Baby's First Pro Tools

[UstadKhanAli]

And so much of what seems intuitive depends on not only who is using it but what you're using it for.

 

And also, I have a feeling that if you have gotten used to other DAWs, maybe Reaper may seem weird at first.

 

My friend, who is coming over in just a minute to record, just discovered Presonus Studio One 2 (a name that he always ridicules ) and really loves it so far. He also likes Reaper and some aspects of Pro Tools, but really liked the Presonus thing...and was surprised that he did, feeling like it came out of left field for him.

[MikeRivers]

Other than that you're using a Pentium 4?

 

If I was trying to push the performance with a lot of tracks or plug-ins or virtual instruments, you'd have a point, but the computer meets the minimum requirements for the program. I haven't had the opportunity yet to complain that it will only do simple projects or has too much latency. All I want is for it to approach working with different interfaces gracefully.

 

If there's anything that's a problem because it's behind the times, it's the Mackie interfaces, but they can be beaten into submission. The problem is that they have to be beaten into submission. At this point, I don't know for sure that the problem is with the interfaces or with Pro Tools, but I don't think that Pro Tools handles finding a different interface than it used last time very nicely.

[Huh?]

Pro Tools just "feels" like I'm working in an analog studio to me.......like I'm working with tape. I don't know how to explain it other than that. Maybe it's just because I really took to it, coming off of working with tape for many years. Pro Tools and I were a great fit.

 

But I'm not knocking or discounting Reaper. Great program, great business model...cool all around. All the major DAW's are perfectly capable of making great sounding mixes in the right hands.

 

Mike Rivers I saw your thread over at Avid. That whole deal with re-naming the I/O paths etc is unnecessary and creates confusion for the new user, especially with all the other BS you are dealing with while getting up and running. The Default I/O is just fine. You should be spending more time learning the PT basics and it's idiosyncrasies.

 

I also think that computer is boning you. It meets the requirements but only barely. Coupled with I have never heard of that Alva interface before in terms of Pro Tools users talking about them. Is it that new?

 

It's possible there are driver issues with the Alva that Avid has not yet addressed? I mean I don't even get many hits when Googling Alva Nanoface and Pro Tools. Personally....I would not have gone that route.....trying out a brand new device with PT.....and in essence being a beta tester for them. Especially with PT.

 

Pro Tools is often finicky initially. It takes a minute to to find real stability between the computer, Pro Tools software, the interface, what 3rd party plug in's you have and whether they are qualified, external drives being qualified, 3rd party sample libraries etc.

 

It has gotten way better but anytime you start mixing and matching with PT you run the risk of compatibility issues. This is why once people get a stable Pro Tools system, they tend to not do anything to upset the balance of it........even avoiding computer and Avid updates. I'm sure this is the same for all DAW's though.....the search for a stable system.

 

I hope things are getting better for you man.

 

EDIT: Oh...PT has no problem finding interfaces and it's simple to choose the last one or whatever. I run an old 002R and an Eleven Rack....sometimes even my MBox 2Mini.....no problems.

[MikeRivers]

Pro Tools just "feels" like I'm working in an analog studio to me.......like I'm working with tape. I don't know how to explain it other than that. Maybe it's just because I really took to it, coming off of working with tape for many years. Pro Tools and I were a great fit.

 

I don't think about this as being like working with tape or not, but rather working with a console or not. You'll have to pry my console out of my cold dead hands.

 

That whole deal with re-naming the I/O paths etc is unnecessary and creates confusion for the new user, especially with all the other BS you are dealing with while getting up and running. The Default I/O is just fine. You should be spending more time learning the PT basics and it's idiosyncrasies.

 

I suspect that saving the I/O setup is more significant with a large system where you're using physical outputs as auxiliary sends to places like headphone systems, and input/output pairs as inserts for outboard signal processors. But it also gives me the opportunity to label, for example, outputs 3-4 of the ALVA as "Phones" since those are normalled to the headphone jack. I can do this, and it works when I manage to import that saved setup. However, when I switch interfaces, what usually comes up is wrong, and usually (but not always) comes up with only two inputs and two outputs. I always have to go through the "defaults" exercise when I should be able to just import the right setup.

 

I also think that computer is boning you. It meets the requirements but only barely.

 

If my complaints were on the order of too much latency or not being able to record more than 4 tracks without clicks, or not being able to run a plug-in, yes, I can see that the computer is the weak spot here. But is there any reason why it should have trouble recognizing an interface? Is there a reason why I should have to sometimes start the program twice in order for the interface to be recognized, and that I don't just get the screen that, in essence, says "you don't have your interface connected. I'm quitting until you get that right." It's just annoying. Other programs complain that I don't have the same interface as i had last time, but they don't shut down, they allow me to access the setup page and select the correct device (or driver).

 

Coupled with I have never heard of that Alva interface before in terms of Pro Tools users talking about them. Is it that new?

 

Just released late June. I don't expect that a Pro Tools user would use one other than to tuck into a laptop computer bag while at the beach. It just happens to be something else that I have here, and it indeed does work in Pro Tools when Pro Tools deigns to allow me to select it and set it up.

 

It's possible there are driver issues with the Alva that Avid has not yet addressed?

 

Of course, though it's more likely that the Mackie drivers aren't quite up to snuff. The Alva uses a standard driver from Ploytec that's used with dozens of interfaces, surely some of which are being used in Pro Tools.

 

But, you see, I'm not bitching because I'm having trouble using Pro Tools as a recording and mixing system. This is the big elephant in the room. It's the standard that everyone presumably designs their equipment to work with. I want to use it as a test bed to verify that hardware that I'm writing about works with Pro Tools. But if Pro Tools is going to be the standard, it has to work right. It's like using a voltmeter to check out an amplifier and the meter doesn't always give the same reading for the same voltage, and sometimes won't turn on at all. I have to know that if an interface is cranky, the problem is with the interface (or its driver) and something that should be mentioned in a review, not that Pro Tools is being cranky.

 

I don't have a shop full of interfaces that I can test. If I did, and found that twenty worked smoothly, that would give me confidence in the program and the system. I could logically conclude that the two that took some work to set up deserved some comment. But at this point I don't know if I can rely on my test equipment or not. Since neither of the two interfaces that I've been working with in Pro Tools give me a problem with Reaper or Sonar or Studio One or Sound Forge, I have to conclude that either they don't play as nicely as they could with Pro Tools, or that my expectations of Pro Tools are just not right, and that it's simply necessary to take a few extra steps when connecting a new interface. I can accept that and work out a test procedure, but I need to know that it will be consistent and reliable.

 

...I would not have gone that route.....trying out a brand new device with PT.....and in essence being a beta tester for them. Especially with PT.

 

It's a crummy job, but somebody's got to do it. At this point in its evolution, I don't expect to be a beta tester for Pro Tools. I don't want to write a rave review of an interface based on a few programs but not Pro Tools and have someone write me saying "I paid $1,500 for this piece of $HIT based on your glowing review and I can't get it working with Pro Tools."

 

Pro Tools is often finicky initially. It takes a minute to to find real stability between the computer, Pro Tools software, the interface, what 3rd party plug in's you have and whether they are qualified, external drives being qualified, 3rd party sample libraries etc.

 

Of course there are things that won't work, but in this case I'm trying to determine that about the most fundamental part of the system. Avid says that any interface that has an ASIO driver will work. That may be a bit of an inflated statement because they haven't tested every one, but there are standards and basically what I'm trying to test is compliance with one of them.

 

It has gotten way better but anytime you start mixing and matching with PT you run the risk of compatibility issues. This is why once people get a stable Pro Tools system, they tend to not do anything to upset the balance of it........

 

And this is advice that I give a lot, not just for Pro Tools. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. But what I want to be able to determine is whether it's possible to get a stable Pro Tools system with a given interface. I think the answer is yes. If I shut down the program and restart it with the same interface as it used last time, it nearly always comes up correctly, and this is what most users will be concerned about. Perhaps I should just forget about what it takes to make it work the first time, and just verify stability and benchmark performance. But I need to know that if it works for me, it will work for someone else. And on the other side, I don't want to say that it doesn't work when someone else has it working just fine.

 

Oh...PT has no problem finding interfaces and it's simple to choose the last one or whatever. I run an old 002R and an Eleven Rack....sometimes even my MBox 2Mini.....no problems.

 

All Digidesign interfaces.

[BushmasterM4]

Like I posted earlier. I almost always have to start PT's twice. One the first try I almost always get the error you get Mike. But upon second start it runs great.

[MikeRivers]

 

Like I posted earlier. I almost always have to start PT's twice. One the first try I almost always get the error you get Mike. But upon second start it runs great.

 

 

And you're happy with that?

 

I relaize that it's practically impossible to put a thread to bed here, but I've had several people tell me basically the same two things:

 

1. This is the way it works for them, too

2. They just use one interface all the time

 

I understand that what I'm seeing is because I'm trying to use Pro Tools in a way that most people aren't. If my goal was to set up a Pro Tools system to do real work, I'd do what everyone else does - install it wtih an interface and use that until I was ready to replace it.

 

It appears that the "Default" I/O setup button works the way it's supposed to, at least most of the time, so when trying out a new interface, I can just do that a time or two and it'll be working. That should tell me what I need to know. As long as Pro Tools users are accustomed to expect a bit of fooling around when installing a new interface, then I suppose I can test with a relatively clear conscience.

 

But I guess there's no point in beating this horse any further.

[Huh?]

All Digidesign interfaces.

 

I thought you might say that...........

 

Yeah, okay...I get what you are saying and it makes total sense.

 

I wonder if it isn't expecting a lot for Pro Tools to play nice with a brand new release interface, priced at a mere $200+? One that does not really even list Pro Tools, specifically, in it's literature as a program it works with. I just saw that it works with Core Audio.

 

That said, you do seem to have had fairly good results getting it to open up okay if you shut down with it. So as you said, it does appear to work with Pro Tools. The issue seems to be that PT makes you have to wring the Alva out after the Mackie Satellite......another interface I would not expect to work all that well with Pro Tools.

 

Were I building a non-HD Pro Tools based studio on a low budget or to be somewhat portable...... and be sure the interface would play nice..... I'd look at would be the Apogee Duet and Uno, the RME Babyface or the M-Box 3.

 

I also still wonder if beyond track and plug in count, the old computer doesn't play some part?

[Zooey]

 

I also still wonder if beyond track and plug in count, the old computer doesn't play some part?

 

 

A Pentium 4 doesn't even meet the minimum system requirements for Windows 7, let alone Pro Tools 10.

 

Edit: I guess Pentium 4s are technically fast enough for Windows 7. There are no Pentium 4 processors recommended for Pro Tools 10, though.

[MikeRivers]

 

I guess Pentium 4s are technically fast enough for Windows 7. There are no Pentium 4 processors recommended for Pro Tools 10, though.

 

 

Well, hey, then send me your old dual core then. I'll bet I'll have the same issues with it.

 

Really, Avid recommends certain systems because they're happy with the way that they perform, and so their customers should, in theory, also be happy. But look - the program loads, it runs, it records, it plays back. What's not to like? If it does all that, certainly it's doing all it can to identify an interface, and in truth, it does that, too. It's just not as smooth and automatic as I expect from any program that works with outboard equipment. It doesn't have to be automatic, but it should at least prompt me to give it some help. I'd be happy with that.

 

But it's highly unlikely that this is the result of an underpowered computer. Anyone who thinks it is, please explain why. No, it's about where they stopped designing Pro Tools because they thought it was OK.

 

And indeed, for the kind of customer that they expect, it's OK that it's a little cranky with the I/O setup because they only set up an interface once when the install the system, and maybe the next time is when they buy a new interface.

 

Unless of course they carry a computer around from interface to interface. This isn't out of the question, for example they take it to the band rehearsal to record with the StudioLive they use for the PA system, then bring the computer home to mix with their Apogee. Users like that are likely to encounter the same annoyances that I have no matter what kind of computer it is.

[Huh?]

 

But it's highly unlikely that this is the result of an underpowered computer. Anyone who thinks it is, please explain why. No, it's about where they stopped designing Pro Tools because they thought it was OK.

 

 

Well I'm not a Windows computer expert, in terms of the deep operating system and code etc.....Deanmass is the guy for that I reckon. But it seems to me that the program is somewhat like a printed circuit in an electronics component and while one bad chip or whatever might not stop overall operation it may have an effect on what it is purposed for...as well as some peripheral function.

 

If the machine is choking and a certain function of the software is chugging along..... it may be pulling all the power or memory allocation and so some other function might suffer because of that. Just like you might be fine with 10 or15 plain audio tracks......and maybe you even add a couple reverbs on aux tracks and are still whizzing along.....until you try automate a fader ride.

 

Consider how much memory and CPU the Windows OS alone takes......then what Pro Tools grabs........and now you are expecting it to instantly recognize a different interface than the day before. Incidentally.......has this laptop been optimized for audio production? I'm no Windows guy but all my friends have told me you have to go into the BIOS or whatever and really fine tune a Windows PC for audio if you expect the best results.

 

But Mike....I know the thread is pretty much gone as far as it can so just to say.....I'm just guessing and going on experience and gut feeling. I love Pro Tools......don't love Avid all that much and yes......PT has it's moments. My PT9 system is pretty damn stable now....so much so I am afraid to go to PT10 and the required Lion upgrade also. But heaven knows....when I got started with a 7600 Mac and Pro Tools Free..to PT3 or 4, I forget.......damn I pulled my hair out more than once.

 

But as to the last comment....I don't think the PT designers would stop designing where they felt it okay. I really don't.

[Hard Truth]

It was few years ago since I read it, but I like the ProTools book from Peachpit press. I find their books consistently good.

 

 

Anything written by that Greg Anderson guy is likely to be good also.

[BushmasterM4]

It may be that I dont give my system time to get all the hardware drivers loaded to. As soon as Windows 7 pops up I usually click on PT to start it. I'll wait a minute upon boot up then try it. But it may be a Mackie Driver issue. It doesnt bug me that much though.

[Philter]

 

Well, hey, then send me your old dual core then. I'll bet I'll have the same issues with it. Really, Avid recommends certain systems because they're happy with the way that they perform, and so their customers should, in theory, also be happy. But look - the program loads, it runs, it records, it plays back. What's not to like? If it does all that, certainly it's doing all it can to identify an interface, and in truth, it does that, too. It's just not as smooth and automatic as I expect from any program that works with outboard equipment. It doesn't have to be automatic, but it should at least prompt me to give it some help. I'd be happy with that. But it's highly unlikely that this is the result of an underpowered computer. Anyone who thinks it is, please explain why. No, it's about where they stopped designing Pro Tools because they thought it was OK. And indeed, for the kind of customer that they expect, it's OK that it's a little cranky with the I/O setup because they only set up an interface once when the install the system, and maybe the next time is when they buy a new interface. Unless of course they carry a computer around from interface to interface. This isn't out of the question, for example they take it to the band rehearsal to record with the StudioLive they use for the PA system, then bring the computer home to mix with their Apogee. Users like that are likely to encounter the same annoyances that I have no matter what kind of computer it is.

 

 

 

I'm not at all surprised with the problems you're having. I have a couple of students on ProTools and they all have trouble getting the interfaces to work right on their native systems. I had to set up an MBox for someone recently and had trouble myself because of the added complexity and unclear interface.

 

Up until fairly recently Digidesign only let you run ProTools with their own branded interfaces. That was easy then. The issue you had in this thread wouldn't have been an issue then. Now Avid opened it up to third party stuff, and the I/O setup is a mess. It's nice to be able to use other interfaces, but at what cost in usability? I think they should have kept the interfaces proprietary. With them selling off M-Audio maybe they will head in that direction.

 

Not every system has to be open source. I wouldn't want to fly in an open-sourced airplane.

[Huh?]

 

I have a couple of students on ProTools and they all have trouble getting the interfaces to work right on their native systems. I had to set up an MBox for someone recently and had trouble myself because of the added complexity and unclear interface.

 

 

On Mac's?

[MikeRivers]

 

I'm not at all surprised with the problems you're having. I have a couple of students on ProTools and they all have trouble getting the interfaces to work right on their native systems. I had to set up an MBox for someone recently and had trouble myself because of the added complexity and unclear interface.

 

 

Well, it's finally nice to hear that I'm not the only one who has had difficulty or at least found the setup somewhat confusing.

 

 

Up until fairly recently Digidesign only let you run ProTools with their own branded interfaces. That was easy then. The issue you had in this thread wouldn't have been an issue then. Now Avid opened it up to third party stuff, and the I/O setup is a mess. It's nice to be able to use other interfaces, but at what cost in usability?

 

 

They did what they had to do in order to get out of the niche where everyone who really needed the system had one. They needed to expand their customer base. But it really shouldn't be all that bad, and for most, probably isn't, because most people will set it up with one interface and that will be it. I think, however, that in building it so that it can accommodate anything from a built-in sound card to the largest of systems with a few dozen channels of I/O, they've made it more difficult for the low end user.

 

Even though it's only a week or so since I first got into this, I can't quite remember what the first run was like, but I think it recognized everything that the interface I had connected to it had. It wasn't until half an hour later, after confirming that it worked with that one (the Onyx 1640i, I think, since that was the only one I was sure was supposed to work with it) that I started getting in deep when I decided to try it with another interface, and another, and another. If I was an average user, I'd hook up the Onyx mixer and leave it connected. As long as it came up right every time, and it seems to do that when I'm not jacking interfaces in and out, I'd be on my way to learning the real quirks and features.

[Alndln2]

On Mac's?

Good point , since PT was originally coded on the Mac, I always suspected that it's shell is still a port over for Windows.