|
|
Post by wreck on Dec 2, 2013 10:37:09 GMT -6
So my drummer's dad has a control 24 he has offered to loan us for an indefinite period. I just use mics to pres to converter to 003 to the computer these days. I am not really sure the 24 would even help anything. Why would I want this? I am native PT10 still. I have 11, but don't use it yet and understand control 24 isn't supported by 11. I do run into processing limitations when I really get after a song. A new computer would fix that. I guess I don't feel like I am missing anything other than processing power. I obviously need to do some research on the 24, but I am not sure I want it. I suppose it would look cool, but it would probably slow me down at this point. Is there an awesome benefit I am overlooking?
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 2, 2013 11:02:50 GMT -6
Analog monitoring. Control surface.
First pat isn't trivial, IME. Also don't need a C24 to do it....but, like the control surface, if you're married to ProTools, so is it. Really stupid and shitty of a company to not support a controller that uses their proprietary code in a new version of their own software. Weren't those things like $15k new? I have no issue with the proprietary lock in...but, that's actually supposed to be the advantage to first party solutions--backwards and forward compatibility. There's nothing in a C24 that newer is better--they just didn't want to make a 64bit driver interface for hardware already sold.
But, you say it will slow you down. So, don't get it. I would say don't bother if they're not going to support it and you care about ever updating. Because, if you don't like it, you're out the time....and if you DO like it, you're on PT10 forever or until you can afford their new $20-30k control surface.
I actually think a decade from now, there will be a LOT of PT10 in production. But, that's a different discussion...too early in the week to bash Avid that badly.
What you're missing is the analog cue probably, since the control surface is obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by wreck on Dec 2, 2013 13:19:59 GMT -6
I've done some reading on it since my post. Really not seeing why I'd want it. If it had killer converters in it, then maybe, but it looks like there aren't any. I'd probably spend hundreds on cables just to have faders, when I am fine with my mouse. Analog monitoring is something I overlooked, but I'm probably better of hearing I am really getting so I won't be disappointed. It seems odd to turn down a piece of gear that was so costly, but it seems like a potential money pit/time waster.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 2, 2013 15:29:00 GMT -6
I've actually considered putting together a "vintage" PT10 set up. Accel TDM system with the TDM versions of plugs as they close out...start buying up unsupported 192s...C24, though honestly--that guy might be hard to get parts for, too. I don't know. But, that's why I think TDM systems will live on. I mean, don't they do like 96tracks 96k or something? The ADC works 100% because it's a hardware mixer with known converter speed...so, I can just keep stacking up "old" 192s and have any future upgrades be analog anyway.
But, if you're "fine with your mouse"--don't try control surfaces. Having been raised on a faders, I can tell you through post mix analysis, I produce better mixes with a 100mm fader. I don't really need to be a huge bank of them...1 is fine with the mouse selecting channels...but, it's not subtle. For me. In fact, the worst mixes of my adult life were on a little Roland thing that had these little itty bitty non motorized faders...knowing what I know now...that was probably more of a factor than the mixer itself.
|
|
