Goodbye Pro Tools, Hello Native!!!!

[Spastik]

Pro Tools has been, and according to them, always will be a DSP card based system. Made sense when computer speeds sucked, and it still does when you are using a mac at slow speeds as well. What they didn't see coming was the fact that Processor speeds are through the roof and by 2005 (according to Intel) their terabit processors will be hitting the market. What does this mean? Either Pro Tools gets its butt in gear and catches back up to Logic and Cubase (and Nuendo, hehe) or when the Northwoods processors come out they will be hurting, a lot. The best part about this is that we the consumer will have systems that are infinately more powerful than the ones running $70,0000 in Pro Tools and processors. All I gotta say is that I am saddling up to a 2.2 ghz northwoods (at least) with 2 gig of ram, a couple of 100 gig hard drives and I am gonna sit back and hear all the lame explanations of why I should have gone with a Mac and Tools. I talked to a Digidesign rep (who will remain nameless) and he spouted all kinds of nonsense to me about how slow and unstable PCs are. Well I have been building PCs since I was a kid (helped my Dad fix his 10" floppy drive and 100 lb 2 mb HD when I was 12) and I hate being lied to by sales reps. I was thinking about Pro Tools, seriously, until the past 6 months and then after talkin to this brain surgeon I was sold on NO TOOLS.

Okay so I tend to rant a bit, but still, its great to be the little guy again! Don't invest in Tools anytime soon, hell 24 bit is obsolete already, hehe.

[JMAC]

Pro Tools is still a major tool used by movie studios and large sound production studios. The real situation here is how Digidesign responds to the changes.

The west coast uses MAC a lot more than the east coast. So file format is going to be the big question. You may not be a Pro Tools fan, but you have to give them their dues for what they have started.

Also, unless you are shopping at places that regularly rip you off I think $70,000 is a bit much for a complete Pro Tools set up. I think I last priced everything (at Sweetwater) for about $10,000 and that included the Mac.

Of course there is always the outboard items (control boards, midi links, etc...), but your going to have those expenses with PC software as well. Then you've got your plug and "pray" situations with trying to make sure every card understands the languages.

To each his own, but as I said "Time will tell what becomes of Digidesign and Pro Tools".

[Ted]

There may be terabit processors on the market by 2005, but right now no native system can offer the processing capabilities of a fully-expanded Pro Tools system. And whereas most of today's host-based systems (including Digidesign's own) will outperform the older DSP-based systems, at the time they came out they were the most powerful tools available, just like today's Mix systems are. So a host-based system in the not-too-distant future may be able to outperform one of today's Pro Tools (or other DSP-enhanced) systems...so what? Who knows what the DSP-based systems will be able to do at that point? Who, five years ago, would have thought that a computer system would be able to play back 64 tracks of audio, along with all kinds of amazing effects and real-time software-based synthesizers and samplers?

-Ted

[d-dmusic]

You sound SO sure of yourself right now but there are some pitfalls to "host based" systems. I have worked with one almost every day for years.

Stability is a big one.
Speed is another (depending on control surfaces).
Compatibility with 3rd party plug-ins/VSTi's and DSP cards.
Dual Processor troubles.

And, with UAD/TC cards out you would think that your processing troubles are over. Think again. Just check out the cubase.net forum for other peoples problems getting them working and working around latency and other troubles. That's the PC version. Mac isn't out yet as far as I know.

There is much to be said for a system that is "tried and true" and rock solid stable where every component is part of a set.

My 2 cents.

[cevans]

I'm sorry to disapoint all of you native guys out there but ProTools is still the King by far. There is no substitute for "on damand" dedicated DSP power with inaudible latency. There is a reason that PT costs so much, it's because it is that much better than running anything native and trying to compensate for the insane amount of latency that is involved with using 3rd party DSP cards with a native system.
I'm not saying that native isn't good at what it does because I have PTLE, DP 3.0, and Logic 4.8.1 running on my system at home and I'm getting by for the mixes that I do. But if I had to do a 64 track surround mix session with tons of the plugins that "I want to use" without having to worry about running out of CPU power and dealing with the massive latency issues, not to mention waiting for the CPU to load all of its buffers when I start and stop, I would be sunk.
Try to keep things in perspective when ranting about native systems. As soon as they release 3GHZ processor Bombfactory is going to create a reverb that eats up just as much CPU power on the 3GHZ P5 as the old reverb ate up on the 1.7GHZ P4. So you can still only open 1 or 2.


Thanks, Chad

[jamie garner]

i agree whole heartedly with cevans- when the processors get faster, the software will get just as much more complex.

speaking of native, i guess i'm straddling the fence here- i have a protools system, but it's a 'native' digi001- no matter the software, you still need the soundcard, and i figured digidesign's was as good as any- plus i'm compatable with most major studios in the world!

on a g4/733, i can run most 'whizbang' plug-ins without a sweat- especially now that bombfactory has the V2 upgrade. the metric halo channel strip is very cpu-friendly too- i can have a dozen with no problem (i wish the compressor was as good as the eq!), tho things like the 'realverb' bring the g4 to it's knees easily.

the real saving for me in system cost vs a bottom endMIX system has been being able to get a digi001, four NEW good mics, 2 channels of kick-butt micpres, 8 channels of nice micpres, scsi accelerator, 32 gigs of ultra-lvd.... you see where i'm going.

i say the hell with it- 5 years from now, we may have a 10ghz, shoebox sized, 48 channels,16 killer micpre, full fx, ect... for under a grand. in the end, we ALL win, and besides, SOMEBODY has to buy all the stuff that's for sale- that's the capatalist creedo!

[michaelhoddy]

It just occurred to me, the TDM users who saw or posted in this thread when it began back in December are probably all really pissed now because their Mix systems were obsoleted by HD.

DSP-based systems have a great many strengths over native at the moment, but at least native users don't have to know the joy of suddenly discovering that your proprietary hardware has just depreciated by thousands of dollars overnight. :)

[Ted]

I don't know how pissed they really are...their Mix systems have actually not been made obsolete overnight. They still sound just as good as they did in December, and are capable of just as much as they were at that time as well...there's just something more powerful out there now. And if they need to upgrade, Digidesign has an upgrade policy that's better than anything else in the industry that I'm aware of. And the Mix systems are still very viable systems...they just sell for a little less than they did a few months ago. That's good news for anyone who previously found them just out of reach.

-Ted

[shawn guess]

pro tools got the ball rolling for digital production when native systems couldnt hack it. but now that processors are fast enough to keep up, its a more viable option to buy a smokin PC (yes, even a pc if properly configured will produce a blazing system) and load it with the proper components, and i dont mean a compaq or packard bell from best buy, and one has a system that is easy to set up, does not cost a lot, is more easily and cheaply upgraded than anything pro tools can come up with. . . and most importantly, will produce the audible results to match.

pro tools is still just the analog/digital mediary. it works close enough to analog so that all the old schoolers will latch on and find it easy to use, but is digitally tweakable enough to push the music technological envelope a bit.

but now take it to a native system that allows the audio source to hit a high end converter, then go directly into the computer and never leave that environment until it hits a pre-master cd thats sent to the mastering house --- no mixers, no patch bays, nothing but the simplicity of a computer and a trackball.

what about 64 tracks of 5.1 audio with 10 fx per channel? sure pro tools can do it, it has enough processors lingering about that if it couldnt there would be something seriously wrong. but the catch is that you pay for each processor dearly. run that 64 track scenario on NUENDO on just a 1.6ghz athlonxp with a 333mhz mobo and only 512 of 333mhz RAM and it might just shock you with about 75% of the performance and less than 1/5 of the cost of that pro tools system -- now you still have those several thousand dollars to spend on mic pres and things that will actually make your sound better, not just more expensive.

in terms of upgrading, for the cost to upgrade one component of pro tools, i could go ahead and replace my processor -- THE processor, not one of many.

people yack on and on about pc stability, but they dont have stability problems unless people try 45 drivers before they keep one, or install and uninstall 23 pieces of software before they keep one, or just dont setup the system correctly to begin with. all you have to do is dual-boot with the same OS, in my case XP/XP, one is the test system where i try everything to find what works best and i format between tests, the other is the real system where you only install what has proven that it works and works well. when the process is over, you have tested everything and know what will and will not work and have created a rock solid, cost effective, easy to setup, native system. i havent had a moments trouble from mine.

but of course, people will buy pro tools just because its "PRO TOOLS" until the end of time with complete disregard for the technological innovations that allow for simpler, more cost effective units.

--shawn

[michaelhoddy]

CoughLatencyCough.

I'm no huge Digi fan, but's that's why people use it. Minimal latency. It behaves a lot like a console, a tape machine, and a rack of outboard.

Also, it's reliable. It works. Sure, you can get your PC to run 8,000 tracks of audio with stability, but only after custom-configuring 37 drivers, installing just the right components, and working out all the bugs for two weeks. Most of us, including me, have deadlines to meet that preclude this kind of tinkering.

PT is also a studio standard. Just like SSL is a standard and Neumann is a standard. People on both sides of the window are familiar with these standards. Sure, we may gripe about certain things about each of those and how another piece can do the same work better and/or cheaper, but it doesn't matter. Which is also why trying to explain that a Studio Projects C1 is "just like" a U87 also is pointless with most clients.

Nuendo is cool, don't get me wrong, and I'm glad it's working for you, but this is why PT still is the standard. I don't expect it to be this way forever, especially once the latency issue is solved, but that's the way it is now.


<64 tracks of 5.1 audio with 10 fx per channel>
That's 640 plug-ins! What exactly ARE you doing? :)

[Ted]

Shawn-

I think you hit the nail on the head in your post, not only about how great a native system can be (I run one myself), but why people go for Pro Tools as well. You said Nuendo gave about 75% of the performance at about 20% of the cost...those numbers may vary depending on the particular system, but people buy Pro Tools systems for the same reason they buy $3600 compressors, $5000 microphones, and so on...they spare no expense to get the best possible performance. It's like buying expensive sports cars, for instance...when you pay twice the money, you don't get twice the performance. And there are certain areas...reverbs, for instance...where the native systems still aren't up to where the DSP-based systems (not just Pro Tools, but the cards such as the UAD1 and PowerCore) are yet...

-Ted

[raztalove]

anyone ever hear of creamware? Thats a lot of dsp power right there, IMHO, if you know how to use their cards well, that balances out the dsp, host processing power right there. Peace.

[michaelhoddy]

That takes care of processing power (as do the TC PowerCore and UAD-1), but it still doesn't solve the latency issue...

[MorturaryMan]

Pro-Tools will remain a standard for now.....but in 5 to 10 years i think that Digi's lackluster PC support will be the end of them. Other more
PC/Windows friendly companies (Steinberg, Emagic, Cakewalk) will have the edge when proccessors clock cycles reach the Terrahertz level. Add to this that Microsofts grip on the computer OS world will only increase (least as I see it). This will eventually be the swan song of Digi's Farmcard system in the big production studios.

[shawn guess]

as far as latency goes, im not following how its such a huge problem for everyone given all the zero-latency hardware monitoring options (the aardvark q10 in my case) and i only have from 4-11 ms of latency in the software -- thats less latency than a guitarist hears from his amp on stage or a drummer hears himself from his sidestage monitors. anyone who has a problem with 10ms software and 0ms hardware latency is thinking more about the numbers that comprise their recording system than recording the music that will put that lack of latency to good use.
--shawn

[Ted]

Pro-Tools will remain a standard for now.....but in 5 to 10 years i think that Digi's lackluster PC support will be the end of them. Other more
PC/Windows friendly companies (Steinberg, Emagic, Cakewalk) will have the edge when proccessors clock cycles reach the Terrahertz level. Add to this that Microsofts grip on the computer OS world will only increase (least as I see it). This will eventually be the swan song of Digi's Farmcard system in the big production studios.

I don't know about that...I think that part of the reason they don't offer more PC support than they do is that they have much more demand on the Mac side of things (at least working here at Sweetwater, I certainly have more Mac users asking than PC users). Maybe if the demand from PC users builds up more they'll offer more support...

As for processors speeding up, we've seen that happening for years...as computers' processors speed up, so do Digi's Farm cards, and so do the demands we place on their systems. The new HD Process cards are twice as fast as the Mix Farms, and there are still plugins out there that run on these cards (as well as the other DSP cards such as the Universal Audio and TC Works models) that aren't even available in a native plugin yet. We'll see what happens...

-Ted

[michaelhoddy]

I think that you'll see the processor draw of plug-ins increase as the speed and capability of CPU's continues to increase. Eventually, there will be something of a ceiling, but I don't expect us to hit it any time too soon.

I reiterate, people use PT because it acts a lot like a tape machine and a rack of outboard. Even the best native systems don't have the solid feel of a DSP-based system.

As far as the PCI DSP cards like the UAD-1 for other native platforms, latency is still a huge problem, on a much higher level than PT. Check out the user forums for more on this.

And as far as the PC is concerned, as long as Microsoft continues to release multiple dumb, sloppily-written OS's that are flawed, incompatible, and crash a lot, as well as being incomprehensible to use and that chew up half the CPU just by themselves, there will be a strong market among musicians for the Mac. I am a long-time PC user (I'm using one right now) that switched to Mac for music and audio apps. I'll never go back. MUCH slicker, and great for someone like me who's not a computer genius, doesn't care what a .dll file is, and wants to get right to making music.

[JMAC]

I would have to agree with most of the posts here. PT is the standard and the king of the DAW's. PC's try to emulate what PT has done, but really aren't designed with music recording/ engineering as their main function.

PC's are the melting pot world of computers. WindowsXP is an excellent example of this mentality. Microsoft is writing their OS systems to be everything to everyone because that is where the money is. The public wants their computers cheap, and with the capability to do anything.

Mac's mentality has always been to build a great computer. Which is why they sat down with Microsoft and told them to write an OS that works well with their systems.

My recommendation would be to use your PC for everything else (internet, printing, photos, playing games, etc...), and then buy a Mac that is dedicated to music. Life will be easier all the way around!!

[simon784]

Do the best you can with whatever you have.

[MorturaryMan]

I worked in a PT based commercial studio for 2 years. We used a Mix24+ a 64 track 24 bit system that set back the owned nearly $20,000.

I am now running Cubase VST/32 and a Aardvark Q10 at home and have 64 or more 24/32bit audio tracks for under $3000 with equal stability.


Thats just been my experience :D

[michaelhoddy]

I run DP at home on a seriously loaded dual-processor Mac. It's very stable. I have more tracks than I need. But that's not the bottom line issue.

Lat...ency. That's the bottom line. It still doesn't have the no-nonsense feel of TDM. But that's a decision I made based on cost, as I was seriously considering TDM for home but decided that I could put up with it for the money I saved (which got spent on more Neumanns. Yum).

It's getting better as computers get faster. But it's still there.

What are you doing with 32 bit audio tracks. Or are you talking about floating point math?

[MorturaryMan]

its 32bit floating point.

My latency is around 7ms. Its really never been a problem :evil:
I was just sort of pointing out how much technology has opened
up over the last 2 years. Pretty amazing actually!

[mraudiommn]

I'm learning as I go here....so forgive me....but just how many DAW's are compatable with Avid? It's kinda comfy that ProTools is in the same family that Avid is. In my application, there really is no better choice I see. We use multi-track audio (usually 16 if not 24) and edit thru our Avid Express constantly. Thinking of getting ProTools in the near future to get away from the traditonal "post" we use now. So my question is, has anybody got a better DAW to mate with Avid? Not trying to steer this original posters question away...but just curious.

[Sanjeev SR Kumar]

Protools may have contributed their part for the recording industry,but they can never be rated the best.
I still donot feel comfotable working on a mix using a mouse!When you are mixing we need fader controls to some extent.Here with later versions like digi002 there is an option but at an extra cost.What about the plug in! Horrible quality I must say.
If you cannot afford for a Mix24 or a HD2 with Control24 then Protool is not the choice.
Think of Roland VS2480..A great machine for the price with dedicated 24Tracks 24 bits with Control surface and extraodinary FX processors which never hangs your system.
Think before you buy.:)

[Ted]

What about the plug in! Horrible quality I must say.

To which plugins are you referring? There are some phenomenal plugins out there for Pro Tools LE (ie 001, 002, M Box, Toolbox). Sure, there are some that aren't so great as well, but they shouldn't all be lumped together-

-Ted

[Kato1]

If you were to ask me 5 or more years ago; saying Mac is better than PC, I would have agreed with someone saying so. However, there is no argument today. Processor speed have expanded exponetially over the years. Also componenets are comparable. The comercials with Mac are "Think Differently". However, they don't realize PC users are. They are breaking away from the ideal that only good music can be made on Mac. Plus...They have more options from which to choose from. Meaning, they can add a lot of options to their computer for a reasonable price without breaking their budget to do so.

I've worked with Cubase SX and VST 5.1 on both Mac 833 Mhz and PC 1.6 Mhz. I've used Rambus Ram on the PC and DDR Ram on Mac. As far a stability goes their sixes. As with anything, researching what you buy is the key. If you buy a low end Mac, you get what you pay for, as with PC.

It's extremely interesting when I was researching computers to add to my studio, I thought about going to Mac, and considered buying Pro Tools. However, the studio I was able to build cost far less than what Pro Tools would have cost, and is comparible in quality. It just has the Steinberg name instead of Pro Tools. Steinberg used to think that processor cards were the only way to go as well, but realized the future early and started providing less support for TDM.

Also while researching computers at the Mac store, I was unable to get a firm yes that the computer I was going to buy from them was faster or mors stable than Windows XP for music production. Try this test yourself if you don't believe me. I tried everything I could do to have the person at the store convince me otherwise because I wanted to buy a Mac. What it boils down to is how the computer looks. If it looks better, then it must be better????.....

After not being able to get an answer to my question, I found a store (I won't mention so you don't think this is a comercial) that gives me a lifetime warranty for service on my computer. Yes PC. This is because they are so confident that their computers will stand up to anything, they offer this. Can Mac do that? I think not.

The only difference that PC users or Mac users running Mac have over those running Pro Tools on Mac systems is about $9,000 + dollars. For the person who said you can get a Pro Tools system for 10,000, they fail to mention all the other things you have to buy to make it complete. Let up the price another 5,000 to 10,000 and you're getting warm.

Don't get me wrong with my rant...Quality software such as Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools, Digital performer are all excellent. It doesn't matter what system you use, the math is either slower or faster on other systems depending on how much it's beefed up. Lets get over the fighting and make music.:scared:

[Ted]

The only difference that PC users or Mac users running Mac have over those running Pro Tools on Mac systems is about $9,000 + dollars.

I think the main point of this thread isn't Mac vs PC, but Pro Tools (or DSP-based in general) vs Native. If you're looking at a Pro Tools TDM system, the cost of the computer will be a fairly small part of the overall price, especially if it's an elaborate system. Whether you go with a Mac or PC with a TDM system, the cost will be pretty close to the same. In this case, though, I still always recommend a Mac, simply because there are a good number of plugins that aren't PC-compatible and probably never will be.


Steinberg used to think that processor cards were the only way to go as well, but realized the future early and started providing less support for TDM.


It may be the future, but I don't think we're there yet...there are still a good variety of plugins that aren't yet available for native systems that are for DSP-based systems (and I'm including the Universal/Mackie and TC cards in that category)...no native reverb I've heard can touch the DSP-based reverbs, and the DSP-based amp simulators (such as Amp Farm and Nigel) still sound better to me than the native ones, not to mention the fact that if you do fire up a good high-quality reverb or amp simulator in a native system, it eats up a huge amount of processing power. It's nice to have the ability to add another card should you need more horespower. And then there are the software synths...is there anything out there that touches the Virus plugins in any native systems?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Pro Tools is the end-all-be-all...most of my work I do on my Digital Performer system (but I do have a UAD1 card)...but as fast as CPU's are, the plugins are doing their best to keep up and there's still a ways to go before the native systems catch up.

-Ted

[Kennai]

Hey guys, I`m a pro tools guy with the Digi 001 PTLE. I`ve been a mac user for years, and now I want to upgrade my system, but I`ve heard there are problems with the new machines (dual g4`s) and the digi 001 system. Is that the case? If so, is there a fix. I would hate to have to start my plug-in collection all over again with a PC based system.
Any feedback on this would be gratly appreciated.
Thanks!
Kenneth

[Audio Servant]

"Pro-Tools will remain a standard for now.....but in 5 to 10 years i think that Digi's lackluster PC support will be the end of them. "

Actually, Digidesign seems to have made a big step forward toward PC support right after Apple bought Emagic. Just check out their homepage where they are announcing ASIO support, and XP versions of several plug ins and M Box.

[flattop100]

I think that in the future Mac and Microsoft are going to have a major third contender: Linux. A majority of the world's special effects houses (Industrial Light and Magic--George Lucas's own, and WETA, who's doing the Lord of the Rings visuals, for a couple of examples) are on Linux for an operating system. If things continue as they are (standardization among flavors of Linux, and greater out-of-the-box usability), Linux will come to the front.

Time period? Hah. You won't infect me with shoe-in-mouth syndrome THAT easily!

[JeffBarnett]

Hey guys, I`m a pro tools guy with the Digi 001 PTLE. I`ve been a mac user for years, and now I want to upgrade my system, but I`ve heard there are problems with the new machines (dual g4`s) and the digi 001 system. Is that the case? If so, is there a fix. I would hate to have to start my plug-in collection all over again with a PC based system.
Any feedback on this would be gratly appreciated.
Thanks!
Kenneth

What you have heard is true. There is a known issue with Digi001s and the newest incarnation of Mac G4's. Digi says they are working on a fix, but I doubt we will see it before new G4's are released. (maybe next month??)

[2minutebrother]

For audio recording, I highly doubt there is a pcbased audio system that will be able to touch pro-tools for a little while.

I have done:
33 tracks on Cool Edit pro 1.2 (PIII 450 24bit/96k)
9 tracks on Cool Edit 2 (PIII 450 24bit/96k)
and
6 tracks on Cubase SX (PIII 450 24bit/96k)

in real time before running into crickety crack phenomena.

My seemingly lower track success rates withthe newer software reflect real time plugin use on CE2 and Cubase SX. CEP 1.2 didn't have real time dsp.

I get around this by bouncing down tracks once they are effected (and saving the original!). I keep it dry until the rest of the mix is done, then effect one track at a time.

You are smoking something if you think that any PC based system can keep up with a maxed pro tools system. I have used or rented all types of digital audio equipment and can say from experience that a properly tooled pc is a great tool, but is nowhere near the industrial strength required to track lots of audio in serious professional studio use. You are tragically mistaken if you think it is good for recording anything more than a demo, or solo artist with either guitar, or virtual music backup.

It isn't because the pc is unstable. Cubase SX on Windows XP professional is rock solid. It *never* crashes unless you are using unstable plugins. This wasn't true until Cubase SX running on XP professional. Before that I had a lot of issues. I would make a change, save, make a change, save, you know the drill.

Now Cubase SX is able to snap right back after a crash and is usually right where you were when it died. Thank you Steinberg!

I know which plugins are unstable and don't use them unless absolutely necessary. When I do and I crash, SX saves my butt.

x86 just doesn't process media as efficiently as a RISC based architecture such as a G4 pro tools system. I believe the G4's can kick a p4's ass in this department by a factor of at least 6, cpu for cpu dealing with realtime DSP on recorded audio. If you know anything about the differences in chip architecture, you will understand why.

However, using soft synths(native instruments, etc. al), I can get a considerable amount of tracks going on a PC. Its those huge audio files, combined with dsp that killya on a PC. Usually I only have a guitar or two and a vocal or three going. Since I do electronic music, I don't need 12 tracks for a drum kit.

I still can't detect a difference in sound quality, but if I had the money, you had better believe I would have a protools system sitting next to my pc for doing the audio tracking.

I hope my 2 cents was useful to this forum. I have been on both sides of this fence.

l8,
2minutebrother

[Chris Jude]

I've been guilty of possibly overstating a case for native from time to time to make a point. I have worked with decked out PT systems for years are recognize the advantages. So I think that when I praise the merits of a good native PC system, I do so mindful of a value for money proposition. Someone used the analogy of a sportscar earlier. I think that is a good parellel to my feelings on this. You can buy a new Nissan "z" car for under $40K and get a pretty exhilerating ride. You could go out and spend several times that on an Italian job too. Maybe you'll get 50 more hp, maybe a little better handling (maybe not), etc. But most people who are honest with themselves and others will admit that you don't get 3 or 4 times the car. Each car will have areas where it excels, limitations and even shortcomings.

I think that analogy is a darn good one. If price and upkeep was no object would some people still choose the "z". Maybe, but not most. It's not like both aren't capable of truly impressive performance. Its not even like the "z" has no business on a professional race track if properly set up. But with the other, much of the setup is already there.

All that said, and admitting that PT hasn't quite been dethroned yet, I have to agree that when you consider the value proposition, Native systems are very attractive. I have two with zero latency monitoring and software under 5ms. Either can handle more tracks than I've ever been able to throw at them. Although I only use them for writing, scratchtracks, jingles and the like, I feel I could produce something on them that I could ostensibly send to be mastered and put out (if I didn't have the better alternative at my disposal). I don't say that lightly and that's a huge leap from what was the case just a few short years ago. For pennies on the dollar, I now have systems in my home, that approach (but admitted not equal) the systems in my studio in town. I think that is fantastic and choose to celebrate the value of it for what it is.

Being a musician as opposed to a mathematician, I shun terms like "better" and "greater than" mostly. I prefer to think in terms of meeting or exceeding needs, value overall (including price and other factors), etc. From that perspective, native systems are looking better and better. I just built a new PC with one of the fastest processors and a Gig of awesome RAM. It has quiet fans and drive sleeves, a Creamware card and simply smokes as a native system. It has never once crashed and hopefully never will. Yes, it took a little know how to do myself, but if you want the same thing done for you, go to someplace like http://www.carillonusa.com/ and buy one of their top systems. That is very close to what I have put together (for half the price) only with a killer dsp card. Running SX in XP with Waves Gold rounds out something not too shabby for relatively speaking "a song". Is it "better" than a $20K PT rig? In some ways perhaps, but probably overall no. Is it sufficient for a lot of uses? Heck yeah. And probably more than most hobbyists or even project studios have (or need).

Just one opinion.

[Ted]

Yes, it took a little know how to do myself, but if you want the same thing done for you, go to someplace like http://www.carillonusa.com/ and buy one of their top systems.

No, don't do that...buy it from us! We're Carillon dealers now...great, rock-solid computers, and remarkably quiet to boot.

I actually make the sports car analogy quite a bit myself working here, but not usually in regards to native vs TDM-type systems. I actually think that's one area where the analogy may not apply, depending on what you're looking to do. As far as track count is concerned, I don't think it's an issue, and as far as sound quality is concerned, that has more to do with the converters than what's crunching the numbers. Where a TDM system really can be worth three or four times the money of the host-based system is when it comes to effects and virtual synths. Take reverb, for an example...I haven't come across a native reverb yet that sounds as good as a DSP-based reverb (with the exception of Altiverb...but if you're running Altiverb, good luck running anything alongside it). Same goes for Amp Farm (although Amplitube's not bad). And then you've got things like the Virus synths, which take an incredible amount of DSP horsepower...a TDM system with the Virus plugin can be used as a virtual analog synth with polyphony beyond anything else out there. For facilities who need to be able to provide that type of horsepower, it's either TDM or lots of outboard stuff.

Having said that, there are other solutions...myself, I'm running a Digital Performer setup, but I run it through an analog mixer to take advantage of all of the outboard stuff I've amassed over the years. I also have a UAD1 card, which gives me some of the benefits of a DSP-based system within my host system. However, if I were to buy everything all at once, I could get a decent TDM system for the money I spent on my host system and outboard gear...

-Ted

[SARAKULA]

i use vegas video 3.0 soundforge6 lihgtwave 6 and 2 m audio1010 lt boards audio mix downs tracking plugins ive never had a problem *(my pc is a loaded BOXX TECH dual ADM MP2000) it sounds good not wanting to start a fight im really sick of hearing protools( ive used protools i like it ) over and over EQ mag is just a protools mag if it works use it all this stuff is just a protool matter of fact im moving back to hardware recording maybe the tascam sx- 1 ? i hear some people still use tape and my wifes grandfather uses this direct to acetate system thats older than dirt and when it goes down he builds new parts heehee!

[Ernest828]

PT will face some interesting times ahead as MOTU, LOGIC and other popular DAWs "catch up".

PT will still be the DAW of choice for sessions that require massive DSP.

I believe it will keep its higher end clients who use have to have it for flexibility and as said in the first point, lots of DSP but I do see a serious drop in business from the mid to lower level musicians who were looking into it or have/had it.

Eventually I see MOTU and PT becoming the two leaders in the field while other DAWs (though good) will lose simply due to the poplularity of these two.

As a MOTU user, I look forward to MOTU releasing their own "Farm Cards". IMO this is just a matter of time, say another 2 years. Then things will get REALLY interesting.

Ernest