KVR Audio

jack-the-pipe · Post by **jack-the-pipe** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:43 pm

Just wondering... I recently purchased SX3. Havent had a chance to get in to it yet, but was wondering what the whole "industry standard" thing about Pro Tools was. For $599, would I HaVe bEeN BetTer off WiTh the MBoX? What are the advantages / differences compared to SX and Sonar. I find it to be less compatible with the wide range of software out there. Am I on the right page? any iNfo is Much AppreciATed. thaNKs

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:49 pm

mmenta1 wrote:

Just wondering... I recently purchased SX3. Havent had a chance to get in to it yet, but was wondering what the whole "industry standard" thing about Pro Tools was. For $599, would I HaVe bEeN BetTer off WiTh the MBoX? What are the advantages / differences compared to SX and Sonar. I find it to be less compatible with the wide range of software out there. Am I on the right page? any iNfo is Much AppreciATed. thaNKs

I won't launch into the long explenation but the answer to your question is no. The PT that comes with the MBox is not "THE" Pro-Tools that is the industry standard in studios around the planet.

THAT Pro-Tools has its place mostly because it met so many standards of studio compatability that it became silly for shops to NOT have it. This was before the big explosion of affordable "hobby DAW" systems became affordable. There is much much more to this with both pros and cons of all DAW systems thrown into a big mess.

Sielsynth · Post by **Sielsynth** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:59 pm

I'll add my two cents to this as well. Unless you are working directly with studios or clientele that insist you give them files in the Protools format then you are not at an disadvantage. With many programs capable of exporting waves and broadcast waves format is not really a showstopper. It make take a little longer to get things arranged but it can be done. As to why most studios use protools who can difinitively say? It is a great program for audio manipulation and mastering, but like SJ_Digriz mentioned the m-box is along way from a full blown Protools HD system. The software is almost the same and the files are compatible with Protools HD systems. So if you work directly with someone who needs protools format then it might be woth your while. I get a little static occassionaly from guys who want protools files, but after I show them how to work around the problem usually goes away. Also, most studios I've worked with have several sequencing programs and Cubase is usually one of them.

highdropod · Post by **highdropod** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:10 pm

Protools is extremely over-hyped. I've ranted about this elsewhere in this forum.

jsd · Post by **jsd** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:14 pm

the reason most studios use protools is simple: it was the first reasonably priced option for doing serious DAW work. of course, this was in the early 90's, and "reasonably priced" meant "under $50000". but basically there was no other choice available. now of course there are a zillion choices, but people still stick with protools because (a) it's been around so long that a lot of people know how to use it (b) the serious limitations on supported hardware mean fewer compatibility problems and (c) herd mentality (ie: everybody's doing it so it must be good)

now of course they are in the enviable position of being totally entrenched. so many people have it and/or expect it that new studios must support it or risk not being able to take on clients. so if you are seriously in the studio business, it's just something you have to do.

however if you're a hobbyist or setting up a project studio, there's no reason at all to look into it. unless you want to launch yourself into a career at professional studios, in which case you might as well learn it now.

brandonld23 · Post by **brandonld23** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:23 pm

hey JSD you said. "of course, this was in the early 90's, and "reasonably priced" meant "under $50000". but basically there was no other choice available. now of course there are a zillion choices". name what you think is a good one.... As I am in the market.

jsd · Post by **jsd** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:25 pm

brandonld23:
what are you looking to do?

i use cubase sx on a PC and i'm totally pleased with the results. these days choice of microphones and monitors are more important than software IMHO!

John Vulich · Post by **John Vulich** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:31 pm

Same reason that a lot of idiots still think that Macs are "better for music".

Link · Post by **Link** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:36 pm

The other company at the time producing pro HD recording systems (in fact they were doing it before Digidesign) that didn't become the 'standard' are still going strong.

It doesn't work on those superior purdy Macs that every studio exec (who wouldn't know a motherboard from a motherlode) but the range is astounding value and in heavy use all around the globe. You will probably watch something tonight produced within the environment.

Fantastic hardware, great support and the best, imo whatever that's worth, ASIO's in existence.

It can be found here... http://www.sydec.be

They didn't get the break they deserved but are a very innovative company nonetheless.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:40 pm

Well, all you nay sayers about Pro-Tools need to grip on reality.

#1: PT is not the "terrible" DAW that the cryers of doom say it is. In fact it has some features, like cue lists for example, that other recording systems STILL don't have or do very, very poorly. Sure it has some spotty MIDI implementations and yes it is expensive. But, it works like a champ and has some killer Audio processing capabilities.

#2: As a hobbyist most people have the wrong impression of what a DAW in a studio is for. TIME IS MONEY. Transportable formats isn't just wanted it is ESSENTIAL. PT is still the best investment for "speed of production" hands down. Other software like Nuendo and Saw Studios are making great headway, but in many important areas of production stage work they don't hold a candle to PT.

#3: Most production studios have just about every application you ever heard of in addition to the "real" PT and a bunch you have NEVER heard of because of all the format issues they have to deal with.

aldi · Post by **aldi** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:10 pm

because hype sells products and people who have spend a lot of money in something will mostly never say afterwards "hmm, that i could have also made with these tiny aplication that would have cost me nothing.." so they also go hyping it. question is, what was first: at the beginning protools WAS revolotionary because of it's DAW hardware. so then came the hype ! and then people who bought it and now they still hyping it...and so on

there is NOTHING you can only do in protools

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:13 pm

aldi wrote:there is NOTHING you can only do in protools

this is a very ignorant statement.

{edit}I'm going to amend my statement. The things you can do in a PT post house that other systems can't are basically the result of very tight over-all integration with every aspect of a production studio.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:27 pm

Pro Tools is a good application that provides for an excellent workflow. Plus, the quality of the plugins that run on its proprietary hardware is more than outstanding, to say the least. And you can use Logic as a front end to the hardware.

Other DAWs (i.e. Nuendo in conjunction with supported hardware) have recently come close to Pro Tools, but all in all the system might still be ahead.

Its strength is for instance movie business and stuff, but for "normal" musical tasks like creating songs you get along fine with other applications.

"industry standard" means just that. Pro Tools is an industrial application. But hardly any musician would consider his work "industrial" (even though he might prefer that similar named musical style).

Cheers,

Urs

Churchy · Post by **Churchy** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:28 pm

i've used cubase for years; and never understood the hype with protools

but now i use protools in my job, and it is FAR SUPERIOR for audio editing; i can work sooooo much faster & more efficient with it

Sidhu · Post by **Sidhu** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:36 pm

You have not lost to anything by purchasing SX. PT in it's HD avtar is quite powerfull. But thats mostly because it has dedicated hardware processing which does not depend on the computer horsepower. The LE range of PT is a restricted platform. With SX you will get a more powerfull apllication than even the main PT software (barring surrond and sync implimentation, but Nuendo can match that)

PT is standard because it came to dominate when there wernt many other real world alternatives.

Today if you are doing projects that require mammoth processing power (films), then PT would probably still be the defacto choice.

For music production and other day to day applications, Cubase is way ahead.

BTW, Nuendo is now actively used to do sound for some many major hollywood productions.

PRO TOOLS? Why The Hype? Compared to SX, Sonar...