The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Pro Tools Mastering Taboo
Old 14th January 2007
  #31
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb View Post
4. Adjust the track markers, pre-gaps, fades, & crossfades to taste.
Jerry,

How does this work in waveburner? If a client wants to try lots of different fades, spacings, possible crossfades etc, how does the waveburner workflow handle it? Does it have a powerful enough fade/crossfade editor? Do you leave "handles" on the PT files, and top & tail and do all the fades in waveburner? Just curious. I know some of my clients love to mess around with sequencing, assembly, and fades until the cows come home.
Old 14th January 2007
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
Jerry,

How does this work in waveburner? If a client wants to try lots of different fades, spacings, possible crossfades etc, how does the waveburner workflow handle it? Does it have a powerful enough fade/crossfade editor? Do you leave "handles" on the PT files, and top & tail and do all the fades in waveburner? Just curious. I know some of my clients love to mess around with sequencing, assembly, and fades until the cows come home.
Jay,

The easy way to make diff versions is to create a duplicate WB document of each version before rendering the image. In other words, assemble, edit, & save version 1, make a duplicate of that document (control-D in the finder), make the changes to the duplicate for v2, repeat for v3, etc... quick, easy, and non-destructive. When the cows do come home, then bounce the project image, and burn.

The editing can be done by dragging region "objects" around in the waveform area -or- by numerical editing.

The fade & crossfade features are very good... depends on the project, if it's pretty cut and dried I'll do the fades in PT. If it's a "concept" record with lots of cross fades, I'll leave handles & do it in WB for flexibility.

Of course you have to be careful when crossfading full scale material, & listen for clipping.

PT is a little smoother on fades, esp right at the point where they dissolve into black.

JT
Old 14th January 2007
  #33
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post

no 3/4 point editing
????
3/4 editing is where you mark two points from the paste region ie: where the audio is going to go, then you select the 3rd and 4th point for the copy region, and copy and paste it. It overwrites the region between the 1st and 2nd region and the audio lines up at the zero crossing.

This makes things easy when you don't like one part of the song and you want to take a better part and put it over it. It makes editing so fast without any nuging to try and line it up. it is called 3 or 4 point editing. Sonic does 4 point...

I mix in protools on my mac., but I use wave lab on my pc to do masterng and editing mostly because I am too cheap to buy additional plug-ins for my mac that I already had on my pc.
Old 14th January 2007
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Well put Jerry, I've been using Pro-Tools for mastering for 12 years now. I follow a similar workflow as you but use Sonic's PMCD at the end. My workflow is very fast with this system.

I've always heard how 'slow and cumberson' it is and how it's not a real mastering daw. None of the DAW's were mastering systems in the beginning. Not even Sonic or even Sadie they all started out as multitrack systems, Sonic was the first to specialize the mastering aspect as they helped develop the spec but when it came out it was touted as multitrack recorder/editor not a mastering system. We all needed to do 1630's back then, you want to talk about slow and cumberson.

Oh yeah and you use to not be able to use any other EQ then a Sontec for mastering and your compressors were limited to NTP's. Give me a break. Use the tools that work for you. Trust YOUR ears and know your tools.

As for restoration, I have the Weiss DNA-1 in here right now. Real time declick, decrackle, noise removal and ambient recovery. I know of no other faster process then that. Nothing to render or apply just use it like any other outboard box.

Regardless for not having a real mastering system I still seem to make my living in this business. 30+ years now of not using "real" equipment. You know I only had a Trident console and an MX80 when I ran a recording studio but back then you need an SSL and a Studer to be a real studio... and the beat goes on, and the beat goes on...
Old 14th January 2007
  #35
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
Processing in realtime allows for tremendous flexibility, depending on how you work of course. One example might be the ability to refine your processing incrementally as the record takes shape - say for instance if you load the entire record into the DAW and "preview" it throughout, bouncing from track to track, chorus to chorus, verse to verse listening to the record in it's entire context before commiting to any final capture.

Processing on an object also allows you to move that object from track to track with if need be with the process "following" the track all without having to commit to the settings until you want to.

From an ergonomic standpoint i find it irritating to have to have a track per song session when I assembling a record. This is a very typical set up in PT. In Sequoia I frequently have one or two stereo tracks and that is all I need [sometimes I have many more than that but you get the idea]. .
I work the same way in PT by using the write automation function. Simply load all of the songs to one track and automate any plugs (or routing) using snapshots. Additionally you can tweak any parameter of a plug-in at any point in the song using the draw automation feature (or recording automation in real time). Setup this way, I can jump to any point in the CD and hear the processing at that point in time (excluding any adjustments in the analog chain). One can also run a MIDI track to adjust MIDI-capable digital outboard devices like Weiss stuff. I use this to listen to the entire CD at once and when satisfied with the processing, then bounce down the songs individually for import to Waveburner in order to assemble and apply fades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
Anyway, in the end as long as you're getting the job done I guess it doesn't really matter.It's just personal preference.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever used a program with this kind of object/region feature? You might find it interesting.
I have. I've demoed Pyramix, Sequoia, Wavelab, Bias Peak, and own Sony Soundforge (mostly to create mp3 files). They are all great programs but seem to lack the routing and processing capabilities that I like to have for more complex processing. I'm sure that I'll be getting another program in addition to PT for mastering in the near future (very likely Soundblade or Sequoia) but neither will replace PT unless they can provide the same flexibility in processing that Pro Tools currently does.

Again my intent here isn't to say that PT is the best mastering DAW. I'm only saying that anyone who believes that PT doesn't have it's place in mastering is misinformed. There are processing options that simply aren't available in many of the standard mastering apps and as a result PT has some significant advantages over other apps for more complicated processing tasks. For run of the mill processing, it may be overkill, but is still nice to have in the tool shed.
Old 14th January 2007
  #36
If you think a little differently, ProTools can be a very powerful 'object' oriented platform. In cases where I want to use a similar analog path but different plugs, you can give each song it's own stereo track giving you 5 inserts (and all of it's automation) per song. Any processing done within the TDM environment puts very little load on the system.

I mastered a kids record recently and the external path didn't really need to change. Any track to track needs could easily be accommodated within software. In the end, the session looked like a staircase going downward as each song had it's own track and were placed in album order.

When I had finished assembling the timeline, I played the timeline out through a Weiss SFC2 and into soundBlade on a second Mac. If any touchups were needed, I could have done those within soundBlade's traditional object oriented capabilities.

I don't always master records this way but it worked well for this one! On more typical records, I work more song to song as I tend to lean on my analog gear for each song. Those masters are assembled in sB where any needed small tweaks can be made once the 'big picture' is put together.
Old 14th January 2007
  #37
Mastering Moderator
 
Riccardo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Guys, do you export the captured tracks or bounce to disk?
Where do you do your SRC?





p.s. we need more girls over here
Old 14th January 2007
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
I'm sure that I'll be getting another program in addition to PT for mastering in the near future (very likely Soundblade or Sequoia) but neither will replace PT unless they can provide the same flexibility in processing that Pro Tools currently provides.

Again my intent here isn't to say that PT is the best mastering DAW. Only that saying PT doesn't have it's place in mastering is misinformation. There are processing options that simply aren't available in many of the standard mastering apps and as a result PT has some significant advantages over other apps for more complicated processing tasks.
Very well put Tom.

Although I can use any DAW I want, I CHOOSE to use PT, I enjoy it's flexibility.

Currently using WaveBurner or Sonic PMCD to burn masters, will add SoundBlade on a Mac-Intel Pro on a third party audio i/o card as a fun ~option~ later this year.

Any taboos from PT's colorful past... are ancient history, no longer an issue, not worth discussing.

Cheers JT
Old 14th January 2007
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Masterer's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Like I said, it's personal preference. I'm not sure why some folks seem to get a little defensive about this. I've used PT AND Sequoia for about 4 years concurrently. Side by side everyday. I use Sequoia as my mastering platform out of personal preference. All of these platforms are powerful enough to find workarounds and exploit features in a way that makes your work life groovy. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a crap what anybody else uses. What I have works for me.

A little side note on the Sonic/Pro Tools thing. I was working at Sony Studios when the transition was being made from 1630 to DAW technology. Pro Tools and Sonic were the most popular and mature platforms available [at least on the Mac]. The reason that Sonic ended up dominating the mastering industry [there were a couple actually] was that it sounded better. Simple as that. The difference in price was huge. I'm sure the big wigs at Sony would have been thrilled if Pro Tools had sounded as good but it wasn't even close. Sonic was also first to implement higher bit depths if I remember correctly. In any case, that was then and this is now. Pro Tools ease of use, cheaper price and open architecture made it the ultimate winner in the ubiquity race, and now as a mature platform it sounds pretty damn good and works just fine.

In the end, Sontecs and NTP's or whatever, Pro Tools or Sequoia or whatever, it's what you do with it, not what you do it with.
Old 14th January 2007
  #40
Gear Addict
 
brethes's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
Like I said, it's personal preference... Pro Tools ease of use, cheaper price and open architecture made it the ultimate winner in the ubiquity race, and now as a mature platform it sounds pretty damn good and works just fine.

In the end, Sontecs and NTP's or whatever, Pro Tools or Sequoia or whatever, it's what you do with it, not what you do it with.
What he sayz. Chris rules. thumbsup
Old 14th January 2007
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
To be perfectly honest, I don't give a crap what anybody else uses. What I have works for me.
Ditto to that! ...well other than a littl natural curiosity.

The other playa in the early days' PT -vs- Sonic wars was Dyaxis.

Bernie used it for years iirc.

They both were reported to sound "better" than PT.

At some point (v5?) PT did a major rewrite and fixed their math problems.

But like I said, that's all ancient history now... yawn.

JT
Old 14th January 2007
  #42
Moderator
 
jayfrigo's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
Like I said, it's personal preference. I'm not sure why some folks seem to get a little defensive about this. I've used PT AND Sequoia for about 4 years concurrently. Side by side everyday.
Exactly. I've had Sonic ad PT side by side for longer than that. I use PT primarily as a source only (out to the chain through a Lavry), but the extra toys are in there if they help for a particular project. If you make a great sounding CD, I don't care if you used a DAE 3000 system. Doesn't mean everybody is going to start using your workflow, however; but who cares?

We have a PTHD rig in the mix room of course, and I don't hate the system at all; quite the contrary. And I wouldn't put most mastering systems up against it in a mix room. It does, however, lack certain important features for mastering, which is where something like Sonic PMCD is a great help. DAWs have become more specialized. It doesn't mean you can't do multiple things on the same system, but each tends to be optimized for a particular task, be it PT for mixing, Sonic for mastering, or Fairlight for post. Nothing wrong with a little focus if you ask me.
Old 15th January 2007
  #43
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayfrigo View Post
DAWs have become more specialized. It doesn't mean you can't do multiple things on the same system, but each tends to be optimized for a particular task, be it PT for mixing, Sonic for mastering, or Fairlight for post. Nothing wrong with a little focus if you ask me.
I'm wondering the future might be taking a slightly different direction than specialization. I see things like Sonic creating products like PMCD and nexStage, (and even Soundblade that uses non-Sonic hardware) as add on components to other systems, as well as Cube-Tec and t.c. electronic making their formerly proprietary tools available to systems like Pro Tools.

It would be cool to see a "virtual DAW" concept that would allow one to choose a best of breed from various component systems for their particular application and workflow. You could choose or create "templates" for mastering, stereo mixing, surround, post, etc. that could be customized further for your needs. Ok laugh, but similar things have happened in the computer industry with concepts like Java's virtual machine and Microsoft's .NET platform.

I think that people generally have a bad attitude toward Digi because they are proprietary with their software and hardware combination but ironically support the most plug-ins and component applications of any DAW that I know of. It is also a cross-platform solution. If you know Pro Tools on a Mac, you can use it just as easily on a PC. I would definitely like to see competing products from other companies that can do this as well from within one complete system rather than cobbling together multiple systems.

Chris, please don't take this as being defensive. I care about Digi about as much as they care about my business. I'm not a fan of Microsoft either but I use their products daily. They work very well, that's all.
Old 15th January 2007
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Masterer's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
.Chris, please don't take this as being defensive.....
It' all good.

Actually it was Larry's post that came off a little defensive to me. Seems like there have been threads or posts that have been dissmisive of PT as a mastering DAW in the past and some folks take it personally. All I've said in my posts is that there is no live processing on the object/region and no intergrated master burning features. This is not an opinion, it's a fact - a fact of no consequence to anyone that would not desire these features.

As I said before, to each his own and whatever floats your mastering boat. If you dig what you use and your clients dig what you do for them then who gives a crap what anybody else thinks [beyond curiosity - as Jerry said].
Old 15th January 2007
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Ben F's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I think it comes down mostly to workflow and what people feel comfortable with.

For mixing, ProTools TDM wins for me everytime. It's rock solid. I also like the sound for mixing and the flexibility of harware inserts. My only gripe is the audio waveform is not transparent like Logic and you can't see automation without switching views.

I used to use Sonic Solutions on OS9 for mastering and have moved to Sequoia. I've done some fairly intensive mixes on Sequoia as well, and actually preffered the sound over ProTools, but the workflow slowed me down so now ProTools is used for mixing and Sequoia for mastering.

Now that Mac OSX is dual boot I think many Mac users will give Sequoia another go.
Old 15th January 2007
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben F View Post
Now that Mac OSX is dual boot I think many Mac users will give Sequoia another go.
Or give Sonic's SoundBlade a try and stay native on OSX.

http://www.sonicstudio.com/products/...ndblade01.html

It hear it's getting more stable by the day.

JT
Old 15th January 2007
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Silvertone's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
It' all good.

Actually it was Larry's post that came off a little defensive to me. Seems like there have been threads or posts that have been dissmisive of PT as a mastering DAW in the past and some folks take it personally. All I've said in my posts is that there is no live processing on the object/region and no intergrated master burning features. This is not an opinion, it's a fact - a fact of no consequence to anyone that would not desire these features.

As I said before, to each his own and whatever floats your mastering boat. If you dig what you use and your clients dig what you do for them then who gives a crap what anybody else thinks [beyond curiosity - as Jerry said].
Chris, I was not trying come off as defensive really as that tends alienate people. Maybe the tone was a little defensive but I've heard this same **** for 30 years now. First in the world of recording then in mastering, I've never been one to tolerate the word 'can't" when it comes to this profession. Yes it is a technical field in many ways but it is also artistic one.

And yes, I've had to defend Pro-Tools all along while using it for mastering, even to some very knowledgeable people in the industry. It still blows my mind that I have to do that. Misinformation about the system abounds and people repeat what they hear. Just look at what the original post says.

In your last 2 post you basically repeated the point I was trying to get across. Use what works for you and as I've said all my life TRUST your own EARS.

Please tell Greg I said hello when you see him next.
Old 15th January 2007
  #48
Lives for gear
 
MattGray's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterer View Post
It' all good.

Actually it was Larry's post that came off a little defensive to me. Seems like there have been threads or posts that have been dissmisive of PT as a mastering DAW in the past and some folks take it personally.
Just speaking for myself (not Larry) but the only reason I feel obliged to defend Pro Tools in these types of discussions is when I see misinformation posted about it. (Not that you have posted any misinformation Chris so this is not aimed directly at you - I have much respect!).

It's clear that a lot of people have tried Pro Tools at one time or another for mastering or mixing & in the early days of d24, audiomedia III & Mix systems they have came across various problems so they've dismissed Pro Tools for those reasons. That's their choice which is fine but when these people post things today about problems that no longer exist with the current hardware/software or regurgitate myths that either aren't true or haven't been proven, then I feel it's worth while sharing what I know about Pro Tools as an end user to help shed some light on the subject. Not because I think my DAW is better then any of the other options, but to put the record straight so others don't believe all the misleading information that is associated with Pro Tools today. The fact is that the current crop of HD hardware & Pro Tools software makes it a very capable, professional system.

I'm aware of it's limitations for mastering, I've tested different aspects of the software thoruoghly, I've read all the Digidesign white papers & argued with some of the key coders from Digidesign, so I feel I am well informed of my decision to use the product. Unless people have used or tried the new hardware/software & know all the options availble, then I don't think they can speak with any real authority on the subject. As for whether you believe it's valid for mastering or only for mixing is really up to you to decide... But know ALL the facts & know how to use the software & hardware correctly before you dismiss it.

Matt
Old 15th January 2007
  #49
Lives for gear
 
Jerry Tubb's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Very well put guys, I agree with both Larry and Matt, good points.

I too felt the anti Pro Tools bias through the '90s, although most of that has dissolved in the new millennium. (my old 442 interface sits back in our shop, high on a shelf, in a place of honorable retirement)

The PT bias exists for various mixed, and sometimes convoluted reasons:

1. PT is viewed as the everyman's DAW, not "esoteric" enough for mastering.

2. PT HD requires expensive proprietary hardware, relegating folks on a budget to LE.

3. PT is the standard name brand, that competitors are gonna take shots at.

4. PT has been around for so long, it can refer to an old NuBus system, a new HD system, and anything in between... kinda confusing.

5. PT/Digi's marketing practices considered arrogant and elitist by some folks.

6. In the early days, Sonic and Dyaxis probably did sound better than PT, esp if any ITB processing was applied.

7. Studios get many "newbie" phone calls who ask if they have PT.

So it's a weird mix of bias, resentment, jealousy, and stigma, you name it.

Today, the truth is that PT sounds and works great for just about any audio task, other than burning disks.

JT
Old 15th January 2007
  #50
Lives for gear
 
Masterer's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
Chris, I was not trying come off as defensive really as that tends alienate people. Maybe the tone was a little defensive but I've heard this same **** for 30 years now. First in the world of recording then in mastering, I've never been one to tolerate the word 'can't" when it comes to this profession. Yes it is a technical field in many ways but it is also artistic one.
Yeah, I've always felt that it's more about the pilot than the plane.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertone View Post
Please tell Greg I said hello when you see him next.
You bet.
Old 15th January 2007
  #51
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Thanks Larry, Bob, Jerry, Tom, Matt and others! You have said what needs to be said.

Fortunately I remembered previous PT's posts and decided to bite my tongue and just wait to see what happened, thus avoiding an hour long reply to so much misinformation! Well done guys.

I bet between myself and the folks above, we have used PTs to produce over 20,000 masters. Just a rough guess and probably conservative. Logic dictates that if masters are regularly produced on a platform, then by definition it must be capable of being a mastering platform.

The reason I started using Pro Tools was that Silverbirch was originally a producer's studio (for me) and then a mix studio (to fill in down time). The main guy who mixed here (going back 15 years), was also interested in mastering and that's how I got interested, watching him. We went from the primitive audio media cards with Wave Shell setup and Sound Designer to early Pro Tools which was called Session Eight. Then it was Pro Tools 3 to MixPlus to HD. We always had a Mac and Digi made the upgrades affordable enough. I remember being really impressed with the jump from MixPlus to HD, a sonic jump that raised the platform to universal standards.

I learned to master "in a vacuum", ie, no mentors or communication with other mastering guys so there was no one to tell me that Pro Tools wasn't a mastering platform because it couldn't cut parts! 15 years ago there was very little written material on mastering. We used Masterlist CD until the advent of WaveBurner.

My current mastering template does everything I need it to do to efficiently process masters. This template was developed and refined by myself and few engineers that worked here. It bears very little resemblence to our mixer's working sessions! Since I have discovered the mastering web boards, I am having a great time assessing other ME's methods, ideas and equipment to see if they can be helpful to me. I jumped in just about time time I was upgrading my studio and gear so needless to say, its been an informative journey!

However, I not a diehard defender of the Pro Tools either as I am bothered by two "flaws" in the DAW and they are not being able to load multiple sample rates nor record back into the the DAW at a different SR.

I use PTs to play (after loading digitally) and record back in so I can dither just before output but not SRC. So if my mixes are at 96k, I will have to SRC with software afterwards before loading into my sequencer/CD writer.

I have been exploring different ways of becoming more efficient at my job and so I now have a desire to work out a system where I can monitor a 24b/96k mix to 16b/44.1k master-in-progress so I can hear exactly how it will end up. My tech guy has firgured out a way to do this in my Mac using our other sound card and Logic, just for recording back into the same computer. It seems, however, very unweildy and I am still too busy to devote a day to shaking out the bugs. Even if this works, I still am stuck with a DAW that only plays back one sample rate per session and while its not common to have mixes with multiple SRs, it does happen. I am trying to avoid getting a "record" computer as space is at a premium in my machine room and I would definitely have to use a monitor switcher, for the same reason. I do have a monitor switcher in the office and it works great so no hesitation on that.

So the above two items are really to only two limitations that will probably never be fixed by Digi. As for cutting parts, I've never been bothered by using another program to assemble a master. OK, once every two months we get a "concept" album with cross-fades and very occasionally the cross-fades go over zero in WB and causes nasty clipping. The remedy is to go back to PTs and either remaster the cross-fade or bounce to disc using the gain controls in PTs. If I were doing these kind of albums daily, I would have been inspired to look around a long time ago! If WB had one simple upgrade, adding multiple breakpoints within a region, that wouldn't even be a problem. I do own Sonic Studio's DDPv2 with does have multiple breakpoints but the original interface was not easy for me and so I really only use it when DDP output is required (and then I delegate that task to my assistant!).

I understand with Seqoia you can load audio with multiple sample rates and SRC back into the program if you have 2 cards installed in the same computer (someone correct me if I am wrong). When the Intel Macs can really run this program flawlessly, I'll probably give it a try. I'm sure I'll find something about Seqoia that doesn't work as well as PTs and then I'll be forced to make a different compromise if I keep it!
Old 22nd January 2007
  #52
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 

Verified Member
i can see how PT would be useful in a mastering situation as playback... especially if no ITB processing is used (the limited 24bit/32bit bus could be a problem) still even with daws that offer better resolution it is better to use a mastering daw for it...
i have used sonar for stems mastering using it's full 64bit resolution and 64bit processing plugins but even then i need to transfer it to wavelab for editing and i prefer to do all my PQ and cd assembly in cd architect.

i think each software has their specialty... and PT's is all about tracking and mixing.
Old 22nd January 2007
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by taturana View Post
i can see how PT would be useful in a mastering situation as playback... especially if no ITB processing is used (the limited 24bit/32bit bus could be a problem) still even with daws that offer better resolution it is better to use a mastering daw for it...
i have used sonar for stems mastering using it's full 64bit resolution and 64bit processing plugins but even then i need to transfer it to wavelab for editing and i prefer to do all my PQ and cd assembly in cd architect.

i think each software has their specialty... and PT's is all about tracking and mixing.
Gee, you have to wonder what is the point is of all these experienced PTs mastering guys responding to this sort of incorrect statements and theories.

Read the posts! There are many posts by working mastering engineers who use PTs successfully in their practice.

PTs with an HD system, in conjuction with any number of assembly/burning programs, and with a little extra thought given to the setup, is obviously a very workable, professional mastering DAW.

taturana, how can you make these kind of statements after reading testimonials by PTs mastering engineers? Please, use what ever program you think is best but your argument "PT's is all about tracking and mixing" is obviously ignorant and simply another attempt to perpetuate a myth. I've mastered using Pro Tools for most of my mastering career. I've never mixed! By reading various posts over the last couple of years, I've learned that PTs has its pros and cons, like any other program, and that there are other programs that may be worth checking out but the bottom line is that PTs works as a mastering platform for me and many others and there is no logic or philosophic viewpoint that can refute the working practices of MEs that use it.

After reading this thread, the only conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude is that since Pro Tools is used by many professional, full-time mastering engineers, it can be successfully used as a mastering platform.

I just couldn't leave this thread starting with a myth and ending with the same!
Old 22nd January 2007
  #54
Lives for gear
 
masteringhouse's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
I just couldn't leave this thread starting with a myth and ending with the same!
Andy, I don't think the myths will ever stop. I've seen Pro Tools being condemned for many things including the decline of the audio industry over the past 10 years.

I guess that some folks just need to blame the tools over their own skill sets.
Old 22nd January 2007
  #55
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masteringhouse View Post
I guess that some folks just need to blame the tools over their own skill sets.
So true...

I thought Sonar was a sequencer!!

Regards,
Bruce
Old 22nd January 2007
  #56
Gear Maniac
 
Top40Music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummer View Post
i think plenty of people use pt as a playback DAW in mastering. sometimes i get a pt session as a delivery format from a client, so it just makes things easier. pt definitely has its place.

that being said... if you really want a list....

no PQ editor (biggest reason)
no disc-burning/red book compliance
terrible fade editor (IMO)
hardware lock-in (would you use digidesign converters in mastering? not sure.)
no 3/4 point editing
crappy metering (IMO)
proprietary plug-in format/no VST
no built-in declicking
no non-destructive object editor/spot EQ capability
can't mix bit depths! (WHY?!)

for the cost of the cheapest protools TDM (or whatever they're calling it) you can get a more robust, dedicated mastering DAW.

these are my reasons, i'm sure there are more.
Which Dedicated mastering DAW would you Recommend . Please share .
Old 22nd January 2007
  #57
Gear Maniac
 
hummer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Top40Music View Post
Which Dedicated mastering DAW would you Recommend . Please share .
mac: soundBlade. it seems the bugs have been worked out.
pc: sequoia. includes the benefit of working in multitrack, among other great features. (dedicated mastering DAW in the sense that it includes a source/destination editor)

when i listed all of my problems with PT for mastering earlier in this thread, i didn't mean to start a fire (although i'm sure the fire would've started anyhow)

i DID preface my post saying that PT DOES have its place in mastering. just not for me.

here's my issue... the missing functionality of PT that you guys supplement with another app (wave burner/jam, etc) ..... i just can't imagine working with that type of bridge.

"i think each software has their specialty... and PT's is all about tracking and mixing."

i think i could get down with this statement, to some degree. i mean, honestly, PT is OPTIMIZED for tracking and mixing. while sonic is optimized for mastering. can you really argue with that?

any DAW can send audio out to processors and back. no one is arguing PT's ability to do THAT. but processing is only a small part of mastering! album presentation is really the name of the game (for me) and i prefer working on a platform that is intuitive to that task.

but that's just me! everyone has their own methods. and i have no doubt that many of you PT MEs could absolutely school me at my game!

but that wouldn't convince me.
Old 22nd January 2007
  #58
Gear Maniac
 
Top40Music's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hummer View Post
mac: soundBlade. it seems the bugs have been worked out.
pc: sequoia. includes the benefit of working in multitrack, among other great features. (dedicated mastering DAW in the sense that it includes a source/destination editor)

when i listed all of my problems with PT for mastering earlier in this thread, i didn't mean to start a fire (although i'm sure the fire would've started anyhow)

i DID preface my post saying that PT DOES have its place in mastering. just not for me.

here's my issue... the missing functionality of PT that you guys supplement with another app (wave burner/jam, etc) ..... i just can't imagine working with that type of bridge.

"i think each software has their specialty... and PT's is all about tracking and mixing."

i think i could get down with this statement, to some degree. i mean, honestly, PT is OPTIMIZED for tracking and mixing. while sonic is optimized for mastering. can you really argue with that?

any DAW can send audio out to processors and back. no one is arguing PT's ability to do THAT. but processing is only a small part of mastering! album presentation is really the name of the game (for me) and i prefer working on a platform that is intuitive to that task.

but that's just me! everyone has their own methods. and i have no doubt that many of you PT MEs could absolutely school me at my game!

but that wouldn't convince me.
Thanks Man .
Old 22nd January 2007
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I certainly think that with the prevalence of PT that it's starting to make sense as an additional digital transport to have in the studio so that you can directly open PT session files when these are provided by the client, and I've been thinking of getting an inexpensive LE interface for my studio for this purpose.

But I think the main thing about PT which makes it patently inferior mastering tool to me is the fact that PQ layout is not integrated at all with the audio editing and processing requiring a second application to set and tweak this. Having used a two app scenario similar to this a few years back (prior to the introduction of the JMS Audioware CSG for the DAW app I use, SAWStudio, which allows layout and editing of PQ directly in the app) I can say it simply does not allow for as quick of work flow or the ability to approach the album as holistically as having just one application for editing/additional processing/PQ creation does. To me this is a critical factor in getting the best results - but as always OMMV.

FWIW - I have a friend who has worked as an alpha tester for Digi for many years who does a fair bit of work as a mastering engineer himself, and when I asked him when Digi was going to add PQ creation and editing for PT he said "never" with a look of mild disgust on his face. When I further asked why they don't have interest in implementing what I would figure has to be a widely requested feature enhancement that would also most likely win them a large proportion of the mastering DAW market, he told me that Avid corporate doesn't want to invest in the coding hours over other additions they feel more users want. Possbily if enough people bug Digi this could change - although from the way my friend put it, it seems that most likely this will not happen for quite a while.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 22nd January 2007
  #60
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Krehm View Post
Gee, you have to wonder what is the point is of all these experienced PTs mastering guys responding to this sort of incorrect statements and theories.

Read the posts! There are many posts by working mastering engineers who use PTs successfully in their practice.

PTs with an HD system, in conjuction with any number of assembly/burning programs, and with a little extra thought given to the setup, is obviously a very workable, professional mastering DAW.

taturana, how can you make these kind of statements after reading testimonials by PTs mastering engineers? Please, use what ever program you think is best but your argument "PT's is all about tracking and mixing" is obviously ignorant and simply another attempt to perpetuate a myth. I've mastered using Pro Tools for most of my mastering career. I've never mixed! By reading various posts over the last couple of years, I've learned that PTs has its pros and cons, like any other program, and that there are other programs that may be worth checking out but the bottom line is that PTs works as a mastering platform for me and many others and there is no logic or philosophic viewpoint that can refute the working practices of MEs that use it.

After reading this thread, the only conclusion that a reasonable person can conclude is that since Pro Tools is used by many professional, full-time mastering engineers, it can be successfully used as a mastering platform.

I just couldn't leave this thread starting with a myth and ending with the same!

well, i stick to my arguments...
there are better dedicated software for that (sequoia, wavelab, etc...)

as far as my ignorance. how would you know? you are actually coming out as an ignorant and arrogant MF. please read my post again and tell me, where did i commit any ignorant mistake?
Quote:
Originally Posted by taturana
i can see how PT would be useful in a mastering situation as playback... especially if no ITB processing is used (the limited 24bit/32bit bus could be a problem) still even with daws that offer better resolution it is better to use a mastering daw for it...
i have used sonar for stems mastering using it's full 64bit resolution and 64bit processing plugins but even then i need to transfer it to wavelab for editing and i prefer to do all my PQ and cd assembly in cd architect.

i think each software has their specialty... and PT's is all about tracking and mixing.
the reason why i cited sonar as an example is that using Pt would be the same as using sonar as they are sequencer daws... mostly designed for tracking and mixing and not specifically designed for mastering... and even there sonar would have the edge since it has much better internal bit resolution than PT. and to be even more clear i don't believe in mastering ITB at all. and i definitely i wouldn't put my money into an ITB master.

but please let's not get too personal here.. fuuck
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