Avid

[nwstudios]

Avid has a new CEO as of yesterday.

Earnings announcement later this month.

 

"Could Hernandez’ appointment, made by the company’s Board of Directors,
spur a turnaround at Avid, manufacturer of the industry standard DAW (by
a landslide) and the crucial core of many, many music studios, film and
TV audio post suites, and live venues? Well maybe – but seeing how Avid
is steadily sinking, there may not be a whole lot Hernandez can really
do."

 

http://www.sonicscoop.com/2013/02/11/avid-switches-ceos-will-louis-hernandez-turn-it-around/

 

 

[John Blankenship]

Here's a bit of a rant for you. It's just an opinion -- feel free to disagree or to take it with a grain of salt (or with the salt on your margarita, if you so prefer):

Avid's downfall had its seeds planted quite early on. Clear back in the nineties when it still was the 200 pound gorilla, in fact. The corporate mentality at the time was a haughty, "We're the ONLY editing system and we can do whatever we please" (Close to an actual quote). Apparently, that corporate mentality was cast into stone as the company still hasn't been able to reverse their disconnect with their users.

Avid developed and maintained a strong "Avid-tude," as one Digidesign employee termed it some time after the video editing company had purchased the industry-standard audio editing entity.

The Avid web site is not user friendly (a little better than it used to be, but not by much), with links strewn so haphazardly it seems like an accident to actually find a link that effectively addresses whatever issue one is researching.

If you've ever tried to talk to a real, living person at the Avid mansion, the difficulty of doing so seems to confirm that their attitude is still that they are simply too good to actually TALK to their lowly customers.

Their latest attempt at treading financial waters has been to release new Avid software versions at a breakneck pace (about every six months now), with inflated upgrade prices. Given their current fiscal condition, I'd speculate that this policy is not supremely successful -- it certainly isn't with my facility.

Our studios, which have Avid editing, Final Cut Pro editing, Pro Tools audio, and a SADiE system, haven't upgraded the Avid software for a couple of versions now. If their upgrade price was more reasonable, we would have. I guess the departing CEO preferred 100% of nothing over more customer-centric policies.

A few years back -- about the time Avid stripped their audio editing division of its own identity in favor of branding everything with their redesigned Avid boilerplate, they tried to project that they were now the "new and nicer" Avid. Unfortunately for Avid, PR doesn't trump the real thing.

I don't wish Avid ill, after all, we use their products, but I do wish I could pick up a phone and ask them a question -- a possibility that gets consistently more remote as they whittle down their workforce year by year.

[Philip Perkins]

I'm no fan of Avid, but I do think the PT side has at least tried to be more user friendly in the PT10 era--I give them credit for that.  They do respond to requests for help on the DUC much frequently that they used to.   The video side of Avid is stuck in a sort of early '90s  computer-culture mentality, though, and while they got a little better during the ascendance of FCP, now that Apple has abandoned the pro market Avid has become less user friendly again.  Among my clients and colleagues fleeing FCP, a few are returning to Avid but most are going Premiere.

 

philp

[John Blankenship]

While I agree that the PT side is better than the MC side, a couple of years ago, when we switched our main audio-for-video post system from SADiE to Pro Tools, I signed up for the DUC only to have the automatic software declare that my signup was SPAM. I then emailed the moderator but never heard back.

I occasionally drop by as a visitor.

[nwstudios]

Having never used Avid MC, is it worth 4 times the price of Premiere Pro?

[conleec]

Having never used Avid MC, is it worth 4 times the price of Premiere Pro?

Absolutely. Every last cent.

 

Media Composer is a different beast, but it covers all the required bases for broadcast and motion picture editing. No surprises. Full support for dual system sound. Proper ability to turn over audio to sound. Full EDL and film cut list generation. EXCELLENT shared project workflow with Unity. And once you get used to it, it's simply the fastest editor out there.

 

I was an NDA'd user of Premier Pro CS6 and there's a lot to like. But when it came to deliverables for a feature film, it wasn't ready for prime time. At least not in the sense that most folks in Hollywood would find acceptable. It couldn't do a proper AAF export of a dual system show, for instance. These are things I'm sure Adobe is working on, but as of right now, for certain things it's just not there.

 

Having said that, if those are things you're not interested in, or don't need, then it becomes harder to justify the price difference.

 

Chris

[John Blankenship]

We also have Premiere (technically, three copies), but I've just never warmed to the way it does things. I've heard it's much better than when I last used it several versions ago. We have a fairly new version that came as part of the suite that we installed primarily for After Effects and Photoshop.

Like Chris said, if you don't need some of the professional workflow features, Premiere is cost effective and a lot of people who use it are quite happy.

[Marc Wielage]

Media Composer is a different beast, but it covers all the required bases for broadcast and motion picture editing. No surprises. Full support for dual system sound. Proper ability to turn over audio to sound. Full EDL and film cut list generation. EXCELLENT shared project workflow with Unity. And once you get used to it, it's simply the fastest editor out there.

 

Yep, I totally agree with that. It's ironic to consider that software engineer Randy Ubillos is the guy who invented both Final Cut Pro and Premiere, and then moved on to Final Cut Pro X, which is bewilderingly different (to me).

 

Note that the student edition of Media Composer 6.5 is only $295, and you can get it just by taking an introductory class on the program at a junior college or something. True, the legit version is more like $2395 -- and it's hard to fathom why Avid doesn't cut that price in half -- but their support is a lot better now than it used to be. I know quite a few projects who've tried to edit on Premiere and then run into some pretty difficult workflow issues, particularly going back and forth with Pro Tools and other industry-standard programs. 

 

I hope Avid can survive, but they've got a tough road to hoe. 

[nwstudios]

I hope Avid can survive, but they've got a tough road to hoe. 

 

Pretty good bet if Avid does go under someone will buy up PT and MC at least.

[nwstudios]

. It couldn't do a proper AAF export of a dual system show, for instance.

 

Chris

I've never had any luck getting an AAF out of PP but can't say I tried that hard.

Never had an issue with OMF.

[Philip Perkins]

While the top-end of the feature and TV post market need the high-level features of Avid, the rest of professional post has gotten so dumbed down while at the same time being inundated with new video formats and codecs that Premiere works fine for them.  Ther eis also a much larger freelancer pool for FCP/Premiere these days--I don't hear much about Avid from the newbies any more.

 

philp

[Angelo Waldron]

That's a long rant JB, but you hit the nail on the head.

I've helped many people generate EDLs, OMFs and optic dupe lists off MC, and they never came back and said there was a problem.

All of it is there in the software, instead of having to purchase 3rd party add-ons.

But could never get a person on the phone unless you paid in advance.

They better pony up with more support on the educational side if they want future customers.

Website is like trying to find needle in haystack. 

Not to sure what to think about all the PT upgrades and AAX plugin format.

Sit back and watch the show.

[ccsnd]

I know what most other people think about the PT upgrades and AAX format....

 

 

[John Blankenship]

I don't know what to think about AAX yet, but the Pro Tools upgrade to 9 was quite commendable.

Along with the ability to use third party hardware which, for us, has worked extremely well, the track handling capability is nothing short of amazing. A hundred and some tracks, along with all kinds of sub-mixes and special busses, as well as several hundred plugins, with tracks displayed across four monitors, locked in sync to a hi-def Quicktime video, all working reliably on a Mac Pro box with no special core card or additional DSP card needed is awesome.

[Michael Wynne]

Pro Tools 10 was a significant advancement over PT9 in my opinion offering greater stability and work flow capabilities. Especially for LE users who gained some previously only HD features. I'd say the MVP for me in PT10 is most definitely clip gain

As far as Avid I hope they survive and prosper for many years to come with their current business model mainly because they've seemed to refocus their efforts back towards the professional market. I understand the downsizing of Avid affected many jobs but eliminating prosumer brands like MAudio and closing the Digidesign division we're all necessary steps in the right direction to help them reestablish their footing and show their dedication to the pro market and PT10 was the proof which brought us brand new non hyped new feature sets and greater overall stability

It is my understanding AAX is one of the technical bridges which will allow Pro Tools to work in 64 bit mode which will happen with the release of PT11 which is much needed to allow the system to use more then it's current 32 bit limit of 4GB. It will be interesting to see how the industry responds to this upcoming release. I for one don't think Avid should lower their prices, since that's not typically advantageous for a companies longevity or prosperity.

[John Blankenship]

In our case, I haven't noticed any increased stability with PT10 over PT9. That's not a criticism, 9 was extremely stable for us. The addition of features wasn't the same as for you, since we have the Complete Production Toolkit which brings most of those features, and more. Clip Gain, of course, was way overdue -- our SADiE system has had it for many years.

I understand the thinking behind moving PT to 64bit, but don't relish the thought of the crossover since 9/10 has been so good for us. I anticipate some "growing pains" with AAX as our plug-in library is updated. I imagine we'll put off the upgrade until the dust settles.

I haven't complained about the PT upgrades, only the Media Composer whirlwind. $500 every six months seems a bit much, especially considering that many of my clients have standardized on FCP7. One thing that the FCP-X debacle did was cause more users to standardize on the same version as so many have upgraded to, and stopped at, FCP7.

[ccsnd]

I completely disagree.  FCP-X created a huge wave of changeover from FC to AVID.

[John Blankenship]

I completely disagree.  FCP-X created a huge wave of changeover from FC to AVID.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. What systems my clients are using? I'm in a better position to know that than you.

Wave of changeover? I never said anything that would deny the defections. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear.

FCP-X caused many people to return to Avid, and some to try it for the first time, while others defected to the Premiere fold. However, there are still legions of stalwart FCP users who are accustomed to the interface and operation, who just finalized on FCP7, whereas prior to the debacle and its aftermath, FCP users tended to be spread across several versions. That was my point. It helped create somewhat of a standard in the FCP world versus before when you had to more frequently address the issues of moving between versions. That's all I was saying. I find that a bit of an ironic outcome in response to Apple's attempt to dictate to its users.

[Marc Wielage]

FCP-X caused many people to return to Avid, and some to try it for the first time, while others defected to the Premiere fold. However, there are still legions of stalwart FCP users who are accustomed to the interface and operation, who just finalized on FCP7, whereas prior to the debacle and its aftermath, FCP users tended to be spread across several versions. That was my point. It helped create somewhat of a standard in the FCP world versus before when you had to more frequently address the issues of moving between versions. That's all I was saying. I find that a bit of an ironic outcome in response to Apple's attempt to dictate to its users.

 

All this is pretty much my experience as well. Whenever I've asked my clients if they're using Final Cut Pro 7 or X, they usually make a face and say, "why, FCP 7, of course!" I haven't encountered many people in LA going with X yet, even as of early 2013. 

 

With Pro Tools, at least with PT10, they finally allowed importing sound with timecode over 12 hours (up to 23:59), so that hurdle was finally solved. It's amazing that took over 15 years to solve!

 

My fear is that if Avid Inc. goes under, somebody like Apple could just buy the rights to Avid and Pro Tools at auction, then bury the program (as Apple did with Shake). I pray that won't happen -- both programs are the cornerstone of post production, worldwide.

[ccsnd]

Sorry. I read your post wrong. I think we are saying the same thing.

[Dan Joseph]

As a Pro Tools user since version 7, I like Pro Tools.  I do not like Avid though.  Ever since they released PT10 less than 12 months after then announced PT9, I felt like the coped out and went the "Apple" yearly revision route.  Which is fine for consumer goods, not professionals.    I could see Avid tanking and Adobe/Apple buying assets and I.P.'s to boost their market share or go into a new market; i.e. Adobe buys Pro Tools.   I've seen some houses switch to FCX recently due to it being updated to support professionals, but its just not there yet, and may never be.  The post house I worked for went to Premiere and really helped streamline their workflow, and produce professional level content efficiently.  

 

Avid would sell off MC before it sells PT.  But I would like to see Adobe buy PT and integrate it into their ecosystem.   

.  

[Marc Wielage]

As a Pro Tools user since version 7, I like Pro Tools.  I do not like Avid though.  Ever since they released PT10 less than 12 months after then announced PT9, I felt like the coped out and went the "Apple" yearly revision route.  

 

I dunno. I think with Avid/Digidesign, you have one kind of evil communism (think Russia in the 1950s). With Adobe/Premiere, you have another kind of evil communism (think China in the 1950s). Neither is exactly user-friendly. 

 

In both cases, I like some of the software they make, but I grit my teeth and curse the companies, particularly for simple things like upgrades. I'm still not happy that Avid MC costs $2295, when competing products are 1/4 that. I think under the circumstances, they could sell three times as many copies if they'd cut the price to $995 (still more than FCP and Premiere, but a little more competitive). 

 

I use to proudly wear a T-shirt that said "Love the Mac... Hate Apple." I know a lot of Pro Tools and Avid users who kinda feel the same way, but Premiere also has a ton of issues, especially for post.

[nwstudios]

Avid shares tumble as it postpones earnings report.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100491914/Avid_shares_drop_as_tech_firm_postpones_earnings

[Philip Perkins]

In my client base, small as it is, no one has returned to Avid from FCP.  Most of them are now Premiere/FCP7 dual-drivers, but Avid is not in the picture for them.  This is a very interesting situation--this many years on, the number of people and businesses still really based on FCP7, when there hasn't been an upgrade in forever.

 

DAW-wise, my advice to Adobe is that if they want to make the pretty amazing and hugely improved Audition CS6 a professional app on the level w/ PT they need to make a user guide like PTs.  That searchable guide for PT is a real lifesaver.  Trying to figure out how to do one small thing in Audition often means dealing with a psuedo-social-media website, having to watch a lot of videos and dealing with a user group that has some real cranks on it all the time.   They also need to show us, by example, on a website or etc., that it is a good tool for a longform project.  

 

philp

[nwstudios]

<--- Nuendo user. I use Audition for a few things but it feels like driving a car with 4 flat tires.