Pro Tools - I found the fatal flaw

[soulkraka]

Like the Cub in Cubase as a euphemism for squarehead? Oh no! I'm a FruityLoops user. But hey I'm straight, so.............. I guess this whole line of reasoning has no Tracktion............

[Lunch Money]

I personally believe (and there are many i know of who agree) that offline rendering is great simply because it "forces" you to listen to the final edit one last time while it is being rendered, and more often than not, you'll notice something in the mix which could be improved upon or was overlooked.

Assuming you meant "realtime" rendering (offline being the kind that you DON'T listen to), that's a pretty silly argument. If I want to listen to a project one more time (make it *3* more times!!), I'll be pressing the 'play' button. A forced 'play' button isn't a feature no matter how you slice it. At best, it gives you no disadvantage over what most people would do anyhow.

In any case, it misses the point. Very few people are talking about doing that "FINAL" render, they're talking about bouncing tracks.

The rest of that logic was also iffy, including the very statements of the Digidesign dude himself. Even the creator of something can have false logic when it comes to the very product in question.

Greg

[ross g]

I personally believe (and there are many i know of who agree) that offline rendering is great simply because it "forces" you to listen to the final edit one last time while it is being rendered, and more often than not, you'll notice something in the mix which could be improved upon or was overlooked.

Assuming you meant "realtime" rendering (offline being the kind that you DON'T listen to), that's a pretty silly argument. If I want to listen to a project one more time (make it *3* more times!!), I'll be pressing the 'play' button. A forced 'play' button isn't a feature no matter how you slice it. At best, it gives you no disadvantage over what most people would do anyhow.

In any case, it misses the point. Very few people are talking about doing that "FINAL" render, they're talking about bouncing tracks.

The rest of that logic was also iffy, including the very statements of the Digidesign dude himself. Even the creator of something can have false logic when it comes to the very product in question.

Greg

i guess you don't get paid by the hour...

[hoffy]

Ok, obviously i meant realtime as opposed to offline... excuse the typing error.

In any case, my statement wasn't an "argument", it was an opinion. I like that there is no offline rendering when it's time for the final mix. For bouncing tracks, it is a pain in the ass, but what the f**k, if you've got a decent computer you shouldn't need to be bouncing all that much during composition. And if you're using a mixer, and processing hardware in real-time, you couldn't use it anyway. So for all the poor sods writing sub-standard glitch-ambient-bullshit with their freeware SE garbage, i'm sure there's other hosts to cater for your needs

As for the rest of the logic being "iffy"... the main point is that offline rendering may compromise the quality of the outputed file.

"Iffy"..? What's "iffy" is that anyone could question Digidesign's logic, given they have created the most succesful music application anyone has ever seen, which is responsible for godknows how many amazing albums we've all listened to.

[Lunch Money]

That just shows that you lack critical thinking skills. The pervasive influence of ProTools is completely unrelated to whether or not there's logic in the argument.

Incidentally, "argument" here simply MEANS "opinion". It doesn't mean anything about confrontation. So when I say, "your argument", it's exactly saying, "your opinion", coupled with any facts you have chosen to introduce.

Offline rendering cannot compromise the quality of the output file. If anything, offline rendering is MORE accurate. Somehow you've confused "going slow" with accuracy, when the only thing to consider is the sheer, pure mathematics of it. During an offline render, the CPU doesn't 'trip' or 'skip' any digital information just because it's going fast. It goes fast because computers are capable of incredible numbers of calculations. No matter the speed it takes, during an offline render, it simply WILL NOT advance to the next sample until the current one is done with.

I get the sinking feeling that I'm talking to the wrong person about it, though, or at least using the wrong language. I don't mean English, I just mean the terminology and approach. Where you might be seeing confrontation (hence the "argument" vs. "opinion" gaffe), I only see logic and accurate information that could be discussed.

Greg

[hoffy]

Yeah, whatever.

In case anyone actually cares why there is no offline rendering, i offered an explanation that came pretty much from the horses mouth.

Oh, by the way: of course you only see "logic and accurate information". It's because you're so stuck up your own ass- Who's word should i take as fact on the matter of wether offline rendering would compromise the file it's outputted to- someone who works at Digidesign, or you?

Do you honestly think such a requested feature would be left out of Pro Tools without a f**king reason?

[kL]

Yes. They hate to change something -- moldy old code -- that lots of people are paying too much money for already. Why should they? They're not stupid.

And yes, I've made lots of albums on pro tools, know it inside and out, and hate the stupid fact that it has no non-realtime render. Among lots of other things. Which is why I wouldn't think of using it at home and get things done a lot faster there.

Lunch Money is right. Math is math. And let's not forget the main reason that all "pro" users use hardware mixers: Digidesign has also not seen their way clear to upgrade their summing bus, or, I should say, has done so desultarily, incompletely, and under duress. And it sounds bad. But who cares when you're mixing through a console?

[Mr. Tunes]

I do agree with the last listen statement, there have been many times when I have been forced to listen to a bounce one last time before uploading it or burning and found a mistake, the fatal flaws in my track. I think you have to use Pro Tools for like a year before you get used to this ritual though.

I think without all the arguing going on in this thread now, is offline rendering really the Pro Tools Fatal Flaw? If it was such a fatal flaw why would so many recording studios still be using it? post-production houses? To me fatal flaw involves a bug that makes the program unusable. The critique found in this thread has nothing to do with even editing, mixing or sequencing yet has everything to do with being upset with waiting a few extra minutes when you're done all those tasks.

why dont you pick on its weird midi sequencing features more than its slow bounce?

[Mr. Tunes]

Yes. They hate to change something -- moldy old code -- that lots of people are paying too much money for already. Why should they? They're not stupid.

I'm not sure how moldy the code in PT 7 is? They really reworked the program and it runs much faster for starters.

[kL]

That's right. There is no "fatal" flaw. Pro tools is alive and well. And in charge. Just like GWBush.

(no insult intended: I love the way it handles playlists. And it is getting better all the time: it's just doing it slowly.)

[hoffy]

That's fine kL, but I disagree. Digidesign didn't need to update their mboxes (which sold tonnes) with MIDI but they did that... they didn't need to introduce a cheaper version of the mbox pack with the m-audio cards but they did that. They've been quite willing to upgrade their software to suit their users.

And your point about digidesign and mixers misses what i was saying. If you're using hardware effects then realtime bouncing is useless. Lots of people mix without a console these days.

[kL]

True about the hardware effects. A very good reason for the *option* (not necessity) of real time bouncing. But then the option is always there if you're mixing to half inch, no matter what your host. Which is what a pro should be doing

But I'm sticking with my other part. Know anybody with a Digi 001 who has to throw it out -- or sell it cheap or take an absurd upgrade offer to stay in Digi-land if they want to go to OSX?

[Distorted_Mastermind]

Well Greg you might not have helped that person, but you sure helped me. Now just to make things a little interesting here......The offline render is pretty much 100% accurate, however sometimes little imperfections or say "that analog sound" can really do the trick. I would go crazy if i had to mixdown everything in realtime, not saying it's a bad option, just saying it sure as hell isn't or shouldn't be the only option.

[multree]

well to be fair... I really like Pro Tools.... it's the only thing I find very hard to accept....

I've come from Tracktion & Fruity myself using Tracktion for Audio and FL for BFD (cuz it really IS superb for mixing BFD)

but ProTools does all that in one app... and that was the beauty for me getting rid of using to hosts for one task....

well maybe BFD might get an export panel... that would help me get rid of this problem....

[multree]

True about the hardware effects. A very good reason for the *option* (not necessity) of real time bouncing. But then the option is always there if you're mixing to half inch, no matter what your host. Which is what a pro should be doing

But I'm sticking with my other part. Know anybody with a Digi 001 who has to throw it out -- or sell it cheap or take an absurd upgrade offer to stay in Digi-land if they want to go to OSX?

ask Putte if he still has his... I know he had one and doesn't use it anymore