Jump to content

Pro Tools 10


Recommended Posts

I read the article, and it looks like using a QT file is a tighter sync than most of the other options on there. 1 frame, and no start errors.

Here is a link to the article that I think was meant:

http://www.pharoahau...osyncstudy.html

Besides that, I don't think the article proved much. What codec was used for the QT? This test was quite old based on the G5 used for the test. A dinosaur really. PT 6.7 means the test was what, 5 years old? Useless. Their product looks pretty cool though.

Then I read the DUC posting and they were mostly complaining about the Cannopus. I'm now more convinced than ever that Pro Res 422 in PT is tighter than any hardware solution save a 2K AJA.

So I ran a non scientific test. I put a 108 minute movie with a window burn on a second monitor. I put the BIG COUNTER up on the same screen. I took random screen shots over the movie running from the head to the tail. Zero drift from head to tail.

I would love some more scientific evidence.

For the science of it I'd recommend checking in on the DUC, (stickies), Gearslutz post forum (stickes), and asking Richard Fairbanks. I find with QT being tested with his device that the sync can swim around up to 2 frames if the system isn't locked to house sync. I think that testing a system using a Syncheck is more "scientific" than screen shots. In practice the drift involved in an unlocked playback may not be an issue, but I would prefer to know exactly what is going on.

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In the Bounce menu item (Command-opt-B) you need to select "interleaved" from the drop down menu, where the default is "Multiple Mono."

Hello to all.

I have one question about the bounce on the ProTools 10.0

I have done the stereo mix. (music track)

After the bounce in mix they created two files (.wav)

For example: mymix(L).wav and mymix®.wav

I opened the file mymix(L).wav and it is a stereo and the mymix®.wav also is stereo.

I tried different bounce but they create the same format [mymix(L)] and no one file (.wav)

Mr. Wexler can be remove this topic in the categorie "The Post Place"?

Thank you very much

Vasileios Alexandris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys here is a tip. Instead of real time bouncing, record your master to an audio track. If you make a change, you can just destructive record the change, then you don't have to bounce again. When you are done, just export the audio file on the track with the settings you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys here is a tip. Instead of real time bouncing, record your master to an audio track. If you make a change, you can just destructive record the change, then you don't have to bounce again. When you are done, just export the audio file on the track with the settings you want.

Excellent tip.

To elaborate a touch on what tsg said, one of the beauties of this method is that you can make changes as you go. If a ways into the track you discover something you'd like to change, you can stop and change it and start the recording again from before the change and still create one seamless track.

Then right-click on the new recorded mixed track from in the regions window and choose how to send it to disk. It's pretty slick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys here is a tip. Instead of real time bouncing, record your master to an audio track. If you make a change, you can just destructive record the change, then you don't have to bounce again. When you are done, just export the audio file on the track with the settings you want.

Same way I do all my bounces. It's a life saver when you discover a missing fade 45 minutes into a show. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

For anyone using Pro Tools in a production environment, or just know this answer in general... on PT9, it appears to be impossible to write automation on a track that is armed for recording while recording. Is there a way around this? Is it possible in PT10? I wonder, because I thought it would be useful to record the mix move as fader automations. I don't use PT on set, but as a curiosity exercise, was setting up a template tonight to just play around with the concept of it and ran into these limitations for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone using Pro Tools in a production environment, or just know this answer in general... on PT9, it appears to be impossible to write automation on a track that is armed for recording while recording. Is there a way around this? Is it possible in PT10? I wonder, because I thought it would be useful to record the mix move as fader automations. I don't use PT on set, but as a curiosity exercise, was setting up a template tonight to just play around with the concept of it and ran into these limitations for the first time.

you cannot write automation on a track that is recording in pt10. I tried to do it the other day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom!

Bring an aux track in front of your record track and automate the aux track.

1. Set your hardware input as aux track input.

2. Send your aux output to a bus of your choice.

3. Take this bus as your record track input.

4. Arm automation on aux track

5. Arm record track.

6. Record and write automation.

If you don't want the recording track be affected by your automation rides, set it up the other way round:

Input -> record track -> aux track -> output

Best,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom!

Bring an aux track in front of your record track and automate the aux track.

1. Set your hardware input as aux track input.

2. Send your aux output to a bus of your choice.

3. Take this bus as your record track input.

4. Arm automation on aux track

5. Arm record track.

6. Record and write automation.

Best,

Tom

This makes all of your changes a part of the audio track, which is no good. Not being able to preserve the original input signal without your changes is not good. you could however bus it to two tracks, one with your automation and one without it.

What you could do is record to an audio track like normal for however many tracks you need, bus them to a mix track, record your mix on a separate channel. (you can always go in and remix this way)

I can't think of a way to do it where you would be able to change your automation later though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes all of your changes a part of the audio track, which is no good. Not being able to preserve the original input signal without your changes is not good.

That also occurred to me, as soon as I pressed the send button, so I added a workaround to my post. This way you can preserve the recording. It is possible to route the output of the aux track to a mix track.

Input -> record track -> aux track (automation) -> mix track -> output

Best,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That also came up to me, as soon as I pressed the send button, so I added a workaround to my post. This way you can preserve the recording. It is possible to route the output of the aux track to a mix track.

Input -> record track -> aux track (automation) -> mix track -> output

Best,

Tom

That really isn't an automation though. an automation can be changed. This is just a mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That really isn't an automation though. an automation can be changed. This is just a mix.

Feel free to change the automation on your aux tracks and re-record (bounce) that change to your mix.

Whenever a summing is involved it is the only way to go. But it is still automation.

Best,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here is a little template I've come up with. I'm using an Alesis MasterControl and the main boom and mic feeds are coming from my main portable mixer, so I could pick up the bag and go if I needed to without rewiring anything (just loosing ambience mics).

DAW12 would be a feed to the camera and IFB. (independent IFB could be set up with more aux send(s) but my Alesis only can control send A from the surface)

DAW3 would be a boom 1 PL, DAW4 boom2 PL. I can talk to both or either by adjusting the pan on the PL channel.

Slating can be done with either my bag's slate mic (sent to camera and recording tracks) or the crappy talkback onboard the Alesis (just sent to camera)

After a record pass, all ISOs are recorded pre-fader and automation is recorded on the AUX channels. A stereo mix is recorded and the whole goal, for automation, is to be able to arm just the mix track after a take, and be able to re-mix the take if necessary.

The main reason for sending LAV mics to DAW3/4 is to allow boom ops to monitor the lavs while they are wiring up actors, but would be cut during takes.

I think all of this becomes a moot point once Take Vos enable control surface features on Boom Recorder, but thought that this was as fun little mental exercise as a "what if I had to do this tomorrow?".

I included a lil template file. Anyone see any mistakes or room for improvement?

MasterControl Production Mix.ptt.zip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's New

  • Speed up editing and mixing with Clip Gain, and easily adjust and match gain levels, pre-mixer
  • Use multiple audio formats in a session—including interleave—without file duplication
  • Record and master higher resolution sound with more headroom in 32-bit floating-point format
  • Get great responsiveness on slower hard drives with the enhanced disk handler
  • Record in low-latency mode, with direct monitoring when using third-party audio interfaces
  • Get the sound of System 5 console EQ and dynamics with the Avid Channel Strip plug-in
  • Get access to over 500 additional Pro Tools commands when using EUCON controllers
  • Work more easily with AudioSuite-rendered clips with reverse processing, handles, and more
  • Create extra long-format projects for sequential versioning with the extended 24-hour timeline
  • Open fade-heavy sessions faster and get better responsiveness with real-time fades
  • Export mixes directly to SoundCloud to share and promote your music to the world

from avid.com

nice. i've seen the software in action but haven't really used it much. certainly didn't get to touch any of these features. i'm still on 8, was considering moving to 9 but might just go straight to 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm considering getting either the AJA io XT or the Blackmagic Design's Ultrastudio 3D. I've managed to find some confirmation on the web that the Ultrastudio 3D allows for video playout from ProTools, that it works like one of their supported PCI cards in that respect, but haven't been able to find out if the io XT will allow the same. The Ultrastudio ultimately has more I/O and is cheaper, but I understand that it has sort of a noisy fan, which would make it a no go. The io XT has a more professional form factor, less I/O, but one thing it does have is 8 channels of balanced analog output, and pretty decent front panel metering. I'd be inclined to go with the XT in this case and the fact that the fan noise is an issue with the Ultrastudio, it pretty much is not an option to begin with.

Anyone have a io XT or have access to one that could give this a try? I'm ok with transcoding to a specific codec. I'm on Pro Tools 9 currently but could easily move up to 10 if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

This may be a little off topic, but Just wanted to send you guys in the direction of my friends at Cockos' program, REAPER (www.reaper.fm)

IMHO ProTools is a bloated, over-priced program. Reaper has all of the features of ProTools (and more!), is a fraction of the cost, and has the most responsive development team I have ever encountered.

Oh yeah, it works on both Mac and PC, can run off of a thumb stick, and 7 to 10 MB.

I have used Reaper on AND off set, and find it absolutely incredible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice. i've seen the software in action but haven't really used it much. certainly didn't get to touch any of these features. i'm still on 8, was considering moving to 9 but might just go straight to 10.

I would definitely recommend doing this, it's a pretty big difference (in a good way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO ProTools is a bloated, over-priced program. Reaper has all of the features of ProTools (and more!), is a fraction of the cost, and has the most responsive development team I have ever encountered.

Two important observations:

1) Pro Tools owns the post sound business in LA and NY. I don't know of a major feature film or TV show not being done on Pro Tools. The employment opportunities for post mixers who don't use Pro Tools in these areas are dicey. I concede, there are areas and individuals who can get by with other tools, and many will still get the job done.

2) Pro Tools now only costs $295 for the educational version. Granted, PTHD is not cheap, but it's a lot less expensive than it used to be, and no longer requires proprietary hardware for all functions.

I've worked on several small indies that were 100% cut, conformed, and mixed entirely within Pro Tools; one had a budget of only $250K. It's not just a pricey program for elitists. And the availability of (literally) hundreds of plug-ins for Pro Tools is the deal-killer for me; too many of the plug-ins are indispensable for what I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used both reaper and Pro Tools, and while Reaper is fantastic for the price, especially since there are many free VST plugins that are quite good, I think Pro Tools is a more intuitive program. Now that you can use it with any hardware, supports 96 channels and 32 for simultaneous recording, clip based gain etc there's not much to complain about for the price (update costs are high though). The only thing I miss with PT out of the box is surround mixing, which is very expensive to get.

If money was no issue I would probably get Nuendo, but you might still need PT to recieve and open projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...