Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is Pro Tools better?
150 views
Skip to first unread message
Nil
Jun 22, 2012, 1:37:14 PM6/22/12
to
It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
others lack?
system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
others lack?
Les Cargill
Jun 22, 2012, 1:50:30 PM6/22/12
to
dominant reason for preferring it is "ecosystem" or "community",
or sensitivity to "branding". ProTools is the Nike of DAW.
If I was faced with that choice, I'd go Sonar because Sonar detects
& isolates crashes in plugins. For all I know, this is now
commonplace in other DAW packages, but I know it to be true
in Sonar.
But I am miles away from caring about interoperability or
market share...
--
Les Cargill
Scott Dorsey
Jun 22, 2012, 2:12:16 PM6/22/12
to
Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
>So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>others lack?
It is the standard because it is the standard. Everybody has it, so
>
>So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>others lack?
everyone else has to get it so they can interchange work.
It is the standard for the same reason that 2" 24-track was the standard.
2" 24-track didn't sound as good as 2" 16-track, but it was the standard
so that was the headstack you bought even if you only were using a handful
of tracks. Because you need to interchange with other studios.
How do de facto standards like this come about? It is a weird kind of
social process.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Nil
Jun 22, 2012, 2:37:37 PM6/22/12
to
On 22 Jun 2012, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> It is the standard because it is the standard. Everybody has it,
> so everyone else has to get it so they can interchange work.
>
> It is the standard for the same reason that 2" 24-track was the
> standard. 2" 24-track didn't sound as good as 2" 16-track, but it
> was the standard so that was the headstack you bought even if you
> only were using a handful of tracks. Because you need to
> interchange with other studios.
OK, that's an advantage, though not a technical one but rather one of
workflow and business practice.
Does Pro Tools have any technical advantages? Seems to me that most
modern DAWs should be able to capture the signal from a digital audio
converter equally well. I see some people make some weak claims that
one may process the data in a slightly different way than another, and
the result may sound different than the other, but it's all pretty
vague. Is Pro Tools any better at the basic job of capturing or
processing audio? Are its plugins better? Or conversely, is it any
worse?
In other words, given the same external setup (mics, preamps, good-
sounding room, etc.) will Pro Tools make a better recording?
> How do de facto standards like this come about? It is a weird
> kind of social process.
It was one of the first on the market, wasn't it? And they targeted
(and priced) themselves at the professional studio market, rather than
the hobbyist. It appears that they got in on the ground floor when
there wasn't really any competition, and now they're firmly entrenched.
rec.audio.pro:
> It is the standard because it is the standard. Everybody has it,
> so everyone else has to get it so they can interchange work.
>
> It is the standard for the same reason that 2" 24-track was the
> standard. 2" 24-track didn't sound as good as 2" 16-track, but it
> was the standard so that was the headstack you bought even if you
> only were using a handful of tracks. Because you need to
> interchange with other studios.
workflow and business practice.
Does Pro Tools have any technical advantages? Seems to me that most
modern DAWs should be able to capture the signal from a digital audio
converter equally well. I see some people make some weak claims that
one may process the data in a slightly different way than another, and
the result may sound different than the other, but it's all pretty
vague. Is Pro Tools any better at the basic job of capturing or
processing audio? Are its plugins better? Or conversely, is it any
worse?
In other words, given the same external setup (mics, preamps, good-
sounding room, etc.) will Pro Tools make a better recording?
> How do de facto standards like this come about? It is a weird
> kind of social process.
(and priced) themselves at the professional studio market, rather than
the hobbyist. It appears that they got in on the ground floor when
there wasn't really any competition, and now they're firmly entrenched.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 22, 2012, 2:46:57 PM6/22/12
to
Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
>OK, that's an advantage, though not a technical one but rather one of
>workflow and business practice.
That's where all the advantages are.
>
>OK, that's an advantage, though not a technical one but rather one of
>workflow and business practice.
>Does Pro Tools have any technical advantages? Seems to me that most
>modern DAWs should be able to capture the signal from a digital audio
>converter equally well. I see some people make some weak claims that
>one may process the data in a slightly different way than another, and
>the result may sound different than the other, but it's all pretty
>vague. Is Pro Tools any better at the basic job of capturing or
>processing audio? Are its plugins better? Or conversely, is it any
>worse?
with fidelity... you could load a file in, load it back out, and the bits
weren't the same even when you did no processing or editing.
It's a lot better than that today. The user interface is still pretty
godawful, but it's a lot better than that.
>In other words, given the same external setup (mics, preamps, good-
>sounding room, etc.) will Pro Tools make a better recording?
Engineers all work in different ways. Some want to mix in the box. Some
just use the DAW as a fancy tape machine and continue doing mixing the same
way they always did. Some want to mix the two.
Pro Tools has millions of features which make it possible to use for all
of these different methods. It's not really designed for any particular
job, it's designed to do everything. Like most swiss army knife tools, it
doesn't really do any of them all that well, but it does enough of them
serviceably.
>> How do de facto standards like this come about? It is a weird
>> kind of social process.
>
>It was one of the first on the market, wasn't it? And they targeted
>(and priced) themselves at the professional studio market, rather than
>the hobbyist. It appears that they got in on the ground floor when
>there wasn't really any competition, and now they're firmly entrenched.
of them were much more specialized tools, too, and some of those specialized
tools found niche markets. A lot of them died. Pro Tools became the
standard for a lot of work.
A lot of systems that were much better than Pro Tools at the time disappeared.
For example, I'd really like to know what could have happened if the Orban
Audyssey had been developed for another 20 years instead of being abandoned.
Mike Rivers
Jun 22, 2012, 6:05:51 PM6/22/12
to
On 6/22/2012 1:37 PM, Nil wrote:
> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard?
Because enough professionals started using it at about the
> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard?
same time.
> Does it actually do
> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
> others lack?
than most other systems when you use the HD version with the
Avid HDX hardware interface (rather than with a generic ASIO
interface) you get low enough monitoring latency through the
program so that that it's rarely a problem. When using
common ASIO hardware I/O you will have more monitoring
latency. There are other advantages with HD, too, like
better disk caching and higher track counts.
It's the pros who didn't feel very "pro" without the HD
setup (prior to Pro Tools Version 9) who make it THE
professional system to use. The M-Box LE and M-Audio
versions became very popular since, for the most part, the
project files are compatible with the HD systems. People
could move projects easily between their inexpensive home
systems and pro studios to take advantage of what a studio
offered but also do some work at home.
There were some regional favorites in the mid-2000s while
Pro Tools still had some problems and quirks (Nashville
engineers seemed to prefer Nuendo, for example) but nowadays
everyone has caved in and gone with Pro Tools since there
doesn't really seem to be anything wrong with the current
versions if you spend enough money on them.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
de...@deanrichard.com
Jun 22, 2012, 8:48:20 PM6/22/12
to
Not in my experience, at least the software itself. The software is not better than other choices, and less flexible in some ways. I was a long-time Samplitude user, but I bought an ASIO version of PT last summer because I wanted to be able to exchange projects with a couple of studios, and of course PT is the standard for interchange.
Truthfully I expected the PT software to be a lot worse than it was. For the most part, I like it. The ASIO support on PC is ridiculously fickle, but ignoring those issues it's a good, solid DAW. I didn't miss Samplitude's object based editing nearly as much as I thought I would. I found the workflow easy to grasp, and efficient.
But there's the matter of the PT hardware. It's expensive relative to a software only solution, but for large studios and big budget projects it's a small price to pay for massive plugin counts and near realtime response. Compared to an SSL console for example, the hardware cost is small, but the benefits of a PT hardware system over using software only solutions are real.
Thanks,
Dean
Truthfully I expected the PT software to be a lot worse than it was. For the most part, I like it. The ASIO support on PC is ridiculously fickle, but ignoring those issues it's a good, solid DAW. I didn't miss Samplitude's object based editing nearly as much as I thought I would. I found the workflow easy to grasp, and efficient.
But there's the matter of the PT hardware. It's expensive relative to a software only solution, but for large studios and big budget projects it's a small price to pay for massive plugin counts and near realtime response. Compared to an SSL console for example, the hardware cost is small, but the benefits of a PT hardware system over using software only solutions are real.
Thanks,
Dean
Nil
Jun 22, 2012, 8:58:23 PM6/22/12
to
On 22 Jun 2012, de...@deanrichard.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:
> But there's the matter of the PT hardware. It's expensive relative
> to a software only solution, but for large studios and big budget
> projects it's a small price to pay for massive plugin counts and
> near realtime response. Compared to an SSL console for example,
> the hardware cost is small, but the benefits of a PT hardware
> system over using software only solutions are real.
OK, that seems like a significant advantage to me, that a Pro Tools
> But there's the matter of the PT hardware. It's expensive relative
> to a software only solution, but for large studios and big budget
> projects it's a small price to pay for massive plugin counts and
> near realtime response. Compared to an SSL console for example,
> the hardware cost is small, but the benefits of a PT hardware
> system over using software only solutions are real.
hardware+software system would have the very lowest possible latency. I
guess the actual quality of the audio capture would be no better, but
if the latency issue becomes practically non-existant, that would be a
good reason for its use in critical recording situations.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 22, 2012, 9:06:20 PM6/22/12
to
system with the Mykerinos? I really like their stuff, but I don't get to
use it very often because... it's not Pro Tools...
Les Cargill
Jun 22, 2012, 9:36:54 PM6/22/12
to
Nil wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012, de...@deanrichard.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> But there's the matter of the PT hardware. It's expensive relative
>> to a software only solution, but for large studios and big budget
>> projects it's a small price to pay for massive plugin counts and
>> near realtime response. Compared to an SSL console for example,
>> the hardware cost is small, but the benefits of a PT hardware
>> system over using software only solutions are real.
>
> OK, that seems like a significant advantage to me, that a Pro Tools
> hardware+software system would have the very lowest possible latency.
It is not, really. If latency is at issue, get a console.
> On 22 Jun 2012, de...@deanrichard.com wrote in rec.audio.pro:
>
>> But there's the matter of the PT hardware. It's expensive relative
>> to a software only solution, but for large studios and big budget
>> projects it's a small price to pay for massive plugin counts and
>> near realtime response. Compared to an SSL console for example,
>> the hardware cost is small, but the benefits of a PT hardware
>> system over using software only solutions are real.
>
> OK, that seems like a significant advantage to me, that a Pro Tools
> hardware+software system would have the very lowest possible latency.
> I
> guess the actual quality of the audio capture would be no better, but
> if the latency issue becomes practically non-existant, that would be a
> good reason for its use in critical recording situations.
>
--
Les Cargill
geoff
Jun 22, 2012, 11:17:36 PM6/22/12
to
aspects that could be considered 'better still'.
It only became a standard by being early on the scene, and a cynical
business model that pretty much locked users into it exclusively.
geoff
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 23, 2012, 1:21:31 AM6/23/12
to
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:J4CdnYlF_aEWqHjS...@giganews.com...
> Pro Tools is better - that is "better than it used to be". Other DAWs have
> aspects that could be considered 'better still'.
>
> It only became a standard by being early on the scene, and a cynical
> business model that pretty much locked users into it exclusively.
am familiar with, but I thought it and its predecessor Cooledit Pro were
well respected.
No?
Gary Eickmeier
Trevor
Jun 23, 2012, 2:02:02 AM6/23/12
to
"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc...
> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
> others lack?
Same reason Microsoft Office is dominant, not because it is better than
> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
> others lack?
anything else ever made, simply that it had the momentum to become a defacto
standard, and that takes time to overcome.
Trevor.
Nil
Jun 23, 2012, 2:39:10 AM6/23/12
to
On 23 Jun 2012, "Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> I was waiting for some mention of Adobe Audition. That is the only
> program I am familiar with, but I thought it and its predecessor
> Cooledit Pro were well respected.
>
> No?
I don't think Audition is the in the same category as the others that
have been mentioned. Cool Edit/Audition is a great stereo editor, with
some clumsy multi-track features grafted on. My only experience with
Audition is up to version 2, but the multi-track part is torture to
work with... but I still use it's stereo editing features almost every
day.
rec.audio.pro:
> I was waiting for some mention of Adobe Audition. That is the only
> program I am familiar with, but I thought it and its predecessor
> Cooledit Pro were well respected.
>
> No?
have been mentioned. Cool Edit/Audition is a great stereo editor, with
some clumsy multi-track features grafted on. My only experience with
Audition is up to version 2, but the multi-track part is torture to
work with... but I still use it's stereo editing features almost every
day.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 23, 2012, 11:54:59 AM6/23/12
to
>> Pro Tools is better - that is "better than it used to be". Other DAWs have
>> aspects that could be considered 'better still'.
>>
>> It only became a standard by being early on the scene, and a cynical
>> business model that pretty much locked users into it exclusively.
>
>I was waiting for some mention of Adobe Audition. That is the only program I
>am familiar with, but I thought it and its predecessor Cooledit Pro were
>well respected.
There are lots and lots of programs that are well-respected. Some of them
>> aspects that could be considered 'better still'.
>>
>> It only became a standard by being early on the scene, and a cynical
>> business model that pretty much locked users into it exclusively.
>
>I was waiting for some mention of Adobe Audition. That is the only program I
>am familiar with, but I thought it and its predecessor Cooledit Pro were
>well respected.
are very popular within a niche market (for example, Boom Recorder, which
is used on nearly every film these days if only as a backup to a hardware
recorder). But they're not Pro Tools, which was what the original poster
was asking about.
Ty Ford
Jun 23, 2012, 12:51:46 PM6/23/12
to
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:37:14 -0400, Nil wrote
(in article <XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
(in article <XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 23, 2012, 1:15:51 PM6/23/12
to
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC0B6C62...@News.Individual.NET...
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:37:14 -0400, Nil wrote
> (in article <XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
>
>> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
>> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
>> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
>> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>>
>> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>> others lack?
>
> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
Google? Instead of the professionals on this group? That seems disrespectful
> (in article <XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
>
>> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
>> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
>> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
>> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>>
>> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>> others lack?
>
> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
at least. It was a reasonable question, and one I am interested in as well.
Gary Eickmeier
Phil W
Jun 23, 2012, 3:10:41 PM6/23/12
to
Gary Eickmeier:
> Ty Ford:
years.
You might want to try Google Groups´ archive for this group...
> Ty Ford:
>> Nil wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
>>> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
>>> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
>>> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>>>
>>> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>>> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>>> others lack?
>>
>> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
>
> Google? Instead of the professionals on this group? That seems
> disrespectful at least. It was a reasonable question, and one I am
> interested in as well.
It is and it has been discussed quite a few times - at least in the last 10
>>
>>> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
>>> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
>>> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
>>> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>>>
>>> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>>> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>>> others lack?
>>
>> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
>
> Google? Instead of the professionals on this group? That seems
> disrespectful at least. It was a reasonable question, and one I am
> interested in as well.
years.
You might want to try Google Groups´ archive for this group...
Nil
Jun 24, 2012, 1:15:31 AM6/24/12
to
On 23 Jun 2012, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla
> here.
Too late, the discussion has already begun and you can't suppress it.
Please go screw yourself and "the charter", you wanna-be fascist net-
nanny.
rec.audio.pro:
> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla
> here.
Please go screw yourself and "the charter", you wanna-be fascist net-
nanny.
Message has been deleted
de...@deanrichard.com
Jun 24, 2012, 12:39:46 PM6/24/12
to Phil W
Times change. The comments you would have read about PT 10 years ago are quite different than those you might hear today. 10 years ago it had a reputation for bad audio quality, clumsy editing, and a limited feature set.
None of those things are true of PT9. I resisted the move to PT for many years, but it's a good, solid platform now. And if you want integrated hardware DSP acceleration it's about the only game in town. There are lots of things to criticize, but it's viable. Ten years ago it was very mediocre.
In addition to using it in my own studio I had the experience of working with a couple of studio mix engineers as they did ITB mixing with PT. They criticized its many flaws, but they also mixed in a very fast and efficient manner. With all of the analog sounding plugins available today, the mixes sounded good. It was educational.
Dean
None of those things are true of PT9. I resisted the move to PT for many years, but it's a good, solid platform now. And if you want integrated hardware DSP acceleration it's about the only game in town. There are lots of things to criticize, but it's viable. Ten years ago it was very mediocre.
In addition to using it in my own studio I had the experience of working with a couple of studio mix engineers as they did ITB mixing with PT. They criticized its many flaws, but they also mixed in a very fast and efficient manner. With all of the analog sounding plugins available today, the mixes sounded good. It was educational.
Dean
Mike Rivers
Jun 24, 2012, 2:11:33 PM6/24/12
to
On 6/24/2012 12:39 PM, de...@deanrichard.com wrote:
> Times change. The comments you would have read about PT
> 10 years ago are quite different than those you might
> hear today. 10 years ago it had a reputation for bad
> audio quality, clumsy editing, and a limited feature
> set.
Depends on where you read about it. On newsgroups like this,
> Times change. The comments you would have read about PT
> 10 years ago are quite different than those you might
> hear today. 10 years ago it had a reputation for bad
> audio quality, clumsy editing, and a limited feature
> set.
and on forums like Gearslutz.com, yes, all you heard about
it is how bad the summing was and how many features common
on other DAWs were missing on Pro Tools, and of course there
was the issue of being tied to using (then) Digidesign
hardware with the program.
But when you ready about studios charging more money to make
one album than your typical forum user will ever see from
his studio in a lifetime. you read about how easy it is to
comp vocals, fly in choruses and make up multiple versions
of the song for different end products. And it sounded good
enough given that anything not sufficiently bugged up in the
tracking and mixing by Pro Tools was taken care of in
mastering-for-loudness.
And since so many records then (and still) were tracked in
different studios, there needed to be a format that was as
transportable as analog tape so they wouldn't lose that
capability. Experiments with tracking remotely using digital
transmission over a network just didn't make it (and still
don't).
Today things are different all around. Pro Tools is better,
there are many I/O options ranging from a built-in sound
card (so you can do evaluations and rough edits on an
airplane or in a hotel room) to thousand dollar per channel
high resolution interfaces. You CAN make an audiophile grade
record with Pro Tools today.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 24, 2012, 3:16:01 PM6/24/12
to
<de...@deanrichard.com> wrote:
>Times change. The comments you would have read about PT 10 years ago are qu=
>ite different than those you might hear today. 10 years ago it had a reputa=
>tion for bad audio quality, clumsy editing, and a limited feature set.=20
Yes, but people used it anyway, because it was the standard.
>None of those things are true of PT9. I resisted the move to PT for many ye=
>ars, but it's a good, solid platform now. And if you want integrated hardwa=
>re DSP acceleration it's about the only game in town. There are lots of thi=
>ngs to criticize, but it's viable. Ten years ago it was very mediocre.=20
The problem is that in the process of fixing bugs, they also added millions
of features, and I think that makes it clumsy. So in fact my complaints about
PT today are the exact opposite of the complaints I had a decade ago.
>In addition to using it in my own studio I had the experience of working wi=
>th a couple of studio mix engineers as they did ITB mixing with PT. They cr=
>iticized its many flaws, but they also mixed in a very fast and efficient m=
>anner. With all of the analog sounding plugins available today, the mixes s=
>ounded good. It was educational.
I can't imagine mixing in the box, but then I'm still doing most of my
work to 1". And a remarkable amount to DTRS, which really was never a good
format in the first place.
>Times change. The comments you would have read about PT 10 years ago are qu=
>ite different than those you might hear today. 10 years ago it had a reputa=
>tion for bad audio quality, clumsy editing, and a limited feature set.=20
Yes, but people used it anyway, because it was the standard.
>None of those things are true of PT9. I resisted the move to PT for many ye=
>ars, but it's a good, solid platform now. And if you want integrated hardwa=
>re DSP acceleration it's about the only game in town. There are lots of thi=
>ngs to criticize, but it's viable. Ten years ago it was very mediocre.=20
The problem is that in the process of fixing bugs, they also added millions
of features, and I think that makes it clumsy. So in fact my complaints about
PT today are the exact opposite of the complaints I had a decade ago.
>In addition to using it in my own studio I had the experience of working wi=
>th a couple of studio mix engineers as they did ITB mixing with PT. They cr=
>iticized its many flaws, but they also mixed in a very fast and efficient m=
>anner. With all of the analog sounding plugins available today, the mixes s=
>ounded good. It was educational.
I can't imagine mixing in the box, but then I'm still doing most of my
work to 1". And a remarkable amount to DTRS, which really was never a good
format in the first place.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 24, 2012, 3:24:07 PM6/24/12
to
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>But when you ready about studios charging more money to make
>one album than your typical forum user will ever see from
>his studio in a lifetime. you read about how easy it is to
>comp vocals, fly in choruses and make up multiple versions
>of the song for different end products. And it sounded good
>enough given that anything not sufficiently bugged up in the
>tracking and mixing by Pro Tools was taken care of in
>mastering-for-loudness.
It's true.
>But when you ready about studios charging more money to make
>one album than your typical forum user will ever see from
>his studio in a lifetime. you read about how easy it is to
>comp vocals, fly in choruses and make up multiple versions
>of the song for different end products. And it sounded good
>enough given that anything not sufficiently bugged up in the
>tracking and mixing by Pro Tools was taken care of in
>mastering-for-loudness.
I had to fly in a chorus on tape last fall... I had forgotten just
how treacherous that was...
>Today things are different all around. Pro Tools is better,
>there are many I/O options ranging from a built-in sound
>card (so you can do evaluations and rough edits on an
>airplane or in a hotel room) to thousand dollar per channel
>high resolution interfaces. You CAN make an audiophile grade
>record with Pro Tools today.
that, though.
hank alrich
Jun 25, 2012, 12:24:37 PM6/25/12
to
with current discussion. A poster seeking deeper-than-buzzword activity
might dig through the archives to see where consensus arose at different
times, and how/if some/much/any of that holds presently.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Nil
Jun 25, 2012, 2:41:01 PM6/25/12
to
On 25 Jun 2012, walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> Gurgle Grupes is good for this kind of thing, but IMO, in
> conjunction with current discussion. A poster seeking
> deeper-than-buzzword activity might dig through the archives to
> see where consensus arose at different times, and how/if
> some/much/any of that holds presently.
Which is what I've been doing. I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
professional studios today, not yesterday. What I've taken from this
civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
other packages.
My question arose from a claim in another newsgroup that PT was
dominant because it was "the best." I was skeptical, but I wanted to
hear comments from people here who have had more hands-on experience
with it than I.
rec.audio.pro:
> Gurgle Grupes is good for this kind of thing, but IMO, in
> conjunction with current discussion. A poster seeking
> deeper-than-buzzword activity might dig through the archives to
> see where consensus arose at different times, and how/if
> some/much/any of that holds presently.
history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
professional studios today, not yesterday. What I've taken from this
civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
other packages.
My question arose from a claim in another newsgroup that PT was
dominant because it was "the best." I was skeptical, but I wanted to
hear comments from people here who have had more hands-on experience
with it than I.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2012, 3:31:51 PM6/25/12
to
Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>
>Which is what I've been doing. I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
>history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
>real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
>professional studios today, not yesterday. What I've taken from this
>civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
>in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
>alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
>other packages.
It used to be an integrated hardware+software system, but now it's been
>
>Which is what I've been doing. I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
>history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
>real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
>professional studios today, not yesterday. What I've taken from this
>civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
>in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
>alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
>other packages.
opened up and I think everybody is still sort of wondering how that is
going to take things.
>My question arose from a claim in another newsgroup that PT was
>dominant because it was "the best." I was skeptical, but I wanted to
>hear comments from people here who have had more hands-on experience
>with it than I.
ones at the right point in the price/performance curve. Lots of people
buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris. After seeing the maintenance
schedule on the Ferrari, I don't think I'd buy one either.
Nil
Jun 25, 2012, 4:36:55 PM6/25/12
to
On 25 Jun 2012, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> It used to be an integrated hardware+software system, but now it's
> been opened up and I think everybody is still sort of wondering
> how that is going to take things.
Right, but they also sell an integrated system (HDX) that's supposed to
be the most industrial strength powerful available, right? I would
think that might be considered among "The Best" for that market because
of the increased processing power. Maybe not necessarily because of any
innately superior sound quality.
> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but
> often the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
> Lots of people buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris.
> After seeing the maintenance schedule on the Ferrari, I don't
> think I'd buy one either.
The HDX system is pricey (~$10K at Sweetwater), so it seems to be more
in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
produce an equally nice sound.
rec.audio.pro:
> It used to be an integrated hardware+software system, but now it's
> been opened up and I think everybody is still sort of wondering
> how that is going to take things.
be the most industrial strength powerful available, right? I would
think that might be considered among "The Best" for that market because
of the increased processing power. Maybe not necessarily because of any
innately superior sound quality.
> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but
> often the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
> Lots of people buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris.
> After seeing the maintenance schedule on the Ferrari, I don't
> think I'd buy one either.
in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
produce an equally nice sound.
geoff
Jun 25, 2012, 4:36:16 PM6/25/12
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but often
> the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
Don't think PT ever had a price advantage. The opposite if anything, which
> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but often
> the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
had the effect of further locking users into it, after their investment.
> Lots of people
> buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris. After seeing the
> maintenance schedule on the Ferrari, I don't think I'd buy one either.
geoff
hank alrich
Jun 25, 2012, 4:42:12 PM6/25/12
to
Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2012, walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > Gurgle Grupes is good for this kind of thing, but IMO, in
> > conjunction with current discussion. A poster seeking
> > deeper-than-buzzword activity might dig through the archives to
> > see where consensus arose at different times, and how/if
> > some/much/any of that holds presently.
>
> Which is what I've been doing. I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
> history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
> real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
> professional studios today, not yesterday. What I've taken from this
> civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
> in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
> alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
> other packages.
Correct, and all the DAW's have warts in various places.
> On 25 Jun 2012, walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
> > Gurgle Grupes is good for this kind of thing, but IMO, in
> > conjunction with current discussion. A poster seeking
> > deeper-than-buzzword activity might dig through the archives to
> > see where consensus arose at different times, and how/if
> > some/much/any of that holds presently.
>
> Which is what I've been doing. I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
> history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
> real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
> professional studios today, not yesterday. What I've taken from this
> civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
> in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
> alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
> other packages.
Serious work is being done on new DAW's, and Reaper is bringing a heavey
hitter to the table, one that improves almost daily. Reaper is
crossplatform and can run from a thumb drive. Talk abolut portability.
Here are a few links to discussions:
http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/2012/06/12/the-future-of-the-work
station-professional-recordi/
http://prorecordingworkshop.lefora.com/2012/04/18/protool-or-reaper-2/
In addition, some folks are developing much more capable apps to
translate sessions between different DAW applications.
http://www.aatranslator.com.au/
> My question arose from a claim in another newsgroup that PT was
> dominant because it was "the best." I was skeptical, but I wanted to
> hear comments from people here who have had more hands-on experience
> with it than I.
list where each is "best" or "worst" from their perspective.
hank alrich
Jun 25, 2012, 4:54:48 PM6/25/12
to
heavy loads all over the industry.
I still use Logic and will, unless I get seduced by Reaper, if Apple
does something too weird with logic.
hank alrich
Jun 25, 2012, 4:54:48 PM6/25/12
to
for a client, and in Reaper when the choice is their own.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2012, 5:49:22 PM6/25/12
to
Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2012, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> It used to be an integrated hardware+software system, but now it's
>> been opened up and I think everybody is still sort of wondering
>> how that is going to take things.
>
>Right, but they also sell an integrated system (HDX) that's supposed to
>be the most industrial strength powerful available, right? I would
>think that might be considered among "The Best" for that market because
>of the increased processing power. Maybe not necessarily because of any
>innately superior sound quality.
I don't know. I think that might be the way they're taking things,
>On 25 Jun 2012, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
>rec.audio.pro:
>
>> It used to be an integrated hardware+software system, but now it's
>> been opened up and I think everybody is still sort of wondering
>> how that is going to take things.
>
>Right, but they also sell an integrated system (HDX) that's supposed to
>be the most industrial strength powerful available, right? I would
>think that might be considered among "The Best" for that market because
>of the increased processing power. Maybe not necessarily because of any
>innately superior sound quality.
but it'll be interesting to see how it goes.
>> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but
>> often the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
>> Lots of people buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris.
>> After seeing the maintenance schedule on the Ferrari, I don't
>> think I'd buy one either.
>
>The HDX system is pricey (~$10K at Sweetwater), so it seems to be more
>in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
>
>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>produce an equally nice sound.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2012, 5:52:49 PM6/25/12
to
hank alrich <walk...@nv.net> wrote:
The thing is.... classical music production, pop music production, jazz
production, film soundtrack production, voiceover production, and game
soundtrack production all have different demands, and there are various
special-purpose tools for all of them. Some of those tools are Peterbilts
and some are Ferraris.
Pro Tools... it's not really either one, but with the market these days
most folks don't need either one anyway.
>I still use Logic and will, unless I get seduced by Reaper, if Apple
>does something too weird with logic.
No reason you can't keep using the same version if they do. I still have
a first generation Sonic workstation here and it still gets occasional use.
>geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> Would call PT a Ferrari ....
>
>At this point I see it more like a Peterbilt. It's pulling a lot of
>heavy loads all over the industry.
And there's a need for that.
>>
>> Would call PT a Ferrari ....
>
>At this point I see it more like a Peterbilt. It's pulling a lot of
>heavy loads all over the industry.
The thing is.... classical music production, pop music production, jazz
production, film soundtrack production, voiceover production, and game
soundtrack production all have different demands, and there are various
special-purpose tools for all of them. Some of those tools are Peterbilts
and some are Ferraris.
Pro Tools... it's not really either one, but with the market these days
most folks don't need either one anyway.
>I still use Logic and will, unless I get seduced by Reaper, if Apple
>does something too weird with logic.
a first generation Sonic workstation here and it still gets occasional use.
Trevor
Jun 25, 2012, 7:42:51 PM6/25/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jsaeb7$cnh$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but often the
> ones at the right point in the price/performance curve. Lots of people
> buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris. After seeing the
> maintenance
> schedule on the Ferrari, I don't think I'd buy one either.
If you could afford to buy a Ferrari, you could afford the inflated service
> ones at the right point in the price/performance curve. Lots of people
> buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris. After seeing the
> maintenance
> schedule on the Ferrari, I don't think I'd buy one either.
charges for oil changes. (well it does use much higher grade oil than people
put in a Corolla :-)
It's when it really needs repairs, not just a regular service, that things
get really expensive. But would you really expect parts to cost the same as
a Corolla? Would your really prefer to drive a Corolla if you could afford
not to! :-)
As Rolls Royce once said, if you have to worry about the price, you can't
afford it!
Trevor.
Trevor
Jun 25, 2012, 7:46:59 PM6/25/12
to
news:jsamd2$edi$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Trevor.
>>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>>with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>>produce an equally nice sound.
>
> Probably. I'll take the Ampex myself, though.
Nothing beats nostalgia then Scott?
>>with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>>produce an equally nice sound.
>
> Probably. I'll take the Ampex myself, though.
Trevor.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2012, 8:17:59 PM6/25/12
to
depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
nickbatz
Jun 26, 2012, 1:43:48 AM6/26/12
to
The other reason Pro Tools is a standard is that it came along when there was practically nothing else around for anywhere near the price. There was Dyaxis, Synclavier, Waveframe...but for years if you wanted to run relatively affordable digital audio, you ran Pro Tools on a Mac. They really were that far ahead.
And in my opinion they got the interface right, but of course that's subjective.
And in my opinion they got the interface right, but of course that's subjective.
geoff
Jun 26, 2012, 2:34:09 AM6/26/12
to
hank alrich wrote:
> geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but often
>>> the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
>>
>> Don't think PT ever had a price advantage. The opposite if anything,
>> which had the effect of further locking users into it, after their
>> investment.
>>
>>> Lots of people
>>> buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris. After seeing the
>>> maintenance schedule on the Ferrari, I don't think I'd buy one
>>> either.
>>
>>
>> Would call PT a Ferrari ....
Typo sorry - "Wouldn't" !!!!
> geoff <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> The dominant products in a market are never the best ones, but often
>>> the ones at the right point in the price/performance curve.
>>
>> Don't think PT ever had a price advantage. The opposite if anything,
>> which had the effect of further locking users into it, after their
>> investment.
>>
>>> Lots of people
>>> buy Corollas, not a lot of people buy Ferraris. After seeing the
>>> maintenance schedule on the Ferrari, I don't think I'd buy one
>>> either.
>>
>>
>> Would call PT a Ferrari ....
Tried Logic back in PC days and found it (in common with most other Deuch
software except Magix/Samplitude) incomprehensibly complicated to use.
geoff
Frank Stearns
Jun 26, 2012, 3:19:57 AM6/26/12
to
nickbatz <nbat...@gmail.com> writes:
>The other reason Pro Tools is a standard is that it came along when there w=
>as practically nothing else around for anywhere near the price. There was D=
>yaxis, Synclavier, Waveframe...but for years if you wanted to run relativel=
>y affordable digital audio, you ran Pro Tools on a Mac. They really were th=
>at far ahead.
>And in my opinion they got the interface right, but of course that's subjec=
>tive.
I think you're right about the interface; but it's not obvious at first.
I was dragged kicking and screaming to PT, but once I got over myself I began to
appreciate how much the workflow "felt analog," even thought superficially it looked
nothing like it.
That statement might raise some eyebrows, and I'd be hard-pressed to make linear
comparisons between the two worlds, but there are certain routine things I do in PT
that "feel" similar to routine things I did sitting in front of an MM1000, ATR102,
and QE console.
I can't say the same for Cubase, Samplitude, or Pyramix -- other DAWs I've
used and test-driven.
One thing that does come to mind with PT compared to the other DAWs: like a
well-designed piece of analog gear, there are many subtleties in the PT graphical
presentation that makes things easier to find, follow, or predict if you've not used
some aspect before. Other DAWs (at least the versions I saw) were more "uniform" in
their design.
Now, many aspects of uniformity can be a good thing, while others can strip away
useful dimensionality.
Most definitely on this one, YMMV.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
>The other reason Pro Tools is a standard is that it came along when there w=
>as practically nothing else around for anywhere near the price. There was D=
>yaxis, Synclavier, Waveframe...but for years if you wanted to run relativel=
>y affordable digital audio, you ran Pro Tools on a Mac. They really were th=
>at far ahead.
>And in my opinion they got the interface right, but of course that's subjec=
>tive.
I think you're right about the interface; but it's not obvious at first.
I was dragged kicking and screaming to PT, but once I got over myself I began to
appreciate how much the workflow "felt analog," even thought superficially it looked
nothing like it.
That statement might raise some eyebrows, and I'd be hard-pressed to make linear
comparisons between the two worlds, but there are certain routine things I do in PT
that "feel" similar to routine things I did sitting in front of an MM1000, ATR102,
and QE console.
I can't say the same for Cubase, Samplitude, or Pyramix -- other DAWs I've
used and test-driven.
One thing that does come to mind with PT compared to the other DAWs: like a
well-designed piece of analog gear, there are many subtleties in the PT graphical
presentation that makes things easier to find, follow, or predict if you've not used
some aspect before. Other DAWs (at least the versions I saw) were more "uniform" in
their design.
Now, many aspects of uniformity can be a good thing, while others can strip away
useful dimensionality.
Most definitely on this one, YMMV.
Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.
polymod
Jun 26, 2012, 8:38:45 AM6/26/12
to
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1km95hh.n0mx4mthzqwpN%walk...@nv.net...
Poly
Mike Rivers
Jun 26, 2012, 8:52:19 AM6/26/12
to
On 6/25/2012 2:41 PM, Nil wrote:
> I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
> history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
> real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
> professional studios today, not yesterday.
I think not, other than that there are some plug-ins that
> I've been reading up on Pro Tool's
> history, but my immediate question has to do with whether or not PT has
> real technical advantages that would make it so dominant in
> professional studios today, not yesterday.
have only been released in a format that only works with Pro
Tools. So you could consider the lack of a certain processor
to be a technical disadvantage. On the other hand, other
than for keeping up with the Jones', there's no compelling
reason to use one particular plug-in. You can probably get
the job done with a different plug-in.
> What I've taken from this
> civil (but for one bitchy reply) discussion is that its advantages are
> in its integrated hardware+software systems, but that the software
> alone isn't any better at capturing and editing audio than a number of
> other packages.
differences in user interface (which is sort of technical)
which can make certain tasks easier or more difficult. By
having control over both the software and hardware, a
manufacturer can optimize the system for lowest monitoring
latency, or can better compensate for plug-in delays, and
those are technical advantages, but neither affect the sound.
> My question arose from a claim in another newsgroup that PT was
> dominant because it was "the best."
was a time when people used more than one program for music
production and nobody minded that very much - so you could
get the best MIDI program and the best audio program and
make the best production. But today the trend is to put
everything in one program.
For much of its life, Pro Tools was really behind in MIDI
capability which, particular with the rising importance of
virtual instruments in music production, people were driven
to Cubase (and Nuendo) since that started out as a MIDI
sequencer and was considered the best for that. But most
people seem to be satisfied with the current Pro Tools' MIDI
capability.
Mike Rivers
Jun 26, 2012, 8:57:45 AM6/26/12
to
On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote:
> The HDX system is pricey (~$10K at Sweetwater), so it seems to be more
> in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
How soon we forget! It wasn't too many years ago when a
> The HDX system is pricey (~$10K at Sweetwater), so it seems to be more
> in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
24-track digital recorder cost $250,000 and then you needed
a console.
> I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
> produce an equally nice sound.
home/personal/project studio level project. But few of your
top level artists record in a single place, and
transportability is still one of those things that the DAW
industry hasn't worked very hard at - probably because they
want to be sure that once you commit to their product, you
stick with it and will continue to buy upgrades.
de...@deanrichard.com
Jun 26, 2012, 9:19:35 AM6/26/12
to
Frank, I agree with what you've written. There is something about the PT interface and workflow that feels enough like the old analog ways to make it comfortable. Even I notice it and appreciate it, and I've been using computer based systems since PARIS was out in the mid 90's. I'm not sure why it feels that way - the actual tasks being performed are not the same at all.
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:19:57 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 2:19:57 AM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
de...@deanrichard.com
Jun 26, 2012, 9:25:56 AM6/26/12
to
Mike, you've made my earlier point exactly. Even in today's tight market a $10K investment is small by major studio standards.
To respond to Scott's earlier post about the open version of PT, it's hard to imagine that it will have much impact on the high-end user base. The hardware DSP is important in that environment. A few months ago I took a mix done at a bigger studio back to my home studio, and the plugin count brought my computer to its knees. I had to turn off plugins left and right before I could even play it back.
The open version of PT will probably help make PT more ubiquitous among the lower end users. I'm the perfect example of that. Since the ASIO version was introduced I've been using PT for anything that might involve any sort of collaboration with others. I still like Samplitude better, but only marginally so.
Dean
To respond to Scott's earlier post about the open version of PT, it's hard to imagine that it will have much impact on the high-end user base. The hardware DSP is important in that environment. A few months ago I took a mix done at a bigger studio back to my home studio, and the plugin count brought my computer to its knees. I had to turn off plugins left and right before I could even play it back.
The open version of PT will probably help make PT more ubiquitous among the lower end users. I'm the perfect example of that. Since the ASIO version was introduced I've been using PT for anything that might involve any sort of collaboration with others. I still like Samplitude better, but only marginally so.
Dean
de...@deanrichard.com
Jun 26, 2012, 9:45:19 AM6/26/12
to
Nil,
I think you pretty much nailed it. There isn't much about PT that is inherently better. I haven't used them much, but I do know PT Elastic Audio features get a lot of raves for the quality, but other programs have similar functionality. There might a cool feature here and there that other programs don't do as well, but I don't know of them, and the opposite is certainly true.
Still, from what I've seen the big differentiators are the hardware DSP integration and the fact that it's such a standard that moving songs between studios is relatively painless.
Actually - as I think about it, there is one more thing. The integration of hardware control surfaces. PT can be strongly integrated with the Digidesign control surface products. Other platforms allow the use of hardware control devices, but most use MIDI and are not as as tightly integrated. I believe the high end PT surface uses ethernet? (Could be wrong about that.)
Dean
On Monday, June 25, 2012 3:36:55 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2012, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
I think you pretty much nailed it. There isn't much about PT that is inherently better. I haven't used them much, but I do know PT Elastic Audio features get a lot of raves for the quality, but other programs have similar functionality. There might a cool feature here and there that other programs don't do as well, but I don't know of them, and the opposite is certainly true.
Still, from what I've seen the big differentiators are the hardware DSP integration and the fact that it's such a standard that moving songs between studios is relatively painless.
Actually - as I think about it, there is one more thing. The integration of hardware control surfaces. PT can be strongly integrated with the Digidesign control surface products. Other platforms allow the use of hardware control devices, but most use MIDI and are not as as tightly integrated. I believe the high end PT surface uses ethernet? (Could be wrong about that.)
Dean
On Monday, June 25, 2012 3:36:55 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2012, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
Ty Ford
Jun 26, 2012, 11:58:36 AM6/26/12
to
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:15:51 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article <YPmFr.65689$2E4....@unlimited.newshosting.com>):
>
> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.CC0B6C62...@News.Individual.NET...
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:37:14 -0400, Nil wrote
>> (in article <XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
Gary,
With all due respect. No it isn't. The question and others like it has been
answered so many times here and elsewhere that it has been done.....to death
Yes there are some professionals in this group, but there are equally or
better qualified professionals in other groups who have answered these
questions.
I'm beginning to believe posts like this are actually from PR flacks who get
paid to stir the pot.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
(in article <YPmFr.65689$2E4....@unlimited.newshosting.com>):
>
> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.CC0B6C62...@News.Individual.NET...
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:37:14 -0400, Nil wrote
>> (in article <XnsA07A8A8E...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
>>
>>> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
>>> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
>>> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
>>> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>>>
>>> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>>> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>>> others lack?
>>
>> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
>
> Google? Instead of the professionals on this group? That seems disrespectful
> at least. It was a reasonable question, and one I am interested in as well.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>>> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
>>> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
>>> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
>>> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>>>
>>> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
>>> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
>>> others lack?
>>
>> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla here.
>
> Google? Instead of the professionals on this group? That seems disrespectful
> at least. It was a reasonable question, and one I am interested in as well.
>
Gary,
With all due respect. No it isn't. The question and others like it has been
answered so many times here and elsewhere that it has been done.....to death
Yes there are some professionals in this group, but there are equally or
better qualified professionals in other groups who have answered these
questions.
I'm beginning to believe posts like this are actually from PR flacks who get
paid to stir the pot.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
Ty Ford
Jun 26, 2012, 11:59:08 AM6/26/12
to
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 01:15:31 -0400, Nil wrote
(in article <XnsA07CCCD...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
> On 23 Jun 2012, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
> Please go screw yourself and "the charter", you wanna-be fascist net-
> nanny.
>
grow up.
(in article <XnsA07CCCD...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
> On 23 Jun 2012, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla
>> here.
>
> Too late, the discussion has already begun and you can't suppress it.
>> Google it and find out. Please don't start another walla walla
>> here.
>
> Please go screw yourself and "the charter", you wanna-be fascist net-
> nanny.
>
grow up.
Richard Webb
Jun 26, 2012, 2:54:46 AM6/26/12
to
On Mon 2012-Jun-25 17:52, Scott Dorsey writes:
>>At this point I see it more like a Peterbilt. It's pulling a lot of
>>heavy loads all over the industry.
> And there's a need for that.
Indeed.
>>At this point I see it more like a Peterbilt. It's pulling a lot of
>>heavy loads all over the industry.
> And there's a need for that.
> The thing is.... classical music production, pop music production,
> jazz production, film soundtrack production, voiceover production,
> and game soundtrack production all have different demands, and there
> are various special-purpose tools for all of them. Some of those
> tools are Peterbilts and some are Ferraris.
functionality and user interface. I don't need to run a lot of plug ins or do fine editing. I'm doing location
recording.
I've got high track counts if needed, or lwoer track counts
at a higher sampling rate and bit depth, tan easy to manage
ui and with oen step in between I can give the client files
he can take to any pt shop and import. My next recorder
will endeavor to remove that intermediate step hwoever.
> Pro Tools... it's not really either one, but with the market these
> days most folks don't need either one anyway.
interface, like your Ampex <grin>.
Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
hank alrich
Jun 26, 2012, 3:24:55 PM6/26/12
to
after a perusal of previous discussion. DAW's evolve, for better or
worse, and that which was may not bear on that which is.
For instance, a surprising number of folks (who have probably not been
following or using PT) have missed that it no longer need be tied to
Avid/Digi hardware.
Etc.
Roger
Jun 26, 2012, 3:39:14 PM6/26/12
to
In article <eZGdnROf3qOMxXTS...@giganews.com>,
favorite mixing (and plugins host) environment.
It's pretty good in terms of virtual instruments and the built-in
sampler.
Recording with Logic (to me) is a nightmare--for recording/editing I'd
only recommend it to people who love continually solving puzzles.
(I cut my DAW teeth on Opcode's Vision, and I think that has spoiled me
forever.)
Rog
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
> Tried Logic back in PC days and found it (in common with most other Deuch
> software except Magix/Samplitude) incomprehensibly complicated to use.
I don't think much as changed, even with Apple in charge. Logic is my
> Tried Logic back in PC days and found it (in common with most other Deuch
> software except Magix/Samplitude) incomprehensibly complicated to use.
favorite mixing (and plugins host) environment.
It's pretty good in terms of virtual instruments and the built-in
sampler.
Recording with Logic (to me) is a nightmare--for recording/editing I'd
only recommend it to people who love continually solving puzzles.
(I cut my DAW teeth on Opcode's Vision, and I think that has spoiled me
forever.)
Rog
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Roger
Jun 26, 2012, 3:41:43 PM6/26/12
to
In article <roger-7B82D4....@freenews.netfront.net>,
Roger <ro...@roger.net> wrote:
> In article <eZGdnROf3qOMxXTS...@giganews.com>,
> "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Tried Logic back in PC days and found it (in common with most other Deuch
> > software except Magix/Samplitude) incomprehensibly complicated to use.
>
> I don't think much as changed, even with Apple in charge. Logic is my
> favorite mixing (and plugins host) environment.
>
> It's pretty good in terms of virtual instruments and the built-in
> sampler.
>
> Recording with Logic (to me) is a nightmare--for recording/editing I'd
> only recommend it to people who love continually solving puzzles.
>
> (I cut my DAW teeth on Opcode's Vision, and I think that has spoiled me
> forever.)
>
> Rog
I should have mentioned the MIDI editing in the "nightmare" section....
> In article <eZGdnROf3qOMxXTS...@giganews.com>,
> "geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Tried Logic back in PC days and found it (in common with most other Deuch
> > software except Magix/Samplitude) incomprehensibly complicated to use.
>
> I don't think much as changed, even with Apple in charge. Logic is my
> favorite mixing (and plugins host) environment.
>
> It's pretty good in terms of virtual instruments and the built-in
> sampler.
>
> Recording with Logic (to me) is a nightmare--for recording/editing I'd
> only recommend it to people who love continually solving puzzles.
>
> (I cut my DAW teeth on Opcode's Vision, and I think that has spoiled me
> forever.)
>
> Rog
Nil
Jun 26, 2012, 4:32:09 PM6/26/12
to
On 26 Jun 2012, Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> grow up.
Stop trying to be a control freak. This is not your newsgroup. A topic
has been introduced that has sparked some ongoing interesting and civil
discussion. If you don't like it, quit posting off-topic garbage in it
and go change your diaper.
rec.audio.pro:
> grow up.
Stop trying to be a control freak. This is not your newsgroup. A topic
has been introduced that has sparked some ongoing interesting and civil
discussion. If you don't like it, quit posting off-topic garbage in it
and go change your diaper.
Nil
Jun 26, 2012, 4:36:58 PM6/26/12
to
On 26 Jun 2012, walk...@nv.net (hank alrich) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> I reiterate my support for exactly these types of questions,
> preferably after a perusal of previous discussion. DAW's evolve,
> for better or worse, and that which was may not bear on that which
> is.
Quite right. Even if a subject has been discussed before, situations
change, technology changes, people's opinions change. I was interested
in hearing what people's thoughts about today, and apparently I'm not
the only one.
rec.audio.pro:
> I reiterate my support for exactly these types of questions,
> preferably after a perusal of previous discussion. DAW's evolve,
> for better or worse, and that which was may not bear on that which
> is.
change, technology changes, people's opinions change. I was interested
in hearing what people's thoughts about today, and apparently I'm not
the only one.
geoff
Jun 26, 2012, 5:03:26 PM6/26/12
to
hank alrich wrote:
> For instance, a surprising number of folks (who have probably not been
> following or using PT) have missed that it no longer need be tied to
> Avid/Digi hardware.
... and those with an exclusive PT habit don't seem to realise that there
> For instance, a surprising number of folks (who have probably not been
> following or using PT) have missed that it no longer need be tied to
> Avid/Digi hardware.
are other DAWs out there that actually do things as well if not better, and
have done for years.
geoff
de...@deanrichard.com
Jun 26, 2012, 8:02:25 PM6/26/12
to
Hank,
I agree. PT support for ASIO was why I got started with PT. Some may not have realized that you don't need special hardware any more. And all of the products, both PT and its competitors, have evolved over the years.
Dean
I agree. PT support for ASIO was why I got started with PT. Some may not have realized that you don't need special hardware any more. And all of the products, both PT and its competitors, have evolved over the years.
Dean
Trevor
Jun 27, 2012, 3:29:29 AM6/27/12
to
news:jsav3n$23e$1...@panix2.panix.com...
near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair. And
what about the cost of tape!!!
And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are you
forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
first place?
Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
Trevor.
> In article <jsat8k$2pb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:jsamd2$edi$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>>>>with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>>>>produce an equally nice sound.
>>>
>>> Probably. I'll take the Ampex myself, though.
>>
>>Nothing beats nostalgia then Scott?
>
> It's not nostalgia, it's doing a couple sessions a week and it's fully
> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:jsamd2$edi$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>>>>with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>>>>produce an equally nice sound.
>>>
>>> Probably. I'll take the Ampex myself, though.
>>
>>Nothing beats nostalgia then Scott?
>
> It's not nostalgia, it's doing a couple sessions a week and it's fully
> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair. And
what about the cost of tape!!!
And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are you
forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
first place?
Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
Trevor.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 27, 2012, 9:36:20 AM6/27/12
to
In article <jsecno$qkd$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>
>> It's not nostalgia, it's doing a couple sessions a week and it's fully
>> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
>
>Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
>near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair. And
>what about the cost of tape!!!
Have you ever actually used a tape machine, Trevor?
>> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
>
>Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
>near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair. And
>what about the cost of tape!!!
>And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are you
>forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
>first place?
lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you to get
it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
decisions early in the process.
>Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
Ty Ford
Jun 27, 2012, 12:23:29 PM6/27/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:24:55 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1kmav7v.14x92mf3cbyi6N%walk...@nv.net>):
> For instance, a surprising number of folks (who have probably not been
> following or using PT) have missed that it no longer need be tied to
> Avid/Digi hardware.
I will concede that point. :)
But it usually devolves into a Mac vs PC harangue that does little but scare
off possible good visitors who see how much idiotic smack is talked here and
want no part of it.
(in article <1kmav7v.14x92mf3cbyi6N%walk...@nv.net>):
> For instance, a surprising number of folks (who have probably not been
> following or using PT) have missed that it no longer need be tied to
> Avid/Digi hardware.
But it usually devolves into a Mac vs PC harangue that does little but scare
off possible good visitors who see how much idiotic smack is talked here and
want no part of it.
Ty Ford
Jun 27, 2012, 12:31:52 PM6/27/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:32:09 -0400, Nil wrote
(in article <XnsA07EA836...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
Nil,
You are one of those folks who sit behind the safety of your keyboard saying
things I know you wouldn't have the balls to say to people's faces.
I don't know when you found rec.audio.pro, but it was a long time after I
did, and it's just the sort of tripe you think is so cool to post that drives
off people who might have a lot to contribute but don't hang around because
of your idiopathic penchant for attempting to abuse people.
Let me break it down for you. Stop behaving like a sorry sack of shit and
start behaving like a human. This is not my forum. This is not your forum.
That doesn't give you free license to piss all over everyone, including
yourself, with your attitude.
BTW, there is nothing you could possibly say that would offend me, so can it
and get back to the program.
With (or without) sympathy,
Ty Ford
(in article <XnsA07EA836...@wheedledeedle.moc>):
You are one of those folks who sit behind the safety of your keyboard saying
things I know you wouldn't have the balls to say to people's faces.
I don't know when you found rec.audio.pro, but it was a long time after I
did, and it's just the sort of tripe you think is so cool to post that drives
off people who might have a lot to contribute but don't hang around because
of your idiopathic penchant for attempting to abuse people.
Let me break it down for you. Stop behaving like a sorry sack of shit and
start behaving like a human. This is not my forum. This is not your forum.
That doesn't give you free license to piss all over everyone, including
yourself, with your attitude.
BTW, there is nothing you could possibly say that would offend me, so can it
and get back to the program.
With (or without) sympathy,
Ty Ford
Les Cargill
Jun 27, 2012, 1:12:43 PM6/27/12
to
Trevor wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:jsav3n$23e$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <jsat8k$2pb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jsamd2$edi$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>> I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>>>>> with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>>>>> produce an equally nice sound.
>>>>
>>>> Probably. I'll take the Ampex myself, though.
>>>
>>> Nothing beats nostalgia then Scott?
>>
>> It's not nostalgia, it's doing a couple sessions a week and it's fully
>> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
>
>
> Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
> near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair. And
> what about the cost of tape!!!
> And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are you
> forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
> first place?
> Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
Here 'y go. It's even better than the real thing. Because it's... DIGITAL!
> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:jsav3n$23e$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <jsat8k$2pb$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jsamd2$edi$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>> I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>>>>> with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>>>>> produce an equally nice sound.
>>>>
>>>> Probably. I'll take the Ampex myself, though.
>>>
>>> Nothing beats nostalgia then Scott?
>>
>> It's not nostalgia, it's doing a couple sessions a week and it's fully
>> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
>
>
> Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
> near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair. And
> what about the cost of tape!!!
> And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are you
> forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
> first place?
> Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
>
> Trevor.
>
>
http://www.uaudio.com/store/special-processing/ampex-atr-102.html
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Jun 27, 2012, 1:13:30 PM6/27/12
to
--
Les Cargill
Trevor
Jun 27, 2012, 7:50:39 PM6/27/12
to
news:jsf28k$abp$1...@panix2.panix.com...
And You? :-)
>>And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are
>>you
>>forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
>>first place?
>
> I do razor blade edits although I avoid doing windows. This is actually a
> lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you to
> get
> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
> decisions early in the process.
You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
>>Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
>
> That's fine.
Yep, it's what I do. Not saying you aren't welcome to your choices, but your
reasons aren't fooling anyone else.
Trevor.
>>> It's not nostalgia, it's doing a couple sessions a week and it's fully
>>> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
>>
>>Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
>>near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair.
>>And
>>what about the cost of tape!!!
>
> Have you ever actually used a tape machine, Trevor?
Unfortunately for many years before digital came along.
>>> depreciated. And it sounds pretty good.
>>
>>Of course it's nostalgia, it might sound "pretty good", but it's nowhere
>>near digital. It may be fully depreciated, but it's expensive to repair.
>>And
>>what about the cost of tape!!!
>
> Have you ever actually used a tape machine, Trevor?
And You? :-)
>>And do you only edit the tape (god I'd hate to do that anymore!), or are
>>you
>>forced to add another A-D step rather than simply record to digital in the
>>first place?
>
> I do razor blade edits although I avoid doing windows. This is actually a
> lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you to
> get
> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
> decisions early in the process.
>>Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
>
> That's fine.
reasons aren't fooling anyone else.
Trevor.
Trevor
Jun 27, 2012, 7:56:10 PM6/27/12
to
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:jsfeo1$7fo$1...@dont-email.me...
> Trevor wrote:
>> Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that
>> sound.
>
>> Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that
>> sound.
>
> Here 'y go. It's even better than the real thing. Because it's... DIGITAL!
>
> http://www.uaudio.com/store/special-processing/ampex-atr-102.html
Yep, sometimes use similar plug-ins, sometimes bounce to tape, but usually
>
> http://www.uaudio.com/store/special-processing/ampex-atr-102.html
prefer *not* to stuff up the sound :-)
Trevor.
hank alrich
Jun 27, 2012, 10:58:15 PM6/27/12
to
Trevor
Jun 28, 2012, 1:09:37 AM6/28/12
to
news:1kmd626.1x4gi6o1nzk6zoN%walk...@nv.net...
If you just like to make personal attacks for unknown reasons, go right
ahead. It's not like I care about stupid attacks from people with nothing
better to add.
Trevor.
> Hope you have a parachute while riding that high horse.
So if you disagree, say WHAT you disagree with.
If you just like to make personal attacks for unknown reasons, go right
ahead. It's not like I care about stupid attacks from people with nothing
better to add.
Trevor.
PenaL
Jun 28, 2012, 3:42:14 AM6/28/12
to
On 22.6.2012 20:37, Nil wrote:
> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>
> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
> others lack?
Pro Tools has become "The DAW-standard" like as snowball - effect. It's
> It seems to be a fact that Pro Tools is the dominant audio recording
> system in professional studios. There are quite a few other DAWs out
> there - Sonar, Reaper, Cubase, Logic, etc. that are full-featured and
> must be perfectly capable of capturing and editing audio.
>
> So, why is Pro Tools the de facto standard? Does it actually do
> anything better than the others, or have some crucial features that the
> others lack?
not bad at all. I myself have used Sadie daw:s 18 years, no need to
replace. Pro Tools is better for music record and edit, for instance,
Sadie for speech edit, TV, radio etc programs, mastering. For instance,
the remote controller of Sadie is best I've ever seen. Also, I use
Cubase for creating some effects. Some likes daughter, other mother.
There's not always sure intelligence reasons for the selection... ;-)
-Pentti
-Pentti
Ty Ford
Jun 28, 2012, 10:00:59 AM6/28/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:13:30 -0400, Les Cargill wrote
(in article <jsfepg$7fo$2...@dont-email.me>):
>> But it usually devolves into a Mac vs PC harangue that does little but scare
>> off possible good visitors who see how much idiotic smack is talked here and
>> want no part of it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>> Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
>> Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
>> Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
>>
>
> You say that like timidity is a virtue.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
Well, Les, some believe they'll inherit the earth. I'm more concerned with
the erosion of rap due to abusoids with no filters.
Regards,
Ty
(in article <jsfepg$7fo$2...@dont-email.me>):
>> But it usually devolves into a Mac vs PC harangue that does little but scare
>> off possible good visitors who see how much idiotic smack is talked here and
>> want no part of it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>> Try my new blog; http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com/
>> Try my audio sample archive: http://tinyurl.com/796z25d
>> Try my gear reviews: http://tinyurl.com/79q797r
>>
>
> You say that like timidity is a virtue.
>
> --
> Les Cargill
the erosion of rap due to abusoids with no filters.
Regards,
Ty
Ty Ford
Jun 28, 2012, 10:02:34 AM6/28/12
to
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:58:15 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1kmd626.1x4gi6o1nzk6zoN%walk...@nv.net>):
>>>> Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
>>>
>>> That's fine.
>>
>> Yep, it's what I do. Not saying you aren't welcome to your choices, but your
>> reasons aren't fooling anyone else.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> Hope you have a parachute while riding that high horse.
Not seeing that vision from this thread.
(in article <1kmd626.1x4gi6o1nzk6zoN%walk...@nv.net>):
>>>> Personally I'd only use it as a "plug-in" if a client demanded that sound.
>>>
>>> That's fine.
>>
>> Yep, it's what I do. Not saying you aren't welcome to your choices, but your
>> reasons aren't fooling anyone else.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> Hope you have a parachute while riding that high horse.
Ty Ford
Jun 28, 2012, 10:05:40 AM6/28/12
to
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:42:14 -0400, PenaL wrote
(in article <jsh1sm$mp7$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>):
And there are still a few who claim the AMS Audiofile was the best ever. Not
me, but they do good work with those tools.
(in article <jsh1sm$mp7$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi>):
me, but they do good work with those tools.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 28, 2012, 11:38:21 AM6/28/12
to
In article <jsgoth$f9e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
>So if you disagree, say WHAT you disagree with.
I think what he disgrees with is your condescending attitude. Certainly
>
>So if you disagree, say WHAT you disagree with.
I disagree with it.
>If you just like to make personal attacks for unknown reasons, go right
>ahead. It's not like I care about stupid attacks from people with nothing
>better to add.
solve the problem you're given. As the technology has progressed, we have
been given more and more tools, and this is a good thing because it gives
us a greater range of tools to choose from to solve a given problem. But
the right tool for the job isn't always the latest and greatest, although
sometimes it is.
Les Cargill
Jun 28, 2012, 12:03:54 PM6/28/12
to
are solved. From that point on, differentiation isn't about problem
solving, it's about... something else. So there's a nonzero
probability that "the latest and greatest" will be worse than
what came before.
--
Les Cargill
Steve King
Jun 28, 2012, 12:15:31 PM6/28/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:jsg67g$c03$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Trevor, be nice. You discredit yourself as a serious person with posts like
this.
Steve King
news:jsg67g$c03$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
this.
Steve King
Steve King
Jun 28, 2012, 12:17:38 PM6/28/12
to
news:jsgoth$f9e$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
If you believe what you just wrote then you don't know who you're writing to
and don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Steve King
and don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Steve King
Trevor
Jun 28, 2012, 8:49:53 PM6/28/12
to
news:jshtpd$87t$1...@panix2.panix.com...
not entitled to a different opinion than you? Now *that's* what I would call
a bad attitude, and note I already said *you* were entitled to your opinion
despite the attempts at justification that were completely spurious.
>>If you just like to make personal attacks for unknown reasons, go right
>>ahead. It's not like I care about stupid attacks from people with nothing
>>better to add.
>
> We live in a world with problems and tools. You use the tool you have to
> solve the problem you're given. As the technology has progressed, we have
> been given more and more tools, and this is a good thing because it gives
> us a greater range of tools to choose from to solve a given problem. But
> the right tool for the job isn't always the latest and greatest, although
> sometimes it is.
Yep, you are pretty much in the minority of people who think the Ampex is
better than modern digital recording technology. But you do have a few
supporters for comfort at least.
Trevor.
> In article <jsgoth$f9e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>So if you disagree, say WHAT you disagree with.
>
> I think what he disgrees with is your condescending attitude. Certainly
> I disagree with it.
Certainly *my* attitude is not as bad as his. Or do you also believe *I'm*
> wrote:
>>
>>So if you disagree, say WHAT you disagree with.
>
> I think what he disgrees with is your condescending attitude. Certainly
> I disagree with it.
not entitled to a different opinion than you? Now *that's* what I would call
a bad attitude, and note I already said *you* were entitled to your opinion
despite the attempts at justification that were completely spurious.
>>If you just like to make personal attacks for unknown reasons, go right
>>ahead. It's not like I care about stupid attacks from people with nothing
>>better to add.
>
> We live in a world with problems and tools. You use the tool you have to
> solve the problem you're given. As the technology has progressed, we have
> been given more and more tools, and this is a good thing because it gives
> us a greater range of tools to choose from to solve a given problem. But
> the right tool for the job isn't always the latest and greatest, although
> sometimes it is.
better than modern digital recording technology. But you do have a few
supporters for comfort at least.
Trevor.
Trevor
Jun 28, 2012, 8:56:01 PM6/28/12
to
"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:jshvue$2il$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Trevor, be nice. You discredit yourself as a serious person with posts
> like this.
You're joking right, personal attacks on me by Hank without *any* substance
> like this.
at all are OK, but simply stating that Scott is entitled to his opinion
despite his attempts at justifying the Ampex as being silly *and stating why
I think so, without *any* response that would indicate otherwise, somehow
discredits me?
Trevor.
Trevor
Jun 28, 2012, 9:01:21 PM6/28/12
to
"Steve King" <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
> If you believe what you just wrote then you don't know who you're writing
> to and don't deserve to be taken seriously.
I know who I'm talking to, but I responded to what he wrote here. Why don't
> to and don't deserve to be taken seriously.
you tell me why his personal attacks without adding anything else to the
conversation is OK in your mind? And what I said you consider to be worse?
Better yet tell us why you think an Ampex is better than current digital
recording technology in *any* way if you actually agree with them?
Trevor.
Mike Rivers
Jun 28, 2012, 9:20:45 PM6/28/12
to
>> lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you to
>> get
>> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
>> decisions early in the process.
>
> You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
Of course you can, but you don't get much business that way.
>> get
>> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
>> decisions early in the process.
>
> You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
People expect the Pro Tools way when they're working in a
studio using Pro Tools.
--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson
http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff
Message has been deleted
Trevor
Jun 28, 2012, 9:42:51 PM6/28/12
to
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:jsivtd$qb2$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you
>>> to
>>> get
>>> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
>>> decisions early in the process.
>>
>> You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
>
> Of course you can, but you don't get much business that way. People expect
> the Pro Tools way when they're working in a studio using Pro Tools.
So why didn't you just say you still use the Ampex when some clients demand
>>> to
>>> get
>>> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
>>> decisions early in the process.
>>
>> You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
>
> Of course you can, but you don't get much business that way. People expect
> the Pro Tools way when they're working in a studio using Pro Tools.
it? That's a perfectly valid reason, for those clients projects, no point in
trying to convince them otherwise. What I simply disagree with is that there
is any other benefit to you, despite your claims to the contrary.
Trevor.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 28, 2012, 9:54:35 PM6/28/12
to
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>On 6/27/2012 7:50 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey"<klu...@panix.com>
>>> lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you to
>>> get
>>> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
>>> decisions early in the process.
>>
>> You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
>
>Of course you can, but you don't get much business that way.
>People expect the Pro Tools way when they're working in a
>studio using Pro Tools.
And that's part of why I also keep using godawful helical scan formats....
>On 6/27/2012 7:50 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey"<klu...@panix.com>
>>> lot of what I like about the analogue workflow, that it encourages you to
>>> get
>>> it right the first time and it forces musicians and producers to make
>>> decisions early in the process.
>>
>> You can *choose* to do that just as easily in digital.
>
>Of course you can, but you don't get much business that way.
>People expect the Pro Tools way when they're working in a
>studio using Pro Tools.
they provide a way of forcing you into that that people will accept, and at
the same time you get the amazingly clean and solid low end that good
digital provides...
Mike Rivers
Jun 29, 2012, 8:51:57 AM6/29/12
to
On 6/28/2012 9:42 PM, Trevor wrote:
> So why didn't you just say you still use the Ampex when some clients demand
> it? That's a perfectly valid reason, for those clients projects, no point in
> trying to convince them otherwise.
When I had a TASCAM 80-8, I had clients who were looking for
> So why didn't you just say you still use the Ampex when some clients demand
> it? That's a perfectly valid reason, for those clients projects, no point in
> trying to convince them otherwise.
Ampex. When I got a 2" Ampex, business picked up.
Unfortunately, all of those clients who didn't want to
record on a TASCAM now want to record in Pro Tools. I
haven't had a "tape" client in years other than for
playback/transfer.
> What I simply disagree with is that there
> is any other benefit to you, despite your claims to the contrary.
tangent for a moment. Potential clients, for me, based on
the extent that I am in the business of studio recording
recording (I really don't do this any more), aren't
interested in either tape sound or tape workflow. They want
all the flexibility, speed, and low cost that a DAW offers
them.
Now it's true that many don't care "the brand of Pro Tools"
that I have is Sonar, Nuendo, Reaper, Studio One, Ardour, or
whatever . . . until they get to the part about "I have Pro
Tools at home and I want to work on certain parts of the
project there."
It's not the tape workflow any more. They don't say "I have
a 2" Studer at home" any more.
Nil
Jun 29, 2012, 1:30:22 PM6/29/12
to
On 29 Jun 2012, Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in
rec.audio.pro:
> Now it's true that many don't care "the brand of Pro Tools"
> that I have is Sonar, Nuendo, Reaper, Studio One, Ardour, or
> whatever . . . until they get to the part about "I have Pro
> Tools at home and I want to work on certain parts of the
> project there."
Do you still use Sonar, Mike? I think I remember you from the MIDILink
BBS a hundred years ago, and many of us were using Cakewalk at that
time. That's back when Cakewalk was just starting to integrate audio
into their MIDI product and it was still pretty crude.
rec.audio.pro:
> Now it's true that many don't care "the brand of Pro Tools"
> that I have is Sonar, Nuendo, Reaper, Studio One, Ardour, or
> whatever . . . until they get to the part about "I have Pro
> Tools at home and I want to work on certain parts of the
> project there."
BBS a hundred years ago, and many of us were using Cakewalk at that
time. That's back when Cakewalk was just starting to integrate audio
into their MIDI product and it was still pretty crude.
Mike Rivers
Jun 29, 2012, 4:43:15 PM6/29/12
to
On 6/29/2012 1:30 PM, Nil wrote:
> Do you still use Sonar, Mike? I think I remember you from the MIDILink
> BBS a hundred years ago, and many of us were using Cakewalk at that
> time. That's back when Cakewalk was just starting to integrate audio
> into their MIDI product and it was still pretty crude.
I only have a copy of Sonar LE that came with something that
> Do you still use Sonar, Mike? I think I remember you from the MIDILink
> BBS a hundred years ago, and many of us were using Cakewalk at that
> time. That's back when Cakewalk was just starting to integrate audio
> into their MIDI product and it was still pretty crude.
I was reviewing. It looks pretty nice, kind of oriented
toward the musician rather than the recording engineer. But
I only use it to see how something works with it. I'm
sticking with my Mackie HDR24/96 and Soundcraft 600 console
for multitrack recording for as long as they last. So much
easier to use than this computer stuff. And fortunately I
don't have any clients whose music calls for all the fancy
plug-ins so I don't have to have them available at the drop
of a dime.
Trevor
Jun 29, 2012, 11:49:25 PM6/29/12
to
news:jsk8df$1ss$1...@dont-email.me...
obviously Scott see's it differently.
Trevor.
> On 6/28/2012 9:42 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> So why didn't you just say you still use the Ampex when some clients
>> demand
>> it? That's a perfectly valid reason, for those clients projects, no point
>> in
>> trying to convince them otherwise.
>
> When I had a TASCAM 80-8, I had clients who were looking for Ampex. When I
> got a 2" Ampex, business picked up. Unfortunately, all of those clients
> who didn't want to record on a TASCAM now want to record in Pro Tools. I
> haven't had a "tape" client in years other than for playback/transfer.
>
> > What I simply disagree with is that there
>> is any other benefit to you, despite your claims to the contrary.
>
> You're losing me here. This went off into a "tape workflow" tangent for a
> moment. Potential clients, for me, based on the extent that I am in the
> business of studio recording recording (I really don't do this any more),
> aren't interested in either tape sound or tape workflow. They want all the
> flexibility, speed, and low cost that a DAW offers them.
That mirrors my experience, but I got mixed up with Scott's claims, and
>> So why didn't you just say you still use the Ampex when some clients
>> demand
>> it? That's a perfectly valid reason, for those clients projects, no point
>> in
>> trying to convince them otherwise.
>
> When I had a TASCAM 80-8, I had clients who were looking for Ampex. When I
> got a 2" Ampex, business picked up. Unfortunately, all of those clients
> who didn't want to record on a TASCAM now want to record in Pro Tools. I
> haven't had a "tape" client in years other than for playback/transfer.
>
> > What I simply disagree with is that there
>> is any other benefit to you, despite your claims to the contrary.
>
> You're losing me here. This went off into a "tape workflow" tangent for a
> moment. Potential clients, for me, based on the extent that I am in the
> business of studio recording recording (I really don't do this any more),
> aren't interested in either tape sound or tape workflow. They want all the
> flexibility, speed, and low cost that a DAW offers them.
obviously Scott see's it differently.
Trevor.
Scott Dorsey
Jul 2, 2012, 9:41:16 AM7/2/12
to
In article <jslsv6$lg5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Trevor <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> > What I simply disagree with is that there
>>> is any other benefit to you, despite your claims to the contrary.
>>
>> You're losing me here. This went off into a "tape workflow" tangent for a
>> moment. Potential clients, for me, based on the extent that I am in the
>> business of studio recording recording (I really don't do this any more),
>> aren't interested in either tape sound or tape workflow. They want all the
>> flexibility, speed, and low cost that a DAW offers them.
>
>That mirrors my experience, but I got mixed up with Scott's claims, and
>obviously Scott see's it differently.
No, I have customers who want the DAW workflow as well.
>>> is any other benefit to you, despite your claims to the contrary.
>>
>> You're losing me here. This went off into a "tape workflow" tangent for a
>> moment. Potential clients, for me, based on the extent that I am in the
>> business of studio recording recording (I really don't do this any more),
>> aren't interested in either tape sound or tape workflow. They want all the
>> flexibility, speed, and low cost that a DAW offers them.
>
>That mirrors my experience, but I got mixed up with Scott's claims, and
>obviously Scott see's it differently.
I also have one customer who wants to cut direct to disc.
Different folks doing different work have different requirements, and
the more you can offer in a small market, the better you can cover it.
Jonathan
Jul 10, 2012, 1:12:36 PM7/10/12
to
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote:
>
> > The HDX system is pricey (~$10K at Sweetwater), so it seems to be more
> > in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
>
> How soon we forget! It wasn't too many years ago when a
> 24-track digital recorder cost $250,000 and then you needed
> a console.
>
> > I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> > with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
> > produce an equally nice sound.
>
> For many things, yes. Almost certainly for any
> home/personal/project studio level project.
Why not for a professional project as well?
> On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote:
>
> > The HDX system is pricey (~$10K at Sweetwater), so it seems to be more
> > in the Ferrari side of the spectrum, though I hope it's more stable.
>
> How soon we forget! It wasn't too many years ago when a
> 24-track digital recorder cost $250,000 and then you needed
> a console.
>
> > I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> > with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
> > produce an equally nice sound.
>
> For many things, yes. Almost certainly for any
> home/personal/project studio level project.
Why not for a professional project as well?
hank alrich
Jul 10, 2012, 3:08:44 PM7/10/12
to
that Pro Tools is leading the DAW ubiquity race.
Scott Dorsey
Jul 10, 2012, 3:10:49 PM7/10/12
to
working together. And that means you get to interoperate with lots of
other people and that means finding a common platform you can all live with.
Jonathan
Jul 11, 2012, 8:52:43 AM7/11/12
to
On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:10:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >> On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote:
> >>
> >> &gt; I&#39;d like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> >> &gt; with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
> >> &gt; produce an equally nice sound.
> >>
> >> For many things, yes. Almost certainly for any
> >> home/personal/project studio level project.
> >
> >Why not for a professional project as well?
Yes, but Mike's response was to this statement:
>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> >> On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote:
> >>
> >> &gt; I&#39;d like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> >> &gt; with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
> >> &gt; produce an equally nice sound.
> >>
> >> For many things, yes. Almost certainly for any
> >> home/personal/project studio level project.
> >
> >Why not for a professional project as well?
>
> Well, for one thing, most professional projects are a product of a team
> working together. And that means you get to interoperate with lots of
> other people and that means finding a common platform you can all live with.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> Well, for one thing, most professional projects are a product of a team
> working together. And that means you get to interoperate with lots of
> other people and that means finding a common platform you can all live with.
> --scott
> --
Yes, but Mike's response was to this statement:
>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
> with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
> produce an equally nice sound.
And this statement only addresses sound quality, not interoperability.
hank alrich
Jul 11, 2012, 9:33:48 AM7/11/12
to
Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:10:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote: >
> > >On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote: > > &gt; I&#39;d like
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:10:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote: >
> > >to think you could record the same thing in the same space >
> > >&gt; with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or
> > >Reaper and > &gt; produce an equally nice sound. > >
> > >For many things, yes. Almost certainly for any >
> > >home/personal/project studio level project.
> > >
> > >Why not for a professional project as well?
> >
> > Well, for one thing, most professional projects are a product of a team
> > working together. And that means you get to interoperate with lots of
> > other people and that means finding a common platform you can all live
> > with. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres,
> > tres precis."
>
> Yes, but Mike's response was to this statement:
>
> >I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space with
> >the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and produce an
> >equally nice sound.
>
> And this statement only addresses sound quality, not interoperability.
Mike hasn't used every DAW. Therefore he cannot speak to the issue of
> > >
> > >Why not for a professional project as well?
> >
> > Well, for one thing, most professional projects are a product of a team
> > working together. And that means you get to interoperate with lots of
> > other people and that means finding a common platform you can all live
> > with. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres,
> > tres precis."
>
> Yes, but Mike's response was to this statement:
>
> >I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space with
> >the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and produce an
> >equally nice sound.
>
> And this statement only addresses sound quality, not interoperability.
whether or not what he'd "like to think" would be accurate. He's smart
enough to know that.
What's your point?
Scott Dorsey
Jul 11, 2012, 9:40:52 AM7/11/12
to
Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>> with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>> produce an equally nice sound.
>
>And this statement only addresses sound quality, not interoperability.
Sound quality is affected by interoperability. The whole purpose of the
>>I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space
>> with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and
>> produce an equally nice sound.
>
>And this statement only addresses sound quality, not interoperability.
studio is to provide a pleasant working environment so musicians can get the
sounds they want on to disk. Anything that alters that environment, from
the color of the lighting to the ease of getting files from one studio to
another without losing any, will change the final form of the recording.
This is especially a big deal with touring bands who will record on tour,
dropping into various studios in different locations. Often they'll do this
to work with one or more specific local musicians, sometimes they'll do it
just because it's where they are in the tour right now. Consistency becomes
a big deal. Sometimes you wish that there was a Holiday Inn studio layout
with everything in the same places.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Jonathan
Jul 11, 2012, 3:24:40 PM7/11/12
to
On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:33:48 AM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:10:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jonathan <gosto.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Jonathan &lt;gosto.d...@gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > > &gt;On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:57:45 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote: &gt;
> > > &gt;On 6/25/2012 4:36 PM, Nil wrote: &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I&amp;#39;d like
> > > &gt;to think you could record the same thing in the same space &gt;
> > > &gt;&amp;gt; with the same external gear using either Pro Tools or
> > > &gt;Reaper and &gt; &amp;gt; produce an equally nice sound. &gt; &gt;
> > > &gt;For many things, yes. Almost certainly for any &gt;
> > > &gt;home/personal/project studio level project.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;Why not for a professional project as well?
> > >
> > > Well, for one thing, most professional projects are a product of a team
> > > working together. And that means you get to interoperate with lots of
> > > other people and that means finding a common platform you can all live
> > > with. --scott -- &quot;C&#39;est un Nagra. C&#39;est suisse, et tres,
> > > tres precis.&quot;
> >
> > Yes, but Mike's response was to this statement:
> >
> > >I'd like to think you could record the same thing in the same space with
> > >the same external gear using either Pro Tools or Reaper and produce an
> > >equally nice sound.
> >
> > And this statement only addresses sound quality, not interoperability.
>
> Mike hasn't used every DAW. Therefore he cannot speak to the issue of
> whether or not what he'd "like to think" would be accurate. He's smart
> enough to know that.
>
> What's your point?
>
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
> http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
> http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Are you his official spokesperson?
> --
> shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
> http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
> http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Ty Ford
Jul 12, 2012, 10:03:41 AM7/12/12
to
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:24:40 -0400, Jonathan wrote
(in article <3f206012-ad21-4580...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> What's your point?
>>
>> --
>> shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
>> http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
>> http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
>
> Are you his official spokesperson?
No, Jonathan, but he is an authorized agent. I, otoh, am usually charged with
gatekeeping. Please step away from the diaz.
Thanks,
(in article <3f206012-ad21-4580...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> What's your point?
>>
>> --
>> shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
>> http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
>> http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
>
> Are you his official spokesperson?
gatekeeping. Please step away from the diaz.
Thanks,
Steve King
Jul 12, 2012, 10:28:18 AM7/12/12
to
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC24517D...@News.Individual.NET...
And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
sidewalk. Please move along.
Steve King
news:0001HW.CC24517D...@News.Individual.NET...
sidewalk. Please move along.
Steve King
hank alrich
Jul 12, 2012, 10:47:25 AM7/12/12
to
Are you as full of shit as you appear to be?
Mike Rivers
Jul 12, 2012, 3:04:38 PM7/12/12
to
On 7/12/2012 10:28 AM, Steve King wrote:
> And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
> sidewalk. Please move along.
Where's the Pope when we need him?
> And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
> sidewalk. Please move along.
Really, has anyone been keeping up with Harvey? Does he
still have the forum on whatever it was that I never followed?
hank alrich
Jul 12, 2012, 10:29:25 PM7/12/12
to
Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 10:28 AM, Steve King wrote:
>
> > And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
> > sidewalk. Please move along.
>
> Where's the Pope when we need him?
>
> Really, has anyone been keeping up with Harvey? Does he
> still have the forum on whatever it was that I never followed?
That forum, Pro Sound Web, decided it needed to update/grade the forum
> On 7/12/2012 10:28 AM, Steve King wrote:
>
> > And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
> > sidewalk. Please move along.
>
> Where's the Pope when we need him?
>
> Really, has anyone been keeping up with Harvey? Does he
> still have the forum on whatever it was that I never followed?
software. Perhaps it did. The manner in which that was undertaken
resulted in every member needing to re-up, and a loss of archives. The
outcome was that many didn't bother, and now that place is all about
tumbleweeds.
Terry Manning got sufficiently irked that he started a new forum,
Professional Recording Workshop, which has turned out to be a superb
venue for discussion of things audio and musical. Many former PSW
members have moved there, but I've not seen Harvey at PRW. And that's a
shame because he'd be a valued contributor.
Ty Ford
Jul 13, 2012, 4:01:21 PM7/13/12
to
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:29:25 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1kn4wjt.1wrq1qv1r0ckoeN%walk...@nv.net>):
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2012 10:28 AM, Steve King wrote:
>>
>>> And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
>>> sidewalk. Please move along.
>>
>> Where's the Pope when we need him?
>>
>> Really, has anyone been keeping up with Harvey? Does he
>> still have the forum on whatever it was that I never followed?
>
> That forum, Pro Sound Web, decided it needed to update/grade the forum
> software. Perhaps it did. The manner in which that was undertaken
> resulted in every member needing to re-up, and a loss of archives. The
> outcome was that many didn't bother, and now that place is all about
> tumbleweeds.
>
> Terry Manning got sufficiently irked that he started a new forum,
> Professional Recording Workshop, which has turned out to be a superb
> venue for discussion of things audio and musical. Many former PSW
> members have moved there, but I've not seen Harvey at PRW. And that's a
> shame because he'd be a valued contributor.
>
>
They saved my articles. FWIW. and I think they are still flying around over
there.
Back when I wrote them, they made me the "microphone editor", in name only
and then I had a bit of trouble getting paid for a specific number of
articles.
I think they've been bought and sold at least once now. Keith Clark is still
working there as editor, I think.
Regards,
(in article <1kn4wjt.1wrq1qv1r0ckoeN%walk...@nv.net>):
> Mike Rivers <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2012 10:28 AM, Steve King wrote:
>>
>>> And, Johathan, I am the unofficial bouncer. Move along sir. Clear the
>>> sidewalk. Please move along.
>>
>> Where's the Pope when we need him?
>>
>> Really, has anyone been keeping up with Harvey? Does he
>> still have the forum on whatever it was that I never followed?
>
> That forum, Pro Sound Web, decided it needed to update/grade the forum
> software. Perhaps it did. The manner in which that was undertaken
> resulted in every member needing to re-up, and a loss of archives. The
> outcome was that many didn't bother, and now that place is all about
> tumbleweeds.
>
> Terry Manning got sufficiently irked that he started a new forum,
> Professional Recording Workshop, which has turned out to be a superb
> venue for discussion of things audio and musical. Many former PSW
> members have moved there, but I've not seen Harvey at PRW. And that's a
> shame because he'd be a valued contributor.
>
>
there.
Back when I wrote them, they made me the "microphone editor", in name only
and then I had a bit of trouble getting paid for a specific number of
articles.
I think they've been bought and sold at least once now. Keith Clark is still
working there as editor, I think.
Regards,
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages