Lawrence
11-14-2002, 09:29 PM
I started the thread over because I'm taking a little of a different direction here. Bear with me , this is gonna take a while.
Pro Tools is a great system there's no doubt about it. However I think most of the PT users are missing the real "Native" point here. Most native daw users I know aren't trying to do the "studio in a box" even though the latest software, chips and fast drives make that entirely possible. In the native world many do that with great success. But most don't. Not most professional native daw based studios around here in Michigan anyway.
When we say "Pro Tools is not really superior" we are not dogging PT. What we're saying is that Logic, SX, DP and many other native daws do get the job done just as fast while sounding just as good for less money with a lot more options for hardware and software interface. We've made an intelligent informed decision to go native just like you did with PT. Contrary to many opinions we aren't "lacking" anything and we weren't bamboozled.
When we compare native to PT we don't mean native as "PC with DP" vs. "PC with PT". The PT system comes with extra dedicated DSP chips (hence the higher costs) so that's really an unfair comparison. Let us spend some more money to add to our system until I get to about what the PT system costs and then let's compare the systems in context. I may add DSP or I may add audio hardware or a digital mixer. Either way it becomes part of my daw system much like an additional DSP card becomes part of a PT system. The fact that the "main" dsp chip (or dual chips) that handle the bulk of the dsp work resides on the motherboard (definition of native) and not a proprietary dsp card in a slot is really irrelevant to me. All I want to know is if it will do what I need it to do all of the time every day. It can live wherever it wants, I'm not the housing commission.
Our basic argument is "sure your $25k PT system is great" but you refuse to believe that "my $17k native _system_ is just as great". For some unknown reason the PT owners I've met here locally refuse to even acknowledge that my digital console and my 2408 (among other things) are for all practical purposes [/] part of my overall native daw system [/I] .
SX is just a recorder and editor albeit a great one like PT software. My PC is my "farm card" among other things. My d8b is the "Pro Control", audio I/O, additional DSP and automation . The 2408 is my additonal I/O. DX is TDM etc, etc. Now you can compare capabilities with the proper context by cost and otherwise. That's an example of a native daw "system" for building a pro studio around.
We recognize you and applaud you PT'ers on your choices. Much success to you all. Can you do the same? That's all we want. We can coexist happily but not with the current misconceptions and apparent "class" system that says we're inferior.
Let's put this in the proper context. Digi makes a complete professional recording system called Pro Tools. Native daw users create custom complete professional recording systems built with many different manufacturers products. Both have options that can be added. Both have capabilities that are currently far beyond what most ordinary pop, rock, jazz or country recording scenarios require to make great records. Why the great debate? Lack of acceptance.
You wanna mix my SX production tracks in PT? I'll render individual tracks in whatever format you want, drop them in PT and go. If you like you can cut and delete the empty spaces to reclaim disk space, or not. Or just use the timestamps to put the SX audio segements where they belong in the PT timeline.
Your PT created audio files timestamped? Send 'em over (all 48+) and I'll mix 'em up so we can compare. Not a daw contest, a learning experience for both and an opportunity to find common ground.
FACT: PT brings in business we all know that. That's an entirely different issue and only a fool would deny it. The real question is this...
"Can you acknowledge us as professionals with equal capabilities?"
I don't see why not. We're brothers after all...
Lawrence
Pro Tools is a great system there's no doubt about it. However I think most of the PT users are missing the real "Native" point here. Most native daw users I know aren't trying to do the "studio in a box" even though the latest software, chips and fast drives make that entirely possible. In the native world many do that with great success. But most don't. Not most professional native daw based studios around here in Michigan anyway.
When we say "Pro Tools is not really superior" we are not dogging PT. What we're saying is that Logic, SX, DP and many other native daws do get the job done just as fast while sounding just as good for less money with a lot more options for hardware and software interface. We've made an intelligent informed decision to go native just like you did with PT. Contrary to many opinions we aren't "lacking" anything and we weren't bamboozled.
When we compare native to PT we don't mean native as "PC with DP" vs. "PC with PT". The PT system comes with extra dedicated DSP chips (hence the higher costs) so that's really an unfair comparison. Let us spend some more money to add to our system until I get to about what the PT system costs and then let's compare the systems in context. I may add DSP or I may add audio hardware or a digital mixer. Either way it becomes part of my daw system much like an additional DSP card becomes part of a PT system. The fact that the "main" dsp chip (or dual chips) that handle the bulk of the dsp work resides on the motherboard (definition of native) and not a proprietary dsp card in a slot is really irrelevant to me. All I want to know is if it will do what I need it to do all of the time every day. It can live wherever it wants, I'm not the housing commission.
Our basic argument is "sure your $25k PT system is great" but you refuse to believe that "my $17k native _system_ is just as great". For some unknown reason the PT owners I've met here locally refuse to even acknowledge that my digital console and my 2408 (among other things) are for all practical purposes [/] part of my overall native daw system [/I] .
SX is just a recorder and editor albeit a great one like PT software. My PC is my "farm card" among other things. My d8b is the "Pro Control", audio I/O, additional DSP and automation . The 2408 is my additonal I/O. DX is TDM etc, etc. Now you can compare capabilities with the proper context by cost and otherwise. That's an example of a native daw "system" for building a pro studio around.
We recognize you and applaud you PT'ers on your choices. Much success to you all. Can you do the same? That's all we want. We can coexist happily but not with the current misconceptions and apparent "class" system that says we're inferior.
Let's put this in the proper context. Digi makes a complete professional recording system called Pro Tools. Native daw users create custom complete professional recording systems built with many different manufacturers products. Both have options that can be added. Both have capabilities that are currently far beyond what most ordinary pop, rock, jazz or country recording scenarios require to make great records. Why the great debate? Lack of acceptance.
You wanna mix my SX production tracks in PT? I'll render individual tracks in whatever format you want, drop them in PT and go. If you like you can cut and delete the empty spaces to reclaim disk space, or not. Or just use the timestamps to put the SX audio segements where they belong in the PT timeline.
Your PT created audio files timestamped? Send 'em over (all 48+) and I'll mix 'em up so we can compare. Not a daw contest, a learning experience for both and an opportunity to find common ground.
FACT: PT brings in business we all know that. That's an entirely different issue and only a fool would deny it. The real question is this...
"Can you acknowledge us as professionals with equal capabilities?"
I don't see why not. We're brothers after all...
Lawrence