Do I Need Pro Tools To Be Taken Seriously?

[Daisy]

Joseph ... I don't think film is applicable in this argument.

For starters, yes, cost is an issue to all of the audio post shops that I'm aware of. Even the top facilities can't afford to just go around upgrading or swapping things out every single year, without having to make notable sacrifices in other areas of the business.

Secondly, if you had every single audio post shop using a different platform, it could very well amount to complete chaos. It's a VERY deadline-driven profession, and there would be at least a few heads flying around if a project got delayed because the audio post guy in Los Angeles sent over an OMF file to the guy in New York working on the sound track, who couldn't open it on his version of Cakewalk.

In that industry, it just kinda' makes sense to have everyone agree on one system. And yea, even if something "better" came along ... who is going to be the one brave enough to risk incompatibility with everyone else? If I'm the Sound Designer working in a nice shop with a large rolodex of clients (one can dream), then I'm certainly not going to be the one to risk that. Thank you anyway. I'll make due with the inferior system for now.

In the music industry ... I don't understand it. It's baffling to think that a guy with an API board and a set of Apogee converters ... wouldn't be taken seriously because he prefers to use the Cool Edit platform on a PC. But it is a perception issue with some people, and it's worthy of consideration - Just like some people just think analog is superior, and tubes are warm, and all that jazz. The only situation where compatibility might be an issue is if the artist decided midstream he was going to ditch his mixing engineer and go with someone else ... or if he/she decided, down the line, that they were going to have it re-mixed and the original guy was booked.

And even in that scenario ... if the first guy was so bad to begin with, then why would you even need his sessions? You'd probably just be looking at importing the .wav or .aiff files in to another program and start from scratch, which should be easy enough to accomplish regardless of the originating platform.

.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

Daisy,

All good points. The only thing I'll take issue with is that of the budget. All production facilities I'm familiar with would not hesitate to replace their HD rigs with something that is more appropriate IF the staff was adamant. Many production facilities here are now equiped with bays that host both Final Cut and Avids. As the industry slowly accepts Final Cut as a viable solution those companies quick enough to realize the advantage of both increase their talent pool.

Audio budgets are dwarfed by Avid budgets and I'm CERTAIN any viable production facility in Hollywood could EASILY absorb the hit.

The rest of your points of course make sense. The positioning of Pro Tools as an industry standard because it is interchangeable is a pragmatic reason Pro Tools is used. That still does NOT reduce the choice of using Pro Tools to a drooling zombie.

Having said that it is yet again unfair to detract from the value and worthiness of the application by maneuvering it into the "it's good only because it's compatible" arena.

Certainly it is part of the equation but it is NOT why Pro Tools is the standard in the industry.

To draw the reigns back a bit my biggest complaint here is the ENDLESS tripe of those who simply don't know spewing crud about something they know so little about.

Digidesign AND Avid are not spinning marketing hype that lures innocent unsuspecting fools into a bottomless pit. That is again absurd.

Now I simply must stop as the boozy clown music is beginning to play in my head again

 

[Daisy]

Valid points, Joseph.

That said, if it were up to me and I could wave a magic wand and decide what platform everyone should use ... I would go with Sony Vegas.

From an audio post-production standpoint, I don't think there's anything faster or more intuitive. Obviously, Pro Tools is very powerful and capable, but in the world of audio post and sound design, I personally believe people would be able to work a lot more projects in a shorter period of time using that particular interface.

The reason it hasn't been more developed for the professional community is most likely because Sony views the barriers of entry in to that market as being too great. Even a company that big and well-funded is probably assuming that AVID, Final Cut and Pro Tools are just too entrenched in the industry.

(extra space before period removed at the request of Danny Guitar)

 

[danny.guitar]

I think you put an extra space before the last . in your post. It's kind of tedious.

 

[blueroommusic]

"If that is the case, most people won't want to hassle with OMF and other forms of importing into PT sessions. What they'll want is to be able to send you a session, or recieve a session from you, and just pick up the work right where it was left off. That is the beauty of compatibility and one big reason for ProTool's success."

That is exactly the reason I hate PT for being the corporate whores that they are...it's complete bullshit, especially since *most* other major software programs don't make you pay out the ass just to get OMF capabilities.

 

[Daisy]

That is exactly the reason I hate PT for being the corporate whores that they are...it's complete bullshit, especially since *most* other major software programs don't make you pay out the ass just to get OMF capabilities.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to make sure you survive in an industry where everyone and their brother are either illegally cracking software ... or using free shareware that essentially puts hard-working developers and their families out on the streets.

Kudos to them for being able to protect their business model ... and kudos to those who offer cheaper alternatives that allow others the ability to do things we could never have dreamed of doing 20 years ago.

 

[Ironklad Audio]

I´ve been visiting many mixing mastering recording sites in the internet. What really upset me was that many of them didn´t provide any soundfiles for listening of the mixes or whatever they did.

FWIW, if a studio is producing stuff for signed acts, they often can't post clips on their site due to copyright issues

and then sometimes you just get stuck with a shitty client, whose music you wouldn't want anyone to know came from your studio

 

[Joseph Hanna]

That is exactly the reason I hate PT for being the corporate whores that they are...it's complete bullshit, especially since *most* other major software programs don't make you pay out the ass just to get OMF capabilities.

Open media framework is so ginormously misunderstood. Comments like the above are as prevalent as the hideously misinterpreted delay compensation merry-go-round and Digi marketing voodoo. It's simply born out of a fundamental lack of understanding and a seeming need to feed an endless spewing of wives tale bull.

It was NEVER intended to be a framework between two competing DAW manufactures'. It's sole purpose was to interconnect Avid sessions to Pro Tools sessions.

It is a tenuous and very, very poorly implemented piece of software that was heading for the scrap yards YEARS ago. In short it doesn't work very well.

What stopped the scarp yard destiny was the fact that NO OTHER DAW MANUFACTERER WAS WILLING TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN CODE. They simply bought Avids.

The ridiculous mind set that because Logic or any other DAW purchased the rights to use this framework and implemented it into the cost of their software as a guise that seemingly makes them the "compatible one's" is AS greedy if not more than the cost of entry to Digitranslator.

If Logic or any other company....you name it.... took the time to develop a framework that actually worked more efficiently you better believe it would be EVERY bit as expensive as Digitranslator.

Hate Digidesign all you want but before you stand on a soap box and scream phrases like "Corporate Whores" know the story.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Open media framework is so ginormously misunderstood...

It was NEVER intended to be a framework between two competing DAW manufactures'. It's sole purpose was to interconnect Avid sessions to Pro Tools sessions...

It is a tenuous and very, very poorly implemented piece of software that was heading for the scrap yards YEARS ago. In short it doesn't work very well.

Thank you so much for that post. It's refreshing to finally read a post from someone who understands what OMF is, and that it is not the boon to compatibility between DAW's that many people think it is.

I've been saying for quite some time that if you want to be fully compatible with ProTools and easily trade files back and forth with another PT studio, you HAVE to use ProTools. So many people come back with "Cubase" this and "Logic" that, and you know they never really tried it themselves. Or they tried it and got lucky having never run into the limitations, or never ran into pro engineers that didn't want to deal with the real lack of compatibility and time wasting aspect of rebuilding the session on their end.

OMF is better than nothing, but I agree with everything you say about it.

 

[bennychico11]

Thank you so much for that post. It's refreshing to finally read a post from someone who understands what OMF is, and that it is not the boon to compatibility between DAW's that many people think it is.

OMF is better than nothing, but I agree with everything you say about it.

+1.............

 

[xccess]

I use cubase SX and as long as i take myself serious, no prob

 

[blue4u]

ProTools software can be used only on Digi hardware.

Apple had the same business model with their old Macs and Microsoft happily came along and offered the alternative. In the long run, the "industry standard" Macs were replaced by PCs until PC had over 90% of the market share. ProTools is treading the same path with it's proprietary hardware.

Rich

 

[Joseph Hanna]

Apple had the same business model with their old Macs and Microsoft happily came along and offered the alternative. In the long run, the "industry standard" Macs were replaced by PCs until PC had over 90% of the market share. ProTools is treading the same path with it's proprietary hardware.

Rich

Jeez...really???

Is there some sort of logical comparative conclusion to be drawn from this???

Now I hear boozy clown music AND black helicopters

 

[blue4u]

Jeez...really???

Is there some sort of logical comparative conclusion to be drawn from this???

Now I hear boozy clown music AND black helicopters

That's awesome! Good for a laugh anyway.

 

[blueroommusic]

I've been saying for quite some time that if you want to be fully compatible with ProTools and easily trade files back and forth with another PT studio, you HAVE to use ProTools. So many people come back with "Cubase" this and "Logic" that, and you know they never really tried it themselves. Or they tried it and got lucky having never run into the limitations, or never ran into pro engineers that didn't want to deal with the real lack of compatibility and time wasting aspect of rebuilding the session on their end.

I do respect your opinion and knowledge Sonic...and I do realize that OMF wasn't made for software other than PT...however, i've always had psych issues with PT...as it has been said previously, limiting a person's abilities in a SW program (in LE) is a travesty and pure corporate bullshit...I would be unable to use LE with the recordings that I do...that being said, I know that *most* large studios use HD, and it becomes quite a pain when I have to import OMF's at a large studio...I feel as though i'm being punished for NOT using PT, and it is a HUGE headache. IMO PT hardware and software, even at the highest end HD level is not always as functional as other high end hardware's and software's...If I had the choice between mixing in a room with a 9000J and HD, or mixing in a room with a 9098i and Nuendo, I would choose the latter 95% of the time.



In any event, carry on

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Apple had the same business model with their old Macs and Microsoft happily came along and offered the alternative. In the long run, the "industry standard" Macs were replaced by PCs until PC had over 90% of the market share.

Wow, Rich, that sure isn't the history that I lived through.

Ignoring the early years of the IMSAI, the Altair, and the S-100 bus, in the late 70s and first couple years of the 80s the big three of personal computeing were the Commodore PET, The Apple II and the TRS-80, of which the PET was actually the largest-seller most of the time. Then in 1983(+/- 6 months), IBM came out with the first IBM PC (when the term "PC" was actually coined), and Apple introduced the first Macintosh within months of that. Apple was never an "industry standard", with the IBM/Intel platform grabbing the majority market share right out of the gate.

Apple did have a pretty solid sales in the narrow vertical markets of education, graphics and pro entertainment, true; that last market advantage being the main reason why Avid/Digidesign went Apple. But in my history in computers since 1978, I can't recall a single time until now that I ever heard of Apple referred to as an "industry standard" except within the context of the Avid/Digidesign markets; but those markets are only a razor-thin slice of total computer market share. Apple has historically hovered somewhere in the 4% range (give or take) of total market share.

That said, though, PT has a pretty solid lock on the audio production market for the forseeable future, I believe. It would take either a pretty big technical or marketing slip-up of some kind on the part of Digidesign or Apple - which I don't see, but is totally unpredictable - or an initiative by the Steinbergs/Cakewalks/Sonys of the PC side to rally around some compatability or spectacular new technology standard to compete jointly against the PT platform. I don't see the latter initiative happening very soon either - though that is also not impossible.

G.

 

[Joseph Hanna]

however, i've always had psych issues with PT...as it has been said previously, limiting a person's abilities in a SW program (in LE) is a travesty and pure corporate bullshit...I would be unable to use LE with the recordings that I do...that being said, I know that *most* large studios use HD, and it becomes quite a pain when I have to import OMF's at a large studio...I feel as though i'm being punished for NOT using PT, and it is a HUGE headache.

I like this post because except for the line about travesty and corporate bullshit it represents "your" feeling about the situation and is void of any misconceived fodder about Pro Tools.

I don't however get a couple of your points. If in fact you're using Nuendo and it has a solid OMFI code export function then the burden of opening that OMFI file would fall on the "large" studio you're taking your sessions to.

It is and has been incumbent on all large studios using Pro Tools since day 1 to have Digitranslator. If that studio does NOT provide that service the weight and BLAME falls on their shoulders.

I never got pissed that my home recordings done on 1/4 tape didn't run on a Studer 2". I didn't feel Studer was "holding the man down" by forcing me to buy a 2' reel (at $400.00 per by the way).

Maybe it's a generational thing but the sense of entitlement is different these days and it seems to be fuel for some of this on-line bashing of product

Digidesign owes the consumer NOTHING but a good, solid, fair product at a competitive entry point. They don't owe you compatibility with ALL of your recoding situations and they're certainly not greedy in keeping their systems closed and running well. They provide all of that in spades (as do all the other DAW's) and run a very successful business.

NO one forces people to buy Pro Tools. If you don't like it you are blessed with many, many choices. Because LE doesn't fit your MO doesn't mean that it's not perfect for someone else.

 

[blueroommusic]

I like this post because except for the line about travesty and corporate bullshit it represents "your" feeling about the situation and is void of any misconceived fodder about Pro Tools.

I don't however get a couple of your points. If in fact you're using Nuendo and it has a solid OMFI code export function then the burden of opening that OMFI file would fall on the "large" studio your taking your sessions to.

It is and has been incumbent on all large studios using Pro Tools since day 1 to have Digitranslator. If that studio does NOT provide that service the weight and BLAME falls on their shoulders.

I agree...these ARE just my feelings, as I believe I stated several times in my post (IMO)

I also agree that it is the responsibility of the studio to have Digitranslator.

Thirdly, I use Sonar 5...I have attempted to export OMF's into both PT and Nuendo, having the most success in Nuendo...I've had PT lose all my plug-in's, group settings and so on and so forth....Nuendo has always been (mostly) smooth...

SOOOOO....this is where I leave the conversation...I think you have very valid points, and I trust that you feel the same about the things I have said...after all everything in life is personal preference.

 

[blue4u]

Wow, Rich, that sure isn't the history that I lived through.

It was just a thought. Maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't matter much. It goes back to the classic (and perhaps overstated) point that many of the world's best albums were put together with only 4 tracks and a couple of mics.

I see no reason to defend what software/equipment we use. I've heard that Cubase has a larger user base in Europe so maybe it will slowly grab the market. Maybe some newcomer will take it. Who cares really? Make good music, right?

There's no question of the limitations that PT puts on the user regardless of the overall perception of it's quality or industry standard status. My point with the Mac was only to say that people eventually want more options and will find a way to get them. Eventually Apple is getting this and changing their business model. Today, the differences between PC and Apple hardware components are far less than before. They use much of the same components. That speaks for itself.

Rich