# DAW limitations??



## jaketanner (Jun 27, 2017)

Hi,

I am currently using PT 12.8...I had every intention on using PT to score with...but it seems that other DAWs, might handle VSTs better, where I can get better performance from another DAW, with the same computer. I have Logic X, but I was looking specifically at Reaper or Studio One Pro. Are there any disadvantages to either of these, compared to PT or Logic?

Thanks in advance.
Jake


----------



## synthpunk (Jun 27, 2017)

Life is short. As HZ says use what you know.


----------



## d.healey (Jun 27, 2017)

You can use any DAW, you need to find the one that fits your workflow. There isn't a DAW that is better than the DAW that works for you. Download demos and try them out.


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 27, 2017)

synthpunk said:


> Life is short. As HZ says use what you know.



but that's not my issue. Will another DAW handle the VSTs more efficiently? Specifically Reaper or Studio One Pro...I am not looking forward to learning another DAW..lol. but I will if in the end, it will allow me to work more freely.


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 27, 2017)

I know I can use any DAW, but from some other threads, it seems that people were able to get more instances of let's say Kontakt in Reaper over PT. That is the only reason I am considering change...


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 27, 2017)

Also, I know not every DAW handles video streaming the same, so that is also a concern. For instance, I have Harrison's Mixbus 32c V4...go figure, that a manufacturer of post consoles, isn't really optimized for video on the software side of their DAW.


----------



## afterlight82 (Jun 27, 2017)

Whilst there is a bit of efficiency to plugin architecture, you can't make memory grow on trees. Resources are resources...and most DAWs are maximized pretty well. The differences aren't really worth worrying about. 

Now video...big differences. Cubendo historically pretty rubbish at it but that's about to change I believe. Logic a bit better. Video Slave or running it in PT is the norm.


----------



## Kaan Guner (Jun 27, 2017)

What's the problem with VSTi in PT?


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 27, 2017)

No issues with PT at all...the only issue that I thought might be a problem, is the instance count with my current Mac mini. I will get a more powerful computer once Apple announces all their releases this year, but I am holding out...lol. I may actually be moving over to PC. In the meantime, I was hoping that there would be a bigger difference, but doesn't seem to be worth it. I heard PT is going to be adding track folders this year, so I might just stick with it..lol

Thanks to everyone for the wake up call..lol


----------



## Kaan Guner (Jun 27, 2017)

This raises another question in my mind.

We all know PT (and Nuendo to a degree) is the industry standard for motion graphics. Keeping this in mind, Is composing and mixing on Pro Tools really have any benefit over other DAWs? - This is not considering limitations of PT and advantages of using other DAWs such as quick workflow and the product is finished either way. Now I'm not sure I am clear with my question.


----------



## Vik (Jun 27, 2017)

I don't think PT is known for have any particular advantages as a composing program (but haven't used PT for ages). Most people here seem to use Cubase or Logic, btw: 
http://vi-control.net/community/thr...ram-for-work-with-orchestral-libraries.43016/


----------



## dtonthept (Jun 27, 2017)

Pro Tools always gives me a ton of problems once I start getting more than a couple of Kontakt instances going. It's so great in so many other areas though - more on the engineering side of things.

Reaper is (apparently!) amazingly efficient, but it will take a lot of setting up to get it how you like it. Studio One seems at first blush to keep most of what's great about Pro Tools while expanding the midi a bit and they've also just had a big update to their audio engine which is getting good reports.

Reaper has a free demo with no time limitations, and I think you can download a 30 day of Studio One - I actually have it on my list of things to do to load up all three with a ton of VIs to see where their choke points are, but haven't done so yet.

I have, however, just switched to PC - my new machine just arrived and I'm about to retire my fully upgraded 5,1 Mac Pro. Certainly it's a relief feeling the options and possibilities that open up when you jump to the PC platform, I wound up paying a specialist builder (Steve at Pro Tools PC USA) to build my system and it was immensely reassuring having his knowledge in speccing out the system - well worth doing.

In my direct experience, programming with VIs in Pro Tools is **STILL** a lot like pulling teeth while scraping fingernails down a chalkboard. This might be a bit edge case as my rig is so heavily bumped up to mix, with expansion chassis, UAD cards, USB 3 PCIe cards, then a ton of IO and both midi and audio hardware bolted on, but I've never been able to get Pro Tools feeling good and stable as a VI programming platform in all the years I've been using it. I do so many other critical things on it though so still use it day to day, but look forward to experimenting both with the computer itself and other DAWs once on PC.

TL;DR - download demos of Reaper and Studio One, stress test them, and please let us know how you get on!


----------



## dathyr1 (Jun 27, 2017)

I have recently purchased and wanted to go to Studio one 3 Pro 64 bit and find running Omnisphere 2 now is much better. Other's have told me or I read they have improved the performance of Studio One 64 bit. Omnisphere 2 can be really heavy on cpu resources which I found out on my other DAW which is Acoustic Pro 8 64 bit running with just 8 gig of RAM on a PC(was getting audio crackling). When I switched over to Studio one with Omnisphere 2 same hardware setup/Omni patches, no crackling at all. Matter a fact I could add more patches to Omnisphere and all worked out great.

So I was impressed and happy with the current Studio one 3 Pro performance. Now I am still going to bump my RAM up to 32 gig at some time in the future. Now maybe the other major DAW's may do the same thing. But that is my personal findings with Studio One.

Only minor down side of some of the New DAW's is running favorite 32 bit VST's in a 64 bit DAW. They do not show up in the VST selection list to run. For me with Studio One I would need a JBridge plugin to run the older VST's.
Dave


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 27, 2017)

Thanks guys...I think I may need to Give Studio one 3 a try then.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 28, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am currently using PT 12.8...I had every intention on using PT to score with...but it seems that other DAWs, might handle VSTs better, where I can get better performance from another DAW, with the same computer. I have Logic X, but I was looking specifically at Reaper or Studio One Pro. Are there any disadvantages to either of these, compared to PT or Logic?
> 
> ...



IMHO, stick with PT since you already use it, especially if you aren't having any issues. Logic Pro (with VEPro) and Cubase are also excellent (I use both), but each have their quirks. Steinberg invented VST, and IMHO Cubase has the best handling for VI's. If you are thinking about a PC, then stick with a cross platform DAW (PT, Cubase, etc). The new Mac's are going to be very $$$.


----------



## jaketanner (Jun 28, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> IMHO, stick with PT since you already use it, especially if you aren't having any issues. Logic Pro (with VEPro) and Cubase are also excellent (I use both), but each have their quirks. Steinberg invented VST, and IMHO Cubase has the best handling for VI's. If you are thinking about a PC, then stick with a cross platform DAW (PT, Cubase, etc). The new Mac's are going to be very $$$.



I know about the Macs...was seriously looking to make the switch to PC but just for scoring work. I was hoping that another DAW would be considerably more efficient, but it doesn't seem to be the case...a little yes, but probably nothing that would be of consequence for the work I am doing at the moment. 

Thanks.


----------



## VinRice (Jun 30, 2017)

The deciding factor should be workflow and how it suits you. Any DAW will 'work'. It's how you work that matters.


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 2, 2017)

VinRice said:


> The deciding factor should be workflow and how it suits you. Any DAW will 'work'. It's how you work that matters.



I wanted efficient power...I can always learn workflow from another DAW within a week. I was hoping to gain a lot of power using another DAW over PT, but it doesn't seem to be the case...I am sticking with PT I think. The time it would take me to download and make sure I had all AU or VST plugins installed might not be worth the hassle for the little gain.


----------



## Kaan Guner (Jul 3, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> I wanted efficient power...I can always learn workflow from another DAW within a week. I was hoping to gain a lot of power using another DAW over PT, but it doesn't seem to be the case...I am sticking with PT I think. The time it would take me to download and make sure I had all AU or VST plugins installed might not be worth the hassle for the little gain.



So is VST performance of PT is fine and not sub-par or anything?


----------



## VinRice (Jul 3, 2017)

You have Logic. For composing that's all you need. If you bump up against it's limitations in a few years time you can move to Cubase. The end.


----------



## garyhiebner (Jul 3, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> Thanks guys...I think I may need to Give Studio one 3 a try then.


There's a 30 day demo for Studio one, so you could try it out and see if it suits your workflow.


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 3, 2017)

Kaan Guner said:


> So is VST performance of PT is fine and not sub-par or anything?



It's not that it's bad, it's that since my current computer is not particularly fast for scoring work, I just wanted to see if there were better performance options with a different DAW, but Same computer. But from what is being said, not much to be worth changing over.


----------



## sourcefor (Jul 3, 2017)

To me LOGIC is Best at handling VI's, I started out on protools scoring and mixing, and even with the NEW version ,LOGIC smokes it at handling VI's! I would like to see a combo of PT editing features implemented into logic (if anyone from Apple is Listening in!)!


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 3, 2017)

sourcefor said:


> To me LOGIC is Best at handling VI's, I started out on protools scoring and mixing, and even with the NEW version ,LOGIC smokes it at handling VI's! I would like to see a combo of PT editing features implemented into logic (if anyone from Apple is Listening in!)!




So let me ask, aren't projects stemmed over to PT anyway? Just thought of it now...if I do go with Logic, do you give the logic files over or just the bounced out audio files?


----------



## Saxer (Jul 3, 2017)

Logic only user here... but if you like Protools workflow and it's not efficient enough use ViennaEnsemblePro6.
Friend of mine works with the Logic/Protools combi on two machines. Protools get all single tracks or stems needed for mixing as audio in Protools.


----------



## sourcefor (Jul 3, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> So let me ask, aren't projects stemmed over to PT anyway? Just thought of it now...if I do go with Logic, do you give the logic files over or just the bounced out audio files?


Some or most Hollywood composers stem over to Protools if necessary for someone else to mix or for Dubbing stage purposes, but I mix all my projects in LOGIC as I am more comfortable with the workflow and I ported all my Protools keyboard short cuts to LOGIC! Logic is perfectly ok to mix in..to me at least!


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 3, 2017)

Cubase Pro 9 user here, but I have not touched it for the past two months, I'm really enjoying *Studio One Pro 3.5* . I highly recommend it. Studio One Pro 3 has become my main DAW, fast, and fluid workflow !


----------



## VinRice (Jul 3, 2017)

You can STEM from Logic. It's easy. The only reason composers feel the need to have PT is that many of the larger productions want a bundled PT project with all the cues in place because it make it easier for them to import. Some people like to stream their video from PT as well to take the load off their Logic/Cubase machine.


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 3, 2017)

muziksculp said:


> Cubase Pro 9 user here, but I have not touched it for the past two months, I'm really enjoying *Studio One Pro 3.5* . I highly recommend it. Studio One Pro 3 has become my main DAW, fast, and fluid workflow !



I think the switch from PT to any other DAW is more of a pain, since PT uses only AAX...so I would need to track all my plugins down and make sure they are the correct format...not sure if it's worth the trouble for a little performance gain. It's not a workflow issue I seek, it was better performance with VIs using the same computer...but I think with everyone's answer, I am just going to need to demo a few others.


----------



## Mishabou (Jul 3, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am currently using PT 12.8...I had every intention on using PT to score with...but it seems that other DAWs, might handle VSTs better, where I can get better performance from another DAW, with the same computer. I have Logic X, but I was looking specifically at Reaper or Studio One Pro. Are there any disadvantages to either of these, compared to PT or Logic?
> 
> ...



I use PT12, CB9 and DP9 and see zero difference between them when it comes to VIs efficiency.

To be honest, i have no idea why PT gets such a bad rap for midi, i use it all the time for huge mock ups and find it just as capable as CB or DP and since version 11, as mentioned, it's just as efficient for VIs as any DAW out there.


----------



## Vik (Jul 3, 2017)

muziksculp said:


> Cubase Pro 9 user here, but I have not touched it for the past two months, I'm really enjoying *Studio One Pro 3.5* . I highly recommend it. Studio One Pro 3 has become my main DAW, fast, and fluid workflow !


In which ways are Studio One better than Cubase?


----------



## muziksculp (Jul 3, 2017)

Vik said:


> In which ways are Studio One better than Cubase?



Primarily : Workflow ! Yup ... It's fast  and a pleasure to work with. It's also very close to Cubase Pro in terms of design/layout. you can even use Cubase Key Commands and feel at home in S1. Even booting, and quitting S1Pro 3 is so much faster than Cubase Pro 9. S1-Pro 3.5 is much less bloated than Cubase Pro 9 code wise. 

If you are interested in Studio One Pro 3, you can check many videos that show it in action to learn more about it. (too many details to discuss here). I'm sure Studio One Pro 4 will be a huge step up from what version 3.5 offers now, version 4 is most likely going to be out next year. 

Funny... imho. DAWs are like Shoes. You need to slip them on to get to know them, and make sure you are comfortable walking in them, sometimes the brand of shoe that will fit best, is not the most popular one. i.e. The minute I started working with Studio One Pro 3, I felt like I found my right pair of shoes. Cubase always felt like something is just not right, or comfortable for me. I'm really happy that I took the time, and ventured to discover Studio One Pro YMMV.


----------



## Kaan Guner (Jul 4, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> It's not that it's bad, it's that since my current computer is not particularly fast for scoring work, I just wanted to see if there were better performance options with a different DAW, but Same computer. But from what is being said, not much to be worth changing over.



If that's the case I wouldn't think of leaving Pro Tools and urge you to keep and start composing in it. Most motion picture work happens in Pro Tools and that gives you a boost in professionality. I know a lot of people doesn't consider this and solely work on composing. But stuff like these should do give you a head-start.


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 4, 2017)

Thank you to all who have replied and given their time to details about each DAWs pros. 

I most likely will stay with PT. I have Logic Pro X, and Mixbus 32c V4. Sometimes you just want to explore new workflows, and I will still demo the ones mentioned...if they end up suiting my workflow better, then I will consider the switch. I do love change. 

Thanks again.


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Jul 4, 2017)

Studio one is a FANTASTIC daw. Also it has a function where you can set the keyboard commands to be like the Pro Tools. Might come in handy for you to make the transition easier.


----------



## jimmy3189 (Jul 14, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> I use PT12, CB9 and DP9 and see zero difference between them when it comes to VIs efficiency.
> 
> To be honest, i have no idea why PT gets such a bad rap for midi, i use it all the time for huge mock ups and find it just as capable as CB or DP and since version 11, as mentioned, it's just as efficient for VIs as any DAW out there.


What machine do you use?

I find Pro Tools falls over with Kontakt all the time, what's most frustrating is that it doesn't always flip out at the same point everytime, I have a fairly large 32gbish template on about 8 Kontakt multitimbral instances. Sometimes I can record enable all the midi tracks and smack a chord, othertimes I can't even layer up 4 or 5 tracks of stuff. 

Cubase Elements thing I downloaded cause it came free with something seems to handle things way more slick.


----------



## benmrx (Jul 14, 2017)

I can only speak from my own experience, but yes...., PT gets flaky once you get more than 5-6 instances of Kontakt going. If you want to keep using PT, then I have to echo the above post regarding Vienna Ensemble Pro. Once you get all those instances out of your Pro Tools session everything works much smoother. Again, just my experience. I've been doing more and more composing work in PT (in the past I've used Cubase) simply because everything ends up in PT anyways, so it keeps the workflow streamlined, especially when it comes to edits and rewrites.

That said..., and again this is just my experience, but Reaper is the THE most efficient DAW out there for just about everything...., except usability...haha. It's the Minecraft of DAW's. I just couldn't get along with it.


----------



## jimmy3189 (Jul 14, 2017)

benmrx said:


> I can only speak from my own experience, but yes...., PT gets flaky once you get more than 5-6 instances of Kontakt going. If you want to keep using PT, then I have to echo the above post regarding Vienna Ensemble Pro. Once you get all those instances out of your Pro Tools session everything works much smoother. Again, just my experience. I've been doing more and more composing work in PT (in the past I've used Cubase) simply because everything ends up in PT anyways, so it keeps the workflow streamlined, especially when it comes to edits and rewrites.
> 
> That said..., and again this is just my experience, but Reaper is the THE most efficient DAW out there for just about everything...., except usability...haha. It's the Minecraft of DAW's. I just couldn't get along with it.



I've been using Reaper actually I set it up as a host for VI's in conjunction with PT and it worked pretty well but the latency on the shorts was pretty much unmanageable. It's probably something that could be sorted eventually but I don't think it's a use that gets enough coverage that it'll be looked at any time soon.

I'll look at VE, it seems like the perfect solution, i'm far more comfortable in PT using it in my dayjob I just work a lot faster.


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 14, 2017)

benmrx said:


> I can only speak from my own experience, but yes...., PT gets flaky once you get more than 5-6 instances of Kontakt going. If you want to keep using PT, then I have to echo the above post regarding Vienna Ensemble Pro. Once you get all those instances out of your Pro Tools session everything works much smoother. Again, just my experience. I've been doing more and more composing work in PT (in the past I've used Cubase) simply because everything ends up in PT anyways, so it keeps the workflow streamlined, especially when it comes to edits and rewrites.
> 
> That said..., and again this is just my experience, but Reaper is the THE most efficient DAW out there for just about everything...., except usability...haha. It's the Minecraft of DAW's. I just couldn't get along with it.



Does using VEP on one machine, still receive PT from the host? Or does VEP only really benefit from a multi computer setup?

Thanks


----------



## fixxer49 (Jul 14, 2017)

jaketanner said:


> Does using VEP on one machine, still receive PT from the host? Or does VEP only really benefit from a multi computer setup?
> 
> Thanks


vep definitely helps take the vi processing load from pro tools on the host computer. is certainly beneficial, even on a single-computer set up.


----------



## Mishabou (Jul 16, 2017)

jimmy3189 said:


> What machine do you use?
> 
> I find Pro Tools falls over with Kontakt all the time, what's most frustrating is that it doesn't always flip out at the same point everytime, I have a fairly large 32gbish template on about 8 Kontakt multitimbral instances. Sometimes I can record enable all the midi tracks and smack a chord, othertimes I can't even layer up 4 or 5 tracks of stuff.
> 
> Cubase Elements thing I downloaded cause it came free with something seems to handle things way more slick.



I use a nMP 12 cores with 64 GB ram, all HD are SSD via external BM dock.

On my own projects, i use PT12, it's my preferred DAW. I also collaborate quite a bit with composers who use DP9 and CB9, so i'm equally comfortable with them. I have the exact same template set up on all 3 DAWs and as mentioned, i feel zero difference between them in term of efficiency and reliability.


----------



## jimmy3189 (Jul 16, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> I use a nMP 12 cores with 64 GB ram, all HD are SSD via external BM dock.
> 
> On my own projects, i use PT12, it's my preferred DAW. I also collaborate quite a bit with composers who use DP9 and CB9, so i'm equally comfortable with them. I have the exact same template set up on all 3 DAWs and as mentioned, i feel zero difference between them in term of efficiency and reliability.


Interesting! See I don't have quite as beefy a machine, 8 core cheesegrater 40gb ram, SSD for OS and some samples, WD for the rest. 

I find that Pro Tools basically refuses to go below 512buffer at anything around 5-6 instances of kontakt. 

Cubase will get all the way to 16kontakt instances loaded up with varying degrees of heavy load and still keep going at 256buffer.

I've been trialling VEPro and it definitely seems like an improvement in terms of buffer and stability. A few instances where I get this weird tearing sound, kinda sounds like it can't pull the samples up quickly enough and is just forcing stuff out.

I definitely need to upgrade the Mac but i'm loathe to get one of those trashcan things until I know exactly what this modular mac pro will be. 

Could it just be that your mac is way faster than mine and you arn't hitting the ceiling with either of PT or Cubase?


----------



## Mishabou (Jul 16, 2017)

jimmy3189 said:


> Interesting! See I don't have quite as beefy a machine, 8 core cheesegrater 40gb ram, SSD for OS and some samples, WD for the rest.
> 
> I find that Pro Tools basically refuses to go below 512buffer at anything around 5-6 instances of kontakt.
> 
> ...



My previous machine was the exact same specs as yours. I was running PT 11, CB8 and DP8 and had no problem running 15 - 20 Kontakt instances with the buffer at 256. Again, performance was the same on all 3 DAW using the same template.

The nMP allows me to run a template 3x the size of my previous rig. Well worth the upgrade but not cheap!

My whole point was that, contrary to a lot of posts, i experienced no difference in term of VIs efficiency between the three daw.


----------



## jimmy3189 (Jul 16, 2017)

Anhtu said:


> My previous machine was the exact same specs as yours. I was running PT 11, CB8 and DP8 and had no problem running 15 - 20 Kontakt instances with the buffer at 256. Again, performance was the same on all 3 DAW using the same template.
> 
> The nMP allows me to run a template 3x the size of my previous rig. Well worth the upgrade but not cheap!
> 
> My whole point was that, contrary to a lot of posts, i experienced no difference in term of VIs efficiency between the three daw.



You must be pretty lucky/and/or very good at optimising kontakt. Any suggestions would be most welcome.


----------



## Mishabou (Jul 16, 2017)

jimmy3189 said:


> You must be pretty lucky/and/or very good at optimising kontakt. Any suggestions would be most welcome.



I've been on PT since the TDM era on both PC and Mac platforms. I've always bought the computer that was recommended on their compatibility list and never had any major problems. 

It's literally unpack the computer, spent 20 min tweeking some minor OS settings, installed all my apps/VIs and get to work. That's it, no further optimizing VIs whatsoever. 

The only thing that took a bit of time to set up was the network as i have a fairly elaborate Dante set up along with many Midi controllers and the Avid S6 console.


----------



## jaketanner (Jul 17, 2017)

jimmy3189 said:


> Interesting! See I don't have quite as beefy a machine, 8 core cheesegrater 40gb ram, SSD for OS and some samples, WD for the rest.
> 
> I find that Pro Tools basically refuses to go below 512buffer at anything around 5-6 instances of kontakt.
> 
> ...



I'm running a 2014 Mac mini at 256 buffer, and I just played back 20 Kontakt instances with Session strings on 15 tracks and session horns loaded on 5...pretty easily at roughly 53% average CPU. Of course my memory is at 100%, since I only have 8 gigs (major oversight), but it's definitely usable on my end. PT 12.8 BTW.


----------

