[Robert[_5_]]

I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

Robert

[Steve[_3_]]

Hi;

I tried ProTools back when I was sort of figuring out this whole home studio
thing. I tried PT M-Powered V7, Cubase SX3 and Adobe Audition 1.5. I liked
Adobe Audition's interface and ease of use but it started showing it's
limits as I got deeper into tracking and mixing. It's possible Audition got
better in the later versions. I went with Cubase SX3 because I found the
interface similar to Audition. ProTools I didn't like right off the bat
because it seemed not so user friendly when I installed it. I usually play
with software to learn it rather than being an "R.T.F.M." guy. The other
thing was Protools will only work with Digidesign hardware or M-Audio
hardware. I didn't have enough money for Digi hardware and wasn't a big fan
of M-Audio hardware which limited my choices to Cubase or Adobe (I use a
Tascam interface now)..

Hope this helps.
Steve

"Robert" wrote in message
...
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

Robert

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 2:21*pm, "Robert" wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

Robert

Unless the cost difference is not a concern to you or you can charge
back the investment to clients, there isn't really a big reason not to
use ProTools LE. It's a fine application (if you're dedicated to
ProTools). Personally, If you're not already committed to the
Digidesign hardware, I'd look at another DAW that is more flexible in
terms of what hardware you can use with it. Basically, with ProTools,
the Digidesign hardware is a big dongle. That being said, ProTools LE
is a perfectly fine application and its files will transfer over to a
ProTools HD system if you ever need to transfer your file to a studio
equipped with one. Also, you can use almost any other audio
application with the Digidesign hardware through core audio on a Mac.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 16:21:33 -0500, "Robert"
wrote:

I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!


If you were considering a full ProTools setup I can (just about) see
reasons why. But LE? Why tie yourself to a restricted choice of
hardware?

[HKC]

If you already have a Mac buy Logic 8 instead, it so superior to PT LE that
it's ridiculous and have no hardware restrictions.
I have met quite a few people who have bought PT LE (they seem to be for
sale very cheaply quite often) and after a little while have abandonned it
again because it simply didn't meet their demands.
One reason to buy PT LE though is if you need to open PT files. Digidesign
have very cleverly made their formats incompatible with most of the
competition (you can buy an OMF add-on, I know) so if you regularly switch
platforms it may force you to get PT LE, otherwise well.....I wouldn't.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Robert wrote:

I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

I asked a similar question on this group a while ago. The only valid
reason for using it seems to be "Because everyone else uses it".

I personally hate it and will only use it if there is no alternative.
Even then, I only edit the section in ProTools that I need to, then drop
it into the rest of the recording. For the sort of objective mono or
stereo cut-and-paste editing that I do for my living, ProTools would be
a useless millstone.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:23:45 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

I personally hate it and will only use it if there is no alternative.
Even then, I only edit the section in ProTools that I need to, then drop
it into the rest of the recording. For the sort of objective mono or
stereo cut-and-paste editing that I do for my living, ProTools would be
a useless millstone.

Fine - if you don't need a multi-track production program it's silly
to use one.

But for the same reasons do you hate Cubase, Sonar etc.?

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:23:45 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

I personally hate it and will only use it if there is no alternative.
Even then, I only edit the section in ProTools that I need to, then drop
it into the rest of the recording. For the sort of objective mono or
stereo cut-and-paste editing that I do for my living, ProTools would be
a useless millstone.

Fine - if you don't need a multi-track production program it's silly
to use one.

But for the same reasons do you hate Cubase, Sonar etc.?

I haven't tried using them.

For me the biggest problem with ProTools is the learning curve that
comes with bloated software - and the completely counter-intuitive
interface. Additional niggles include the inability to leave marker
points embedded in the wavform and the need to use a mouse to perform
frequently-needed tool changes where a keyboard shortcut or modifier key
would be more appropriate. (If you are going to tell me that there is a
keyboard shortcut which I have never found, that says a lot about the
useless instructions, which are another gripe.)

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 04:22:49 -0400, HKC wrote
(in article ):

If you already have a Mac buy Logic 8 instead, it so superior to PT LE that
it's ridiculous and have no hardware restrictions.

Does Logic 8 run on a PC? No? Hmm, that must be a hardware restriction.

I have met quite a few people who have bought PT LE (they seem to be for
sale very cheaply quite often) and after a little while have abandonned it
again because it simply didn't meet their demands.

Which demands.

One reason to buy PT LE though is if you need to open PT files. Digidesign
have very cleverly made their formats incompatible with most of the
competition (you can buy an OMF add-on, I know) so if you regularly switch
platforms it may force you to get PT LE, otherwise well.....I wouldn't.

Most operators who can't export wav files from PTLE are decidedly unclever. I
import and export with PTLE as needed with no problems.

If your going to cite reasons, make 'em good ones. I'm on record as not
liking the USB boxes; protools or anyone. But if you start at the Firewire
level, then things work a lot better.

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]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:40:54 -0400, Adrian Tuddenham wrote
(in article . invalid):

Fine - if you don't need a multi-track production program it's silly
to use one.

But for the same reasons do you hate Cubase, Sonar etc.?

I haven't tried using them.

For me the biggest problem with ProTools is the learning curve that
comes with bloated software - and the completely counter-intuitive
interface. Additional niggles include the inability to leave marker
points embedded in the wavform and the need to use a mouse to perform
frequently-needed tool changes where a keyboard shortcut or modifier key
would be more appropriate. (If you are going to tell me that there is a
keyboard shortcut which I have never found, that says a lot about the
useless instructions, which are another gripe.)


You want a count-intuitive Mac-based audio software? Try Soundtrack Pro.

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

[HKC]

Ty Ford: Does Logic 8 run on a PC? No? Hmm, that must be a hardware
restriction

Even if it did run on PC it wouldn't really matter if the guy has a Mac,
come on....


Ty Ford: Which demands¨

All kinds, too little midi, to few FX, bad costumer service (slow updates
mostly) but in general it's not really that sophisticated a program I find
so there are many shortcomings but of course it depends on what you want to
use it for.


Ty Ford: Most operators who can't export wav files from PTLE are decidedly
unclever. I import and export with PTLE as needed with no problems.

I was actually referring to bring stuff to PT.
You have to bounce all the files and make them start at the same place, if
you have 48 tracks that takes a long time. I didn't say I didn't know how to
do it, I just said that it is a hazzle.


Ty Ford: If your going to cite reasons, make 'em good ones.

I think it's a good one.......


You can disagree as much as you want but all my points would be
considerations for me. You may make sense to some but in this case you don't
to me. I guess we must use DAWs very differently.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:58:40 -0400, HKC wrote
(in article ):

You can disagree as much as you want but all my points would be
considerations for me. You may make sense to some but in this case you don't
to me. I guess we must use DAWs very differently.

Actually it amazes me is that people DO use them so differently. +1

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

[Mike Rivers]

Robert wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

I think it's a wonderful choice if you have more time than money, which
is the case for most musicians who want to record their own music. It
will take a fair amount of pretty non-productive time to learn even the
basics, but there's not much you can't do with it once you get to using
it. Same is true with any DAW program, but ProTools is pretty much the
current industry standard so you'll find plenty of others using the same
system who can answer your questions.

Remember, though, that buying the software and interface doesn't make
you a studio. You need mics, monitors, decent acoustics in which to
record and mix, and most of all, experience. Let us know when you have a
good sounding released product in about five years.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[rboy]

On Jun 2, 7:40*am, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:

For me the biggest problem with ProTools is the learning curve that
comes with bloated software - and the completely counter-intuitive
interface.


Wow : ) We're very different, Adrian. I've owned DP, Logic and PT
for years (and had to dig into the others regularly for midi) and find
that a good description of the other two but not PT. I find it smooth
and intuitive. I hate when I have to do a session with anything
else.

But I surely will grant that not having file based markers is a
drag. And I often boot Logic up just to do offline DSP'ed bounces.
20 minutes beats 7 hours any day.

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

But if you start at the Firewire
level, then things work a lot better.

Firewire gives you that warmth right there in the interconnect. Heh,
what's in a protocol not to like?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Adrian Tuddenham]

rboy wrote:

On Jun 2, 7:40*am, (Adrian
Tuddenham) wrote:

For me the biggest problem with ProTools is the learning curve that
comes with bloated software - and the completely counter-intuitive
interface.


Wow : ) We're very different, Adrian. I've owned DP, Logic and PT
for years (and had to dig into the others regularly for midi) and find
that a good description of the other two but not PT. I find it smooth
and intuitive. I hate when I have to do a session with anything
else.

It sounds as if you are doing creative work whereas I am doing objective
sound recovery most of the time.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Bobby Owsinski[_2_]]

In article Ib01k.2291$BY1.325@trnddc06,
Mike Rivers wrote:

Robert wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

I think it's a wonderful choice if you have more time than money, which
is the case for most musicians who want to record their own music. It
will take a fair amount of pretty non-productive time to learn even the
basics, but there's not much you can't do with it once you get to using
it. Same is true with any DAW program, but ProTools is pretty much the
current industry standard so you'll find plenty of others using the same
system who can answer your questions.

Remember, though, that buying the software and interface doesn't make
you a studio. You need mics, monitors, decent acoustics in which to
record and mix, and most of all, experience. Let us know when you have a
good sounding released product in about five years.



I think what everyone is overlooking here is that PT is now the studio
standard. If you want to do any work on a pro level (especially
anything that requires file interchange with other operators), then PT
is the only way to go. And LE is an easy way to get into it without
laying out big $$.

Just look at what any major studio or post house uses and you'll see
it's PT. In my neck of the woods (LA) it's really hard to find any pros
using anything else except for the occasional Nuendo for Post and film
composer with DP, but that's maybe 5% at best of the total pro user base
in my experience.

That being said, I reluctantly switched to PT after years of DP, then
Nuendo. Glad I did since DAW life is far easier now. And let's face
it, most DAW's are pretty much the same anyway and it really becomes
personal preference at a certain point.

Now if you're a hobbyist, then there are certainly a lot of great
alternatives that I wouldn't think twice about using. But if your
intention is to do anything on a pro level, then get PT as save yourself
a lot of grief later on.

[Robert[_5_]]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:Ib01k.2291$BY1.325@trnddc06...
Robert wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for
running it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets
hear it!

I think it's a wonderful choice if you have more time than money, which is
the case for most musicians who want to record their own music. It will
take a fair amount of pretty non-productive time to learn even the basics,
but there's not much you can't do with it once you get to using it. Same
is true with any DAW program, but ProTools is pretty much the current
industry standard so you'll find plenty of others using the same system
who can answer your questions.

Remember, though, that buying the software and interface doesn't make you
a studio. You need mics, monitors, decent acoustics in which to record and
mix, and most of all, experience. Let us know when you have a good
sounding released product in about five years.

Well, I do have mics, monitors, a space to do it in and experience. I've
just been out of it for a while, so maybe it will only take 4.5 years....
LOL! People keep talking about pro tools midi features being not so hot....
why? I have done midi orchestra in the past with my antiquated mac and pre
digital performer.... maybe I should stick with the DP format. I'll have to
buy all new hardware and software anyway so I'm just looking to see what
other people are using. I will most likely only be recording my own stuff,
and not interchanging anything with a pro studio.

[Geoff]

Bobby Owsinski wrote:
In article Ib01k.2291$BY1.325@trnddc06,
Mike Rivers wrote:

Robert wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for
running it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use.
Lets hear it!

I think it's a wonderful choice if you have more time than money,
which is the case for most musicians who want to record their own
music. It will take a fair amount of pretty non-productive time to
learn even the basics, but there's not much you can't do with it
once you get to using it. Same is true with any DAW program, but
ProTools is pretty much the current industry standard so you'll find
plenty of others using the same system who can answer your questions.

The clever marketing that has enabled Digidesign and Apple become the Audio
and Computer monopolists.

Apple by their Bose-like advertising from way back that encouraged people to
believe that they are 'creative' if they use Apple.

And Digidesign partly by being early on the block, combined with the
subsequent cynically locking people into their own complete world.

Yeah, you can jump on the bandwagon. Or you can join the free world, and
import PT projects to use on your DAW of choice.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 8:13 am, Bobby Owsinski wrote:
In article Ib01k.2291$BY1.325@trnddc06,
Mike Rivers wrote:



Robert wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

I think it's a wonderful choice if you have more time than money, which
is the case for most musicians who want to record their own music. It
will take a fair amount of pretty non-productive time to learn even the
basics, but there's not much you can't do with it once you get to using
it. Same is true with any DAW program, but ProTools is pretty much the
current industry standard so you'll find plenty of others using the same
system who can answer your questions.

Remember, though, that buying the software and interface doesn't make
you a studio. You need mics, monitors, decent acoustics in which to
record and mix, and most of all, experience. Let us know when you have a
good sounding released product in about five years.

I think what everyone is overlooking here is that PT is now the studio
standard. If you want to do any work on a pro level (especially
anything that requires file interchange with other operators), then PT
is the only way to go. And LE is an easy way to get into it without
laying out big $$.

Just look at what any major studio or post house uses and you'll see
it's PT. In my neck of the woods (LA) it's really hard to find any pros
using anything else except for the occasional Nuendo for Post and film
composer with DP, but that's maybe 5% at best of the total pro user base
in my experience.

That being said, I reluctantly switched to PT after years of DP, then
Nuendo. Glad I did since DAW life is far easier now. And let's face
it, most DAW's are pretty much the same anyway and it really becomes
personal preference at a certain point.

Now if you're a hobbyist, then there are certainly a lot of great
alternatives that I wouldn't think twice about using. But if your
intention is to do anything on a pro level, then get PT as save yourself
a lot of grief later on.

Such a good soldier!

Besides not liking the edit paradigm much (a personal thing), LE is
problematic due to the hardware restrictions, no auto delay comp,
surround issues (I know about Neyrinck, but its still a workaround),
track number limitations, automation limitations. If you want to go
ProTools try to go for the big iron (TDM). That said--PTHD has been
around for awhile now, so I'd expect something new from them pretty
soon....watch out.

Philip Perkins

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:15:03 -0400, geoff wrote
(in article ) :

And Digidesign partly by being early on the block, combined with the
subsequent cynically locking people into their own complete world.

Yeah, you can jump on the bandwagon. Or you can join the free world, and
import PT projects to use on your DAW of choice.

geoff

Hi Geoff,

I wrote a lot of articles about emerging DAWs back in the day when you could
actually count them. The first story compared 12-13 systems. That's how many
there were. The next year it was twice that and the third year I had to use
an XL spread sheet because there were systems from $99 software to $250K. I
declined to write the fourth annual article because there was no way to do
good comparisons in 1600 words.

While it's true that Pro Tools was one of the early ones, there were others
that either died or were swallowed by other companies to be reinvented.

I take exception to your use of "cynical." The amount of person hours
required for adequate customer support alone (payroll for phone support
people) for a software as feature-full as Pro Tools with unlimited
third-party hardware options would likely make the software unaffordable.

From my perspective, a Digi 003 is a bargain, but then I paid $26K (which was
a very steep discount from the $46.5K) for my first DAW in December of 1990.

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: Hey, there's always Audacity.

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:07:06 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

From my perspective, a Digi 003 is a bargain, but then I paid $26K (which was
a very steep discount from the $46.5K) for my first DAW in December of 1990.

And, you have to admit, some old-timers just can't STAND the cheapness
of perfectly competent modern hardware :-)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 3, 6:15*pm, "geoff" wrote:
Bobby Owsinski wrote:
In article Ib01k.2291$BY1.325@trnddc06,
Mike Rivers wrote:

Robert wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for
running it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use.
Lets hear it!

I think it's a wonderful choice if you have more time than money,
which is the case for most musicians who want to record their own
music. It will take a fair amount of pretty non-productive time to
learn even the basics, but there's not much you can't do with it
once you get to using it. Same is true with any DAW program, but
ProTools is pretty much the current industry standard so you'll find
plenty of others using the same system who can answer your questions.

The clever marketing that has enabled Digidesign and Apple become the Audio
and Computer monopolists.

Apple by their Bose-like advertising from way back that encouraged people to
believe that they are 'creative' if they use Apple.

And Digidesign partly by being early on the block, *combined with the
subsequent cynically locking people into their own complete world.

Yeah, you can jump on the bandwagon. *Or you can join the free world, and
import PT projects *to use on your DAW of choice.

geoff



Ah yes. Nothing breed contempt so much as success : ) I know lots
of people hate the way Digi makes it so hard to use their products
without paying for them, but they're a business just like a grocery
store or a sock manufacturer. They don't owe us anything. I
honestly have no idea where the cynicism might enter in. Unless you
mean cynical about musicians paying for things if they can get away
with not paying for them, and a cursory glance at any craigslist
certainly bears this out.

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:28:30 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:07:06 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

From my perspective, a Digi 003 is a bargain, but then I paid $26K (which
was
a very steep discount from the $46.5K) for my first DAW in December of 1990.

And, you have to admit, some old-timers just can't STAND the cheapness
of perfectly competent modern hardware :-)

Laurence,

I hope you're not referring to me when you say "old timers" that "can't stand
the cheapness of modern hardware." I think today's hardware and software are
stunning relative to the early iterations.

I was able to sell the DAW for $750 a few years ago; software, tower,
hardware controller, CRT and disks.

That's about what it was worth.

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

[Geoff]

wrote:

Ah yes. Nothing breed contempt so much as success : ) I know lots
of people hate the way Digi makes it so hard to use their products
without paying for them, but they're a business just like a grocery
store or a sock manufacturer. They don't owe us anything.


But they make it hard for legitimate users to use full stop, and those who
subscribe do not have the freedom to compare other software on their
hardware, or vice-versa. Choice that they do have with pretty much all other
software and hardware.

FWIW, I pay for my hardware and software. I'm not talkiing about cheaping
out on pirated software here.


I honestly have no idea where the cynicism might enter in. Unless you
mean cynical about musicians paying for things if they can get away
with not paying for them, and a cursory glance at any craigslist
certainly bears this out.

No, cynical about the hardware/software interpedance ( which may have been
necessary many years ago, but not now), and the forced total system upgrades
, if you want to stay 'current'.

geoff

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:39:39 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote:

Laurence,

I hope you're not referring to me when you say "old timers" that "can't stand
the cheapness of modern hardware." I think today's hardware and software are
stunning relative to the early iterations.

I was careful not to refer to anyone specific at all :-)

[cporro]

i used protools up to version 6. then i switched to samplitude. still
there are good reasons to stick with protools. here is how i see it.

pros:
1) more studios run protools then anything else. so if you want to
take your LE sessions in and have them mixed/mastered professionally
on a HD system you can. not only will a pro have better ears then most
hobbyists, he will have more analog gear, a better room, speakers,
etc. thats what i did. its a nice option. its a bit more work to
export everything and then have them import it into protools.

2) interface. i break this type of software into 2 camps. DAWs that
came from software/electronica and daws that model hardware. just
talking about interface design here. protools' interface is based on
modeling hardware. i started on analog gear so protools made more
sense to me. but if you never used an analog mixer then this may not
be an advantage for you.

3) i still think protools has some pretty fast editing going on. one
feature, tab to transient, i can't find anywhere else. as basic as
that seems its very very handy and fast.

4) digidesign is large and probably won't go out of business over
night. thats nice since once you invest the time in learning a DAW and
do lots of work on it you want it to stick around.

5) community and training. i think there is more of this for protools
just because of it size.

why i switched:
1) protools locks you into hardware. there are more choices now then
when i ran it though. when i ran protools i had the 001 interface. i
never liked the sound. i could have gotten another interface and
lightpiped into protools but that essentially makes the 001 a very
large and expensive dongle. i still believe there is better hardware
for the money.

2) i also think there are better software packages for the price. no
one uses samplitude but if you look at everything you get for money
its a very good deal imho. samplitude comes with some pretty good
sounding eq, compressors, etc right out of the box.


so with protools i feel like part of what you are paying for is the
"infastructure". all the studios that run it, the large community, the
education programs, books, the stability of a large company. its not
just about software/hardware performance. if it was i'd look elsewhere
because i think a person can do better.

but take my ideas with a grain of salt. i'm no pro, just a guy in a
bubble with a day job.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

cporro wrote:

[...]
pros:
1) more studios run protools then anything else....

Everyone uses it because everyone uses it - that seems to be the biggest
single reason why everyone uses it...

For many people it could be quite an important consideration; but you
will see below why it doesn't apply to the work I do.


2) interface....

... i started on analog gear so protools made more
sense to me. but if you never used an analog mixer then this may not
be an advantage for you.

I was still editing with a razor blade on 0.25" tape long after everyone
else had gone digital. ...but you are right about never using a mixer.
My work is mainly archival transfers and the source machine is connected
directly to the destination machine with both calibrated to give an
exact 1:1 transfer. A mixer with variable controls would have been a
total disaster.

This is one of the reasons why ProTools is no use for archival work, it
can change the gain without the user realising it. I have occasionally
put short inserts (for artistic work) through PT and found they came
back at a different level even though the controls were set to zero
gain.

To do this, PT must have interpoated some of the samples, and to get
them back to the correct level would involve further interpolation,
which makes it an absolute non-starter for objective work.

[...]

...samplitude comes with some pretty good
sounding eq, compressors, etc right out of the box.

Funny thing... I've never used a compressor either. (I must be the only
person on this group who can claim that)

A while ago someone on this group enquired about uncompressed commercial
recordings and there was some difficulty finding any. I have an
uncompressed recording due for release soon (when we can sort out the
final tuning problems and do another take of it) which really shows the
full dynamic range which some instruments can give:

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/sounds/NewWorld.mp3

It is uncompressed because the organ buffs like to hear it 'as it really
is'. The variations in background level which sound like gain changes
are actually caused by the swell shades opening and closing.


[...]
but take my ideas with a grain of salt. i'm no pro, just a guy in a
bubble with a day job.

I suppose I count as a pro because I make part of my living doing sound
recording work; but your experience is just as valid as mine, even
though we work in completely different ways for our own good reasons.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Frank Stearns]

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

cporro wrote:

[...]
pros:
1) more studios run protools then anything else....

Everyone uses it because everyone uses it - that seems to be the biggest
single reason why everyone uses it...

It certainly does have its inertia... !!

For many people it could be quite an important consideration; but you

I recently added PT here for three reasons:

1. a primary mix client loaned me one of his PT packages to play with while they
were on tour, as he'd prefer to hand me PT files to mix directly rather than
messing around with intermediate transfer steps.

I'd heard some things in recent months that demonstrated that many of my sonic
complaints with PT had been fixed; it was worth another look and listen.

2. production schedule was getting so insane that I simply no longer had the time to
reset the analog console for each of the 11 different mix projects going on at the
same time.

3. Compatibility with other clients' needs.


I now have calibration procedures in place so that I can still stem out to the
analog console for summing, or simply leave it all in the box.

So far, so good. Just finished a mix of the concert version of "The Music Man"; 10
channels split from the PA company, 2 for the house, 2 for the chorus, 4 for the
orchestra. Sounds exceptionally good, but a lot of that comes from moving stuff in
and out as needed; the automation not only made this possible but also provided the
platform on which to make good sonics happen.

No way I could have done this on any but the highest-end automated analog console,
and even then there'd still be the issue of automated plugins (addressing EQ and
some comp differences between dialog and music sections of the live performance).

And, this highly complex mix was done in a relatively short time by a relative
newcomer to PT.

All in all, PT performed quite well for this project, though the last few months of
tuning the PC and getting everything else dialed in was not a joyful experience.


2) interface....

... i started on analog gear so protools made more
sense to me. but if you never used an analog mixer then this may not
be an advantage for you.


This is one of the reasons why ProTools is no use for archival work, it
can change the gain without the user realising it. I have occasionally
put short inserts (for artistic work) through PT and found they came
back at a different level even though the controls were set to zero
gain.

To do this, PT must have interpoated some of the samples, and to get
them back to the correct level would involve further interpolation,
which makes it an absolute non-starter for objective work.


Hmm. This is interesting... How much level deviation were you seeing? I'd first
suspect the A/D-D/A links rather than PT itself (assuming unity gain and no
plug-ins).

Part of my cal procedure for stemming out for an analog sum takes that into
account, and I've not seen anything odd. This is 7.3; it's surely possible earlier
versions were doing odd things. Apparently 7.x PT fixed a number of sins, but as a
new user I have no experience with earlier versions.


[...]

...samplitude comes with some pretty good
sounding eq, compressors, etc right out of the box.

Funny thing... I've never used a compressor either. (I must be the only
person on this group who can claim that)

I rarely use compression in my classical work, though sometimes I will use one to
negate the exaggerated dynamics of a closer-than-the-audience spot mic. The ratios
are small, and overall they're set for transparancy. Works quite well to keep
things "as music".

This recent mix used quite a few comps on the channels split from the PA company.
Lots of gain riding too as performers were moving on an off mic. I'd rather gain
ride than compress in that scenario; the comp here again was to "un-exaggerate" the
dynamics of a trained voice close-up on a so-so PA mic.

A while ago someone on this group enquired about uncompressed commercial
recordings and there was some difficulty finding any. I have an
uncompressed recording due for release soon (when we can sort out the
final tuning problems and do another take of it) which really shows the
full dynamic range which some instruments can give:

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/sounds/NewWorld.mp3

It is uncompressed because the organ buffs like to hear it 'as it really
is'. The variations in background level which sound like gain changes
are actually caused by the swell shades opening and closing.

Hard to comment on this, as I don't really know the original intent of the composer.
Odd sounding organ, almost more like a hurdy-gurdy; very dry room as well... But
this might be dead-on accurate.

Part of the potential problem with "full" dynamic recordings has to do with the
practical limits of the home listening environment v. the actual venue. Based on a
large number of factors, many musical, some technical, *some* dynamic control can be
useful and actually enhance the music, if properly used.

But that's getting into an entirely different discussion.

Frank Stearns
Mobile Audio

--

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Frank Stearns wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

[...]

This is one of the reasons why ProTools is no use for archival work, it
can change the gain without the user realising it. I have occasionally
put short inserts (for artistic work) through PT and found they came
back at a different level even though the controls were set to zero
gain.

To do this, PT must have interpoated some of the samples, and to get
them back to the correct level would involve further interpolation,
which makes it an absolute non-starter for objective work.


Hmm. This is interesting... How much level deviation were you seeing?
I'd first suspect the A/D-D/A links rather than PT itself (assuming unity gain
and no plug-ins).

The difference was several dB and this was in an imported file which was
already in digital form. No plug-ins were used.

Basically, I needed to add music & effects to a short section of a
talking book. The original narration had been recorded:
Mic Preamp DAT SPDIF ProTools card AIFF file PeakLE

The required section was Cut from the Peak narration file and Pasted
into a new mono document. That document was imported into a ProTools
session along with stereo music and effects. The gain on the speech
track at the beginning and end of the section was left at 0dB (although
it was varied over the mixing part of the performance).

When I Bounced the track back to AIFF and then Pasted it back into the
Peak narration file, I had to juggle the level to get the speech to
match up with the original. ProToools had changed the level without
warning me.



Part of my cal procedure for stemming out for an analog sum takes that into
account, and I've not seen anything odd. This is 7.3; it's surely possible
earlier versions were doing odd things. Apparently 7.x PT fixed a number of
sins, but as a new user I have no experience with earlier versions.

There is nothing in the instruction manual to warn the user that this is
likely to happen or the circumstances under which it could occur. For
archival transfers, which form the majority of my current work, things
like this must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. There
is only one way to avoid it for certain - use a different program.


...samplitude comes with some pretty good
sounding eq, compressors, etc right out of the box.

Funny thing... I've never used a compressor either. (I must be the only
person on this group who can claim that)
[...]
This recent mix used quite a few comps on the channels split from the
PA company. Lots of gain riding too as performers were moving on an off mic.
I'd rather gain ride than compress in that scenario; the comp here again
was to "un-exaggerate" the dynamics of a trained voice close-up
on a so-so PA mic.

If the original changes were made by hand, the only sensible way to
correct them is by hand too. At least in a digital system, you can do
that at leisure until you get exactly the result you want.


A while ago someone on this group enquired about uncompressed commercial
recordings and there was some difficulty finding any. I have an
uncompressed recording due for release soon (when we can sort out the
final tuning problems and do another take of it) which really shows the
full dynamic range which some instruments can give:

http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/sounds/NewWorld.mp3

It is uncompressed because the organ buffs like to hear it 'as it really
is'. The variations in background level which sound like gain changes
are actually caused by the swell shades opening and closing.

Hard to comment on this, as I don't really know the original intent of
the composer. Odd sounding organ, almost more like a hurdy-gurdy;
very dry room as well... But this might be dead-on accurate.

The organ is an Aeolian 'Residence Organ' (No.1458)
http://www.paulmorrismusic.co.uk

It is as accurate as I can make it. The acoustics of the room were
boomy with hard parallel surfaces, a short reverberation time and a lot
of external noise. Close-micing was the only way to do it, but that
suffered from an unexpected problem: the sound followed a zig-zag path
between the swell shades when they were partly-open and there were
horrible phasing effects between direct and double-reflected sound at
most of the conventional mic positions.

Eventually I discoved a position to one side which still gave reasonable
clarity and stereo effect but avoided the phasiness.
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/IMG_0615.JPG

A Residence Organ is intended for acoustics with shorter reverberation
times - but I would love to hear what this particular one would sound
like in a cathedral.

The 'player' was a Duo-Art paper roll, which is actually capable of
astonishingly realistic results. A lot of what you describe as "hurdy
gurdy" is caused by the mis-tuning of some of the reed pipe sections,
which the owner hopes to put right soon. (By the way, a hurdy-gurdy is a
stringed instrument with string drones; you were probably thinking of a
street organ)


Part of the potential problem with "full" dynamic recordings has to do with
the practical limits of the home listening environment v. the actual venue.
Based on a large number of factors, many musical, some technical, *some*
dynamic control can be useful and actually enhance the music,
if properly used.

But that's getting into an entirely different discussion.

I agree, there are few listening environments in which you can get the
full benefit of the dynamics of a recording like that, but to destroy
them in this particular case would be to nullify part of the reason for
making the recording in the first place. Many of the purchasers of this
CD want to know what it would be like to have one of these (extremely
rare) organs in their own house - provided their loudspeakers can handle
it!

I may have to include a Technical Note in the inlay card to warn against
possible damage to playback equipment and/or neighbourhood relations.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 04:17:46 -0400, Adrian Tuddenham wrote
(in article . invalid):

Frank Stearns wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

[...]

This is one of the reasons why ProTools is no use for archival work, it
can change the gain without the user realising it. I have occasionally
put short inserts (for artistic work) through PT and found they came
back at a different level even though the controls were set to zero
gain.

To do this, PT must have interpoated some of the samples, and to get
them back to the correct level would involve further interpolation,
which makes it an absolute non-starter for objective work.

And yet people master music CDs with Pro Tools many times a day.

Hardware inserts?

The possibility exists that there's a spanner in the works in your precedure.
I'd have to be there and see to be more sure.

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

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:17:46 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

The difference was several dB and this was in an imported file which was
already in digital form. No plug-ins were used.

Basically, I needed to add music & effects to a short section of a
talking book. The original narration had been recorded:
Mic Preamp DAT SPDIF ProTools card AIFF file PeakLE

The required section was Cut from the Peak narration file and Pasted
into a new mono document. That document was imported into a ProTools
session along with stereo music and effects. The gain on the speech
track at the beginning and end of the section was left at 0dB (although
it was varied over the mixing part of the performance).

When I Bounced the track back to AIFF and then Pasted it back into the
Peak narration file, I had to juggle the level to get the speech to
match up with the original. ProToools had changed the level without
warning me.

Could this be anything to do with moving between mono and stereo
environments?

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 04:17:46 -0400, Adrian Tuddenham wrote
(in article . invalid):

Frank Stearns wrote:

lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

[...]

This is one of the reasons why ProTools is no use for archival work, it
can change the gain without the user realising it. I have occasionally
put short inserts (for artistic work) through PT and found they came
back at a different level even though the controls were set to zero
gain.

To do this, PT must have interpoated some of the samples, and to get
them back to the correct level would involve further interpolation,
which makes it an absolute non-starter for objective work.

And yet people master music CDs with Pro Tools many times a day.

I'm not mastering music CDs with it, I'm making archival copies. If I
set it to 0dB gain it must reliably, without fail, *always* deliver 0dB
gain - each sample coming out must be the identical with the sample that
went in. If there is the slightest chance that it will do something
else, it is no use whatsoever as an archival tool.

A small change (or even quite a large one) doesn't matter much to
someone doing subjective artistic work, which was what I was doing when
I discovered the gain change; but I don't do that very often.


Hardware inserts?

The possibility exists that there's a spanner in the works in your precedure.
I'd have to be there and see to be more sure.

There may well be lots wrong with it, but as I don't use PT very often,
I don't have the time to spare to learn more about it. Perhaps this is
the opposite side of my original comment: I don't use PT very often, so
I don't know much about using it, so I don't use it very often.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:17:46 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

The difference was several dB and this was in an imported file which was
already in digital form. No plug-ins were used.

Basically, I needed to add music & effects to a short section of a
talking book. The original narration had been recorded:
Mic Preamp DAT SPDIF ProTools card AIFF file PeakLE

The required section was Cut from the Peak narration file and Pasted
into a new mono document. That document was imported into a ProTools
session along with stereo music and effects. The gain on the speech
track at the beginning and end of the section was left at 0dB (although
it was varied over the mixing part of the performance).

When I Bounced the track back to AIFF and then Pasted it back into the
Peak narration file, I had to juggle the level to get the speech to
match up with the original. ProToools had changed the level without
warning me.

Could this be anything to do with moving between mono and stereo
environments?

In PTLE a stereo file is split into a pair of mono tracks, so I was
effectively editing with lots of mono tracks (with a couple grouped for
convenience).

My guess it was caused by some automatic way of preventing overload when
multiple tracks might all peak at once, but there was nothing to warn me
that it was happening.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 14:22:05 +0100, lid
(Adrian Tuddenham) wrote:

Could this be anything to do with moving between mono and stereo
environments?

In PTLE a stereo file is split into a pair of mono tracks, so I was
effectively editing with lots of mono tracks (with a couple grouped for
convenience).

My guess it was caused by some automatic way of preventing overload when
multiple tracks might all peak at once, but there was nothing to warn me
that it was happening.

There ARE audio programs that have normalising functions as default -
mostly simple "rip tracks and burn your own CD" applcations.

But in this case I think it's merely a case of a newbee using
sophisticated software without learning it properly.

[Biasrocks]

On Jun 1, 5:21 pm, "Robert" wrote:
I am thinking of getting pro tools LE and a dedicated computer for running
it. I would like to hear pros and cons for home studio use. Lets hear it!

Robert

Cons

Primarily; no delay compensation for plug-ins.

Second; The hardware is only usable with Protools

Pros

Yes, I have PROTOOLS.

Mark

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT), Biasrocks
wrote:

Cons

Primarily; no delay compensation for plug-ins.

Really? Hasn't PT caught up with that yet?

Second; The hardware is only usable with Protools

I think you'll find it's the other way round.

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT), Biasrocks
wrote:

Cons

Primarily; no delay compensation for plug-ins.

Really? Hasn't PT caught up with that yet?

They're talking PT LE.

Second; The hardware is only usable with Protools

I think you'll find it's the other way round.


--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:09:02 -0700 (PDT), Biasrocks
wrote:

Cons

Primarily; no delay compensation for plug-ins.

Really? Hasn't PT caught up with that yet?

Second; The hardware is only usable with Protools

I think you'll find it's the other way round.

If ProTools doesn't have delay compensation, I'd better call back some
records I mixed :-) As for the hardware, the hardware works fine with
other programs. I use an Mbox when I mix in Nuendo here at the house.

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

I'm not mastering music CDs with it, I'm making archival copies. If I
set it to 0dB gain it must reliably, without fail, *always* deliver 0dB
gain - each sample coming out must be the identical with the sample that
went in. If there is the slightest chance that it will do something
else, it is no use whatsoever as an archival tool.

A small change (or even quite a large one) doesn't matter much to
someone doing subjective artistic work, which was what I was doing when
I discovered the gain change; but I don't do that very often.

If ProTools changed your gain, you did something to it. The program
works fine.



Hardware inserts?

The possibility exists that there's a spanner in the works in your precedure.
I'd have to be there and see to be more sure.

There may well be lots wrong with it, but as I don't use PT very often,
I don't have the time to spare to learn more about it. Perhaps this is
the opposite side of my original comment: I don't use PT very often, so
I don't know much about using it, so I don't use it very often.

I think you hit the nail right on the head, you are inexperienced with
the program.