Protools 9 anounced - very interesting!

[Gus Lozada]

Btw, guys, I want to make something clear:

 

As usually, my only "official" position here is as a Harmony Central Moderator which happens to know a thing or two about Pro Tools because I am an Avid employee, but I am not representing in any possible way to AVID. The information I share here is not privileged or breaking a NDA, but available to everybody. My best intention is to help to answer whatever questions may arise respecting the launching of this new version of Pro Tools.

 

Additionally, all of my comments represent solely my point of view, not Avid's or Harmony Central's.

 

[locust tree]

As a longtime Pro Tools user (and a Logic and DP user), I'd like to interject that there's a fair amount of incorrect conjecture in this thread. If you want to know more about the software, ask Gustavo . As an Avid rep, he knows what Pro Tools is capable of. Previous low-end versions of Pro Tools were handicapped in a few ways, with each new release holding back less than its predecessors. At this point, I see no serious limitations at all with the new software version. I'm a more than satisfied customer, and I'll happily upgrade to version 9. No program is for everyone; and if others here prefer something else, that's great. If you have some venting to do about the software or the company, that's fine too. All I ask is that we start a new thread for venting and leave this thread for people who'd like to get up to speed on Pro Tools 9. This signal to noise ratio here is really high. (The same goes for Mac venting/bashing in Mac new release threads and PC venting/bashing in Windows new release threads. As longtime members here know, I've made this type of request in those threads too.) Thanks. Best, Geoff

 

 

I'll second this. Honestly, this kind of conjecture is reserved in my mind for people who have the luxury of doing all their work on non-industry-standard DAW's - I'm not here to knock any of them, but I have been waiting for years for an opportunity to work on PT without having to invest in what I consider sub-par Digi and M-Audio interfaces.

 

In my opinion (and y'all can flame away if need be) people in the past put up with PT's sometimes barbaric hardware and software relationship because it afforded them unparalleled workflow. There, I said it. Having used pretty much every competing DAW for years at a time, and having fallen in love with some of their timesaving features... I still maintain that when there's label deadlines to meet, when there's studios to shuttle work back and forth from, when there's rent to pay... PT gets it done quicker and more efficiently. It was never a matter of PT "catching up" with other DAW's on the market - it was a matter of Digi dropping their archaic hardware / software relationship, and that's why PT9 is a big big deal for me.

 

Again, that's just my personal opinion.

[blue2blue]

Interesting; right around the time Paul Simon recorded a record in ProTools and Trent Reznor switched over to ProTools.

Right.

 

First time you see the cars parked on the lawn down the street, you start itching to call up your real estate broker and put the house up.

 

[blue2blue]

Well, "officially dead" sounds too tragic But yes, it now handles CoreAudio directly.

Now, see, working with Core Audio is definitely big news.

 

But does will it work with CA's plug in layer, as well? (I'm still catching up, so maybe this will be answered below your quoted post. In which case, I'll just nuke this bit.)

[blue2blue]

Btw, guys, I want to make something clear: As usually, my only "official" position here is as a Harmony Central Moderator which happens to know a thing or two about Pro Tools because I am an Avid employee, but I am not representing in any possible way to AVID. The information I share here is not privileged or breaking a NDA, but available to everybody. My best intention is to help to answer whatever questions may arise respecting the launching of this new version of Pro Tools. Additionally, all of my comments represent solely my point of view, not Avid's or Harmony Central's.

Dude... come on... we want the real dope. Pay-outs to on-staff mistresses, the CEO's membership in any secret societies, plans to invade small neighboring DAWs...

[Bookumdano2]

Btw, guys, I want to make something clear: As usually, my only "official" position here is as a Harmony Central Moderator which happens to know a thing or two about Pro Tools because I am an Avid employee, but I am not representing in any possible way to AVID. The information I share here is not privileged or breaking a NDA, but available to everybody. My best intention is to help to answer whatever questions may arise respecting the launching of this new version of Pro Tools. Additionally, all of my comments represent solely my point of view, not Avid's or Harmony Central's.

Sorry, but I'd rather only converse with people who, like myself, have no facts and no clue what's going on.

[Philter]

You are SERIOUSLY missing a lot of information ! * No automation? No "Solo"? Come on, you must be kidding here. In case you are not, I'd recommend just taking a more serious look to what the software is. * No VSTs - Right. Pro Tools format is RTAS but you can "translate" any VST into RTAS via Fxpansion's Translator. * The whole enchilada about Pro Tools 9 is precisely offering stuff that was previously available only through additional toolkits, at the "basic" version. And no proprietary hardware required. * " More Reliability " as in " made for Pro Tools " so they communicate with a propietary driver instead than a generic ASIO / CoreAudio driver.

 

In my experience, ProTools automation is the best in the industry, both in terms of features and usability. And a lot of guys go the wrapper route with VSTs, although in my own experience I haven't needed anything that wasn't already in RTAS or TDM formats. The high end stuff is generally RTAS or TDM anyway because it has to be if most of the professional studios around the world are going to use it.

[Philter]

 

...............You are SERIOUSLY missing a lot of information ! * No automation? No "Solo"? Come on, you must be kidding here. In case you are not, I'd recommend just taking a more serious look to what the software is............ Hey I know. Like I said, I could be way off on features there or not there , but as I go down this page link below and see all those places where there is no check mark for stuff like solo, automation, grouping, it's real confusing. Probably much more clear for day to day users - http://www.avid.com/us/products/family/Pro-Tools/compare

 

 

It doesn't say what you say it does. This is the only bit related to automation that only the high end versions feature:

 

"Advanced automation (including Punch, Capture, Write on stop, Write to all enable, Back and play, Glide automation, Copy to send, Auto join, Auto match, and Preview)"

 

I'm going to be honest here, I use the high end version and I have no idea what most of those features do at all, much less why you would automate them. You can punch in in any version of ProTools, and I don't even understand what it would mean to automate it.

 

In any version of ProTools, you can automate any fader, any pan, any mute, and any plugin value, and it can all be done either graphically or manually.

[Philter]

Right. First time you see the cars parked on the lawn down the street, you start itching to call up your real estate broker and put the house up.

 

Paul Simon! There goes the neighborhood.

[Geoff Grace]

Let's see if I have this right. I believe the Pro Tools software line from top to bottom now reads like this:

 

Pro Tools HD (requires Pro Tools hardware)

Pro Tools HD Native (requires Pro Tools hardware)

Pro Tools Complete Production Toolkit 2

Pro Tools

 

I imagine Gustavo will let me know if I missed something.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Gus Lozada]

Hello!

 

Geoff, everything can run without hardware.

That said, every single version is "Native" now.

 

The main differences:

 

PT 9 > Up to 96 channels, 32 simultaneous inputs max. Latency depends on host / hardware.

 

PT 9 + Toolkit > Up to 192 channels, 32 simultaneous inputs. Advanced HD editing capabilities. Surround 7.1 Latency depends on host / hardware.

 

PT 9 |HD + Native Hardware > Up to 192 channels, 64 simultaneous inputs. Surround 7.1. Access to |HD interfaces. Latency controlled via |HD Native card.

 

PT 9 |HD > Up to 192 channels, 160 simultaneous inputs (ONLY with |HD hardware). Access to TDM processing. Can run natively.

 

 

That said, you can buy PT |HD 9 and use it with your laptop, in a plane. Then drop your session as it is straight into a full |HD system to keep working now with the DSP capabilities.

[Geoff Grace]

Thanks, Gustavo, for the clarification. It's great to know that all versions can now run natively. I'm guessing that TDM processing still requires hardware though, is that correct?

 

Take care,

 

Geoff

[Gus Lozada]

I'm guessing that TDM processing still requires hardware though, is that correct?

Absolutely, Geoff!

TDM processing is only held via DSP and that will make the entire difference between portable and full |HD systems.

With the |HD Native you can add the |HD interfaces and reduce latency drastically. With the full |HD hardware, you get TDM.

[Geoff Grace]

Thanks, Gustavo.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[ZombieCat]

I have always wanted to learn ProTools but like a lot of people did not want to go LE or M-Powered so this is exciting news for me. Well partly exciting as I see there is no demo available. Is there anyway to demo PT or do you just have to shell out the cash and hope you like it?

[Alndln2]

* No VSTs - Right. Pro Tools format is RTAS but you can "translate" any VST into RTAS via Fxpansion's Translator.

They need to work on that next. The adapter was never updated and is a thorn with users. They need to have native support for VST/VSTi and AU sooner than later. What I mean by that is they need to develop their own internal wrapper for those formats that can be updated with the program.

[UstadKhanAli]

VST plugins work on PT8 using the wrapper, but I do notice that if I make adjustments, it's much more likely to freeze than RTAS. And the VST plugins seem to suck up more CPU as well. Other than that, they seem to work fine.

[Alndln2]

VST plugins work on PT8 using the wrapper, but I do notice that if I make adjustments, it's much more likely to freeze than RTAS. And the VST plugins seem to suck up more CPU as well. Other than that, they seem to work fine.

I guess it depends on the plugs you have, but I've see many complaints on other forums besides the fact that it hasn't been updated in years. I think it's time to put the old thing to bed and get serious.

[Geoff Grace]

Why should Avid be responsible for supporting VST? Neither Apple nor MOTU support it either.

For that matter, Steinberg doesn't support RTAS. These are proprietary formats.

It was nice for users that FXpansion created wrappers, though. Too bad they haven't updated them.

Best,

Geoff

[Anderton]

The irony is now that Avid has finally got their interface act together, the software doesn't require them!

[UstadKhanAli]

I guess it depends on the plugs you have, but I've see many complaints on other forums besides the fact that it hasn't been updated in years. I think it's time to put the old thing to bed and get serious.

 

 

I suppose you could write a letter of complaint to third-party manufacturer FXPansion letting them know your views.

[MikeRivers]

 

Why should Avid be responsible for supporting VST? Neither Apple nor MOTU support it either. For that matter, Steinberg doesn't support RTAS. These are proprietary formats.

 

If you're a plug-in fiend, that's really too bad, because there are probably more VST plug-ins than any other system. Many of the high end VST plug-ins are also available in alternate formats, but not necessarily the low-end plug-ins. But I think that regardless of the program, there's enough plug-ins to do anything you need to do, though you may need to learn a different user interface and vocabulary if you need to use a plug-in in a different language than what you're used to.

 

I believe that all of these plug-in formats are licensed, though there may be a significant difference in cost and other factors that qualify a developer to get the documentation necessary to write his software.

[Gus Lozada]

The irony is now that Avid has finally got their interface act together, the software doesn't require them!

 

 

I don't understand.

[UstadKhanAli]

But I think that regardless of the program, there's enough plug-ins to do anything you need to do, though you may need to learn a different user interface and vocabulary if you need to use a plug-in in a different language than what you're used to.

 

 

Please elaborate? Why would the user need to learn a different user interface and vocabulary if it is VST as opposed to RTAS or something else?

[MikeRivers]

 

Please elaborate? Why would the user need to learn a different user interface and vocabulary if it is VST as opposed to RTAS or something else?

 

Suppose you normally use the VST Frizifier. Since there's no RTAS version of the Fritzifier, you look around and find the Stooltifier which does the same thing, but you need to learn that you get the same effect as turning up the Fritz by turning up the Stool, and instead of that function being under the pulldown Sprinkles menu, you have to Apple-click on the highlighted portion of the waveform.