protools vs other programs in recording studios

[clineaudio]

Originally Posted by warmowski

While it's probably true that ProTools is becoming less ubiquitous in general, and that other software packages will be used for greater numbers of recordings over time, the computer industry has shown that lots of technical standards (and I use the term loosely) hang around for reasons that aren't that great, long past their heyday.

The history in general has been that software changes operations practice and not the other way around. As long as this general trend remains in place, real portability of session files will probably continue to be a pipe dream fighting its way around PT and competing vendors file structures for the foreseeable future.

It will probably never get to the point that the chore of freezing/zero-aligning the audio in yr sessions in order to prepare them for a transfer to a new platform will be replaced with some universal session standard that grants session portability.

The industry as a whole is still immature and vendor slap-fights still reign supreme.

-r

While your last line is terribly valid and relevant "slap fights" ...it's all a battle for market share. Unfortunately, Digi has a substantial amount of marketing/buying power ...and their business practices ensure that "once you're in PT, you'll stay there, unless you want to spend money to go another route, and forsake most of the money you've spent already." So, it's a question of initial investment. If a studio invests $30k into a HD rig...they've got a pretty substantial reason to stay put. Of course those converters can be used in logic, etc, but you just lost all your plugins, all your session imports are going to be a bitch if you need to work on the old PT sessions, etc.

Getting off topic...the whole reason I started this response was to assert that there IS infact a universal exchange format. Digi/Avid calls it OMF (open media file/framework, I forget), others call it AXF, and there another of others. These allow you to import/export your files/regions as they are organized, still independently editable into the new software. It's a genius idea. The hitch of course is that if you want to import/export to/from PT, it's a $500 plug-in (see they've got you coming and going!!!). Most other softwares (Logic) include OMF/AXF export (and maybe import?) standard, which is very cool; unfortunately, if you want to get your logic session into PT, it's gonna cost that importing studio $500....and most music studios don't have it, and won't unless they have a number of sessions coming in that way. Maybe the economy will change as some of you have discussed to a "hey man, if you can't take my Cubase sessions I'm going elsewhere" mentality...but, we'll see Sound for picture or Post-audio houses generally have it, because they deal w/ OMF exports from Avid (again, industrly standard in Video post due to monopolistic business practices...but slowly declining towards Final Cut Pro(HD)...)

So, that's my two cents.

[Nubus]

A question from another thread here piqued my intrest. I know that PT offers metering pre and post fader, so you can make sure you aren't clipping the tracks individually in the mixer on playback as well as while recording to disc. Some programs (Reason for one) it doesn't seem to make a difference if the channel faders are all +12 and the master is at oh -18 to avoid clipping or whatever. Does anyone know of other recording apps that have pre/post metering?

[dagosto]

Originally Posted by Nubus

A question from another thread here piqued my intrest. I know that PT offers metering pre and post fader, so you can make sure you aren't clipping the tracks individually in the mixer on playback as well as while recording to disc. Some programs (Reason for one) it doesn't seem to make a difference if the channel faders are all +12 and the master is at oh -18 to avoid clipping or whatever. Does anyone know of other recording apps that have pre/post metering?

The reason that you need that in protools is because of how the digi DAE works in the higher level Le systems. You have to monitor from software using 001 and 002's. Most interfaces will have a separated app where you do your monitor mixes. Some examples are MOTU's Cuemix and RME's Fireface Mixer. These programs allow for virtually latency free monioring and because the mixing dsp is happening inside of the interface allows lower cpu overhead.

The advantage of this is that you can leave your faders at 0 and the meters will mirror the input and alert you of overs. One advantage I have found in Sonar is that on each track you can either elect to listen through the track with latency or you have a hard bypass which does not monitor the track at all. This allows you to completely delegate monitoring to the interfaces dsp chip further lowering cpu overhead.

One disadvantage of interface based monitor mixing is the lack of plugin support. So unless you have outboard reverb or comp, you can only monitor dry signal. Some interfaces (focusrite's and TC's come to mind) are overcoming this problem by haveing more dsp power inside the interface along with effects racks for the monitor section.

[Nubus]

Originally Posted by dagosto

The reason that you need that in protools is because of how the digi DAE works in the higher level Le systems. You have to monitor from software using 001 and 002's. Most interfaces will have a separated app where you do your monitor mixes. Some examples are MOTU's Cuemix and RME's Fireface Mixer. These programs allow for virtually latency free monioring and because the mixing dsp is happening inside of the interface allows lower cpu overhead.

Well that's fine if monitoring is handled in a seperate app for low latency but that really isn't what I was wondering about.

Originally Posted by dagosto

One advantage I have found in Sonar is that on each track you can either elect to listen through the track with latency or you have a hard bypass which does not monitor the track at all. This allows you to completely delegate monitoring to the interfaces dsp chip further lowering cpu overhead.

That's actually cool because you can get complex mixes using all sorts of real time plug-in processing on playback but not have it affect the headphone mix during tracking, if that's what you're into.

So say for example Sonar; while you're listening through the track, if you boost too much does Sonar alert you of clipping after the fader? I think some apps don't, which is a bummer.

[dagosto]

Originally Posted by Nubus

So say for example Sonar; while you're listening through the track, if you boost too much does Sonar alert you of clipping after the fader? I think some apps don't, which is a bummer.

When a track is set to record in Sonar (and Logic as well btw) the meter automatically follows input level. I know in Sonar if you monitor through the track sound will change when you move a fader or add a plug-in but the meter will only follow input. If you need to monitor output you can use your interface or route in to an internal buss.

[Nubus]

Originally Posted by dagosto

When a track is set to record in Sonar (and Logic as well btw) the meter automatically follows input level. I know in Sonar if you monitor through the track sound will change when you move a fader or add a plug-in but the meter will only follow input. If you need to monitor output you can use your interface or route in to an internal buss.

argh, I guess it's hard to explain my question. I mean not in record mode. On playback. Are you saying metering is just always post when in playback and pre when in rec? that would make sense.

[dagosto]

Originally Posted by Nubus

argh, I guess it's hard to explain my question. I mean not in record mode. On playback. Are you saying metering is just always post when in playback and pre when in rec? that would make sense.

Ok, in playback, yes, sonar has options for pre or post fader on the tracks and the busses.

Okay, now that we are way OT, weren't we talking about the ubiquity of protools or something.

[SorenP]

old post. but a good read and worth the bump i think.

I think it's unrealistic to ask a studio to have a pro setup with all the plugins across all the major software platforms. Part of the deal with the studio is they want you to track there, of course they'll mix your stuff if they can, but 95% of the clients want to track and mix there, not just mix stuff from home. It's like asking a toyota dealership to do work on a ford with specific parts, they dont carry them becuase they want you to buy toyota. Studios make more money (and usually charge less per hour) for tracking and mixing packages than just a day of mixing.

[abarnett]

I'm a little confused about who is wanting to bring their DAW projects into a studio and why they are doing this.

As far as I know, all projects use a wav or aiff to store the audio. If you want to record everything on your inferior home equipment and then hire a pair of "Trained ears" to mix it, why are you bringing your whole cubase project into the studio? Why don't you just give them the unprocessed audio files? You're not going to add eq and compression and cheap plugins to it only to have them fix it with their better plugins, right?

This is how it works in all DAW's, including protools, right?