Pro Tools Simultaneous Recording

[adam79]

I'm thinking about getting the 003 Rack+, but I'm hesitant to buy it
since it's non-refundable (do to the included software). I want to keep
it, but I'm not sure if my computer will be able to handle the full
capabilities of the unit (recording 8 tracks simultaneously). I have a
MacBook Pro.

Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 3 MB
Memory: 4 GB (Two 2 GB sticks. Type: DDR2 SDRAM, Speed: 667 MHz)
Bus Speed: 800 MHz

The system Hard Drive is a Serial-ATA, 7200 RPM Hitachi; here are the specs:

I have a couple external HDs that I use to record the tracks onto. I
have an older Parallel-ARA StorCase Rhino Jr that I believe is 5400 RPM,
and a newer Western Digital HD that is 7200 RPMs.

Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?

Thanks,
-Adam

[hank alrich]

adam79 > wrote:

> I'm thinking about getting the 003 Rack+, but I'm hesitant to buy it
> since it's non-refundable (do to the included software). I want to keep
> it, but I'm not sure if my computer will be able to handle the full
> capabilities of the unit (recording 8 tracks simultaneously). I have a
> MacBook Pro.
>
> Model Name: MacBook Pro
> Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
> Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
> Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
> Number Of Processors: 1
> Total Number Of Cores: 2
> L2 Cache: 3 MB
> Memory: 4 GB (Two 2 GB sticks. Type: DDR2 SDRAM, Speed: 667 MHz)
> Bus Speed: 800 MHz
>
> The system Hard Drive is a Serial-ATA, 7200 RPM Hitachi; here are the specs:
>
> I have a couple external HDs that I use to record the tracks onto. I
> have an older Parallel-ARA StorCase Rhino Jr that I believe is 5400 RPM,
> and a newer Western Digital HD that is 7200 RPMs.
>
> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
> amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
> plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?

Yes.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:24:57 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> adam79 > wrote:

>> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
>> amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
>> plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?
>
> Yes.


and, yes.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting the 003 Rack+, but I'm hesitant to buy it
> since it's non-refundable (do to the included software).

You need a better dealer. The software does you no good
without the hardware (it won't run with anything else) and
your dealer can get fresh disks if he doesn't want to
re-sell it "open."

> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once?

Child's play.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[alex]

Il 04/08/2010 4.04, adam79 ha scritto:
> I'm thinking about getting the 003 Rack+, but I'm hesitant to buy it
> since it's non-refundable (do to the included software). I want to keep
> it, but I'm not sure if my computer will be able to handle the full
> capabilities of the unit (recording 8 tracks simultaneously). I have a
> MacBook Pro.
>
> Model Name: MacBook Pro
> Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
> Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
> Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
> Number Of Processors: 1
> Total Number Of Cores: 2
> L2 Cache: 3 MB
> Memory: 4 GB (Two 2 GB sticks. Type: DDR2 SDRAM, Speed: 667 MHz)
> Bus Speed: 800 MHz
>
> The system Hard Drive is a Serial-ATA, 7200 RPM Hitachi; here are the
> specs:
>
> I have a couple external HDs that I use to record the tracks onto. I
> have an older Parallel-ARA StorCase Rhino Jr that I believe is 5400 RPM,
> and a newer Western Digital HD that is 7200 RPMs.
>
> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
> amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
> plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam

[alex]

Il 04/08/2010 4.04, adam79 ha scritto:
> I'm thinking about getting the 003 Rack+, but I'm hesitant to buy it
> since it's non-refundable (do to the included software). I want to keep
> it, but I'm not sure if my computer will be able to handle the full
> capabilities of the unit (recording 8 tracks simultaneously). I have a
> MacBook Pro.
>
> Model Name: MacBook Pro
> Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
> Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
> Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
> Number Of Processors: 1
> Total Number Of Cores: 2
> L2 Cache: 3 MB
> Memory: 4 GB (Two 2 GB sticks. Type: DDR2 SDRAM, Speed: 667 MHz)
> Bus Speed: 800 MHz
>
> The system Hard Drive is a Serial-ATA, 7200 RPM Hitachi; here are the
> specs:
>
> I have a couple external HDs that I use to record the tracks onto. I
> have an older Parallel-ARA StorCase Rhino Jr that I believe is 5400 RPM,
> and a newer Western Digital HD that is 7200 RPMs.
>
> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
> amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
> plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam
is this a joke? 8 tracks was within the capability of a mid-sized, not
specifically built-for-audio PC of the late '90s
Yes you can do this with your macbook if you are not overloading the
machine with foreign processes as photoshop, youtube, action games,
itunes or exchanging files with your cellphone via bluetooth and so on
while you are recording...

[Sean Conolly]

"alex" > wrote in message
...
> Il 04/08/2010 4.04, adam79 ha scritto:
>> I'm thinking about getting the 003 Rack+, but I'm hesitant to buy it
>> since it's non-refundable (do to the included software). I want to keep
>> it, but I'm not sure if my computer will be able to handle the full
>> capabilities of the unit (recording 8 tracks simultaneously). I have a
>> MacBook Pro.
>>
>> Model Name: MacBook Pro
>> Model Identifier: MacBookPro4,1
>> Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo
>> Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz
>> Number Of Processors: 1
>> Total Number Of Cores: 2
>> L2 Cache: 3 MB
>> Memory: 4 GB (Two 2 GB sticks. Type: DDR2 SDRAM, Speed: 667 MHz)
>> Bus Speed: 800 MHz
>>
>> The system Hard Drive is a Serial-ATA, 7200 RPM Hitachi; here are the
>> specs:
>>
>> I have a couple external HDs that I use to record the tracks onto. I
>> have an older Parallel-ARA StorCase Rhino Jr that I believe is 5400 RPM,
>> and a newer Western Digital HD that is 7200 RPMs.
>>
>> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
>> amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
>> plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Adam
> is this a joke? 8 tracks was within the capability of a mid-sized, not
> specifically built-for-audio PC of the late '90s
> Yes you can do this with your macbook if you are not overloading the
> machine with foreign processes as photoshop, youtube, action games, itunes
> or exchanging files with your cellphone via bluetooth and so on while you
> are recording...


Which sort of begs the question - why use Protools LE at all? (considering
the other posts by the OP)

If you don't have clients asking for protools, maybe start out with Reaper
and the 100 or so included plugins to see figure out how to do what you need
to do, and then consider the difference between 'what you need' from 'what
you want'.

For those who are starting out: start out cheap/free and buy what you need
*after* you really understand the need.

Sean

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 18:00:37 -0400, Ty Ford wrote
(in article T>):

> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:24:57 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> adam79 > wrote:
>
>>> Should this be enough to record 8 tracks at once? As well as a decent
>>> amount of tracks for playback (I know that it depends on the types of
>>> plug-ins used and how dense the track is, etc.)?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>
> and, yes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>

However, with PTLE you don't get effects until you play back, so if you HAVE
TO HAVE effects on vocals or instruments while recording, you have to be a
bit creative with headphone monitoring.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:20:09 -0400, Sean Conolly wrote
(in article >):

> Which sort of begs the question - why use Protools LE at all? (considering
> the other posts by the OP)

1. It's a solid system that works reliably and has a good feature set.
2. It empowers me so I can make a living.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Aug 5, 8:30*am, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:20:09 -0400, Sean Conolly wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Which sort of begs the question - why use Protools LE at all? (considering
> > the other posts by the OP)
>
> 1. It's a solid system that works reliably and has a good feature set.
> 2. It empowers me so I can make a living.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

That might be a great answer for you, but, is that the same answer for
adam79, the original poster? Recommending a free program with free
plug-ins seems to be a good choice for someone who, just from his
post, has not given an indication that he's making a living (could be
a home studio hobby) or has clients who request Pro Tools. So, until
adam79 replies, the question still begs.

[Nil]

On 05 Aug 2010, cedricl > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> That might be a great answer for you, but, is that the same answer
> for adam79, the original poster? Recommending a free program with
> free plug-ins seems to be a good choice for someone who, just from
> his post, has not given an indication that he's making a living
> (could be a home studio hobby) or has clients who request Pro
> Tools. So, until adam79 replies, the question still begs.

Reaper isn't free. It's free to try, but it costs (a mere) $60 for non-
professional use if you decide to keep it. It costs a couple hundred $s
for pro use.

[Sean Conolly]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
al.NET...
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:20:09 -0400, Sean Conolly wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Which sort of begs the question - why use Protools LE at all?
>> (considering
>> the other posts by the OP)
>
> 1. It's a solid system that works reliably and has a good feature set.
> 2. It empowers me so I can make a living.

That's good to hear Ty, but the OP has stated that he's just starting a home
studio in other posts, which is what motivated my comment.

I see a lot of inexperienced people who assume that they have to use PT and
commercial plugins, and I'm just pointing out an alternative for building up
your chops before commiting to a lot of expensive software.

Sean

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:15:46 -0400, cedricl wrote
(in article
>):

> On Aug 5, 8:30*am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:20:09 -0400, Sean Conolly wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Which sort of begs the question - why use Protools LE at all? (considering
>>> the other posts by the OP)
>>
>> 1. It's a solid system that works reliably and has a good feature set.
>> 2. It empowers me so I can make a living.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
>> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
>> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>
> That might be a great answer for you, but, is that the same answer for
> adam79, the original poster? Recommending a free program with free
> plug-ins seems to be a good choice for someone who, just from his
> post, has not given an indication that he's making a living (could be
> a home studio hobby) or has clients who request Pro Tools. So, until
> adam79 replies, the question still begs.

Well, whoever your name is, I'll disagree,

The question I was answering is why use ProTools at all.

There are thousands of people with PTLE who use it for their personal
gratification. The free stuff, inculding Pro Tools Free when it was available
for mac OS 9, are so shackled that they just aren't any fun. So much so that
they will absolutely dissuade the entry level person from going further.

I know, I've tried 'em. Audacity is like trying to **** standing up in a
hammock while doing a crossword puzzle and reading the Times, by comparison.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 09:16:36 -0400, Sean Conolly wrote
(in article >):

> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> al.NET...
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 01:20:09 -0400, Sean Conolly wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
>>> Which sort of begs the question - why use Protools LE at all?
>>> (considering
>>> the other posts by the OP)
>>
>> 1. It's a solid system that works reliably and has a good feature set.
>> 2. It empowers me so I can make a living.
>
> That's good to hear Ty, but the OP has stated that he's just starting a home
> studio in other posts, which is what motivated my comment.
>
> I see a lot of inexperienced people who assume that they have to use PT and
> commercial plugins, and I'm just pointing out an alternative for building up
> your chops before commiting to a lot of expensive software.
>
> Sean

Sean,

Why are you posting twice with no name and then a name?

I expect it depends on where you want to put the threshold.
I gambled (and won) that CPUs and other processors would become fast enough
to keep me from having to buy the "real" pro tools system. So far, I'm right.
To the OP. If you're going to jump into the pool I recommend against any box
that's a USB box. The latency work arounds suck and you'll be frustrated.
Go with a firewire interface and pay attention to what the software/hardware
company says about the config of the computer they spec to run the system
properly. Every person I know who has tried to skimp on that has ended up
burned.

As I tell them through their tears, "It's not like the company didn't tell
you. They did. You decided you were smarter. You weren't."

A basic Digi 003 (firewire) goes for about a grand right now. Can you go
cheaper? Sure. Go ahead. Please go cheaper.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[adam79]

Ty Ford wrote:
>
> However, with PTLE you don't get effects until you play back, so if you HAVE
> TO HAVE effects on vocals or instruments while recording, you have to be a
> bit creative with headphone monitoring.
>

Yeah, this is really annoying; the HD version dos effects while
recording? When you say that "you HAVE TO HAVE effects on vocals or
instruments while recording," you are talking about an outboard effect,
right?

Thanks,
-Adam

[adam79]

Sean Conolly wrote:
>
> That's good to hear Ty, but the OP has stated that he's just starting a home
> studio in other posts, which is what motivated my comment.
>
> I see a lot of inexperienced people who assume that they have to use PT and
> commercial plugins, and I'm just pointing out an alternative for building up
> your chops before commiting to a lot of expensive software.
>

Just because I'm deciding to start a recording business now doesn't mean
I just started recording. I've been at this for over 10 years, the last
couple with Pro Tools, so I'm familiar with the software.

I'm also looking for quality, and Pro Tools has it.

-Adam

[adam79]

Ty Ford wrote:

> If you're going to jump into the pool I recommend against any box
> that's a USB box. The latency work arounds suck and you'll be frustrated.
> Go with a firewire interface and pay attention to what the software/hardware
> company says about the config of the computer they spec to run the system
> properly. Every person I know who has tried to skimp on that has ended up
> burned.
>
> As I tell them through their tears, "It's not like the company didn't tell
> you. They did. You decided you were smarter. You weren't."
>
> A basic Digi 003 (firewire) goes for about a grand right now. Can you go
> cheaper? Sure. Go ahead. Please go cheaper.
>

I only have one firewire port on my MacBook Pro. If I was to buy the 003
Rack+, I would have to buy a port splitter so I could have two ports for
the Rack and the hard drive I record to. This would be bad because it
would be lowering the performance of the firewire connection. Is there
anyway around this, or am I just stuck with what I got?

When you say that the 003 is only a grand, your talking about the 4
mic-pre version, not the 8 mic-pre 003 Rack+? If not, where is it being
sold for that cheap?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>Just because I'm deciding to start a recording business now doesn't mean
>I just started recording. I've been at this for over 10 years, the last
>couple with Pro Tools, so I'm familiar with the software.
>
>I'm also looking for quality, and Pro Tools has it.

Are you SURE you're familiar with it?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

On 08/08/2010 09:57, adam79 wrote:
>
> I only have one firewire port on my MacBook Pro. If I was to buy the 003
> Rack+, I would have to buy a port splitter so I could have two ports for
> the Rack and the hard drive I record to. This would be bad because it
> would be lowering the performance of the firewire connection. Is there
> anyway around this, or am I just stuck with what I got?

then is better a firewire interface and a USB hard drive. communication
with HD is much more "buffered", so your machine send BIG chunks of data
at once delayed by some seconds. audio interface communicate in a much
more complex way and need to be more constantly sending and receiving
small packets to the computer in order to keep latency small. Even if
FW400 and USB2 have a "similar" average transfer rate, FW capable of
more bidirectional exchanges of packets in the small time unit.

[alex]

On 08/08/2010 09:57, adam79 wrote:
> I only have one firewire port on my MacBook Pro. If I was to buy the 003
> Rack+, I would have to buy a port splitter so I could have two ports for
> the Rack and the hard drive I record to. This would be bad because it
> would be lowering the performance of the firewire connection. Is there
> anyway around this, or am I just stuck with what I got?

then is better a firewire interface and a USB hard drive. communication
with HD is much more "buffered", so your machine send BIG chunks of data
at once delayed by some seconds. the audio interface communicate in a
much more complex way and need to be more constantly sending and
receiving small packets to the computer in order to keep latency small.
Even if FW400 and USB2 have a "similar" average transfer rate, FW if
capable of more bidirectional exchanges of packets in the small time unit.

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:47:14 -0400, adam79 wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>>
>> However, with PTLE you don't get effects until you play back, so if you
>> HAVE
>> TO HAVE effects on vocals or instruments while recording, you have to be a
>> bit creative with headphone monitoring.
>>
>
> Yeah, this is really annoying; the HD version dos effects while
> recording? When you say that "you HAVE TO HAVE effects on vocals or
> instruments while recording," you are talking about an outboard effect,
> right?
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam

Adam,

I think the PT HD does have effects while recording, but you should ask for
clarification on that.

"Have To Have", as in some folks can't sing or play without soup. If you want
the take clean so you can do what you want to later, the best work around
there is to figure out how to soup up their headphone mix (for them) with an
extra mixer and outboard effects, while recording them dry.

I'm not trying to take anything away from a player who has a pedal board, but
I do remember this guy who was all about "his tone", which took him 20
minutes to find and it was absolutely horrible and would never have fit into
the mix we had going.

I'm sure there are players who can wrap their heads around their tone and put
it into context. That was not this guy. He was a train wreck.

I did record him and thanks to PTLE EQ in the digital world, I was able to
make it work, but I had not EVER used that drastic an EQ on anything before.

As an after thought, you can also re-amp a track while mixing. Squirt the dry
track out of PTLE to an amp, mic the amp, get crazy with the tone, record
that, or just mix it as you go.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:57:41 -0400, adam79 wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> If you're going to jump into the pool I recommend against any box
>> that's a USB box. The latency work arounds suck and you'll be frustrated.
>> Go with a firewire interface and pay attention to what the
>> software/hardware
>> company says about the config of the computer they spec to run the system
>> properly. Every person I know who has tried to skimp on that has ended up
>> burned.
>>
>> As I tell them through their tears, "It's not like the company didn't tell
>> you. They did. You decided you were smarter. You weren't."
>>
>> A basic Digi 003 (firewire) goes for about a grand right now. Can you go
>> cheaper? Sure. Go ahead. Please go cheaper.
>>
>
> I only have one firewire port on my MacBook Pro. If I was to buy the 003
> Rack+, I would have to buy a port splitter so I could have two ports for
> the Rack and the hard drive I record to. This would be bad because it
> would be lowering the performance of the firewire connection. Is there
> anyway around this, or am I just stuck with what I got?
>
> When you say that the 003 is only a grand, your talking about the 4
> mic-pre version, not the 8 mic-pre 003 Rack+? If not, where is it being
> sold for that cheap?
>
> Thanks,
> -Adam

Adam,

I'm talking about the basic 003 w/4 preamps.

My 003 has two 400 FW ports. I suppose you could use the other one for your
HD, but I don't know. Someone from the DUC could better inform you.

I have a friend who uses a PC laptop and PTLE with a Digi 002 or 003 (003 I
think) He records direct to his lap top HD. Not big productions; usually not
more than 8 tracks. He says, so far so good. That makes me a little nervous.
I like having system and apps on one drive and all PTLE sessions and files on
a separate media dive. I think that's what Digidesign suggested many years
ago. I also do that on my MacPro rig with Final Cut Pro.

I also use an external RME A/D converter and preamps. I went that way in the
early days with the Digi 001, where upgrading those components and bypassing
the Digi analog front end made an obvious difference. The RME comes in as 8
channel light pipe.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:49:34 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> On 08/08/2010 09:57, adam79 wrote:
>>
>> I only have one firewire port on my MacBook Pro. If I was to buy the 003
>> Rack+, I would have to buy a port splitter so I could have two ports for
>> the Rack and the hard drive I record to. This would be bad because it
>> would be lowering the performance of the firewire connection. Is there
>> anyway around this, or am I just stuck with what I got?
>
> then is better a firewire interface and a USB hard drive. communication
> with HD is much more "buffered", so your machine send BIG chunks of data
> at once delayed by some seconds. audio interface communicate in a much
> more complex way and need to be more constantly sending and receiving
> small packets to the computer in order to keep latency small. Even if
> FW400 and USB2 have a "similar" average transfer rate, FW capable of
> more bidirectional exchanges of packets in the small time unit.
>

Thanks for that Alex. I new the rates were similar but I didn't know about
the two-way. The FW/USB issue has been about latency for me. Latency on the
Digi 001, 002 and 003 have all been acceptable. They are all FW.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[alex]

On 08/08/2010 16:41, Ty Ford wrote:
> Thanks for that Alex. I new the rates were similar but I didn't know about
> the two-way. The FW/USB issue has been about latency for me. Latency on the
> Digi 001, 002 and 003 have all been acceptable. They are all FW
some monts ago i readed an article about differencies between USB2 and
FW400.
Despite of similar transfer rate (usb2=480Mbits/sec fw400=400Mbits/s) on
mac machines USB2 will allow just 15-16 Mbytes (not Mbits!) of transfer
rate. On win XP machines this value is almost twice as big (32-33
MBytes/sec).
Even with a 15MBytes/sec you can have teoretically around 50 tracks of
audio 96kHz-24bit!
So USB2 is ok for the HardDisk but much less for the interface.

regards
alex

[Mike Clayton]

adam79 wrote:

> I only have one firewire port on my MacBook Pro. If I was to buy the 003
> Rack+, I would have to buy a port splitter so I could have two ports for
> the Rack and the hard drive I record to. This would be bad because it
> would be lowering the performance of the firewire connection. Is there
> anyway around this, or am I just stuck with what I got?

Adam, You can use the two firewire ports on your 003 Rack+ to connect
the computer and external hard drive. Get a FW800 to FW400 adapter
cable, plug the FW800 end into your MacBook Pro, the 400 end into one of
the 003 400 ports, and a FW400 to FW400 cable from the the other 003
port to your external hard drive port. That's the same set up I use on
location and it works fine.

FW400 speed is more than adequate for this set up. You'll get the
maximum number of channels available via the 003 (8 preamp inputs, 2 via
SPDIF and 8 in via the ADAT connector at 48Khz sample rate, total 18
tracks) with no trouble at all.

Mike

[adam79]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Are you SURE you're familiar with it?

I don't know it inside and out, and I definitely don't consider myself a
professional, but I'm familiar enough to make a quality sounding mix. I
took almost a two year break from using the program, so I'm still
dusting off the cobwebs..

Thanks to everyone for the help,
-Adam

[adam79]

Mike Clayton wrote:
>
> Adam, You can use the two firewire ports on your 003 Rack+ to connect
> the computer and external hard drive. Get a FW800 to FW400 adapter
> cable, plug the FW800 end into your MacBook Pro, the 400 end into one of
> the 003 400 ports, and a FW400 to FW400 cable from the the other 003
> port to your external hard drive port. That's the same set up I use on
> location and it works fine.

I wish I could try that out, but I only have the MBox2 interface; I'm
saving up for the 003 Rack+. As for hard drives, I use a StorCase Rhino
Jr Firewire 800, 5400RPM hard drive for session storage. It's old (I
think that StorCase might have a new name now), but it works well. When
I have the money to buy the 003 Rack+, will I need a faster HD (7200RPM)
to keep up with the extra tracks I'll be recording and playing back?
I've been told Mercury Elite HDs make quality drives that work well with PT.

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Are you SURE you're familiar with it?
>
>I don't know it inside and out, and I definitely don't consider myself a
>professional, but I'm familiar enough to make a quality sounding mix. I
>took almost a two year break from using the program, so I'm still
>dusting off the cobwebs..

Trust me, use it for a while and you will see a lot of things that are...
ummm... less than professionally done about it. Still, it's what people
use, so you gotta use it.

It was no better in the tape world, mind you, when everyone used 24-track 2"
even though 16-track sounded substantially better.... because everyone else
did.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Once i got a call from a guy who was interested in involving me in an
audio postproduction for a movie. An independent movie made by a
worldwide-known director to be presented to a big film festival. They
had a lot of field recordings that doens't match very well.
We talk for a 5 minutes on the phone then he quit telling me that he had
called me again the next day. This even before getting into the "money"
part of the agreement.
The guy never called me again. Later i discovered he was disappointed of
me, as professional, because i did not use protools!
Sad.
The whole marketing action of Avid (the word say everything) and
Digidesign is centered on making people feel the need to be part of a
"closed" family of happy (and smiling) customers of their "closed"
products. They release a sort of degree so you can claim to be a
"professional" after payed for a lessons cycle in an "avid" authorized
center wich basically tell you that PT is the best..
And some cueless client believe in that!
The nice part of this is that a client that cuelessly impose you a tool
will almost certainly tell you costantly how to do your work, and that's
bad...

The obvious truth is that Digidesign only want to control the market to
be able to ask much for less, today and in the future! Training people
to use just one software help to sell it. Please don't fall in the
spider net...
Protools is a sequencer, just a regular common sequencer. Every
sequencer has pros and cons, protools too. All sequencers work basically
the same way so nobody needs a special certified "training" for use it.
Today good designed software tends to flatten the learning curve and to
be immediately usable from everyone who has a good knowledge on what
this software is for. That's the point.
I think people need to learn very well what is a daw and what is digital
audio before even start, and be immediately able to work with every
software out there... As a real "professional" do.

alex

[Swanny[_2_]]

On 10/08/2010 4:08 AM, alex wrote:

>
> The obvious truth is that Digidesign only want to control the market to
> be able to ask much for less, today and in the future! Training people
> to use just one software help to sell it. Please don't fall in the
> spider net...

> alex
>
>

It's the same in other industries, think of things like Quark, Mentor
and AutoCad. These were the 'standards' for other industries for quite
some time.

[alex]

Il 09/08/2010 23.53, Swanny ha scritto:
> On 10/08/2010 4:08 AM, alex wrote:
>
>>
>> The obvious truth is that Digidesign only want to control the market to
>> be able to ask much for less, today and in the future! Training people
>> to use just one software help to sell it. Please don't fall in the
>> spider net...
>
>> alex
>>
>>
>
> It's the same in other industries, think of things like Quark, Mentor
> and AutoCad. These were the 'standards' for other industries for quite
> some time.
>
yes but autocad, xpress, photoshop and so on, didn't sell his own
exclusive hardware and are perfectly compatible with all printers,
plotters, scanners, graphic tablets and monitors. So by making his own
business richer, those companies also help other companies to grow and,
most important from our point of view, sell prices to go down.
And these companies didn't try to create a new class of endorsed
professionals, they just help professionals doing his job.

alex

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:08:05 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> The whole marketing action of Avid (the word say everything) and Digidesign
> is centered on making people feel the need to be part of a "closed" family of

> happy (and smiling) customers of their "closed" products.

Digidesign had already become a defacto standard before the Digi/Avid combo.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:45:08 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> Il 09/08/2010 23.53, Swanny ha scritto:
>> On 10/08/2010 4:08 AM, alex wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The obvious truth is that Digidesign only want to control the market to
>>> be able to ask much for less, today and in the future! Training people
>>> to use just one software help to sell it. Please don't fall in the
>>> spider net...
>>
>>> alex
>>
>> It's the same in other industries, think of things like Quark, Mentor
>> and AutoCad. These were the 'standards' for other industries for quite
>> some time.
>>
> yes but autocad, xpress, photoshop and so on, didn't sell his own
> exclusive hardware and are perfectly compatible with all printers,
> plotters, scanners, graphic tablets and monitors. So by making his own
> business richer, those companies also help other companies to grow and,
> most important from our point of view, sell prices to go down.
> And these companies didn't try to create a new class of endorsed
> professionals, they just help professionals doing his job.
>
> alex

Oh Jeeze, Somebody please play the Hitler Card so we can go somewhere else
with this.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 14.54, Ty Ford ha scritto:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:08:05 -0400, alex wrote
> (in >):
>
>> The whole marketing action of Avid (the word say everything) and Digidesign
>> is centered on making people feel the need to be part of a "closed" family of
>
>> happy (and smiling) customers of their "closed" products.
>
> Digidesign had already become a defacto standard before the Digi/Avid combo.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>
I know! Dominant position because is "better" than others or just
because the marketing? De facto, if you own a Digi* hardware you cannot
even try another software. That make the standard.
what i said is that we are falling into a monodimensional market
everyday more. A so deep control of the market produces very bad effects
on the user side, i think. A world where the tool is goin to be much
more important than "professionality".

alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>>
>I know! Dominant position because is "better" than others or just
>because the marketing? De facto, if you own a Digi* hardware you cannot
>even try another software. That make the standard.
>what i said is that we are falling into a monodimensional market
>everyday more. A so deep control of the market produces very bad effects
>on the user side, i think. A world where the tool is goin to be much
>more important than "professionality".

Oh, folks have been obsessed with tools rather than the actual work for
years. I got lots of jobs because I had a u47 in the closet, even though
I never actually pulled it out.

If you think it's bad in the audio world, it's getting to be even worse
in the film world.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 14.57, Ty Ford ha scritto:
> Oh Jeeze, Somebody please play the Hitler Card so we can go somewhere else
> with this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
;-)

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 16.30, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> > wrote:
>>>
>> I know! Dominant position because is "better" than others or just
>> because the marketing? De facto, if you own a Digi* hardware you cannot
>> even try another software. That make the standard.
>> what i said is that we are falling into a monodimensional market
>> everyday more. A so deep control of the market produces very bad effects
>> on the user side, i think. A world where the tool is goin to be much
>> more important than "professionality".
>
> Oh, folks have been obsessed with tools rather than the actual work for
> years. I got lots of jobs because I had a u47 in the closet, even though
> I never actually pulled it out.
>
> If you think it's bad in the audio world, it's getting to be even worse
> in the film world.
> --scott
>
just scared to see my job disappearing behind a trademark... All fails
are mine and all success are due to the wonderful tool i use.

regards
alex

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> I know! Dominant position because is "better" than others or just
> because the marketing?

It's better because using it doesn't lose you work. Is that
marketing? Not really, more like mass hysteria. Dididesign
didn't have to market Pro Tools heavily, the users and their
clients pretty much took care of that. Don't get mad at
digidesign, get mad at the magazines that the customers
read, who see all the articles about Pro Tools this and Pro
Tools that.

> if you own a Digi* hardware you cannot even try another software.

Sure you can. Nearly all software, with the exception of Pro
Tools, will run with standard built-in computer hardware, or
certainly the $30 Behringer UCA-202. Sure, if you have an
HD192 system, you won't be able to do all the same things
with Reaper and your sound card that you can with the Pro
Tools system, but if you have an M-Box, you can get pretty
much equivalent functional capability with a standard sound
card that will cost you anything from $0 to $30.

If you have one of about 75% of all the audio I/O interfaces
made within the last ten years (not counting built in sound
cards), you can't try Linux audio software either. So what?


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>>
>just scared to see my job disappearing behind a trademark... All fails
>are mine and all success are due to the wonderful tool i use.

It has _always_ been like that, though. You can work it both ways,
too. I run ads saying "Call old farts with tape machines!" and it brings
in business.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 17.16, Mike Rivers ha scritto:

The "closed" approach actually *is* the biggest marketing effort to
create a specific sector in the market that, as you said, is helped to
grow by the attitude of the human being to "hysterically" self induce
dependencies.

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 17.26, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> > wrote:
>>>
>> just scared to see my job disappearing behind a trademark... All fails
>> are mine and all success are due to the wonderful tool i use.
>
> It has _always_ been like that, though. You can work it both ways,
> too. I run ads saying "Call old farts with tape machines!" and it brings
> in business.
> --scott
>
there's a little difference, i think.
u47 (the microphone not the german submarine) and tape machines are
*parts* of a complex studio where you can always choose the appropriate
tool to use.
DAWs are actually (or are supposed to be) *the* all-digital home studio
itself, the heart, the brain, the center of everything.
Most of home studio doesn't have the opportunity to choose a different
approach. They can only choose between a set of plugins within the same
platform here.
So the client whims about the "brand" are the difference between job and
no job.

alex

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> u47 (the microphone not the german submarine) and tape machines are
> *parts* of a complex studio where you can always choose the appropriate
> tool to use.
> DAWs are actually (or are supposed to be) *the* all-digital home studio
> itself, the heart, the brain, the center of everything.
> Most of home studio doesn't have the opportunity to choose a different
> approach.

That's what's wrong with your thinking. Most poeple are
happy to have the flexibility of using whatever software is
appropriate while using the same hardware. People track in a
room that has an API or Neve console because they like the
sound of that console. Or they may track their drums in a
studio that has an Ampex recorder because they like what
that does to the drums. Then they take the project to a room
with an SSL console because they like the automation and the
compressors. If you have a software based system, you don't
need to move (or move among) all of that hardware. And I can
assure you, even a well equipped Pro Tools system costs less
than a 24-track analog recorder and a decent console.

Many people use different software depending on the job
they're doing. You may find that Pro Tools is fastest for
tracking a particular project, but that you prefer mixing in
Nuendo. Unless the client wants to take the project to
another studio he shouldn't care what you use for mixing.

One of the things that the DAW software industry hasn't yet
standardized on, and probably never will, is what's in the
"project" file for their system - the file that tells how to
manipulate the audio. That's why you can't totally move a
Sonar project that you've started mixing in your home studio
to a Pro Tools studio. You can move the raw tracks, sure.
And you can move rendered tracks with all your punch-ins,
edits and fades. But that's really no different than taking
a 2" tape from one studio to another.

Professionals get the tools that they need to do their work.
Hobbyists with home studios don't really need to worry about
getting clients or not because of their choice of DAW. It's
a different scale.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> The "closed" approach actually *is* the biggest marketing effort to
> create a specific sector in the market that, as you said, is helped to
> grow by the attitude of the human being to "hysterically" self induce
> dependencies.

Pro Tools isn't really all that closed a system. Sure, you
need their hardware, though even that's starting to erode.
You can get a card for a Lynx or Prism converter that makes
it look like an HD192. You can get M-Audio hardware whch
will work with any generic DAW as well as the M-Powered
version of Pro Tools. You can get a series of Mackie mixers
that work with the M-Powered Pro Tools. You can get many
aftermarket plug-ins for Pro Tools that are also available
for other DAWs. And of course you can use outboard A/D and
D/A converters, any mic preamps or hardware conpressors you
want, any mics you want, monitor on whatever speakers you
want, and record in any room.

What's to get excited over? If you can't pay for an M-Box
with one client who wants to work with Pro Tools, then you
need a better business plan. Your real investment will be in
the time it takes to learn how to use Pro Tools so the
client won't think you're a duffer. But you'd have to do
that with any software.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 19.08, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> Professionals get the tools that they need to do their work. Hobbyists
> with home studios don't really need to worry about getting clients or
> not because of their choice of DAW. It's a different scale.

Professional doesn't mean dealing with a lot of money.
I know a lot of good professionals that are doing a lot of small scaled,
low budget, independent works and living happy (and free) with this by
doing excellent works.
The recording business of today, with the help of the advent of daws, is
not the same of yesterday. There's a lot of small projects around who
can't afford the price of a neve console at all.
So the daw is the center of their lives.
Many artist are recording just to keep track of their work and for
"booking" purpose. They never believe to sell enough to pay even the
small studio fees. Some choose to distribute the work via website for
free instead of printing cds, just to make people know their music, come
to the concerts and let artist to earn money from that.
And they are still professionals...
And, again, that's now a big (and growing) part of the market.
But, you know, depite of this, if you send a cdr to a music magazine to
get a review, they often label your work as "demo" just because is on
CDR...

My small studio is built for postproduction jobs. Most of the time i
don't even need a sequencer and this guy want me to use an inappropriate
kind of software for a two tracks postprod... Just because he know about
protools.

alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>DAWs are actually (or are supposed to be) *the* all-digital home studio
>itself, the heart, the brain, the center of everything.

That's not how most big studios work. You'd go crazy working that way.
I basically view the DAW as a fancy tape machine.

>Most of home studio doesn't have the opportunity to choose a different
>approach. They can only choose between a set of plugins within the same
>platform here.
>So the client whims about the "brand" are the difference between job and
>no job.

Sure, but they are the same whims that caused people to book studios with
SSL consoles instead of studios with Interface consoles, and to book 24-track
studios instead of 8-track studios even when they only needed two tracks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 20.48, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> That's not how most big studios work. You'd go crazy working that way.
> I basically view the DAW as a fancy tape machine.
i think we are referring to two complete different market sectors here...
basically if you are lucky enough tho have a *big* studio available and
your clients can afford the price you are right.
But this is not what happen in a small home studio where DAW is
multitrack recorder, video recorder, mixing board, outboard processors
rack, metering tools, mastering console and email client at once.
Most of them can only afford some external preamplifier and some
compressors, along with almost general-purpuse microphones.
The "professional" word doesn't discriminate here, because you can do
pro works even in some of these homestudios. That's the big deal with DAWS.

alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>Il 10/08/2010 20.48, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
>> That's not how most big studios work. You'd go crazy working that way.
>> I basically view the DAW as a fancy tape machine.
>i think we are referring to two complete different market sectors here...
>basically if you are lucky enough tho have a *big* studio available and
>your clients can afford the price you are right.
>
>But this is not what happen in a small home studio where DAW is
>multitrack recorder, video recorder, mixing board, outboard processors
>rack, metering tools, mastering console and email client at once.
>Most of them can only afford some external preamplifier and some
>compressors, along with almost general-purpuse microphones.

Right, but those folks don't have to worry about getting customers,
because they are their own customers.

>The "professional" word doesn't discriminate here, because you can do
>pro works even in some of these homestudios. That's the big deal with DAWS.

It sure isn't fun, though. And it's not because of the DAWs, so much
as the rooms.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 10/08/2010 21.36, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> It sure isn't fun, though. And it's not because of the DAWs, so much
> as the rooms
agree 100%.
You can even have good sized rooms and good sounding wall treatment
without spending too much. So even small studios can afford it, if
properly planned and designed. Thats one of the interesting parts for me.

bye
alex

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> Professional doesn't mean dealing with a lot of money.
> I know a lot of good professionals that are doing a lot of small scaled,
> low budget, independent works and living happy (and free) with this by
> doing excellent works.

Oh, geez, we go through this "professional" thing too often
here. You're right, there isn't a profit threshold that
defines the point where one turns "pro." You're a pro when
you decide that you are. But if you decide that you are, you
have to act and work like one regardless of the level of
your studio or your clients. Part of being a professional is
knowing that you may have to turn down work now and then. If
you have decided that you aren't going to use Pro Tools and
someone comes to you saying he wants to do his project with
you, but only if you use Pro Tools, then you have to either
decide that this is the time to learn Pro Tools or tell him
where he can find a studio that suits his desires. If you
don't want to turn down work simply because you can't meet
what seems to the clients to be a simple request (in reality
it might not be, but he doesn't know that), then you MUST be
able to offer Pro Tools, or limit your client base to those
who just want a recording and don't care how you get there.

> The recording business of today, with the help of the advent of daws, is
> not the same of yesterday. There's a lot of small projects around who
> can't afford the price of a neve console at all.
> So the daw is the center of their lives.

Right. And most of them are their own client and they have
no others, at least not "professionally." Nothing wrong with
that. If you have a limited budget and don't need to record
any more than one or two sources in a pass, you're better
off putting your money into better mics, preamps, A/D
converters, monitors, acoustic treatments and such than to
buy a DAW that will become a money pit and really needs
paying clients in order to justify owning. At this level,
there isn't much that you can't do with a $60 copy of Reaper
that you could do with Pro Tools.

> Many artist are recording just to keep track of their work and for
> "booking" purpose. They never believe to sell enough to pay even the
> small studio fees.

They shouldn't be fussy about wanting Pro Tools then . . .
unless their project requires project transportability.
There's no reason why all of their collaborators can't use,
say, Reaper, and pass the project around as easily as if it
was being passed around among Pro Tools studios. But when
you get that big bucks client who says that the project has
to be delivered in Pro Tools, you have to either **** or get
off the pot.

> But, you know, depite of this, if you send a cdr to a music magazine to
> get a review, they often label your work as "demo" just because is on
> CDR...

No, I didn't know that, but I know that there's the
perception (mostly among artists who can't afford pressings)
that a CD-R is somehow unprofessional. They're the same
people who want to use Pro Tools for no particularly good
reason.

> My small studio is built for postproduction jobs. Most of the time i
> don't even need a sequencer and this guy want me to use an inappropriate
> kind of software for a two tracks postprod... Just because he know about
> protools.

You need to change your clients or change your business. You
obviously have an impasse. Thirty years ago, I was recording
for some of the larger independent labels using a TASCAM
80-8 recorder and mixing to a Revox A700 (sometimes
recording straight to stereo on the Revox). But I'd
occasionally get a phone call from someone asking about
recording with me and the first thing he'd ask what kind of
recorder I had. When I answered TASCAM, that was the end of
the conversation. It's why I eventually got an Ampex.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[alex]

Il 11/08/2010 0.07, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
> Oh, geez, we go through this "professional" thing too often here. You're
> right, there isn't a profit threshold that defines the point where one
> turns "pro." You're a pro when you decide that you are. But if you
> decide that you are, you have to act and work like one regardless of the
> level of your studio or your clients. Part of being a professional is
> knowing that you may have to turn down work now and then. If you have
> decided that you aren't going to use Pro Tools and someone comes to you
> saying he wants to do his project with you, but only if you use Pro
> Tools, then you have to either decide that this is the time to learn Pro
> Tools or tell him where he can find a studio that suits his desires. If
> you don't want to turn down work simply because you can't meet what
> seems to the clients to be a simple request (in reality it might not be,
> but he doesn't know that), then you MUST be able to offer Pro Tools, or
> limit your client base to those who just want a recording and don't care
> how you get there.
Thanks for the answer Mike,

Agree, you're right, is pretty clear that i have to conform myself to
that point or change clients.
No problem, luckly this happen just once with somebody who get my number
from old clients.
The real disappointing thing is that the guy never tell me "NO PROTOOLS,
NO WORK" he simply quit without telling me why. Only later i discovered
why. So i never had the chance to point him to another studio, get PT
myself or explain why i thought it was the same using another sys.
Basically i doesn't expect a client to know the differences between
audio softwares or between stages of my workflow.

The problem is another. The way the intended users, i mean audio
engineers, feel the difference between software and the reason because
they prefer one or the other.
We can't expect a client to be immune to misleading informations if we,
"professionals", are not. (sorry for using that word again, i don't know
many words in english)
Im sure that this guy get his "need-of-PT" from a pro he know (probably
the same that, because the "imperfections" in his work, raised the need
of a correction session), who suggest him to trust only in protools
users. Even if the project itself doesn't required at all to be
exchangeable with protools. OK forget my case.

All my concerns is about people on the business (too many, believe me)
referring at protools as the best sw out there beacuse *sound*, instead
to be PT fans due to exchangeability, strong interface, compatibility,
aesthetics, fashion, market standard and so on, all good reasons from my
point of view.
I hope to find you agree with me when i say that this tipology of sw
(sequencers by far) doesn't have anything to do with sound quality.
These kind of software are specifically designed to not interfere with
sound quality at all.
I still suspect that those people are still influenced by marketing
strategies and fashion more than by real experience on the software, in
trusting in PT as a better sounding software.

regards
alex

[adam79]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Trust me, use it for a while and you will see a lot of things that are...
> ummm... less than professionally done about it. Still, it's what people
> use, so you gotta use it.
>
> It was no better in the tape world, mind you, when everyone used 24-track 2"
> even though 16-track sounded substantially better.... because everyone else
> did.



I agree that Pro Tools is running a racket. Out of curiosity, which
audio production software has better sound quality for tracking and
mixing? Obviously all of them are far better in the hardware
compatibility arena. If I do ever save up enough money for a 003 Rack+,
would I be able to buy another program (that is equal or better than PT
in sound quality, tracking, mixing, etc.) and get an interface with
comparable specs (8 mic pres, 8 inputs/8 outputs, etc) to the 003 Rack+
for the same price (or cheaper) than the cost of the Rack+? The one
thing that would worry me is that if the home studio I'm starting ends
up working out, and a client wanted to bring there mix to get mastered
that the non-PT session would be compatible with all the mastering
facilities..

-Adam

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> Basically i doesn't expect a client to know the differences between
> audio softwares or between stages of my workflow.

They may not know the difference between audio software, but
they know what they're supposed to like. Or they know what
the last studio they worked in had, Or the know what they
themselves have and use (and may want to work on the project
at home that they recorded in your studio). If they don't
watch you work, they won't know what differences there might
be with your workflow based on what software you're using,
because there really isn't much difference. But people learn
to work in different ways. How they work may be influenced
by a way that they learned from a manual or from another
user of their same (or different) program.

> The problem is another. The way the intended users, i mean audio
> engineers, feel the difference between software and the reason because
> they prefer one or the other.

There was a time where people who listened claimed to prefer
Samplitude or Sequoia (both Magix Software) because their
audio "engine" sounded better, probably because of
differences in algorithms used for mixing and adjusting
volume. Today nobody worries too much about that. Some
engineers like Nuendo because it was first to have an
analog-console-like studio mixing section for headphone
feeds (that's not such a special thing any more).

And like with hardware, there were certain regional
preferences. West Coast studios preferred Ampex recorders,
East Coast studios preferred Studer recorders. Nashville
studios preferred MCI recorders. Back when there was a
regional preference but after "going digital," Nashville
studios embraced the RADAR recorder while West Coast studios
were all moving to Pro Tools.

Today, regional differences aren't very strong at all, but
the Internet helps keep these old trends alive, at least in
the mind of those who aren't users.

> All my concerns is about people on the business (too many, believe me)
> referring at protools as the best sw out there beacuse *sound*, instead
> to be PT fans due to exchangeability, strong interface, compatibility,

I don't hear that very much. In fact, those who use Pro
Tools and are concerned about 'sound' use outboard A/D and
D/A converters, not those build into the Digidesign/Avid
hardware. And as I said, in reality, most of the diffreences
in how the audio "engine" (the software) sounds have been
pretty much evened out, though there are still mistakes that
a user can make with any software to screw that up.

> I hope to find you agree with me when i say that this tipology of sw
> (sequencers by far) doesn't have anything to do with sound quality.

Not so much today, but that used to be a selling/purchasing
consideration. Pro Tools was never been a leader in sound
quality or accuracy, but today they don't seem to present
any problems in that area if you use I/O hardware that's
equivalent to what you'd use with a DAW that doesn't require
proprietary hardware connected in order to run.



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Mike Rivers]

adam79 wrote:

> I agree that Pro Tools is running a racket. Out of curiosity, which
> audio production software has better sound quality for tracking and
> mixing?

Probably none. But there are a lot of different approaches
to the human interface of DAWs than just a recorder and
mixing console. If you work on projects that involve loops,
MIDI, and virtual instruments, Pro Tools is still catching
up, and new "hobbyist" (that is, not marketed as "pro" but
there's no reason not to use them in professional work if
you can) programs like Reaper, Mixcraft, Studio One,
Tracktion (if that's still around) generally are easier to
work with. Those programs are oriented toward the user who
has never worked in or built a traditional recording system
so they take a more musical approach.

> If I do ever save up enough money for a 003 Rack+,
> would I be able to buy another program (that is equal or better than PT
> in sound quality, tracking, mixing, etc.) and get an interface with
> comparable specs (8 mic pres, 8 inputs/8 outputs, etc) to the 003 Rack+
> for the same price (or cheaper) than the cost of the Rack+?

Probably, but there wouldn't be a huge difference. How much
are we talking about for the whole package? $2500 or so?
That's a life savings for some, chicken feed for others. But
say you could save $500 by picking out your own pieces. Then
you'd have to make it all work rather than just plug it
together.

Another consideration that we've been talking about here are
your goals. If it's just for recording yourself or your band
or your friends, business aspects are of no concern. But if
you'd like to bring in paying clients, just one project for
someone who wanted, for whatever reason, to work in a Pro
Tools facility, could pay for the difference and then you'd
be ready for the next Pro Tools customer.

> The one
> thing that would worry me is that if the home studio I'm starting ends
> up working out, and a client wanted to bring there mix to get mastered
> that the non-PT session would be compatible with all the mastering
> facilities..

This is why it never hurts to investigate these things
before you make an investment. It's called a "business plan."


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>The real disappointing thing is that the guy never tell me "NO PROTOOLS,
>NO WORK" he simply quit without telling me why. Only later i discovered
>why. So i never had the chance to point him to another studio, get PT
>myself or explain why i thought it was the same using another sys.
>Basically i doesn't expect a client to know the differences between
>audio softwares or between stages of my workflow.

So get a Protools machine. Put it in the corner. Offer it as an option
if someone wants it. But it's mostly there so when people call and ask if
you have Protools, you can say yes.

This is how it has _always_ been. This is why folks ordered 24-track
headstacks and advertised themselves as 24-track studios while using the
16-track headstack most of the time.

>Im sure that this guy get his "need-of-PT" from a pro he know (probably
>the same that, because the "imperfections" in his work, raised the need
>of a correction session), who suggest him to trust only in protools
>users. Even if the project itself doesn't required at all to be
>exchangeable with protools. OK forget my case.

Yes, but this is how it has always been since the days of discs and cylinders
competing with one another.

>I still suspect that those people are still influenced by marketing
>strategies and fashion more than by real experience on the software, in
>trusting in PT as a better sounding software.

Of course! But it has always been this way, and all you can do about it is
to engage in effective marketing yourself. This is just how the industry is
and has always been.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 11/08/2010 9.49, adam79 ha scritto:
> I agree that Pro Tools is running a racket. Out of curiosity, which
> audio production software has better sound quality for tracking and
> mixing? Obviously all of them are far better in the hardware
> compatibility arena. If I do ever save up enough money for a 003 Rack+,
> would I be able to buy another program (that is equal or better than PT
> in sound quality, tracking, mixing, etc.) and get an interface with
> comparable specs (8 mic pres, 8 inputs/8 outputs, etc) to the 003 Rack+
> for the same price (or cheaper) than the cost of the Rack+? The one
> thing that would worry me is that if the home studio I'm starting ends
> up working out, and a client wanted to bring there mix to get mastered
> that the non-PT session would be compatible with all the mastering
> facilities..
The protools sound quality, like other similar software is a matter of
the audio interface you connect to it. Sequencers are designed to not to
interfere with audio quality at all. Providing you are not using
filters, all are capable of the same sound quality.
Most of the external pluigin filters of today are compatible with almost
all music production softwares out.

There are differencies that make the final decision like portability,
ease to use, price, taste... providing you are using floating point for
internal processing, sound quality is not an host software issue.

You need 8 pres because you don't have a mixing board? is not easy to
find interfaces with 8 pres and 8 outs. Most interface are line level
only (or with 2 pres) and people uses mixing boards to do preamp.
Honestly i never heard about really good preamps builtin in digital
interfaces, so think about.

I suppose you are goin' firewire.

other than digi* the motu 896 ($950) has what you need
http://www.motu.com/products/motuaudio/896mk3/
another is this
http://www.focusrite.com/products/audio_interfaces/saffire_pro_40 ($500)

Another solution will involve a smaller interface digitally connected to
an external pre/converter

A lot more products are available if 2 balanced out will be enough for you.

In my opinion a good solution will be to have a good line level
interface like this
http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_fireface_800.php, and a not-so-crap
used mixing board, then if business went ok you can afford an used
alesis HD24 24 track hd recoder for cheap (<$1000) and you will able to
do mixing at console instead from daw. a mixing board will also be good
to resolve all musician monitoring issues.

as an host application, somebody already told you, reaper has everything
you need for $60. I checked the demo a week ago and i found that
software really good and compatible with almost all file formats and
with a strong plugins interface while being lightweight. Another good
point is that the own project file format is in plain text. This will
allowyou to do some easy tweakings into an existing project.
The internal filter collection is also huge and intersting.

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 > wrote:
>I agree that Pro Tools is running a racket. Out of curiosity, which
>audio production software has better sound quality for tracking and
>mixing?

For tracking, it doesn't matter, because they are _all_ bit-true. Early
versions of Pro Tools didn't used to be, but these days if you put bits in
when you record, you get the same bits out when you play back.

For editing, there is a big difference in layout and setup and ease of
use, and these days that is much more of a bottleneck.

For mixing I have no idea because I find the whole idea of using a DAW for
mixing kind of horrifying. If you're doing processing in the box there are
lots of ways for things to go wrong, so a good way to deal with it is just
not to do that.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:03:28 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> Il 10/08/2010 14.54, Ty Ford ha scritto:
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:08:05 -0400, alex wrote
>> (in >):
>>
>>> The whole marketing action of Avid (the word say everything) and Digidesign
>>> is centered on making people feel the need to be part of a "closed" family
>>> of
>>
>>> happy (and smiling) customers of their "closed" products.
>>
>> Digidesign had already become a defacto standard before the Digi/Avid combo.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>>
>> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
>> Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
>> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>>
> I know! Dominant position because is "better" than others or just
> because the marketing? De facto, if you own a Digi* hardware you cannot
> even try another software.

Sure you can.

Ty Ford


That make the standard.
> what i said is that we are falling into a monodimensional market
> everyday more. A so deep control of the market produces very bad effects
> on the user side, i think. A world where the tool is goin to be much
> more important than "professionality".
>
> alex


I doubt it. It still takes a pari of ears, a brain and a pair of hands.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:02:47 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> Il 10/08/2010 16.30, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>> I know! Dominant position because is "better" than others or just
>>> because the marketing? De facto, if you own a Digi* hardware you cannot
>>> even try another software. That make the standard.
>>> what i said is that we are falling into a monodimensional market
>>> everyday more. A so deep control of the market produces very bad effects
>>> on the user side, i think. A world where the tool is goin to be much
>>> more important than "professionality".
>>
>> Oh, folks have been obsessed with tools rather than the actual work for
>> years. I got lots of jobs because I had a u47 in the closet, even though
>> I never actually pulled it out.
>>
>> If you think it's bad in the audio world, it's getting to be even worse
>> in the film world.
>> --scott
>>
> just scared to see my job disappearing behind a trademark... All fails
> are mine and all success are due to the wonderful tool i use.
>
> regards
> alex

well there's always 1" 8 Track! :)

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:49:41 -0400, adam79 wrote
(in article >):

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> Trust me, use it for a while and you will see a lot of things that are...
>> ummm... less than professionally done about it. Still, it's what people
>> use, so you gotta use it.
>>
>> It was no better in the tape world, mind you, when everyone used 24-track 2"
>> even though 16-track sounded substantially better.... because everyone else
>> did.
>
>
>
> I agree that Pro Tools is running a racket.
> -Adam

What ARE you guys smoking to get this paranoid?

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:04:25 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> as an host application, somebody already told you, reaper has everything you
> need for $60. I checked the demo a week ago and i found that software really
> good and compatible with almost all file formats and with a strong plugins
> interface while being lightweight. Another good point is that the own project

> file format is in plain text. This will allowyou to do some easy tweakings
> into an existing project. The internal filter collection is also huge and
> intersting.

Fine, then quit your whining about PTLE. When your platform is more important
than your ability, it says nothing more than that you need to urn up your
ability more.

The rest of us will just muddle along hiding behind Pro Tools.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>well there's always 1" 8 Track! :)

I'm billing for that just this weekend! There's an advantage in being
different if you work it right.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[alex]

Il 13/08/2010 14.34, Ty Ford ha scritto:
> Fine, then quit your whining about PTLE. When your platform is more important
> than your ability, it says nothing more than that you need to urn up your
> ability more.
>
> The rest of us will just muddle along hiding behind Pro Tools.
adam asked about a possible cheaper alternative. That's my answer.
i'm not "whining" about PTLE, i just said that i find frustrating that a
platform is goin' to be the standard because other reason than quality
and usability. period.
I know you are a big PT fan but, believe me, i never said a single word
against PT. The concern was on how people see it from outside. A little
concern, i know...
I completely disagree with you. In the mentioned experience the guy was
not concerned about ability at all, just on tool brand, i though i was
clear enough. That's the opposite of what you said.
I'm working well everyday, right with those clients that think "abiltiy"
make the difference, regardeless the tool. I had only one exception...
Until now.

regards
alex

[Scott Dorsey]

alex > wrote:
>adam asked about a possible cheaper alternative. That's my answer.
>i'm not "whining" about PTLE, i just said that i find frustrating that a
>platform is goin' to be the standard because other reason than quality
>and usability. period.

Nothing EVER becomes the standard because of quality and usability. Not
in the audio world, not anywhere in the real world. Standards get to be
standards because of marketing and political reasons. Just look at the
automobile.

>I know you are a big PT fan but, believe me, i never said a single word
>against PT. The concern was on how people see it from outside. A little
>concern, i know...

Personally, I don't like PT at all, but I capitalize on that by advertising
like "Hire old Farts with Tape Machines" and "We Don't Have Pro-Tools, Just
Real Tools." I do acoustic music and so I am in a short of small niche in
the industry. Other folks in other markets get whatever it takes to sell
their services in those markets.

>I completely disagree with you. In the mentioned experience the guy was
>not concerned about ability at all, just on tool brand, i though i was
>clear enough.

You will ALWAYS find these people. There are all over. Either you can get
the tool they want (and these days Pro Tools and Autotune are the two that
people will ask about when they make the first phone call), or you can find
some way to turn not having them into a marketing advantage.

>I'm working well everyday, right with those clients that think "abiltiy"
>make the difference, regardeless the tool. I had only one exception...
>Until now.

You'll get plenty more. I get phone calls asking me if I have "beats."
I don't have beats. Sorry, that's not the market I'm in. Find the market
you want to be in, and get whatever it is that you need to sell yourself
in that market.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I get phone calls asking me if I have "beats."
> I don't have beats. Sorry, that's not the market I'm in.

I think I'm ahead of you there. I don't even know clearly
what "beats" are. Maybe I have them, maybe I don't. Probably
not.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[alex]

Il 13/08/2010 20.26, Scott Dorsey ha scritto:
> Personally, I don't like PT at all, but I capitalize on that by advertising
> like "Hire old Farts with Tape Machines" and "We Don't Have Pro-Tools, Just
> Real Tools." I do acoustic music and so I am in a short of small niche in
> the industry. Other folks in other markets get whatever it takes to sell
> their services in those markets.

Scott, you're always welcome with your valuable hints.
I started my career as live sound engineer some 25 years ago. some 15
years ago i started to work occasionally in studios and around 10 years
ago i decided to convert an unused room to my own studio.
Except for the "live" part, i don't have a well defined tipology of
market until now, except that i do only "postproductions" jobs in the
broad sense of the world. Most pre-mastering jobs as i already told you
in the "vinyl" thread.
I always do the second or third stage of the work, never the first.
I don't mix anything. This because at the beginning stage, 10 years or
more ago, with my very low budget, i can only afford DAW mix and i
discovered soon that was very frustrating. So i decided to concentrate
myself on what i though can give me a reasonable quality even on DAW, in
a "control room only" studio.
I believe i reached some good quality now, and my work is appreciated.
I put a lot of efforts in my room acoustics, and i think now is a good
and pleasant workplace.
I don't use protools just because i don't need to use sequencers or so
called "music production software" at all.
All i do, most of the time, involve two tracks only, so using PT would
be like goin' shopping with a truck.

I done a lot of externation in this thread around someone asking me to
do two tracks postprod with PT and around some popular common
"knowledge" surrounding that system.
*I know very well the world is like this. And you have to choose.*

But i think is a matter on how people recognize our work. If people
still believe that, in the digital era, the quality is coming from a
particular tool or a software instead from the people actually working
in it, does mean they have a *really poor vision* on our job.
And this is the real big problem.
My friend is an architect. I'm pretty sure he never had to answer to a
client question like: "do you use autocad?".

I still hope is possible to change a bit this trend and i think the
right place to do it is an "open-minded" newsgroup like this.

That's my "naive" externation here, i hope not too much boring.

thanks for all answers
alex

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers writes:
>> I get phone calls asking me if I have "beats."
>> I don't have beats. Sorry, that's not the market I'm in.
>I think I'm ahead of you there. I don't even know clearly
>what "beats" are. Maybe I have them, maybe I don't. Probably
>not.
DOn't think you do MIke. "beats" are the backing track you
hear behind most of this hip hop and rap stuff. Usually
done with sequencers and samplers, or loop type software. I
doubt you have them <grin>. I know I sure don't.

We ain't got no autotune either.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
Remote audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> I always do the second or third stage of the work, never the first.
> I don't mix anything.

You probably don't record anything either, at least not
multitrack, in a studio-like environment.

> I don't use protools just because i don't need to use sequencers or so
> called "music production software" at all.
> All i do, most of the time, involve two tracks only, so using PT would
> be like goin' shopping with a truck.

Well, why didn't you say so? Unless your "mastering" clients
want to give you the Pro Tools project files and give you
the freedom to adjust the mix to make a better master,
there's no need for Pro Tools. While it's not unusual for a
studio client to ask for Pro Tools for whatever reason,
mastering clients rarely request it, or any particular
software for that matter. In fact, most mastering engineers
don't use Pro Tools because there's better software for the
things they need to do.

Sonic used to be the one they all used, but these days
WaveLab is pretty popular, and many mastering engineers will
use several different programs on a project because of their
various strengths. For an example of how the various tools
can work for you, check out Craig Anderton's article
"Project Mastering Master Class" in the April 2010 issue of
EQ magazine - not a Pro Tools in sight:
http://www.eqmag.com/article/roundup--project/April-2010/110781


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[alex]

Il 13/08/2010 23.52, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
>
>> I always do the second or third stage of the work, never the first.
>> I don't mix anything.
>
> You probably don't record anything either, at least not multitrack, in a
> studio-like environment.
>

Just some single take sometimes needed to complete the job. I own only
mics suited for sound reinforcement and i can only record in c-room.

>> I don't use protools just because i don't need to use sequencers or so
>> called "music production software" at all.
>> All i do, most of the time, involve two tracks only, so using PT would
>> be like goin' shopping with a truck.
>
> Well, why didn't you say so? Unless your "mastering" clients want to
> give you the Pro Tools project files and give you the freedom to adjust
> the mix to make a better master, there's no need for Pro Tools. While
> it's not unusual for a studio client to ask for Pro Tools for whatever
> reason, mastering clients rarely request it, or any particular software
> for that matter. In fact, most mastering engineers don't use Pro Tools
> because there's better software for the things they need to do.

I said that! and you answered to me too, Mike. (08-11-2010)

>> My small studio is built for postproduction jobs. Most of the time i
>> don't even need a sequencer and this guy want me to use an
>> inappropriate kind of software for a two tracks postprod... Just
>> because he know about protools.
>
> You need to change your clients or change your business. You obviously
> have an impasse. Thirty years ago, I was recording for some of the
> larger independent labels using a TASCAM 80-8 recorder and mixing to a
> Revox A700 (sometimes recording straight to stereo on the Revox). But
> I'd occasionally get a phone call from someone asking about recording
> with me and the first thing he'd ask what kind of recorder I had. When I
> answered TASCAM, that was the end of the conversation. It's why I
> eventually got an Ampex.

I used wavelab for a decade, now. I think is a really nice tool for what
i need. I love the real time engine, 10 years ago was a true revolution.
I heard a lot of good review of sequoia buti never had the opportunity
to try it.

regards
alex

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, > wrote:
>Mike Rivers writes:
> >> I get phone calls asking me if I have "beats."
> >> I don't have beats. Sorry, that's not the market I'm in.
> >I think I'm ahead of you there. I don't even know clearly
> >what "beats" are. Maybe I have them, maybe I don't. Probably
> >not.
>DOn't think you do MIke. "beats" are the backing track you
>hear behind most of this hip hop and rap stuff. Usually
>done with sequencers and samplers, or loop type software. I
>doubt you have them <grin>. I know I sure don't.

I actually own some loop LPs with beats on them.... one of them figures
prominently in The Man's cut on the first RAP CD. But I don't admit it
in public.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

alex wrote:

> I said that! and you answered to me too, Mike. (08-11-2010)

Sheesh! It's 8 PM here and I can't remember what I had for
dinner. You expect me to remember who I answered two days ago?

> >> My small studio is built for postproduction jobs. Most of the time i
> >> don't even need a sequencer and this guy want me to use an
> >> inappropriate kind of software for a two tracks postprod... Just
> >> because he know about protools.

I forget that "sequencer" in some countries or circles is
used to mean what most of us call a DAW. To me a sequencer
is something used for MIDI data recording and arranging. It
took Pro Tools years before they got something approaching
the functionality of the MIDI sequencers of the late 1980s/

> I used wavelab for a decade, now. I think is a really nice tool for what
> i need.

It's excellent for working with a mixed project. Have you
looked at the newest version? They were supposed to have
better integrated the montage and standard editor, which is
something that I have always wanted. I haven't had a chance
to check it out yet.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

[[email protected]]

On 2010-08-13 (ScottDorsey) said:
>>DOn't think you do MIke. "beats" are the backing track you
>>hear behind most of this hip hop and rap stuff. Usually
>>done with sequencers and samplers, or loop type software. I
>>doubt you have them <grin>. I know I sure don't.
>I actually own some loop LPs with beats on them.... one of them
>figures prominently in The Man's cut on the first RAP CD. But I
>don't admit it in public.
<rotflmao!!!> Yeah can understand that.

I did one project of "beats" for a rapper years ago, bought
a ROland sampler even. HE gave me a downstroke, then a
rubber check, twice.

When he gave me the second rubber check we were into the
mixing stage of his project. I gave him 7 days to make good
on it, he still hadn't caught me up for the other rubber
check. SEven days elapsed, I ran the dat over with the bulk
eraser, nuked the cakewalk files, and sold the sampler.






Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[alex]

Il 14/08/2010 2.13, Mike Rivers ha scritto:
You asked me why i didn't said before... ;-)

> It's excellent for working with a mixed project. Have you looked at the
> newest version? They were supposed to have better integrated the montage
> and standard editor, which is something that I have always wanted. I
> haven't had a chance to check it out yet.

I have version 6. I know a new version will be out soon, but honestly
the few differences between 5 and 6 didn't change my life not the way i
work.
Personally i never find those spectrum editing functions real useful and
i wish wl never incorporate functions like cd/dvd-data burning because i
think are better accomplished by some external (maybe free) software
like the great imgburn leaving wl a "pure" audio editor like it should
be. OK i know, at the time cd burners were not free so they think to
offer some plus-value to clients by incorporating it.
Matter of taste. Despite this, i love that sw and the way philip goutier
(the autor) help everyday customers getting the most out.
I will check out the new version.

regards
alex

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:15:05 -0400, alex wrote
(in article >):

> If people still believe that, in the digital era, the quality is coming from

> a particular tool or a software instead from the people actually working in
> it, does mean they have a *really poor vision* on our job.

Of course they have a really poor vision on our jobs. They're clients.

I tell all my clients, "Digital is not perfect and you have to pay attention
to make sure it doesn't do something you don't want it to."

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > I get phone calls asking me if I have "beats."
> > I don't have beats. Sorry, that's not the market I'm in.
>
> I think I'm ahead of you there. I don't even know clearly
> what "beats" are. Maybe I have them, maybe I don't. Probably
> not.

Okay, pal, then, "Got bodhran??"

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:49:41 -0400, adam79 wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>
> >> Trust me, use it for a while and you will see a lot of things that are...
> >> ummm... less than professionally done about it. Still, it's what people
> >> use, so you gotta use it.
> >>
> >> It was no better in the tape world, mind you, when everyone used
> >> 24-track 2" even though 16-track sounded substantially better....
> >> because everyone else did.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree that Pro Tools is running a racket.
> > -Adam
>
> What ARE you guys smoking to get this paranoid?

It's the scoop all over the innernetz. I don't use PT, but people I work
with do, and they work it very well, thanks. What I smoke doesn't enter
into it.

Talk about rackets - wait 'til these people find out about tennis.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> alex wrote:
>
> > I always do the second or third stage of the work, never the first.
> > I don't mix anything.
>
> You probably don't record anything either, at least not
> multitrack, in a studio-like environment.
>
> > I don't use protools just because i don't need to use sequencers or so
> > called "music production software" at all.
> > All i do, most of the time, involve two tracks only, so using PT would
> > be like goin' shopping with a truck.
>
> Well, why didn't you say so? Unless your "mastering" clients
> want to give you the Pro Tools project files and give you
> the freedom to adjust the mix to make a better master,
> there's no need for Pro Tools. While it's not unusual for a
> studio client to ask for Pro Tools for whatever reason,
> mastering clients rarely request it, or any particular
> software for that matter. In fact, most mastering engineers
> don't use Pro Tools because there's better software for the
> things they need to do.
>
> Sonic used to be the one they all used, but these days
> WaveLab is pretty popular, and many mastering engineers will
> use several different programs on a project because of their
> various strengths. For an example of how the various tools
> can work for you, check out Craig Anderton's article
> "Project Mastering Master Class" in the April 2010 issue of
> EQ magazine - not a Pro Tools in sight:
> http://www.eqmag.com/article/roundup--project/April-2010/110781

That's a pretty stupid article. Jus' sayin'. His job is to try to sell
magazines in the era of print's passing, and "mastering" tricks for the
clueless is a fine come-on.

I have lots of respect for Craig's knowledge and experience. But this
kind of crap is just that.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidriAlrichwithDougHarman

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

> That's a pretty stupid article. Jus' sayin'. His job is to try to sell
> magazines in the era of print's passing, and "mastering" tricks for the
> clueless is a fine come-on.

He did emphasize (at least in the magazine version - I
didn't read the on-line version) that mastering was about
listening first. The point that I wanted to show by pointing
to the article is that someone who does mastering projects
doesn't use the same tool for every part of the job. There
is no "mastering program."



--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson