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 26th February 2014
  #31
Lives for gear
 
cinealta's Avatar
 

They were also myopic not to see the power and freedom of native processing long ago. Too little, too late.
Old 26th February 2014
  #32
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikG View Post
#3 You do know that TDM was only a real time solution, there was no way to create a offline bounce with the old code? It just was not possible. Wishing that it was didn't make it any more possible.
It could/can have been done in the native version of PT just like unlimited PDC and unlimited track count is/was possible. The only reason for not doing it is because Avid didn't want to anger their TDM customers (and don't want to anger their HDX customers by allowing unlimited I/O, track count PDC etc in current native versions of PT). Avid tried to protect their tiny little niche market product but in doing so guaranteed their failure in the much vaster native market. That to me seems like a bad business decision. They are basically putting all their eggs in a basket that won't even exist in a decade... (Not least because they chose old DSP chips to base their HDX platform on. Another bad decision considering the alternatives available).

People that buy TDM/HDX systems do it for the ultra-low latency realtime monitoring feature. Nothing else. If they need that feature then that's that. No need to cripple the native version to keep the TDM/HDX users happy. It is a strong arms tactic to try and force people to pay for hardware that they do not need. (If they want to sell more hardware, make it better than the competition at a competitive price. Another thing Avid can't seem to manage when it comes to audio interfaces).

Quote:
Also The libraries used to build the code didn't exist in 64bit so a 64bit engine in TDM was impossible.
Every DAW maker had the same problem yet most made the switch much earlier. Cakewalk had a fully 64 bit DAW at the end of 1994. That is 8 years before Avid? A lifetime in the IT world.

Quote:
#4 RTAS was made on very old code that it wasn't possible to rebuild into a 64bit format. Should they have chosen to use VST instead, perhaps but that is not the AVID way.
I am not sure whether RTAS was impossible to rebuild in 64 bit or not. That could just be Avid's excuse but I do understand them wanting to rewrite the plugin format from scratch. RTAS was an old pile of inefficient poo. Another important consideration was making it easier for developers to write plugins that could be ported to the HDX hardware.

I also understand Avid not wanting to adopt the plugin format from their main competitor (and true DAW market leader) for business reasons and because they have no control over the quality of the plugins available (and the resulting instability issues this can cause). So agreed on the need for a new plugin format.

Quote:
So of your five fails only three have any merit what so ever.
I don't mind you bashing AVID a bit, they clearly deserve it at the moment. I choose to not use PT when ever possible. But using ill informed arguments just make your argumentative position weaker.
No need for the facepalm. Only one of the points was not really valid.

Alistair
Old 26th February 2014
  #33
Lives for gear
 

Well, they were in a hard spot. You've read from our bickering that they had some very real limitations with the TDM stuff, on the other hand, though, for tracking of large numbers of tracks then the HD platform was (and is) still superior. So they had a pretty uncertain way forward.

But they really bungled their approach to native systems, there's no doubt about that, and they completely dropped the ball on the market that would find its needs met by native solutions. I've said it for years, at any but the HD level, Pro Tools is overly expensive crippleware. How was that going to fly?
Old 26th February 2014
  #34
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinealta View Post
They were also myopic not to see the power and freedom of native processing long ago. Too little, too late.
And clearly still are as they still needlessly cripple their native software.

Alistair
Old 26th February 2014
  #35
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
When it comes to professional audio tools such as Pro Tools and Media Composer, one must ask themselves: Is this version good enough?

I mean, people didn't keep upgrading their consoles and tape recording machines back in the day "just because" new versions were out. What is the return on investment? That's what matters the most.

With Media Composer it's a matter of "can this support my video format?" As newer codecs are released you need to upgrade. Unless you stick with "old" formats along with operating systems and then you don't need to upgrade. Obsoleting software by not allowing it to work on old operating systems is a huge money maker. And vice-versa.

I don't know about you guys but I run my machines into the ground. I don't like playing that obsolete game. I don't own a smart phone and my car has over 200,000 miles on it.

With audio there's even less need for upgrading. Does this tool mix audio competently? OK then, there's no reason to buy the update.
2
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #36
Lives for gear
 

As said, I don't mind the bashing sorry about the face palm. But I have been told from sources I trust that the technical difficulties I stated was the way it was.
OTOH do I think they should have started to change technology earlier? Of course.
And I fully agree with the general criticism of the created limitations implemented to try to avoid devaluing their less than stellar hardware.
There are many reasons why avid isn't making money and Steinberg apparently is.
Old 26th February 2014
  #37
Lives for gear
 

It seems like people are criticizing me for complaining about the new plug in format. There must be some merit to it, I can think of things that Avid could have done- like letting the native software run the VST format, and not the HDX. This might have strengthened Avid's position in the native market a bit, at the very least, people could simply have gone 64 bit natively knowing they weren't going to lose any time waiting for plug ins to be updated. They could have reserved the new format for the new HD format, or something. "The ultimate in stability" or something.

I don't know. It doesn't matter, really. I'll still stick by my point that no one was crying out for another format, that since RTS was old and had some serious limitations then why did they stick with it for so long instead of adopting a more modern plug in format and so forth. I mean, they could have adopted RTS and gone 64 bit natively years before they did, but again, like we've established, they were content to simply hope that the name "Pro Tools" would make them a contender in the prosumer market rather than their products themselves. This can't work.

But for anyone saying there was nothing they could have done, I don't think that's correct. There was nothing they did do, they just didn't see the value. Really, they moved away from their core competency at great expense.
1
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #38
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
With audio there's even less need for upgrading. Does this tool mix audio competently? OK then, there's no reason to buy the update.
It is great that you can still use your old setup but for many a TDM system is not good enough. To run my music projects I would need a HDX2 system just for the track count yet I can run them absolutely fine in Cubase running natively on my PC. (As far as track count is concerned, Cubase and all other native DAWs as far as I am aware outperform any HDX system. The same applies to I/O count).

Likewise for anyone working with large sample libraries, 32 bit DAWs are just not good enough.

And as far as performance is concerned, for mixing, where low-latency isn't important, TDM also wasn't good enough any more. Any native DAW running on a powerful enough computer will outperform even a HD6 system (and that includes RTAS plugins as they are so inefficient).

Also in the world of post (and any other fast turnaround market) workflow improvements and anything that speeds up production is essential.

Alistair
2
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #39
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
(Not least because they chose old DSP chips to base their HDX platform on. Another bad decision considering the alternatives available).

Alistair
I respect your opinion in a major way so I'm curious as to what the alternative DSP chips would have been back in 2011? Performance wise vs. the ones Avid went with?
Old 26th February 2014
  #40
Lives for gear
 

I'd be interested in knowing that also. Although I think you might say that there's little reason to think that any DSP chip can compete with the eight and sixteen core powerhouses that are native processing these days.
Old 26th February 2014
  #41
Gear Addict
 
ThunderShepherd's Avatar
 

AAX was a huge mess.

they should have let developers in on it much earlier to avoid long waits for updates. heck i'm still waiting on Slate and UAD AAX versions and PT11 came out nearly a year ago.

and why not allow wrappers? i don't care if it means I can't use offline bounce
Old 26th February 2014
  #42
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
It is great that you can still use your old setup but for many a TDM system is not good enough. To run my music projects I would need a HDX2 system just for the track count yet I can run them absolutely fine in Cubase running natively on my PC. (As far as track count is concerned, Cubase and all other native DAWs as far as I am aware outperform any HDX system. The same applies to I/O count).

Likewise for anyone working with large sample libraries, 32 bit DAWs are just not good enough.

And as far as performance is concerned, for mixing, where low-latency isn't important, TDM also wasn't good enough any more. Any native DAW running on a powerful enough computer will outperform even a HD6 system (and that includes RTAS plugins as they are so inefficient).

Also in the world of post (and any other fast turnaround market) workflow improvements and anything that speeds up production is essential.

Alistair
We do different work. When recording I work mostly with acoustic instruments and vocals. I also do post video work that doesn't require Pro Tools integration. If/when it does I use a session import/export program so I can use Cockos REAPER...I dropped Pro Tools after version 7 crashed repeatedly during a session that almost cost me a huge job due to time constraints.

I went from Adobe Audition/Cool Edit Pro (working at a radio station) to Pro Tools (working at a post house) to REAPER (self-employed). I never touched TDM and wouldn't due to the Waves' prices vs. native back in the day.
Old 26th February 2014
  #43
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
I respect your opinion in a major way so I'm curious as to what the alternative DSP chips would have been back in 2011? Performance wise vs. the ones Avid went with?
I reckon that from a performance, cost and time to market for developers point of view Intel Atom would have been a better choice.

EDIT: And another aspect is future performance growth as new chips become available (without having to rewrite everything from scratch) and support paths. Again Intel Atom seems the better choice.

Alistair
Old 26th February 2014
  #44
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
AVID delisted from NASDAQ...

I'm not sure this is right for the "Moan Zone"... maybe I should have posted this on the "Good News Channel"...

Avid, Maker of Pro Tools, Now Losing Money Faster and Delisted from NASDAQ - Create Digital Music
Old 26th February 2014
  #45
Old 26th February 2014
  #46
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Its always the same people in these threads with the same arguments. Meanwhile people are getting work done everyday with protools.
2
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #47
Gear Head
 

Hi guys,

if Avid would build ProTools in a better way, many more people would upgrade.
You get very small improvement when you upgrade, but the costs are incredible - and many bugs (the midi bug) were never repaired for years
Good Luck Avid

Mr.O
Old 26th February 2014
  #48
Deleted User
Guest
Avid's business is tough because they have enormous development expenses that can only be spread over a small number of customers. They should immediately cut expenses by freezing all further bells and whistles and instead concentrate on what's important such as 64 bit processing, open hardware compatibility, third party plugin compatibility, fixing bugs, and no more.

If they turn PT into a cash cow, they will survive. That means they need to realize that they are no longer an industry standard but rather just another choice.

Also, bring back ProTools Free, and low cost ProTools LE, to once again attract the masses.
1
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #49
Gear Maniac
 

Simply not being pricks and allowing a VST- AAX wrapper at the release of PT11 would have helped. Maybe not to the extent needed, but it would have helped.
Old 26th February 2014
  #50
Gear Head
 

And Apple with their **** new MacPro will be the same for the professional audio
world

Mr.O
1
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixmixmix View Post
... karma ....
You obviously grew up in the same idealistic, peaceful commune that I did!

But, to clarify-- you can't jump off a bridge and call hitting the water "karma," it's more like "and what exactly were you EXPECTING?"
1
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #52
This is karma for forcing every plugin creator to stop what their doing, and commit time and money to a whole new plugin propitiatory format. The audacity of this company. Our company is going to hell in hand bang, but we want you guys to commit resources to rewrite all of these plugins to our liking that can only be used on our program.
Old 26th February 2014
  #53
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSt0rm View Post
Its always the same people in these threads with the same arguments. Meanwhile people are getting work done everyday with protools.
I'm actually working with PT right now (Just having a small break) but that doesn't mean that it is perfect and it certainly doesn't mean that Avid is being well managed.

What actually is the point of your post? Do you live in a simple monochromatic world in which the fact that someone uses a DAW means it is beyond critique? Let alone the company developing it being beyond critique...

Frankly I think when someone goes out of their way to post in a discussion they feel is below them just to point out it is below them is one of the most pathetic things someone can do online.

Alistair
4
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #54
Lives for gear
 

Not to mention the same lame attitude that led Avid to think they were doing OK, that they couldn't fail.

Maybe if you lapdogs would have barked a little.


Oh! And we were always right.
3
Share
Old 26th February 2014
  #55
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Mal View Post
Not to mention the same lame attitude that led Avid to think they were doing OK, that they couldn't fail.

Maybe if you lapdogs would have barked a little.


Oh! And we were always right.
Who is a lapdog? I use protools for work. I am interested in the survivability of the software because I rely on it for my living. I have no interest in discussing "features" with people who have less then 10000 hours working in the software. Sorry, you don't take me as someone who has spent that much time with the software.
Old 27th February 2014
  #56
Lives for gear
 
John Moran's Avatar
 

So to turn this thread away from the bashing, let's consider what the future of Avid will be. Their core biz is picture edit and they are embedded in some of the most recognized large producers of picture output. Audio just happens to be along for the ride in that world and the budgets are orders of magnitude larger in picture than in audio. So who, from an integrated corporate standpoint, would make the most sense and have the cash and potential symbiosis to acquire Avid?

Apple? could make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons
Google? would be a big jump into an area they don't have much of a presence in, yet. It would be a big challenge to Apple and they seem to like doing that.
Sony? lots of vertical integration possibilities but not certain they really would want this given their own finances but it could make sense
Yamaha? big music presence in a large multifaceted company already, this would cement a top position along with the other sister audio companies already there. Do they have a picture editing platform in house?
Behringer? ummmm.... don't want to think about that, not likely anyway
Avid? they somehow pull it out of the fire? stranger things have happened

Their IP and market presence does have value, of that there is no doubt. Avid could simply be taken out on the open market but it will likely be a more sophisticated acquisition than that. They can't keep burning the cash at the rate they are and survive.

What companies would see Avid as the most valuable to their own purpose?
Old 27th February 2014
  #57
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
I think sony would be the best fit of those mentioned. They are a media company already so they do have some understanding of what is needed.
Old 27th February 2014
  #58
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Moran View Post
So to turn this thread away from the bashing, let's consider what the future of Avid will be. Their core biz is picture edit and they are embedded in some of the most recognized large producers of picture output. Audio just happens to be along for the ride in that world and the budgets are orders of magnitude larger in picture than in audio. So who, from an integrated corporate standpoint, would make the most sense and have the cash and potential symbiosis to acquire Avid?

Apple? could make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons
Google? would be a big jump into an area they don't have much of a presence in, yet. It would be a big challenge to Apple and they seem to like doing that.
Sony? lots of vertical integration possibilities but not certain they really would want this given their own finances but it could make sense
Yamaha? big music presence in a large multifaceted company already, this would cement a top position along with the other sister audio companies already there. Do they have a picture editing platform in house?
Behringer? ummmm.... don't want to think about that, not likely anyway
Avid? they somehow pull it out of the fire? stranger things have happened

Their IP and market presence does have value, of that there is no doubt. Avid could simply be taken out on the open market but it will likely be a more sophisticated acquisition than that. They can't keep burning the cash at the rate they are and survive.

What companies would see Avid as the most valuable to their own purpose?
Don't forget about Adobe!
Old 27th February 2014
  #59
Gear Addict
 
ThunderShepherd's Avatar
 

i would be fine with Sony or Adobe aquiring PT.

if Apple picks it up and kills it or makes it Mac only, i'm going to be so angry.
Old 27th February 2014
  #60
Lives for gear
 
JSt0rm's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom64 View Post
Don't forget about Adobe!
A lot of these companies (adobe included) have "competing" products. I would trust them less to keep protools intact going forward. While i'm sure the death of protools makes many people salivate it would toss the audio post world into a tizzy to say the least. I would expect a large media company to take it on just to make sure the tool is still there.
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump