Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Pro Tools ? Or...


Recommended Posts

Your Mission: (should you decide to accept it) To build a host based daw system that is on par with Pro-Tools. I'll start it off. Top of the line Mac or PC with a removable drive Nuendo (for PT file compatibility) A dsp card or two with plugs for laughs An 80gb firewire drive for recording Mackie d8b (with plugs) or Sony small format 48 ch's of MOTU (or any good) lightpipe I/O Aardsync 2 All of the high end DX or RTAS Plugs I need Alesis HD24 (at 2k why not?)... Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, the 15 grand in mics, converters & pre's I can buy with the leftover money. Next... Lawrence
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'd suggest looking at the "Super DAW PC" in next month's EQ as the machine. If it's native, give it the horses to run. And at $1500 DIY, maybe you can snag that extra mic, pre, or a/d converter with the money you save. I like your list and own a few of the pieces already. RP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b]I'd rather spend less than $10,000 retail and buy a ProTools system. At $7,995 for the card and $1,995 for the 96 I/O, you can buy a new Pro Tools|HD 1 system that supports recording at 96 kHz and up to 96 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer.[/b][/quote]Man, I'd rather spend $3,000 for the same thing with Nuendo and use the leftover $7,000 for mics, a Great River, Grace and ADAMS....

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b]I'd rather spend less than $10,000 retail and buy a ProTools system. At $7,995 for the card and $1,995 for the 96 I/O, you can buy a new Pro Tools|HD 1 system that supports recording at 96 kHz and up to 96 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer.[/b][/quote]Man, I'd rather spend $3,000 for the same thing with Nuendo and use the leftover $7,000 for mics, a Great River, Grace and ADAMS....[/b][/quote]I too would rather have there mere 64 tracks of 24/48 audio on my $6,000 DAW setup (that includes ADAM S2-As). -Bobro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit that Nuendo has got a lot going for it. I saw a demo of it at this year's Winter NAMM show. I thought that it had a lot of cool features, some of which I've never seen in other DAWs. The additional power of VST System Link, makes Nuendo and Cubase the most powerful (albeit then less portable) native systems going. However, there's something compelling about the blend of power and simplicity that is the Pro Tools interface. It's also the only non-native based system of the Mac and PC DAWs (unless you count the Pro Tools hardware support of Digital Performer and Logic Audio). At the same time, it can also utilize native processing for extra power. In addition, the new HD interfaces offer some of the best specs in the industry. Latency is less of an issue with Pro Tools than it is with any native DAW, which is a good thing when tracking. Pro Tools is also the lingua franca of the pro audio world, which is my bread and butter. The mistake is in thinking that there is an equivalent to Pro Tools, or to Nuendo, or Logic, etc. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and each will appeal to a different market segment.

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that any [b]host-based[/b] DAW will be on par with a PT system that farms out dsp on multiple cards. That's why "real" PT systems aren't host-based. High quality plugs are just too cpu intensive. Maybe in the near future though... Where's Moore's Law at now anyways?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b]I'd rather spend less than $10,000 retail and buy a ProTools system. At $7,995 for the card and $1,995 for the 96 I/O, you can buy a new Pro Tools|HD 1 system that supports recording at 96 kHz and up to 96 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer.[/b][/quote]Ok, let me explain furthur. Most pro studios built around pro tools have either a control surface or a console. PT with Pro Control is much more than 10k, especially if you go for a 24 fader system. So for 10k you get a system that may still need a control surface. So again, lots of us don't need the processing power that PT farm cards provide. Myself in particular use the d8b and it's plugs for dsp processing along with some good outboard effects. So for 10k I got a console with 48 eqs, comps and options for plugs that will ALWAYS have enough dsp to process every channel. I added 48 audio tracks with Cubase and an Alesis HD24. To empty my studio and replace it with a PT/ProControl system of the same power and flexibility would cost WAY more than what I spent. Lawrence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by where02190: [b]Every major studio that has a DAW based room is Protools. If you go PT, you can take your sessions anywhere.[/b][/quote]Here's the thing. If I switch to Nuendo I can take my audio files anywhere that uses PT. The audio files that PT can load and use are created by many programs and stand alone recorders like the MX2424, Mackie HDR/MDR, Nuendo etc. Keep in mind that although PT is a great, great program, most hi-end studios do not mix in PT. It's real power is in the production environment. Many do mix in PT with ProControl but most I have seen usually have a high quality digital (or analog) automated console. Even a session totally produced and created in PT won't be the same if the "other" studio doesn't have the same plugs installed. As a production tool it's hard to beat. Poll: PT users, how do you mix? Lawrence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don`t know your budget but my stdio setup can handle anything a PT setup can. d8b G4 450 (single) 712 RAM (Two HDs: 60GB and 80GB) DP3 2408 II 2 ADAT XTs 2 AVALON 737s MTP AV Neumann 103 2 AT 4050s I`ve often second guessed my choice to go the "other" route but a PT system would not have given me the inputs, flexibility, nor mic pres the d8b does. I use DP3 for all my editing and mastering. Its an amazing sequencer and considering the price, going the PT route is a big waste of my studios funds. Peace, Ernest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Bobro: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b]I'd rather spend less than $10,000 retail and buy a ProTools system. At $7,995 for the card and $1,995 for the 96 I/O, you can buy a new Pro Tools|HD 1 system that supports recording at 96 kHz and up to 96 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer.[/b][/quote]Man, I'd rather spend $3,000 for the same thing with Nuendo and use the leftover $7,000 for mics, a Great River, Grace and ADAMS....[/b][/quote]I too would rather have there mere 64 tracks of 24/48 audio on my $6,000 DAW setup (that includes ADAM S2-As). -Bobro[/b][/quote]It's all so simple... If you're a business and have to interface with outside clients/projects, go PT. If you're doing it all yourself, shop around. Mix and match. Get what you need and get on with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b]However, there's something compelling about the blend of power and simplicity that is the Pro Tools interface. [/b][/quote]I think that depends on one's experience with said interface. I don't like having to designate new tracks, set markers just to time align a track, have to be careful about audio file types I import, uhm... I can't remember, but there's a number of other things I thought when I last tried PT that made me go "uhg..."... Does PT have vector editing yet? That was a biggie for me. [b]utilize native processing for extra power. In addition, the new HD interfaces offer some of the best specs in the industry.[/b] But interfaces are generic at this point: I can plug a Cranesong HEDD into the SP/DIF in on my lowly Gina interface, or anything else and it's going to sound just as good as it would with PT's. [b]Latency is less of an issue with Pro Tools than it is with any native DAW, which is a good [/b] Hmm.... I presume this is with MIDI? I like to play parts myself, I don't care about midi. [b]thing when tracking. Pro Tools is also the lingua franca of the pro audio world, which is my bread and butter.[/b] I want the best I can afford to make *my* music, portability isn't an issue. However, I think Nuendo exports/imports OMF PT-compatable files now? I don't have Nuendo, but I'm thinking about Cubase SX "a lot" (can't afford it right now). I have no inclination to delve into PT; I see no advantages, outside of learning an interface that is popular in a lot of circles (but may not *always* be the defacto standard).

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b]I'd rather spend less than $10,000 retail and buy a ProTools system. At $7,995 for the card and $1,995 for the 96 I/O, you can buy a new Pro Tools|HD 1 system that supports recording at 96 kHz and up to 96 simultaneous audio tracks with no stress on the computer.[/b][/quote]Man, I'd rather spend $3,000 for the same thing with Nuendo and use the leftover $7,000 for mics, a Great River, Grace and ADAMS....[/b][/quote]Really ? I'd rather spend the money on PT and when it's paid for itself 20 times over in the first year be able to buy whatever mic's and other toys I want. I've had just about every flavor of native rig and finally broke down to buy a TDM system. The TDM system has made me more money than all the other systems combined. What's the point in having all those great toys when you can't play with the big boys ? Rob

Rob Hoffman

http://www.robmixmusic.com

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]][/quote]I think that depends on one's experience with said interface. I don't like having to designate new tracks, set markers just to time align a track, have to be careful about audio file types I import, uhm... I can't remember, but there's a number of other things I thought when I last tried PT that made me go "uhg..."... Does PT have vector editing yet? That was a biggie for me. [b]utilize native processing for extra power. In addition, the new HD interfaces offer some of the best specs in the industry.[/b] But interfaces are generic at this point: I can plug a Cranesong HEDD into the SP/DIF in on my lowly Gina interface, or anything else and it's going to sound just as good as it would with PT's. [b]Latency is less of an issue with Pro Tools than it is with any native DAW, which is a good [/b] Hmm.... I presume this is with MIDI? I like to play parts myself, I don't care about midi. [b]thing when tracking. Pro Tools is also the lingua franca of the pro audio world, which is my bread and butter.[/b] I want the best I can afford to make *my* music, portability isn't an issue. However, I think Nuendo exports/imports OMF PT-compatable files now? I don't have Nuendo, but I'm thinking about Cubase SX "a lot" (can't afford it right now). I have no inclination to delve into PT; I see no advantages, outside of learning an interface that is popular in a lot of circles (but may not *always* be the defacto standard).[/b][/QUOTE] Sounds like you just had a bad experience which could have happened with any DAW or console. You don't have to setup markers to align tracks, and I've never worried about what type of files I'm importing. What the hell is vector editing ? I own just about every major sequencer/DAW and have never heard of or needed Vector editing. Latency has nothing to do with MIDI, Soapbox was talking about latency in and out of the box such as routing outboard through your inserts and monitoring with plug-in's. Rob

Rob Hoffman

http://www.robmixmusic.com

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking real, no BS, professional record making, Native is about 12-18 months from being the equal of a hardware based system like PT, and by PT I mean TDM. That is, *unless* you also use a really decent digital console in conjunction with the Native system. And by then, you're talking at least even money. PT and Nuendo ( I suppose add Cubase SX now as well) are both fast with many excellent features. PT is definitely more mature, but Nuendo/SX is getting better faster than PT is. Either one is a great editor in competent hands. Plugins? TDM guys have no reason to be arrogant at this point. Yes, there are a few choice TDM only plugs. But there are also a few choice DX or VST only plugins. Drumagog kills Sound Replacer, for instance. The UAD plugs are the most "real" and analog sounding in existence, IMO. Neither are available on TDM. As far as mixing? Nah, not really wholly inside either one, IMO. Not if we're still talking about "real, no BS, professional record making". PT is a big, editable tape deck in most "real" mixing scenes. Same for Nuendo. Hey, don't flame me for just stating the way things currently are. If you mix all-in Nuendo or PT and are happy, great. I hope you sell multiplatinum and make a liar out of me ;) But very few major label projects are mixed that way. And the DUC and Nuendo forums are full of *owners* who don't think those products make great sounding, phat and punchy mixes. Now many SSL or Neve *owners* gripe about how thin and not punchy their own consoles sound? We could debate all this forever. Probably will. But right now, PT is the reference point for audio production, mostly because of how well it works and to some degree, despite how it sounds for the most part. I mix records that come from all of these DAWS/formats, so I get to compare often. It still comes down to the level of talent of the person using it far, far more than the gear itself. Regards, Brian T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]interfaces are generic at this point: I can plug a Cranesong HEDD into the SP/DIF in on my lowly Gina interface, or anything else and it's going to sound just as good as it would with PT's.[/b] It's true if you use any interface passively that way, that the A/D quality of the device itself is moot. However, these points aren't moot: 1) Using a quality unit such as a Cranesong HEDD adds to the cost of a supposedly "inexpensive" native system. 2) Cranesong HEDD, or no Cranesong HEDD, the system itself will still be a native system with the latency problems inherent in all native systems. 3) While the Cranesong HEDD takes care of the analog to digital conversion weaknesses of the Gina card, nothing in this scenario takes care of the digital to analog conversion weaknesses. The sound coming out of the box will still be the sound of the Gina interface. 4) S/PDIF use limits the HEDD/Gina combo to stereo tracking. (Mind you, I'm not talking about playback here.) The Pro Tools HD interfaces, in stock configuration, can handle eight tracks of analog to digital conversion at once. They can handle even more with optional I/O cards. A Cranesong HEDD 192 retails for $3,495.00. The Echo Gina interface retails for $495.00. On the other hand, the high-end Digidesign 192 I/O retails for $3995.00. Considering that $5 retail was saved by combining the Cranesong HEDD 192 and Gina interface (which can't handle 192 kHz, BTW), how does this negate what you can achieve by using the new Pro Tools HD interface alone? Also, considering that the Echo Gina interface can't handle rates higher than 96 kHz, it makes no sense to compare what it and a HEDD 192 can do with a Pro Tools HD 192 I/O. Instead, let's use a Pro tools HD 96 I/O, which costs $1995.00. Then, it costs half as much to use a Pro Tools box instead of the Gina/HEDD combo for similar A/D conversion quality and superior D/A conversion quality. The cheaper 96 I/O also retains all of the advantages 1-4 listed above.

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote][i]Originally posted by LawrenceF:[/i] Ok, let me explain furthur. Most pro studios built around pro tools have either a control surface or a console. PT with Pro Control is much more than 10k, especially if you go for a 24 fader system. So for 10k you get a system that may still need a control surface. So again, lots of us don't need the processing power that PT farm cards provide. Myself in particular use the d8b and it's plugs for dsp processing along with some good outboard effects. So for 10k I got a console with 48 eqs, comps and options for plugs that will ALWAYS have enough dsp to process every channel. I added 48 audio tracks with Cubase and an Alesis HD24. To empty my studio and replace it with a PT/ProControl system of the same power and flexibility would cost WAY more than what I spent. Lawrence[/quote][b]Lawrence[/b], I can see why your setup better suits your needs. At the same time, I would caution you against the kind of comparison you're making. Perhaps a better way to sum it up might be that "a similarly configured" PT/ProControl system would have cost way more than what you spent. While this is a subtle difference, it acknowledges that a similarly configured PT/ProControl system would not offer "the same power and flexibility." It would offer a different "power and flexibility." In many ways it would be better; in other ways, it would be worse. However, these ways could make all the difference in the world to someone else. It can get very complicated to compare, in a fair way, native with dedicated systems, tape-based with hard disk setups, not to mention mixer control surfaces with digital mixers. In addition, there are maxxed-out Pro Tools systems and basic Pro Tools systems, there are old Pro Tools Mix systems and new Pro Tools HD systems, and while Pro Tools may be used with a $10,000 Pro Control, it may also be used with an $800 Motor Mix. It may have been a simple choice for you, but the discussion you're inviting is anything but simple. Two more cents, Geoff

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b] [quote] It may have been a simple choice for you, but the discussion you're inviting is anything but simple. Geoff[/b][/quote]I hear ya. Of course it's hard to compare different systems that have different attributes. I was just saying that to build a professional studio, PT is not a requirement. There are many who would say that it is. Again, if I could afford it I'd probably buy it but there are many different host-based alternatives (in conjunction with numerous hardware choice) that will give one the power and flexibility of a full blown PT rig for less money. That's all I was saying. Anyone wanna sell me a used PT rig for cheap? :) Lawrence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]I was just saying that to build a professional studio, PT is not a requirement. There are many who would say that it is.[/b] I agree, and I hear that a lot too. While it can certainly help one's career to own a Pro Tools rig, many albums have been recorded without Pro Tools, and many more will be. A much more common ingredient in major releases, for example, is an SSL console, especially at mixdown. Unfortunately, even fewer of us can afford to buy one of those! :D Best, Geoff

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we`ll all agree if we can get PT we will. Until then, I`ll continue to make records with the DP-d8b setup. I agree that PT is the industry standard but for how long? I can see a day (maybe 2 years) when it won`t matter what you use, most of the top sequencers/DAW (Logic, DP, Cubase, Sonar, RADAR, etc...) will offer the same power and flexibility as well as a lot cheaper entry point. This will eventually force DIGIDESIGN to lower their entry level PT rigs. Its all good. This means that users will choose what they want because they want it, nothing because its the only thing they can afford. Peace, Ernest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ROBMIX wrote: "What the hell is vector editing ? I own just about every major sequencer/DAW and have never heard of or needed Vector editing." If you use current versions of "about every major sequencer/DAW" you use vector editing. It's creating and editing envelopes instead of turning knobs. i.e. editing a volume envelope or fx send envelope with a mouse. IMO this is far better way to mix than using a hardware desk with faders and knobs. Much faster and more accurate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b]If you use current versions of "about every major sequencer/DAW" you use vector editing. It's creating and editing envelopes instead of turning knobs. i.e. editing a volume envelope or fx send envelope with a mouse. IMO this is far better way to mix than using a hardware desk with faders and knobs. Much faster and more accurate.[/b][/quote]Learn something new everyday. Then yes, Pro Tools has had it for years. Rob

Rob Hoffman

http://www.robmixmusic.com

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another myth about PT is the "compatibility" issue. I'll say right now that most daw's already have "compatibility" with PT. In Cubase I simply render all of my tracks from 00:00:00 till the audio track ends. That way I have all audio tracks saved as individual *.aif or *.wav files that can be easily imported into PT or any daw and retain sync. I can easily fit 2 or 3 song folders on a single 0.50 CDR to be taken and imported to any daw anywhere. So to say that "with PT you can take your sessions anywhere" is a little misleading by basically suggesting that other daws can't. With the method I just described I can walk into any major studio in the world (with a daw) and load my tracks in a few minutes. Lawrence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]Lawrence[/b], you made a good point about exporting audio files from other DAWs so that they may be easily imported into Pro Tools. Since we're both [url=http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004191]cross-posting[/url] , I'll add what I wrote in the other thread too: I also think that what you're advocating is a good idea for archiving as well. I believe that this process may help ensure that archived files will open more easily in a decade or two. After all, we don't know how compatible tomorrow's software will be with today's. How well will it recognize scattered regions of audio? You're guess is as good as mine. However, we can be confident that tomorrow's software will know what to do with a WAV, AIFF, or even an SD II file that starts at the top and continues until there is no more audio. However, the issue of importing files from other DAWs into Pro Tools is not always as simple as it may seem upon examining this aspect alone. Sure, importing just the audio files this way is relatively easy. However, what if you have automation and effects that you've assigned in your original DAW, and you want to export them into Pro Tools without marrying them to the track? The process then becomes either more difficult or impossible, depending on your DAW's support of OMF and also depending on whether or not your effects plug-ins exist in Pro Tools supported RTAS or TDM formats. As always, the choice of which products to buy depends on what best suits your needs. IMO, it's good to consider as many strengths and weaknesses of those products as possible while anticipating what those needs might be. Best, Geoff

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...