Re: ProTools for broadcast production Sucks..

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(mike e) wrote:
>20 years, still waiting ..for An 8 track..no bull**** software app for
>broadcast production.
>
>Where is it?. Where is a multitrack (read 8-trk) software app. with
>the simplicity of say, Bias Peak- or the Orban Audicy for anybody
>who's familiar with either one.


major snippage---

>So,any and all production pros,feel free to give me a revelation on
>this and change my world. I welcome your intelligence.
>
>Tired,
>
>Mike

Nice rant Mike. I bought the AKG DSE7000 in 1990. Three years ago I bought a
Pro Tools Digi 001 as a backup DAW. These days the Audicy (which I upgraded
from a DSE7000) is the backup.

There is a learning curve. For what you want to do, it isn't that hard. You
do have to learn what all or most of those little things on the screen are
for, but no big deal.

I was a slave to scrubbing. I have since learned how to get the job done
quite nicely without scrubbing.

For radio spots, the digi 001 is now my machine of choice. hey, wanna buy a
used audicy?

Regards,

Ty

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[David Morley]

In article >,
(mike e) wrote:

> Where is it?. Where is a multitrack (read 8-trk) software app. with
> the simplicity of say, Bias Peak- or the Orban Audicy for anybody
> who's familiar with either one.
>
> The fact is it doesn't exist. To-date NO ONE's designed a software
> app. Mac or any other platform-compatible....(Ha! he even wants it MAC
> compatible!!) , that truly replicates, in a virtual environment, what
> amounts to nothing more than an 8 track analog tape deck and transport
> controls.

Surely you can setup any software like protools to just have 8 tracks
visible and transport? Save it as a setup and away you go.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> 20 years, still waiting ..for An 8 track..no bull**** software app for
> broadcast production.
>
> Where is it?.

Session 8. You missed it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Ralph & Diane Barone]

Ah, what's all this about not being able to record in Deck? Did they
remove that particular feature in the latest release?

[Your Add Here!]

It exists and is called Session 8, made by digidesign. It runs on a PC
and has been discontinued. I have one and it's quite good and sounds
like it is what you're looking for in terms of limited features,
simplicity.

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, mike e
> wrote:

>20 years, still waiting ..for An 8 track..no bull**** software app for
>broadcast production.

EVERYBODY is waiting for task-dedicated audio applications to replace
today's Swiss Army knives. The AES-31 standard (a replacement for tape)
is bringing us closer to when this revolution will come.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Kurt Ballou]

wow. someone's angry.
protools is a tool like anything else. it's not neccisarily better or
worse, but it has it's own techniques that you need to become
accustomed to. just like learning to use an 8 track tape machine and
mixer takes some time. if you want to buy protools and you don't want
to learn anything about it, let me know and i'll take 2 minutes to
make you a nice template and email it to you.
kurt

[Philip Perkins]

Sadie "Radia" or PCM 4. The BBC, New Zealand national radio,
Australian national radio etc have these in droves for the reasons you
state--especially the use by non-engineers on a daily basis. Not
cheap though.

Philip Perkins

[R Tyck]

(mike e) wrote in message

First off- let me state that I do not work in the broadcast field.
I've cut a bunch of radio spots in Pro Tools, but i don't consider
broadcast to be my field - and I am totally unaware of the specific
needs of pros who do. As such, I have no idea if Pro tools or
anything else, for that matter, would really fit the bill for you.

That said-

OK, so you're a pro - and you're complaining that you might have to
spend "a few hours" learing how to get Pro Tools set up the way you'd
like it !?!

You've waited 20 years, and yet you're unwilling to spend a day
learning how to use a tool that could totally change the way you work
!?!

This leaves me kind of at a loss- you're a pro- getting paid- invest
a small chunk of time getting familiar with a professional tool. Or
if you're too busy, pay someone for a couple of hours of help
streamlining the program for you.

People get crucified around here for being unwilling to spend the time
needed to properly choose and familiarize themselves with their tools.
I don't see why things should be any different choosing a DAW than
they are choosing monitors, mic pres, consoles, etc...

Again, I have no idea if Pro Tools is the right program for you. Not
everyone loves editing in Pro Tools. But the specific concerns you
have expressed here could be addressed in under 5 minutes by a pro
familiar with the program.

As far as the other programs you have checked out- You can't record
into Deck? Since when? I owned a copy of Deck back before Macromedia
purchased it (this was of course before Bias purchased it) and I
could record into it back then. Looking at the Bias website, they
sure do claim that you can record into it now. In fact, Deck LE with
its 12 tracks looks like it might work well for your needs. Not bad
for 99 bucks.

Hey, I understand not wasting time learning a new way of working every
week. I've stuck with the same primary DAW (not PT) for almost ten
years because I appreciate the value of working, as opposed to
learning how to work. Sorry if this comes off as a flame, but, let's
be reasonable folks.

R Tyck

[Steve King]

"mike e" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > Waht version of PT and what hardware did you
> > see? It is not hard to use. There is no learning curve to do basic
> > things. It is so simple that my 6th grade daughter can get around on
> > the basic functions, helping me do punch-ins.
> >
> First, sorry for not proofing my first post for the
> redundancy/repetitiveness
> of a few concepts in my 'rant' - I have PT LE, version 5.01
> incarnations .on a G4; I also prefer OS 9...
>
> It is inherently complex as far as the screen view, TO ME, without a
> lot of study on how to create a template.
>
> As mentioned, unless you've worked with simpler and more intuitive
> user interfaces such as say, Audicy's - intentionally designed to get
> up and
> running fast with nominal Manual dependency and an analog style
> atmosphere that
> prod people used to analog based prod. rooms -- it's difficult to
> describe the
> difference without a direct comparison to another specific
> application.
>
>
> > If you only need 8 channels and tracks, then that's all that you
> > create is eight. You don't downsize anything. To see waveforms and
> > channels on screen together, simply re-size the screens. Do it the
> > first time, then save it as your template (in Mac), and you will never
> > have to set it up again.
>
> Feel free to drop me a note on specifically how to do that...have not
> been able
> to find any reference from Digidesign that addresses this precisely.
>
> >
> > I won't change your mind. But I think that you haven't experienced a
> > system set up with preferences the way that you like it. As for just
> > 8 tracks. Most Clear Channel and Cox stations don't use 8, they are
> > using Cool Edit Pro.
>
> My mind is changeable....I am glad to experiment... As far as Cool
> Edit, yes,
> I think for my purpose...better...and easier to deal with - Of course,
> I am
> entirely Mac based so i would need to buy a dedicated Windows machine
> just to
> run that app...and of course, the audio hardware. Otherwise, yeah I
> kinda like
> the Cool Edit approach.
>
> RE: the "Session 8" configuration, is it still a compatible option to
> try?? I
> heard about it but wasn't really searching for a computer-based DAW at
> the time..
> Kinda forgot that incarnation.
>
> Thanks... No offense intended here to happy PT users mind you.
>
> Regards,
> Mike

I understand your frustration. I recently purchased Vegas 4.0. I have long
been a video writer/producer, but I had not done any hands on video editing.
I'm a whiz at Cool Edit Pro. So, I thought that it would be easy getting up
to speed on Vegas. After all, your only adding some pictures. Right?
Well, the immediate frustration I felt at being unable to do even the
simplest things was frustrating.... for about two days of steady effort.
Then, it started to become easier and easier. I'm still not ready to start
whipping together a full production for clients, but I've put together some
passable family video vignettes.

I suspect I would have similar frustrations moving from Cool Edit to Pro
Tools... for about a couple of days. Then the sailing would become
smoother.

You just have to stick with it for awhile. Try to cut down on the time you
spend banging you head against a wall. That slows you down. In the end,
you'll wonder how you did without these wonderful new toys.

To give you some perspective, I started in radio production, when Magnacords
were king.

Steve King

[Musikboy]

In article >, mike e
> wrote:

> >
> > Waht version of PT and what hardware did you
> > see? It is not hard to use. There is no learning curve to do basic
> > things. It is so simple that my 6th grade daughter can get around on
> > the basic functions, helping me do punch-ins.
> >
> First, sorry for not proofing my first post for the
> redundancy/repetitiveness
> of a few concepts in my 'rant' - I have PT LE, version 5.01
> incarnations .on a G4; I also prefer OS 9...
>
> It is inherently complex as far as the screen view, TO ME, without a
> lot of study on how to create a template.
>
> As mentioned, unless you've worked with simpler and more intuitive
> user interfaces such as say, Audicy's - intentionally designed to get
> up and
> running fast with nominal Manual dependency and an analog style
> atmosphere that
> prod people used to analog based prod. rooms -- it's difficult to
> describe the
> difference without a direct comparison to another specific
> application.
>
>
you are either a complete technophobe or an un-mitigated moron. just
open an empty pro tools session, hit command shift N where it says
create X number of tracks type in 8, hit return and you have an 8 track
mixer. if you want a master fader command shift N again, drop down menu
to stereo, drop down menu to master hit return. configure the I/O's
and save as a template. if you need to add aux's the same thing command
shift N. How freakin hard is that? you must be a complete idiot. my
friends jack russell terrior could do that much. it took me like 1
second to figure that out. pro tools works in just 2 seperate windos it
is without a doubt the simplest computer audio app i've ever dealt
with.

[Mark T. Wieczorek]

(mike e) wrote in
om:

> Yeah yeah Pro Tools users, once you've spent hours learning PT I'm
> sure you can
> sit and downsize it to what I want and make it work for this purpose
> but
> Gimme a break - What the hell do I have to spend hours trying to learn
> how
> to basically SUBTRACT from view, all of all the nice but unnecessary
> features and views and screen displays
> blah blah- (for MY purposes) that I have NO USE for, because all I
> wanna do is lay down basically a few tracks of V.O. and production
> music, and mix it to a mono or stereo master?
>
> You know that PT is NOT a pull-it-out-of-the-box ready-to
> use-without-the- manual app.

Funny, for me ProTools is the easiest to use out of all the DAW's I've
looked at. As someone whose comfortable in an analog studio, PT seemed to
me to be the most natural, and I had no trouble getting it up and running,
and hardly ever looked at the manual. Need to change the input? output?
effect? It's on the channel strip. What could be simpler than that?

Cool Edit Pro would be my choice after ProTools, though I mostly use it for
editing individual wav forms and not mixing or multitracking, and therefore
always forget little things like how to select the input on a track, which
is so obvious and easy to do in Pro Tools.

Cool Edit Pro is, I believe, the de-facto audio app for ClearChannel, so
apparently it is good for broadcast.

Also, if you hate all audio apps, why this (insert right word here) at
ProTools? Are you just being controversial?

Sonar and Cubase just confuse me.

Regards,
Mark

--
http://www.marktaw.com/

http://www.prosoundreview.com/
User reviews of pro audio gear

[mike e]

Musikboy > wrote in message >...

Dude,first off, I GOTTA see this Jack Russel terrier trick.

You win for the most antagonistic response so far and nah, not an
unmitigated moron or idiot - just an ARTIST who believes technology
should serve my purpose simply and easily - not stand in the way of the work...
The fact is there are alternatives out there and you being "musik-boy"
obviously don't get the point of what i'm talking about as far as apps
that are task-specific for spot production right out of the box. PT is
way more cumbersome to adapt to for me than standalone DAW's i've
worked with for a long time. So, here's a trick for you to try. F yourself if



> >
> you are either a complete technophobe or an un-mitigated moron. just
> open an empty pro tools session, hit command shift N where it says
> create X number of tracks type in 8, hit return and you have an 8 track
> mixer. if you want a master fader command shift N again, drop down menu
> to stereo, drop down menu to master hit return. configure the I/O's
> and save as a template. if you need to add aux's the same thing command
> shift N. How freakin hard is that? you must be a complete idiot. my
> friends jack russell terrior could do that much. it took me like 1
> second to figure that out. pro tools works in just 2 seperate windos it
> is without a doubt the simplest computer audio app i've ever dealt
> with.

[mike e]

Hey,almost all of ya, thanks for the constructive feedback. Definitely
some
good leads on other apps to consider. Also just checking out the IZ
Radar
standalone DAW which, if it interfaces to a Mac for a 2-track mix is
way
more in line with the track display and user interface that emulates
how I
like to work...

Never said i prefer to use PT to begin with and not flaming anybody
who does.
Just one individuals' personal experience and preference expressed.
Thanks to
all who have the ability to keep it from invoking a personal spin on
it since
it's really all about the product and largely, how stuff has been
developed (or
not developed) with the ultimate aim of maximuming market share above
all else.

I think the fact that other apps that have a simpler interface for the
type of prod. that I am talking about - specifically for reasons of
appealing to those who were accustomed to working in the analog world
for dozens of years speaks for itself

That said, again, yeah i appreciate the points here about some of the
other apps
and will check out "R's" note about Deck. Last time I ran it there
were definite
issues about being able to do direct-in/out real-time recording, as
compared with
Peak, but hey, i'll give it another try.

Thanks!

Mike


(R Tyck) wrote in message >...
> (mike e) wrote in message
>
> First off- let me state that I do not work in the broadcast field.
> I've cut a bunch of radio spots in Pro Tools, but i don't consider
> broadcast to be my field - and I am totally unaware of the specific
> needs of pros who do. As such, I have no idea if Pro tools or
> anything else, for that matter, would really fit the bill for you.
>
> That said-
>
> OK, so you're a pro - and you're complaining that you might have to
> spend "a few hours" learing how to get Pro Tools set up the way you'd
> like it !?!
>
> You've waited 20 years, and yet you're unwilling to spend a day
> learning how to use a tool that could totally change the way you work
> !?!
>
> This leaves me kind of at a loss- you're a pro- getting paid- invest
> a small chunk of time getting familiar with a professional tool. Or
> if you're too busy, pay someone for a couple of hours of help
> streamlining the program for you.
>
> People get crucified around here for being unwilling to spend the time
> needed to properly choose and familiarize themselves with their tools.
> I don't see why things should be any different choosing a DAW than
> they are choosing monitors, mic pres, consoles, etc...
>
> Again, I have no idea if Pro Tools is the right program for you. Not
> everyone loves editing in Pro Tools. But the specific concerns you
> have expressed here could be addressed in under 5 minutes by a pro
> familiar with the program.
>
> As far as the other programs you have checked out- You can't record
> into Deck? Since when? I owned a copy of Deck back before Macromedia
> purchased it (this was of course before Bias purchased it) and I
> could record into it back then. Looking at the Bias website, they
> sure do claim that you can record into it now. In fact, Deck LE with
> its 12 tracks looks like it might work well for your needs. Not bad
> for 99 bucks.
>
> Hey, I understand not wasting time learning a new way of working every
> week. I've stuck with the same primary DAW (not PT) for almost ten
> years because I appreciate the value of working, as opposed to
> learning how to work. Sorry if this comes off as a flame, but, let's
> be reasonable folks.
>
> R Tyck

[mike e]

"Mark T. Wieczorek" > wrote in message >...
> (mike e) wrote in
> om:
>
> Cool Edit Pro is, I believe, the de-facto audio app for ClearChannel, so
> apparently it is good for broadcast.
>
> Also, if you hate all audio apps, why this (insert right word here) at
> ProTools? Are you just being controversial?
>
> Sonar and Cubase just confuse me.
>
> Regards,
> Mark

For those of you that can't seem to grasp the idea I'm trying to get
across,
tecnnology ideally makes things simpler.

I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
to use than an analog studio environment.

[EggHd]

<< I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
to use than an analog studio environment. >>

This is VERY subjective.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

mike e > wrote:
>
>I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
>remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
>digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
>to use than an analog studio environment.

I've only seen one that was, and that was the Studer Dyaxis, a long
dead system that nobody even remembers. But for 2-track work it was
very easy to work with.

But this afternoon I just did final edit on a concert album on the ATR-102
and it was easy to work on and sure sounds nice. And it's paid for.
I don't see any reason to change.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kurt Albershardt]

mike e wrote:
>
> For those of you that can't seem to grasp the idea I'm trying to get
> across, tecnnology ideally makes things simpler.

That's what the salescritters say at least...



> I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
> remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
> digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
> to use than an analog studio environment.

Lots of us started in analog. I miss the overall level of
professionalism in the industry at the time--a result of the high cost
of entry, the complexity of the technology, and the specialized nature
of job skills. There are other things I don't miss.


You might want to try some other DAW packages. Individual companies
tend to offer different takes on workflow and project structure. After
a year of research and experimentation, I ended up with
Samplitude--which seemed odd to me at first glance but I've come to
really like its object model and powerful editing capabilities.

[Mark T. Wieczorek]

(mike e) wrote in
om:

>> Cool Edit Pro is, I believe, the de-facto audio app for ClearChannel,
>> so apparently it is good for broadcast.
>>
>> Also, if you hate all audio apps, why this (insert right word here)
>> at ProTools? Are you just being controversial?
>>
>> Sonar and Cubase just confuse me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark
>
> For those of you that can't seem to grasp the idea I'm trying to get
> across,
> tecnnology ideally makes things simpler.
>
> I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
> remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
> digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
> to use than an analog studio environment.

You also cut the first half of my post out where I said ProTools is
extremely simple and as someone whose familiar with analog gear I find it
really intuitive to use.

The damn channel strip looks like a channel strip and the signal flow is
blatently obvious. If you ignore the wave form view, PT has a very analog
feel to it. I'm having a hard time figuring out what part of PT you *don't*
get.

I also don't think analog is necessarily easier than digital, though it's
certainly had many more years to be refined, and the engineers that worked
on it probably were more familar with the end application than the software
engineers that write computer programs. There's also the fact that there's
a sort of 1:1 ratio between things - cutting tape is cutting tape, turning
a knob is turning a knob that you always lose a little of when going to
digital.

I honestly find ProTools very easy to use and very analog-head friendly.

Regards,
Mark

--
http://www.marktaw.com/

http://www.prosoundreview.com/
User reviews of pro audio gear

[Laurence Payne]

>For those of you that can't seem to grasp the idea I'm trying to get
>across,
>tecnnology ideally makes things simpler.

That's one of the uses you could make of technology.
Not the only one.

>
>I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
>remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
>digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
>to use than an analog studio environment.

If you spend an hour setting Pro Tools (or whatever) up to suit your
requirements, it can be.

Nice rant, though!

[Ty Ford]

In Article <znr1057145787k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
>In article >
writes:
>
>> 20 years, still waiting ..for An 8 track..no bull**** software app for
>> broadcast production.
>>
>> Where is it?.
>
>Session 8. You missed it.


And, from the few I know who bought it, consider youself lucky! They were PC
folks. Don't know how well it may have worked on a Mac.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[David Morley]

In article <znr1057200030k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > I understand many of you probably haven't been around long enough to
> > remember an analog environment, but there's absolutely no reason why a
> > digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
> > to use than an analog studio environment.
>
> Unfortunately that's not what the marketing department tells them to
> do, so they don't. They pile on the features and the user interface
> gets so clutterd that it's frustrating to someone who's accustomed to
> a console with knobs and an editor with physical pieces pasted
> together.
>
> There are some DAW applications that are tailored to broadcast work
> which actually are designed to be easy to operate for people
> experienced with analog and mechanical systems. They don't have a lot
> of whiz-bang stuff and they cost a lot of money (because they don't
> sell by the tens of thousands to all the people who think they're
> recording artists or engineers).
>
> You can pay your money and take your choice, but you'll pay a lot more
> than those who are getting a lot more bang for the buck than you are.
> However, 'bang' is relative. If it means getting work done that's
> bringing in money when you would otherwise be stumbling and learning,
> then you're getting all the bang you need.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Agree entirely.
Of course older hardware options may help here.
I got a Korg Soundlink (the original older one) which is an 8 tracks
workstation with a simple interface, 8 xlr i/o plus stereo 2 main i/o.
AES and SP/dif digital I/O, word clock, video sync, MTC etc etc.
soundfiles that you can place to a smpte position so easily, built in
reverb and limiter etc etc. $500. Fully automated etc.
this may be perfect for what you need or any equivalenmt (fostex, AMS
audiofile DAR Soundstation etc)

[Musikboy]

In article >, Ty Ford
> wrote:

> In Article <znr1057145787k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> >
> >In article >
>
> writes:
> >
> >> 20 years, still waiting ..for An 8 track..no bull**** software app for
> >> broadcast production.
> >>
> >> Where is it?.
> >
> >Session 8. You missed it.
How about SSL screen sound. they used to use it all the time for voice
overs at this one studio that i worked at.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > . . there's absolutely no reason why a
> >digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
> >to use than an analog studio environment.
>
> I've only seen one that was, and that was the Studer Dyaxis, a long
> dead system that nobody even remembers.

How about the Fostex Foundation? (later) Or the Audio Tablet?
(earlier) Lots of good applications out there but they were too
expensive even for the targeted industry at the time, and couldn't
survive long enough to get the price down to the mainstream market.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, mike e
> wrote:

>there's absolutely no reason why a
>digital soundware applicatgion. can't be designed to be even easier,
>to use than an analog studio environment.

That's what I've always thought too. Unfortunately no DAW manufacturer
has ever been humble enough to put in the necessary homework to pull it
off.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[mike e]

>>

I therefore take the position that any half way competent tech or
engineer
could replicate comfortably any analogue radio production technique in
the
digital domain with any of today's available tools.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

--
Mike Clayton<<

Agreed...No quarrel with that point whatsoever!

(Monte P McGuire) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> mike e > wrote:
> >You know that PT is NOT a pull-it-out-of-the-box ready-to
> >use-without-the- manual app.
>
> Neither was an analog studio with a tape machine and a razor blade.
> Bite the bullet.
>
> >So what's wrong with offering that in a software-based program?
> >Haven't seen it yet.
>
> Perhaps that market is too small? The fact is that people get on with
> this sort of production right now, using what's already out there.
> Logic would state that there's no real need for it, since something is
> else already doing the job.
>
> >I think a hell of a lot of people have bought into and other
> >music-intensive soundware because there's yet to be one sound
> >alternative offered for simple broadcast production in a software
> >package other than standalone DAW's that cost a fortune in comparison!
> >
> >I guess it's basic marketing - creating the perception that you need
> >all this **** and if you don't there's enough of a belief-system
> >generated by the industry hype that even if you don't, you're led to
> >the conlusion that you should accept this as the "ultimate," and
> >expect or consider no simpler alternative.
> >
> >My belief is that a solid alternative multitrack broadcast production
> >software option is decades overdue and long sought after by a silent
> >majority.
>
> I'll restate it. All the production that people do now is getting
> done with tools that already exist. It sounds like a stupid
> statement, but it really is deep in the sense that what already exists<<


OK, Pro Tools is the standard for many and i have no issue with anyone
who finds it a user friendly broadcast production platform.

The title of my original post was obviously flameworthy and bound to
incite happy PT users which i didn't intend-- it was spouted off in a
moment of frustration. So i'll revise and amend my statement and say
it obviously doesn't "suck" if you like it and take the time to learn
how to make it work for you and of course a lot of users have devoted
themselves to doing it and become loyalists.

It also is not necessarily my preferred application, and as many here
point out, there are others to consider which may or may not be more
to my liking. You only need to look at the promotional pitch for a
few standalalone DAW's implying that they are simpler and
easier to work with for those who appreciate the emulation of an
analogue editing environment

I too definitely have no desire whatsoever to return to tape and razor
blades and have been entirely digital with a Fostex system for years.
I have been in production for about 23 years now and this is my
living. To simplify a fundamental point that is being misinterpreted
by some, we have, in the marketplace, such standalone, proprietary
systems as Orban Audicy to cite one fairly most recognizable to
broadcast prod. folks... and others... which, TO ME, are intuitively
are easier right out of the box, as it were...with a less complex
on-screen environment than many multitrack Software apps.

>
> Sure, there could be improvements made to just about anything, but
> these days, selling a specialized product is pretty tough. Not many
> people see value in trimming out features. Or making specialized apps
> that require specific training.
>
> My experience with DAWs has been that they each have a 'best' way to
> use them that seems pretty unusual when you first approach them. It's
> been so long, but I suppose tape and consoles were that way too. Good
> DAWs are flexible enough to be able to handle unusual requests, but
> well designed enough to make it fast to use for the daily work.
>
> I've used a few different systems and oddly enough, I find ProTools to
> be a relatively simple thing to work with. Sure, you have to know a
> few things just to get started, but I don't think it's all that arcane
> or filled with features that get in the way of the main functions. By
> comparison, Sonic Classic is pretty arcane, and DP can get a little
> confusing with all of its tiny windows. But, they all work and I can
> get work done with any of them.
>
> Your best bet might be to hire a person who's experienced in using
> ProTools (or whatever) for broadcast production and see how they use
> it. If your needs are really that simple and you already know the
> audio part of how to do production, then figuring out how to run a PT
> system shouldn't be more than a day's work and some practice on your
> own, given a competent teacher.
>
>
> Best of luck,
>
> Monte McGuire
>

Great advice Monte! Agreed! Thanks again for the constructive
feedback
posted here! Much appreciated... Mike

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, Musikboy
> wrote:
>In article >, Ty Ford
> wrote:
>
>> In Article <znr1057145787k@trad>, (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>> >
>> >In article >
>>
>> writes:
>> >
>> >> 20 years, still waiting ..for An 8 track..no bull**** software app for
>> >> broadcast production.
>> >>
>> >> Where is it?.
>> >
>> >Session 8. You missed it.
>How about SSL screen sound. they used to use it all the time for voice
>overs at this one studio that i worked at.

IIRC, SSL got out of the DAW business a long time ago. It simply wasn't
profitable for them. You might, however, find a Scenario lying around
somewhere. I know of two that ended up as coffee tables. Very strange and a
bit pitiful.

Regards,

Ty Ford



For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, Steve King
> wrote:

>So, are you saying that there is a market for a 'preference file' that would
>dumb down the interface of commonly used DAWs?

I'm saying that virtually no DAW developer is aware of how people
produce audio recordings for different applications. A power
screwdriver has a "dumbed down" interface from a Swiss Army knife but
it also drives a hell of a lot more screws an hour.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Steve King]

"Bob Olhsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Steve King
> > wrote:
>
> >So, are you saying that there is a market for a 'preference file' that
would
> >dumb down the interface of commonly used DAWs?
>
> I'm saying that virtually no DAW developer is aware of how people
> produce audio recordings for different applications. A power
> screwdriver has a "dumbed down" interface from a Swiss Army knife but
> it also drives a hell of a lot more screws an hour.
>

Well, I understand what you're saying, but your analogy doesn't work. The
Swiss army knife is not powered. It isn't designed to drive screws the way
a power screwdriver does. On the other hand, Pro Tools and other DAWS have
extensive capabilities. Many people only use a few of them. Some, such as
the OP, are intimidated by a control surface containing the features that
they don't understand or don't use for routine tasks. That's what I was
talking about.

I can't speak about mastering; my two years of mastering experience was in
1964 and 1965. I'm sure that things have changed. However, I do spend a
lot of time doing radio production, as does the OP, as well as audio post
for video. The DAWs I've used work just fine for that. I appreciate the
incredible step up in capabilities compared to the rooms I used in the 70s
and 80s, which did have 8-tracks... and 16 tracks, and 24 tracks. Yes, I've
had to change my approach. I don't see that as a bad thing. When I was a
kid, my family farmed. There was a certain advantage and nostalgia
connected to being able to say to Nellie, my grandfather's last draft horse,
"go on home, Nellie". No, I can't get my car to do that. But, I don't
think that the car's increased capabilities make it a bad trade-off. Have
at that analogy. Its also pretty weak, but fun.

Steve King

[mike e]

Gary Koliger > wrote in message >...
> I've got 2 Fostex Foundation REs that are great for post - anybody want 'em?
>
> Gary
>
Hi Gary, Original newsgroup Poster about ProTools here and caught your
note re: the Foundations. Great system. In fact...

THe Foundation 2000RE is what I continue to use as my centerpiece DAW.
Best jog/scrub editing of anything I've ever worked with including the
Audicy in my opinion. VERY user friendly and intuitively simple. Of
course a regular monitor screen display vs. just the touchscreen
would've been nice and probably would've materialized had they gotten
far enough with development before it was unfortunately orphaned.
Overall, it's an outstanding DAW and has been a pleasure to work with.

Combined with a good A/D (M-Audio Delta 1010 -may get a Lynx Two if it
would really make a diff.) and a good quiet analog mixer , into Bias
Peak
with WAVES L2 on a MacG4,...i think it's the way i'll keep things for
now, unless/until the next great thing comes along.

Though I am touch with the main support person who continues to
service and support them, I'd be interested in more details about
your system(s)... We could possibly make use of at least one other as
a backup... Feel free to drop me a line.

Happy 4th!

Mike E




"VoiceOver/Narration Since 1970-something..."

[Bob Olhsson]

In article >, Steve King
> wrote:

>Well, I understand what you're saying, but your analogy doesn't work. The
>Swiss army knife is not powered. It isn't designed to drive screws the way
>a power screwdriver does. On the other hand, Pro Tools and other DAWS have
>extensive capabilities.

Extensive capabilities but they could be a LOT better if they were more
dedicated. The object IS nothing but driving screws or some other
single application for most of us.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for Picture
615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

[Steve King]

"Bob Olhsson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Steve King
> > wrote:
>
> >Well, I understand what you're saying, but your analogy doesn't work.
The
> >Swiss army knife is not powered. It isn't designed to drive screws the
way
> >a power screwdriver does. On the other hand, Pro Tools and other DAWS
have
> >extensive capabilities.
>
> Extensive capabilities but they could be a LOT better if they were more
> dedicated. The object IS nothing but driving screws or some other
> single application for most of us.
>
> --
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and
Consulting
> Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing, Mastering, Audio for
Picture
> 615.385.8051 FAX: 615.385.8196 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> 40 years of making people sound better than they ever imagined!

I'm interested to learn more. I'd be interested in some expamples. I'd
like to hear about the single applications you have in mind.

Here's what I do now. I record voice, produce audio for radio, produce
long-form audio/magazine shows for companies, and write and produce video,
for which I occasionally have the budget to devote some serious time to
sound design. I use my DAW for all of that. You've got me thinking. What
*would* reduce my production time. I'm familiar with the DAW I use. It
does what I want it to do as fast as I know what that is. Recording,
editing, EQ, Compression, Limiting, noise reduction, level matching. All of
those are a mouse-click or two away. Many a single key-stroke. I could be
faster still if I took a day to memorize more of the key-stroke commands.
Yet, it still takes hours of editing to make corporate interviews sound like
English or to add music and effects to a video.

So, if there is a way to make this all go faster, I'm all for it. I guess
that I am influenced by the fact that I feel that, beyond the real-time
reality of recording and playing back, it currently takes about half as long
to do most jobs as it did, when I was analogue. What will it take to
improve this tool? Jump in anybody.

Steve King

[mike e]

Nice app. I like this description from their site:

"In a world where software manufacturers race to fill your screen with
hundreds "features" that you will never use, Fast Edit is a refreshing
break from the norm....gives you the features you really need, in an
uncluttered, straight-forward layout. (Fast Edit) is so intuitive that
a novice can learn it quickly, yet so powerful that it can meet the
needs of a professional. If you're looking to get real work done fast,
(Fast Edit) is for you."

Looks very much like a Windows-only version of PEAK in alot of ways.
Another great 2-tk. editor. Now if they'd only offer it with the
EXACT same controls/interface and EIGHT tracks ... :-).

Mike

> "Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>
> > On the other hand, if you're spending hours editing, maybe Fast
> > EdDIT would be faster than what you have now. It works with the
> > source-destination paradigm, kind of like cutting pieces of tape that
> > you want and sticking them together where you want them. I find it far
> > more intuitive and I get lost less than a "linear" editor where you
> > cut and paste in the same linear graphic representation of both the
> > source and the final product. http://www.minnetonkasoftware.com if
> > you're interested in a too-limited demo version that will at least
> > give you an idea of how it works.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I'm really Mike Rivers - )
>
> Fast Eddie, Fast Edit's earlier name, was my first editing software. I
> loved it. I tried Sound Forge 3.0, but did not stick with it long enough to
> get fast. It particularly irked me to sit staring at the screen intermiably
> while my PC-AT churned out the on-screen wave-form depiction each time you
> loaded a file. I moved to Cool Edit Pro, when I needed multi-track for
> layering up effects and music on radio-documentary-like programs I began
> doing. It is possible that Fast Edit might be faster for the initial
> 'assembly' of the interviews I work with. I'm now learning Vegas 4.0 for
> some ancillary video work. (I still use a real editor person for most
> video.) Vegas can have several versions of itself running simultaneously.
> That could resemble the Fast Edit work style. We'll see. Thanks, for the
> suggestion. I hadn't thought about FE for a long time.
>
> Steve King