DAW types, a Bit confused.. [Archive]

Mogens V.

April 1st 07, 04:46 PM

Following the latest discussions about converters, I seem to enter this
state of slight confusion.

From other discussions here and elsewhere, it's evident PT has quite a
marketshare, and many says at some point one will most likely have to
exchange project files, so PT is the way to go.

However, I see so many references to mid/high-end converters, having
their own interfaces and drivers.
AFAIK, those don't work with PT - except when hooked through lightpipes.

So, quite a lot of studiowork must be done with DAW's other than PT.

I'm quite aware several highend console/software solutions exists, for
which some of said interfaces probably has drivers.
Still, it's my understanding that quite a lot of you folks here aren't
using such setups, but rather one of the 6-8 widely used DAW packages.

This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.

I'm sure a nof rookies like me lurking here would like to know.
I'm dying to know what's actually being used, and for what.

I hope it's not beyond the scope in here to suggest a short poll.
If it isn't, I suggest cutting away above splash text.

Pro/SemiPro/Home:
Work (music/broadcast..):
DAW:
Platform (PC/Mac):
A/D/A:
Interface:
Console:

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Ian Bell

April 1st 07, 06:07 PM

Mogens V. wrote:
>
> This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
> earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
> Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.
>

The 'industry standard' for data interchange is WAV or AIFF files. What DAW
you use does not matter so long as it can handle these.

Ian

hank alrich

April 1st 07, 06:27 PM

Mogens V. wrote:

> So, quite a lot of studiowork must be done with DAW's other than PT.

I have some Macs, a Metric Halo MIO2882+DSP, Wave L2 (hardware), Logic
Pro 6.4.3, Waveburner Pro 2.something (OS9), Peak LE, MH SpectraFoo
Complete, MH Channelstrip, and a small collection of outboard, including
some near-ultimate analog plug-ins from Studer.

I get projects from PT, mostly for overdubbing, as WAV or AIFF files. If
for mixing it all happens here so what's upstream in the way of
processing is either irrelevant or has alraedy been imposed on the files
sent me.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Mike Rivers

April 1st 07, 07:34 PM

On Apr 1, 11:46 am, "Mogens V." >
wrote:

> From other discussions here and elsewhere, it's evident PT has quite a
> marketshare, and many says at some point one will most likely have to
> exchange project files, so PT is the way to go.

First off, the obvious. The individual musician who records himself
(or his band) and doesn't pass the project around from studio to
studio or engineer can use whatever program he wants without concern
about compatibility.

While most DAWs can export broadcast wave files (if they don't
normally save audio in that format), every DAW has its own format,
language, and algorithms in the "project" file that defines mix
levels, equalization and other processing, edits and fades, plug-in
management, and version history. While you can import the broadcast
wave from nearly any DAW into any other DAW, a new project file must
be crated, and with just a few exceptions, everything in the original
project file is lost.

So if you're the primary engineer for the band and the guitar player
wants to record all of his solos at home, it would be a good idea for
both of you to use the same program so you can exchange the whole
project and when he plays his solos, he'll automatically hear the same
mix at home as he did in the main session. And since ProTools is so
common and, as a basic system, so inexpensive, it's a popular choice.

> However, I see so many references to mid/high-end converters, having
> their own interfaces and drivers.
> AFAIK, those don't work with PT - except when hooked through lightpipes.

That's the the lock that Digidesign has on their customers. Everything
that goes into and comes out of a ProTools project has to go through
their own driver model, which they license to only a very few
converter manufacturers, like M-Audio (which is in itself owned by the
same company as Digidesign). At least Digidesign and M-Audio make
interfaces with digital inputs and outputs so you can connect a a
high end converter through that I/O route.

> I'm quite aware several highend console/software solutions exists, for
> which some of said interfaces probably has drivers.

Not for ProTools. But just about every other DAW program can use the
Apple standard audio interface (Core Audio I think it's called these
days) or on the PC side, WDM or ASIO drivers. Still, the issue of
interchangeability of project data exists. It's just that if you and
your buddy both use, say, Cubase, you don't need the same hardware.

> This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
> earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...

It depends on how the work is shared. For example, in the case where
the guitarist wants to record solos at home, the "mothership" studio
can give him a stereo mix that he can import into his own DAW as a new
project, record his solos, make all the punch-ins and edits necessary
to get it right,, and then save his work as a "consolidated" or
"rendered" or "flattened" (the terminology varies among programs)
audio file. This can then be imported back into the "master" project
and used in the mix.

If it's a major label kind of project (whether it's for a real major
label or not) where the project might go to several different studios
where parts are added, and yet a different studio for final mixdown,
there's a real advantage to everyone using the same DAW program (and
this is where ProTools seems to be the program of choice) so everyone
hears the project in the same mix context, and the project remains
intact throughout the whole process - nobody has to put all the little
pieces from here and there together before mixing.

Scott Dorsey

April 1st 07, 08:22 PM

Mogens V. > wrote:
>However, I see so many references to mid/high-end converters, having
>their own interfaces and drivers.
>AFAIK, those don't work with PT - except when hooked through lightpipes.

Right, but what's wrong with that? That's how most converters are hooked
to tape machines and to workstations.... lightpipe, MADI, or T-DIF.

>This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
>earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
>Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.

People today mostly interchange digital files on discs. Although you STILL
will see someone dubbing to 2" for interchange every once in a while. For
the most part, you can interchange simple audio files transparently between
any DAWs, although it can be a mightmare to interchange complete project
files.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 12:49 AM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Mogens V. > wrote:
>
>>However, I see so many references to mid/high-end converters, having
>>their own interfaces and drivers.
>>AFAIK, those don't work with PT - except when hooked through lightpipes.
>
>
> Right, but what's wrong with that? That's how most converters are hooked
> to tape machines and to workstations.... lightpipe, MADI, or T-DIF.

Oh, I don't nessesarily mean anything's wrong with that, except for the
annoyance of vendor lock-in, at least when being a start up on a budget.
I'm also aware that maybe a more limited HW selection with fewer drivers
_may_ yield a more stable, less error prone setup. _may_ -I dunno...

What I meant was simply that I see these refs to hardware unsupported
with PT, which seems so predominant, so I wondered what's being used.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 01:12 AM

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:46 am, "Mogens V." >
> wrote:
>
>
>> From other discussions here and elsewhere, it's evident PT has quite a
>>marketshare, and many says at some point one will most likely have to
>>exchange project files, so PT is the way to go.
>
>
> First off, the obvious. The individual musician who records himself
> (or his band) and doesn't pass the project around from studio to
> studio or engineer can use whatever program he wants without concern
> about compatibility.
>
> While most DAWs can export broadcast wave files (if they don't
> normally save audio in that format), every DAW has its own format,
> language, and algorithms in the "project" file that defines mix
> levels, equalization and other processing, edits and fades, plug-in
> management, and version history. While you can import the broadcast
> wave from nearly any DAW into any other DAW, a new project file must
> be crated, and with just a few exceptions, everything in the original
> project file is lost.
>
> So if you're the primary engineer for the band and the guitar player
> wants to record all of his solos at home, it would be a good idea for
> both of you to use the same program so you can exchange the whole
> project and when he plays his solos, he'll automatically hear the same
> mix at home as he did in the main session. And since ProTools is so
> common and, as a basic system, so inexpensive, it's a popular choice.

...snipped..

>>This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
>>earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
>
>
> It depends on how the work is shared. For example, in the case where
> the guitarist wants to record solos at home, the "mothership" studio
> can give him a stereo mix that he can import into his own DAW as a new
> project, record his solos, make all the punch-ins and edits necessary
> to get it right,, and then save his work as a "consolidated" or
> "rendered" or "flattened" (the terminology varies among programs)
> audio file. This can then be imported back into the "master" project
> and used in the mix.
>
> If it's a major label kind of project (whether it's for a real major
> label or not) where the project might go to several different studios
> where parts are added, and yet a different studio for final mixdown,
> there's a real advantage to everyone using the same DAW program (and
> this is where ProTools seems to be the program of choice) so everyone
> hears the project in the same mix context, and the project remains
> intact throughout the whole process - nobody has to put all the little
> pieces from here and there together before mixing.

So, two scenarios exists:

1. As I'll be both the player and recording engineer (wannebe), I can
use just about what I want, as long as I do it all myself.
Should I be lucky enough to shake hands with a label ;), I can hand them
the finished wav/aiff files for mixdown, as they'll setup the project
to their own likings and marketing stragety anyways.

2. Working off my appartment, I will at some point have to work with a
(semi)Pro studio for at least some acoustic recordings.
I believe PT has an 80-85% market share here in DK, so I may be better
off choosing PT for ease of dragging project disks back and forth.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 01:16 AM

Ian Bell wrote:
> Mogens V. wrote:
>
>>This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
>>earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
>>Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.
>
>
> The 'industry standard' for data interchange is WAV or AIFF files. What DAW
> you use does not matter so long as it can handle these.

Yes, I realise that, though it's my understanding some engineers don't
like having to setup a project based on those formats.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 01:20 AM

hank alrich wrote:
> Mogens V. wrote:
>
>
>>So, quite a lot of studiowork must be done with DAW's other than PT.
>
>
> I have some Macs, a Metric Halo MIO2882+DSP, Wave L2 (hardware), Logic
> Pro 6.4.3, Waveburner Pro 2.something (OS9), Peak LE, MH SpectraFoo
> Complete, MH Channelstrip, and a small collection of outboard, including
> some near-ultimate analog plug-ins from Studer.
>
> I get projects from PT, mostly for overdubbing, as WAV or AIFF files. If
> for mixing it all happens here so what's upstream in the way of
> processing is either irrelevant or has alraedy been imposed on the files
> sent me.

So, IIUC, the reason whatever DAW was used to create a project doesn't
matter to you, is that you don't work back'n'forth on projects, right?

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Scott Dorsey

April 2nd 07, 01:42 AM

Mogens V. > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Mogens V. > wrote:
>>
>>>However, I see so many references to mid/high-end converters, having
>>>their own interfaces and drivers.
>>>AFAIK, those don't work with PT - except when hooked through lightpipes.
>>
>> Right, but what's wrong with that? That's how most converters are hooked
>> to tape machines and to workstations.... lightpipe, MADI, or T-DIF.
>
>Oh, I don't nessesarily mean anything's wrong with that, except for the
>annoyance of vendor lock-in, at least when being a start up on a budget.

What lock-in? Lightpipe, MADI, and T-DIF are all standards. You can start
out with a cheap RME converter with a lightpipe connection to the machine,
then upgrade to an Apogee and then to a Prism or a Meitner without any changes
to the DAW or the software on the DAW.

>I'm also aware that maybe a more limited HW selection with fewer drivers
>_may_ yield a more stable, less error prone setup. _may_ -I dunno...

These are standard interfaces. They don't require any drivers other than
whatever the card itself uses.

>What I meant was simply that I see these refs to hardware unsupported
>with PT, which seems so predominant, so I wondered what's being used.

It doesn't matter, the interface is supported so you can plug anything you
want to into it. Including converters that haven't been invented yet or
digital tape machines that haven't been made for a decade. And they all
interoperate. That is the reason for communication standards.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers

April 2nd 07, 01:51 AM

On Apr 1, 8:12 pm, "Mogens V." >
wrote:

> Should I be lucky enough to shake hands with a label ;), I can hand them
> the finished wav/aiff files for mixdown, as they'll setup the project
> to their own likings and marketing stragety anyways.

No, you'll hand them your mixed stereo file. They may want you to add
some songs or delete some songs, and maybe change the order. Or if
they don't think it sounds good enough they'll get you into a studio
to re-record it. But it's not likely that they'll want to remix your
tracks (though they may ask you to do it). But you won't be getting
any major label deals on your first project anyway other than if they
like it as a demo and decide to 'develop' you.

> 2. Working off my appartment, I will at some point have to work with a
> (semi)Pro studio for at least some acoustic recordings.
> I believe PT has an 80-85% market share here in DK, so I may be better
> off choosing PT for ease of dragging project disks back and forth.

Definitely.

Romeo Rondeau

April 2nd 07, 02:24 AM

Mogens V. wrote:
> Ian Bell wrote:
>> Mogens V. wrote:
>>
>>> This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
>>> earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
>>> Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.
>>
>>
>> The 'industry standard' for data interchange is WAV or AIFF files.
>> What DAW
>> you use does not matter so long as it can handle these.
>
> Yes, I realise that, though it's my understanding some engineers don't
> like having to setup a project based on those formats.

The only reason why it should be a problem to the guy is if he doesn't
know what he's doing. In that case, run like hell.

Geoff

April 2nd 07, 02:59 AM

Mogens V. wrote:

>
> 2. Working off my appartment, I will at some point have to work with a
> (semi)Pro studio for at least some acoustic recordings.
> I believe PT has an 80-85% market share here in DK, so I may be better
> off choosing PT for ease of dragging project disks back and forth.

Don't let Digi bulldoze you. You can use any app you like, and with a
minimum of effort transfer it to PT if the studio you choose has the
misfortune to be locked into it exclusively.

geoff

Geoff

April 2nd 07, 03:00 AM

Mogens V. wrote:
> Ian Bell wrote:
>> Mogens V. wrote:
>>
>>> This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all,
>>> how on earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix
>>> facilities... Of cause I realize some of you handle it all,
>>> including the downmix.
>>
>>
>> The 'industry standard' for data interchange is WAV or AIFF files.
>> What DAW you use does not matter so long as it can handle these.
>
> Yes, I realise that, though it's my understanding some engineers don't
> like having to setup a project based on those formats.

Choose a different engineer then.

geoff

hank alrich

April 2nd 07, 03:43 AM

Mogens V. wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Mogens V. wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So, quite a lot of studiowork must be done with DAW's other than PT.
> >
> >
> > I have some Macs, a Metric Halo MIO2882+DSP, Wave L2 (hardware), Logic
> > Pro 6.4.3, Waveburner Pro 2.something (OS9), Peak LE, MH SpectraFoo
> > Complete, MH Channelstrip, and a small collection of outboard, including
> > some near-ultimate analog plug-ins from Studer.
> >
> > I get projects from PT, mostly for overdubbing, as WAV or AIFF files. If
> > for mixing it all happens here so what's upstream in the way of
> > processing is either irrelevant or has alraedy been imposed on the files
> > sent me.
>
> So, IIUC, the reason whatever DAW was used to create a project doesn't
> matter to you, is that you don't work back'n'forth on projects, right?

Yes, I do work "back and forth projects", using any of several audio
file formats. What I do not do is receive big PT mixes-in-progress that
would require me to have the exact same rig including version numbers
and specific plugs in order to continue the mix from the point it was
abandoned <g>.

I get a set of files. I create a Logic document for the session. I load
the files. We do the session, or I start mixing. If overdubs are the
ride, then I send back a set of files that includes the overdubs. If
mixing I mix until I'm done and I send off a finished mix.

And this is not peculiar to Logic. One can do this with any DAW.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

hank alrich

April 2nd 07, 03:43 AM

Mogens V. wrote:

> Ian Bell wrote:
> > Mogens V. wrote:
> >
> >>This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
> >>earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
> >>Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.
> >
> >
> > The 'industry standard' for data interchange is WAV or AIFF files. What DAW
> > you use does not matter so long as it can handle these.
>
> Yes, I realise that, though it's my understanding some engineers don't
> like having to setup a project based on those formats.

Then I think someone is using the term "engineer" all too loosely. The
task is trivial.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Ty Ford

April 2nd 07, 12:30 PM

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 11:46:10 -0400, Mogens V. wrote
(in article >):

If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
> earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...

I get project to mix on my PTLE rig from all sorts of other DAWs.

All we do is consolidate each track from 0:00:00 to the end and export and
burn to DVD-R or CD-R.

In PT and PTLE, you don't even need to create tracks, you just choose "import
to track" hit the button and go take a leak while the session loads up. EQ
settings and effects are scraped off, but that's usually part of why they are
hiring me.

There are some folks who use OMF. I haven't needed to do that yet.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

Ty Ford

April 2nd 07, 12:31 PM

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:07:42 -0400, Ian Bell wrote
(in article <460fe61c.0@entanet>):

> Mogens V. wrote:
>>
>> This is what gets me confused. If PT is kinda the mother of all, how on
>> earth do you work with clients, other studios, downmix facilities...
>> Of cause I realize some of you handle it all, including the downmix.
>>
>
> The 'industry standard' for data interchange is WAV or AIFF files. What DAW
> you use does not matter so long as it can handle these.
>
> Ian

and not so much about aiff anymore.

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

Ty Ford

April 2nd 07, 12:37 PM

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 21:59:39 -0400, Geoff wrote
(in article >):

> Mogens V. wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. Working off my appartment, I will at some point have to work with a
>> (semi)Pro studio for at least some acoustic recordings.
>> I believe PT has an 80-85% market share here in DK, so I may be better
>> off choosing PT for ease of dragging project disks back and forth.
>
> Don't let Digi bulldoze you. You can use any app you like, and with a
> minimum of effort transfer it to PT if the studio you choose has the
> misfortune to be locked into it exclusively.
>
> geoff
>

Them bulldozers are only in Geoff's head. :)

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

Deputy Dumbya Dawg[_2_]

April 2nd 07, 02:48 PM

"Mogens V." > wrote
in message
. dk...
:
: Yes, I realise that, though it's my understanding
some engineers don't
: like having to setup a project based on those
formats.
:
: --
: Kind regards,
: Mogens V.
:

You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
your project down in PT it is not automatically
compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
DAW.

So you put your files in Wave format and start and end
every track at the same time regardless of how much
sound is in the track. Doing this anyone can load your
tracks and everyone looses all your presets and
automation.

If the other guy has a close clone to your daw perhaps
on a really lucky day you could put your project into
another persons machine and get it to load up exactly
as it was when you saved it from your machine.

This is why most people who need their project to come
up at another studio will bring their machine into the
other studio.

peace
dawg

Mike Rivers

April 2nd 07, 03:18 PM

On Apr 2, 9:48 am, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg"
> wrote:

> You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
> your project down in PT it is not automatically
> compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
> the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
> in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
> in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
> DAW.

I was just about to ask about this when you brought it up. (everyone
needs a straight man now and then)

My recommendation to people who know they're going to be passing a
project back and forth is to use the same DAW program because the
project file (whatever it's called in ProToos) could be used by both
systems.

However, realizing that while both systems might have the same
program, even the same version, there could be plug-ins loaded (and
used in a mix) on one system that aren't on the other system. Also, I/
O hardware might be different. I would expect that things common to
all systems would be preserved like standard EQ and dynamics, edits,
mutes, and fades. I would be disappointed if this wasn't the case.

But if the project was initiated in a studio equiped with 24 outputs
and the session was initially set up with eight of those outputs used
as four independent stereo headphone mixes, two more going to outboard
reverbs (with similarly configured return channels) and other goodies
like that, what happens when the guitar player takes home a complete
copy of the session to run on his M-Box system with only two inputs
and outputs?

Is it smart enough to leave those either unassigned or assigned to non-
existent outputs (to preserve the session for when it goes back to the
original studio)? Or - horror of horrors - does it try to do the best
it can, assuming that you want to hear those tracks, and double-assign
them to the two outputs that are present in the hardware?

While it's not a big deal to consolidate tracks, export them on one
end, and import them on the other end, if that isn't done, then you
lose any edits, mix moves, EQ, and processing. So when the person
imports the "straight" files and starts working on his overdubs, he
isn't hearing what he heard in the studio, and may end up playing
parts that don't fit well when brought in to mix with the original
tracks.

Romeo Rondeau

April 2nd 07, 04:19 PM

> Is it smart enough to leave those either unassigned or assigned to non-
> existent outputs (to preserve the session for when it goes back to the
> original studio)? Or - horror of horrors - does it try to do the best
> it can, assuming that you want to hear those tracks, and double-assign
> them to the two outputs that are present in the hardware?
>
> While it's not a big deal to consolidate tracks, export them on one
> end, and import them on the other end, if that isn't done, then you
> lose any edits, mix moves, EQ, and processing. So when the person
> imports the "straight" files and starts working on his overdubs, he
> isn't hearing what he heard in the studio, and may end up playing
> parts that don't fit well when brought in to mix with the original
> tracks.

Happens with tape machines all the time. The best way to think about it
is that the harddrive is like a reel of tape. Don't expect any settings
mix-wise to translate at all. You don't actually have to create the
"straight files", if you use broadcast waves as your record format the
timestamping on the file takes care of it's position with the other
files. In Nuendo, I would select "insert into project at origin" and
we're off to the races...

Mike Rivers

April 2nd 07, 05:43 PM

On Apr 2, 11:19 am, Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> The best way to think about it
> is that the harddrive is like a reel of tape. Don't expect any settings
> mix-wise to translate at all.

Well what the hell good is that? I would expect that if I had ProTools
and you had Nuendo. However,if we both had Nuendo (or ProTools) I
would expect that, at least to the extent of the program's basic
functions (edits, levels, mutes, and EQ and dynamics that isn't a
separately purchased plug-in), moving the complete set of project
files from one computer to the other would be just like re-opining the
project on the original computer.

> You don't actually have to create the
> "straight files", if you use broadcast waves as your record format the
> timestamping on the file takes care of it's position with the other
> files.

The value of creating "as you hear" files isn't just in positioning.
It's true that the Broadcast Wave time stamp will take care of that.
But if you have a bunch of punch-ins or edits on a track, you have a
bunch of files. Unless you take care to send out only the right one,
the person setting up the project on another system needs to know
which of those two-word-long files with the same words is the right
vocal punch-in. That information is contained in the project file, or
at least it had darn well better be.

Some day there will be a standard for more of this kind of stuff, but
as long as DAW programmers have their own take on how edits and fades
and mixes are handled, there will be some data that won't be shared
among programs.

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 05:53 PM

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
>
>> Is it smart enough to leave those either unassigned or assigned to non-
>> existent outputs (to preserve the session for when it goes back to the
>> original studio)? Or - horror of horrors - does it try to do the best
>> it can, assuming that you want to hear those tracks, and double-assign
>> them to the two outputs that are present in the hardware?
>>
>> While it's not a big deal to consolidate tracks, export them on one
>> end, and import them on the other end, if that isn't done, then you
>> lose any edits, mix moves, EQ, and processing. So when the person
>> imports the "straight" files and starts working on his overdubs, he
>> isn't hearing what he heard in the studio, and may end up playing
>> parts that don't fit well when brought in to mix with the original
>> tracks.
>
>
> Happens with tape machines all the time. The best way to think about it
> is that the harddrive is like a reel of tape. Don't expect any settings
> mix-wise to translate at all. You don't actually have to create the
> "straight files", if you use broadcast waves as your record format the
> timestamping on the file takes care of it's position with the other
> files. In Nuendo, I would select "insert into project at origin" and
> we're off to the races...

Yes yes yes, I get the picture now :) Those were the issues I couldn't
get to grasps with. Makes perfectly sense that most any DAW will be
different WRT hardware setup, plugins et al, so of cause one cannot
simply expect to be able to carry and load projects between setups.
I was simply told otherwise, and had kindof expected a major app like PT
to be setup-to-setup compatible.

I'll reevaluate and select my shoppings not based on PT compatibility,
but rather on my actual needs.

Thanks all for clarifying those matters.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Complexity and stability always have an inverse relationship.
As the saying goes: the more you overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to clog up the drain.
-- Sam Varshavchik

philicorda[_2_]

April 2nd 07, 07:31 PM

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:53:37 +0200, Mogens V. wrote:

<snip>
> Yes yes yes, I get the picture now :) Those were the issues I couldn't
> get to grasps with. Makes perfectly sense that most any DAW will be
> different WRT hardware setup, plugins et al, so of cause one cannot
> simply expect to be able to carry and load projects between setups.
> I was simply told otherwise, and had kindof expected a major app like PT
> to be setup-to-setup compatible.

Even if two people have the same plugins and are using the same brand of
DAW software, transfers still might not work as you need to be using the
same *versions* of those plugins and DAW software.

It's rare that a recent upgrade of a DAW will save project files in a
format that an earlier version can read.

>
> I'll reevaluate and select my shoppings not based on PT compatibility,
> but rather on my actual needs.

Good idea.

In my experience, there are only two reasons for exchanging unfinished
recordings with other people, which will perhaps explain why DAW
compatibility is not considered a big deal in the industry:

1 The recipient is going to mix the track.
2 The recipient will overdub a few parts and send it back.

In the first case, the recipient is going to start from scratch
anyway, and so does not really need your effects. Fades, edits and
volume/pan automation are captured by the simple 'bounce every track'
approach.

In the second case, they don't even need a multitrack, just a stereo rough
mix will do.

If there are any plugins or outboard I'm using that I think are important
to the vibe of the track, I bounce effected versions and include them as
alternates.

Of course, with free software like Ardour, you can assume that the
recipient can obtain the same version of DAW+Plugins, and also will be able
to efficiently rsync their version of the project with yours over the
internet using Ardour Session Exchange. It becomes interesting as a
possible 'meeting point' for users of proprietary DAWs as a result.

>
> Thanks all for clarifying those matters.
>

hank alrich

April 2nd 07, 07:47 PM

Mogens V. wrote:

> Yes yes yes, I get the picture now :) Those were the issues I couldn't
> get to grasps with. Makes perfectly sense that most any DAW will be
> different WRT hardware setup, plugins et al, so of cause one cannot
> simply expect to be able to carry and load projects between setups.
> I was simply told otherwise, and had kindof expected a major app like PT
> to be setup-to-setup compatible.
>
> I'll reevaluate and select my shoppings not based on PT compatibility,
> but rather on my actual needs.

Two DAW's of the same version and configuration can swap projects (not
just the audio files, but the project file, too) easily if the project
is restricted to using plugins they have in common.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 07:54 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Mogens V. wrote:
>
>
>>Yes yes yes, I get the picture now :) Those were the issues I couldn't
>>get to grasps with. Makes perfectly sense that most any DAW will be
>>different WRT hardware setup, plugins et al, so of cause one cannot
>>simply expect to be able to carry and load projects between setups.
>>I was simply told otherwise, and had kindof expected a major app like PT
>>to be setup-to-setup compatible.
>>
>>I'll reevaluate and select my shoppings not based on PT compatibility,
>>but rather on my actual needs.
>
>
> Two DAW's of the same version and configuration can swap projects (not
> just the audio files, but the project file, too) easily if the project
> is restricted to using plugins they have in common.

Ohh? this is in contrast with dawg's comments earlier, that

> You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
> your project down in PT it is not automatically
> compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
> the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
> in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
> in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
> DAW.
>...
> If the other guy has a close clone to your daw perhaps
> on a really lucky day you could put your project into
> another persons machine and get it to load up exactly
> as it was when you saved it from your machine.

AFAICT, the key point here is that two DAW's most likely won't have the
same plugins. If the common plugins will open correctly, all is fine,
but other replies here seems to suggest it's unclear how the non-common
ones opens, and likewise with hardware differences, as in outboard gear
hooked up, like a reverb thingy or a pitch transposer.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

Mike Rivers

April 2nd 07, 08:25 PM

On Apr 2, 2:54 pm, "Mogens V." >
wrote:

> Ohh? this is in contrast with dawg's comments earlier, that
>
> > You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
> > your project down in PT it is not automatically
> > compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
> > the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
> > in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
> > in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
> > DAW.

This is why I asked further questions. Obviously a plug-in that
doesn't exist can't load and an ouptut that isn't there can't be used.
But I know that at least in the early days, ProTools mix files were
interchangeable. Perhaps there are enough variations today that people
use so that most of the time you have more things that don't work than
it used to be, and if you have 96 tracks going on the studio machine
and try to load that on your 5 year old laptop at home, there would be
some (ahem) issues, but I would certainly expect that levels, edits,
punches, mutes, and basic channel EQ and dynamics should be
interchangeable between systems.

Mike Rivers

April 2nd 07, 08:32 PM

On Apr 2, 2:31 pm, philicorda
> wrote:

> It's rare that a recent upgrade of a DAW will save project files in a
> format that an earlier version can read.

Well, that totally bites. I can see Version 5 not being able to read a
Version 7 project, but I would expect that at least a Version 7.3
project should work on a Version 7.2 system other than perhaps for a
feature that was used that wasn't added until the newer version.

> In my experience, there are only two reasons for exchanging unfinished
> recordings with other people, which will perhaps explain why DAW
> compatibility is not considered a big deal in the industry:

> 1 The recipient is going to mix the track.
> 2 The recipient will overdub a few parts and send it back.

I suppose that covers about everything, except for projects where
several parts are added by different people and all the pieces come
back to the "mothership" or the one doing the mixing. The usual way to
handle that is to make a 2-track rough mix and have everyone overdub
to that. But that 2-track mix will essentially be a consolidated file
since it will run from the beginning to the end of the tune. It's no
big deal to start a new project when all you need to do is import one
stereo track. And what they send back, while it might have been
punched until it bleeds, will be a contiguous file per track with
minimal processing.

philicorda[_2_]

April 2nd 07, 08:58 PM

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:32:50 -0700, Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Apr 2, 2:31 pm, philicorda
> > wrote:
>
>> It's rare that a recent upgrade of a DAW will save project files in a
>> format that an earlier version can read.
>
> Well, that totally bites. I can see Version 5 not being able to read a
> Version 7 project, but I would expect that at least a Version 7.3
> project should work on a Version 7.2 system other than perhaps for a
> feature that was used that wasn't added until the newer version.

Yes, unless the reason for the point upgrade was to fix a problem with the
session file format. I don't think that would be a problem anyway, as
people can normally do the point upgrade for free, and they are generally
just bug fixes so people don't consider it risky to upgrade.

A major number upgrade normally means 'This is significantly different and
breaks compatibility'.

>
>> In my experience, there are only two reasons for exchanging unfinished
>> recordings with other people, which will perhaps explain why DAW
>> compatibility is not considered a big deal in the industry:
>
>> 1 The recipient is going to mix the track.
>> 2 The recipient will overdub a few parts and send it back.
>
> I suppose that covers about everything, except for projects where
> several parts are added by different people and all the pieces come
> back to the "mothership" or the one doing the mixing. The usual way to
> handle that is to make a 2-track rough mix and have everyone overdub
> to that. But that 2-track mix will essentially be a consolidated file
> since it will run from the beginning to the end of the tune. It's no
> big deal to start a new project when all you need to do is import one
> stereo track. And what they send back, while it might have been
> punched until it bleeds, will be a contiguous file per track with
> minimal processing.

I like the way that people can only give me edited and continuous audio
parts when exchanging files in this manner. Total compatibility could just
mean deferring decisions, or temptation to fiddle and waste time.

'Punched until it bleeds' hehe!

hank alrich

April 2nd 07, 09:06 PM

Mogens V. wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Mogens V. wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes yes yes, I get the picture now :) Those were the issues I couldn't
> >>get to grasps with. Makes perfectly sense that most any DAW will be
> >>different WRT hardware setup, plugins et al, so of cause one cannot
> >>simply expect to be able to carry and load projects between setups.
> >>I was simply told otherwise, and had kindof expected a major app like PT
> >>to be setup-to-setup compatible.
> >>
> >>I'll reevaluate and select my shoppings not based on PT compatibility,
> >>but rather on my actual needs.
> >
> >
> > Two DAW's of the same version and configuration can swap projects (not
> > just the audio files, but the project file, too) easily if the project
> > is restricted to using plugins they have in common.
>
> Ohh? this is in contrast with dawg's comments earlier, that
>
> > You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
> > your project down in PT it is not automatically
> > compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
> > the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
> > in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
> > in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
> > DAW.
> >...
> > If the other guy has a close clone to your daw perhaps
> > on a really lucky day you could put your project into
> > another persons machine and get it to load up exactly
> > as it was when you saved it from your machine.
>
> AFAICT, the key point here is that two DAW's most likely won't have the
> same plugins. If the common plugins will open correctly, all is fine,
> but other replies here seems to suggest it's unclear how the non-common
> ones opens, and likewise with hardware differences, as in outboard gear
> hooked up, like a reverb thingy or a pitch transposer.

Right, if you want to do this with another party both of you must decide
what you're going to use and stick to using only what you in common,
both plugins and versions thereof.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

hank alrich

April 2nd 07, 09:06 PM

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Apr 2, 2:54 pm, "Mogens V." wrote:
>
> > Ohh? this is in contrast with dawg's comments earlier, that
> >
> > > You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
> > > your project down in PT it is not automatically
> > > compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
> > > the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
> > > in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
> > > in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
> > > DAW.
>
> This is why I asked further questions. Obviously a plug-in that
> doesn't exist can't load and an ouptut that isn't there can't be used.
> But I know that at least in the early days, ProTools mix files were
> interchangeable. Perhaps there are enough variations today that people
> use so that most of the time you have more things that don't work than
> it used to be, and if you have 96 tracks going on the studio machine
> and try to load that on your 5 year old laptop at home, there would be
> some (ahem) issues, but I would certainly expect that levels, edits,
> punches, mutes, and basic channel EQ and dynamics should be
> interchangeable between systems.

Correct as long as the DAW versions are identical. Depending on what
level of PT system is in use, this could include both the app version
and the hardware configuration if using TDM. Third-party plugins must
also be version-identical if one wishes fully to swap mix files and have
identical mix experiences.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Geoff

April 2nd 07, 09:58 PM

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:31 pm, philicorda
> > wrote:
>
>> It's rare that a recent upgrade of a DAW will save project files in a
>> format that an earlier version can read.
>
> Well, that totally bites. I can see Version 5 not being able to read a
> Version 7 project, but I would expect that at least a Version 7.3
> project should work on a Version 7.2 system other than perhaps for a
> feature that was used that wasn't added until the newer version.

That most cetainly is universally the case in most DAW systems. Dunno about
PT.

geoff

Mogens V.

April 2nd 07, 11:45 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>
>>On Apr 2, 2:54 pm, "Mogens V." wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ohh? this is in contrast with dawg's comments earlier, that
>>>
>>> > You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
>>> > your project down in PT it is not automatically
>>> > compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
>>> > the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
>>> > in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
>>> > in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
>>> > DAW.
>>
>>This is why I asked further questions. Obviously a plug-in that
>>doesn't exist can't load and an ouptut that isn't there can't be used.
>>But I know that at least in the early days, ProTools mix files were
>>interchangeable. Perhaps there are enough variations today that people
>>use so that most of the time you have more things that don't work than
>>it used to be, and if you have 96 tracks going on the studio machine
>>and try to load that on your 5 year old laptop at home, there would be
>>some (ahem) issues, but I would certainly expect that levels, edits,
>>punches, mutes, and basic channel EQ and dynamics should be
>>interchangeable between systems.
>
>
> Correct as long as the DAW versions are identical. Depending on what
> level of PT system is in use, this could include both the app version
> and the hardware configuration if using TDM. Third-party plugins must
> also be version-identical if one wishes fully to swap mix files and have
> identical mix experiences.

To me this seems most useful for either musicians in a band agreeing on
the same setup for each their own home studio, or for (pro) studios
doing work together.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

hank alrich

April 3rd 07, 12:51 AM

Mogens V. wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Mike Rivers wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Apr 2, 2:54 pm, "Mogens V." wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ohh? this is in contrast with dawg's comments earlier, that
> >>>
> >>> > You seem to not get the fact that just because you put
> >>> > your project down in PT it is not automatically
> >>> > compatible with all other PT rigs. If you do not have
> >>> > the same type ( LT Free TDM etc) or a different, used
> >>> > in project, plug in configuration it will not load up
> >>> > in another, non clone to your DAW, like it was in your
> >>> > DAW.
> >>
> >>This is why I asked further questions. Obviously a plug-in that
> >>doesn't exist can't load and an ouptut that isn't there can't be used.
> >>But I know that at least in the early days, ProTools mix files were
> >>interchangeable. Perhaps there are enough variations today that people
> >>use so that most of the time you have more things that don't work than
> >>it used to be, and if you have 96 tracks going on the studio machine
> >>and try to load that on your 5 year old laptop at home, there would be
> >>some (ahem) issues, but I would certainly expect that levels, edits,
> >>punches, mutes, and basic channel EQ and dynamics should be
> >>interchangeable between systems.
> >
> >
> > Correct as long as the DAW versions are identical. Depending on what
> > level of PT system is in use, this could include both the app version
> > and the hardware configuration if using TDM. Third-party plugins must
> > also be version-identical if one wishes fully to swap mix files and have
> > identical mix experiences.
>
> To me this seems most useful for either musicians in a band agreeing on
> the same setup for each their own home studio, or for (pro) studios
> doing work together.

You got it.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

sabdillah

April 3rd 07, 12:36 PM

A lot of smaller studios here in the UK use Logic Audio and Cubase. I
have been suprised how many in fact. Lets face it a PTHD system costs
a lot of money, so if you need to track audio into DAW personal
studios and small commercial studios will try to look for other
alternatives where they can get away with it.

Don't consider a DAW based on what your pears are using. Have a play
and ask yourself how does this feel in terms of workflow? Does it fit
with how you work? Some people find PT amazingly simple some people
don't? A DAW solution is a personal choice. I recently saw a demo of
PTLE in a shop in London and loved it so did a switch recently to it.
No other reason whatso ever other than workflow. In fact pound for
pound Sonar and Cubase had more buttons to press than PTLE but it
really isn't about that. I was fed up of wrestling with Sonar and
Cubase finding myself pressing more buttons than making music.

But for others it might be the complete opposite.

PT certainly has it downs too.

People are right in this thread to point out that WAV and AIFF are the
raw audio standards so the DAW mismatch is not a show stopper.
Although a software match would be nice for a project. But if the
whole world was using Sonar, as a newly found PTLE user I would never
switch back (just IMHO).

On Apr 2, 7:47 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Mogens V. wrote:
> > Yes yes yes, I get the picture now :) Those were the issues I couldn't
> > get to grasps with. Makes perfectly sense that most any DAW will be
> > different WRT hardware setup, plugins et al, so of cause one cannot
> > simply expect to be able to carry and load projects between setups.
> > I was simply told otherwise, and had kindof expected a major app like PT
> > to be setup-to-setup compatible.
>
> > I'll reevaluate and select my shoppings not based on PT compatibility,
> > but rather on my actual needs.
>
> Two DAW's of the same version and configuration can swap projects (not
> just the audio files, but the project file, too) easily if the project
> is restricted to using plugins they have in common.
>
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Ty Ford

April 3rd 07, 01:46 PM

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 12:43:38 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article . com>):

> Some day there will be a standard for more of this kind of stuff, but as long

> as DAW programmers have their own take on how edits and fades and mixes are
> handled, there will be some data that won't be shared among programs.

Don't hold your breath. The makers of wireless body mics haven't been able to
standardize mic connectors and aren't likely 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=4RZJ9MptZmU

Ty Ford

April 3rd 07, 01:49 PM

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 16:58:45 -0400, Geoff wrote
(in article >):

> Mike Rivers wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2:31 pm, philicorda
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> It's rare that a recent upgrade of a DAW will save project files in a
>>> format that an earlier version can read.
>>
>> Well, that totally bites. I can see Version 5 not being able to read a
>> Version 7 project, but I would expect that at least a Version 7.3
>> project should work on a Version 7.2 system other than perhaps for a
>> feature that was used that wasn't added until the newer version.
>
> That most cetainly is universally the case in most DAW systems. Dunno about
> PT.
>
> geoff
>
>

PTLE opens old sessions. Actually it leaves the old session file alone and
opens a new session based on the old session.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU