Pro Tools 11

[nwstudios]

Henchman is right. If I become a nuendo user I will have severely limited my options of working at/with any post facility in the US.

 

 

Is it really really that critical to be able swap project files instead of OMF's?

[Jay Rose]

Even John Ross very quickly had to add Pro-Tools to his studio. 

 

FWIW, Jay Rose dropped ProTools from his. Strictly Nuendo now.

 

My clients say I can do stuff much faster than the competition, but of course they're biased. 

 

I will acknowledge that every now and then, I have to spend a while sorting out Avid/Digi's latest munging of what should be stable standards: Avid will issue an update, and somehow its OMF or AAF are now readable only in ProTools, until you figure out the new recipe or your DAW or third party issues an update to match. Or you'll generate standard files that can be exchanged with every other DAW... except the newest update to ProTools won't accept them. 

 

Microsoft did the same thing moving from .doc and .xls and .ppt to their -x versions. Functionally the same, but MS was able to control the market while everybody else had to play catch-up.

 

I'm not complaining, just acknowledging. It's one of the prices you pay for living with the benefits of a free capitalistic society.

 

Besides, things evolve:

 

Used to be, Mac and Windows were totally different worlds. For a long time they couldn't even open each others' files, let alone share peripheral hardware. Now they're a lot closer together. Some of my development friends are even writing their Windows software on Mac hardware...

 

Used to be, Nuendo had a big advantage over ProTools in that you weren't sole-sourced for hardware. You could choose i/o or accessory DSP from any vendor. (It was one of the things that attracted me to Nuendo in the first place, back before I ran both parallel and saw the operational advantages.)  But now, if I understand correctly, new versions of full-bore PT will run with your choice of i/o or sync or DSP.

 

One of the other nice things about a free capitalistic society is that honest competition keeps forcing both sides to get better...

[Wandering Ear]

The loss of RTAS support is kind of expected.  They rolled out AAX to give developers some time to get up to speed, and the list of developers that already have, or are working on finishing up AAX versions of their plugins is pretty extensive.

PT11 is 64bit, your current RTAS plugins wouldn't work as they are.  They would have to be rewritten to handle the 64bit architetchure. It makes perfect sense to make the transition to AAX now.

[Jim Feeley]

Can somebody explain to me why RTAS plug-ins usually cost $200 more than the same software in AU or VST? (Of course, I mean back when Digi was saying RTAS was the only way to go...)

 

Seriously. Was there a licensing fee to Digi that the manufacturer had to pay?

 

I was told RTAS was kind of a pain for plug-in developers...sucked a fair amount of engineering & QA resources. And since it was just for PT, recouping that cost was passed along to customers. IIRC, there wasn't a licensing fee (NOTE- I may not RC).

 

AAX is apparently less awful to work with, and the same code can run on DSP cards and native. This transition was announced quite a while ago, wasn't it? This commentary from 2011 provides what looks to me like good background and perspective:

 

 

Transition to AAX: A Real Programmer's Perspective

(as posted to the DAW-MAC mailing list 23 October 2011)

 

http://coolstufflabs.com/aax.html

Money quote: "Believe me, I am less than thrilled that the 17 years of expertise, techniques, tools, and libraries I built around the RTAS/TDM spec are now as useful as COBOL. But AAX was a necessary move on Avid's part, and not one they took lightly."

 

And there's lots of discussion here:

http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98.

 

Guess we'll have to see how much developers will charge for cross-grades, or if they'll even offer them at all.

 

As for Avid's fragile financial position, ya that's an issue. But they're hardly in a unique position. And heck, everything's an expendable these days (well, except production audio equipment). Does it work for me now? Can I earn back the cost (both financial and time/learning-curve) within a year or 18 months when I may need to replace it? 

[Tom Visser]

Pro Tools has been running the DAE audio engine for quite some time.  They were one of the pioneers of the DAW and the predominant professional DAW vendor for how long now?  This was a brave but necessary move for Avid to move into a new platform and remove the vestiges of '90s code base.  I'm personally happy to see a 64-bit non-RTAS roadmap for Pro Tools.  If I had a lot of RTAS only plug-ins, it might be harder to feel the same, but fortunately everything I use has AAX versions already, soon will, or can easily be replaced with an alternate plug.  I have no desire or interest in changing DAWs, but if Nuendo became the new standard, then I would also have no problem changing to that.  The DAW choice is not a religious one for me, so could care less about the future of Avid, but on the other hand, am not going to raise a pitchfork with some sort of groundswell movement to seed the tides of change.

 

I have no problem paying money to professional vendors for professional tools.  I won't be upgrading to 11 until I see a tangible need or advantage to doing so, and would of course like to see some actual real world stability before migrating, but since 10 is working so well for me, I'm happy where I am for the time being.

[Henchman]

Is it really really that critical to be able swap project files instead of OMF's?

Yes, it is.

[Constantin]

Even John Ross very quickly had to add Pro-Tools to his studio.

FWIW, Jay Rose dropped ProTools from his. Strictly Nuendo now.

But Jay. Where in the audio post-chain are you? For me, as a sometimes independent sound designer, compatibility to the mixing facilities us paramount. When I was still in Logic, they sometimes flat out refused to accept my stuff. So I switched to ProTools and don't have that problem anymore. Most facilities here in Germany, run ProTools - as far as I know - or maybe they just run severeal systems. There's also Sequoia, Pyramix, Fairlight...

[nwstudios]

Yes, it is.

OK, but what does the having the project file actually gain over an OMF?

[John Blankenship]

Is it really really that critical to be able swap project files instead of OMF's?

 

In some cases, yes, in other cases, no.  It depends upon the type of work you're doing and the established workflow for those involved.

[Olle Sjostrom]

The transition between 9 and 10 was painful too. At the time, I mixed a short film in a big studio in Sweden. In one room, the editing room, was PT9. The big mixing stage had PT10. So when we went from the editing to mixing, we could never take that same mix project to go back and edit something. We would always have to use the mixing stage for simple editing stuff.. Painful.

I really don't like it when companies, in a position like avid, locks the market with silly stuff like this.

[Wandering Ear]

Yes, it is.

OK, but what does the having the project file actually gain over an OMF?

Things like plugins, routing, aux tracks, surround panning, markers, comments, color coding, groups, etc... Lots of differences, especially from a workflow standpoint.

[Tom Visser]

The transition between 9 and 10 was painful too. At the time, I mixed a short film in a big studio in Sweden. In one room, the editing room, was PT9. The big mixing stage had PT10. So when we went from the editing to mixing, we could never take that same mix project to go back and edit something. We would always have to use the mixing stage for simple editing stuff.. Painful.

I really don't like it when companies, in a position like avid, locks the market with silly stuff like this.

 

Olle, with all due respect, a facility that has different versions of PT in their different rooms, well the responsibility is really with them.  You must have standardization across systems otherwise there is no one to blame but the person responsible for overseeing workflow and tech requirements in the facility.  When working film projects, standardization is really important.  I would never use a plug-in that I don't think is a standard industry plug unless I know that I'm going to consolidate any of my edits and just deliver to the next stage something that they can open.  I generally stick with Avid plugs, Allti-verb, Izotope, etc... I have nice SSL duende / native plugs, but couldn't responsibly use them on a post job if other hands have to touch it.

[nwstudios]

Things like plugins, routing, aux tracks, surround panning, markers, comments, color coding, groups, etc... Lots of differences, especially from a workflow standpoint.

 

 

OK, I am more used to doing a dialog edit or sound effects and handing it off.

I didn't really envision a final mix getting passed around that much.

[Max Hirtenstein]

OK, but what does the having the project file actually gain over an OMF?

 

if you're in a small market and are a one-stop post shop, use whatever DAW you want. I do a lot of work as a dialogue editor for re-recording mixers and have to export sessions with all the info Wandering Ear mentioned above.

[Henchman]

Anybody wanting to to take the chance of losing work, because when asked if they have pro-tools, they say no, I use "x" instead.

Well, have at it.

Me. I'll take my chances with the DAW that the majority of studios in the US use.

I also know that the projects I mix, I insist on receiving a pro-tools session.

I don't have time to deal with any transfer issues from one DAW to another.

Not my problem. Not my responsibility.

And issues happen.

You deliver what I ask for.

Period.

[Philip Perkins]

Anybody wanting to to take the chance of losing work, because when asked if they have pro-tools, they say no, I use "x" instead.

Well, have at it.

Me. I'll take my chances with the DAW that the majority of studios in the US use.

I also know that the projects I mix, I insist on receiving a pro-tools session.

I don't have time to deal with any transfer issues from one DAW to another.

Not my problem. Not my responsibility.

And issues happen.

You deliver what I ask for.

Period.

Well, ok.  And as the sound editor/designer I might then ask for someone else, who is perhaps more flexible!

 

But seriously folks, there are studios using all sorts of different versions of PT out there--many music people still use PT7 and TDM hardware on older Macs because they are very stable.  If the upgrade doesn't work for you then don't do it--as was pointed out there will be 3rd parties who will see if they can make money mitigating the pain, and often Avid has updated their updates in response to criticism (howls) from their users.  It's painful, but PT has been due for a pretty serious overhaul for a long time.  Give this some time, see how it goes for the early adopters.

 

philp

[Tom Visser]

Sometimes it is a little embarrassing, but our studio is on 6.9something or other, although we have 9 and 10 installed on other machines and remote ADR stages.

[Earmuffs]

The whole video codec seems like a waste of resources to me.

Was anybody suffering at the inability to play DNxHD video?

The video codec thing is targeted to large facilities who use NAS systems where storage access is ultra fast and sharing resources with the Media Composer editors is likely to be done.

[Henchman]

Well, ok.  And as the sound editor/designer I might then ask for someone else, who is perhaps more flexible!

 

philp

Except pretty much everything I have done, the director, then the producer and Associate Producers decide where what is done.

The sound designer/editors have little to no say.

And they will pick a facility. And at that point, what the facility uses, is the format that will be used.

And where I am, that's pro-tools.

[ccsnd]

Let me chime in here and say that while protools DOES have the majority market share, it ISN'T by that much.

[Henchman]

Let me chime in here and say that while protools DOES have the majority market share, it ISN'T by that much.

It does in post.

[Tom Visser]

In a sample of the market I work in, mostly post, but some music too, so far it is 100% for post and probably greater than 75% for music.

[Olle Sjostrom]

The transition between 9 and 10 was painful too. At the time, I mixed a short film in a big studio in Sweden. In one room, the editing room, was PT9. The big mixing stage had PT10. So when we went from the editing to mixing, we could never take that same mix project to go back and edit something. We would always have to use the mixing stage for simple editing stuff.. Painful.

I really don't like it when companies, in a position like avid, locks the market with silly stuff like this.

Olle, with all due respect, a facility that has different versions of PT in their different rooms, well the responsibility is really with them. You must have standardization across systems otherwise there is no one to blame but the person responsible for overseeing workflow and tech requirements in the facility. When working film projects, standardization is really important. I would never use a plug-in that I don't think is a standard industry plug unless I know that I'm going to consolidate any of my edits and just deliver to the next stage something that they can open. I generally stick with Avid plugs, Allti-verb, Izotope, etc... I have nice SSL duende / native plugs, but couldn't responsibly use them on a post job if other hands have to touch it.

Tom I totally agree. That studio did some pretty not clever moves... Anywho, user fault or not, what does pro tools gain with locking the versions out of eachother? This studio (as many other I believe) have PT techs coming in to consult them and help with installations. They should know to consult that studio to invest in multiple PT10 soft- and hardware so that no compatibility issues arise. And they might have... But you know I still don't get why a company would want to effectively lock out interchangeability between the software versions... It just doesn't make a lot of sense..

Avid does what lever they want to. I don't care. I just think their ways are weird. But I don't use PT now either so...

[Christian Spaeth]

Forget about Pro Tools and Nuendo. Just wait till Apple comes out with Logic X.

[Jay Rose]

I had hopes, years ago, that Apple would do the same thing when they bought Logic that they had done with Final Cut: turn it into a powerful professional tool.  (FCP really was, for a long time.)

 

Part of it was based on being invited to Cupertino a couple of years earlier. They asked me what film/tv audio people wanted in their system. I said the hardware had have onboard s/pdif - which they eventually implemented - and they needed a professional app that would run native.

 

So I was disappointed when Logic's av/post direction devolved into Soundtrack Pro.

 

But not as much as my pix edit friends are disappointed now...