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
Avid circles the drain
Old 20th April 2014
  #451
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
Man for mixing no one needs HDX. No one. The only remote rationale for HDX is tracking live musicians making music.
I might be missing something but why is that remote rationale?
It's a biggie, isn't it?
The lower input buffer for both audiorecording and for VI:s in HDX is the one thing that could possibly make me upgrade at this point in time. On the fence about upgrading too, but that's a big one for anyone doing music surely?
We all know that under tdm it becomes impossible to do when the sessions get larger without time consuming and creativity-stifling workarounds like bouncing and consolidating tracks.
The only practical help: freeze track functionality, will also surely only make it to 11 and beyond?
I want avid to stop circling the drain and get on with it already. But the business stuff is very hard to get an informed idea about. Input buffer and freeze tracks is not.
Old 20th April 2014
  #452
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
Man for mixing no one needs HDX. No one. The only remote rationale for HDX is tracking live musicians making music. So if you find yourself mixing a Porsche spot, pay yourself $$$ by keeping the money you would have spent on HDX in your pocket. You might be able to buy a Porsche with it instead
In the music world you're likely right - but HDX is needed in mixing post, and that's where the money's gonna be for Avid, and where they are focussing their energy by the looks of it (especially with Media Composer being their 'other' flagship product).

OZ: The Great and Powerful mixed by The Dub Stage

With Dolby Atmos being a "thing" now mix sessions are going to get crazier and crazier on the highest of the high-end films.
Old 20th April 2014
  #453
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
What would you expect from a company that took until 2011 to incorporate 32-bit floating point and 2013 to incorporate 64-bit?
Pro Tools LE was always 32 bit float as far as I am aware. PT LE was introduced in 1999. TDM never had and never will have 32 bit float because the hardware can't do it.

Alistair
Old 20th April 2014
  #454
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

I think this thread is a good illustration how Avid basically split their consumer base into two categories, while trying to simplify the infrastructure of it's setup, only to complicate it again. Some really would like a native system and to me that makes sense. Some really would like a DSP based system and that makes sense. It's all about what you do and what you need to do that. Both make sense and both have potential downsides. Being a non HD user, I sway towards the native for many reasons but I can understand the other side.

I think this whole Avid Everywhere is a bit ironic. If I had one complaint with PT, it would be how it manages files. It's not hard, it's just clunky and outdated. So many other programs do this better. For a long time PT user, many may not think twice, I didn't either. Once I actually took a class on PT, a basic one at that, I realized how the average, non professional user struggles with how this all works. It's not an issue when you use your own computer and are unorganized, but once you need to move things around, it was kind of comical to see how high of a percentage of this class messed that up really quickly to the point their project was lost. Instead of this, combining the session with the session files would simplify a lot. Maybe I am not thinking about potential downsides as I am only considering my own environment but even if you combined the two, you could always keep the file folder but self contain everything in the session that you need. That would make sharing much easier so this whole sharing system doesn't intrigue me. Add to the fact I only use PT because the fact it's basically universal in my life, it doesn't do much. If anything, it likely will force me into another upgrade for those who don't want to deal with the old way. Maybe I am not seeing something here, I can admit that. I do think it's just about the last thing I would want from PT at the moment though. Then again, I have not upgraded to the latest either for a few reasons and I am not an HD user either, I don't need to be for what I do.
1
Share
Old 20th April 2014
  #455
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
Dude you're just flat out changing what you said. What part of "These workarounds just aren't acceptable in a high end environment" am I missing. Those were your words in regards to having to use a hardware version of AT. And your rationale for it boiled down to the fact that you couldn't save the presets. You can admit that you were wrong, but you can't parse those words. You said them, not me. I'm simply pointing out that I think it's a totally lame argument.

FWIW, I hate the term fanboy too. But it does have a definition we all agree on. As to whether I have an argument to make, I'll leave that to the other readers. IMO, you are the one with no real argument to make, just excuses.
I don't see what excuses I'm making, or what I'm making excuses for? I clearly have experience of what I'm talking about; you have the same I guess. Who are you to tell me my opinion is wrong? I'm not saying what's right for YOU; I'm saying why I'M not prepared to take a backward step. YOU have no leg to stand on to tell me what MY client wants!

I'm not changing what I said at all. I don't believe that a backwards step is acceptable in a professional environment. Personally I DON'T think that the whole hardware solution is as elegant a solution; again if it works for you, fine. I also haven't heard of anyone using it in years in the way you're suggesting; why would they? The TDM solution works fine, and as we both know every high end studio has a TDM rig at the current point in time.

I've worked with enough high end clients from the States in their trips over here in the past 2 years, and in the UK for 10 years prior to that, to know that it's no different there. I've never once had someone look surprised that I don't have hardware AT, or that

I know what my clients want, and what my bosses expect. If I go to the guy who signs off on my studio purchases, and say "look I want to spend this much, but it'll mean we're less flexible than before, and won't be able to do what some clients want" he'll look at me like I'm crazy. It's bad enough that I won't be able to run Waves as DSP plugins anymore. I'll need to make sure I've got decent tuning and gtr amp sim plugs in place before I approach this upgrade!

You may say I'm just making excuses; I say you're looking for arguments, or at least to be contrary. You can't seriously tell me that you think making yourself less flexible or less able to do what your client wants is a good thing in this industry? Aside from the guys who clearly have an axe to grind, there's at least as many guys who agree with me as with you.

None of which is really relevant to Avid's financial situation, other than to possibly put one reason for it across. Shall we get back on topic and ditch the little digs?
Old 20th April 2014
  #456
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by houser View Post
I might be missing something but why is that remote rationale?
It's a biggie, isn't it?
The lower input buffer for both audiorecording and for VI:s in HDX is the one thing that could possibly make me upgrade at this point in time. On the fence about upgrading too, but that's a big one for anyone doing music surely?
We all know that under tdm it becomes impossible to do when the sessions get larger without time consuming and creativity-stifling workarounds like bouncing and consolidating tracks.
The only practical help: freeze track functionality, will also surely only make it to 11 and beyond?
I want avid to stop circling the drain and get on with it already. But the business stuff is very hard to get an informed idea about. Input buffer and freeze tracks is not.
You don't need HDX. You could use a TDM rig if latency is the only issue.

Quote:
In the music world you're likely right - but HDX is needed in mixing post, and that's where the money's gonna be for Avid, and where they are focussing their energy by the looks of it (especially with Media Composer being their 'other' flagship product).
With a proper track freeze feature operating behind the scene, there's no mix that a 12-core CPU couldn't handle. None. There's probably no mix a 4-core couldn't handle. The reason is because no matter how big a mix is, you can only be changing so many plug-ins at one time. Even for huge film mixes, how many people can be mixing at one time and how many plug-ins can they be changing at one time? Answer: Not even close to enough to choke up modern CPUs.

The way the freeze feature works is that it just writes a file to disk with the plug-in effect printed to the audio in the background. Properly implemented, it would be completely unnoticeable to the user. It would also have at least one other benefit I can think of: it would make it so sessions are already archived properly such that one wouldn't need to worry about future compatibility of plug-ins to be able to open the session and play the mix back, print stems, etc. That would save massive amounts of time that could be put to productive use. Now that I'm thinking about it, it would make it so anyone could work at higher sample rates without fear of the higher sample rate plug-in processing over-taxing their system. For an Avid customer point of view, it's a no-brainer.

The problem for Avid is that the freeze feature would make it so that the one and only rationale for buying HDX then becomes the latency. That would cost them sales of HDX.

So here we are yet again. Waiting to find out of Avid will give users a very desirable feature, a feature other DAWs have, or withhold it to try and protect their card-based system. So far with regard to track freeze, they've chosen the latter. It's so irritating.
Old 20th April 2014
  #457
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I don't see what excuses I'm making, or what I'm making excuses for? I clearly have experience of what I'm talking about; you have the same I guess. Who are you to tell me my opinion is wrong? I'm not saying what's right for YOU; I'm saying why I'M not prepared to take a backward step. YOU have no leg to stand on to tell me what MY client wants!

I'm not changing what I said at all. I don't believe that a backwards step is acceptable in a professional environment. Personally I DON'T think that the whole hardware solution is as elegant a solution; again if it works for you, fine. I also haven't heard of anyone using it in years in the way you're suggesting; why would they? The TDM solution works fine, and as we both know every high end studio has a TDM rig at the current point in time.

I've worked with enough high end clients from the States in their trips over here in the past 2 years, and in the UK for 10 years prior to that, to know that it's no different there. I've never once had someone look surprised that I don't have hardware AT, or that

I know what my clients want, and what my bosses expect. If I go to the guy who signs off on my studio purchases, and say "look I want to spend this much, but it'll mean we're less flexible than before, and won't be able to do what some clients want" he'll look at me like I'm crazy. It's bad enough that I won't be able to run Waves as DSP plugins anymore. I'll need to make sure I've got decent tuning and gtr amp sim plugs in place before I approach this upgrade!

You may say I'm just making excuses; I say you're looking for arguments, or at least to be contrary. You can't seriously tell me that you think making yourself less flexible or less able to do what your client wants is a good thing in this industry? Aside from the guys who clearly have an axe to grind, there's at least as many guys who agree with me as with you.

None of which is really relevant to Avid's financial situation, other than to possibly put one reason for it across. Shall we get back on topic and ditch the little digs?
I shouldn't have said you were changing what you said. What you are doing is trying to shift the focus to be on the whole "backwards step" thing, when you clearly stated that having to use the hardware unit would be "an unacceptable workaround". The other dude then pressed you on why it would be unacceptable, or even a workaround at all. To which the only reason you could dig up was that you couldn't save the plug-ins settings. I think that is an extremely flimsy excuse to avoid admitting that he was right and comes across as a petty attempt to try and defend HDX at all cost. But that is what all the TDM/HDX fanboys do. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. Other readers can form their own.

I actually hadn't thought of the hardware solution for AT myself so I was pleasantly surprised when I read the post about it. I have never used it but it seems like a perfectly legit solution and a completely manageable workaround for artists that want to monitor through AT. One that if I walked into a room and that's what the studio had, I would use it and not complain. And neither would the artist because it wouldn't even come up. I can just see them in the booth, watching me engineer and thinking "he better be tweaking the settings on an outboard mic pre or compressor and NOT an Auto-tune box or I'm outta here!"

As far as Avid's future as a business goes at least with respect to Pro Tools, to me any discussion about it without discussing Pro Tools itself is meaningless.
Old 20th April 2014
  #458
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
You don't need HDX. You could use a TDM rig if latency is the only
Well,
Latency on input buffer seems vastly improved from tdm to HDX.
In my setup it makes a TDM session unusable when it becomes too large in terms of input buffer for live tracking and playing/recording VI:s.
And you do know that avid showed trackfreeze at NAB in the PT version used in the avid everywhere demo?
Just saying those two things will not be in TDM and are pretty serious reasons to upgrade. But I think I am missing something obvious in what is discussed here.
Old 20th April 2014
  #459
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by houser View Post
Well,
Latency on input buffer seems vastly improved from tdm to HDX.
In my setup it makes a TDM session unusable when it becomes too large in terms of input buffer for live tracking and playing/recording VI:s.
And you do know that avid showed trackfreeze at NAB in the PT version used in the avid everywhere demo?
Just saying those two things will not be in TDM and are pretty serious reasons to upgrade. But I think I am missing something obvious in what is discussed here.
Avid showed track freeze of a sort, but I have no idea how it will be implemented. If they make it a button that you always have to press without an option to have it work automatically behind the scenes, that would be lame. And going just by what I saw in the video, that is how they have it.

If they had a real track freeze feature, I wouldn't think you would have a problem using HD Native unless you wanted to record a whole bunch of tracks at the same time all with a whole bunch of different plug-ins on them. At 32 buffer the latency is fine. I use it all the time. The only time I can't use it and have to switch to the low latency monitor mode is when my session gets too big. And that wouldn't be a problem with a track freeze feature.
Old 20th April 2014
  #460
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
With a proper track freeze feature operating behind the scene, there's no mix that a 12-core CPU couldn't handle. None. There's probably no mix a 4-core couldn't handle. The reason is because no matter how big a mix is, you can only be changing so many plug-ins at one time. Even for huge film mixes, how many people can be mixing at one time and how many plug-ins can they be changing at one time? Answer: Not even close to enough to choke up modern CPUs.
The problem is that Freeze as it has been implemented in most DAWs so far is that it takes time. This is not acceptable in post. (It really is a different world to music production).

Quote:
The way the freeze feature works is that it just writes a file to disk with the plug-in effect printed to the audio in the background. Properly implemented, it would be completely unnoticeable to the user.
As far as I am aware the only DAW that does automatic background rendering is Digital Performer. I wish more did. It isn't exactly rocket surgery...

But see below.

Quote:
The problem for Avid is that the freeze feature would make it so that the one and only rationale for buying HDX then becomes the latency. That would cost them sales of HDX.
Indeed.

Quote:
So here we are yet again. Waiting to find out of Avid will give users a very desirable feature, a feature other DAWs have, or withhold it to try and protect their card-based system. So far with regard to track freeze, they've chosen the latter. It's so irritating.
Well it seems track Freeze at least is coming.

Alistair
Old 20th April 2014
  #461
Gear Maniac
 

BTW, just to be clear the only real problem I have with HDX is that its existence means I don't get features like track freeze for my Native rig. That directly screws me over, and screws over the thousands (millions?) of other non-HDX Pro Tools users. I dumped my TDM rig and got Native before they came out with HDX. When they did, I was like "oh great, here we go again" with the lame feature withholding and of course they're up to it again.

So I don't have track freeze, a key feature that would make my rig 100% perfect for my needs, all so Avid can try to force me to pay $$$$$ for an HDX rig I would otherwise have no need for. Why it is so hard for some people to acknowledge how lame and frustrating that is for a huge number of Pro Tools users? I have the money to buy HDX if I wanted. I won't on principle because it's SUCH a grand rip-off.

At least when I was lowering three $3500 TDM Accel cards into my G5 in 2002 and thinking "damn these are a ripoff" I had the mitigating euphoria of knowing I could do professional mixing ITB, and how hugely empowering that felt for my career. Now with HDX I would have no such justification. I would literally be thinking "I just paid $$$$$ for cards I don't need, cards that will cost me even more for an external chassis once Apple decides to change their card slot architecture (see the new Mac Pros), and cards that will eventually become doorstops once Avid decides they don't want to support them anymore so they can force me to buy the next generation of cards I don't need. All because Avid won't add a track freeze feature that would make the $$ I paid for a Native rig work just fine".

I freakin love Pro Tools but I hate Avid's business model. And I hated it even when I had the TDM rig and it was the state of the art. I thought it was totally lame of Avid to withhold key features like delay compensation from the folks who could only afford Mboxes and whatnot. Avid screwed those folks over for years.

So that's why I and many other users are bitter. It has nothing to do with simple jealousy or just player-hating on card-based PT users.

So to me it's simple: they can either stop doing that--all of it!--or go under. And at this point even if they DO stop doing it they still might eventually go under because so much damage has been done to the goodwill of non-TDM/HDX users. But it's the only shot they have now IMO.
Old 20th April 2014
  #462
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
I shouldn't have said you were changing what you said.
Well, there's something we agree on then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
What you are doing is trying to shift the focus to be on the whole "backwards step" thing, when you clearly stated that having to use the hardware unit would be "an unacceptable workaround".
It's unacceptable when you're used to a more flexible, quicker solution in every other competing solution. It's perfectly acceptable as a "get you through", or if it's the only way to do something. Context, my friend. Would you walk for 10 miles to get to work if you had the option to drive? It's acceptable if it's the only option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
The other dude then pressed you on why it would be unacceptable, or even a workaround at all. To which the only reason you could dig up was that you couldn't save the plug-ins settings.
That's one of the reasons. The others can be things like speed, or flexibility...but I don't know what you do, or if you'd understand why this might be the case. I know you've said you've worked in top studios..but do you do the sort of session where this is the norm? If not...try sitting in on one sometime, and see how quickly things move, and whether the hardware solution would be as quick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
I think that is an extremely flimsy excuse to avoid admitting that he was right and comes across as a petty attempt to try and defend HDX at all cost. But that is what all the TDM/HDX fanboys do. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. Other readers can form their own.
How can he possibly be right when he doesn't know my clients, or what they ask for? How can he possibly know what my clients ask for better than me?

Not for the first time, you haven't read what I've said. That's kind of insulting mate. I take great effort to explain things simply, and you've not even bothered reading it properly - then called me a "fanboy". Again.

My whole point of posting is that AT ISN'T YET AVAILABLE FOR HDX, and that's one of the reasons I'm not yet considering upgrading to it. How on earth do you interpret that as defending HDX, unless you've not bothered reading my posts?

And yes, we can form our own opinions. Unfortunately, you seem to be a tad hypocritical here - you seem to want to tell me that a random internet poster knows my clients better than I do, that I can't admit he's right - that in fact, I'm NOT allowed my own opinion. How do you explain that? I've said numerous times that it's not the only way, but that FOR ME this would be a backwards step.

The next time I have Rodney Jerkins in my studio, should I tell him he CAN'T track vocals the same way he does at every other room, and he has to use a hardware box to do what his team are used to doing in software?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
I actually hadn't thought of the hardware solution for AT myself so I was pleasantly surprised when I read the post about it. I have never used it but it seems like a perfectly legit solution and a completely manageable workaround for artists that want to monitor through AT.
Absolutely - if that's what you had to use. As a workaround, that's fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
One that if I walked into a room and that's what the studio had, I would use it and not complain.
Well - personally I'd have specced out the studio and only booked it if it met spec. But that's me. If everything broke and that's what we had to do, I'd cope. It just wouldn't be as fluid, and it would be a work-around. Which as I'm getting tired of saying, is fine in a given situation, but shouldn't be a default mode of working, if a better one is available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
And neither would the artist because it wouldn't even come up. I can just see them in the booth, watching me engineer and thinking "he better be tweaking the settings on an outboard mic pre or compressor and NOT an Auto-tune box or I'm outta here!"
I guess it depends. A lot of the artists I know are a lot more savvy than that. The producer would certainly know. And so might other engineers further down the line.

But again, that's not what I said that you seem to take such issue with. What I SAID was that I'm NOT going to pay to upgrade a system to something that works LESS WELL, and have to employ all these work arounds, just to be able to do what I could do fine before I upgraded.

In fact, if you had done me the courtesy and read my writing correctly, you'd find you didn't really have a point to make. If you followed your own maxim and allowed me an opinion on my own clients, then perhaps you'd also say "fair enough - you know best what works for you".

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
As far as Avid's future as a business goes at least with respect to Pro Tools, to me any discussion about it without discussing Pro Tools itself is meaningless.
Well, there's plenty of posts discussing working methods...all I initially said is that until the new system can do what the old one did in my situation, I'm not upgrading. that's about as much as the operation crosses into the financial situation for me. I've already upgraded one interface, and I'll be doing another shortly. If a few key plugins were AAX64, and a few more DSP as well, I'd do the full HDX upgrade.
Old 20th April 2014
  #463
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
The problem is that Freeze as it has been implemented in most DAWs so far is that it takes time. This is not acceptable in post. (It really is a different world to music production).
I worked in post. Believe me I'm painfully aware of the time factor. For short-form I can't see how it could ever be an issue. For long-form, there's still only a relatively small number of tracks that have continuous audio that would take a while to render. Also, there is typically lots of sub mixing going on in post to make it easier to print splits and whatnot, so while there can be lots of tracks there isn't necessarily so many plug-ins to deal with and most of the individual tracks feeding the submix consist of sporadic clips of dialog and FX. I actually think music mixing would be more of a challenge than post time-wise because in music you have potentially many more tracks with continuous audio. In post you're just dealing with the 2-mix of music. Anyway, I have a hard time believing a track freeze feature that was designed to work as well as possible would be too slow as long as it intelligently prioritized what it was rendering, used a buffer, and so on. Regardless, it would clearly be beneficial to a huge number of users.


Quote:
As far as I am aware the only DAW that does automatic background rendering is Digital Performer. I wish more did. It isn't exactly rocket surgery…
Exactly


Quote:
Well it seems track Freeze at least is coming.
It will depend entirely on how it's implemented. Based on Avid history I would bet real money that it's implemented in such that it won't work the way it should. Like they will lock out some features on frozen tracks to try and force you to buy the plug-in, not have it work automatically in the background, etc. But I would be very very happy to lose that bet!!
Old 20th April 2014
  #464
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Well, there's something we agree on then.



It's unacceptable when you're used to a more flexible, quicker solution in every other competing solution. It's perfectly acceptable as a "get you through", or if it's the only way to do something. Context, my friend. Would you walk for 10 miles to get to work if you had the option to drive? It's acceptable if it's the only option.



That's one of the reasons. The others can be things like speed, or flexibility...but I don't know what you do, or if you'd understand why this might be the case. I know you've said you've worked in top studios..but do you do the sort of session where this is the norm? If not...try sitting in on one sometime, and see how quickly things move, and whether the hardware solution would be as quick.



How can he possibly be right when he doesn't know my clients, or what they ask for? How can he possibly know what my clients ask for better than me?

Not for the first time, you haven't read what I've said. That's kind of insulting mate. I take great effort to explain things simply, and you've not even bothered reading it properly - then called me a "fanboy". Again.

My whole point of posting is that AT ISN'T YET AVAILABLE FOR HDX, and that's one of the reasons I'm not yet considering upgrading to it. How on earth do you interpret that as defending HDX, unless you've not bothered reading my posts?

And yes, we can form our own opinions. Unfortunately, you seem to be a tad hypocritical here - you seem to want to tell me that a random internet poster knows my clients better than I do, that I can't admit he's right - that in fact, I'm NOT allowed my own opinion. How do you explain that? I've said numerous times that it's not the only way, but that FOR ME this would be a backwards step.

The next time I have Rodney Jerkins in my studio, should I tell him he CAN'T track vocals the same way he does at every other room, and he has to use a hardware box to do what his team are used to doing in software?



Absolutely - if that's what you had to use. As a workaround, that's fine.



Well - personally I'd have specced out the studio and only booked it if it met spec. But that's me. If everything broke and that's what we had to do, I'd cope. It just wouldn't be as fluid, and it would be a work-around. Which as I'm getting tired of saying, is fine in a given situation, but shouldn't be a default mode of working, if a better one is available.



I guess it depends. A lot of the artists I know are a lot more savvy than that. The producer would certainly know. And so might other engineers further down the line.

But again, that's not what I said that you seem to take such issue with. What I SAID was that I'm NOT going to pay to upgrade a system to something that works LESS WELL, and have to employ all these work arounds, just to be able to do what I could do fine before I upgraded.

In fact, if you had done me the courtesy and read my writing correctly, you'd find you didn't really have a point to make. If you followed your own maxim and allowed me an opinion on my own clients, then perhaps you'd also say "fair enough - you know best what works for you".



Well, there's plenty of posts discussing working methods...all I initially said is that until the new system can do what the old one did in my situation, I'm not upgrading. that's about as much as the operation crosses into the financial situation for me. I've already upgraded one interface, and I'll be doing another shortly. If a few key plugins were AAX64, and a few more DSP as well, I'd do the full HDX upgrade.
Dude, we can get into a client name-dropping pissing match if you wanna go there. Personally, I would rather avoid it but I'm pretty sure I can hang with you…

I get that you aren't doing the upgrade to HDX from TDM and your rationale there. What I take issue with is that you said using a hardware version of AT for monitoring would be an unacceptable workaround in a high end environment and therefore why you need the card-based PT system. That was what the argument with him was about.

The rest is just you trying to change the subject. But we can leave it be man. We've both said our peace on the issue and the other readers can decide who has the better argument.
Old 20th April 2014
  #465
Gear Maniac
 

Imagine how cool and time-saving it would be if you could expose a frozen audio track as a playlist and copy and export from it, even on submixed aux tracks. Imagine how much faster sessions would load once all the tracks are rendered. You wouldn't have to wait for any plugins at all to load.
Old 20th April 2014
  #466
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
It's unacceptable when you're used to a more flexible, quicker solution in every other competing solution. It's perfectly acceptable as a "get you through", or if it's the only way to do something. Context, my friend. Would you walk for 10 miles to get to work if you had the option to drive? It's acceptable if it's the only option...

...What I SAID was that I'm NOT going to pay to upgrade a system to something that works LESS WELL, and have to employ all these work arounds, just to be able to do what I could do fine before I upgraded.
Exactly and that's how I read what you originally wrote. How some people misconstrued you to be an Avid fanboy is ridiculous. Upgrading to full blown HDX would be a downgrade at this point and that makes zero sense in business, which is exactly what you said.

It would be the equivalent of someone telling me to buy a $5,000+ reference speaker system and to get my control room redesigned as a workaround for not being able to use IK Multimedia ARC...the most important plugin for what I do. Or go back to a time where I had to check my mixes on 10 different systems to ensure they sounded good everywhere instead of the 3-4 that I do now because ARC works well.

I would never pay $10,000-15,000 or whatever and then not be able to use my #1 tool. How ridiculous...you're absolutely right that an Auto Tune stomp box is unacceptable when you are currently using something that works better for your needs. It's like buying a car that is slower, gets worse gas mileage and has less features than your current vehicle.

The cool thing about waiting for these guys to get everything ironed out is that more often than not prices drop. So by the time things are working as they should it's cheaper and you're not a company's unpaid beta tester.
Old 21st April 2014
  #467
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
Dude, we can get into a client name-dropping pissing match if you wanna go there. Personally, I would rather avoid it but I'm pretty sure I can hang with you…
I'm sure you can, and that you work in the same sort of environments. Which is why I kinda think you're arguing just for the sake of it.

I think if you want to argue for "the other side", you go and walk a mile in their shoes. Try doing the sort of pop session this is referring to in this way, try it my way, and then tell me it's a better method.

I'll ask again, you seemed to have missed it the first time - is this your usual type of client? Do you run these sessions regularly? If your "Laundry Room" studios is the website of the same name, I'm guessing not....if it isn't, who IS your usual style of client?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
I get that you aren't doing the upgrade to HDX from TDM and your rationale there. What I take issue with is that you said using a hardware version of AT for monitoring would be an unacceptable workaround in a high end environment and therefore why you need the card-based PT system. That was what the argument with him was about.
I think it IS unacceptable to anyone who's used to doing it the other way. When EVERY high end studio does it a simpler way...the "workaround" is less acceptable. As I've said, if I were in that situation, I'd get the job done using the "workaround"...and then book somewhere else more flexible next time.

But hey - prove me wrong. Find me a high end studio doing pop/RnB sessions for major label clients, not running a TDM rig, and instead listing hardware AT. I'll find you 10 that follow my lines of thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
The rest is just you trying to change the subject. But we can leave it be man. We've both said our peace on the issue and the other readers can decide who has the better argument.
I strongly resent this. I've never said anything other than what I believe, and I'm baffled as to why you think everyone else is entitled to an opinion on their own clients except me?!

The rest is you trying to twist my words into some sort of weird attack on anyone in a different circumstance, or some form of snobbery. Which I've gone to pains to avoid stating. I believe I've got enough of a "world view" of studios (several different continents, clients from all across the world) to know how to do some things the most efficient way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Exactly and that's how I read what you originally wrote. How some people misconstrued you to be an Avid fanboy is ridiculous. Upgrading to full blown HDX would be a downgrade at this point and that makes zero sense in business, which is exactly what you said.

It would be the equivalent of someone telling me to buy a $5,000+ reference speaker system and to get my control room redesigned as a workaround for not being able to use IK Multimedia ARC...the most important plugin for what I do. Or go back to a time where I had to check my mixes on 10 different systems to ensure they sounded good everywhere instead of the 3-4 that I do now because ARC works well.

I would never pay $10,000-15,000 or whatever and then not be able to use my #1 tool. How ridiculous...you're absolutely right that an Auto Tune stomp box is unacceptable when you are currently using something that works better for your needs. It's like buying a car that is slower, gets worse gas mileage and has less features than your current vehicle.

The cool thing about waiting for these guys to get everything ironed out is that more often than not prices drop. So by the time things are working as they should it's cheaper and you're not a company's unpaid beta tester.
Well doom, I'm glad what I'm writing isn't totally incomprehensible!

I'll defend Avid against people who don't understand how things work, or who plain get facts wrong. An ignorant opinion isn't something worth listening to. However, I won't defend anything I don't know to be true or a true matter of opinion.
2
Share
Old 21st April 2014
  #468
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

I get where KFunk is coming from but I feel like 50% of the argument is about the AT situation, which I brought up. I personally think a pre converter monitoring setup is not a big work around but I can see why it could be considered a "downgrade" in the situation. More so, if you have something that works, why change it. So what if there is difference of opinion, in all cases brought up, we would all be happy so it's not even an issue. I could do HW AT, where psycho_monkey doesn't want to, does that mean we my way of doing things/my needs mean that his way of doing things/his needs are unimportant? No, and I am sure he can deal with the work around with no issue, his point is that he has no reason to do so.

Sorry, I hate when a thread gets stuck on an issue that really isn't the crux of the matter but keeps going on and on. I, like many others following this thread really just hope to be secure with Avid in the future and that's why we are in this thread. I am a non HD user with a fraction of the investment but still would likely be going down with the sinking ship, even though I am not a fan of PT, until another "industry wide" solution surfaces. Just because I am not a huge fan doesn't mean the program isn't extremely useful, for me, I can do all I need to in it anyway. Like most, the biggest reason for using it is that it works well in the areas it works well in, and it's pretty convenient for the professional, semi professional, down to the hobbyist who will be moving their work to other places on a very regular basis.
Old 21st April 2014
  #469
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I'm sure you can, and that you work in the same sort of environments. Which is why I kinda think you're arguing just for the sake of it.

I think if you want to argue for "the other side", you go and walk a mile in their shoes. Try doing the sort of pop session this is referring to in this way, try it my way, and then tell me it's a better method.

I'll ask again, you seemed to have missed it the first time - is this your usual type of client? Do you run these sessions regularly? If your "Laundry Room" studios is the website of the same name, I'm guessing not....if it isn't, who IS your usual style of client?



I think it IS unacceptable to anyone who's used to doing it the other way. When EVERY high end studio does it a simpler way...the "workaround" is less acceptable. As I've said, if I were in that situation, I'd get the job done using the "workaround"...and then book somewhere else more flexible next time.

But hey - prove me wrong. Find me a high end studio doing pop/RnB sessions for major label clients, not running a TDM rig, and instead listing hardware AT. I'll find you 10 that follow my lines of thinking.



I strongly resent this. I've never said anything other than what I believe, and I'm baffled as to why you think everyone else is entitled to an opinion on their own clients except me?!

The rest is you trying to twist my words into some sort of weird attack on anyone in a different circumstance, or some form of snobbery. Which I've gone to pains to avoid stating. I believe I've got enough of a "world view" of studios (several different continents, clients from all across the world) to know how to do some things the most efficient way.



Well doom, I'm glad what I'm writing isn't totally incomprehensible!

I'll defend Avid against people who don't understand how things work, or who plain get facts wrong. An ignorant opinion isn't something worth listening to. However, I won't defend anything I don't know to be true or a true matter of opinion.
Sigh. Since you won't let it go, I'll try to explain it one more time then I'm done. Really, this has become thread-hijacking at this point.

You claimed that having to use a hardware version of AT would be an unacceptable workaround in a high end environment. I'm saying that if you work as much as you say you do then you must deal with workarounds that are more of a pain than having to plug up one extra piece of outboard and jotting down a couple settings. I know I certainly have. If that is the case, then IMO it's disingenuous of you to claim that using outboard AT represents a workaround that rises to the level of "unacceptable". If presented with the scenario in reality, you would accept it, deal with it and move on. You basically admitted already that you would when you said "As I've said, if I were in that situation, I'd get the job done using the 'workaround'".

I'm also claiming that having to use a hardware version of AT wouldn't be a deal breaker for any of the high end clients I've worked with, as long as ME, the engineer, handled my business properly with the workaround; and that even high end clients have to deal with workarounds. Do they like to? No. No one does. But they deal with it and move on.

I never claimed that having to use the hardware version of AT was preferrable, or that isn't a workaround. That's where you keep wanting to drag the conversation.

As far as whether high end studios use TDM, HDX, or Native for tracking , I never claimed that they use Native. But IMO that is a separate issue than the question of whether having to use a hardware version of AT would be unacceptable.

As far as my experience, when I lived in Los Angeles the studios I worked at most before I started mixing at my own studio were Paramount and Ameraycan. The owners of those studios have since acquired Encore, Enterprise, and Track Record. While the rest of the high end studios were folding up shop, they were expanding. The reason? They are ruthless at watching the bottom line and don't spend frivolously on gear. They have as high-end of clients as you can find, and they still expect the engineers to take workarounds in stride--workarounds that can be much more disruptive than having to patch up a hardware AT box.

And BTW, I suspected you could probably save the presets on the Tascam hardware box`with a MIDI sysex dump so I glanced at the manual and sure enough, you can save and load the presets onto a MIDI track. So there you go.

Honestly man, you admitted that you would just deal with the workaround if you had to, which by definition means you would accept it, so I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point.

Let's try and get back to the regularly scheduled programming. You can have the last word on the AT issue if you'd like, I try not to reply to it again.

Peace
Old 21st April 2014
  #470
Lives for gear
To my ears AT live with the humanize option is the best so far (native only). AT5 TDM was prone to "squrgles", the native version of AT5 was always better for tracking even in TDM/HD.. Once the sound of the voice is changed that much, latency is a non issue with a 128 buffer or below.

FWIW I've made enough off of tracking with AT to buy the average american house (and I'm 34), the *zing* of tube mics can throw off the pitch tracking for whatever reason, IMO the best mic for tracking with AT is a josephson C700A.
Old 21st April 2014
  #471
Lives for gear
What, if anything, is this latest discussion about? It just doesn't make sense! If someone is running a commercial studio or has their own place as a producer/engineer and they are genuinely earning their money from that (as opposed to playing at it) they are almost certain to have various versions of just about everything.

I can understand someone not bothering with HD-X right now, as it would involve too much hassle, as you will need an older version of PT up and running and ready to go, as well as other DAWs and possibly RADAR for tracking. If you were in business back in 2000, you will have to have bought the hardware version of Autotune (the proper one, not some stomp-box) and you will have bought the SW version as well later on.

I have never had any difficulties using a hardware AT or indeed any other hardware effect. Hardware, software, it's all the same, just another way to plug stuff in. It's either in the DAW or on the patchbay, but there really is no work-around to speak of.

The bottom line is, we do whatever the customer asks for.
Old 21st April 2014
  #472
Lives for gear
 

What I don't understand is the unfounded fears about chaos. Lets say worse case is PT is orphaned (which most agree is unlikely as even with bankruptcy the probable buyer would not be a PT competitor who would kill it) the only thing that would happen is current PT'ers would use their exiisting rigs as long as possible and that it would start taking an EQUAL amount of time to move around a PT project as it would a Cubase/Logic/Reaper/Samplitude/etc... project.

So many people forget that Recording Studios are in a billable hours industry. More hours, more money, more profit. Lawyers who are also in a billable hours industry embrace chaos and in fact create it and lobby for laws to create more of it (spend money to buy laws). Their working situtation is described as "a wall of molasses" as it's an ever changing chaotic enviroment of conflict which the Lawyer then takes advantage of with MORE BILLABLE HOURS. Sometimes an "industry standard" is not in your own self interests when efficiencies just result in clients pocketing all the benifits by just spending less. Working faster when the time savings mostly don't go into your pocket is actually counter productive (we can't make it up selling volume). It then just becomes a downward spiral of less hours worked for less money.

I'd say a pretty good case could be made that having an "industry standard DAW" is not really in the Recording Studio's best financial interests. As for Post you could probably make good arguments both ways regarding an "industry standard app". The real key is to have industry standards for OUR benifit which can be sourced from multiple vendors so no one vendor can control and profit at our expense from being in a monoply position (we know how well that works out with Avid's example and are you really happy with your cable company?). The trouble has been the current Recording industry is easily divided and conquered by others as we have have weak industry ties, thus no unified voice, thus no power.
1
Share
Old 21st April 2014
  #473
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
A good point.

Problem is, many businesses have had to go to flat rate projects (at least for SOME projects), and there, speed is of the essence. Depends on your business model.

People (DAW users) always complained about "real time bouncing" with PT, but I've probably made enough to buy a new (nice) car off of "real time" vs. the bicycle my competitors could afford with their fast bounces.
Old 21st April 2014
  #474
Gear Maniac
 

I hear you on the billable hours thing, but as drBill said, some people charge by the project. I mix almost exclusively and I charge by the mix so any time saved is money in my pocket. Plus, it's pointless to resist efficiencies that result in less time being taken, however you bill. As much as it sucks, as soon as one competitor adopts the more efficient workflow and passes the savings on to the client, pretty much everyone has to follow suit because the clients will eventually expect it. You obviously can't tell them you're going to do it slower to pad your billable hours. If the cumulative hours saved by the efficiencies are great enough and there's no offsetting increase in business demand, eventually it results in consolidation of the industry and some vendors exit the market. That's just the way it is. That is what's happened to the video post side, from what I've read. The software has increased efficiency to the point that it just takes much less work-hours than it used to so it's a shrinking business. It will never go away, but it could continue to get smaller.
Old 24th April 2014
  #475
I think Yamaha is a more viable candidate for purchasing Avid. While Yamaha does own Steinberg it could benefit from many of things found in both all pieces of Avid software as well as many of their pieces of hardware. Take for instance the S6. I think that was poorly executed. Essentially it is the Eucon stuff, which should have made configuring a mix desk less expensive, not more. Top that off with absolutely the worst customer service I've ever dealt with and you have a ship that cannot be righted. This is part of why I've held off on buying Pro-Tools. What happens if I purchase it and they end up just tanking and go bye-bye? No thanks. I'll wait until I need it for school.
Old 24th April 2014
  #476
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by munnin View Post
No thanks. I'll wait until I need it for school.
or until you need to make money.
Old 24th April 2014
  #477
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
or until you need to make money.
I just planned to sell my body if comes to that.
Old 24th April 2014
  #478
Lives for gear
 
ddageek's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by munnin View Post
I think Yamaha is a more viable candidate for purchasing Avid. While Yamaha does own Steinberg it could benefit from many of things found in both all pieces of Avid software as well as many of their pieces of hardware. Take for instance the S6. I think that was poorly executed. Essentially it is the Eucon stuff, which should have made configuring a mix desk less expensive, not more. Top that off with absolutely the worst customer service I've ever dealt with and you have a ship that cannot be righted. This is part of why I've held off on buying Pro-Tools. What happens if I purchase it and they end up just tanking and go bye-bye? No thanks. I'll wait until I need it for school.
The thing that won't fit with Yamaha, Avid is a video company!
Split the audio side away and you loose what makes Avid what it is the integration.
Also after their investment in Steinberg Yamahas not going to buy into The DAW Game again, AVIDS assets are worth to much.
I have said it before, when you look at those who could afford AVID, and where it fits, where it all fits, if you hate it now you should be very afraid, very, very Afraid.
Old 24th April 2014
  #479
Quote:
Originally Posted by munnin View Post
Take for instance the S6. I think that was poorly executed. Essentially it is the Eucon stuff, which should have made configuring a mix desk less expensive, not more.
now I've not USED the S6...but I have had a play with it at a trade show, and I went to the demo they had over here.

I don't think you've used it either though. The underlying technology and interface is very much part of the Venue family, and the processing is HDX - essentially the whole system is an HDX card in a bespoke computer, with a converter/mic pre box and a control surface. The only bit that's Eucon is the control surface - and even then, it's just in the way it talks to the brain. There's a whole load of more development that's gone on there. Of course it costs more than the sum of it's parts - that's the nature of a niche product (which everything in the music industry, particularly the high end, is).

Quote:
Originally Posted by munnin View Post
Top that off with absolutely the worst customer service I've ever dealt with and you have a ship that cannot be righted.
I've never had anything other than good customer service from Avid. Whether you like their ticket system or not...is up to the individual. I've had far far worse customer service from telecoms providers for example (Telstra I'm looking at you).

Quote:
Originally Posted by munnin View Post
This is part of why I've held off on buying Pro-Tools. What happens if I purchase it and they end up just tanking and go bye-bye? No thanks. I'll wait until I need it for school.
Well...rigs aren't going to stop working overnight. Hypothetically if PT ceased to be developed further, every mid-high studio would still be running an HD rig, and would continue to until forced to upgrade or a comparable system came along. I can't see that taking less than 5 years. Grads for the next 5 years are going to still need to know PT, and given that you can't teach session etiquette in a classroom, the main thing that's going to give a student an edge in the real world is knowing their tools backwards. PT being the primary one. Be able to troubleshoot a rig, know multiple ways of achieving the same end and you'll be ahead of most interns, who claim to "know PT, Logic, Reason, Live etc" and in reality can just about record and route a track in each.
Old 24th April 2014
  #480
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KFunk View Post
Man for mixing no one needs HDX. No one.
True but you don't need an airline ticket to get to Hawaii either.
But do you really want to stow away in jet wheel well to get there?
But if your needs are not being met with computer DSP your your going to need that extra kick. Some people mix @ 96K have HDX 2 plus a UAD Octo card and CPU maxes out easy.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump