Industry Standard...

  • Thread starter Thread starter JuliánFernández
  • Start date Start date
J

JuliánFernández

2&4
I was wondering about this lately... Besides Digidesign ProTools... which is the most common setup (i´m not talking about fx) in a regular pro recording studio?
If using a PC i think that one of the best choices would be a RME Hammerfall HDSP 96/52+a couple of Rosetta 800s and a good mixer of pres... Am i right?
The only pro studios that i know uses PT... let me know what´s happening out there! ;)
 
Nuendo is seen in many pro studios, but PT is definitely the "winner" thus far.

Setups / front ends vary wildly.

War
 
The studio I interned in was running a G3 with Digital Performer and a few light software samplers (this was in '00/'01). Most everything was hardware based - synth modules, samplers, etc. Mainly the work was done with a Mackie 32x8 into a Tascam 8 track digital-8 deck, with some reverb/chorus other processing inserts. It was rare we went into the computer for a project, but when simple 8tracking wouldn't cut it, it worked well. It was a simple, but very, VERY, effective setup. There wasn't a whole lot we weren't able to accomplish in that studio.

I use DP 4.5 at home as my secondary DAW on a G4 tower, mostly working under Cubase SX3 on my XP DAW. I vastly prefer DP over Cubase, and would like to make the switch, but the g4 i'm on isn't well suited for DAW work unfortunately. =\ I'll just keep dreaming of a G5 tower.
 
watch out for Cubase SX3!....

...combined with the much less expensive Windows Xp based hardware solutions, Steinberg's Cubase SX is gonna be giving the Mac based Pro Tools some competition...we just switched out our studio from an older G4 ProTools setup to a blazingly fast Pentium/4 Cubase SX3 setup and we ain't lookin' back!...the cost of the Mac/ProTools stuff and the lack of upgrade ability of the OS9 based software/plugins just made the Mac too damn expensive!...Cubase is similar enough with some added perks...as time passes, I think more studios (certainly project studios) will recognize the value of Steinberg's Cubase/Nuendo programs...
 
dp3 is getting more popular by the day. i havn't tried it yet so i don't know how it "feels" but nothing else i've ever tried even comes close to pro tools in ease of audio editing.

i'd say logic is the best audio/midi mixed tool

i'll bet dp3 is about #2

but if you add all platforms that are not protools together, they still don't out-number protools users in the pro realm
 
Both Digital Performer and Nuendo/Cubase have made pretty decent showings in Pro Studios. Both are very capable programs. Pro Tools however is still king when it comes to professional studios. Its very expensive, but it is also tightly integrated, and in general still offers some important unmatched features. Pro Tools certainly is going away anytime soon, nor does it look like anyone will even come close anytime soon.
 
Pro Tools is certainly great, but I use DP3 and am a big fan. I'm not a pro studio, but I am aware of pro studios using DP. I've never worked with Cubase, but I've heard good things. Anyone know what are the pros/cons of Cubase when compared to PT or DP?
 
MOTU said:
Pro Tools is certainly great, but I use DP3 and am a big fan. I'm not a pro studio, but I am aware of pro studios using DP. I've never worked with Cubase, but I've heard good things. Anyone know what are the pros/cons of Cubase when compared to PT or DP?
Click to expand...

PT has essentially created its own league, as near as i can tell, given their proprietary hardware design. Its great if you have the cash, and don't mind being fairly locked in, imho.

As near as I can tell, DP is "open hardware" ProTools (like open source, but not as ..y'know. ..free). There really isn't anything I've seen done on ProTools that one can't do under DP. The biggest advantages (to me) are that you can run it with or without the associated hardware (for working while on the go), that you can upgrade your hardware manufacturer at any time (i.e. switching between a motu interface, and a firepod or a tascam, etc), and that now with the JackOSX server system, you can run any plugin type with any suite without needing crossover/conversion plugins.

PT and DP is just professional choice, to me. If I had the cash for the hardware, I'd probably have chosen PT back in the day, given its use among higher-end professionals. But I wouldn't have been satisifed with something like a Digi002, i know that. As it is, I went with DP and Cubase (and MOTU hardware), but I haven't regretted it.

As for Cubase, it's useful, and a great DAW suite in its own right, but DP (at least 4.5) to me is much cleaner and more intuitive to use. I find myself quite often frustrated at Cubase's UI (this is under XP, btw). It takes me far too many tries to find an input channel, or open the EQ or insert settings. DP took me 5 minutes to get acquainted with.

Given the choice between the three (with or without the hardware I have), I'd go with Digital Performer, hands down.

Course, there's also a new project in the works called Ardour that's being developed for Linux, but has been ported to OSX. Once they get the gui looking not-linux-widgets, it's going to be HOT. It's quite cool. A bit of a learning curve, but I think it'll carve a niche for itself down the road.
 
and how about hard? Wich hard is seen the most with this kind of setup (not PT)-on Pro Studios- ... I think Rosetta 800 is almost a standard... how about pc interfaces?
 
Do you mean just digital interfaces? Or full hardware - mixers, inserts, effects, recording decks, etc?

I know of a couple studios, including Blackberry Hill, that use a couple MOTU HD192s as their interfaces. I use an 828mkII, and I know others using digi hardware. I don't know of any pro studios using equipment on the same line as the 828, or the Firepod, etc. My first studio, that I learned the ropes in, used a MOTU 1224 and a 2048 (coming out of a mackie 32x8 and through a tascam digital 8 deck).
 
All of the software is pretty powerful nowadays. You can do pretty much all the same stuff in most all of it anymore. What really sets Pro Tools HD aside is the tight integration of interfaces, no latency issues, and hardware/TDM style processing. Even a lot of the old PT midi issues have been resolved in the last two releases.

As far as other stuff being used, you will see more Motu (Digital Performer) and Steinberg (Nuendo/Cubase SX) in the big studios than you will Cakewalk, Adobe, Logic etc... For hardware, you will see mostly MOTU, but RME seems to have made a nice showing as well. You will even see some M-Audio in studios where they have external AD and DA and just need a cheap way to get the signal into the box untouched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top