KVR Audio

Akanishta · Post by **Akanishta** » Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:17 am

Every pro studio I've been in or worked in used Pro Tools. It's still the industry standard at the commercial level.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:14 am

[DELETED]

cryophonik · Post by **cryophonik** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:21 am

TheoM wrote: why do people say the midi is so bad? I think it's really quite good! And inline which i love.

In my personal experience, the majority of the people who make say PT's MIDI is bad are newbs who have never even used it. While it's true that it may not have all the advanced MIDI capabilities that many of its competitors have, if a person can't complete a MIDI-centric track in PT, the problem isn't PT.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:48 am

cryophonik wrote:
TheoM wrote: why do people say the midi is so bad? I think it's really quite good! And inline which i love.
In my personal experience, the majority of the people who make say PT's MIDI is bad FL studio users

Very difficult job having to correct things all the time

cryophonik · Post by **cryophonik** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:55 am

incubus wrote:
cryophonik wrote:
TheoM wrote: why do people say the midi is so bad? I think it's really quite good! And inline which i love.
In my personal experience, the majority of the people who make say PT's MIDI is bad FL studio users
Very difficult job having to correct things all the time

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:55 am

[DELETED]

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:01 am

[DELETED]

mrcleats · Post by **mrcleats** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:59 am

Ever tried NI's Razor as a vocoder Theo? I like it a lot, but, yes, you'd be using it's own synth (but it's a synth that does work well at this job) - Vocodex is very good though, agreed. I wonder if anyone's managed to wrap it.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:50 pm

[DELETED]

mrcleats · Post by **mrcleats** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:39 pm

Well, you've got some options there, I didn't know Loom could do it myself (need to check that out, I've got it too).

Razor's good, can get gnarly but can do intelligible stuff too..

Whether it's worth burning your license on or not, though....c'mon, what's one more little plugin gonna hurt eh

?

Oh, and, yes, Reaktor 5.9 is AAX 64...
http://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-pa ... ls-11.html

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:07 pm

[DELETED]

pandashake · Post by **pandashake** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:36 pm

TheoM wrote:
why do people say the midi is so bad? I think it's really quite good! And inline which i love.

Because it used to be bad. Avid's really done some work in that area since PT8 (I believe that was the version). Glad to hear it's getting better, but for me, I've found a permanent home with Studio One v3.

kelldammit · Post by **kelldammit** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:05 am

pandashake wrote:
TheoM wrote:
why do people say the midi is so bad? I think it's really quite good! And inline which i love.
Because it used to be bad. Avid's really done some work in that area since PT8 (I believe that was the version). Glad to hear it's getting better, but for me, I've found a permanent home with Studio One v3.

I'd agree. The bad rep from the POV of a hardcore virtual-based midiot was pretty much well-deserved for the older versions. It wasn't always necessarily down to the midi editor, though (which by v8 was essentially DP LE + Sibelius LE, with some nice touches in the arrangement page).
RTAS performance (or lack thereof), and other missing features made virtual instrument work a more time-consuming and annoying affair. For me (versus reaper) I could run 1/5 of the same instruments before topped out cpu, and had to render, and then the renders took 5 times as long because they were real-time only. It was pretty frustrating when you'd been zipping along with faster than realtime bouncing since around y2k. So while mixing may have had tools for a faster workflow, production with virtual instruments was pretty much equally hobbled.

I know they've been working all of that out..and have since added some long overdue features. I've mostly been curious as to how pronounced the newer aax/performance enhancements actually are. For a point of reference, how does it stack up to say, cubase, in terms of virtual instrument performance?

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:00 am

[DELETED]

kelldammit · Post by **kelldammit** » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:46 pm

TheoM wrote:
pt and cubase are 1:1 for me on my mac in performance.

now that IS impressive!
i'd heard some talk about it being improved, but never with a good comparitive gauge like that.
i like how they've implemented the newer offline bounce features (to include or exclude specific inserts, even!).
i think i'd read that they'd dropped the cost to keep vanilla up to date ($100/annum)...if that's true, that's also good news. it puts them more in line with cubase/dp/logic, in terms of release cycle cost (around $200 every couple of years).
Now if they'd get rid of the LE/HD software model (improved as it may be), and remove the max track count cap altogether...it'd be a one stop shop for even large scale midiocy, like film scoring. Those that need the hardware for tracking or whatnot will buy it anyway, though i suspect those numbers are dwindling these days.

what real world proportion of pro studios, do you think still use PT of some kind?