The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Why Pro Tools?
Old 10th July 2005
  #61
Lives for gear
 
blackcatdigi's Avatar
A couple comments on this subject:

1. Why PT? To boil it down, they got there first and maintained their edge.

2. Why must I/you/we/them have PT? Depends on the nature of your business. If you produce, or whatever, then clients come to you simply for you. Use whatever you want.

If, OTOH, you sell time in a commercial room, when that phone rings and the first question is "Do you have ProTools?" you either have the right answer, or you backpedal the question. I prefer to have the right answer.

The only gear related question I've been asked in the past decade, over and over is: "Do you have ProTools?"

Yes.
Simple, innit?
Old 10th July 2005
  #62
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by zboy2854
I recently attempted to move away from the Pro Tools paradigm after being a user for many years. I tried to go with Nuendo, and really made an effort to learn and embrace the new setup, but much to my chagrin on the audio side of things, there were just too many features I found lacking or missing, and I couldn't understand why they weren't there in some shape or form. Things like no playlists, no track show/hide function, no draggable plugins from insert to insert, no Tab to Transient equivalent, no ability to drag two mono audio files onto a stereo track, etc.
wow, none of that is in Nuendo? i can see why that would be weird.
Old 10th July 2005
  #63
Lives for gear
 
Jamz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcatdigi
A couple comments on this subject:

1. Why PT? To boil it down, they got there first and maintained their edge.

2. Why must I/you/we/them have PT? Depends on the nature of your business. If you produce, or whatever, then clients come to you simply for you. Use whatever you want.

If, OTOH, you sell time in a commercial room, when that phone rings and the first question is "Do you have ProTools?" you either have the right answer, or you backpedal the question. I prefer to have the right answer.

The only gear related question I've been asked in the past decade, over and over is: "Do you have ProTools?"
Pretty much nails it. thumbsup
Old 10th July 2005
  #64
Lives for gear
 

If every studio used a different system, the industry would be a complete mess. Digi is the only one that has a proprietary system dependant on proprietary hardware. They also do rigorous testing. This means we can travel from studio to studio and know without question everything will open and work properly. There can only be one system for commercial use (since privately there's no reason not to use anything anyone wants) and Digi was there first and did things right. It's no better or worse than anything out there, but it certianly isn't because of their evil diobolical marketting. If nuendo had been there in the early days and had a compatibility setup (so everyone could adhere to the same hardware, etc) then they would probably be dominating the market and all the underdogs would be compllaining about how Stienberg is a big evil corporate whhore.
Old 10th July 2005
  #65
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84K
To solve this problem, Consolidate your fades (that way it does not have to draw them again when you open the session next time... highlight then hold down: command, shift and the number 3)
Not an option in post, where a client will always want tgo change things. Including where sfx and BG's fade in and out.
And it's post where it's a real pain. because those sessions tend to get rather large.
having realtime gades would be a huge plus. So thatw hen you have to change the fades on 32 tracks if bg's, you donm't sit there and wait for the fades to be drawn. You just do it, and play it back.
Old 10th July 2005
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyclueless
There can only be one system for commercial use
Nonsense.
It's evry easy to make programs cross-platfrom compatible.
Old 10th July 2005
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Jamz's Avatar
Just read a post here on Gearzlutz that is a good example of a common day to day scenario on the music side.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/37055-producing-rnb-message-thrillfactor-e-cue-other-rnb-headz.html
Old 10th July 2005
  #68
Gear Head
 

I come from the old school ( BTW I dont make a living at recording , being a waitress would be easier and make more money than half of the engineers I know !!!! Sorry guys )

PT has done an excellent job at becomming the McDonalds of recording , however the ability to transfer files from one system to another is easy in most cases ( I use Saw Studios and there is a cross system plug that will allow me to export in any format !! )

I just HATE the proprietary nature of PT I've been screwed so many times by that type of marketing that it KILLS ME !!!! , Anyhow the original ? was WHY

Well thats been well established here , I have found that with my 3K setup ( excluding outboard gear and Mic etc. ) works as well and is VERY fast ( no renders no bull , 8 seconds to load a 72 track song with 25 plugs etc and comps )

All running on Xp with NO crashes

PT is Alsihad IMO
dfegad
Later
Buzz
Old 10th July 2005
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamz
Just read a post here on Gearzlutz that is a good example of a common day to day scenario on the music side.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/37055-producing-rnb-message-thrillfactor-e-cue-other-rnb-headz.html
Which has nothing to do with this post.
Old 10th July 2005
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Jamz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman
Which has nothing to do with this post.
Really!?

"I currently have a PC based setup, and track in Cubase SX 3....
Here's what I'm thinking :...

3) A Mbox to "port" all my cubase files over to ProTools LE so that I can take it to a top notch local studio to do vocal tracking + mixdown. It seems my life would be a lot easier if I bounce all my individual tracks into Pro Tools at home rather than wasting time doing it at a studio."

To you this says nothing about a considered standard in a professional studio?
Old 10th July 2005
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamz
Really!?

"I currently have a PC based setup, and track in Cubase SX 3....
Here's what I'm thinking :...

3) A Mbox to "port" all my cubase files over to ProTools LE so that I can take it to a top notch local studio to do vocal tracking + mixdown. It seems my life would be a lot easier if I bounce all my individual tracks into Pro Tools at home rather than wasting time doing it at a studio."

To you this says nothing about a considered standard in a professional studio?
You're right. Iw as skimming thorugh the entire thread. But missed the M-box thing.

However, it takes about 2 minutes to import a whole selction of bouced files that start at the same point. We do it all the time with composers who use other programs to compose with.
Definitely don't need an M-box for that.
Old 10th July 2005
  #72
Gear Nut
 
audiomastermind's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrC:Drive
1)Its stable having had 15 years of development and investment
2) It sounds amazing despite what the luddite protools bashers say, particularly HD- it rocks
3)The editing is dreamy
4) It is widely used because it is good so it is transferable
5) There are cheaper native competitors that can run the plugins, but TDM allows maximum power to use first class plug-ins.

For audio recording, mixing and editing it has rightfuly established its place as a leader at the moment. things may change of course with increasing power of native systems!!

James

i agree,
at the end of 1992 i started working with pro-tools, a 442 system, with 3 nubuscards, 2 x 4 tracks, with an "a/rose" file in the systemfolder.
i now work with an hd3 system en still like it very much, good tuned-it is solid
i am not gonna change
brgds
philip
Old 10th July 2005
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Jamz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henchman
You're right. Iw as skimming thorugh the entire thread. But missed the M-box thing.

However, it takes about 2 minutes to import a whole selction of bouced files that start at the same point. We do it all the time with composers who use other programs to compose with.
Definitely don't need an M-box for that.
Agreed. Very common process.
My point wasn't so much about the Mbox but rather more an indication of his desire to be in PT format in order to conform to a "top notch local studio".
Old 11th July 2005
  #74
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikebuzz
I come from the old school ( BTW I dont make a living at recording , being a waitress would be easier and make more money than half of the engineers I know !!!! Sorry guys )
not sure what market you're in but my PT HD3 rig pays for itself every 3-4 weeks.
Old 11th July 2005
  #75
Gear Head
 

from studio owner's point of view, PT is reasonable step. But for all others (composers, producers etc.) it's pretty overvalued bunch of hardware/software.

All this can be acomplished with Logic/UAD/Powercore etc for fraction of the price.

Logic has certainly longer reputation than Digidesign (I use Logic more than 17 years), and with a good AD it's IMHO best tool for producers/arrangers/songwriters. Latey, all best PT plugs can be used on Logic native platform (thus PT have lost single most important advantage). I asked Sony Oxford if there is any difference in quality between PT and Powercore version of their plugs. Man said 'No'. I then asked why so much difference in price for same product, he said 'marketing' (read: PT users are willing to pay more). Well, if main PT advantage lies in mktg domain, I am not sure about future of all this PT hype. Majority of chips for such devices are built in Shenzhen zone, China - for low low price. So, why this unrealistic price tag?

Sooner or later somebody (Apple/Logic?) will come with killer hard/soft combo that will seize large chunk of this market. This is not hard to acomplish (not as hard as for example analogue console development). It is a matter of powerful custom-built chips and hi-end software (software/plugs are there already). Add to that DAW-based Liquid Audio per channel (thanks to new raw power) and picture will be complete.

I still don't understand why somebody is willing to pay so much for an old Protools Mix card. Powercore beats Mix hands down, and costs half the price.
Old 11th July 2005
  #76
Moderator
 
toolskid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagg
from studio owner's point of view, PT is reasonable step. But for all others (composers, producers etc.) it's pretty overvalued bunch of hardware/software.

All this can be acomplished with Logic/UAD/Powercore etc for fraction of the price.

Logic has certainly longer reputation than Digidesign (I use Logic more than 17 years), and with a good AD it's IMHO best tool for producers/arrangers/songwriters. Latey, all best PT plugs can be used on Logic native platform (thus PT have lost single most important advantage). I asked Sony Oxford if there is any difference in quality between PT and Powercore version of their plugs. Man said 'No'. I then asked why so much difference in price for same product, he said 'marketing' (read: PT users are willing to pay more). Well, if main PT advantage lies in mktg domain, I am not sure about future of all this PT hype. Majority of chips for such devices are built in Shenzhen zone, China - for low low price. So, why this unrealistic price tag?

Sooner or later somebody (Apple/Logic?) will come with killer hard/soft combo that will seize large chunk of this market. This is not hard to acomplish (not as hard as for example analogue console development). It is a matter of powerful custom-built chips and hi-end software (software/plugs are there already). Add to that DAW-based Liquid Audio per channel (thanks to new raw power) and picture will be complete.

I still don't understand why somebody is willing to pay so much for an old Protools Mix card. Powercore beats Mix hands down, and costs half the price.

its kinda a one word answer:

editing/workflow (see I said 'kinda' )

when you're under the stare of an artist paying over £10,000 a day for two rooms four PT operators (on 19 hour shifts), two mix engineers and the hire gear, speed and stability is what they demand (quality obviously does not even need to mentioned). This is kinda a pointless discussion as people are very rooted in their preference of DAW, BUT I really don't have any allegience to DIGI, I regularly use other DAWs as long as there is no audio editing involved etc etc..

I'd honestly be delighted to be recording with great players straight to tape, but its rarely the case, especially with the extreme levels of data and sonic manipulation that certain electronic artists demand. PT is the only DAW I've found that has the architecture to achieve this RAPIDLY.

I'm also not saying its the be all and end all, theres LOADS of grumbles I have with tools, it just does the important stuff right or at least well enough to get me through the sessions I have!

Ah whatever, I'm waffling and probably not really answering the intial question posed in this thread properly
Old 11th July 2005
  #77
Deleted bd1be4f
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagg
I still don't understand why somebody is willing to pay so much for an old Protools Mix card. Powercore beats Mix hands down, and costs half the price.
The mistake you're making is that a Mix card doesn't just process plugins like the Powercore, it also handles latency problems with recording, not to mention the ability to monitor plugins and sends on a live track you're recording. Yes, you can do these things in the native world, but it usually entails stopping workflow to change buffer settings, or using a form of direct monitoring, where your live signal is re-routed from the converter input to the output, in which case you can't monitor plugins on your live signal.

Again, the pain with that is that you can't put on, let's say, a reverb or delay send on the live track if you're cutting a vocalist (unless of course you're using an external console and outboard gear, but that's a whole other story). Yes, you could lower your buffers to achieve this in the native world, but what if you find yourself needing to do some tracking after you've got most of your mix done, with all your plugins going? You try to lower your buffers so you can record the new track with low latency while monitoring a little reverb or delay, and boom, the system stops because the lower buffer size has taken away the power you need to still run all the plugins you've got going from your mix. I know, because this happened to me during my forays into the native world.

Yes, UAD and Powercore cards can help in this scenario, but ultimately the one thing MIX or HD cards provide that still have a leg up is alleviating problems with recording latency, where you don't have to worry about changing any settings or configurations back and forth. Just record enable the track, add plugins or effect sends if you want to monitor those and go. And in my experience, when you find yourself working on a major project where you don't want to have to think about those things, you just want everything to work without having to change settings, it makes a difference.
Old 11th July 2005
  #78
Lives for gear
Depending on the computer and interfaces....you can probably get a bare bones HD1 going for about 12k. Native with an 002R, maybe 4.2K assuming buying a mid G5. TDM doesn't need as much juice from the computer.

You don't need the digi Midi....we use an M audio 4 port on the TDM. 002 has midi.

You can use a UAD card with LE. Not sure about the PowerCore, but I think its runs.

The Command 8 is roughly the same cost as a Mackie surface, and is better integrated.. I have 2, they work very well on both systems.
Old 11th July 2005
  #79
Lives for gear
What Z said is totally true about the session environment.

Frankly, the lack of latency issues is almost worth the price. Experienced artists and producers simply do not want to hear the excuses and the eplanation. they come out of the world of 2" and they expect the stuff to work as well. Yes there are ways around it, and I've used them all. But the most refreshing experience for me was NOT having to think about it.

Here's something......try to punch in a whole band on another system. on PTHD its is simple, non destructive, almost foolproof. Band plays along, you punch. Maybe move a few edit points....done.

On a native system....latency hell.

So you say...big deal, I don't do that, or I play a new pice and edit. Well, I get asked to do it a lot, and it saves a ton of time over editing it all together. That, and many similar scenarios make PTHD the way to go, if your needs require it.
Old 11th July 2005
  #80
Gear Nut
 
sphereman's Avatar
 

Try working on a 12 song album for 3 months and going between ProTools and Nuendo about a dozen times. Then let us know what you think of cross platform compatability.

Back in the day we all used 2" 24 trk for the basically the same reason.
Old 11th July 2005
  #81
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steffmo
What Z said is totally true about the session environment.

Frankly, the lack of latency issues is almost worth the price. Experienced artists and producers simply do not want to hear the excuses and the eplanation. they come out of the world of 2" and they expect the stuff to work as well. Yes there are ways around it, and I've used them all. But the most refreshing experience for me was NOT having to think about it.

Here's something......try to punch in a whole band on another system. on PTHD its is simple, non destructive, almost foolproof. Band plays along, you punch. Maybe move a few edit points....done.

On a native system....latency hell.

So you say...big deal, I don't do that, or I play a new pice and edit. Well, I get asked to do it a lot, and it saves a ton of time over editing it all together. That, and many similar scenarios make PTHD the way to go, if your needs require it.
i work like this all the time as well and PTHD is seemless. is this workflow (w/o latency) possible in the native land yet? anyone?
Old 11th July 2005
  #82
Lives for gear
 

Really 0 latency? Damn...

Honestly I didn't know that about PT.

Quote:
i work like this all the time as well and PTHD is seemless. is this workflow (w/o latency) possible in the native land yet? anyone
I don't know about anyone else here but I have to run at least 6ms with Nuendo if I am punching in multiple tracks.
But to be honest, 6ms doesn't stunt my workflow personally. Even 12ms is good with me usually.
Old 11th July 2005
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Henchman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew
i work like this all the time as well and PTHD is seemless. is this workflow (w/o latency) possible in the native land yet? anyone?
Funny. We do just that with Nuendo.
Recording full bands. Punching in and out across multiple trscks.
Old 11th July 2005
  #84
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
with plugins?
Old 11th July 2005
  #85
Deleted bd1be4f
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney Gene
Really 0 latency? Damn...

Honestly I didn't know that about PT.
No, let's be clear. There is no true 0 latency system when your signal has to pass twice through a set of converters, plus the DSP on the card. But in the PT environment the latency is small enough so that it is never heard.

Doing multitrack punches on a native system like Nuendo works fine, but again, you have to be mindful of your settings. For instance, if you have Direct Monitoring enabled, you won't need to worry about latency, but you also won't be able to monitor plugins or effect sends on the live signals. If you've already got a mix going with lots of plugins, you'll probably want to enable the "Constrain Delay Compensation" button, and if you want to monitor effects and plugs on the live signals you've got to turn off Direct Monitoring and lower your buffers, and then nervously hope the system stays in record without choking with all the plugins running.

The whole point being, the PT environment is idiot-proof in these regards, you simply never have to think about these things, or remember which settings are which or how they should be set during recording. It makes enough of a difference, at least for me with workflow and, probably most importantly, peace of mind.
Old 11th July 2005
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Jamz's Avatar
BTW I believe Drew's post:
"is this workflow (w/o latency) possible in the native land yet? anyone?"

means without latency not 0 latency. I also interpret that as without appreciable latency as there is always a small amount. Having proprietary cards as TDM systems have does take a load off of the computer. Native systems including PT LE have to be a bit more concerned with large track counts, sample rate and plug-ins.
Old 11th July 2005
  #87
Lives for gear
 
mtstudios@charter's Avatar
 

If you were given a Protools rig for free

Hypothetical

If I were given a Protools rig for free.
I would most likely use it as a main system, unless I feared learning a new application. If I owned Protools and was given Nuendo, Logic, DP ect. (which I own), I would still use Protools. I believe it is a cost issue.

PT LE (comparable in price) does not have the track count you get in the other apps, therefore, operators choose Nuendo, Logic, Cubase, DP.

www.bluethumbproductions.com
Old 11th July 2005
  #88
Gear Head
 

to be clear, PT certainly has its strengths and it is really decent system. However, I think it is overpriced i.e. its advantages aren't worth that much anymore.

For example, new RME AD-DA native cards have 1,5ms latency and recording/punching works excellently. I do not believe any system, be it PT or native can have less than 1,5ms latency, taking into account present state of technology.

Re. effects during recording I am not sure is it possible in Logic (I think it is, but you cannot record with effects). However, this is minor and temporary disadvantage.

Conclusion may be, difference between different systems is narrowing, so PT prices should and probably will go down. I mean, what kind of improvement PT can offer from now on? 192Khz option is more than is needed. Only improvement could be raw power raising and software improvement. But power and soft improvement will go up on all systems.

Powercore now sells between USD 500.- and 1,100.-, in a year we will probably see doubling its power, selling for same price. Besides, TC Electronics is audio company with very good reputation and more experience in hi class audio processing than Digidesign. Thus, there will be no reason to pay for same power in PT six to eight+ times more (if we compare Sony Oxford plugs as reference, HD card has cca. 20% more raw power than Powercore MKII).

Remember Ensoniq Paris DAW. It was excellent (and pretty expensive) system, but in a year or so it went out of business, and is almost worthless now- but it is still good sounding DAW.
Old 12th July 2005
  #89
There is only one
 
alphajerk's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Hypothetical

If I were given a Protools rig for free.
I would most likely use it as a main system, unless I feared learning a new application. If I owned Protools and was given Nuendo, Logic, DP ect. (which I own), I would still use Protools. I believe it is a cost issue.

PT LE (comparable in price) does not have the track count you get in the other apps, therefore, operators choose Nuendo, Logic, Cubase, DP.

www.bluethumbproductions.com

if i were given PT for FREE, and i had DP. i would use DP in DAE mode. i like the application more.
Old 12th July 2005
  #90
Gear Maniac
 

For me and my setup I use cubase SX3, but i know my way around Pro Tools, i have a Mbox - useful for opening pro tools files and from there I can convert them to audi and continue the session. Ideally I would like Digidesign to release a Pro Tools LE system that had 16 chans of adat and a track count of 48 - 64 chans. Then I could happily work in both cubase/pro tools environments when reqd.

Looking at the bigger picture I cant see Digi's closed system dominating for too much longer - especially at the prices they command. Pro Tools great strength is that it is all intergrated into one seemless package. Native systems have made big leaps and bounds in the last 12-24 months and price to performance ratio there will be a point where the price of a new pro tools rig wont be worth it compared to a native rig. Many have argued that we have reached that point now but what I think is holding back native systems is less to do with raw power but a intergrated package like pro tools. Apple/Logic and Yamaha/Steinberg are two companies that have the potential to do this and more importantly the financial muscle. Yamaha's success in the digital console market makes it a prime candiate to sell a complete "audio solution" like pro tools.
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