why protools...

[kk01]

...in the film industry today, everybody seems to be ging the protools way...why..!? are they trying to say one cant make a great movie without a protools system...

regards,
'kk'

[Cornucopia]

No, they're not saying that. What they're saying is that you can't CONSTANTLY make HIGHEST QUALITY sound for films, and do it EFFICIENTLY in a industrial workflow to make it COST-EFFECTIVE for massive jobs, without the kind of system that ProTools (or similar systems) give.

Sure, I can do a completely high quality, Hollywood-caliber soundtrack with freeware, it'll just take me 50-10000 times longer than it would take them. Same goes for animation and other tools. If it took me that long to do just one show, it wouldn't give me time to make many more shows.

I'm remembering an old adage about there being 3 universal constraints on all products and processes: FAST, CHEAP, GOOD. Pick 2.

Scott (who works on PT rigs daily)

[BJ_M]

really the only reason for protools is that it is tightly integrated with avid


really most motion pictures are not necessarily mixed on a protools system anyway -- but parts may be ...

[Faustus]

I dunno. My cousin does Audio for a living and frankly he talks about protools like its the most awesome thing ever so I guess it is.

[kk01]

...let me say I am just lil' bothered about the idea...I was able to lay my hands on of the tutrials and I really liked it but.., the roland vs2480 hard disk recorder...still has a place in my heart...

[lordsmurf]

I've not heard anybody talk about Pro Tools in ages.

I do hear a lot of chatter about SoundForge though, which is also a bit odd (excellent software, but that much?). I'm even more floored by Audacity and some of the others that get mentioned.

[Jester700]

Avid integration makes sense. And also (at least in the pro audio community) tradition - it was the first high quality DAW and never fully lost that luster, though it's now matched by many software/hardware combos.

It's not really better/easier than competing solutions for audio any more, but since it's a standard many small studios use it so their projects can be used in other studios; also there's the "ignorant client" effect - protools is considered da bomb by musicians who don't know any better, because it's a buzzword they know. Kinda like when they request a Shure 57 on their studio vocals because "Shure makes the best mics, right?"

[BJ_M]

protools in some regards is not all that great - but it is high time code driven .. which is an area lacking in many other DAW ..

keep in mind that for a long time both protools and avid systems were ALWAYS run on MACs - macs were known as the creative persons machines (i.e. graphics etc) ..... when avid (and protools) switched to primarily (or totally) to windows, a lot of mac followers followed by necessity , but were not about to change what they had been working with before ....

[Cornucopia]

Jeez, why you tryin' to be all up in my stuff?

No, seriously, PT has many competitors now, and for good reason--it's more expensive than most, uses their own proprietary hardware, uses their own proprietary plugin architecture, don't have the most advanced midi support, and don't transparently support non-mono files--but some of the best tools are specifically made for it, it is expandable beyond any other system's dreams, and it's editing interface/workflow still can't be beat.

Example: ~5 years ago I did the VO work for a well-known game where they required ~15 characters to voice ~5000 clips, averaging ~30sec each. I needed to record, edit, add FX, mix, and export in the correct file format, etc., using their complicated naming scheme--IN 2 weeks. With PT (even before I got more macro keystroke accelleration), I got it done in time.

And now, I regularly do commercial spots w/customized/individualized tags (usu. 30sec) on the order of ~80/hour. Without a hiccup.

And I don't even work for the big boys, so you know they got to need bigger rigs than I. Not many systems are that rock solid, high quality and expandable.

Scott

[Jester700]

Good points. Cornucopia, I honestly think a large part of your success is just deep familiarity and polished workflow with your tool of choice; PT didn't seem any slicker than Vegas or Sonar when we mixed a CD on it - though that was version 5.something - pretty old, I think. And admittedly a limited experience on my part. But I think a different pro who's as familiar with his tool (which definitely wouldn't be me!) could have the same efficiency on HIS fave program. Vegas certainly has this quick feel about it.

Time code - yeah, good point.

RTAS plugs and other PT-only tools - yeah, good point, if you're spendy. That didn't used to be that big a question, but now with the cheap M-powered versions, $2500 plugins can seem a little strange. RTAS plugs seem to be costlier than ones also available in DX & VST flavors.

As for freeware, Audacity is OK as an editor, but keep your eye on the multitrack REAPER. A very VEGAS-y feel, though not as pretty. But at 1MB! it's efficiently coded and pretty slick.