I am just wondering why in today's day in age Pro Tools is still considered the standard for DAW recording??? With so much other cool software and hardware why do people continue to spend the extra cash?? Just looking to see what other people think on this that' all....
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, September 30, 2007 - 6:31 PMFor me, this is a very complex question with a very simple answer:
Nothing on the market can compete with Pro Tools (at least the HD/TDM versions) for power, capability, and reliability. Personally, I find host-based recording systems to be incredibly lacking, especially when it comes to stability, predictability, and I/O.
What I want out of a DAW is usability, a good interface, reliability, dependable & predictable I/O, and logical operation. TDM systems have all that.
No caching to learn how to manipulate, no dependence on speedy CPUs. Just a reliable and predictable system all around.
And don't get me wrong: Pro Tools LE systems are missing quite a bit of that. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, September 30, 2007 - 6:45 PMNot to mention the other feature of TDM systems is that DSP processing is integrated into the system. As opposed to other setups where you'll need other processing units (UAD, PowerCore, SSL, etc).
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, September 30, 2007 - 6:43 PMMy whole theory with ProTools is that... Its quite similar to Windows. There is just such a strong grip hold on the market. Not to mention, Digidesign goes out of it's way to make sure it makes things very circular. You can only use their interfaces with their products, Digidesign goes out of the way to make sure schools can provide ProTools certifications to sort of "brainwash" their students into using ProTools. Also not to mention, it has kind of a Mercedes status thing going on too. Whenever a friend of yours gets a new ProTools setup, you know they've drop a load of money on it.
In the end, it really does come down to tastebuds. Whatever works best for you in your situation, and whatever gets the job done. I've heard plenty projects done in other programs than ProTools that sound just as good, or even better. I've also seen projects which have been completed faster on other DAWs too.
And besides, who says ProTools is a standard? I'm sure if you were to crunch the numbers down, you'd see the market is quite diverse. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, October 1, 2007 - 8:39 PM
M,
I have 2 PowerCores in my G5 / DP rig, and as much as I really like DP and the PowerCores, the # of times i've wanted to use all of that DSP for something other than the PowerCore fx and PowerCore synths are many, so I can understand why people go TDM -- you can use the DSPs in a TDM system to mix, plus there are a lot more fx / synths available for TDM than PowerCore ...
... still, my DP rig has served me well, so i'm certainly not complaining.
*cue Rick's "FL is the absolute coolest, I can do anything I want with it, plus it gives my hair that healthy bounce and makes me a monster on the dance floor" comment* ;-)
Regards,
John, chuckling
Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound
www.fallingyou.com
P.S. Rick, i'm just joking with you :-)
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, September 30, 2007 - 9:06 PMI have a friend that uses Pro Tools and it is really great but I use Cubase sx3 and I get really great recordings. All the gear I got to work with Cubase was alot cheaper than what you would have to buy to run Pro Tools. I'm running Cubase with Presonus FirePod Mic Pre's which have a really clean sound and a Tascam US 2400 Mixing board and the recordings I get are better than my friend that is using Pro Tools. Its not really bout the gear you are useing and how much money you spend on your gear but its all about how well you use what you got to make really great recordings.
Peace
Jim@Dreamtone -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, October 1, 2007 - 1:13 AMThe bottom line is that Digidesign has been THE leader of the DAW revolution since day one... ...and they really continue to provide a great professional level product to this day. It ain't cheap but I'd venture to say its still the best... ...thats not to say you cant make amazing recordings on any of the other systems out there! The technology today is ridiculous especially when you compare it to the recent past of analog... ...all that editing with a razor blade... ...and no undo...
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, October 1, 2007 - 2:35 PM"I have a friend that uses Pro Tools and it is really great but I use Cubase sx3 and I get really great recordings. All the gear I got to work with Cubase was alot cheaper than what you would have to buy to run Pro Tools. I'm running Cubase with Presonus FirePod Mic Pre's which have a really clean sound and a Tascam US 2400 Mixing board and the recordings I get are better than my friend that is using Pro Tools. Its not really bout the gear you are useing and how much money you spend on your gear but its all about how well you use what you got to make really great recordings."
That was Jory's point, you can't compare a TDM or Mix system with Cubase and a FirePod or PT LE with an MBox.
PT has had a foothold in the professional market since the dawn of DAWs, but the advent of home studios is changing that landscape. New computer systems are so blazingly fast that a dedicated card system is almost pointless. Digi still has some great plugins for their systems, but UAD is biting out of that market and native processor plugs are getting closer and closer to closing that gap. When speaking of usability just keep in mind that its intuitive to you (whoever you are protools user person), who has been using PT for years. My friends and I are really really fast and efficient on Cubase and Nuendo, but I would look like a 3rd grader if I were using PT...
When speaking of I/O as well that would be assuming you're using prosumer level gear, but I have Apogee and Mytek for clocking and conversion and it really doesn't compare to PT LE with a 002 either.
Personally I use Cubase because I have been using it for so long and it offers so much I don't have to worry about moving over, but I can't imagine I would be able to do anything more or less on a PT system. Maybe cross studio compatibility would be the only issue, but that's not something that really affects me either.
carry on... ;)
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, October 1, 2007 - 3:40 PM<< ..all that editing with a razor blade... ...and no undo... >>
oh, the *horror* of those days, lol
-
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, November 3, 2007 - 6:21 PMIf you want a Pro Recording Studio (i.e. have a business doing recordings) you prob need Pro Tools (and a lot's of $s).
If you are a performer or computer geek with a musical inclination (with a fast computer, lots of RAM and firewire) you would prob find Cubase 4 (or other computer based DAW software) a good choice.
DAW is a "revolution" in Audio technology.
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, November 10, 2007 - 3:40 PMDigidesign is a larger company with a larger development team than most (if not all) DAW companies/developer teams. They're more "mature" as a corporation than others, which appeals to corporate consumers. With that comes a more conservative development strategy, which is probably seen as an asset by the main customers of Digidesign's $100,000 and up systems.
Other DAWs can run stable and have considerably more DSP than even a HD7 rig, but it requires knowledge of how to build custom PCs and a lot of familiarity with a variety of parts, BIOS tweaks and flashing, and similar things. Most veteran studio guys, particularly those who grew up on tangible analog systems, do not have this knowledge and don't see why they should need to learn it. We're running Samplitude, it does all kinds of things Protools doesn't do, but it was a lot of work to get fully functional. A company like Magix can't do as much beta and compatibility testing as a company like Digidesign. Support is inherently behind, while innovative features are way ahead. The elastic audio everyone's getting excited about in Protools 7.4? We've been using that for 3 years in Samplitude.
I think Protools remains an industry standard not because of project studio enthusiasts, but because of large pro customers who ultimately provide considerably more revenue to the company. The LE stuff is just a teaser to keep their name on the radar. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, November 10, 2007 - 4:31 PM> Other DAWs can run stable and have considerably more DSP than even a HD7 rig, but it requires knowledge of how to build custom PCs and a lot of familiarity with a variety of parts, BIOS tweaks and flashing, and similar things.
I don't totally agree. It's not that other DAWs cannot be as stable or powerful, it's that they require *unnecessarily* large amounts of troubleshooting and esoteric knowledge that in no way should be necessary in order to simply get a sound job done.
It's not that Pro Tools is definitively better than host-based DAWs; it's that it WORKS. Period.
I don't want to struggle with drivers with trying to print a single document. Neither do I want to struggle with the exponentially-more-complex underbelly of a system just to record 16 tracks of audio without considering the latency.
At some point, twiddling with the insides becomes an experiment in futility. Can a mechanic with tons of knowledge and insight make a Ford Focus go as fast as a Ferrari? I would bet the answer is "yes". But should the person who wants to drive fast require the knowledge and experience of a mechanic in order to drive fast? Definitely not; they just spend a bit more to buy a Ferrari. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, November 10, 2007 - 11:28 PMbecause..i have money and no brains...is that what you are trying to say? -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, November 11, 2007 - 9:40 AMIt has nothing to do with money or brains. It has everything to do with Getting Things Done.
This is the age-old argument I have been hearing from PC users since the Macintosh came out. Die-hards have decided that anything that's easier can't possibly be worth using, and certainly can't be more powerful.
But the argument really goes the other way: just because it's harder to use doesn't make a solution more powerful or better.
I take myself as an example. I am extremely good with computers. And I am very smart. But that doesn't make me want to waste my life tweaking BIOS settings in order to spend an afternoon recording. When I'm aiming to get work done, I want the technology to be transparent. There shouldn't be any necessity to have the skills of a programmer in order to do the job of an audio engineer.
That's not to say that having programming skills is a bad thing. But those kinds of skills simply add capability to my job. They are not the definition of my job. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Tue, December 11, 2007 - 7:28 PMI started on Ableton a year ago and like it a lot but have been considering Pro tools myself. If you go to guitar center or like stores they always seem to say Pro tools is the standard. I started a blog and posted about this very topic and had the writer of a much larger audio website comment that unless you are a producer in LA or something who is constantly having to send files to other producers (which I am far from) then why not stick with what works for you, after all they can all export to a wave file which will import to all daws. Still have not made up my mind, especially since Ableton Live 7 is out now with a ton of new features. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Tue, December 11, 2007 - 11:08 PMYou should always use what works best for you. Period. Interchangeability is just one bullet point in the arguments of what DAW to purchase. Even interchangeability of sessions isn't a strong enough argument for why one should buy a particular DAW over another. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, December 15, 2007 - 5:05 PMFor recording I think pro tools sounds great...I have LE and use it to record dj mixes and stuff, however, I prefer logic for making music. I hear that steinberg is making a run at the protools market with nuendo. From what I understand it's just a beefed up cubase but maybe an option for some. Pro tools is easy to use and thats probably one the the factors that makes it such an industry standard the thing that sucks about pro tools imo is that you need digi design certified hardware to run it and the majority of their interfaces dont sound that great imo. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, December 15, 2007 - 6:29 PMFor the low-end solutions, I agree that the requirement for Digi-branded I/O sucks. But for the high-end systems, it is what makes Pro Tools the most solid, reliable, production environment around. I don't use host-based systems partially because the solutions are less-than-reliable in comparison to Pro Tools.
The same argument is often made for why Macs are so stable in comparison to Windows-based machines. Apple controls the hardware, so there are far fewer variables. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, December 15, 2007 - 6:37 PMyeah the high end pro tools rigs are way out of my budget range eheheheh, very insigtfull though jory I hadnt thought of it like that. I was thinking on a more monopoly control the market kinda of level, but perhaps they require their own hardware to run the program because that is what is most stable with pro tools. Always a pressure sharing ideas with you. peaz
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, December 16, 2007 - 2:36 AMThat is, until you try to run Logic 8 with an Ensemble interface. Made specifically for Apple.
Crashes, bugs galore. It's barely usable.
Sometimes stability comes from 3rd party developers... -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, December 17, 2007 - 2:57 PMLogic 8 crashes with Apogee?
I still haven't made the switch to 8, but I would be surprised if this was the case and it wasn't just a matter of a simple update.
Is the problem with Logic 8 specifically, or with the hardware? -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, December 17, 2007 - 7:44 PMA problem with Logic 8 and OS 10.5 specifically. They introduced many new confirmed bugs into the application.
Wait for an update... for both the OS and Logic... -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Wed, December 19, 2007 - 8:42 PMI've used PT since version 1.0. I abandoned it immediately when I discovered Digital Performer. I used early versions of Logic and was hurt severely by the brain salad surgery required to make the program squawk.
Then DP floundered on OS X and Apple took over Logic from eMagic. Suddenly Logic became usable. Logic 7.0 has really served me incredibly on OS 10.4 and has been super duper stable for me. I got a funky little M-Audio interface for guitars and vocals and the results i've gotten are pretty amazing. Great fidelity for a fraction of what I would have spent on a PTs 00whatever system.
But then again i'm not running a recording studio, but if i was i would seriously consider using a MOTU interface with Logic as the front end.
of course YMMV... -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Wed, December 19, 2007 - 11:40 PMI've been using Performer since v3.02, so I've got a LONG history with that app. I don't find it to be comparable in the least to Pro Tools, which I've been using since v2.0. Performer/DP is more music-based than Pro Tools. But if you're looking to do music composition, using a tape machine is certainly not the same as using a sequencer, right?
What I find an interesting comment from you, though, is that you found Logic to become usable once Apple purchased eMagic. Given that Logic has barely changed since version 1.0 on the Atari ST, how do you find it to be suddenly easier at v7? -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Thu, December 20, 2007 - 12:42 PMI'm not entirely sold on either 10.5 or Logic 8... I like the new processors in Logic 8, but I'm not sold on the single window interface.
Yeah, I learned after the 10.4.1 update that sometimes it's best to hold off on those OS updates until you read the forums... -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Thu, December 27, 2007 - 3:32 PM"I like the new processors in Logic 8, but I'm not sold on the single window interface. "
You don't need to be - you can still use screensets like you could with previous versions.
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Fri, December 28, 2007 - 7:17 PMI'm curious as to why they did away with the dongle? I see tons of cracked logic * aps out there now. I'd try it but I'm satisfied with version 7 for the time being. Any pro's or con"s between the two? -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sat, December 29, 2007 - 8:58 PMWhy do away with the dongle? So people will pirate Logic and actually *want* to use it. It's a classic method of getting software out there. I actually have encouraged software developers to do the very same.
-
-
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Wed, January 30, 2008 - 8:22 AMAh it would seem that you had the luxury of using Logic on an Atari ST. Logic on the ST was a superb authoring platform. Early versions of Logic on the Mac however were rather obtuse (for lack of a better term). I was very new to computer sequencing when my boss suddenly straddled me with Logic 2.5 and told me "here learn this program and we'll check it out for doing our soundtracking and MIDI authoring". That was perhaps the cruelest thing you could do to a noob sequencer user. I had been using a mixture of Cubase and Notator (on the ST) back then and really loved using them. Logic took me nearly a week to make it squawk. But when it did, the sound and tightness of the sequencing dropped my jaw to the floor. We had sessions that we ported over from Studio Vision and Logic seemed to play the sequences more tightly.
So my boss decided to bag SV and start working with me in Logic. Lucky for him he had me around to configure his studio for him since I had already bled all over my gear to get it to work with Logic. But boss man complained of the learning curve on the product as well. Something about the interface seemed to defy Logic (so sorry).
Maybe it was that we both had come up on different, more cut rate software (well at least I did) and using a powerful software like Logic was daunting. But having Logic as a DAW front end was very nice once ocnfigured. Think we were using a Digidesign 888 with it and everything worked together beautifully.
My experience with the new Logic from Apple was exactly the opposite. Granted I'm not a noob DAW user any more and computers have advanced A TON since the stone ages of the Apple 68000 days, but the new Logic just seemed to work when I installed it. It picked up my interface and presented it to me for abuse immediately.
But anyway, screw PTs all I want is Sound Designer. SD has such a great mastering environment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Sun, December 30, 2007 - 4:45 PMBecause you can't get StudioVision anymore. -
-
Re: Why Pro Tools ???
Mon, December 31, 2007 - 8:06 PMAnd apple knows you need a (more-or-less) current mac to run Logic...
-
