Pro Tools

[ad0lescnts]

I've always liked having something in front of me for tracking and mixing, but I'm working on a project right now where we're using Pro Tools on a G4. This totally changed my mind about everything...

I've liked most of the plugins we've used, and everything is much more versatile and there are many more options than anything else i've ever used, and it takes the stress out of mixing. everything is already set how you had it before like you have motorized faders etc., so you can make a few changes and move on. So i've been thinking about stepping up to getting it myself but i have a few questions.

The guy told me that it's better on Macs. is this true? because i only have a PC.

What is a good soundcard that is compatible? I'd like to have AT LEAST 8 ins. more would be nice.

thanks for any input,
T

[Outlaws]

MAC kicks ass because it is built for this kind of world. PC is for low-level operation....ie personal BS like wordprocessing and video games. Mac is for Graphic Design and Movies/Video Editing and Production. Audio Production falls perfectly into that.


If you go to ILM's facility you will see MACs all over the place. Why? Because they designed with more effecient processor usage and they don't crash.


Software makers are fully aware of this and that is why Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator are actually designed and built on the Mac and then transfered to PC. Ever hear of CorelDraw? That was originally designed for the PC because Illustrator was MAC only.




PC diehards are just jealous. Sure they got better games...but most computer users don't even play games.

[TexRoadkill]

Outlaws that was true in the early/mid 90's but it's pretty much a moot point these days. Even then SGI's were much more powerfull then Macs for doing serious graphics (and what you would actually find at ILM) and they were based on a proprietary Intel based (PC) Unix platform.

PT is probably more stable on a mac but there are many other DAW programs that give you the same quality or better on a PC. The only reason to go with PT is if you want painless compatability with other PT studios because the downside is your are limited to ONLY using Digidesign hardware.

If you want a budget PT setup your only real options are the Mbox, 001 and 002 and they are compatable with Mac and PC. Higher end PT platforms would probably be better off on a Mac.

[ad0lescnts]

yeah,
this is completely understandable and i wish i had one of those new g5's... but they're fuckin expensive.

would a souped up PC do the trick? i could upgrade my RAM to at least a gig, and my processor is 2.4ghz.

The G4 we're currently using sometimes has problems and this worries me about doing it on a PC.

T

[ad0lescnts]

hmm..
I have a 16 ch. board that i could upgrade later when i feel i'm ready, but i was looking at the MOTU 24 i/o. Is this compatible with PT? I don't need all of those inputs but the outputs seem very handy for any kind of mixing operation.
What other softwares do you recommend besides PT? (persay not caring about compatibility issues)
I'm early in my decision stage, but if i were to get the MOTU would there be anything else i need besides that, my computer, and my board?

thanks,
T

[Outlaws]

I am not going to disagree Tex, most hardcorecomputer users would choose Linux and Unix over Mac or PC anyday.......but you should take a peek at some of the bonus features on the StarWars DVDs. Mac is all over the place.

[DonF]

Originally posted by ad0lescnts
I was looking at the MOTU 24 i/o. Is this compatible with PT?

No. Pro Tools (except for the "free" version) ONLY works with Digidesign hardware.

[therage!]

Originally posted by Outlaws
I am not going to disagree Tex, most hardcorecomputer users would choose Linux and Unix over Mac or PC anyday.......but you should take a peek at some of the bonus features on the StarWars DVDs. Mac is all over the place.

It's interesting cause Mac OS is now a Unix core. I would love to able to run my CAD programs on a Mac and see how they do. Unfortunately Bill Gates won the war in the office world many years ago. There isn't a day go by that colleagues and I don't curse this shit fron Bill that we run. Many of us have used Unix workstations like Sun in the past and know first hand that Bills best is still no match at all in an area like stability.

I use to actually do some CAD work on Mac's years ago with OS 6 and 7 and man those were flat out horrible operating systems for doing design engineering work. But now I imagine they would be rock ass solid in doing the kind of work I do.

I use to laugh at Macs years ago but they are now a very serious workstation that Jobs finally put a decent OS to run those RISC hot rods. I would love to have one, but the price of entry....

[Outlaws]

Originally posted by therage!
I use to actually do some CAD work on Mac's years ago with OS 6 and 7 and man those were flat out horrible operating systems for doing design engineering work.

I remember those systems.....I still think they kicked Windows ass back then. But when I got OSX not too long ago I was soooo pissed because everything was different...but I haven't turned off my computer in over two weeks. I can't even remeber when the last time was that I had to Restart.

[Son of Mixerman]

Originally posted by TexRoadkill
Even then SGI's were much more powerfull then Macs for doing serious graphics (and what you would actually find at ILM) and they were based on a proprietary Intel based (PC) Unix platform.

IRIX is one of my fav OS, in comparison to AIX which the IBM version of UNIX. I recently heard or read that Mac is going to Panther, which is another UNIX derivitive which runs pretty stable. The cool thing about UNIX is that is more of an open arcitechture OS so you can run complex scripts to do simple things. I used to run scripts for renaming NASTRAN outputs to some other hack name to prevent overwriting accidents.

There are so many good to great pieces of software availablenow days that everything should run right. The problem I discovered is that not all PC hardware likes to do audio/video so its kinda of a crap shoot for non pc techs, so Mac is safer without alot of research. I can build a mighty fast racecar, but Id rather buy one on a tight schedule. Personally I don't play the PC vs Mac game very well, Ive had to use so many types of systems, lots of them proprietary so I learn to deal with whatever I have.

SoMm

[rogga_bogga]

Go to the windows forum on www.digidesign.com

there's a thread at the top called "best system under $1000". If you build one of those you'll be more than happy. If you're planning to use PT that is.

Roger

[ad0lescnts]

"Go to the windows forum on www.digidesign.com

there's a thread at the top called "best system under $1000". If you build one of those you'll be more than happy. If you're planning to use PT that is.

Roger"

where is this??

T

[ad0lescnts]

ok, well i guess my real questions are what would i need besides my board, the motu, and my PC to do some good computer based recording?

since i wouldnt be able to afford pro tools hardware etc., what are some other good computer based programs like protools? (same plugin capabilities too)

and what would be the minimum requirements to run this program with about 24 tracks and maybe 10 simul. recorded?

thanks,
T

[Outlaws]

Originally posted by ad0lescnts
and what would be the minimum requirements to run this program with about 24 tracks and maybe 10 simul. recorded?

thanks,
T

Seems to me its either 8 or 16 at once.

[rogga_bogga]

ad0lescnts:

support -> user conference -> Pro Tools LE for Windows: Digi 002, 002 Rack, Digi 001, Mbox, AMIII

Roger

[cstockdale]

Cubase or Sonar 3.0 Producers Ed. will do all you need

[DeadPoet]

It's dangerours stepping into a PC vs. Mac or ProTools vs. "The World" discussions, but here I go:

AMD Athlon XP2,600+,
2x 512Mb no-brand DDR ram (333),
Asus A7n8X-X mobo (nForce2),
2 harddisks,
Matrox G550,
3x ST Audio DSP2000 soundcard (10 I/O of which 8 analog per card, totalling 24 tracks analog I/O)

Playing back 20 tracks while recording 16 is no problem, playing back +30 tracks neither, recording 24 tracks even less of a problem (all with full plugin load and some projects with VSTi's all over the place)


Don't tell me a PC can't perform.

I bet I could do video while capturing 24 tracks...

edit: forgot to mention: sequencer used: cubase sx1

Herwig

[ad0lescnts]

awesome.. i'm looking into cubase and Sonar. they both look awesome. does anyone prefer one over the other?? they're about the same price.

one thing.. i were to get a device like the MOTU 24 i/o or any other of the like that does not have monitor or headphone outputs, how do i get these features??? For me to use the MOTU i'm guessing i'd have to disable my existing soudncard with outputs... WHat's the solution? I don't want to have to go thru the board becuase i wnat to do my mixing in the box. thanks!!

T

[DeadPoet]

I don't get it. If you want to mix inside the box all you would need is about 8-10 inputs, not 24 i's and o's ... a 192 or 2408 or 828 from motu might be more what you need then.


Herwig

[musikman316]

I'm going to have to disagree that a PC can perform like a Mac. I have used both systems and without a doubt if I have a choice I'll pick a Mac without thinking. Yeah your PC can play back 24 tracks... how about 90?! A Mac/PT system can. So if you are recording at home, yes a PC is enough, but if you're doing some serious sessions with a huge edit density you might as well throw the PC out the friggin' window. So no, a PC can't perform on the same level as a Mac.

Later,
musik

[therage!]

Originally posted by musikman316
I'm going to have to disagree that a PC can perform like a Mac. I have used both systems and without a doubt if I have a choice I'll pick a Mac without thinking. Yeah your PC can play back 24 tracks... how about 90?! A Mac/PT system can. So if you are recording at home, yes a PC is enough, but if you're doing some serious sessions with a huge edit density you might as well throw the PC out the friggin' window. So no, a PC can't perform on the same level as a Mac.

Later,
musik

So your saying that a PC cannot playback the same recording using PT? Hmmmm, that's one worth taking over to the Digi forums and see what the replies would be.

FWIW, I had a tune that had reached just under 90 tracks until it was cleaned up and it played on my 1.2 Ghz AMD system with 256 meg of RAM. I was running only a couple plugins. Now what would a 2.8Ghz machine be able to do?

[musikman316]

You'll have to give me more proof, other than words, that you had a session with 90 tracks running without DSP on a 1.2Gig machine with 256meg of ram.

Not only that, but the fact that Windows is unstable is yet another reason to buy a Mac. Yes they are based on the same cernal but the Mac OS is so much more stable it's scary.

Later,
musik

[ad0lescnts]

yeah you're right i was just all in the moment. what's a good system that will have at least 10 inputs that also has headphone and monitor outputs? (pre's not necessary)

also what's the general conensus, sonar producer's ed. or cubase?

thanks guys,
T

[therage!]

Originally posted by musikman316
You'll have to give me more proof, other than words, that you had a session with 90 tracks running without DSP on a 1.2Gig machine with 256meg of ram.

Not only that, but the fact that Windows is unstable is yet another reason to buy a Mac. Yes they are based on the same cernal but the Mac OS is so much more stable it's scary.

Later,
musik

I could fucking care less that you hate pc's. or whatever your deal is.

A recording mate runs my old PII 400 with 30 or more tracks all the time, I don't have to prove a FUCKING thing! Do it yourself. I run Sonar, fire up a PC running Sonar and see what you come up with. You can call me a liar till your blue in tha face and I don't give a fuck! PERIOD!

[Outlaws]

WHO FUCKING CARES!


If you need 30 damn tracks in the digital domain you are doing something wrong anyways. (not including virtuals)