|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 7, 2015 10:32:23 GMT -6
I have a functionality question for Pro Tools that I'd appreciate if anybody kind enough to provide a solution could help me :
When I use the Smart Tool it often takes time to get to the precise spot on the waveform where it turns from the grabber to the trim to the selection function. Is there a "best practice" tip to make this a faster process? For example, do you always maximize the waveform?
Secondly, the Smart Tool turns off at times. So, I have to go back to the top of the screen and click it again. Is there something that deactivates it? If so, can I set something in preferences to always default back to the Smart Tool?
Thanks in advance to anybody who provides advice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2015 10:47:43 GMT -6
It turns off if you hit any of the function keys "F1,F2, etc." Or maybe it's the number keys at the top of the keyboard. Top right/left, fade...hover over overlapping regions at bottom, crossover...close to the edges of region middle, trim...center, select tool. When in volume automation mode, move smart tool to top of the region to adjust volume.
Cubase question...In OSX - how do you disable the system function keys where they will work in DAW's?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2015 10:50:17 GMT -6
Another Cubase question. Is there an easy way to do crossfades in Cubase? In PT's you just use the crossfade tool in the spot of the crossing regions. I see where you can hit "F" and it puts a fade in, but how does it know which two sections you wanna crossfade? I haven't selected any region to crossfade. I wish I could select the spot I want the crossfade to go and then hit a key and it go there. Or better yet, I wish there was a Crossfade tool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 7, 2015 11:02:04 GMT -6
Might I interject a little fact about Avid being a video company here?[/u]
Avid was losing money in the video game. They bet the farm to buy Digidesign.
It worked.
Currently, more than 50% of their revenue and ALL their profit comes from their Audio 'division'. It's what is keeping them in business.
A wise business decision would be to dump the whole video nonsense.
At least that's what I gleaned from the last publicly (i.e. shareholder) available financial statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 7, 2015 11:04:35 GMT -6
Cubasers... Randge - quick question after playing around last night. What the heck is the keyboard shortcut for bringing up the mix window? I used to have two monitors, but now have one big one. Is there a keyboard short cut ala "opt./=" in PT's? Hit F3 F3, or get two big ass 40" screens and never need it! I hated having to flip back and forth, so I did the two screens thing and couldn't be happier. It is really helpful when I am tracking a full band, as I can have the entire input section on the top screen like a meter bridge. After tracking, I can place my effects and plugs that only get tweaked a bit up there and out of my way. I split my bottom screen to be have wave form and have metering. R |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 7, 2015 11:11:16 GMT -6
Why is it people continue to buy PTHD/HDX at what is seemingly an extraordinary cost? This is indeed the question. And the answer for most people is, "what does the extraordinary cost premium provide in sound quality"? After all, we're talking software, DSP in the audio interface and the conversion. I have invested $6,088.00 in two Aurora 16's and two RME AES 32 DSP cards. I paid $540.00 for PT 11 Native and $500.00 for Cubase 6. I paid $515.6 for the 4 cables that connect the Aurora 16 to the RME interfaces. So, that's $7,543.00 for the entire system that provides me with 32 inputs and outputs and works without a glitch. In my mind, Avid would have to explain precisely what their advantages are in DSP, drivers and conversion that demands such a premium. Some Avid users go the "if you can't hear it route", but other Avid users don't hear it and go for the option that gives them more for less money. I think if there weren't so many former Avid system users who have migrated away from Avid, the "if you can't hear it" selling strategy would be easier. But there are so many former Avid users who migrated that it isn't an easy sell to merely say "if you can't hear it". In my own shop my partner went from his PT8 HD to my system and has been satisfied. His other studio in England made the switch as well. So, it's a tough sell to merely say "if you can't hear it" and expect people to believe it, when there's so much evidence countering it. Avid would be much smarter imo explaining the difference in technical terms. It's got NOTHING to do with sound "quality" as long as you employ the same converters and use the same pan laws. All DAW's using the same converters and the same constraints (unless broken) sound identical. It's something else entirely. And THAT is the question. Keep looking..... the answer is different for every person, but there are some quantifiable reasons people buy these things. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 7, 2015 11:12:31 GMT -6
I can still have RealGear up in the corner for a quick response, too! John, X Is what you use once you highlight both areas you want to cross fade. Come by and I can give you a little tutorial if you want. R Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 7, 2015 11:15:23 GMT -6
I forgot to mention that you can make that page switcher and crossfade button anything you want it to be in the preferences area.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 7, 2015 11:22:31 GMT -6
It turns off if you hit any of the function keys "F1,F2, etc." Or maybe it's the number keys at the top of the keyboard. Top right/left, fade...hover over overlapping regions at bottom, crossover...close to the edges of region middle, trim...center, select tool. When in volume automation mode, move smart tool to top of the region to adjust volume. Thanks John. I'll check it out. I hope its not the top row of the keyboard, as I have to hit Cntrl+ to toggle the Mix Window. I know the regions of the waveform where the Smart Tool changes, but it's very buggy-at least in Pro Tools 11 Native. I find myself having to do minute/precise placements which is a pain in the mouse. I believe there are keys commands to change the tools. So, I'll probably go to those which will be quicker. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 7, 2015 11:26:07 GMT -6
This is indeed the question. And the answer for most people is, "what does the extraordinary cost premium provide in sound quality"? After all, we're talking software, DSP in the audio interface and the conversion. I have invested $6,088.00 in two Aurora 16's and two RME AES 32 DSP cards. I paid $540.00 for PT 11 Native and $500.00 for Cubase 6. I paid $515.6 for the 4 cables that connect the Aurora 16 to the RME interfaces. So, that's $7,543.00 for the entire system that provides me with 32 inputs and outputs and works without a glitch. In my mind, Avid would have to explain precisely what their advantages are in DSP, drivers and conversion that demands such a premium. Some Avid users go the "if you can't hear it route", but other Avid users don't hear it and go for the option that gives them more for less money. I think if there weren't so many former Avid system users who have migrated away from Avid, the "if you can't hear it" selling strategy would be easier. But there are so many former Avid users who migrated that it isn't an easy sell to merely say "if you can't hear it". In my own shop my partner went from his PT8 HD to my system and has been satisfied. His other studio in England made the switch as well. So, it's a tough sell to merely say "if you can't hear it" and expect people to believe it, when there's so much evidence countering it. Avid would be much smarter imo explaining the difference in technical terms. It's got NOTHING to do with sound "quality" as long as you employ the same converters and use the same pan laws. All DAW's using the same converters and the same constraints (unless broken) sound identical. It's something else entirely. And THAT is the question. Keep looking..... the answer is different for every person, but there are some quantifiable reasons people buy these things. If it's quantifiable, you should be able to explain it in plain language. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 7, 2015 11:46:07 GMT -6
Another Cubase question. Is there an easy way to do crossfades in Cubase? In PT's you just use the crossfade tool in the spot of the crossing regions. I see where you can hit "F" and it puts a fade in, but how does it know which two sections you wanna crossfade? I haven't selected any region to crossfade. I wish I could select the spot I want the crossfade to go and then hit a key and it go there. Or better yet, I wish there was a Crossfade tool. In Cubase, to create a crossfade between two audio events you slide one audio event so it slightly overlaps the other and hit "X" on your keyboard. So, instead of selecting the spot by sliding the selector tool over an area like in Pro Tools, in Cubase you slide one of the events and create an overlap spot which is the crossfade spot. You can double click on the crossfade area if you wanna modify the crossfade curve. |
|
|
|
Post by btreim on Jan 7, 2015 11:46:27 GMT -6
It turns off if you hit any of the function keys "F1,F2, etc." Or maybe it's the number keys at the top of the keyboard. Top right/left, fade...hover over overlapping regions at bottom, crossover...close to the edges of region middle, trim...center, select tool. When in volume automation mode, move smart tool to top of the region to adjust volume. Thanks John. I'll check it out. I hope its not the top row of the keyboard, as I have to hit Cntrl+ to toggle the Mix Window. I know the regions of the waveform where the Smart Tool changes, but it's very buggy-at least in Pro Tools 11 Native. I find myself having to do minute/precise placements which is a pain in the mouse. I believe there are keys commands to change the tools. So, I'll probably go to those which will be quicker. As far as it jumping out of the Smart Tool, make sure your "Zoomer" is set on single zoom mode. You can also toggle through the tools using the "Escape" key. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 7, 2015 11:48:20 GMT -6
Thanks John. I'll check it out. I hope its not the top row of the keyboard, as I have to hit Cntrl+ to toggle the Mix Window. I know the regions of the waveform where the Smart Tool changes, but it's very buggy-at least in Pro Tools 11 Native. I find myself having to do minute/precise placements which is a pain in the mouse. I believe there are keys commands to change the tools. So, I'll probably go to those which will be quicker. As far as it jumping out of the Smart Tool, make sure your "Zoomer" is set on single zoom mode. You can also toggle through the tools using the "Escape" key. Thanks Ben. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 7, 2015 12:35:54 GMT -6
It's got NOTHING to do with sound "quality" as long as you employ the same converters and use the same pan laws. All DAW's using the same converters and the same constraints (unless broken) sound identical. It's something else entirely. And THAT is the question. Keep looking..... the answer is different for every person, but there are some quantifiable reasons people buy these things. If it's quantifiable, you should be able to explain it in plain language. For me, I'd just say the feature set, stability, excellent editing and compatibility that is superior for my world. But I don't think that's what you want to hear. Working on a DSP vs. Native based system is what pulls many into PTHD/HDX. The ability to track with plugs, the rock solid ability to have 150+ tracks when tracking orchestras or other large groups where even 30 seconds of downtime is fatal, the ergonomically elegant surround options, etc. is what pulls in others to pay out the big bucks. In that high end world, I've never seen any ensemble tracked on anything BUT a Digi DSP based (non-Native) system for the last 10-15 years. Like I mentioned earlier, some of these may be of little or no consequence to you, but they are a necessity to many others. Hence the reason PT HD / HDX is still a known and expected commodity in the major markets. No excuses, no holds barred, no "we can import that into our DAW", no latency issues. But for me, I could live without many of those things if I needed to save a few bucks. For me, PT best mimics what I grew up with - a console and a tape machine with just the right amount of "extras" for processing / editing / etc. but without getting too "computer tweaky" on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2015 12:38:52 GMT -6
If it's quantifiable, you should be able to explain it in plain language. For me, I'd just say the feature set, stability, excellent editing and compatibility that is superior for my world. But I don't think that's what you want to hear. Working on a DSP vs. Native based system is what pulls many into PTHD/HDX. The ability to track with plugs, the rock solid ability to have 150+ tracks when tracking orchestras or other large groups where even 30 seconds of downtime is fatal, etc. is what pulls in others to pay out the big bucks. In that high end world, I've never seen any ensemble tracked on anything BUT a Digi DSP based (non-Native) system for the last 10-15 years. Like I mentioned earlier, some of these may be of little or no consequence to you, but they are a necessity to many others. Hence the reason PT HD / HDX is still a known and expected commodity in the major markets. No excuses, no holds barred, no "we can import that into our DAW", no latency issues. But for me, I could live without many of those things if I needed to save a few bucks. For me, PT best mimics what I grew up with - a console and a tape machine with just the right amount of "extras" for processing / editing / etc. but without getting too "computer tweaky" on me. Very legitimate points. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 7, 2015 12:44:31 GMT -6
If someone makes a great DAW that I feel is superior - or even equal - to PT that I can easily slide into without a lot of heartache and head scratching, I have no allegiance at this point. I'd happily jump from the AVID ship. They are maddening and frustrating to the max - but they make what I want. But from my experience, Cubase isn't it, DP isn't it, and Logic REALLY isn't it. (All personal preference, as I know all those systems work great for others) I must say that Nuendo and their Nuage is very sweet and is probably where I would look first. And price wise, if Cubase/Nuendo works for you, Nuendo/Nuage is definitely a VERY sweet system and a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2015 12:53:00 GMT -6
PT 10 and 11 have been rock solid for me. I mean rock solid. I've used Cubase 8 for 45 minutes and had to restart the session because it dropped audio. I like how it automatically bridges 32 bit plugs, though. I'm gonna use it for something here in a bit and see what I think. I really liked the included verbs...
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 7, 2015 13:35:48 GMT -6
If it's quantifiable, you should be able to explain it in plain language. For me, I'd just say the feature set, stability, excellent editing and compatibility that is superior for my world. But I don't think that's what you want to hear. Working on a DSP vs. Native based system is what pulls many into PTHD/HDX. The ability to track with plugs, the rock solid ability to have 150+ tracks when tracking orchestras or other large groups where even 30 seconds of downtime is fatal, the ergonomically elegant surround options, etc. is what pulls in others to pay out the big bucks. In that high end world, I've never seen any ensemble tracked on anything BUT a Digi DSP based (non-Native) system for the last 10-15 years. Like I mentioned earlier, some of these may be of little or no consequence to you, but they are a necessity to many others. Hence the reason PT HD / HDX is still a known and expected commodity in the major markets. No excuses, no holds barred, no "we can import that into our DAW", no latency issues. But for me, I could live without many of those things if I needed to save a few bucks. For me, PT best mimics what I grew up with - a console and a tape machine with just the right amount of "extras" for processing / editing / etc. but without getting too "computer tweaky" on me. Thanks for your thoughts Bill. What I want to hear is whether I need to pay more or not to get my recording and mixing needs met. I have no other agenda other than that. I appreciate that other people have other needs than me. I've never tracked a 150 piece orchestra, so that's not applicable to me. If it was I'd be interested in getting a system that worked best in that environment. I do know that for recording bands, which is what I do, I don't have any stability issues. My RME interface is a DSP system. So, I've got that covered. I can use my patch bay to record with my hardware compressors. I can also use my RME Totalmix to give compression and reverb cue mixes to the players and not have to print it if that's what I want. I never have latency issues in either recording or mixing while running lots of hardware in my hybrid setup. I think for editing, people seem to stick with what they know. That being said, even though I know and like Cubase better I edit both in Cubase and in Pro Tools depending on the project. There's some differences, but both are relatively easy to learn and have mostly the same functionality for my work. It just takes time and effort to understand the differences. I appreciate that your system works for you and understand why it works for you. Thanks for explaining why. I think you can see why my system works for me and why I don't need to spend the large premium I'd have to spend on a Pro Tools HD/HDX system. |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 7, 2015 16:36:02 GMT -6
F3, or get two big ass 40" screens and never need it! I hated having to flip back and forth, so I did the two screens thing and couldn't be happier. It is really helpful when I am tracking a full band, as I can have the entire input section on the top screen like a meter bridge. After tracking, I can place my effects and plugs that only get tweaked a bit up there and out of my way. I split my bottom screen to be have wave form and have metering. R Hi Randgeany chance we could get a photo of that layout.... please. cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 7, 2015 16:37:08 GMT -6
never mind... I just saw the photo on next page... 8)
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jan 7, 2015 16:39:01 GMT -6
I can still have RealGear up in the corner for a quick response, too! John, X Is what you use once you highlight both areas you want to cross fade. Come by and I can give you a little tutorial if you want. R Quick sidetrack when using large monitors like that Randge whats the experience like looking at them from what I assume is quite a distance... compared to say my iMac on my desk (27" iMac). How do you go when doing Net stuff? writing emails etc.. though I guess you might do that on another computer. cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 7, 2015 18:35:11 GMT -6
I go very long hrs in here and have my Cubase rig set up in soft purple and grey that is easy on the eyes. Sending emails doesn't bother me either as I am a hair over 4' from the monitors. I am lucky not to have to wear glasses though, so, I am not sure if having to do so would be a different situation.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 7, 2015 20:05:40 GMT -6
I used to have two monitors but ended up buying an apple display. Don't really want to have one nice apple display and one crappy one and can't afford another apple...so F3 it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by LesC on Jan 7, 2015 21:17:53 GMT -6
I use two monitors, but another useful key is F2 for the Transport Panel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 7, 2015 21:59:59 GMT -6
I use two monitors, but another useful key is F2 for the Transport Panel. Watch a Vari-audio tutorial, John. Tab, Shift and Control will be your best friends. R |
|
