The Tide Is Changing...PT users getting restless.

[timlloyd]

That really is excellent, thanks for the vid. I love how turning off the cue mixes cleans it all up ... slick.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by timlloyd

That really is excellent, thanks for the vid. I love how turning off the cue mixes cleans it all up ... slick.

Yeah, it's pretty cool. I think all native DAWs that also happen to partner with hardware mfg's (Cubase, Sonar, DP, Logic, etc) will eventually end up doing something similar with paired hardware. Cubase already did it with the MR series but the controls were in-line, not on the faders and pans.

Just to be clear, the standard "cue mix" functions shown there work with any hardware. The only difference would be that you won't have a "Z" on anything, you won't have the direct hardware switching, but the software cues work the same way. So even if you're monitoring through the software at 32 samples or whatever with a MOTU device or something, the cue system is still really convenient and works the same way.

They make a 32 I/O lightpipe device but it's FW, which I don't use in the studio. If it were a PCI card my 2408 would have been replaced with it already. Having total control over the entire DSP mixer from the daw mixer's faders and pan is the best case scenario for native.

[JonnyGinese]

It would be nice if there was a way for Reaper to do this with multiple brands of interfaces. I wonder how hard it really would be...

[timlloyd]

Kinda surprised Logic and Apogee haven't done this already :-/ ... they've missed a trick there.

Originally Posted by JonnyGinese

It would be nice if there was a way for Reaper to do this with multiple brands of interfaces. I wonder how hard it really would be...

Probably really hard. They would have to team up with them, doesn't seem to me like the kind of thing that would work properly if it was 'hacked' into.

Someday maybe ...

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by JonnyGinese

It would be nice if there was a way for Reaper to do this with multiple brands of interfaces. I wonder how hard it really would be...

The logical thing would have been for Steinberg to put that into the non-existent ASIO DM v3 spec to define that for everyone so every ASIO3 hardware and driver could have it and every ASIO 3 compatible software DAW could do it with any ASIO 3 hardware. That was my expectation of what might happen long before the S1 thing even existed.

Short of something like that it has to be a proprietary pairing of hardware software. But the proprietary thing also has the advantage of being cross platform, it also works on OSX, which ASIO DM doesn't... I don't think.

[JonnyGinese]

I honestly don't mind using the PreSonus' Control panel... I just think of it as my soundboard. And if I wasn't on a 1366x768 resolution laptop most of the time an I was on my maybe studio rig with dual monitors it would make it even more enjoyable.

I think the M-Audio profire 2626 actually has built in FX while monitoring which is pretty awesome. It won't process plugins but you can put some reverb or amp modelers on tracks while still recording a dry signal.

[Lawrence]

Once these hardware mfg's start putting their hardware DSP plugs "in-line" allowing you to monitor with them and also use them in the mix, it will be pretty much just like HD. You should be able to load a VST plug that gives you direct control over the hardware DSP plug-in (UAD?) like with the Steiny MR series where you can both monitor and/or mix with the hardware plugs on those devices from inside Cubase.

You would think MOTU would have all of their cue mix DSP plugs showing on the screen right inside their DP software, and allow their software total integrated control over their own hardware mixing and plugs that way, from right inside DP.

Maybe they already do, dunno, can't say I've used DP. Seems like a logical thing to do if you make both the hardware and the software.

[airon]

That's a fine tracking rig for small budgets, and with operation security through high driver latency built right in, it'll work on even the most rickety laptop that has a working firewire connection .

Timecode stamping is the icing on the cake. A real alternative to using a mixer-based tracking rig.

[Lawrence]

The future of native is pretty bright indeed.

The beauty (and logic) of using a proprietary hardware I/O solution - once every DAW has one available - is that it will have zero impact on sound quality so you'd pick your hardware I/O purely for *functionality only*, not for converters or sound quality, and push your digital signals into it from wherever.

So using (for example) a PCI or FW card with lightpipe I/O, you can use most any pre-amps you want. There are tons of good single rack space 8 channel pres with ADAT outputs.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by timlloyd

Kinda surprised Logic and Apogee haven't done this already :-/ ... they've missed a trick there.

The old Logic PC version could control the corresponding hardware channel when the track was in record mode. (circa 2000).

Karbo

[Lawrence]

Anyway, back on topic...

PTHD's advantage over native is quickly diminishing. The only real practical advantage it will have left is having VSTI's loaded on hardware chips, and always being able to play them in real time with no input latency.

Very large VSTI's tend to stress the native CPU much more than audio plugs so that advantage is still a pretty big one. If PTHD can load it, it can play it without glitching because the hardware resources are dedicated. This assumes there is such a thing as a TDM instrument of course.

I also seriously doubt if PTHD is the last of the "dedicated hardware" line from AVID. If they make a new card set with the equivalent of 32 i7 cores, the game will be reset once again.

[airon]

I can only think of one TDM instrument right now. Virus.

Is there anything else? RTAS is bad, bad, bad for efficiency as we all know.

It's a nice tracking rig I suppose. And it's nice for post production purposes, to a certain degree. We do curse it a lot.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by airon

I can only think of one TDM instrument right now. Virus.

Is there anything else? RTAS is bad, bad, bad for efficiency as we all know.

It's a nice tracking rig I suppose. And it's nice for post production purposes, to a certain degree. We do curse it a lot.

Yeah, PTHD wasn't initially designed to be a synthesizer or sampler so RTAS performance for virtual instruments hasn't hurt them with their core customers base, most of which who spend the most money at AVID don't even use virtual instruments.

I've always thought (in this modern age) HD was overkill for the production of a typical 4 minute pop song in the small studio anyway... financially, which is why I spent my budget on a digital console. However, I do suspect most people recording orchestras and similar who are billing out at $5k a day wouldn't really use anything but PTHD or Logic on Mac... well, at least back when Logic could talk directly to the TDM hardware.

Everything has a context and the context of Cubase and Reaper and the others is they are very good at what they do. The context of HD is that it is also very good at that other thing. Once you dedicate hardware to the others (and integrate it like we talked about above) they too can become very good at that other thing... without an actual hardware mixer.

If anyone here is suggesting they'd actually gamble on Reaper or Cubase or whatever running at 32 samples latency for 72 inputs, 24 cues, 12 outboard inserts on the 0 latency cues (something DM can't yet do without some roundabout patching), if the $5k a day (or $5k an hour) orchestra budget was coming out of their own pocket, I'd say they're either stretching the truth or they've not actually done it yet.

[Janne83]

I recently bought PT 9 because of compatibility needs and I can say that is a very nice program (like it was in the days I started in the music bussines and was one of the best options on the mrket).
What really shines its their integration with hardware like you said(at least the HD and before the Mix systems). I used Control 24 and Pro Control in the past years and they are really fun to use when tracking and mixing. Also I had a chance to try out their Icon system and it is a joy to use once you get around it.( I dont remember a single hiccup during any of sessions) But they are pricey for a small business use.

As far as it goes for the regular PT9 software I think they fell behind with the progress comparing to Reaper or any other prospering software. PT shines at audio editing but their MIDI and Vi compartment is a disaster(specially resources wise). But as it was said PT wasnt made for VI department in the first place.
Theyll have to pickup their pace if they want to stay in the playing field.

Also Logic is falling behind at the moment, but it is opposite than PT it quite shines on VI field but its audio editing section is in the stone age comparing to other options. Thats why Im personally using Reaper more and more in the last few months.(it is a wonderful compromise at both ends)

The main thing that really bothers me with this bigger audio software solutions is the slowness of updating. Its terrible.(specially Logic which gets an insignificant update once a year leaivng the majority of most annoying bugs still present an also introduces new ones as gratis) On the Mac side this will also become very irritating very soon when Lion gets introduced becuse it leaves some of backward compatibility behind( Rosetta,....)

J

[Eyes]

Originally Posted by Janne83

On the Mac side this will also become very irritating very soon when Lion gets introduced becuse it leaves some of backward compatibility behind( Rosetta,....)

J

Heya,

What do you mean? I thought snow kitty didn't have Rosetta installed by default. Are they removing Rosetta completely?

Won't this mess with Pro Tools due to the framework it is built upon (can't recall the name). I know Lion is already having issues with PT9. Knowing it took like 8 months for Mboxes to work on Win7 this could be another slow process. I know some of the plugins in Cubase (Tonic ;___ rely on Rosetta as well so don't work by default on snow kitty.

[Janne83]

Originally Posted by Eyes

Heya,

What do you mean? I thought snow kitty didn't have Rosetta installed by default. Are they removing Rosetta completely?

Won't this mess with Pro Tools due to the framework it is built upon (can't recall the name). I know Lion is already having issues with PT9. Knowing it took like 8 months for Mboxes to work on Win7 this could be another slow process. I know some of the plugins in Cubase (Tonic ;___ rely on Rosetta as well so don't work by default on snow kitty.

Yes the frameworks are called Carbon and Cocoa.
As far as it was said they will remove Rosseta completely yes, which will remove usage of any PPC software.
On the bright side, hopefully this will also help to quicken the pace of Avids and other developers 64bit developement.

I personally dont bother too much because I have no intention too update to Lion until it reaches .2 update (or by the time everything gets working properly) Well see then Im very happy with Snow Kittys performance
Also Native instruments made an announcement that their 64 bit plugs have problems working with Lion and updates will be available till September.

J

[Bristol Posse]

I think it's kind of funny that for years the non PT DAWs have used the non integration of specific hardware as a major plus point to sell the software. Even on the front page of REAPER's site it says "No arbitrary hardware or software restrictions" in one of the reasons why you should use reaper.

So I think it's kind of funny to read that all other DAWs need to compete with PT is to include arbitrary hardware and software restrictions. It's probably true to be truly high end but still funny from a home user perspective

Any I could care less what PT users think about PT, pick a DAW that has the feature set you need, learn it use it and stick with it. All the rest is just distraction that gets in the way of making music. I'm not even going to bother with Reaper 4 until I find something Reaper 3 can't do for me or until they integrate VST3 because I know how to do what I want to do with 3 and don't want to have to relearn until it becomes absolutely necessary

Heck I could have recorded a backing vocal in the time it took me to read and reply to this :-)

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

So I think it's kind of funny to read that all other DAWs need to compete with PT is to include arbitrary hardware and software restrictions. :-)

No clue what you mean. Nothing I talked about here is "arbitrary" nor a "restriction". They are in fact additional choices on top of all the other choices.

It's not fewer options, it's more? The option to do what you do already but never need a third party cue mix software app running, since you already have a software mixer running.

Not sure how that's an arbitrary restriction. I think it's called additional functionality.

[Bristol Posse]

No clue what you mean. Nothing I talked about here is "arbitrary"

perhas I didn't get the jist from some of the other posts like:

The beauty (and logic) of using a proprietary hardware I/O solution - once every DAW has one available

Yeah, it's pretty cool. I think all native DAWs that also happen to partner with hardware mfg's (Cubase, Sonar, DP, Logic, etc) will eventually end up doing something similar with paired hardware

It's a bit ridiculous (imo) to be partnered with one of the largest and most powerful musical hardware mfgs on the planet and not have a total hardware solution for your top of the line DAW like Nuendo or Cubase. Go figure

and various others that seem to point toward a desire that using specifically paired hardware to get the full funtionality out of the DAW is the way forward

since I tend to skim/speed read I may have missed the nuances though if so My bad

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by Bristol Posse

perhas I didn't get the jist from some of the other posts like:

You obviously didn't (?) since nothing there is arbitrary, restricted or anything else you suggested. They're all just additional - options - on top of all the other native hardware *options*.

You seem to miss that it's all optional? If you want to pair up proprietary hardware and software to get certain functionality (again, see Steiny's MR series hardware) you can do that, or not.

Not sure how that is an "arbitrary restriction" or anything else you talked about when most people using Cubase choose not to use their hardware. It's just a choice.