why is there no straight forward cubase to pro tools session converter & Vice versa

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eccentrica
  • Start date Start date
E

Eccentrica

New member
why is there no straight forward cubase to pro tools session converter & Vice versa

ok since we all know the de facto standard of all pro studios is pro tools bearing in mind this standard was created by people with large quantites of money to burn so the pauper engineers (which there are quite a lot of us in here) that make do with logic cubase nuendo etc why has no body come up with the idea of creating software that can convert pro tools sessions to any other sequencer session format and vice versa, im no programmer so i wouldnt have a clue where to start with something like that, but wouldn't it be oh so nice if these sequencers could get along for the sake of studio compatibility. anyone know any genius programmer that dcould make our lives easier :D
 
Eccentrica said:
the pauper engineers (which there are quite a lot of us in here) that make do with logic cubase nuendo etc
Click to expand...
While I understand your question and desire for the ability to move between project formats (more on this in a minute; it's neither as forlorn nor as simple as you might think), your characterization of the division between Pro Tools for the princes and the rest for the paupers is a bit misguided. Yes, PT has become a somewhat de-facto standard in the big houses - much like the NS10 did a few years ago - but certainly not to exclusivity. Many audiophile-centric studios and labels eschew PT for the likes of SAW or Samplitude, and many that do A/V post work use Nuendo. Also, there are scads of regular home recordists on this board that use PT exclusively. Neither the lines nor the quality differences between PT and the rest are anywhere near as black and white as you imply.

As Benny said, check out the OMF and AAF formats. Also search on other file formats and EDL (edit decision list) formats such as BWAV, Sony, CMX and Grass Valley, among others. PT may or may not at this time be compatable with any number of these formats, but there are rosetta stones and common standard formats out there for sharing audio and video projects between studios.

That said, it's not always as easy as it seems to move projects between software platforms. Different applications sometimes have different internal standards of calibration for different processes (e.g. different ways of handling pan values, RMS measurements, etc.) that don't necessarily translate one-for-one. It's kind of like translating from one language to another; sometimes there are words that do not directly translate with quite the same meaning. For this reason, projects that move from one platform to another do not always come out sounding quite the same.

This can even happen when moving between two machines with the same editing software - if the operators do not have all the low-level preferences set the same within and between their software.

G.
 
You need to buy the Digidesign OMF converter software, put your sessions into OMF and then open them up in any other DAW that reads OMF. Another program that might do what you need is called EDL Convert.

There may be other programs out there that do this conversion, but I'm not aware of them. Your best bet I think is to go to OMF, and open that up in your DAW software.
 
Simple and quick answer despite the great advice given here; people want to protect their proprietary formats. They want their format and their software to be the most pervasive, and peer pressure and the need to portability are powerful marketing tools.
 
Yeah, to Export/Import OMFs in ProTools, you need Digitranslator. You have to buy it seperately. At least that's how it use to work, they may have updated things, so it's called something different now, I'm not sure.

I don't know about Cubase, but I know with Sonar OMF Import/Export capabilities are included.

By the way, OMF(I) stands for Open Media Framework (Interchange).

OMFI/OMF is kinda like the difference between AIF and AIFF I guess.
 
I believe the most recent version of Digitranslator is only availible as part of the DV Toolkit and includes AAF support. As far as I know AAF support can't be purchased separately for Pro Tools.

Cubase SX does come with OMF support, and I think it also supports AAF but I'm not sure.

Even so, any effects will be lost in the translation unless you print them. The simplest way to tranfer audio from one program to another is to print them all as solid audio files then import those files to the other program. In Pro Tools there is a command to conslidate the audio tracks that writes your edited tracks to new contiguous files- then you just import those to Cubase.

Been a while since I used Cubase so I don't know an easy way to get the files out of it. There is an "Unattended Export" program I saw a while back but its for PC so I never got to try it out.

To answer the question- there is very little financial reason for a company to support the format of a competing company.

Take care,
chris
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
The simplest way to tranfer audio from one program to another is to print them all as solid audio files then import those files to the other program. In Pro Tools there is a command to conslidate the audio tracks that writes your edited tracks to new contiguous files- then you just import those to Cubase.
Click to expand...

I agree with this advice, and have used this method frequently. You do lose certain things like tempo and markers, but overall it's a fast and easy way to get the files from one place to another. Nothing is as universally compatible as simple WAV files.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I agree with this advice, and have used this method frequently. You do lose certain things like tempo and markers, but overall it's a fast and easy way to get the files from one place to another. Nothing is as universally compatible as simple WAV files.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this and have done it before. In fact I didn't even consider that there was a better way of doing it. Setting up the tempo/markers/time signatures etc isn't the most time consuming activity in the world if you keep notes. Personally I would trust this method more also due to it being so manual. The only margin for error is human error really. Wheras using OMF's etc, bugs can occur. Which in turn could ruin your day.
 
legionserial said:
Setting up the tempo/markers/time signatures etc isn't the most time consuming activity in the world if you keep notes.
Click to expand...


as someone who uses OMF's everyday...I prefer that method.
And it's not just tempo/markers and time signatures you're missing. It's also automation, regions (or whatever other programs call them), region handles, alternate playlists (if you use PT), better compatibility with video editors, etc.
 
Most project files have the info stored in them as plaintext...for example, Reaper uses XML to store the project info...track information, positions, length, panning, etc.

Most other software has it stored in plain view as well. You'd think there would be something out there that reads the project files and converts it to another program's format...

Unless that's what OMF is? :confused:
 
danny.guitar said:
Most other software has it stored in plain view as well. You'd think there would be something out there that reads the project files and converts it to another program's format...
Click to expand...
There are - or at least were - standards for this for this very reason. These standars are what are called "EDL formats" (EDL = Edit Decision List).

These edit list formats were originally designed so that audio and video editors could edit material at their own editing desks based upon timecode location and certain edit codes and then take the master copy of the tapes along with a copy of their EDL to a master editing suite and have their program material automatically edited and/or mixed down based upon the step-by-step timecoded instuctions in the EDL.

There are several common formats for EDL files that are shared amongest the different professional manufacturers, many of which I have listed in a previous post. These common formats allow(ed) editing instructions - what we refer to here as "sessions" or "projects" to be shared amongst different suites and studios regardless of their hardware platform. Some EDL formats were more expansive and/or more robust and extensive than others, but all in all it was a system that worked well.

Today that idea is fairly well - but not perfectly - being similarly used in the BWAV (Broadcast WAV) format as well as the OMF I believe (Benny, correct me if I am misconstruing OMF... or any of the rest of this FTM ;) ). But as to why there has not yet been universal adoption of an EDL format in the prosumer audio field I can only guess: I think it's a combination of factors.

One of the first ones, I believe, is the "all for one/one for all" approach taken by Digidesign. A company who operates under the idea that the hardware and software for audio editing and engineering should all pretty much come from one company (with limited exceptions), and who has become a de facto majority player in the pro studio, probably finds it against their strategic interest to open up to rosetta stone formats that allow other manufacturers to come in and do the work that now can only be done on their stuff. It's about the only reaon I can think of why PT has not incorporated BWAV support yet.

Second, studio collaboration amongst the smaller players like us has only really started to mature in the past year or so. I frankly wouldn't be suprised if by the next NAMM that you saw a Steinberg or a Sony release a universal EDL specification in much the same way that Steinberg did with VST as a plugin specification a few years ago. This is where I am laying my hopes.

Third, as far as Danny's wonderful idea of a "Rosetta Stone" EDL translator, they do exist, but as has been stated before, they are not perfect for a number of technical reasons; some things juct do not translate well unless there is a common specification for some of the editing tasks and values. Then again, the old A/V EDL formats like CMX and Grass Valley were not perfect either, but they certainly worked better than nothing.

G.
 
I know this is a very old Post but if anyone is still looking for converting software check out SSL's (Solid State Logic) Pro COnvert software. That solves the issue. I can't post the URL because I have less than 5 posts but google solid state logic and check out the software Pro Convert.
 
RAK said:
Yeah, to Export/Import OMFs in ProTools, you need Digitranslator. You have to buy it seperately. .
Click to expand...


That's the whole concept with pro fools, you have to use their hardware. Thats why so many people avoid it. They could quadruple their software sales if it was compatable with other hardware.

A while back they gave us Pro Fools M-Powered...... oh great, you can use Pro Fools with a delta 1010...not a bad convertor if you use an outboard mixer or stand alone pre amps. But hey......M-Audio designed the 1010 for a stacked system where you can use up to 4 cards in the same system.....32in/32out with 4 Delta 1010s...and gues what.....Pro Fools is the only software that only supports ONE Delta 1010 card in the system so right away you're cripled to 8in/8out.

My thinking on this?.... Lets make a market for all the people with one delta card...get them playing with Pro Fools software THEN when they want to expand on their I/O channels they will be FORCED to buy our hardware....... Clever....and nasty


Alex
 
SilentKillah said:
I know this is a very old Post but if anyone is still looking for converting software check out SSL's (Solid State Logic) Pro COnvert software. That solves the issue. I can't post the URL because I have less than 5 posts but google solid state logic and check out the software Pro Convert.
Click to expand...

http://www.solid-state-logic.com/news/Pro_Convert_NAMM.html

Nice idea, too bad it is $699. The digitranslator is $480 if I recall. Granted that they dont do the same things, according to the SSL site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top