Is Protools still viable?

[vintagevibes]

Seriously how many native systems have API, Neve, Summit Audio, Avalon, Vintech, Benchmark, Manley, etc...

 

That's outboard gear and could apply to HD or Native.

[vintagevibes]

 

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.

 

 

 

You can do that with the UAD-2 but it takes a lot of CPU which limits how many you can do at once. That would be another advantage of PTHD but if you have outboard gear like studios do that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

[nerol1st]

But that's my point, people who are going to spend serious money on a lot of outboard usually justify grabbing an HD system.

 

Why? Well I can only speculate it's because it's what your going to find the most studio to studio. That and if your getting a lot of label work, the name just seems to sell for better or worse "pro tools equipped studio".

 

My guess is if you took a PTHD system with a 192 I/O and accel card and paired it with something really cheap like a m audio octane, and then did the same thing only with say an RME HPSPe, I think the audio results are going to be pretty much the same.

[CME]

You can do that with the UAD-2 but it takes a lot of CPU which limits how many you can do at once. That would be another advantage of PTHD but if you have outboard gear like studios do that shouldn't be too much of an issue.

 

Yeah I realized I didn't make myself clear on the way home. Multiple tracks at a low enough latency to be usable.

[MrJoshua]

If ProTools meets your specific software requirements, then it's a viable platform for you. If it doesn't, then it isn't. It's as simple as that, really.

[Phil O'Keefe]

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".

 

 

I have a HD2 Accel system with two 96 I/O's, SSL, Neve, Vintech, API, etc.

 

Yes, you can track with plugins on a HD system.

 

Yes, the mix engine is handled by the HD cards, and not the host computer's CPU.

 

Yes, it IS nice... but it isn't for everyone. I ran strictly "native" systems (Logic, then PTLE) for years, and they can certainly give you good quality recordings if you do your part, but while I personally really like the PT software paradigm, I was not as happy with some of the other limitations of the LE systems, so for me, going to HD made sense.

 

Do I think it's still "viable"? Absolutely... but YMMV.

[Majoria]

If it is possible to buy a higher track count for LE with other kits, isn't it possible in programming for LE to have an unlimited track count (only limited by system abilities)? Is the track count only limited to entice other add-ons or is there a legit software coding scenario that makes it impossible without the MPT, etc? AFAIK, it's an intentional limitation to keep it further from HD.

 

If so, then I'd prefer to see a three tier system. HD with all the bells and whistles, LE as a similar but not identical software to HD (unlimited track count, etc), and Pro Tools Home which would replace M-powered and be a fairly basic version and allow non-Digi interfaces. There would be a noticeable step up from Home to LE so as to validate LE. I've read the many threads as to why this would never happen but I can dream.....

[MrJoshua]

While it would be nice to see PTLE drop the track count and I/O limitations, the track count issue has never really bothered me. I have PTLE 8 and the MPT, so I can go up to 64 tracks and I've always been of the opinion that if I need that many tracks for a rock record I'm probably doing something wrong. I'd still like to see it unlimited just for the principle of the thing, but I've only used more than 48 tracks on a session once. And that didn't really count because it was a song where we recorded four different drum parts at ten tracks each and wanted to be able to listen to them all to see which was the keeper. Now with ProTools8 I could do that with playlists and not use up those extra 30 tracks. (Of course, technically I could do it was playlists before but it's a pain to switch between playlists on ten tracks between each playback. Now I can group and just hit the solo button.)

 

You can do some good stuff on LE with a decent computer. I understand nerol1st's point about PTHD studios tending to have nicer stuff, but that's more of a budget issue than anything else - studios that can afford to drop tens of thousands of dollars on expensive outboard gear won't hesitate to drop the cash on PTHD. But a little bit of tucking money away for gear over time can let you put together a very nice studio around ProTools LE.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah I realized I didn't make myself clear on the way home. Multiple tracks at a low enough latency to be usable.

 

Reaper allows you to record with plugs enabled, uses multicore systems intelligently AND you can do networked FX - that is, you can have one computer on a network hosting effects and the other running the DAW. You can run a virtual instrument on a remote machine and monitor it locally, etc.

 

Many people have an older computer or two lying around, and any of those could host a reverb or something.

 

Just sayin'.

[vintagevibes]

It seems to me after reading all the responses that there are three things which make PTHD still a good choice for pro studios. The interesting thing,however, is that none of them have to do with availability of raw processing power which is what put PT at the top of the food chain. IMO those things are:

 

1) recording with FX and low latency (although I can do that with my native plugs, my UAD's are not totally there yet)

 

2) Digidesign Control surfaces - very mature

 

3) Everyone had PT

 

As I said, the live FX things works well natively with a host that that has ADC but is ever so slightly behind with H/W cards such as UAD. Cakewalk has made a very impressive first offering in the control surface market that is far more cost effective that PT. If they continue that way the VS700 is going and expand in the higher and lower end they will catch up to PT in not too long a time - still at quite a better bang for buck. Once the first 2 issues items are up to par with PT and stay at such a hugely better price point the last one will start to incrementally change. IMO, although I conclude that they are currently still viable, the time is ever so near that that will change - unless DD changes it's marketing/pricing strategy

[MrJoshua]

I record with effects in PTLE all the time. Most of the time when I track I have aux sends set up with reverb (TL Space Native) and delay (Moogerfooger analog delay, usually) plugins, and it's not at all rare for me to have compressors on a dozen tracks and such. Are there some plugins I can't use? Sure - I won't leave Ozone across the master bus when tracking because it introduces too much delay. But most of the plugins that are included with the PTLE system work just fine at 128 or 64 samples of playback buffer.

 

Similarly, while I'm not sure how well one of the really big control surfaces would work with LE, the Command|8 I use works very well.

 

And it's a LOT cheaper than HD.

 

Now personally, I'd love to make enough money with this that I could justify picking up a used HD Core card and a couple of Lynx Aurora 16s or Apogee AD-16Xs and DA-16Xs and put together a 32-or-more-channel I/O system to use with a large console and do analog summing, but if I'm going to be willing to spend the thousands of dollars on converters and a good console to make that worth doing then I'm not going to be too concerned about the two grand for a used Core card. Plus I really think a lot of wanting that is just due to the fact that I started out in a studio with a 16-track 1" tape machine and miss having all the hardware around. Right now I have a rack with all my gear in it, and then a table with a couple of computer screens, a keyboard, a mouse, and the Command|8. It gets good results and it's very enjoyable to work with, but it's just not the same, you know?

[Zooey]

So I'm reading this thread and wondering... How many of us have used pro tools HD (any version)?

 

I have a HD2 Accel with 192 (16 analog in/8 analog out). From 2003 to 2009, I used the same Power Mac G4 with this rig.

[Majoria]

I also have the MPT2 with PT8 LE so while I have 64 tracks, I may need way more than that for a project that I'm writing. It will be a radio theater type project so lots of different spoken word tracks and a ton of different background sounds. I'll be forced to combine many of them to get down to 64 tracks. I can make it work, just would prefer to not have to compromise.

 

Maybe I should contact Focus On The Family and see how they do it.

[MrJoshua]

I also have the MPT2 with PT8 LE so while I have 64 tracks, I may need way more than that for a project that I'm writing. It will be a radio theater type project so lots of different spoken word tracks and a ton of different background sounds. I'll be forced to combine many of them to get down to 64 tracks. I can make it work, just would prefer to not have to compromise. Maybe I should contact Focus On The Family and see how they do it.

 

There are a few "tricks" you can use to expand you track count, too. With the toolkit you get 64 mono OR stereo tracks. You can always move two mono tracks to a stereo track, hard pan them left and right, and set the output of the track as a stereo bus. Then make two mono aux inputs and set their inputs as those two stereo busses. Now you have independent controls for the two sides of the stereo track, effectively allowing you to have two tracks while only taking up one in your track count.

 

In other words, say you record Guitar 1 and Bass 1 on mono audio tracks. Make a stereo audio track called GTR/BASS 1 or something like that. In the Edit window, highlight and move the regions from the Guitar 1 and Bass 1 tracks onto the stereo track. Set the output of the track to a stereo bus, say, Bus 1-2.

 

Now create two mono Aux tracks and name them Guitar 1A and Bass 1A or whatever you prefer. Set the input of Guitar 1A to Bus 1 and the input of Bass 1A to Bus 2. Then use those aux tracks just like you would use the audio tracks, except now you're only taking up one "track".

 

Or you could Rewire in another application like reaper and use it for some of your audio tracks, sending its outputs to ProTools aux inputs.

 

In the end, though, if you consistently do projects where you need more than 64 tracks, then I'd venture to say that you're pretty close to outgrowing ProTools LE. We shouldn't really have to jump through hoops like this to get things done. Thankfully, I haven't reached that point. I know HOW to do it, but it's not something I've ever actually needed to do.

[Zoomstrat]

 

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.

 

 

So, are you saying that the higher you are able to run your meters, the better sound quality you get? This is important info. How noticeable is the difference?

 

Keep in mind that I'm running a 24 bit Pro Tools LE system.

[Phil O'Keefe]

If you pin your meters, or push them near the top when you track, then chances are you'll need to lower all your faders when you mix in order to avoid overloading the stereo output (2 track) bus. That itself might not be so bad, except the lower you go with the faders, the lower their resolution is for a given amount of fader movement. IOW, moving the fader 1/8" might only reduce the volume a dB or two when the fader is near "0", or the "middle of it's range", but at or near the bottom of its throw, you might be reducing the volume by 10dB with that same amount of fader movement...

 

I normally recommend tracking so that your average levels (occasional peaks can go higher, but try to avoid clipping and lighting up the red clip indicator on the faders' meters) are at about -15 to -18dB on the track meters; that corresponds to about "0" on the A/D's, and will put your meters at about "half way up" (for those of you who have non-marked faders - prior to PT8); that way, you'll be able to start your mix with the faders at or near "0", without overloading the outputs.

 

If you're recording at 24 bit, IMO there is no need to try to record "as hot as possible"; that might have been a good idea with 16 bit, but IMO isn't needed at 24.

[nerol1st]

I have a HD2 Accel with 192 (16 analog in/8 analog out). From 2003 to 2009, I used the same Power Mac G4 with this rig.

 

Hey that's another good point, you don't have to have a super powerful machine to run it!

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Hey that's another good point, you don't have to have a super powerful machine to run it!

 

 

Very true - if I was still running a LE system, I would have upgraded my Athlon 64 4200 X2 by now... but with the HD Accel system, I have not felt any compelling need to do so yet.

 

However, a more powerful host platform does give you additional native "horsepower" in addition to the DSP of the HD cards, so there are advantages to having that as well. But if you're primarily using TDM plugins and not really using any RTAS plugins or virtual instruments, you can do a LOT, even with a relatively old and (by modern standards) underpowered host computer.

[nerol1st]

You know the other thing (and I don't know if this is true for anyone else) is if I was paying over $40 an hour for recording I expect to see a pro tools HD system, for not other reason that I can come in drop my pre production stuff without hassle and get up and running fast.

 

If someone said "yeah we don't have pro tools can you bounce everything" I would be inclined to tell them to piss off (unless it was under $20 an hour).

 

With pro tools you can take an LE or MP session and put it into HD without any issues other than if they have the same plugs, with cubase you can take LE and put it into studio, and you can take studio and put it into 5. However you can't go from studio to LE or 5 to studio or 5 to LE and that's crap.

 

Whatever is presents the least amount of headache is what gets my vote and since your gonna find HD in probably over 80% of professional studios it only makes sense to play nice with everyone else. You can argue converters and bla bla bla, but that's a headache as well because it's not guaranteed to convert perfectly, they are expensive for what they are, and everyone would have to have it.

[Zooey]

 

Very true - if I was still running a LE system, I would have upgraded my Athlon 64 4200 X2 by now... but with the HD Accel system, I have not felt any compelling need to do so yet.

 

 

My 1.25GHz single processor Power Mac served me well over the years. I could see the CPU meter getting close to max with a few RTAS plugs like Strike, Ableton Live (Rewire), and iZotope Ozone.

 

The upgrade to a new quad core Mac Pro ($2500) was extravagant, but I expect it to last me a while.

 

I also really dig some of the practical features of the Mac. For example, adding new storage is as easy as affixing a SATA drive to one of the four internal drive sleds. No fishing around for cables or anything--just pop it in, and you're done. It's a well-designed machine. It's bigger than the G4, though, so my Isobox is at capacity now.

[Vatican]

 

I have an LE setup. The problems with LE are: Limited track count Plug 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.

 

 

About the latency with LE, do you have any protocol or methodology or system for rectifying input latency? Cause latency in general was a big problem for me when I used LE a few years ago.

[Phil O'Keefe]

With a reasonably fast cpu / host computer, you should be able to track with the lowest buffer settings (64-128); for most people, that's practically imperceptible.

[Anderton]

I work at a studio with a full-blown PT HD 192 system with Intel Mac. I track on it, then pull the audio files into Sonar for editing back in my studio. Sonar's 64-bit mix engine is all done in the CPU but with an 8-core machine, you can get away with a lot. I never max the system out, even at 96k/24-bit.

 

The biggest problem I have with Pro Tools is not being able to do non-real-time bounces, which I believe is an inherent limitation of having outboard hardware (there's the same limitation when bouncing using Duende, PowerCore, etc.).

 

The main limitation of Pro Tools' mix engine isn't the 48 bits, which is more than enough to give you all the dynamic range you need. From what I understand (and I could be wrong on this, but I don't think so), as soon as a signal goes to a processor via the TDM bus, it's dithered down to 24 bits. So, if you do a lot of passes of processing, that's a lot of dithering going down. Some people theorize this is the origin of the "Pro Tools mix bus doesn't sound good" issue that gets debated endlessly on forums.

 

BTW although Sonar makes a big deal of the 64-bit engine, I think that practically speaking, there's no difference between it and 48 bits. At some point, you get into the noise floor and all the bits in the world won't help you there.

 

Operationally, the Pro Tools controllers are indeed wonderful for big projects. For solo work, remixing, audio for video, and the like, a Mackie control is almost as good. And I agree with the opinions on the VS-700 - it's a pretty substantial piece of gear.

 

As to workflow, I think it depends on the type of recording you do. With the classical tracking work I do, PT is a no-brain-required program: I turn it on, I record stuff, it works

 

PT has also done a few things lately that have helped it catch up with the native solutions, like elastic audio, and incorporating the AIR instruments.

 

Bottom line is the same as I've mentioned before: If all DAWs disappeared except for one, it really wouldn't make much difference to me one way or the other which one was left - I'd learn it and use it. Sometimes it's the little things that sway you to use one program over another - for example, Sonar's support of acidized files, including the ability to edit the transient markers, is a big deal for me but probably wouldn't matter to 98% of the people using DAWs.

[Lee Flier]

 

Operationally, the Pro Tools controllers are indeed wonderful for big projects. For solo work, remixing, audio for video, and the like, a Mackie control is almost as good.

 

 

Yeah... I'm seriously think that one of those, with an expansion sidecar, and a couple of 400F's might be a good setup for my home studio.

[vintagevibes]

 

You know the other thing (and I don't know if this is true for anyone else) is if I was paying over $40 an hour for recording I expect to see a pro tools HD system, for not other reason that I can come in drop my pre production stuff without hassle and get up and running fast. If someone said "yeah we don't have pro tools can you bounce everything" I would be inclined to tell them to piss off (unless it was under $20 an hour). With pro tools you can take an LE or MP session and put it into HD without any issues other than if they have the same plugs, with cubase you can take LE and put it into studio, and you can take studio and put it into 5. However you can't go from studio to LE or 5 to studio or 5 to LE and that's crap. Whatever is presents the least amount of headache is what gets my vote and since your gonna find HD in probably over 80% of professional studios it only makes sense to play nice with everyone else. You can argue converters and bla bla bla, but that's a headache as well because it's not guaranteed to convert perfectly, they are expensive for what they are, and everyone would have to have it.

 

 

This gets to the heart of my original question. I think that in many ways Protools is older, less robust technology selling for twice the price of newer, more robust technology. The only technological edge Protools has is the control surfaces. The other edge is simply market share. IMO this scenario is an impedement to the advancement of studio technology.