All ads Avid Protools - seems people abandon "industry standard"

[mike_the_ranger]

I thought in times of Covid19 a whole bunch of companies has advertised special discounts...

And I don't see the studio switching from ProTools (not only music but also film industries). Why should they? You get the right hardware bundled with the right software, being compatible to other studios. I'd agree some might have to think twice if doing an upgrade though. Because never change a running system and a PT8 or 9 still works fine. Maybe that *is* a problem of Avid having lots of customers not buying in every year but keeping their old stuff working On the other hand I don't know how many bedroom users are using PT. I at least know of schools and studios.

[curtiscole]

Pro tools is amazing and it's still my main DAW but their subscriptions are very hard to keep up with if you're not a commercial studio IMO. Still using PT 12.4 for this reason exactly.

[Trensharo]

...

Where PT shines is in a studio with PT hardware, HDX, etc. Big consoles. It's an extremely stable and mature platform for the most part, but only as long as you are part of the ecosystem to begin with. If you are mixing in large format mixing boards, or large amounts of recording sources at the same time (think orchestras) PT is really good at that kind of thing as long as you have the PT hardware to back it up.

...

Cubase is at least as stable as PT and doesn't require a specific ecosystem to work properly. And many use Logic for the same professional applications. There is really no justification for using PT anymore. Sure, I get it that it has been shoved into hands of students at professional audio engineering colleges (SAE and their many copycats) since the 1990s as "the industry standard", but it's really a mediocre product with typical American design flaws, that you won't see in software that was desgined by pedantic and compulsively orderly Germans (Logic, Cubase, Ableton to name a few).

Sure, I understand if an oldschool engineer like Dave Pensado does not want to change his usual ways any more, since he already went to the transition from analog to Pro Tools, but how younger engineers still put up with an inferior software like PT is really beyond me.

Honestly, German application designers are pretty reknown for completely shucking conventional design ethos on the platforms they design applications for. Cubase is no different. Have you used Samplitude, lately?

Logic Pro X only evades this largely because Apple has much stricter regulations for this on the App Store, and this is the way it is distributed (plus, it's owned by Apple).

I think the illogical and inconsistent UI is one of the biggest complaints about Cubase.

Pro Tools has been forced to maintain a specific workflow and UI/UX for the same reason as Media Composer. Their standing in the industry actually removes a lot of that flexibility from them, as the people who rely on their software are those who lose the most when their productivity is disrupted.

So excuse me while I chuckle as you talk about "typical American design flaws" while using the German developers as an example of the opposite. That is... rich.

-----

Pro Tools is "industry standard" because of where and by whom it is used.

It's not industry standard because some random forumers declared it so. I think people often confuse their opinion with fact, and too many people think an application "looking pretty" has anything to do with how well it does its job.

Pro Tools keeps the same design because there is a lot of money tied into it staying as consistent as possible for its users. It's practically enterprise software, like Microsoft Office - and we all know what happened when the Ribbon was introduced. Much smaller changes to Pro Tools and Media Composer incite uproars. There people don't care about looks, they care about productivity.

If half of the studios that use Pro Tools bleed 2 hours a week due to UI and other software changes do you realize how much money the income loses as a result of that decrease productivity? That's why it has remain largely stagnant. Trying to force these things through results in people staying on old versions, which wastes a ton of R&D Investment in useful features that they won't buy because they don't want to deal with the hassle.

Pro Tools' primary market isn't trying to produce EDM with this tool. They aren't looking for it to become a jack of all trades, generally behemoth like Cubase Pro. They just want it to remain a stable workhorse that addresses their needs, while adding market-specific enhancements as needed.

Nuendo is much cheaper than Pro Tools | Ultimate, so if it was all about cost and "looking pretty," we'd probably have already seen a massive exodus to compeptitors in that market.

It's about Ecosystem, Collaborative Workflow (an area where Avid is very strong), etc.

Pro Tools wasn't the first choice for hobbyists and upstarts, even when it was cheaper, so I doubt beginners not buying Pro Tools is really throwing their estimations into numerical hell. Any sales they get there is a bonus, similar to MAGIX selling Samplitude Pro X - when the flagship is $3k Sequoia that it sells to the Broadcast and Mastering House markets.