Jump to content

real time bounce tip in PT


ccsnd

Recommended Posts

I hear a lot of people complaining about having to wait for a bounce, 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.

I have been doing this for several years with no complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

People have been doing this in Post-Audio for years when doing traditional dub stage mixes - ie: printing to tape and doing punch ins for changes.

The big reason to use this method anyways, is that it's the only way to really monitor picture as you are printing tracks. (that is, unless you have a separate machine that does the video playback)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a long time SADiE user who is used to being able to bounce either in real time or non-real time, I'm not unhappy with the methodology of Pro Tools. Considering the time it takes to edit and mix a film, the path outlined above works really well with the ability to correct any segments you so desire. Then, a simple right click in the regions bin and you can save to disk in any manner you wish.

Now, the absurdly abysmal and antiquated file management in Pro Tools is another story. I should say, lack of file management, since it has none. Avid should be ashamed! Most programs written twenty years ago had better file management than Pro Tools does even today. It's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a serious question about PT, not a flame-bait:

Can anybody tell me why PT can't do faster-than-realtime renders? If it can handle a 32-bit 192 kHz data stream, shouldn't it be able to process 24-bit 48 kHz at least four times faster?

Like many Nuendo users, I keep checking PT's new versions to see whether it's time for me to switch over. And every time I've asked a Digi rep or one of their film-sound experts this question, I've gotten market-speak about other features instead. Does anybody know the real reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then, a simple right click in the regions bin and you can save to disk in any manner you wish.

Now, the absurdly abysmal and antiquated file management in Pro Tools is another story. I should say, lack of file management, since it has none. Avid should be ashamed! Most programs written twenty years ago had better file management than Pro Tools does even today. It's ridiculous.

Highlight a region and hold Shift + Command + K to export it.

Agreed about the file management. It could be much better.

Mark O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case someone who doesn't use Pro Tools wonders what we're talking about in respect to the lack of file management...

When you bring in a file, Pro Tools puts everything into one bin. There is no way to make folders, or sub-directories, it all just stays in that one bin.

But wait...! There's more... Any time you make a cut, Pro Tools creates two more clips that it also puts into the same bin.

What that means is, if you're editing a feature film, you end up with a single bin filled with thousands upon thousands of clips, and even more thousands and thousands of portions of clips, all in one giant morass.

So, how efficient is it to find the a clip you need in all that mess? IT ISN'T!

It's so bad that it makes you think that Avid hates their users and this is their passive-agressive way of showing it.

Even the most backward of programs created in the last twenty years has file management that puts Pro Tools to shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case someone who doesn't use Pro Tools wonders what we're talking about in respect to the lack of file management...

When you bring in a file, Pro Tools puts everything into one bin. There is no way to make folders, or sub-directories, it all just stays in that one bin.

But wait...! There's more... Any time you make a cut, Pro Tools creates two more clips that it also puts into the same bin.

What that means is, if you're editing a feature film, you end up with a single bin filled with thousands upon thousands of clips, and even more thousands and thousands of portions of clips, all in one giant morass.

So, how efficient is it to find the a clip you need in all that mess? IT ISN'T!

It's so bad that it makes you think that Avid hates their users and this is their passive-agressive way of showing it.

Even the most backward of programs created in the last twenty years has file management that puts Pro Tools to shame.

Does it still make this entire mess in v.10? I thought they had at least cleaned it up a little with the audio suite processing bit - it does it to the whole file, instead of making three new ones. Still no bins. That's 'rubbish'. hah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it still make this entire mess in v.10? I thought they had at least cleaned it up a little with the audio suite processing bit - it does it to the whole file, instead of making three new ones. Still no bins. That's 'rubbish'. hah.

I'm not sure about the newest Audio Suite changes, but the lack of bins is still abysmal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a serious question about PT, not a flame-bait:

Can anybody tell me why PT can't do faster-than-realtime renders? If it can handle a 32-bit 192 kHz data stream, shouldn't it be able to process 24-bit 48 kHz at least four times faster?

As far as I understand, t's the way the audio engine was originally written. Since TDM cards and outboard gear patched in has to be recorded in real time, they didn't see a need for offline bouncing. RTAS = Real Time Audio Suite. They have indicated that this will be addressed in future versions. It's being done step-by-step, hence the introduction of new formats HDX / AAX in version 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But hopefully by the time that avid fixes these issues and pt is usable again, users will have realized Nuendo is superior.

I like pt for mixing in a way, but when it comes to editing it's unusable, just like John says. And it's weird that file management still exist cus Avids been doing bins and proper sorting for... Ever? File management and lack of clip gain (now pt has that, but still) and "region thinking" is what made me go to nuendo. Once you've learned how to mix properly in Nuendo, there's no reason to use pt again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SADiE (what I was previously using) has excellent file management and great editing capability. Clip gain has been available for as far back as I go with the system and bounces are quick or real-time, whichever you wish. Oh, and it sounds better than Pro Tools.

However, PT has the edge when it comes to handling lots of tracks, tons of plugins, hi-def video lockup, and automation. That's why I switched for film post work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it still make this entire mess in v.10? I thought they had at least cleaned it up a little with the audio suite processing bit - it does it to the whole file, instead of making three new ones. Still no bins. That's 'rubbish'. hah.

Just to be clear, it doesn't create new files when cutting a region up (called a break in PT) in the timeline. It references one file on the file system no matter how many cuts or copies you make in the timeline. If you apply an audiosuite plugin or consolidate regions it will make a new file.

I've been using PT for 10 years now and I don't even know what features I'm missing regarding file management. The timeline is my workspace. Any files I need I usually import and immediately drag onto the timeline. Periodically I will Select > "All unused regions except whole" and then hit Shift + Command + B to delete them (they are just references to a parent region). That being said, I 'd love to see what kind of useful features they can add to the bin.

Add the very end of a session, after all work is done, I will File > Save Copy In. This will save only audio files that are used in the timeline, getting rid of unnecessary and unused files. There is usually about a 10% storage savings doing this.

Sorry for getting off-topic,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since my aging SADiE systems were lacking in high track count ability, about a year ago I started looking for which film post editing system I wished to update to. I narrowed the search to the latest SADiE version, Pro Tools, and Nuendo. Pro Tools won out for several reasons, cost, and available resources being among them. I spent some time on both DUC and Nuendo user boards (I was already on the SADiE board) learning about the kinds of issues users were dealing with, etc., looked at the best deals I could find, examined my working methodology, workflow for video sync, etc. I choose Pro Tools and still think it was the right decision.

However, comparing SADiE tracks to PT9 -- SADiE sounds better. I haven't made the comparison with PT10 yet.

There are many things in PT that I like a lot, like the massive number of tracks and plugins it handles with aplomb and its comprehensive automation, and a few -- like the lack of bin support -- that I find to be ridiculously bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, comparing SADiE tracks to PT9 -- SADiE sounds better. I haven't made the comparison with PT10 yet.

How (or why) does one DAW "sound better" than another? I don't think these devices are supposed to have any effect on the quality of the audio being run through them. Or are you talking about the plugins and/or built-in signal processing capabilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How (or why) does one DAW "sound better" than another? I don't think these devices are supposed to have any effect on the quality of the audio being run through them. Or are you talking about the plugins and/or built-in signal processing capabilities?

No, just the basic sound quality.

Over time, I've read several reports by credible users who work with both SADiE and Pro Tools that their comparisons have shown SADiE to sound better. This is part of the reason SADiE is often preferred by people recording classical music. I've also read comments that with PT the sound varies depending upon the path the signal takes within the digital realm. It may have to do with summing circuits and the like. While I was mildly skeptical of the information, when I first added Pro Tools 9, I thought that a voice track I had just recorded didn't sound as good as I thought it should. I recorded the same voice track in SADiE using the same voice, mic, and preamp, and it sounded noticably better. The difference was striking enough that I know I wasn't imagining it. I didn't have any particular mental bias toward SADiE, as I really wanted Pro Tools to work out great for me. After all, I had just spent a pile of hard-earned shekels to install it.

The SADiE system was using its proprietary hardware and the Pro Tools system was using a MOTU 828 mk II. On the chance that the difference was at least partly due to the AD/DA being used, I switched from the MOTU interface that I was using on PT to an RME costing more than twice as much. At that point I started post on a feature and haven't revisited comparisons.

I haven't done extensive testing. The ideal test would be recording the identical signal on both systems simultaneously and then doing playback from each with a blind listening test, then playing back each file on the other system with another blind listening test, then compiling the results.

Perhaps in my free time. <g>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John it would be my guess that the A/D/A conversion is where the difference lies. Unless it's using some kind of comprssion algorithm or dropping bits somehow there should be no coloration involved in usng a DAW. If there is, something is wrong, digital is digital. How it gets to digital and back again is another story altogether. I've heard some awfully crappy A/D/A conversions.

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...