protools vs other programs in recording studios

[mikegee]

mega kudos to gearwire for the cubase SX Q and A. there's a whole lotta great tips and tricks in there. i'm a devoted Cubase user. although i've tried other programs, Cubase seems to be the easiest, as well as one of the more intuitive programs out there.

my question is this;

i've read repeatedly in the assorted musician magazines, especially when they interview studio engineers and producers, that if you plan on taking your computer music tracks into the studio, you better well have been recording in Protools, because, if you haven't, and you walk into a studio with say, Cubase, or, Cakewalk files, the studio will either not work with your files, or else they would have to convert them to protools files.

I think this is a joke. Why cant most recording studios have all the major programs loaded onto the studio computers? is this just hype for Protools? I understand it's well considered in the industry that Protools is the "studio standard" whatever that means, but why dont they give other programs the props they deserve? If most studios want to stay in business, wouldnt it serve them well to cater to more than just Protool users? It seems rather shortsighted...

thanks for tolerating my rant! haha

[Whoopysnorp]

That's just kind of the way things are, and I don't expect it to change any time soon. For a studio to invest in all the major software packages would be a pretty huge expense, not to mention the time necessary for engineers to get as good at using all of them as the good ones probably are at using Pro Tools. Plus, if they're using Pro Tools, they're obviously using Digidesign hardware, and if they wanted to use Cubase or Sonar or what have you they would have to invest not only in the software itself but a whole separate hardware interface. Then when it came time to use those programs they'd have to repatch everything into that hardware instead of the Digidesign hardware, etc etc etc. It would pretty much be a huge pain to make all of that software available in a pro studio.

[mikegee]

ok, yea, that's the basic reason they give when asked... but to play devils advocate here; you could say the same thing for any number of hardware; rack effect sound modules, effects processors, rack samplers or pretty much any other gear that takes time and energy to learn how to operate. i still think its a lame excuse. A lot of musicians will probably just choose not to go to a pro studio for this very reason. it would behoove the studios to reconsider, and offer more options to their potential clients IMHO, they are limiting their profit potential...

[Bellringer]

Studios that push that attitude must not need the work. If you work at home on software other than Pro Tools, it could discourage you from using a "pro" studio at all. My main need for a studio is a good live room for recording live drums. You can get many studios to transfer the drums and say a scratch guitar/vox to .wav files. I can take these home and take my time creating. Then if I need additional work, like loud, live amps, or a different room or mic for vocals I'll go back. It's always nice to have some help and input on vocals and mixes. If you aren't using a lot of tracks, it usually isn't that difficult of a process. Many studios these days expect this kind of studio use due to the home recording that is available these days. If you call around you can find a place that's good and fair.

[dolivas]

I believe that ProTools is seriously on it's last legs as the industry standard. Nowadays since the advent of cheaper PC's/Macs and the ability for the majority of people interested in recording to have easy access to both many DAWs and purchase digital audio in/out cards we are seeing a shift away from "classical" recording education.

ProTools itself maybe the standard in those recording academies like FullSail but I would imagine that nowadays kids who have pretty decent or half-way decent recording setups use Cubase, Sonar, or Ableton/Tracktion. The amount of kids using such programs should be a hell lot more than ProTools or Digidesign hardware. Just for ease of use, word-of-mouth recommendations any of those DAWs being used by such kids in a matter of years if ProTools still remains stagnant will easily replace the standard as a defacto new standard.

[mikegee]

Originally Posted by dolivas

I believe that ProTools is seriously on it's last legs as the industry standard. Nowadays since the advent of cheaper PC's/Macs and the ability for the majority of people interested in recording to have easy access to both many DAWs and purchase digital audio in/out cards we are seeing a shift away from "classical" recording education.

ProTools itself maybe the standard in those recording academies like FullSail but I would imagine that nowadays kids who have pretty decent or half-way decent recording setups use Cubase, Sonar, or Ableton/Tracktion. The amount of kids using such programs should be a hell lot more than ProTools or Digidesign hardware. Just for ease of use, word-of-mouth recommendations any of those DAWs being used by such kids in a matter of years if ProTools still remains stagnant will easily replace the standard as a defacto new standard.

yea, great points. maybe the recording studios should pay more attention to what programs their future-potential clients are using, and then they could do more/better business. it's classic business 101 = supply and demand. i agree with bellringer, the studios that offer more options will do more better business.

[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

[Nubus]

If you are going to be trading sessions cross platform you simply start at the begining of each track and consolidate all your edits. You loose your level balance, but thats not a big deal. It's the same as giving someone your tapes. I had to do this not so long ago with my Protools sessions because it was being mixed by an engineer using Nuendo. I even do it (time permitting) if I am taking my sessions to another protools studio. It makes everything cleaner file stucture wise and easier to manage.

I wonder how many engineers who have to work in protools at their job cherish time spent on other programs. Perhaps ones more intuitive to making music.

[Gareth*]

I've got protools as well and if I use a studio's protools i ocassionaly run into problems because they have a later edition. I get them to send me the files in wave form.

[Nubus]

Originally Posted by warmowski

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.
-r

It's not so bad of a chore, plus you can bill for that time.