Mobilemike Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I also agree with everyone that says go with Pro Tools 10. In the USA at least the vast, vast majority of post sound work happens in Pro Tools so if you are doing anything serious you will want to go that route for compatibility's sake alone. Its also a great, powerful program. I would highly recommend getting some sort of a control surface - for me its was faster and easier to mix when I can grab faders. -Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Visser Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Pro Tools 10. Use the tool that everyone else is using, allow yourself to at least get into the game, then down the road you can develop a personal preference and use something like Nuendo if you wish. I also 2nd the control surface suggestion. I have an Alesis Mastercontrol (discontinued). I like it well enough, also doubles as a monitor controller and can even be used as a standalone mixer in a pinch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomboom Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 I've seen Soundscape in a few places around here but, like in the US, PT seems to be the norm overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Go the Reaper + aatranslator route and use the money you would have wasted on Pro Tools 10 to buy a decent pair of small monitor speakers like the Equator Audio D5's. I use Reaper/aatranslator to do post jobs for my corporate video production sound clients and have used Reaper to do all the audio post for a full length film ( http://devilseedmovie.com ), using aatranslator to bring in OMF's and to output PT files for the final mix at a proper mix studio. If you're doing under $20K a year in business using Reaper the licence is $60.00 and is good for 2 full version upgrades. While PT may be entrenched as a standard in professional facilities, once you get into Reaper you will find that you can do more, faster and more efficiently with Reaper. Good ideas. I'd like to hear more about how the post process for something on that scale went in Reaper--what worked and what didn't, how well AAT helped you (export from FCP?), what it brought across and what it didn't etc.. Did you have picture changes to conform, multiple versions etc? philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Finlan Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 HI Phil, The film was cut on FCP and video files and OMF's were made and sent to me. I used AAT to convert the OMF's of the different reels into Reaper project files. From that point I did all the dialogue editing first. Very little adr was required - about 30 words/lines in total. Once that was finished I moved on to sfx editing. Ambiences, hard fx and foley for the english soundtrack and the M&E were pulled from sound effects libraries or recorded as needed and edited/compiled/submixed as required. At this point I ended up with 16 tracks of audio. While I was doing this the score was composed and a local sound designer created the elements for the "demon" voice. The score was delivered as 12 stereo tracks broken down by instruments (strings, horns, etc) and the "demon" voice as 3 stereo pairs to allow flexibility during the final mix. Naturally, as I was compiling the reels, changes would come in from the editor. Fortunately they were all edits to tighten up the film so nothing was being rearranged or added. A new video and an OMF of the changes would come to me, I would convert it to a Reaper project, copy and paste the tracks from the previous version into it and conform to the new picture. The only tricky part of this was having to edit the music tracks as the editor was more concerned with how the picture edit worked than whether it worked musically. I've had many years experience editing music so was able to make everything work. Once ready to mix I consolidated all the tracks in Reaper and then used AAT to export the reels to Pro Tools files. I had been working up a good rough mix and all fades, pans, automation data and clip levels were converted with no issues. Everything imported into Pro Tools with no problems and from there we went on to polish the mix into it's final form and output the necessary stems and M&E's for final delivery. I should say I'm not a Pro Tools user. Back in the '90's I had used the Studer Dyaxis system and then the Spectral Audio Engine. By the time the studio I had been freelancing in moved to Pro Tools I had already moved into production sound work. I will say that when we had to do a number of last minute edit changes during the mix I was not impressed with the speed at which we were able to do them in Pro Tools - it took a couple hours more than it would have in Reaper. And the fact that everything had to be mixed out in real time was another time waster. In Reaper an off-line render of my reel mixes took 5 -6 minutes as opposed to the 18 - 20 minutes real time with Pro Tools. I'm not knocking Pro Tools. It's a mature system , well accepted and does what is needed but it is getting long in the tooth and software like Reaper is doing the same job in less time, for far less money, with a smaller footprint (under 20 megs), fewer crashes and continuous updates and advancements. And with tools like AATranslator to easily convert from/to some 20 different project file formats I'm pretty much compatible with everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLo128 Posted November 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'm intrigued by Reaper, Joe. Thanks for the replies. I'm primarily a location sound guy, and I think time efficiency with basic dialogue sweetening/FX building is all I can really offer without having a studio of my own. I like the idea of being current with the industry and knowing ProTools, but perhaps Reaper is the more suitable option for me at this time. I'm providing location sound for a series of 5-6 minute documentaries next month, and the producer threw me the post-sound job if I was interested. Would Reaper run well with my current hardware setup of a 15" MacBook Pro and a decent 1 or 2 TB external hard drive? Thanks again for all the feedback, guys. I may not reply much but I'm reading and digesting every post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Finlan Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I"m PC based myself but there is a Mac based version of Reaper and from what I know there should be no issues for you. On the Reaper forums site http://forum.cockos.com/index.php there is a Mac specific forum that should provide you with the information you seek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwstudios Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Went through this last year. A few things not mentioned above were all the additional costs. Upgrades, support, plug ins that were included and any additional hardware that was required. Further food for thought, Avid has not been doing very well finacially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 If I were starting out today I'd be deep into Reaper. Thanks for the description of how it went for your movie--very interesting. Did you use Reaper's onboard video track+window for your predubbing and editing? With a dedicated video card? Any long term sync issues? Do you recall what video codec was used? Did you deliver stems to the PT system or a PT session (what vers.)? thanks philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Finlan Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yes, I used Reaper's video track/window only. I was using an ASUS laptop with dual 7200 rpm drives and a dedicated Nvidia 9800 card connected to a 28" monitor. I would run picture on the laptop display and the multitrack & mixer on the external monitor. We were using the H.264 codec and had no sync issues. Reaper has since improved their video capabilites and there is a thread in the forums dedicated to getting video playback set up. Unlike Pro Tools, where all audio must be the same file type/sampling freq/bit depth, Reaper allows you to use just about any audio file type/sampling freq/bit depth simultaneously in a project. Because audio was coming from various sources the Reaper project ended up with 44.1/16, 48/16, 48/24 wavs, 48/16 & 48/24 aifs and even a few mp3's. I consolidated the Reaper projects to 48K/24 wavs and then created Pro Tools session files with AATranslator. At the time AAT could only output PT5 files but there were no issues when the studio converted them to run on their PT9 system. Just recently AAT released an update and they can now convert to PTF files. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Yes, I used Reaper's video track/window only. I was using an ASUS laptop with dual 7200 rpm drives and a dedicated Nvidia 9800 card connected to a 28" monitor. I would run picture on the laptop display and the multitrack & mixer on the external monitor. We were using the H.264 codec and had no sync issues. Reaper has since improved their video capabilites and there is a thread in the forums dedicated to getting video playback set up. Unlike Pro Tools, where all audio must be the same file type/sampling freq/bit depth, Reaper allows you to use just about any audio file type/sampling freq/bit depth simultaneously in a project. Because audio was coming from various sources the Reaper project ended up with 44.1/16, 48/16, 48/24 wavs, 48/16 & 48/24 aifs and even a few mp3's. I consolidated the Reaper projects to 48K/24 wavs and then created Pro Tools session files with AATranslator. At the time AAT could only output PT5 files but there were no issues when the studio converted them to run on their PT9 system. Just recently AAT released an update and they can now convert to PTF files. All cool, thanks for this. I use AAT myself--just got the update. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 By the time the studio I had been freelancing in moved to Pro Tools I had already moved into production sound work. I will say that when we had to do a number of last minute edit changes during the mix I was not impressed with the speed at which we were able to do them in Pro Tools - it took a couple hours more than it would have in Reaper. The only comment I'll make is that massive editorial changes are rough on everybody -- the editor, visual effects, dialogue editors, mixers, and colorists. There are ways to handle change lists effectively in Pro Tools, but mainly with 3rd party tools. And there are lots and lots of 3rd party tools for Pro Tools, as well as plug-ins and user support you can't get anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep owl Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I got my start working in a recording studio doing music and dubbing Japanese Animé into English. It was a Digital Performer based studio. DP is still my main DAW-ware. It does the same things the others do...some better, some not as well. I've used and like Nuendo, Reaper, Audition, and PT as well. Reaper is certainly the most cost effective but doesn't import OMF or AAC...very important in the post game. Sounds like AAT might be a great tool but it looks to be a PC only thing. Like FCP or Avid, If you want to have the same tools as others you may end up working with get PT. I'm very interested to see what happens with the next version of Logic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 DP8 is touted as having a new video engine, better sync they say, although the whole deal seems to be targeted at movie composers not audio posties. (Not a bad idea, movie composers make more money than movie audio posties.) philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted November 3, 2012 Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 If I were starting out today I'd be deep into Reaper. Curiosity killed the cat, or maybe "curiosity quitted PT" Just downloaded Reaper on my laptop and after 30 min. playing with it...well...very nice piece of software! The main issue in my case is that I have now a very fast workflow after 10 years on PT and it would'nt be nice to start all over from the scratch, but hey, If i were starting today reaper would be a no brainer (and still thinking to use it more and see what happens...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramallo Posted November 5, 2012 Report Share Posted November 5, 2012 Curiosity killed the cat, or maybe "curiosity quitted PT" Just downloaded Reaper on my laptop and after 30 min. playing with it...well...very nice piece of software! The main issue in my case is that I have now a very fast workflow after 10 years on PT and it would'nt be nice to start all over from the scratch, but hey, If i were starting today reaper would be a no brainer (and still thinking to use it more and see what happens...). I had a "near to nice" workflow in PT, but I changed from PT to Nuendo (in the Mix era) , now I'm very clumsy in PT and I very skilled in Nuendo, is just some practice. Too, I'm using the Reaper (Specially for teach). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larsson Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 If You´re planning to use virtual instruments at any point , don´t go the PT way. If You need to be compatible to other studios and/or have clients attending some sessions, go the PT way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lundsten Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Reaper is certainly the most cost effective but doesn't import OMF or AAC...very important in the post game. Sounds like AAT might be a great tool but it looks to be a PC only thing. Well yes AAT is a Windows program, but we have quite a few users who run it quite successfully on Mac's using WINE for OSX, Parallels or VMWare, etc & running AAT on a PC & linking via a LAN works well too. I do a lot of the beta testing & use PC & Mac computers connected via a LAN. We are very aware many media professionals love Mac's, (for some it's their religion) so we can read & write Mac-centric files. Eg handle old (pre OSX) formats like PT5 & media in SD2 format that used the concept of Data & Resource forks central to the way Mac's worked, pre OSX. And cope with files without a file ext, that is important to PC's. Me I'm a bit more familiar with PC's so find Mac OS nice at times but often hard work. But I'm an OS Agnostic at heart & don't understand OS bigotry, they're both just computer OS's. BTW the reason we support pro Tools pt5 (with separate PC & Mac vers) is because it offers Way more 'detail' than OMF or AAF can do. Now we can also convert to PTF which unlike pt5 is cross platform compatible IE it's the same file for either PC's or Macs. John L, AATranslator London Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lundsten Posted November 7, 2012 Report Share Posted November 7, 2012 I will say that when we had to do a number of last minute edit changes during the mix I was not impressed with the speed at which we were able to do them in Pro Tools - it took a couple hours more than it would have in Reaper. And the fact that everything had to be mixed out in real time was another time waster. The only comment I'll make is that massive editorial changes are rough on everybody -- the editor, visual effects, dialogue editors, mixers, and colorists. There are ways to handle change lists effectively in Pro Tools, but mainly with 3rd party tools. And there are lots and lots of 3rd party tools for Pro Tools, as well as plug-ins and user support you can't get anywhere else. We, well particularly me, at AATranslator have on our 'to do' list a good way to accommodate changes to an edit that audio post folk have already done a significant amount of work on. Now from what i know, seems to me there are a few software tools already available that address the idea of converting picture edit changes (eg via Avid ALE or FCP-xml change lists) & great - can produce info for neg-cutters, do all kinds of neat stuff re 'Keycodes', 3 or 4perf 35mm film etc etc. But Audio as is common in Film/TV post being ignored or with pathetic support. AAT is principally audio orientated, we do video but as an addition to audio (sound with pictures). I would really appreciate some feedback from those principally concerned with good audio as to what you want. What we have in mind is:--- a) Analyse any difference between a previously done AAT conv to any of the dest formats we can do & a new revised conversion to the same destination format. move prev content & add new content to match changes. John L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjacomb Posted November 18, 2012 Report Share Posted November 18, 2012 I use Pro Tools 10 and its solid. It's worth getting the keyboard stickers and making up your own "editors keys". An external firewire HD is a must - Pro Tools has never been solid on slow internal drives. Presonus faderport is very lovely too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsnd Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I think with the new ADR workflows with soundscape, we will be seeing the program take more and more of the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Liston Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 PT can load all of the files into RAM, even from a CD. Drive speed matters not anymore. You (may) need the CPTK for this feature I believe. And even before that happened, I haven't had a drive issue in years, like V6-era. Any FW drive or internal is fast enough for most uses. I did a 120 track project on an internal drive on a G5 computer 6 years ago. PT LE even. On choosing a platform for Pro use, as in "I want to make money." Nobody has ever asked if I use Nuendo or any of the others mentioned here. But I get asked if I use PT all the time. And usually when I say yes, the answer is, "Good!" and we get to work. I just wish Opcode SVP was still around. Sigh. I use Pro Tools 10 and its solid. It's worth getting the keyboard stickers and making up your own "editors keys". An external firewire HD is a must - Pro Tools has never been solid on slow internal drives. Presonus faderport is very lovely too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted November 23, 2012 Report Share Posted November 23, 2012 I would really appreciate some feedback from those principally concerned with good audio as to what you want. What we have in mind is:--- a) Analyse any difference between a previously done AAT conv to any of the dest formats we can do & a new revised conversion to the same destination format. b ) move prev content & add new content to match changes. My suggestion would be to go over to the Gearslutz Forum's post section and ask the editors and mixers over there. I know there's been discussions about Virtual Katy, Titan, and Editrace, so people are using these change list/reconform products out there. My point was that the biggest market in America, the UK, Australia, and most other areas is Pro Tools, since this is frequently how feature films and TV series are edited and mixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 Check out the Ultrasone headphones. To my ear they match speakers better than Sonys, and others I've used. I haven't checked out the Krok headphones, but they are supposed to match their speakers. Beware that what sounds good in headphones may sound very different in speakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdog Posted December 2, 2012 Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 One more Reaper+AATranslator fan. Around a dozen films posted with this combination. Upsides: Reaper is super stable. Super pleasant to use. Super flexible. Super extendible. Feature packed. Inexpensive. Very responsive development teams with Reaper and AATranslator. Downside: A Reaper user is going to have to work just a little bit harder to interact with a world of ProTool users (both technically and psychologically). Also, Reaper is really not audio post-focused. It is really just a very well-designed music DAW that just happens to handle most post audio tasks very well. There really are no shortcuts for conforming edit changes. Reaper doesn't handle "handles" very thoroughly (there are a huge number things one wants to do that distinguish between the audible/visible portion of a clip and the underlying media file. Reaper lets you do some amazing things to clips and underlying media, but not always in a way that is most useful to a post engineer). I originally avoided ProTools (and all dongle-based software) because it offended my belief that God invented software to be independent of peripheral hardware. God spoke and said, "Let us communicate with peripheral hardware through the driver layer, not through the application layer," and He saw that it was good. ProTools chose blesphemy. Now that ProTools is less hardware dependent, it's too late. I've already built all my audio posting habits on other software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.