not a ProTools hater, in fact I already said that of all the options available, if I wasn't using S1 (for sound mixing only), then I would choose to use ProTools.

You've basically just reinforced all my points, which is that ProTools maintains its position because of fluency, and because it works, but there are a lot of other products that 'work'.

The real point of debate here was about market share in real terms, and why ProTools is still a staple when in fact there are other products that are either as good as, or on the way to being better than, ProTools.

Fluency and familiarity are the only real weapons Avid has left, and if/when they lose those things, then I think you'll see a big shift away from it.

I'd be curious to see a poll though of how many professional users, if fluency was no longer an issue, would continue to use ProTools and Avid's hardware and pricing through choice, rather than being essentially forced to.
Old 5 days ago
  #243
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
The games industry outranks the movie industry in terms of gross revenue, and the people producing music for games do not primarily use ProTools.
Except the number of people in the game industry working on the audio portion of the game, is quite small.
Every single TV Show, Movie etc, has a large group of people all working on Pro-Tools, to get the sound done.
You have teams of sound designers, foley artists , Dialog editors, music editors, Mixers etc, all for a single show. ADR Studios throughout the world delivering ADR sessions.
Old 5 days ago
  #244
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
That's an interesting point, but it seems a bit demeaning to those working in that industry, and although the process may be more convoluted in film, and require more people, it's actually ore straightforward, because it's all linear.

Every single job description you mentioned exists in game development.

And a good triple A title can generate 10+ hours of unique content as opposed to a movie's typical 1.5 - 2 hours.

Game audio composers and engineers have to create dynamic scores on top of all the usual foley, dialogue and music stuff.

So to get all that done, with less people and less convolution in the process, and still be able to generate more revenue than the entire movie industry, I'd say we should be taking our hats off to them.

I don't know if you're much into games, but I've been lucky enough to have a computer in the house starting with a Vic 20, then a 64, then 128, then Amiga then onto Consoles then PC, and the evolution has been absolutely staggering.

The story telling, fx and sound puts a LOT of mainstream Hollywood movies to shame.

In terms of output though, when we factor TV in, then yeah you're right, that's a lot of people.

ProTools is probably too embedded in the industry to give way in the near future, admittedly, but I honestly don't think it'll last.

Products like Studio One are still in their infancy, and other players don't seem inclined to want to take Avid on at their own game, for now.


I guess only time will tell.
Old 5 days ago
  #245
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
That's an interesting point, but it seems a bit demeaning to those working in that industry, and although the process may be more convoluted in film, and require more people, it's actually ore straightforward, because it's all linear.
I said nothing about the quality of work.
So, I don't know why you think my post was demeaning.
Old 5 days ago
  #246
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
Urgh.
Yes demeaning was the wrong word.
It's 2.30am here and it's been a long day so I should probably not be trying to debate with people way above my pay grade right now
Old 5 days ago
  #247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
I fully acknowledge that using the word 'dead' was extreme, but if the only reason that ProTools has that market is because of the fluency between professionals, as soon as they do not hold that position, then I think they will find themselves in real trouble.

Maybe not, who knows, but what you need to acknowledge is that a lot of the negativity towards ProTools comes form Protools users.

Do you really think the average home producer, pro or not, gives a **** about ProTools, and who does or doesn't use it?

We don't care.

There are no end of ProTools users on this site that would very much like to use their preferred platform outside of ProTools, but can't because then they lose that fluency.

You just went on one about video, but that in itself is a subset, and not representative of most ProTool users.
The games industry outranks the movie industry in terms of gross revenue, and the people producing music for games do not primarily use ProTools.
I'm happy to stand corrected on that, but last time I looked, Cubase was actually the preferred platform of choice for those producing music for games.

Sounds in Sync are a 3rd party developer for Avid, which means you are still paying for the Edi products, rolled into Avid's pricing (I think, but again, happy to be corrected there).

I'm not a ProTools hater, in fact I already said that of all the options available, if I wasn't using S1 (for sound mixing only), then I would choose to use ProTools.

You've basically just reinforced all my points, which is that ProTools maintains its position because of fluency, and because it works, but there are a lot of other products that 'work'.

The real point of debate here was about market share in real terms, and why ProTools is still a staple when in fact there are other products that are either as good as, or on the way to being better than, ProTools.

Fluency and familiarity are the only real weapons Avid has left, and if/when they lose those things, then I think you'll see a big shift away from it.

I'd be curious to see a poll though of how many professional users, if fluency was no longer an issue, would continue to use ProTools and Avid's hardware and pricing through choice, rather than being essentially forced to.
But that is just more of the hyperbole I was talking about. A poll doesn't change anything. What changes the way people work is the availability of alternative tools that fit the bill. That is the answer you are entirely lacking. Without a viable alternative, you really have no point to make.

I have given you an example of one single feature in Pro Tools that I am using today that is making my life a dream. What is the alternative?
Old 5 days ago
  #248
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
Sorry, but it's not hyperbole?

It's a measured assessment. Whether you agree with it or not, that's something else.
I would posture that my response is more measured than yours.

As for your example, it's only a feature in ProTools because it is supplied to Avid by a third party developer.

As I understand it from your initial post, that 3rd party tool can be bought by anyone?
And Studio One for example supports both OMF and AAF (as of the last update).

You're saying there are no other suitable alternatives at the moment.

I'm saying that probably for the first time, we are seeing those alternatives on the horizon. That's all.
I don't know why this should be such an affront to you, only fanbois react like that.
Old 5 days ago
  #249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
Sorry, but it's not hyperbole?

It's a measured assessment. Whether you agree with it or not, that's something else.
I would posture that my response is more measured than yours.

As for your example, it's only a feature in ProTools because it is supplied to Avid by a third party developer.

As I understand it from your initial post, that 3rd party tool can be bought by anyone?
And Studio One for example supports both OMF and AAF (as of the last update).

You're saying there are no other suitable alternatives at the moment.
The Field Recorder Workflow is a feature within Pro Tools Ultimate. It was created by Avid, and is accessible by right clicking a channel name in the edit window. It has nothing to do with Sounds in Sync. They offer third party applications that serve a similar purpose, yet in a more convoluted fashion.

I haven't said there are no other suitable alternatives at the moment. I am asking you that question - What other DAWs offer that feature that I could use as an alternative to Pro Tools?

Quote:
I'm saying that probably for the first time, we are seeing those alternatives on the horizon. That's all.
I don't know why this should be such an affront to you, only fanbois react like that.
It isn't really an affront. It just seems like a bit of a conundrum. I really enjoy using Pro Tools, but it seems odd to call someone a fanboi for using it while suggesting that there are alternatives... that don't quite exist yet.
Old 5 days ago
  #250
Gear Nut
 

As John Belushi's character said to Pinto (Animal House) when asked why he chose that name... "Why not?"
Old 5 days ago
  #251
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
This isn't about being a "fanboi", this is about a real-life, industry wide used tool.
There is no incentive for an entire industry to switch platforms, with the associated costs, to save a pretty negligible Amount of money in the big picture.

LD, Resolve will synch dailies with a mouse click.
But it's far still from being a full fledged alternative.

Last edited by Henchman; 5 days ago at 04:22 PM..
Old 4 days ago
  #252
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
I will always admit when I'm wrong, and I have to say that I have underestimated the complexity of all the different ways that ProTools is used throughout different industries.

I misunderstood what LD was saying in that he doesn't need the Sounds in Sync products because that functionality already exists within ProTools.

They are a 3rd party developer for Avid so I assumed that their product was bundled in as it were with the cost included in the ProTools license fee/general revenue model.

This debate has been branching out into all kinds of interesting avenues, many of which I had never considered - for me the initial discussion was solely about the recording industry as relates to music only, but I can see there is a much bigger can of worms here.

But the point about an entire industry having to switch platforms en masse, and all to the same new platform, that's not really what this was about, I don't think?

It's more to do with people being able to use the platform of their choice, but still being able to move sessions between studios and stakeholders without it being a major PITA for everybody.

LDStudios - the thing here is that I believe we can all agree that there isn't a viable alternative right at this current moment.
I'm more interested to know, that if the major daws (let's say Cubase, Studio One, Logic, Reaper) were to implement tomorrow, those features that make that transfer process between studios so transparent, with free choice of hardware and only native computing power required, how many people would continue to use ProTools through choice?

I'm not here to see the end of ProTools, I'm genuinely curious.

For full disclosure, I do not like the kind of tactics employed by Apple and Avid where they require you to lock yourself into their ecosystems, so I'm more an enemy of those kinds of business methods than I am of the products themselves.

There seem to be a lot of voices out there that are simply saying, "what's all the fuss about ProTools", and the overwhelming response that comes back is that "if you want to work professionally, you have to have it".

That doesn't strike me as a userbase that are taken with a product on the merits of the product itself, you get me?
Old 4 days ago
  #253
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Why would Avid give away the user base that took them decades to build, to a competitor?
Old 4 days ago
  #254
Lives for gear
Maybe I'm missing something (not technical), but thru OMF files I can go from Mixbus to Pro Tools and probably vice versa. The real problem is plug ins and workflow. PT is an industry standard and I have told anyone looking to get in the industry, that's what you gotta know. No question hands down. If you're on your own you can use whatever you want, but if you deal with other studios PT is gonna save you time and money.
Old 4 days ago
  #255
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
But the point about an entire industry having to switch platforms en masse, and all to the same new platform, that's not really what this was about, I don't think?

It's more to do with people being able to use the platform of their choice, but still being able to move sessions between studios and stakeholders without it being a major PITA for everybody.

LDStudios - the thing here is that I believe we can all agree that there isn't a viable alternative right at this current moment.
I'm more interested to know, that if the major daws (let's say Cubase, Studio One, Logic, Reaper) were to implement tomorrow, those features that make that transfer process between studios so transparent, with free choice of hardware and only native computing power required, how many people would continue to use ProTools through choice?
Well, we also have to remember that while a compressor is a compressor is a compressor, we use them differently.... and EQs.... and routing etc.

So what ends up being a "problem" is that those who make a living off of a DAW end up not just learning most of their engineering skills in one DAW, but end up refining them in that DAW. So conversely studio and mix stage owners in some industries (post) face the problem of finding highly qualified skilled engineers with some track record on other software.

In other words, if you wanted to open up a studio for TV post you're more likely to be able to get high-quality post engineers that know Pro Tools rather than Nuendo. It has nothing to do with which DAW is better or a better bang-for-buck, it's just that most people in post use PT. So that's part of why some talk about an industry switching over, because for individual studios it's a problem finding good people relative to others.

You're not saving much money if you save $10,000 by choosing Nuendo when setting your studio up, and then you end up with engineers that in general take 50% longer time to do the job.

Again; I'm not dissing engineers or DAWs, just pointing out that with a larger pool of engineers you get a higher chance of getting the engineer you need.
Old 4 days ago
  #256
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
Why would Avid give away the user base that took them decades to build, to a competitor?
Is it theirs to give, or for others to take, though?
Old 4 days ago
  #257
Here for the gear
Pro Tools is a big target. I still use PT 8 LE and can get stuff done with it -- it was the first DAW I learned to work in (after bumbling about with Ardour in Linux). I have used Reaper too for a couple of projects which I think is friendlier with computer resources than PT. I've tried out Ableton Live and Cubase. Cubase is a tough nut (for me) to crack but I know there is a lot of potential there with MIDI editing capabilities.
Old 4 days ago
  #258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman View Post
This isn't about being a "fanboi", this is about a real-life, industry wide used tool.
There is no incentive for an entire industry to switch platforms, with the associated costs, to save a pretty negligible Amount of money in the big picture.

LD, Resolve will synch dailies with a mouse click.
But it's far still from being a full fledged alternative.


Thanks Henchman, I'll take a closer look at it. I assume it's the 'auto-sync based on waveform/timecode' functionality?

Blackmagic threw some really great bits in Resolve 15 that I kind of wish Pro Tools had. The ADR functionality, for one. Automation is also beautifully laid out and incredibly intuitive to use, though it doesn't quite seem to allow for the automation complexity of Pro Tools.

Other aspects are a little agitating to use. Being confined to a single combined timeline/mixer window when running a single monitor for example. It might be a Fairlight thing, I don't know. There seems to be a substantial lack of detail about the Fairlight aspects of Resolve at the moment. Even Fairlight related hardware that is being sold lacks any real details: Blackmagic Design Fairlight Audio Interface DV/RFL/AUDIF B&H

It will be interesting to see how far they take the Fairlight integration.
Old 4 days ago
  #259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
I will always admit when I'm wrong, and I have to say that I have underestimated the complexity of all the different ways that ProTools is used throughout different industries.

I misunderstood what LD was saying in that he doesn't need the Sounds in Sync products because that functionality already exists within ProTools.

They are a 3rd party developer for Avid so I assumed that their product was bundled in as it were with the cost included in the ProTools license fee/general revenue model.

This debate has been branching out into all kinds of interesting avenues, many of which I had never considered - for me the initial discussion was solely about the recording industry as relates to music only, but I can see there is a much bigger can of worms here.

But the point about an entire industry having to switch platforms en masse, and all to the same new platform, that's not really what this was about, I don't think?

It's more to do with people being able to use the platform of their choice, but still being able to move sessions between studios and stakeholders without it being a major PITA for everybody.

LDStudios - the thing here is that I believe we can all agree that there isn't a viable alternative right at this current moment.
I'm more interested to know, that if the major daws (let's say Cubase, Studio One, Logic, Reaper) were to implement tomorrow, those features that make that transfer process between studios so transparent, with free choice of hardware and only native computing power required, how many people would continue to use ProTools through choice?

I'm not here to see the end of ProTools, I'm genuinely curious.

For full disclosure, I do not like the kind of tactics employed by Apple and Avid where they require you to lock yourself into their ecosystems, so I'm more an enemy of those kinds of business methods than I am of the products themselves.

There seem to be a lot of voices out there that are simply saying, "what's all the fuss about ProTools", and the overwhelming response that comes back is that "if you want to work professionally, you have to have it".

That doesn't strike me as a userbase that are taken with a product on the merits of the product itself, you get me?

You may not fully understand what Pro Tools is, if that is the case. You may as well be asking questions like "how many Pro Tools users would move to Reaper, if Reaper offered a DSP based mix engine?", or "how many logic users would move to Studio One if Studio One included some surround mixing features?". It is entirely rhetorical.

Pro Tools has always been unpinned by hardware. It is part of the upside of the system. I can take a Reaper session from my laptop to my desktop session and reopen it exactly as I previously had it... but the performance of the system changes greatly. Different interfaces have different latencies. Different computers offer different track counts and session sizes.

A Pro Tools hardware system largely negates that as they are essentially a GUI controlled DSP based digital mixer. Throw in an S6 or D-Control and suddenly we are in an entirely different realm to anything Reaper, Studio One, Cubase or Logic offers. Pro Tools didn't get to where it is now based entirely on luck. It is a highly engineered, competent professional audio system.

I think the criticisms of Pro Tools have very little to do with people being forced to use it for whatever reason. Rather, it comes from people really wanting it... just at a greatly discounted price.
Old 4 days ago
  #260
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
I think the DSP argument is a weak one.
Those kinds of systems always evolve much more slowly than native systems so you're only at the cutting edge on the first day of buying really.
Then you're behind for years. You pay a massive premium for a system that will become long in the tooth pretty quickly compared to native, which a user can upgrade cheaply and easily, in a modular fashion.

Yes different people will have different systems, but anyone that's serious will have a rig that can run large projects at low latencies.

I agree that it's where it is because of its merits, and it was obviously created with skill.

But I believe you are way off with the envy card

Studio One development is like pulling teeth sometimes, but I still enjoy using it and it's a powerful program with some great tools, and my Console 1 and X Touch work really well with it.
The Mackie Control script in Studio One can be modified to get as much functionality as possible from the protocol, so I know Behringer is not really going to cut it with the juicy big control surfaces but it's a highly efficient controller that cuts down on mouse and keyboard time a lot.

The main unit of 8 plus 16 more channels with lcd strips is about £750.
Console 1 adds EQ/dynamic control and full integration for another 350 or so. (Console 1 hasn't taken off with PT users because PT is the only major daw it doesn't fully integrate with, and it's a deal breaker).
That's cheap as chips.
And you even get an SSL 4000E thrown in.
Those are the kinds of options we want and like, not being tied down to a DSP system.
UAD are feeling the pain as well when it comes to power, the business model demands that they get their moneys-worth from each generation, so progress is always painfully slow.

Point being really, that I like this DAW and aim to master it, and don't want to be pushed into having to invest in and learn another system, just because I work with another studio.

That's just madness to me. Shouldn't be necessary.
Old 4 days ago
  #261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
I think the DSP argument is a weak one.
Those kinds of systems always evolve much more slowly than native systems so you're only at the cutting edge on the first day of buying really.
Then you're behind for years. You pay a massive premium for a system that will become long in the tooth pretty quickly compared to native, which a user can upgrade cheaply and easily, in a modular fashion.

Yes different people will have different systems, but anyone that's serious will have a rig that can run large projects at low latencies.

I agree that it's where it is because of its merits, and it was obviously created with skill.

But I believe you are way off with the envy card

Studio One development is like pulling teeth sometimes, but I still enjoy using it and it's a powerful program with some great tools, and my Console 1 and X Touch work really well with it.
The Mackie Control script in Studio One can be modified to get as much functionality as possible from the protocol, so I know Behringer is not really going to cut it with the juicy big control surfaces but it's a highly efficient controller that cuts down on mouse and keyboard time a lot.

The main unit of 8 plus 16 more channels with lcd strips is about £750.
Console 1 adds EQ/dynamic control and full integration for another 350 or so. (Console 1 hasn't taken off with PT users because PT is the only major daw it doesn't fully integrate with, and it's a deal breaker).
That's cheap as chips.
And you even get an SSL 4000E thrown in.
Those are the kinds of options we want and like, not being tied down to a DSP system.
UAD are feeling the pain as well when it comes to power, the business model demands that they get their moneys-worth from each generation, so progress is always painfully slow.

Point being really, that I like this DAW and aim to master it, and don't want to be pushed into having to invest in and learn another system, just because I work with another studio.

That's just madness to me. Shouldn't be necessary.

You're clucking at some straws there, I think. If you could point out a native alternative to HDX/S6, or a HD6/D-Control setup, you may have a point. The latter is still one of the lowest latency systems in existence despite being well over a decade old. Nothing MCU/HUI/Console 1 comes close to doing what Digidesign/Avid control protocols offer. Nor does UAD offer DSP in any similar way to Pro Tools.

I'm not really sure what your point is, anymore. Use what you like. I don't think anyone really minds. Take care!
Old 4 days ago
  #262
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
I think the DSP argument is a weak one.
Those kinds of systems always evolve much more slowly than native systems so you're only at the cutting edge on the first day of buying really.
Then you're behind for years. You pay a massive premium for a system that will become long in the tooth pretty quickly compared to native, which a user can upgrade cheaply and easily, in a modular fashion.

Yes different people will have different systems, but anyone that's serious will have a rig that can run large projects at low latencies.

I agree that it's where it is because of its merits, and it was obviously created with skill.

But I believe you are way off with the envy card

Studio One development is like pulling teeth sometimes, but I still enjoy using it and it's a powerful program with some great tools, and my Console 1 and X Touch work really well with it.
The Mackie Control script in Studio One can be modified to get as much functionality as possible from the protocol, so I know Behringer is not really going to cut it with the juicy big control surfaces but it's a highly efficient controller that cuts down on mouse and keyboard time a lot.

The main unit of 8 plus 16 more channels with lcd strips is about £750.
Console 1 adds EQ/dynamic control and full integration for another 350 or so. (Console 1 hasn't taken off with PT users because PT is the only major daw it doesn't fully integrate with, and it's a deal breaker).
That's cheap as chips.
And you even get an SSL 4000E thrown in.
Those are the kinds of options we want and like, not being tied down to a DSP system.
UAD are feeling the pain as well when it comes to power, the business model demands that they get their moneys-worth from each generation, so progress is always painfully slow.

Point being really, that I like this DAW and aim to master it, and don't want to be pushed into having to invest in and learn another system, just because I work with another studio.

That's just madness to me. Shouldn't be necessary.
I bought PT 6 and an HD accel system in late 2002 for 15 grand - not including the G5 it ran on. It was a LOT of money back then, but I got ten solid years out of it, and practically zero latency - software upgrades went from version 6 to 7.3, some were free and everything worked without a hitch - TDM plugins were heads and shoulders above the rest back then, the (192) interfaces were great and everything ran on its own hardware - so a new computer wasn't necessary.

As a working professional, I more than got my money out of it, but in 2013, i decided to make a change. I'm now on 12.8 (with Ultimate on my account waiting for me to download) running HD Native on a 12 core Mac with an Omni Interface. Almost as stable, with a bit more latency, but with many more features, very few bugs and solid, "it just does its job" levels of reliability.

That last part is mostly what i care about, my ego and identity isn't wrapped up in which DAW I use - I choose what i feel is best for me, and have zero reason to make a switch - my running costs these days have gone down from my earlier TDM years as the subscription gives me tech support, and upgrades - at any time, i can go perpetual and skip a cycle or two.
Old 4 days ago
  #263
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
I think the DSP argument is a weak one.
Those kinds of systems always evolve much more slowly than native systems so you're only at the cutting edge on the first day of buying really.
Then you're behind for years. You pay a massive premium for a system that will become long in the tooth pretty quickly compared to native, which a user can upgrade cheaply and easily, in a modular fashion.

Yes different people will have different systems, but anyone that's serious will have a rig that can run large projects at low latencies.
"Serious" people and studios/stages will also want stable, predictable systems though. "Cutting edge" is pretty much anathema to that, native or not.

"So Mr. Abrams; the bad news is that the system is down so we'll have to iron out some kinks before we get back to mixing... hopefully later today at some point.... but the good news is that it's cutting edge native though..."


.
..
….
….

Come to think of it: Someone set Disney up with cutting edge systems pronto! Maybe we can kill off that new Star Wars abomination for good...
Old 4 days ago
  #264
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
Maybe I'm missing something (not technical), but thru OMF files I can go from Mixbus to Pro Tools and probably vice versa. The real problem is plug ins and workflow. PT is an industry standard and I have told anyone looking to get in the industry, that's what you gotta know. No question hands down. If you're on your own you can use whatever you want, but if you deal with other studios PT is gonna save you time and money.
Doesn't that problem exist still whenever you go from one system to another though? Couldn't they be missing the plug-in you used even if both machines have PT?

As an aside ---and this is not directed to you in particular--but I'm genuinely curious whether guys who are mentioning its unique features and how there's no real viable alternative to ProTools, are well- trained up on the current versions of Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar , FL Studio, and Samplitude/Sequoia, and found each of those to be lacking in some essential respect also? Even if we rule out newer DAWs like Studio One and Reaper for lacking this or that feature, each of the DAWs mentioned above has something like a 20 or 30 year history of having new features constantly added. So it's baffling to me to when people talk about a lack of realistic alternatives to ProTools in this day and age. Even Cubendo alone seem to do any and everything a guy could want.

Perhaps the features they have in mind are more to video or post prod (which I can't profess to know nothing about)? For standard music production, each DAW seems to have some little things the others don't until they steal the idea and incorporate it, but I still end up using only a fraction of the total number of features in the end. And with the newer ones like Studio One where there is as of yet some feature lacking, it's more a minor inconvenience than a real roadblock.

Maybe there's more to it though?

Either way, I don't see here's any reason to hate ProTools. The hardware/DSP advantage made total sense for years from a stability and performance standpoint. Hoping a 90's-era Cubase project full of plug-ins would not crash was like giving a toddler a loaded, cocked machinegun and hoping he doesn't start spraying the room with bullets. But once track freezing came along--especially re-callable, mulit-generation freezing for both tracks and busses like Samplitude has --CPU became a non-issue and stability vastly improved as a consequence. Then, once automatic version control like Studio One has came along one, it no longer mattered so much even if there was a crash while mixing; everything was constantly being saved in the background. It seemed like the old challenges with performance and stability had finally been answered.

Perhaps there are still other key features that keep drawing studios back into the PT fold?

Last edited by RedBaaron; 4 days ago at 07:06 AM..
Old 4 days ago
  #265
Gear Nut
 

When I started my current job back in 2006 they had an HD system based around PT7.3 with two HD196 units, an original control 24 (with the **** preamps), the synchronizer and midi interface. The people who installed the thing had it set up so you had no option but to record through the control 24. It made a U87 sound like the built in condenser on an old realistic cassette recorder.

It left a bad taste in my ears that continues to this day. I spent my own money to have some custom mogami snakes made to feed the 192s and when my job description changed to focus more on music production (heavy on the midi/orchestra stuff (LASS, etc. ) I just nixed the protools completely and used 8 channels of 192 with Cubase.

The system was well over 40k when we got it. We ended up recycling everything but the 196s which are currently gathering dust if anyone wants to buy them.
Old 4 days ago
  #266
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
I'm genuinely curious whether guys who are mentioning its unique features and how there's no real viable alternative to ProTools, are well- trained up on the current versions of Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar , FL Studio, and Samplitude/Sequoia, and found each of those to be lacking in some essential respect also?
Some are, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
it's baffling to me to when people talk about a lack of realistic alternatives to ProTools in this day and age. Even Cubendo alone seem to do any and everything a guy could want.

Perhaps the features they have in mind are more to video or post prod (which I can't profess to know nothing about)?
If you read Mark's ("Henchman") and my posts you see what some of us are saying, and it's indeed that for certain markets like post you need stability and predictability and you need to make sure you have a smooth flow of content across many different rooms and facilities. Sticking to one platform is a huge benefit. And then there's the topic of where the most money flows. Clearly an Avengers movie is going to spend a decent amount on audio, and so there's an entire ecosystem built around that market and it trickles down.

The tradeoffs between the DAWs become somewhat irrelevant because the increased costs for PT just aren't high enough to become an issue (or conversely you don't save enough by choosing Nuendo) for a lot of businesses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
Either way, I don't see here's any reason to hate ProTools.
I don't think there's a reason to hate any of the current popular bigger DAWs. We're getting insane features for very, very little money compared to a couple of decades ago. It's really astounding what we can do these days. And the companies all have their negatives as corporate entities as well. The grass might not be greener on the other side essentially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
Perhaps there are still other key features that keep drawing studios back into the PT fold?
In a lot of cases it's not the above but rather that there's no reason to take the risk and try something new because PT just works for that studio. Why switch?
Old 4 days ago
  #267
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
Doesn't that problem exist still whenever you go from one system to another though? Couldn't they be missing the plug-in you used even if both machines have PT?

As an aside ---and this is not directed to you in particular--but I'm genuinely curious whether guys who are mentioning its unique features and how there's no real viable alternative to ProTools, are well- trained up on the current versions of Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar , FL Studio, and Samplitude/Sequoia, and found each of those to be lacking in some essential respect also? Even if we rule out newer DAWs like Studio One and Reaper for lacking this or that feature, each of the DAWs mentioned above has something like a 20 or 30 year history of having new features constantly added. So it's baffling to me to when people talk about a lack of realistic alternatives to ProTools in this day and age. Even Cubendo alone seem to do any and everything a guy could want.

Perhaps the features they have in mind are more to video or post prod (which I can't profess to know nothing about)? For standard music production, each DAW seems to have some little things the others don't until they steal the idea and incorporate it, but I still end up using only a fraction of the total number of features in the end. And with the newer ones like Studio One where there is as of yet some feature lacking, it's more a minor inconvenience than a real roadblock.

Maybe there's more to it though?

Either way, I don't see here's any reason to hate ProTools. The hardware/DSP advantage made total sense for years from a stability and performance standpoint. Hoping a 90's-era Cubase project full of plug-ins would not crash was like giving a toddler a loaded, cocked machinegun and hoping he doesn't start spraying the room with bullets. But once track freezing came along--especially re-callable, mulit-generation freezing for both tracks and busses like Samplitude has --CPU became a non-issue and stability vastly improved as a consequence. Then, once automatic version control like Studio One has came along one, it no longer mattered so much even if there was a crash while mixing; everything was constantly being saved in the background. It seemed like the old challenges with performance and stability had finally been answered.

Perhaps there are still other key features that keep drawing studios back into the PT fold?
I am no tech guy, but yes plug ins is a huge area. PT has some that only work on PT and it's really hard to work around that. Pros are all about efficiency, and really on a certain level it's what you're familiar with. The guys I work with professionally are blindingly fast on the box. Need a new version recut, go have a cup of coffee, and the guy will have a half dozen recuts mixed to choose from. No one wants a science project and learning key commands and shortcuts can be a steep curve. Take your project across town to another studio, no worries. Unarchive a project from three years back, done! Not to say a guy using Logic couldn't do the same blindingly fast edit/mixing. I just haven't seen on a professional level (commercial television), people working in anything else, regardless of what they use outside work.
Old 4 days ago
  #268
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
...As an aside ---and this is not directed to you in particular--but I'm genuinely curious whether guys who are mentioning its unique features and how there's no real viable alternative to ProTools, are well- trained up on the current versions of Cubase/Nuendo, Sonar , FL Studio, and Samplitude/Sequoia, and found each of those to be lacking in some essential respect also?...
Why would a busy professional bother unless there was something significantly better about another platform according to many of their peers?
Old 4 days ago
  #269
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Why would a busy professional bother unless there was something significantly better about another platform according to many of their peers?
The two usual reasons for considering a jump apart from any significant differences in functionality are money and time.

Money - may be a non-issue if one has already invested in PT hardware or just makes enough that it doesn't really matter. But if in business for one's self, it's harder to justify the extra cost at some point. Sure, that is probably a more a compelling reason more for never using it to begin with than for older studios to switch. Even so, in time it should erode away at the "it's the standard" argument , even as that same argument continues to draw a small number other newcomers into the PT fold.

Time - I haven't used PT much (apart from a brief demo that was largely squandered by iLok hassles), but for basic audio production, it's fair to say that Studio One saves a lot of time over other DAWs like Samplitude,Sonar, Cubase and Reaper, not only with the simpler learning curve but actually doing things inside the project. Want to replicate the effects chain across several tracks? Select several tracks by holding shift (like we do in all non-DAW windows apps), drag and drop the effects chain from the source track. Just one minor example, but there a quite a few time-saving things like that in S1--enough to cause quite a few former PT users to jump ship within just a few hours of demoing it. One the other hand , others in Post Prod have mentioned specific things they like feature-wise that PT offers. So this one probably comes down to the type of work one does and subjective experiences more than anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
The tradeoffs between the DAWs become somewhat irrelevant because the increased costs for PT just aren't high enough to become an issue (or conversely you don't save enough by choosing Nuendo) for a lot of businesses.
This is a fair point. I kind of doubt whoever did the Avengers gives a rat's behind about the money they'd save.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
I am no tech guy, but yes plug ins is a huge area. PT has some that only work on PT and it's really hard to work around that. Pros are all about efficiency, and really on a certain level it's what you're familiar with.
As a Windows, non-PT user, I find the second reason to hold a bit more water than the first. I've only run into not being able to try a particular plug-in about half dozen times in about 20 years. With half of those, it was due to the developer just not having a Windows version in market yet. I can distinctly remember three occasions of wanting to try a PT-specific plug-in and being disappointed that I couldn't . One of those (Sansamp) had a .vst clone, and I had the hardware lying around anyhow. The other two had dozens of vst alternatives that by all accounts were superior anyhow.

Nowadays, any native plug-in manufacture that isn't contractually obligated to Avid is sooner or later going to realize that they are missing a huge segment of the market by not offering a .vst version. Sooner or later they (nearly) always do.

The hardware-accelarated DSP /TDM's are what they are. From what I've seen , that is all a dwindling market as computers continue to get faster and add more cores. I can see guys continue to use something like UAD or the Cranesong tape thing for ProTools on account of wanting a specific character, but as more and more worthy native alternatives pile up, I can't imagine why those would be such deal-breakers. Native plugs have pulled light years ahead in recent years.

More to the point: I don't quite get how the plug-ins approach of Pro-Tools (TDM or other wise) adds up to greater cross-studio compatibility? If you took a project uptown and all the plug-ins were there, wouldn't that just mean that the second place bought the same effects as the first? Couldn't that be the same if those effects all happen to work outside of ProTools also? If anything favors universality, I would think it's a standard like .vst that is usable inside all the DAWs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
... No one wants a science project and learning key commands and shortcuts can be a steep curve.
Presumably, if one uses something else outside of work, the learning curve has already been mastered for that program. But I agree that it's a pain to get there initially. It's one reason why, as much as I would like to jump in and dork out with Reaper, I can't help but get frustrated and go back to Studio One. It should be understood that not all DAW's are equally frustrating in this regard, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
Not to say a guy using Logic couldn't do the same blindingly fast edit/mixing. I just haven't seen on a professional level (commercial television), people working in anything else, regardless of what they use outside work.
This could possibly point to little more than the reality that Avid has so long held a foothold in the larger studios. Professional people are working it now, ironically, because professional people were already working in it when they started.

Of course , I don't mean to suggest that's the only reason anyone might be using it. But the "it's the standard" argument seems to be the one most frequently given. When pressed for details about any specific features that keep the engineer tethered to Avid, I hear the sound of crickets.

Which is why I appreciate the insightful and respectful explanations given here and elsewhere in this thread. I am posing the questions more of curiosity than anything. I don't think there's anything wrong with using PT; I just haven't quite been sold on it myself. I've been curious enough to consider the monthly rental plan ,but lacking in enough of an attention-span to actually make any jump from my current DAW.

Speaking of, time to get off here and start moving the Whisper room and desk. What a pain...

Last edited by RedBaaron; 3 days ago at 08:55 PM..
Old 3 days ago
  #270
Gear Addict
I believe that the "reason for all the hate" is simple animal nature-the top dog is always going to be challenged by contenders. We build stuff up only to tear it down. Way of the world, not really PT-centric.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
syra / The Moan Zone
44

Forum Jump
Forum Jump