If you had to stick to one DAW, which one would it be?

[Michael L]

That’s the outline for a whole book on the history of recording!
It shows how the choice of DAW is tangential to the creative process.

[audiojunkie]

That’s the outline for a whole book on the history of recording!
It shows how the choice of DAW is tangential to the creative process.

Agreed. The funny thing, is that it went on and on and on. I stopped at 3 pages because all of the writing I had done in the post previously, prior to the AI post. It had worn me out and I wanted to go get lunch.

For the tracking and recording process of an audio project, big pro studios with Pro Tools has seldom really been needed, and the argument that it is the DAW standard for this part of the process doesn't stand up. The choice of DAW truly is tangential to the creative process.

[Bunny_boy]

That’s the outline for a whole book on the history of recording!
It shows how the choice of DAW is tangential to the creative process.

I would recommend Perfecting Sound Forever by Greg Milner, which is a history of recorded music.

[whyterabbyt]

My comment is not pointed at any particular person. Rather, it is pointed at the argument that Pro Tools is the defacto recording industry standard.

Its not an argument, its a fact. You do understand what a defacto standard is?

I guess you're about to pove not.

Calling Pro Tools an industry standard in the tracking part of the process is a complete falsehood.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about processes, so your strawman about 'tracking' is irrelevant.

MOST musicians have have their own project “studio” in their own homes and on their own devices..
.
. Pro Tools has zero ground to stand on when arguing that it is the industry standard in this part of the process—hint, it’s not.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about processes, so this strawman is also irrelevant.

Pro Tools is the industry standard for music production MAYBE in the mixing and mastering steps of the process, but is absolutely NOT athe industry standard in the tracking part of the process.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about processes, so your strawman about 'tracking' is irrelevant.

This is a simple fact with insurmountable amounts of evidence from professionals and amateurs alike, from across the last 25+ years.

Your 'fact' is not a fact, its fallacious nonsense.

Pro Tools is no longer the industry standard for all of the industry for all parts of the process.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about 'all processes', so your strawman about 'all parts of the process' is irrelevant.

To those that are arguing that it is—Please Stop. [/rant]

Yawn.

[machinesworking]

……

Yeah using Black Flag recording in 78 and Elish whose entire record was in the box besides her voice proves you don’t really want to have a conversation, you aren’t even trying to make a point here…

Absolutely no one said that recordings aren’t made with other DAWs, the point was always that the industry uses Pro Tools as a standard, and there are reason for it. Black Flag recording on a cheap 4 track in 78 has dick to do with the conversation.

[whyterabbyt]

I am stating that while professional studios do get used for recording, these studios are no longer the primary place where the tracking process of a recording project takes place. And because of that, what DAW is used in pro studios is no longer the qualifying determiner of what is or isn't an industry standard DAW during the tracking process of a recording project.

Please learn what 'industry standard' means. The qualifying determiner of what is or isnt an industry standard is legislation or specification by an industry standards body.

In this specific case, I argue that Pro Tools, for the tracking part of a recording project, is no longer the industry standard, and should no longer be defined as such for that part of the recording project.

It never was industry standard, because it was never mandated by legislation or an industrial standards organisation.
It is a defacto standard in the recording and postproduction industries whether or not you think it is not sufficiently used in a single part of the processes of the recording and postproduction industries.

My point in all of this, is that there is very strong evidence that Pro Tools is no longer dominant for initial tracking in home and private studios, and that its “industry standard” status no longer applies uniformly across recording contexts.

It never was an industry standard, because it was never mandated by law, or any industrial standards organisation.

These days, Pro Tools remains dominant in large commercial studios, film/TV post production houses, and facilities expecting outside engineers--essentially in the mixing and mastering realms.

Yes, and that's what makes it a defacto industry standard.

However, outside of that niche realm, the world has moved on. This is evidenced through direct survey evidence (even here) that private home studios do not equal a Pro Tools-first environment.

Its clear you dont get the 'defacto' bit but do you not understand the 'industry' part of 'defacto industry standard' either?

So let's move on in this rambling mess of evidence.

Rambling mess of fallacies, you mean.

Pro Tools is NOT the industry standard in the tracking part of the recording process--there is no standard.

Yes, we know. Your whole rant is a strawman. Its a defacto industry standard, and that's a different thing.

[Michael L]

One of my favorite videos:
Grammy-winner (Beyonce) !llmind does a 'Song in an Hour' challenge, using an iPhone vocal track, a midi chord pack and standard plugins, on an old version of ProTools in his home studio:


02:43 - Track Build Begins In Pro Tools
03:35 - Dry Acapella
04:15 - Building A MIDI Chord Progression Using Keyscape & Cthulhu
08:24 - Select A Sound For Chords
09:44 - Print Piano To Audio Track
11:09 - Pitch Shift Piano Down
11:35 - Layer More Chord Sounds
13:54 - Build A Drum Kit Using NI Battery 3
17:04 - Mix Volumes To Leave Headroom
18:04 - Play MIDI Drums
22:43 - Print Drums To Separate Audio Tracks
25:09 - Program Bass Before Kick Drum
27:42 - Print Bass To Audio Track
28:20 - Arrange Loops & Label The Track
31:37 - Add Kick Drum
34:56 - Vocal Delay & Reverb Effects
37:32 - 'Chopped & Screwed' Pitch Effects With MTransformer
39:39 - Audition Passion Flute Kontakt Instrument
41:41 - Audition Spectrasonic Omnisphere Synth Patches
44:26 - Play MIDI Synth Lead Part
44:58 - Print Synth Lead To An Audio Track
46:09 - Synth Lead Sidechain Compression
47:46 - Work On The Arrangement
50:27 - Build The Track Finale
55:12 - Vocal Processing
1:00:51 - Subtle Use Of Auto Tune
1:03:04 - Listen Back To The Track
1:05:23 - Tidy Up Vocal
1:07:11 - Sidechain On Vocals
1:08:35 - Illmind Signature Intro Sound Effects & Full Track
1:12:18 - Master Compression
1:13:34 - Illmind On His Production Process

He uses other DAWs in other videos.

[audiojunkie]

My comment is not pointed at any particular person. Rather, it is pointed at the argument that Pro Tools is the defacto recording industry standard.

Its not an argument, its a fact. You do understand what a defacto standard is?

I guess you're about to pove not.

Calling Pro Tools an industry standard in the tracking part of the process is a complete falsehood.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about processes, so your strawman about 'tracking' is irrelevant.

MOST musicians have have their own project “studio” in their own homes and on their own devices..
.
. Pro Tools has zero ground to stand on when arguing that it is the industry standard in this part of the process—hint, it’s not.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about processes, so this strawman is also irrelevant.

Pro Tools is the industry standard for music production MAYBE in the mixing and mastering steps of the process, but is absolutely NOT athe industry standard in the tracking part of the process.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about processes, so your strawman about 'tracking' is irrelevant.

This is a simple fact with insurmountable amounts of evidence from professionals and amateurs alike, from across the last 25+ years.

Your 'fact' is not a fact, its fallacious nonsense.

Pro Tools is no longer the industry standard for all of the industry for all parts of the process.

a) You're falsely conflating 'industry standard' with 'defacto industry standard.' That undermines your claim about the latter completely.
b) Noone made any claim about 'all processes', so your strawman about 'all parts of the process' is irrelevant.

To those that are arguing that it is—Please Stop. [/rant]

Yawn.

You repeatedly raise the distinction between "industry standard" and "de facto industry standard". The distinction doesn't change my argument at all. There is no defined standard other than de facto industry standard for Pro Audio--if I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary. No industry governing body has ever named any DAW a standard, and you know that. Whether I added the word "de facto" to the front or not is irrelevant unless you are being pedantic.

[andypryce]

I think things get mixed up with Private spaces and Commercial Facilities. Yes, people finishing their recordings at their space with Various DAWs since forever and more and more each day, that is a fact. A lot of commercial facilities are closing down also a fact. The percentage of who does at home or who does at a studio is irrelevant. There can be only 5 commercial recording music studios left in the world and if all of them still use Protools it is still the standard of the commercial recording industry. If you need do some recordings and rent a random "commercial studio" and when you go there you do not expect them running FL Studio, you expect that they are most likely using Protools. Most media composers have secondary Protools rig that they record their stems and send as a project to dub stage certain that they are running Protools without ask at all. Compatibility and exchange is still very important in those areas.

Protools might not be the most used recording system and standard overall in the world but in commercial facilities it still is, no matter how many are left.

[whyterabbyt]

You repeatedly raise the distinction between "industry standard" and "de facto industry standard".The distinction doesn't change my argument at all.

No, it just renders it complete nonsense, particularly since you conflated the two.

There is no defined standard other than de facto industry standard for Pro Audio--if I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Why would I provide evidence for something I repeatedly said wasnt the case? Are you a complete moron? FFS, how many times do I have to say that its a defacto industry standard not an industry standard?

No industry governing body has ever named any DAW a standard, and you know that.

I know I know it, that's why Ive been saying it all along. I made the distinction for a reason.

Whether I added the word "de facto" to the front or not is irrelevant unless you are being pedantic.

No, its not irrelevant.

And if you think all that fallacious nonsense you posted refuted it being a defacto industry standard, you still havent learned what the term means. Your argument fails because none of it is relevant to how something is defined as a defacto industry standard.

[whyterabbyt]

A de facto standard is a custom or convention that is commonly used even though its use is not required.

Arguing that ProTools isnt the defacto industry standard in the recording industry because its not as commonly used as it used to be, or because its not always used for 'the tracking process' or because Billie Eilish didnt use it is as fallacious as arguing that the Windows PC isnt a defacto standard because some people have Macs, its not used always used for wordprocessing, and Billie Eilish doesnt use one.

[audiojunkie]

There can be only 5 commercial recording music studios left in the world and if all of them still use Protools it is still the standard of the commercial recording industry.

Well, according to whyterabbit, your use of the word "standard" would be "de facto standard", but I don't see him giving anyone else but me in the whole thread for colloquially stating it exactly like everyone else does, including you in your post. Let's see if he corrects you at all.

He doesn't seem to understand or accept colloquialisms unless they fit with his particular arguments.

[machinesworking]

Your argument fails because none of it is relevant to how something is defined as a defacto industry standard.

I think it's pretty much pointless talking to him about it, he brought up Black Flag home recording in 78 as an example FFS? His quote is anti dongle and none of those types have anything like a logical opinion on Pro Tools, because it's the mortal enemy™. He's ideologically opposed to PT, it's against his religion to admit it's useful for anything at all.

[audiojunkie]

You repeatedly raise the distinction between "industry standard" and "de facto industry standard".The distinction doesn't change my argument at all.

No, it just renders it complete nonsense, particularly since you conflated the two.

There is no defined standard other than de facto industry standard for Pro Audio--if I'm wrong, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Why would I provide evidence for something I repeatedly said wasnt the case? Are you a complete moron? FFS, how many times do I have to say that its a defacto industry standard not an industry standard?

No industry governing body has ever named any DAW a standard, and you know that.

I know I know it, that's why Ive been saying it all along. I made the distinction for a reason.

Whether I added the word "de facto" to the front or not is irrelevant unless you are being pedantic.

No, its not irrelevant.

And if you think all that fallacious nonsense you posted refuted it being a defacto industry standard, you still havent learned what the term means. Your argument fails because none of it is relevant to how something is defined as a defacto industry standard.

You really ARE a argumentative A**h*** that just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

[whyterabbyt]

You really ARE a argumentative A**h*** that just wants to argue for the sake of arguing.

Says the disingenuous little shit who specifically posted to argue for the sake of arguing with my categorisation of ProTools as a defacto industry standard.
Its only you that's allowed to argue I guess.

My comment is not pointed at any particular person. Rather, it is pointed at the argument that Pro Tools is the defacto recording industry standard.

Only one person previously used the term 'defacto' in this thread.