Malcolm Davies Amps CAS Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 Following a recommendation from a couple of mixers on this forum a few years ago I have been using Adobe Audition for playback which has been excellent IMHO. I'm now told that things would be better if I used Pro-Tools instead of Audition but couldn't explain why. Anyone like to give some input? Malcolm Davies A.m.p.s. CAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cory Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 There are a lot of people who claim that Pro-Tools is the only DAW that is appropriate to do anything with. These people are full of it, and are just repeating what they've heard from others. Many DAWs out there have the same (or BETTER) features. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Lightstone, CAS Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 Pro-Tools, like it or not has become the defacto standard in post production and music recording. Thus it is cross platform compatible, from the recording studio, to the music supervisor, music playback operator - then onto picture and sound editorial and then the dub stage. If your clients have been happy with you using Adobe Audition then I don't see a problem. Have you been on shoots where they have insisted on only providing Pro-Tools sessions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afewmoreyears Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 It seems to me that Pro tools is the "Catch phrase" for a playback system just like " Deva" was for a while with file based recorders... It's what "they" have heard bounced about... If people need to chop and edit the playback track up 20 ways it is great, others are as well... but if say your playing back for mood or dance requiring no changes, as we all know..most anything will do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertw Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 Depending on what you are doing with Audition, be aware that when Adobe adds features you will not be able to upgrade via purchase. Adobe no longer sells its products or upgrades, instead charging a monthly fee, which in the case of Audition is currently $20/month or $240/yr plus tax. Here is Adobe's page on how it now markets Audition: http://www.adobe.com/products/audition.html Upgrades may not be an issue if you're just using Audition for playback, although in that case Audacity, which is free, may work just as well for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Davies Amps CAS Posted April 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 Pro-Tools, like it or not has become the defacto standard in post production and music recording. Thus it is cross platform compatible, from the recording studio, to the music supervisor, music playback operator - then onto picture and sound editorial and then the dub stage. If your clients have been happy with you using Adobe Audition then I don't see a problem. Have you been on shoots where they have insisted on only providing Pro-Tools sessions? Not one Richard. We have done some quite complex playback on jobs with Audition but the comment from other mixers has been "are you still using that". Malcolm Davies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean ONeil Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 Depending on what you are doing with Audition, be aware that when Adobe adds features you will not be able to upgrade via purchase. Adobe no longer sells its products or upgrades, instead charging a monthly fee, which in the case of Audition is currently $20/month or $240/yr plus tax. This reason and this reason alone is enough for me to avoid Adobe products whenever possible. Cheers, Sean O'Neil Brooklyn NYC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Smith Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 I have been using Adobe Audition for playback for a number of years with good results. Typically, I don't want or need all the bloated stuff that comes along with PT (unless we are doing some very complicated playbacks). I have been staying with older versions to avoid paying the fee, which I agree is quite annoying. A real mistake on Adobe's part if they hope to gain any more traction in the marketplace. Most of the playbacks I do are 8 channels or less in output spread, which is easily accomodted by a number of interfaces. The system has typically been very solid, and if the track count is low I can run it off a Windows laptop. I've also used the Red Rover remote with the system, which gives some handy hardware control. --S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertw Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 I have been using Adobe Audition for playback for a number of years with good results. Typically, I don't want or need all the bloated stuff that comes along with PT (unless we are doing some very complicated playbacks). I have been staying with older versions to avoid paying the fee, which I agree is quite annoying. A real mistake on Adobe's part if they hope to gain any more traction in the marketplace. Cloud based tools and storage/software as a service is rapidly gaining traction. At the moment, it looks like Adobe's move to this approach is going to be very successful, and I think it is likely that we will see competing vendors copy Adobe's model. The monthly fee is annoying, but if one looks at the whole package it has distinct attractions. In any event, and while it may not be for everyone, the actual reaction of Adobe's clients, and the numbers, suggest that Adobe has called it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 It would not surprise me at all if the next round of upgrades from Avid go cloud-based as well. philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 I don't see how using Audition is good or bad. If it works for you then it's good IMO. I use PT because it is what I first learned and I use it all the time in my home studio and have a high comfort level with it. The only advantage I can see with PT is as Richard points out, it is the most used in music and post. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cory Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 I don't see how using Audition is good or bad. If it works for you then it's good IMO. I use PT because it is what I first learned and I use it all the time in my home studio and have a high comfort level with it. The only advantage I can see with PT is as Richard points out, it is the most used in music and post. CrewC From what I've noticed, in Europe folks are favoring Nuendo and Logic. And in the states, more and more music folks are going Reaper/Logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 The only reason I can see for having to use PT for playback would be that someone else was making sessions for you (as on a musical episodic etc). On my jobs I end up making the playback sessions myself, so it doesn't matter what I use. Some of the very biggest jobs I've done were played off of Audacity (freeware). philp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ao Posted April 4, 2014 Report Share Posted April 4, 2014 The only reason I can see for having to use PT for playback would be that someone else was making sessions for you (as on a musical episodic etc). On my jobs I end up making the playback sessions myself, so it doesn't matter what I use. Some of the very biggest jobs I've done were played off of Audacity (freeware). philp i use audacity as well. i figure if a job needs more, we should get a playback operator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 I use pt because i am really efficient with it. Can i make in the moment speed changes on other software while the producers are starting at me and everyone is waiting for the new tempo? Sure. Can i do a lot faster with pt because i've done it a thousand times in pt? Yes. That's why i use it. The program is irrelevant if the music plays when it's supposed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 The program is irrelevant if the music plays when it's supposed to. That is my point. Comfort level with a DAW is most important to me. CrewC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertw Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Following a recommendation from a couple of mixers on this forum a few years ago I have been using Adobe Audition for playback which has been excellent IMHO. I'm now told that things would be better if I used Pro-Tools instead of Audition but couldn't explain why. Anyone like to give some input? Malcolm Davies A.m.p.s. CAS. Meanwhile, no one has responded directly to Mr. Davies's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Following a recommendation from a couple of mixers on this forum a few years ago I have been using Adobe Audition for playback which has been excellent IMHO. I'm now told that things would be better if I used Pro-Tools instead of Audition but couldn't explain why. I think Pro Tools is a better choice when you do have to hand sessions back and forth to post, but there's no reason why simple playback tools couldn't work in different situations. I've used Courtney Goodin's BWF-Widget Pro quite a few times on a real cheap netbook, and it's been stellar for that purpose. The trick is, I have to use Pro Tools to prep the file, providing embedded timecode and also audible timecode on channel 2 for a wireless slate display. I'm sure there are other programs that can do that as well, but Pro Tools is what I know, plus I'm confident it's reliable for what I need it to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertw Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 I think Pro Tools is a better choice when you do have to hand sessions back and forth to post, but there's no reason why simple playback tools couldn't work in different situations. I've used Courtney Goodin's BWF-Widget Pro quite a few times on a real cheap netbook, and it's been stellar for that purpose. The trick is, I have to use Pro Tools to prep the file, providing embedded timecode and also audible timecode on channel 2 for a wireless slate display. I'm sure there are other programs that can do that as well, but Pro Tools is what I know, plus I'm confident it's reliable for what I need it to do. Talk about a blast from the past. I haven't heard about Mr. Goodin or his software in years, although I will never forget buying his "product". Dealing with Mr. Goodin, his sale to me of BWF-Widget Pro and his treatment of me as a customer was the worst experience that I've ever had buying software, but thankfully not serious money and the sole bad experience that I've had with vendors of recording gear, hardware or software. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Dealing with Mr. Goodin, his sale to me of BWF-Widget Pro and his treatment of me as a customer was the worst experience that I've ever had buying software, but thankfully not serious money and the sole bad experience that I've had with vendors of recording gear, hardware or software. Courtney hangs around here on occasion, is a well-known LA 695 member, and all I can say is that his software was a tremendous resource for us in the dailies business in the past 15 years. I agree he has strong opinions, but he's a very bright guy and BWF-Widget Pro actually works well. If he's your sole bad experience, I'd say you're very lucky. (Actually, I've almost never had bad experiences with recording gear sales people... mine are all with cheap bastid producers!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 sean: " This reason and this reason alone is enough for me to avoid Adobe products whenever possible. " others are adopting this model... robertw: " Dealing with Mr. Goodin, " I suspect many folks here would differ with your experiences... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afewmoreyears Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Meanwhile, no one has responded directly to Mr. Davies's question. MDA: "I'm now told that things would be better if I used Pro-Tools instead of Audition but couldn't explain why." Be better how...? Functionally or making you more recognized by people hiring you because you use a "known" program....? Maybe that's the confusion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 mda: things would be better if... what things ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertw Posted April 5, 2014 Report Share Posted April 5, 2014 Cloud based tools and storage/software as a service is rapidly gaining traction. At the moment, it looks like Adobe's move to this approach is going to be very successful, and I think it is likely that we will see competing vendors copy Adobe's model. The monthly fee is annoying, but if one looks at the whole package it has distinct attractions. In any event, and while it may not be for everyone, the actual reaction of Adobe's clients, and the numbers, suggest that Adobe has called it right. It would not surprise me at all if the next round of upgrades from Avid go cloud-based as well. philp Speak of the devil... NAB: http://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2014/04/05/avid-announces-flexible-licensing-and-deployment-options-for-artist-suite-video http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/datasheets/Media_Composer/Media_Composer_License_Comparison_Guide_cs_A4.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondelev Posted April 6, 2014 Report Share Posted April 6, 2014 The good news is that Avid is not going subscription ONLY. You have multiple options. 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.