# Your preferred DAW for writing, Pro Tools for mixing - what is the workflow, and why?



## nogills (Mar 17, 2021)

I have seen that a lot of composers use their preferred DAW to write music, but then slide everything over to Pro Tools. First of all, what exactly is the point of this considering you can mix in any DAW? How exactly is it used in this way / what is the workflow? 

I guess the main question is...Should I be doing this?


----------



## bill5 (Mar 22, 2021)

How odd...

Unless you have big commercial aspirations....hell no. IMO the main if not only reason most anyone does that is because of this "industry standard" BS and God forbid you use anything else, even if it's far better than PT. Besides being laughably expensive, it's one of the most user-UNfriendly apps I've ever used and grossly overrated. 

The day that "industry standard" label is finally and rightfully exterminated and those idiots get theirs...and I think that day is coming...a great many music makers will throw a party, believe me.


----------



## nogills (Mar 22, 2021)

bill5 said:


> How odd...
> 
> Unless you have big commercial aspirations....hell no. IMO the main if not only reason most anyone does that is because of this "industry standard" BS and God forbid you use anything else, even if it's far better than PT. Besides being laughably expensive, it's one of the most user-UNfriendly apps I've ever used and grossly overrated.
> 
> The day that "industry standard" label is finally and rightfully exterminated and those idiots get theirs...and I think that day is coming...a great many music makers will throw a party, believe me.


This is exactly the answer I hoped for.


----------



## AudioLoco (Mar 23, 2021)

It used to be the only way when Cubase and Logic were very capable with MIDI, but behind in every aspect of audio, editing, processing etc.
Now that these main DAWS plus others are perfectly capable of doing anything Pro Tolls does and more, it is not "necessary" anymore.
The reason though while many projects do still end up in a PT session is because it is often a requirement to have delivered PT sessions with the stems for the final film/show editing process.

...Then, a small group of people do actually enjoy composing with it too.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 23, 2021)

nogills said:


> I guess the main question is...Should I be doing this?


You don't have to use or own Pro Tools if:

1. You're writing just for yourself;
2. You are not recording masses of live players;
3. You're not required to deliver a Pro Tools session to a dub stage every week (if you're doing independent films once or twice a year, for example, you can transfer everything into PT after you finish composing and mixing and exporting stems -- it works fine);
4. Your DAW can be set up with near-zero latency to record soloists without a big lag between when they play and what they hear in their headphones.

You probably don't have to use Pro Tools at all until you start working on large projects or are recording around the world.

However, it is not true that Pro Tools is "only used because idiots think it's the industry standard." There are many threads asserting that position and they are misinformed. PT does handle situations that other DAWs might have a hard time with, like 75 or more mics recording simultaneously at 96k in a large session.

If your career needs it, you can get it. If you don't it's most likely unnecessary.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 23, 2021)

bill5 said:


> How odd...
> 
> Unless you have big commercial aspirations....hell no. IMO the main if not only reason most anyone does that is because of this "industry standard" BS and God forbid you use anything else, even if it's far better than PT. Besides being laughably expensive, it's one of the most user-UNfriendly apps I've ever used and grossly overrated.
> 
> The day that "industry standard" label is finally and rightfully exterminated and those idiots get theirs...and I think that day is coming...a great many music makers will throw a party, believe me.


You obviously don’t do much work in the tv and film world, where PT is alive and well. I sometimes need to deliver PT session files to editors. But when I do, I just pay as I go (which is inexpensive).


----------



## bill5 (Mar 23, 2021)

No I don't, nor does it sound like the OP does either. 

PT is alive and well in the music world too. That doesn't speak to its quality, just its entrenchment in the biz.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 23, 2021)

bill5 said:


> That doesn't speak to its quality, just its entrenchment in the biz.


You say that but it's just not accurate to insist that PT's entrenchment is unsupported by its capabilities. PT is what you want when you are spending enormous amounts of money on a "can't-miss" recording session at 96k. It's what you want for dubbing a movie or TV show with super-complicated sound requirements.

As you may know, not every studio does use PT for every sound person. At least one major network mostly uses Nuendo or something else, presumably because it's much less expensive on a per-station basis.

However, even the ones that use something else to edit dialogue and such, nevertheless use PT to record orchestras. When you have an 80 piece orchestra with dozens of microphones and it's all costing $10k an hour or more, you don't want to wonder whether you can do "just one more overdub" without blowing up your rig. 

By contrast, if you're recording songs and / or have some time flexibility and just a few soloists, Logic, Digital Performer, Cubase -- they all get the job done.


----------



## nogills (Mar 23, 2021)

bill5 said:


> No I don't, nor does it sound like the OP does either.
> 
> PT is alive and well in the music world too. That doesn't speak to its quality, just its entrenchment in the biz.


Yeah I am scoring my very first indie film right now so I have been watching a lot of videos on the best ways to work on a 2 hour long film so thats why I was asking about PT


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Mar 23, 2021)

nogills said:


> Yeah I am scoring my very first indie film right now so I have been watching a lot of videos on the best ways to work on a 2 hour long film so thats why I was asking about PT


Best thing to do is ask the editors what formats they require for delivery.


----------



## mscp (Mar 23, 2021)

AudioLoco said:


> It used to be the only way when Cubase and Logic were very capable with MIDI, but behind in every aspect of audio, editing, processing etc.
> Now that these main DAWS plus others are perfectly capable of doing anything Pro Tolls does and more, it is not "necessary" anymore.
> The reason though while many projects do still end up in a PT session is because it is often a requirement to have delivered PT sessions with the stems for the final film/show editing process.
> 
> ...Then, a small group of people do actually enjoy composing with it too.


I like Midi in PT. But then again, I also like working with Nuendo. These are my favourite DAWs.


----------



## SlHarder (Mar 23, 2021)

Pete Calandra covers PT and midi extensively in his livestream of his classes for CUNY Copeland School of Music. These are detailed in depth classwork presentations.


----------



## bill5 (Mar 23, 2021)

JohnG said:


> You say that but it's just not accurate to insist that PT's entrenchment is unsupported by its capabilities. PT is what you want when you are spending enormous amounts of money on a "can't-miss" recording session at 96k.


? Why does 96K matter? I don't know of any DAW that can't successfully support 96K and then some. But even if for some reason it's better at 96K, 96K is pointless for most recordings.




> It's what you want for dubbing a movie or TV show with super-complicated sound requirements.


I'll take your word for it; couldn't say. But that describes only a small percentage of all studios.




> even the ones that use something else to edit dialogue and such, nevertheless use PT to record orchestras. When you have an 80 piece orchestra with dozens of microphones and it's all costing $10k an hour or more, you don't want to wonder whether you can do "just one more overdub" without blowing up your rig.


And that's a REALLY tiny percentage of all studios. I wasn't speaking about such an isolated niche, but the industry - and the app - generally.

PS just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, even that aside, I am not saying anyone who uses PT is an idiot. If there is some niche area where it out-performs others, fine...or using it gets one more business, even if it's just due to a faulty perception of it, you go with what brings the customers in. And some may just like the workflow, or whatever. To each their own. But I found it pretty terrible, so much so that even if it was free I wouldn't use it, and I'm far from the only one. It's not like it's way better (or even better at all...in some ways in fact worse) than all other DAWs. Further, their customer service doesn't exactly have a great rep. No thanks!



> By contrast, if you're recording songs and / or have some time flexibility and just a few soloists, Logic, Digital Performer, Cubase -- they all get the job done.


Well sure any DAW can get the job done. But you want something you're comfortable working with, not fighting with and pulling your hair out over. And for most, cost matters too.


----------



## bill5 (Mar 23, 2021)

nogills said:


> Yeah I am scoring my very first indie film right now so I have been watching a lot of videos on the best ways to work on a 2 hour long film so thats why I was asking about PT


OK well that may be diff then...again can't speak to working on films.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 23, 2021)

Some DAWs allow you to export time-stamped stems that the production sound people can import into Pro Tools. 

It’s a good idea to communicate directly with the sound mixers and ask them about delivery requirements, like frame rate and what splits (stems) the dub stage requires for your film. Usually you would use 24 48 recording for an indie. Most films seeem to want 5.1 these days but you might be able to work around that.


----------



## Bakhtin (Mar 24, 2021)

mispost


----------



## Lukas (Mar 24, 2021)

nogills said:


> I have seen that a lot of composers use their preferred DAW to write music, but then slide everything over to Pro Tools. First of all, what exactly is the point of this considering you can mix in any DAW?


They looked at pictures of studios that have been using ProTools for 25 years. Or watched videos (sponsored by ProTools) of mixing engineers that have been using it for 25 years and never tried any other DAW. And then they think they would need ProTools


----------



## audio1 (Mar 24, 2021)

After thousands of years of porting music tracks over to protools, I now stay in Logic, but only for game work that remains in house. If it's a song or film to picture going out of house, Protools is still the ultimate platform for mixing film music and sound. Also, the main deal for mixing tunes. Yes Logic is better now a days, but protools is king and compatible with every post audio and recording studio. As an example, try to record vocals, any instrument or rhythm section then comp a final take from time line or playlist in Logic versus PT {logic does not have a playlist feature I'm aware of} and you will find out for yourself, the difference in editing power and timeline grid manipulation. Think of it this way, Logic and Cubase put the audio in midi. Protools put the midi in audio. Protools is the industry standard in audio for a reason.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Mar 24, 2021)

Lukas said:


> They looked at pictures of studios that have been using ProTools for 25 years. Or watched videos (sponsored by ProTools) of mixing engineers that have been using it for 25 years and never tried any other DAW. And then they think they would need ProTools


Everyone has their own needs, but i can do an entire project from start to finish while collaborating with other studios using just studio one. I’m not missing anything and the studio that converted to studio one feels the same.

I imagine other daws are more or less equally capable. The only time I whip out pro tools is when someone wants a project file in that format, though I’ve not had a hard time just sending them stems and/or AAF files from studio one...


----------



## mscp (Mar 25, 2021)

Nuendo for the convoluted bits, and Pro Tools for the easy/quick stuff. Why? Hmm..some of Nuendo's features are not in PT, otherwise I'd stick to PT only.


----------



## jaketanner (Mar 25, 2021)

nogills said:


> I have seen that a lot of composers use their preferred DAW to write music, but then slide everything over to Pro Tools. First of all, what exactly is the point of this considering you can mix in any DAW? How exactly is it used in this way / what is the workflow?
> 
> I guess the main question is...Should I be doing this?


I am a VERY long time Pro Tools user. however this has nothing to do with my answer...but I can say that PT is VERY easy to use. I tried to switch to Cubase Pro for scoring only, and it's so convoluted that I sold it...LOL Anyway...yes, use the DAW that YOU feel most comfortable with and allows you to use any video and has routing capabilities to stem out tracks. I get that most any DAW can do this, but some do it better than others. For me, since I have been mixing in PT for decades, all my plugins that I like are AAX format, and there is a comfort level...but if I had my way, I'd be mixing in Harrison's Mixbus 32C (which I also have but was full of bugs last time I tried it).

A bit about Pro Tools: It's true, PT is the standard for mixing, in recording studios worldwide as well as film, but as mentioned NOT because it's the best....The routing capabilities in PT if not mistaken, are more flexible and easier to setup. You can use Aux tracks to host audio input and also route any external hardware processing back into PT...this was not possible with any other DAW for many years...I am sure this has changed, but it did lay the ground work for the standard. At the very least PT was the first to concentrate on AUDIO versus MIDI. It was a TAPE machine and mixing powerhouse early on....hence why the studio adaptation was implemented. It allowed for MANY tracks of I/O to go out separately to an analog mixing console (PT was the "tape")...long before other DAWS. I interned at The Hit Factory in NY about 18-20 years ago when the first 192 interfaces started coming about...Dave Mathews was one of the first bands to have this ability for mixing when I was there...(even though the engineer only used the main outs.. LOL). 

Anyway...the large amount of tracks and routing made it especially attractive to film guys, and with the HD version of PT, you also get AVID's video editing and (64) tracks of video playback if needed. 

So since it is still the "deliverable" requirement for film scores...the answer is YES, you should probably learn PT at some point or own it. Do you need it??? Not if you are doing your own work and don't need to be compatible with other studios or deliver session files. But as far as I know...most if not every working composer for film and TV has a PT rig.


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 25, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> ...where PT is alive and well. I sometimes *need *to deliver PT session files to editors.


And therein lies the problem. HOWEVER, look at it this way: if I'm eventually in a position where TV and Film studios require my scores to be in PT because *I'm actually writing scores for TV and Film,* then I'll be overjoyed to have to NEED ProTools. Call it a welcomed inconvenience.


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 25, 2021)

Until then (to the OP), keep mixing in Studio One, it sounds great and Pro has a built-in mastering section.


----------



## Hawks Music (Apr 2, 2021)

nogills said:


> I have seen that a lot of composers use their preferred DAW to write music, but then slide everything over to Pro Tools. First of all, what exactly is the point of this considering you can mix in any DAW? How exactly is it used in this way / what is the workflow?
> 
> I guess the main question is...Should I be doing this?


I use Neundo for everything. I find it is better at both complex mixing work, and more simple tasks. It is also much less prone to crashes then protools.


----------



## Saxer (Apr 2, 2021)

I don't own Pro Tools and I never needed it. But that's only the case because somewhere in the supply chain someone always had Pro Tools. The end result of my commercial media audio work ends in a Pro Tools session 90% of the time. When I write (notation) cues for real orchestra: recorded in PT. When I deliver music for an audioplay: dialog and music mixed in PT. Commercial TV spots: mixed in PT. Music for film: mixed in PT. Even when I do additional arrangements like strings or brass for a pop song it mostly ends in a PT session. 

I know some composers who like to mix in PT just because it separates the composition from mixing. And having everything as audio is a backup for the future. I never write world hits someone wants to remix decades later... but if you do a PT session is a save bank. Try opening a Cubase session from 1999 with Kontakt 2.


----------



## Manaberry (Apr 3, 2021)

nogills said:


> I have seen that a lot of composers use their preferred DAW to write music, but then slide everything over to Pro Tools. First of all, what exactly is the point of this considering you can mix in any DAW? How exactly is it used in this way / what is the workflow?
> 
> I guess the main question is...Should I be doing this?



Do you need it? If yes, for what reasons?

On my end, Pro Tools *unleashed *the real power of my S3. It's also easier for me to share mixing projects with my colleagues in the industry. I like the workflow of PT.


----------

