View Single Post
Old 26th March 2007
  #2
can of worms...

hello,

i've been avoiding this question because i know how much typing it's going to involve. first, for the record, i don't really hate pro tools as an editing tool, but i don't like the head aches it's created in my work environment. most of the time, it has not made anything more effecient for me. i don't like the way it sounds and i don't like the ergonomics. there's more...

tracks:
it used to be, you walk in the session and there were 48 tracks you had to deal with. there might have been times when the tape was crammed with instruments on every available space of tape. (eg: the sax track would be sharing the track with the bridge guitar and a tambo in the chorus.) but that was worst case scenario. when pro tools started creeeping it's claws in, the amount of tracks just kept getting more and more. it went from 48 tracks to 80 tracks in one year! it's getting back under control a bit now, but i think when it first came out, people just went mad and kept opening tracks just 'cause they could!

flow:
tell me if this sounds familiar. you get the files, you open the session, and suddenly "ERROR, blah, blah, blah!" or you open the session, BOOM, your computer crashes! or you open the session and..."MISSING FILES...blah, blah blah." shall i go on...no you get the point.

also everyone has their own way of organizing their tracks within pro tools. so if you've got 80 tracks or more, if the last engineer who worked on the session was not very organized, you could be spending a few hours just organizing the session.

latency:
have you ever reamped something out of pro tools and record it back in? sure you have. but then you decide you want to blend in some of the original sound with the new reamped sound. what happens? they start to phase! so you zoom in, and holy ****, the reamped track is playing slightly behind the original.

sorry, there's more...be right back