How much better is protools than everything else?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucid
  • Start date Start date
L

lucid

New member
what is so good about protools compared to, say, sampllitude? why do almost all large studios use it, and why is it so good?
do the ridiculous prices justify the quality of the gear?

thanks
 
The reason so many large studios use it is because it offers a lot of options and greater control, automation, etc.

That's not to say that it's sound quality justifies it's price tag, because it doesn't. :)
 
As far as I see it, Pro Tools is really the hardware, not the multitrack software; so, I'm not so sure you can compare it with something like Samplitude.
 
Pro tools is expensive for nothing...i think its expensive for its name most probably....they read 'PRO' and automatically think its the greatest which is far from the truth....all other computer applications are comparable and prolly better(sonically) then PT because of there 'corporate attitude'.
 
Last edited:
The window of difference between Pro Tools and other DAWs is very narrow. The main difference is Pro Tools runs on Pro Tools hardware, and the high-end TDM system allows you to run plugins on dedicated audio hardware, as well as your CPU. It's also somewhat easier to use, and the sound quality is very good. A lot of people will tell you that other DAWs sound better, and that may or may not be true, but Pro Tools remains the standard for more professionals in music and film than any other DAW.
 
My understanding from someone that does not use pro tools (for whatever that is worth) is that pro tools is a great setup but very expensive. Today and certainly in the future there has emerged many other options that will get you there without spending nearly as much moola.
Pro tools emerged before the other less expensive options were available and as such "captured" the professional market and became somewhat of an "industry standard".
For example when I was starting my "dayjob" career there was a particular program that was a necessity to understand and learn in order to be able to secure employment. That particular program was not the only one available but emerged early on as an industry standard.
Pro tools is a little different from most other soundcard/interface type setups in that their full setup is kind of like a computer attached to your computer, therefore it is considered more stable because it does not rely so much on your own systems processors etc.
However, computers have evolved so much, that now were getting to the point that the actual value of a pro tools setup is really diminishing. But the price point still remains very high because of the industry standard thing and of course bottom line a full blown pro tools mix plus or the hd system is a great setup. Maybe not worth the money but if someone wants to give me theirs I would certainly put it to good use.
 
hey, Lucid,

if you're interested, I know a few places that have the Protools Digi001. :)
 
It would interest me to create a list of tasks that can be performed with protools which either cannot be performed on other platforms, or are implemented less well. One that comes to my mind is interfacing with digital mixing boards. You know, the setups where when you move the fader on the board, it moves on protools. I think some of these boards will also work with cubase and digital performer - anybody know more about this?

Another is TDM plugins - some of the good plugins out there are available only for TDM. I don't think any other software can run TDM.
 
talk about stupid standards: dos

and Windows, although recent versiona are a lot more usable. Ironically, a great deal of the usability improved when they won the trial that let them copy the mac interface.

Compared to others I saw (Performer, Cubase and Logic) ProTools is easier to use. But as I said, Mac was easier than DOS, yet they never took the market. I think people prefered cheaper.
Maybe in the audio market people prefer expensive.

Oh, another thing that people seems to prefer is to be "part of the mistery". A lot of guys are so proud that they can install the cd-rom drivers on their PC, or tweak their TDM system in a way that makes them feel like the Wizard of Oz.I tihink it's a waste of time. I prefer people like Harvey Gerst and other guys in the forum, who knows a lot and also shares it. The guys who works with computer tend to be very obscure people, specially older ones. Just like accountants.
Cheers
 
Mac was easier than DOS, yet they never took the market. I think people prefered cheaper.
Click to expand...

Apple had the market, and then lost it because of bad business practice. They failed to embrace open standards. They force you to buy their hardware and software as a package - not allowing third parties to build hardware capable of running the mac OS. For all that we criticize microsoft for anti-competitive behavior, if Apple had won the race we would be much worse off. One of the things which bothers me about digidesign is that they do the same thing.

Ironically, a great deal of the usability improved when they won the trial that let them copy the mac interface.
Click to expand...
I might point out that Xerox, not Apple, developed this interface. Neither was microsoft the only company that tried to adopt it to the dos platform.
 
I agree with you in everything.
The only thing I don't agree is that I don't think Apple had the marlket, maybe a bigger marketshare, but just that.

I think the computer industry developed absolutely randomly. At that time what would you prefer: to make the $10.000 machine like IBM and Apple, or to do the $100 operating system which was copyable and there were no entry barriers? I think if Bill was allowed to choose, he'll choose the opposite of what he did. He also disregard Internet at the beginning, so go figure.
You're right about Apple, they were jerks., but I have simpathyfor them, just as I have simpathy for some bands which are not top ten yet I find them loveable.
 
Apple did in fact have the business market (THE market) in the palm of its hand, but it slipped through their fingers. They had the OS, the hardware, and the app (some spreadsheet app), but priced it way too high - $10,000. The PC was available for about half the price, due to competition between clones. Do the math. Apple has never been able to successfully cater to business users, and I think they've now realized this and choose to cater to smaller niche markets. The irony is that finally Apple has an OS that has industrial strength underpinnings, yet their hardware is anything but industrial strength.

I think if Bill was allowed to choose, he'll choose the opposite of what he did.
Click to expand...
Considering Bill's bank account, I find it hard to believe he would choose the opposite path, if given the chance.
 
I think he just had luck. The others force him into the software business, which was a small portion of the revenue. No one at the time realized that it will become the key component of the business. Remember that in those days the big thing was to make a cheap disk controller, not a GUI interface. He found himself standing on a goldmine, just like a country who finds oil reservers under the floor- that part of the story is not because of his skills.

When he failed to deliver the first Windows nor Apple and IBM took the opportunity. You have to be lucky to have such lousy competitors.

He also failed to realize the opportunity in the Internet. If not, then how can you explain the existence of Netscape? At the time he had enough cash to do some dumping and then erase competitors out of the map, so he was lucky again and could catch up. But he didn't have the vision.

What I really respect now of him is that he know nobody can predict the future. If you see his investments on the last years you'll find that he is buying opposite technologies. For example he bought both DSL and Cable companies. That's wise, if you have the cash and can do it. I guess he read Random Walk on Wall Street.
 
how can you explain the existence of Netscape?
Click to expand...
It began as a student project at University of Illinois - Champaign-Urbana, which makes sense as universities were the first big users of the internet. It's really a moot point as regardless of the fact that Netscape predates IE, IE is far and away the better browser, and has been for years. It doesn't matter if you built the first mouse trap, all that matters is if you can build a better one.

Business seems to be more about being in the right place at the right time than about having some novel idea. Think about the guy that Bill bought DOS from for $8,000 (or whatever it was) - he had the goods, but he was in the wrong place. Sucks to be him.
 
My question was more like how did he allow some unknown guys to take almost 50% of that new and important market? For me that's lack of vision. He solve it later, but at great expense since he could buyout Netscape when they were pretty small. It even cost him the famous trial to split the company,

I agree 100% with you. For me tech inventions are lots of times like Bob Dylan songs: they sound better when done by another guy.

And the guy who made the DOS is the Pete Best of technology.
 
My question was more like how did he allow some unknown guys to take almost 50% of that new and important market? For me that's lack of vision. He solve it later, but at great expense since he could buyout Netscape when they were pretty small.
Click to expand...
I think because it crept up on him. It kinda started as this underground thing that kept on gaining momentum. As to why he didn't just buy Netscape, I think you have to look at his implementation of IE and how it interacts with the OS. Back when all the monopoly and antitrust stuff was starting out, Bill said the IE was core to the OS and nobody really believed him, but that was his vision, and now it makes sense.

For me tech inventions are lots of times like Bob Dylan songs: they sound better when done by another guy.
Click to expand...
Haha...I completely agree. :)
 
Back when all the monopoly and antitrust stuff was starting out, Bill said the IE was core to the OS and nobody really believed him, but that was his vision, and now it makes sense.
Click to expand...


Realy? How so? I can't think of any fundemental task done by ie which require it to be in-seperable from the OS. On the contrary, the integration of browser and OS causes problems. It definitely has made the OS less stable - especially in win98 and ME.
 
Last edited:
On the why he didn't buy out netscape, also keep in mind that buyouts like that are regulated by the SEC, and he may not have been able to do it even if he wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top