|
|
Post by donr on Mar 1, 2014 12:17:37 GMT -6
Just saying', Digital Performer 8 runs in either 64 or 32, and supports AU and VST on Mac. Don't know about windows, probably VST.
I still use 32 until plugs I like go 64.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 1, 2014 12:44:41 GMT -6
I don't think it's a matter of "people who don't use it are haters", It's a matter of "people are programmed to believe PT is the only thing". Of course it's just a tool, but as a struggling recordist, i get calls all the time where the first as only question is "do you use the pro tools?" And when i answer no, i get "my friend/neighbor/relative/dude who writes for a magazine/armchair engineer on a website says that it's the best, so I'm no longer interested in recording with you". No chance for defense, No chance for explanation, nothing. We aren't fighting the tool, we are fighting dogma and blind beliefs. That's what is really the issue here. I get your point. But, that is of course the ignorant "would be recording client" who has no clue as to what they want or need - and I can understand your reaction to that. To combat it, a "yes I have PT" and buying a little M-Box setup and convert to your fav DAW might be in order, and it might solve all your client issues. I'm speaking to a completely different mindset and clientele though - the mindset of professionals who use PT to build businesses on and turn out high quality product that demands the features that a high end system like HD or HDX delivers. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 1, 2014 12:57:20 GMT -6
Seems to me digidesign created an original tool back in the day, they were the only game at first( unless I'm mistaken?), what comes along with that( and deservedly so IMO), is household branding, or something close to it, Kleenex, jacuzzi, sawzall, are brand names that became synonymous with the product itself, pro tools has followed suit in that regard, that's why dumbass garage bands want to use it, it's brand recognition, and all business's in the world strive for it, period. I like using PT, I do wish they did a lot of things better. JMO, but I honestly believe if they wouldn't have locked people out with designed limitations and high prices, and posturing games, there wouldn't be any alternatives out there, Simply because no one would want one? they'd still be listed on Nasdaq!
that said, I've heard crap recordings on HD systems and amazing recordings on reaper and what not, it's generally not the tool, it's the hands the tools are in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Mar 1, 2014 13:17:49 GMT -6
Almost all of digidesign's competition has gone bankrupt several times. Locking to hardware stopped a lot of piracy and charging extra for additional features is nothing new.
|
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 1, 2014 14:35:44 GMT -6
It hurt the users, it's hurting the employees and it definitely hurt the product. I dunno man, PT has made me hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years. It hasn't hurt me one tiny bit. In fact, it has revolutionized my business to the point that I'm able to do things I only dreamed about before - both musically and business wise. And the product? It's rock solid. The employee's? Well, I'm sorry for the ones that will get laid off, but if they work at avid, they inevidably know what's going on. They have had their chance to turn things around, or bail out. They have the same chances and opportunities that we all have with our businesses. There is no free lunch for anyone these days. Most long time pro adopters (I can really only speak to the larger studio's in LA as that's where I'm from) feel pretty much the same way. It seems it's those that DON'T use PT that are the main haters. Cause they can't afford it?? I'm only speculating that of course, but that's my guess. I was not happy about how AVID rolled out HDX, but I don't have to upgrade, and I didn't. I sent my message loud and clear. Problem solved. I was still left with arguably the best DAW software/hardware system out there, and EVERY PT system I've ever bought or spec'd has paid for itself MANY times over by the end of it's life cycle including making a decent living for me while it was in operation. And they (DAW'S) ALL have a life cycle - Apple, Steinberg or whatever. I learned long ago that jumping on the "latest/greatest" bandwagon every time someone rolled out an upgrade was a losing proposition. Doesn't matter if it's apple, microsoft, avid or yamaha. I look forward to what PT has in store for us in the future. They have always moved slowly, but also, they have always revolutionized the industry with their releases when they come.... The cost of upgrades has been high relative to other software in multimedia, and wether or not they were worthwhile doesn't really justify it. Locking the hardware and software together like they have, and repeatably dropping bombs on their consumers (see the 32 - 64 gap. Plenty of DAWs have done it, and much of it offered at least limited support). No one is saying it doesn't work, but that it completely justifies their moves is a false dichotomy. And when they didn't - like the D-Command we had installed in a local college. It repeatedly blanked itself and when we contacted Digidesign we were told "Oh, yeah, those desks aren't very good. The new ones are much better!". That's not customer support - that's "Fuck you, pay me" without the Goodfellas sheen. As for the employees being able to "Turn things around". I think I'd lose my cool if I decided to comment on the disparity of what front line workers see, what self absorbed executives see and what the reality of the scenario is. Suffice to say - no, that's not an acceptable way of thinking of that. It benefits everyone to have a company operate as best as possible and there's a moral perogative to do so.
Why is acceptable that people use things as banal as a digital audio workstation pull the wool over an artists eyes over the result of their art? Not to mention it wont always do the job. I don't remember PT 9 or PT HD liking working with video very much. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 1, 2014 15:29:35 GMT -6
They weren't just the FIRST...they were the ONLY...hardware with UI control through a personal computer.
Continuing to speak Babel.
TDM rigs will be around running v7-10 for decades to come unless someone makes an ACTUAL functional replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 1, 2014 16:07:35 GMT -6
I don't remember PT 9 or PT HD liking working with video very much. What??? These kinds of comments makes me believe you have never used PT at all - especially in the aspect of post production. Aside for all other issues which could be honestly debated in regards to music production, PT is the de facto standard in Hollywood for music editing and dubbing, dialog cutting, SFX design, Foley and remixing. Beginning, middle and end of story. Avid makes their bank off the post production industry. All of whom are syncing to video every day of the week. Will it stay that way forever? Who knows, but in the immediate future, there will be no change - PT rules the roost in the film/video industries. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 1, 2014 16:08:56 GMT -6
They weren't just the FIRST...they were the ONLY...hardware with UI control through a personal computer. Continuing to speak Babel. TDM rigs will be around running v7-10 for decades to come unless someone makes an ACTUAL functional replacement. Yup. There are still MIX rigs 10+ years old in production facilities working day in day out. An HD rig will last quite a long time if there is no imminent need to update either the OS, computer hardware or PT version. |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 1, 2014 16:23:03 GMT -6
I don't remember PT 9 or PT HD liking working with video very much. What??? These kinds of comments makes me believe you have never used PT at all - especially in the aspect of post production. Aside for all other issues which could be honestly debated in regards to music production, PT is the de facto standard in Hollywood for music editing and dubbing, dialog cutting, SFX design, Foley and remixing. Beginning, middle and end of story. Avid makes their bank off the post production industry. All of whom are syncing to video every day of the week. Will it stay that way forever? Who knows, but in the immediate future, there will be no change - PT rules the roost in the film/video industries. Well I have. And to say it regularly decided to not display the video and required a restart would be an understatement. As for scrubbing/fast forward? Forget about it. It probably syncs to video externally fine. But on a Mac with OSX and PT9 it was beyond crap. 5 minutes googling and you're going to see plenty of professionals documenting their own troubles with it: randycoppinger.com/2011/08/31/protools-h-264-video-problem/Google around if you want. Maybe they've made serious headway in the last 2 point updates, but PT's 9 was far from the perfect Audio-Post tool. I really feel like some PT users treat any criticism of the product as a mark against themselves. I don't care how big the software company is or how many times Avid have undercut people to get their installations in a large broadcast/post company. I don't care if CLA uses it or if it was used to make Lord Of The Rings. That's completely irrelevant to the pro's and con's of the software and it's a childish argument. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 1, 2014 16:44:23 GMT -6
What??? These kinds of comments makes me believe you have never used PT at all - especially in the aspect of post production. Aside for all other issues which could be honestly debated in regards to music production, PT is the de facto standard in Hollywood for music editing and dubbing, dialog cutting, SFX design, Foley and remixing. Beginning, middle and end of story. Avid makes their bank off the post production industry. All of whom are syncing to video every day of the week. Will it stay that way forever? Who knows, but in the immediate future, there will be no change - PT rules the roost in the film/video industries. Well I have. And to say it regularly decided to not display the video and required a restart would be an understatement. As for scrubbing/fast forward? Forget about it. It probably syncs to video externally fine. But on a Mac with OSX and PT9 it was beyond crap. 5 minutes googling and you're going to see plenty of professionals documenting their own troubles with it: randycoppinger.com/2011/08/31/protools-h-264-video-problem/Google around if you want. Maybe they've made serious headway in the last 2 point updates, but PT's 9 was far from the perfect Audio-Post tool. I really feel like some PT users treat any criticism of the product as a mark against themselves. I don't care how big the software company is or how many times Avid have undercut people to get their installations in a large broadcast/post company. I don't care if CLA uses it or if it was used to make Lord Of The Rings. That's completely irrelevant to the pro's and con's of the software and it's a childish argument. You can google and find problems with any software / computer combination you might come up with. That doesn't make it a predominant fact, and 9 times out of 10, it's because the user has things configured wrong, or incompatible hardware. But whatever, construe reality in your own world. However, you might want to contact all the post production companies in LA that are using the exact config's you say don't work and let them know their systems are broken. I'm sure they'd be grateful to know about it. |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 1, 2014 17:14:45 GMT -6
"You're wrong. It works fine. Professionals use it"
>Proof that there are problems
"You can use facts to prove anything. You're warping the reality to suit your arguments. It works fine. Professionals use it."
Whatever, Dr. Bill. You're the expert. Sorry I stepped on your baby blankie.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 1, 2014 18:01:33 GMT -6
Dude, if you want to make up "facts", find "internet" problems, and then design a manifesto around it, then by all means, go for it. I'm just letting you and the others who may be unaware, PT has been the de facto standard on FILM and TV in Hollywood for close to 2 decades now, and even with AVID's worries, shows no signs of slowing down. No amount of telling us how bad it is, how someone had a problem, how much you don't like it can prove otherwise. It is VERIFIABLE. Do your research. I've worked on literally HUNDREDS of features, doc's, indies and TV shows that used it exclusively in the audio post and remixing stages. I got no blankie bro. I think it's obvious you have an agenda, and having someone lay out the real facts explodes it. Sorry for the reality check. I'm done with you on this. See ya! Have a great weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 1, 2014 21:04:41 GMT -6
Enough arguing...take that shit over to Gearslutz.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 1, 2014 21:59:14 GMT -6
I don't think it's a matter of "people who don't use it are haters", It's a matter of "people are programmed to believe PT is the only thing". Of course it's just a tool, but as a struggling recordist, i get calls all the time where the first as only question is "do you use the pro tools?" And when i answer no, i get "my friend/neighbor/relative/dude who writes for a magazine/armchair engineer on a website says that it's the best, so I'm no longer interested in recording with you". No chance for defense, No chance for explanation, nothing. We aren't fighting the tool, we are fighting dogma and blind beliefs. That's what is really the issue here. I get your point. But, that is of course the ignorant "would be recording client" who has no clue as to what they want or need - and I can understand your reaction to that. To combat it, a "yes I have PT" and buying a little M-Box setup and convert to your fav DAW might be in order, and it might solve all your client issues. I'm speaking to a completely different mindset and clientele though - the mindset of professionals who use PT to build businesses on and turn out high quality product that demands the features that a high end system like HD or HDX delivers. I thought about it, I actually did. Problem is though, I've invested in a different system, with the Alphalink/Mixpander, etc. It may only cost 5k and not cost 50K like an HDX system, but I do hybrid work and I use the DAW more like a tape deck, so spending that kind of cheese would kind of be lost on how I use the system. I still get business enough, but it's not like I could quit the day job yet. I just wanted to bring up one of the dogmatic scenarios so it wasn't just a "Protools sucks" session without some kind of example of what I was talking about. I see that others feel very strongly about it though, and I understand it, but don't really condone getting angry about it. It's not like people are going to change their minds over a couple posts in a forum. For me, the only problem I have is the fierce beliefs that seem unfounded. I guess since I tend to have more sessions from more amateur types of artists, I get more exposure to folks who read a blurb in a forum and come to the studio ready to try to impress me about how much they "know". |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 1, 2014 22:18:24 GMT -6
how much does hdx cost?
reaper and 32 channels of latest and greatest converters only cost $3.5k
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 1, 2014 23:52:15 GMT -6
I knew someone who went to Full Sail. Last time I saw her, she was stripping. I'll leave it to each one of us to decide if that was a good outcome. Depends on what she looks like... |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 2, 2014 0:10:44 GMT -6
It hurt the users, it's hurting the employees and it definitely hurt the product. It seems it's those that DON'T use PT that are the main haters. Cause they can't afford it?? I'm only speculating that of course, but that's my guess. Could be for some they can't afford it. I could afford to buy the cutting edge HD rig if I wanted but that would mean I'd have to use Pro Tools. I don't hate Pro Tools. I have a copy and use when I have to but to me, it just feels downright clumsy. Like having to manually set delay compensation for hardware inserts. Avid means to tell us they can't do any better than this when Cubase has had automatic compensation for years? And I'd say you probably think it's solid because your on an HD system which is rock solid because it's priority hardware. Try PT on a native system and it's error after error sometimes. PT vanilla just doesn't like third party interfaces(or core audio). That is why there is so much hate. Very few (comparatively speaking) have a need for an HD rig. Native is way powerful enough to handle big sessions these days. Maybe not for post and top pros but that's by far the minority. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 2, 2014 0:39:18 GMT -6
I knew someone who went to Full Sail. Last time I saw her, she was stripping. I'll leave it to each one of us to decide if that was a good outcome. Depends on what she looks like... I discuss this exact subject on a couple of replies. Suffice it to say, 20 years gone and I remember her very well. |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Mar 2, 2014 1:05:12 GMT -6
My hated for PT's developed when they'd no offline render. The hybrid guys might not have cared, but I've worked on 40 minute long peices of music for an installation. Wasn't exactly sympathetic to my plight. That and things like setting up tracks, headphone mixes etc. just takes longer than it should. In Reaper we can be tracking and I can be naming and organizing audio tracks while listening. No pause in playback for creating new tracks or inserting an EQ. This doesn't make Reaper great - but it means the workflow makes sense for us. It's fast and painless. None of the plugin formats Pro Tools have introduced have ever demonstrated superiority over VST2 or VST3. And indeed people such as Dave from GForce has stated that their SDK is a pain to use. He actually stopped developing for it altogether when they changed over from RTAS. My other major gripe is the additional overheads that came with all their stuff from it being proprietary. And I know we can say "Oh well a lot of that's gone now" but it's too late. It was a cynical, elitist policy and it kept the cost of making music artificially high. The market is having to deflate as our product devalues and this stuff is a very delayed reaction to it. It hurt the users, it's hurting the employees and it definitely hurt the product. What a stupid tragedy for people to lose their jobs for the sake of a company wanting to look cool. I'm not a hater in that I don't hate the software - I'll use it any day of the week. But I hate the culture it brought with it. I'd see that dead before the software any day. Good news mate. PT 11 is the only DAW that can do a null bounce faster then real time. |
|
|
|
Post by adogg4629 on Mar 2, 2014 1:16:13 GMT -6
how much does hdx cost? reaper and 32 channels of latest and greatest converters only cost $3.5k Yes, but Reaper does not offer any sort of DSP. Let's say you want Native, well PT Native costs more then reaper, but you get a fully featured DAW that handles virtually unlimited bussing and in-session printing. When delivering to a network 17 different mixes, all with unique elements, I can make a single session in Pro-tools and route everything internally and do the print of all the mixes in a single pass. Quite frankly, there is no other DAW on the planet that can do that.
Logic, Reaper etc are great for smaller scale projects, but they don't have the ability to scale in a workflow environment like Pro Tools does. If I am wrong about another DAW's functionality in this post, PLEASE correct me. I like to know these things.
Best,
Aaron
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 2, 2014 2:55:32 GMT -6
well I[m not an expert at reaper or pro tools but i believe you can do multiple mixes with single pass prints in reaper via tabs and queue rendering. it's not a feature I use as I use reaper like a tape machine.
the mixer matrix in reaper has unlimited bussing and it's very intuitive. you can do anything with it.
in general, I find reaper generally very intuitive. hot keys make editing fast and easy.
there's other things like being able to pull in track templates, effects templates. copy track setups between sessions and songs etc.
dsp you obviously need to use UA or similar. so yes it offers dsp but I accept your point that would be an additional cost. and yes it can't do native but will do any vst plugs yada yada yada.
not my world either really.. I'm full analogue except for recording medium.
reaper is also very economical on processing power. I run 40-50 track sessions at 192khz without any issue for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 2, 2014 7:09:16 GMT -6
Depends on what she looks like... I discuss this exact subject on a couple of replies. Suffice it to say, 20 years gone and I remember her very well. You gotta look her up on facebook bro. That's why it exists. Haha |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 2, 2014 8:57:49 GMT -6
how much does hdx cost? reaper and 32 channels of latest and greatest converters only cost $3.5k Yes, but Reaper does not offer any sort of DSP. Let's say you want Native, well PT Native costs more then reaper, but you get a fully featured DAW that handles virtually unlimited bussing and in-session printing. When delivering to a network 17 different mixes, all with unique elements, I can make a single session in Pro-tools and route everything internally and do the print of all the mixes in a single pass. Quite frankly, there is no other DAW on the planet that can do that.
Logic, Reaper etc are great for smaller scale projects, but they don't have the ability to scale in a workflow environment like Pro Tools does. If I am wrong about another DAW's functionality in this post, PLEASE correct me. I like to know these things.
Best,
Aaron
Aaron Your right of coarse. This was kinna my point in a previous post. PT is geared more toward post and video work than to the smaller studio guy I think. Big budget work for big budget rigs. But if you came and took a spin on PT Native in my tiny studio, bet you'd want to throw rocks at it by the end of the day. Even though your used to working on the platform. It's bottle necked bad on native. Maybe 11 addressed some of these issues?? I'm still on 10 because I've decided not to go down the Avid road anymore. But still no hate. Just easier for me on Cubase. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 2, 2014 9:29:39 GMT -6
I thought about it, I actually did. Problem is though, I've invested in a different system, with the Alphalink/Mixpander, etc. It may only cost 5k and not cost 50K like an HDX system, but I do hybrid work and I use the DAW more like a tape deck, so spending that kind of cheese would kind of be lost on how I use the system. I still get business enough, but it's not like I could quit the day job yet. You might be surprised. You could get a cheap Mbox system just for transferring to your preferred DAW for $300 or so. To me, that's worth it when saving a client that would have otherwise gone elsewhere... |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 2, 2014 13:09:04 GMT -6
I thought about it, I actually did. Problem is though, I've invested in a different system, with the Alphalink/Mixpander, etc. It may only cost 5k and not cost 50K like an HDX system, but I do hybrid work and I use the DAW more like a tape deck, so spending that kind of cheese would kind of be lost on how I use the system. I still get business enough, but it's not like I could quit the day job yet. You might be surprised. You could get a cheap Mbox system just for transferring to your preferred DAW for $300 or so. To me, that's worth it when saving a client that would have otherwise gone elsewhere... There is a program that can ingest just about any DAW file and spit out another. I could bring in a pro tools file and convert to reaper, or vice versa. The problem comes when folks use plug ins, which don't transfer. Not a terrible issue since I use mostly outboard, but some folks still prefer plugs for some strange reason. On the other hand, simply consolidating the files per song allows anyone to import to anything.. |
|
