Pro Tools product range

E

enuenu

New member
I am trying to get my head around the Pro Tools software range. I have perused the Digidesign Website but cannot decipher the heirarchy of their range.
We have;
HD 7.4 software
LE 7.4 software
M-Powered 7.4 software

From what I can tell HD is the pro setup and costs in the order of $10,000. Thus it is not an option for my small home studio needs.

Then we have LE and M-Powered. What is the difference? I intuitively thought that M-Powered would be for M-Boxes but I see that the M-Boxes come with LE software. So what is M-Powered and in what circumstances is it used? I thought Pro Tools only worked with Digidesign hardware anyway.

Is Pro Tools LE analagous to Cubase LE, i.e. a rock bottom package for bundling with hardware, it really needs to be upgraded for a quality small home studio?

Is there anything in the Pro Tools product range that sits between the $10,00 HD package and the very cheap LE package? I think that Cubase have Cubase Studio, but I can't see a Pro Tools equivalent to Cubase Studio (i.e. a $300-$400 package).
 
So it appears that an M-Box is not an M-Audio product, hence my confusion. Would have been a lot more straightforward if the company was called D-Audio.
 
M-box is a digidesign product. M-Audio has a few interfaces compatable with the m-powered product. They have different bundles you can purchase, the higher priced ones have more plugin's. There are different interfaces the accompany the LE and HD versions also. Digi 003, 003 control surface, mbox 2, mbox 2 pro, mbox 2 mini. The digi website would be able to explain all that stuff.
 
No, M-boxes are hardware sold under the Digidesign brand whereas M-audio ( http://www.m-audio.com/ ) were a seperate hardware manufacturer who were then bought by Avid (the parent company of Digidesign). M-audio products are still sold under the M-audio brand, however Avid made a version of Protools LE to be bundled with them.

The biggest difference between the HD and LE system is that the HD system runs off DSP cards whereas the LE system does all audio processing on the host CPU.
 
There is actually very little (if any!) difference between M-Powered and LE, rxcept M-Powered uses certain M-Audio interfaces and LE uses Digidesign interfaces. Generally its down to how much money you have and what kinda interface you'll required (which is mostly governed by how many i/o you need). The programs themselves are identical except that you can't buy the DV toolkit of M-powered (you can still get the MP toolkit tho).
 
Thanks, if I go the Pro Tools route it looks like an M-Box. I am getting started and don't want to spend thousands until I know what I am doing. I want to use a laptop PC to create songs. I am a guitarist using a Mesa Dual Rectifier. I want to record my guitar, add some vocals, virtual drums, virtual bass and construct songs.

Not sure about capturing the tones from my Mesa amp. It has a "slave out" jack where I think the preamp can be connected to other power amps. But I think that maybe going from "slave out" to an interface may mean that the tonal color added by the Mesa's 6L6 power tubes would be lost. Maybe the only way to capture the amp's true tones is to use a mic? Maybe virtual effects in Pro Tools LE can do it?
 
Use a POD. They are absolutely fantastic sounding. I'm using a preset based on a Marshall JCM-900 and it sounds exactly like a real Marshall. You can't tell the difference.

Micing an amp is a more difficult way to record your guitar. You got many more variables that factor into the final recorded result. And it will cost you more.

Years ago yes, micing an amp was the only way. But that's not true anymore. Hardware emulators like the POD, or the Behringer V-Amp Pro are equal to the task.
 
357mag said:
Hardware emulators like the POD, or the Behringer V-Amp Pro are equal to the task.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, that's a load of shite.


I've used loads of different PODs (we have bands that come in to the studio with them all the time) and for 95% of the time they sound fairly poor. You can tell that they're emulators, and personally I think that they don't really sound like a guitar thru an amplifier...
 
I'm using a preset based on a Marshall JCM-900 and it sounds exactly like a real Marshall. You can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

I call bullshit on that one. I am not saying that there aren't passable tones to be had with a modeler but none of them sound "exactly" like what they are trying to model. If it is all you can afford, then by all means use it. I will take a mix full of mic'ed guitars any day over a mix full of modeled. I say that you CAN tell a difference.
 
Wireneck said:
I will take a mix full of mic'ed guitars any day over a mix full of modeled. I say that you CAN tell a difference.
Click to expand...

Sorry but these brush strokes are to wide to be of any use to some one who has not personally had extensive experience with both mediums.

You'll take a "mix full of mic'd guitars any day over models" IF those guitars are mic'd properly. And the proper mic's were used for the guitar/amp combination at hand. And the room in which the above is being practiced is suitable for micing. And if the engineer was able to roll out the friend of all guitarist and guitarist 4-12 cabs 120 hertz and down so it at least had a chance to sit.

Proper micing of an amplifier is as challenging as any contemporary instrument and I've heard attempts that were just plain comical. That not to mention guitarist are historically awful at understanding the 4-12 cabinet pointed at you butt is hard to mic at ear level. If I only had a dime for every time a guitarist was shocked to hear what a SM-57 sounded like pointed at his or her speaker cab. Yes my friend it really does sound that bad when you stick your ears down there instead of your butt.

Great guitar oriented bands spend an incredible amount of time and money auditioning mics, rooms, cabinets and mic positions to hit upon a suitable sound. Most if not ALL in a home recording environment neither have the time or talent or budget to go to these extremes. They also have engineers that understand the unique challenges guitar amps provide.

I've worked hands on with the new Axe-FX. I'm not willing to say it rivals anything but what I am sure of, and all things considered, is it is a viable alternative to getting fabulous guitar sounds with a minimum of fuss and hassle.

I'm certain even the most demanding guitar ears could NOT detect the difference in a good mix.

Far to many variables in this equation to make blanket statements about what is definitively better.

Paul McCartney chose to use a new contraption he'd found called the Mellotron for a flute part during the Sgt Pepper sessions. George Martin even with his experimental nature considered it an appalling substitute for a flute section. Here we are however 45 years later still recognizing that incredible intro to Strawberry Fields.
 
You CAN tell the difference between the two. When I bought the latest Motley Crue release "Saints Of Los Angeles" I didn't like the guitar sound. I thought, "This guitar sound on this album is garbage compared to "Dr. Feelgood" or "Shout At The Devil". Then I read that they used amp simulating plug ins this time because it was faster and easier. Faster and easier maybe but the tone has suffered. Just my honest opinion.
 
c'mon its really not that hard to mic a guitar amp. shove a 57 up in the grill and spend a little time adjusting it. with close micing most of the room sound is out of the equation anyway. just try to avoid standing waves and too many weird reflections.

clean guitars can get a little more tricky but still doable.

if you are going to go with an mbox i say go with the Mbox2 Pro. that way you have the line inputs available so that you can add a preamp or two later on for some additional flavor. i used to have one and it did very well for me at the time although i've since upgraded to an 003r
 
second skin said:
c'mon its really not that hard to mic a guitar amp. shove a 57 up in the grill and spend a little time adjusting it. with close micing most of the room sound is out of the equation anyway. just try to avoid standing waves and too many weird reflections.

clean guitars can get a little more tricky but still doable.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!!!
 
second skin said:
c'mon its really not that hard to mic a guitar amp. shove a 57 up in the grill and spend a little time adjusting it.
Click to expand...

With all due respect.

It's just that easy??? Just shove a 57 up there??

For those that are interested; on the Gear Slutz forum about 6 months ago the engineer on the last Kings X CD discusses some of the gear and technique and BS&T's used in that recording. Where I'm not (as I mentioned before) advocating such a Titanic effort for home recordist I'm also fairly sure it's just not that easy.

There again I'd guess it depends on your level of acceptance.

I'll grant you for some shoving a 57 up there will do. It more often than not won't "do" for me.
 
was that an oversimplification? of course. would i rather put a mic on an amp over a simulator any day of the week? absolutely

the key is the part where i mentioned spending some time adjusting it. i really do believe that if you can't get a good sound micing an amp easily then you've got other problems.

a good guitar through a good amp shouldn't be hard to mic. don't be afraid of it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top