Members vintagevibes Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 I think it's time to seriously question the viability of the Protools platform. As As see it there are 2 advantages to a Protools system. 1) You find it everywhere. 2) Their control surfaces are great. Other than that (and I know those are not trivial) I'd have to think that you could get far more processing power and flexibility for the dollar with a native system and some extra processing such as UADs or TC Electronic PowerCores. Wouldn't an 8 core system with lots of plugs and 4 UAD Quads blow a way an HD3 for far less money? Native System: Computer Quad Core - (PC or Mac- $1k-$3k) Let's call it $1.5k4 - UAD Quad Flexi's - $7200Sonar, Cubase or Logic - $500Total = $9,200 Protools:Computer $1.5kProtools HD3 - $12kTotal = $13,500 The Native system IMO would be far more powerful than the PT system and it would include $2000 worth if UAD plug-ins whereas the PT system would include very few top drawer plugs and probably none of the ones you really need. If you subtract the $2000 from the native price you end up with $7,200. So you get a far more powerful system for slightly more than half the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IsildursBane Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 AFAIK, you still can't track w/ a lot of plugins on a native system w/o having latency problems. Maybe things have gotten better (it's been a while since I've looked into it), but that's a main reason why PTHD is still popular with the big boys. And honestly, if you're running a studio where you need that sort of capability, a couple thousand dollars is worth the investment. For the price of one decent piece of outboard gear, you can accommodate a whole new, desirable workflow. -Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vintagevibes Posted May 25, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 AFAIK, you still can't track w/ a lot of plugins on a native system w/o having latency problems. Maybe things have gotten better (it's been a while since I've looked into it), but that's a main reason why PTHD is still popular with the big boys. And honestly, if you're running a studio where you need that sort of capability, a couple thousand dollars is worth the investment. For the price of one decent piece of outboard gear, you can accommodate a whole new, desirable workflow.-Dan. Good point about tracking with plugs. You can do that with UAD-2 but you are limited to how many you can use at a time. Of course if you did have some decent outboard gear that would work with PT or native. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 I think as more manufacturers develope more and more powerful hardware we are going to see a huge shift in the Viabilit of ProTools and DigiDesigns in general. Personally I hope the increased competition does what it always does. Lowers the cost of the hardware which is rediculously overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 Still want an HD rig. Even if it's just a core 1 system. I liked the work flow when I used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 I have had a chance to use one. I wasn't terriably impressed. Workflow really wasn't any better then many other solutions on the market. Still want an HD rig. Even if it's just a core 1 system.I liked the work flow when I used it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 It was much better than cubase or logic for me (the only other 2 major daws I have used). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Majoria Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 Or just skip HD and go with an LE setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted May 25, 2009 Members Share Posted May 25, 2009 Or just skip HD and go with an LE setup. I have an LE setup. The problems with LE are: Limited track countPlug latency (no compensation)Input latency (no compensation)Beat Detective limited without the $500 expansion. Other than that though (plug in latency can be compensated for manually) it's not a bad DAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zooey Posted May 27, 2009 Members Share Posted May 27, 2009 I think it's time to seriously question the viability of the Protools platform. Why, are you in the market for an HD system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Wouldn't an 8 core system with lots of plugs and 4 UAD Quads blow a way an HD3 for far less money? Possibly... but then again, you'd still be missing certain capabilities that you would have with an HD system. One thing that people frequently overlook in discussions about this is that if you have a quad or octa-core system, it's going to have a lot of capability... but those capabilities are still there and still available to you on that system if you put HD cards into it. IOW, HD adds to the native capabilities of your system, it doesn't replace them. It's not an "either / or" situation; it's an "in addition to" situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 27, 2009 Members Share Posted May 27, 2009 What exactly does the HD system do ? I know its similar to the UAD quad but in reality I have heard so much marketing bull{censored} on protools I am always tempted to vommit. Things like They don't reduce bit depth to reduce volume. Well digitally. Thats completely bull{censored}. Bit depth is amplitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted May 27, 2009 Members Share Posted May 27, 2009 Essentially they are similar to UAD cards in that they provide processing power. But the mix engine is actually on cards. Where a UAD card processes the tracks(s) and sends it back to be mixed by the DAW, an HD system does it all on board. Mixing, plug-ins, automation is all handled by the cards. Only if you use RTAS plugs will the audio be processed by the CPU. It does also use a different engine than PTLE. I believe (and could be wrong) it is a 48-bit fixed point mix engine (24-bit double precision maybe?), where most DAW's have a 32-bit floating point mix bus. Essentially when introduced they allowed you to do way more with the audio than the host computer could and is what made them who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Zooey Posted May 27, 2009 Members Share Posted May 27, 2009 They don't reduce bit depth to reduce volume. Well digitally. Thats completely bull{censored}. Bit depth is amplitude. This is true of both PT and other DAWs, and it's not bull{censored}. The summing buss has way more headroom than the DA, so you can pull a software fader down by up to 80dB without losing any information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 Its total bull{censored}. You have 32bit in a 32bit system to work with unless you engage in multiple floating mathematical calculations.Read CPU cycle hog. You can't escape the math library. To make something quiet you reduce amplitutde. Thats all you can do and automatically you imediately lose bit depth. Even if you floated the mathmatics to 64 bit you'd still be reducing bit depth. Just in far finer increments. This is true of both PT and other DAWs, and it's not bull{censored}. The summing buss has way more headroom than the DA, so you can pull a software fader down by up to 80dB without losing any information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 I don't know that they allow you to do more with audio. They allow you to do more dedicated tasking more efficienctly. I get what your saying however. I ain't seeing the value however. Essentially they are similar to UAD cards in that they provide processing power. But the mix engine is actually on cards. Where a UAD card processes the tracks(s) and sends it back to be mixed by the DAW, an HD system does it all on board. Mixing, plug-ins, automation is all handled by the cards. Only if you use RTAS plugs will the audio be processed by the CPU. It does also use a different engine than PTLE. I believe (and could be wrong) it is a 48-bit fixed point mix engine (24-bit double precision maybe?), where most DAW's have a 32-bit floating point mix bus. Essentially when introduced they allowed you to do way more with the audio than the host computer could and is what made them who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 I don't know that they allow you to do more with audio. They allow you to do more dedicated tasking more efficienctly. I get what your saying however. I ain't seeing the value however. Yeah I said when introduced they did. Talking back to Mix System/early HD days. Now the line between native power and HD is practically gone IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AwayEam Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 Its total bull{censored}. You have 32bit in a 32bit system to work with unless you engage in multiple floating mathematical calculations.Read CPU cycle hog. You can't escape the math library. To make something quiet you reduce amplitutde. Thats all you can do and automatically you imediately lose bit depth. Even if you floated the mathmatics to 64 bit you'd still be reducing bit depth. Just in far finer increments. HEY BRO Multiple FP ops on the summing bus probably wouldn't have any noticeable impact on performance (think about how many ops even the simplest plugin does per sample). The higher precision would help preserve the integrity of the tracks being summed fairly well - I could easily believe the 80 dB figure Zooey suggested. Also, I think you're confusing "library" with "instruction set" and "bit depth" with "resolution". The set of IEEE floating point numbers gets much denser as it gets closer to 0, so that also helps mitigate any loss of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members oletorjus Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 Well, I think the 48-bit mixer plug-in is a pretty huge deal with the PT. It differs from most other plug-ins in that it can grow to span multiple DSPs and as it grows, it passes signal from DSP chip to DSP chip at full 48-but speed instead of dithering and truncating back to 24 bits. This happens because it uses 24-bit TDM timeslots per connection, wich enables the mixer to maintain an internal dynamic range of at least 288 db. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vintagevibes Posted May 28, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 Wouldn't an 8 core system with lots of plugs and 4 UAD Quads blow a way an HD3 for far less money? Possibly... but then again, you'd still be missing certain capabilities that you would have with an HD system. One thing that people frequently overlook in discussions about this is that if you have a quad or octa-core system, it's going to have a lot of capability... but those capabilities are still there and still available to you on that system if you put HD cards into it. IOW, HD adds to the native capabilities of your system, it doesn't replace them. It's not an "either / or" situation; it's an "in addition to" situation. I'm not assuming it's either/or but wouldn't four UAD Quad cards be far more processing power than an HD3 system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 I agree they can get more precision. But at some point to turn down digital audio you absolutely must reduce bit depth. Its just a inescable reality of the medium. They might do less information loss which is totally beliveable. HEY BROMultiple FP ops on the summing bus probably wouldn't have any noticeable impact on performance (think about how many ops even the simplest plugin does per sample). The higher precision would help preserve the integrity of the tracks being summed fairly well - I could easily believe the 80 dB figure Zooey suggested.Also, I think you're confusing "library" with "instruction set" and "bit depth" with "resolution". The set of IEEE floating point numbers gets much denser as it gets closer to 0, so that also helps mitigate any loss of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AluminumNeck Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 In some ways it might be more and in other ways it could be less. The Protools cards sound like they really help to lower the drain on system resources. I can understand how this came to be. They did not have good hardware when alot of the concept of the system was designed so with the limited computing power back when this was concieved they needed to handle most of the audio streaming in there own cards. In reality a good design. Upgrade the pc and move the cards forward. I'm not assuming it's either/or but wouldn't four UAD Quad cards be far more processing power than an HD3 system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm not assuming it's either/or but wouldn't four UAD Quad cards be far more processing power than an HD3 system? Honestly, I'm not sure, because I don't know what the relative DSP power comparison between the UAD Quad cards and the PT HD Accel cards is. You'd still have some differences between the two systems though. But again, there's nothing that says you can't run a HD system along with additional third party DSP processing. I use my HD Accel cards, plus my native CPU horsepower, AND a SSL Duende together all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CME Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 The other point still being looked over, is that on an HD system, the Mix Engine is also ran on the cards. AFAIK the UAD won't handle the actual Mix Engine. Sure you could use enough UAD cards to free up the load until your proc is just handling the mix engine (and OS and other background tasks) but it is still having to run your mix engine. FWIW I'm not a huge supporter of PTHD in any way. I have no reason to need what it offers. I do understand why some people choose to use it. So it comes down to whether or not you need it at the price they're asking. Before multi-core/proc systems were the norm they had a place. As Native power has increased exponentially, PTHD, as many people are realizing (hopefully Digidesign included), is becoming less and less necessary. So back to the OP. If you need what HD offers, then yes it is still viable. If it seems like it doesn't give enough bang for the buck, then it's not for you. I don't need it, but I'm also a hobbyist. Another thing I think HD offers (correct me if I'm wrong) is with HD you can track with plugs enabled on the track(s) being recorded. I know you can't with PTLE. Is this available in other DAW's? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted May 28, 2009 Members Share Posted May 28, 2009 So I'm reading this thread and wondering... How many of us have used pro tools HD (any version)? I can't say that my experience is that extensional, I have only used it 2 times, and I have NOT mixed on it yet. Who knows, it could have been the benchmark converters, the high end preamps, the nice microphones, the super nice pro control (yeah I know there is nicer than that), and the already patched and ready to run headphone monitor system. But I have never been in a studio with a native system that nice, and I don't think there are that many out there. Seriously how many native systems have API, Neve, Summit Audio, Avalon, Vintech, Benchmark, Manley, etc... Until I experience both I still have it in my head that "pro tools HD is really nice and easy to track with". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.