# Why choose Pro Tools over Logic?



## SwedishPug

Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?


----------



## Geoff Grace

Pro Tools got the jump on everyone else for audio editing, and became established in studios back when Logic was just a sequencing program. It took Logic, Cubase, Performer, and other sequencing programs many years to catch up in audio functionality.

These days, there's a lot less difference between DAWs than there was back then; but Pro Tools probably still has the most comfortable paradigm for audio engineers. Avid is also very good at communicating exactly how to set up Pro Tools for maximum stability, which is paramount in recording situations in which hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars are being spent for a session. 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## dflood

SwedishPug said:


> Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?


For me, having used both, I’d have an easier time arguing the opposite, but the choice of DAWs is mostly a matter of personal preference and for some, it boils down to the most logical choice for fitting in with the workflow of clients.


----------



## JohnG

PT is the industry standard for _audio_ for a number of reasons:

1. Zero / near zero latency recording -- this is far and away the most important and is not just personal preference. The zero-latency options in other DAWs is not as well known or nonexistent;

2. Long established audio dominance -- because they focused on audio from the beginning and were the best in town, they established a tough position to assail.

3. Every engineer knows how to use it.

For midi, PT was pretty late, but has caught up quite some way.


----------



## Vik

SwedishPug said:


> Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?


You may be asking in a 'wrong' forum. According to this DAW poll (and I don't know if there's a valid reason to assume that these responses represent those who never vote), only 2-3% of the voters use Pro Tools.


----------



## ZenFaced

JohnG said:


> PT is the industry standard for _audio_ for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1. Zero / near zero latency recording -- this is far and away the most important and is not just personal preference. The zero-latency options in other DAWs is not as well known or nonexistent;
> 
> 2. Long established audio dominance -- because they focused on audio from the beginning and were the best in town, they established a tough position to assail.
> 
> 3. Every engineer knows how to use it.
> 
> For midi, PT was pretty late, but has caught up quite some way.



That pretty much sums it up. It is also very common for people to compose/edit their midi arrangements in another DAW then export the files into Pro Tools for final editing and mixing


----------



## Jeremy Gillam

SwedishPug said:


> Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?


I personally prefer Pro Tools to Logic even for MIDI. One big thing is that I hate not being able to see more than one MIDI controller lane at a time which is the case in Logic. But there are a lot of little editing and workflow things that to me are nicer in Pro Tools. Weirdly, it seems more ... logical to me. However AVID is a terrible company to throw your lot in with, and I decided I'm going to stop giving them my dime and invest my future into Cubase (which is a great DAW). Logic is a very good bang for your buck if you own/want to continue to own Macs and if you are drawn to it you will be in good company. Plenty of pros make a living with it.


----------



## Rilla

Jeremy Gillam said:


> I personally prefer Pro Tools to Logic even for MIDI. *One big thing is that I hate not being able to see more than one MIDI controller lane at a time which is the case in Logic. *But there are a lot of little editing and workflow things that to me are nicer in Pro Tools. Weirdly, it seems more ... logical to me. However AVID is a terrible company to throw your lot in with, and I decided I'm going to stop giving them my dime and invest my future into Cubase (which is a great DAW). Logic is a very good bang for your buck if you own/want to continue to own Macs and if you are drawn to it you will be in good company. Plenty of pros make a living with it.



I'm not sure if you're talking about midi CC's, but if you are, you can view multiple lanes in the step editor.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam

Been a while since I used it, I’m likely wrong or it has been updated.


----------



## Vik

Rilla said:


> I'm not sure if you're talking about midi CC's, but if you are, you can view multiple lanes in the step editor.


Sure, but a lot of people don't use that editor much, and miss having multiple lanes in all relevant editors. 


Jeremy Gillam said:


> But there are a lot of little editing and workflow things that to me are nicer in Pro Tools.


I didn't know that... could you mention some more examples?

PT is well established in large recording studios and among professional sound engineers, mainly because they were the first DAW that offered a low latency solution. But there are various ways to get low latency in other systems as well, by using direct monitoring from the audio interface.


----------



## chocobitz825

SwedishPug said:


> Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?



temporary insanity?


----------



## Jeremy Gillam

Vik said:


> I didn't know that... could you mention some more examples?
> .



It's not so much that Pro Tools can do something that Logic can't, but I like the editing paradigm that having an edit cursor allows, it just feels nicer and more natural to use to me, like a word processor. Being able to make selections and nudge them around with key commands is cool, and having a fixed set of keyboard shortcuts that are well thought out for editing becomes very natural to use once you learn them. There are issues for editing audio for me too though and Logic may excel in these areas where Pro Tools doesn't -- the elastic audio aspect of PT really needs to be revised with newer algorithms and the lack of built in Melodyne-like pitch correction is a big lacking area in Pro Tools too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I use both - Pro Tools for audio knick-knacks (especially dialog recording and editing), Logic for sequencing.

Part of that is just what I'm used to, but Logic's interface lends itself to composing - especially if like me you rely on editing and piecing things together - while PT's interface is very good for audio editing.

If I just played everything in live, I'd probably just use PT.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I should add that I'm frozen on Pro Tools 10, an old version that has menu-drawing issues on current macOS versions, but still chugs along fine.


----------



## ZenFaced

Rilla said:


> I'm not sure if you're talking about midi CC's, but if you are, you can view multiple lanes in the step editor.



The step editor doesn't line up correctly with the underlying midi track making midi automation a nightmare.


----------



## Rilla

ZenFaced said:


> The step editor doesn't line up correctly with the underlying midi track making midi automation a nightmare.



It doesn't line up? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.


----------



## Rilla

Vik said:


> Sure, but a lot of people don't use that editor much, and miss having multiple lanes in all relevant editors.



We'll....I use it, but I understand your sentiment.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden

Lets not forget to bring up the pricing difference between avid’s famous update and support policy.

( yeah, sorry to bring that up)


----------



## MichaelVakili

It is just that Pro tools has been around for like 30 years. It earned its fame during all this time, as for nowadays - there is minimal difference between DAWs. It is more mixing / mastering friendly rather than for composers. I would stick to whatever fits your needs, if you have to work in a professional studio - it might be necessary to learn how to use Pro Tools ,other than that - no real reason to use it over logic.


----------



## Rilla

Pro Tools is to the DAW what Apple is to the iPod. When Apple released the IPod, there were plenty of mp3 players in the market already. It's just that Apple coupled the hardware with software (iTunes) and then put a huge marketing campaign behind it. Pro Tools did the same thing with their proprietary hardware, and it gained a lot of steam in the early 2000's as THEE software to use in professional Studios. Other companies were only producing software OR hardware, but not a combo that rivaled what Digidesign was doing at the time. Pro Tools is the Coca Cola of daw's in terms of positioning in the market.

But in 2019, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter what DAW you used as long as it gets the job done, isn't too buggy, you have a powerful enough computer and you feel comfortable using the program. For the most part they all perform the same functions.


----------



## Vik

Rilla said:


> But in 2019, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter what DAW you used as long as it gets the job done, isn't too buggy, you have a powerful enough computer and you feel comfortable using the program. For the most part they all perform the same functions.


Native systems have become very 'professional'. But if you intend to record large multi-mic session with "no" latency, and want to use the workflow and plugins you usually use in your headphone mixes, a DSP based PT system may have it's benefits still.


----------



## Ashermusic

My take:

Both Logic Pro and Pro Tools do everything, but at heart:
1. Pro Tools "thinks" like an engineer who also composes.
2. Logic Pro "thinks" like a composer who also engineers.

Not surprising because Pro Tools started as audio only while Logic started as MIDI only.


----------



## Rilla

Ashermusic said:


> My take:
> 
> Both Logic Pro and Pro Tools do everything, but at heart:
> 1. Pro Tools "thinks" like an engineer who also composes.
> 2. Logic Pro "thinks" like a composer who also engineers.
> 
> Not surprising because Pro Tools started as audio only while Logic started as MIDI only.



Wonderful analysis!


----------



## Rilla

Vik said:


> Native systems have become very 'professional'. But if you intend to record large multi-mic session with "no" latency, and want to use the workflow and plugins you usually use in your headphone mixes, a DSP based PT system may have it's benefits still.



I agree but will add that a lot of current native systems outperform dsp based systems by far.

https://apogeedigital.com/blog/native-vs-dsp


----------



## paularthur

I use Pro Tools for audio and work gigs but Logic Pro for MIDI fun & library stuff. I've spoken to a few people about this and usually they say they prefer the spotting and adding in beat/tempo changes for new cues and how easy it to jump to the memory locations of those cues... Oh and prepping track-laying in PT before going into Media Composer...


----------



## SwedishPug

Thanks everybody!


----------



## dzilizzi

One other thing Pro Tools does better is transferring between Mac and PC. I used to work with a guy with a Mac but I only had PCs. Never had a problem going back and forth. Logic doesn't do that.


----------



## JohnG

Rilla said:


> I agree but will add that a lot of current native systems outperform dsp based systems by far.



If that is so, why does every major recording studio use DSP based systems?

[edit: just read the article and it is focused only on one aspect of "performance." It doesn't address the zero latency or other issues. So it's not a very full or even helpful comparison from the perspective of recording, where PT shines.]


----------



## robgb

There is never any reason to choose Pro Tools, except possibly when sharing files with some other Pro Tools user. Look, it was once the greatest DAW on the planet, but those days are long past. Logic, Cubase and, most of all, Reaper, surpassed it a long, long time ago. Industry standards are not always the best standards.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> There is never any reason to choose Pro Tools, except possibly when sharing files with some other Pro Tools user. Look, it was once the greatest DAW on the planet, but those days are long past. Logic, Cubase and, most of all, Reaper, surpassed it a long, long time ago. Industry standards are not always the best standards.




Hmmm, I would not go that far, even though it is many years since I have owned any version of Pro Tools. 

Pro Tools HD (not Native) still has some virtues over Native DAWS.
1. Because it is not that user configurable, you can go from studio to studio and largely it will look the same and behave the same.
2. While other apps give you more ways to do things with audio, frequently the way PT gives you will be the most direct and efficient.
3. If you are sending audio back and forth to work jointly on with a high end engineer, he probably knows Pro Tools best and therefore will get a good result in less time, and maybe even a better result than he would in another DAW.
4. A properly setup HD rig is still more stable than _any_ Native DAW and has the lowest latency, although the latency gap has shrunk somewhat.

Industry standards may not always be the best, but they are not industry standards just because people resist change.


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> Avid had the market on video editing for many, many years for exactly the same reasons. They lost it first to Final Cut Pro, then to Adobe Premiere Pro. Now DaVinci Resolve is pulling people away from Premiere. The editing world has learned that you go where the innovation and best work flow is. Maybe musicians need to learn this as well.




Amateur musicians tend to "go where the innovation and best work flow is." Professionals tend to go where the stability and most consistent work flow is."


----------



## Ashermusic

robgb said:


> Which is exactly why the professional editors are now migrating to Davinci Resolve, and many professional composers/engineers are moving to Logic and Cubase. Some are even moving to Reaper, especially in the gaming industry. But more pros need to open their minds a bit. Eventually they will, just as the editors have.




All I can tell you is that I go to the studios of composer whose names you know, I will not name drop them here, to help with Logic. They ALL still have PT HD for final mixing. There is a reason.


----------



## JohnG

Ashermusic said:


> All I can tell you is that I go to the studios of composer whose names you know, I will not name drop them here, to help with Logic. They ALL still have PT HD for final mixing. There is a reason.



Jay's right on this one, at least today. There are still stability and flexibility advantages to PT. They are less than they once were but still there. And zero latency (ok, vanishingly small, not zero). There are workarounds on other DAWs, including the one I use, but they are not easy to incorporate.

No doubt some day things will change @robgb but there has to be a reason. Avid's business practices are not everyone's favourites, so that's one area already. Plenty of people have issues with the way Avid prices and releases upgrades, so there is incentive out there to change if a truly comparable system comes along.

The thing is, for major recording projects at least, the track counts seem only to get bigger and bigger. That alone may extend the life of PT for some time yet. We'll see.


----------



## Paul Grymaud

Maybe Logic is not a Pro tool (lolly lol) or Pro tools has a lack of logic...
Not the same $$$ anyway


----------



## Rilla

JohnG said:


> If that is so, why does every major recording studio use DSP based systems?
> 
> [edit: just read the article and it is focused only on one aspect of "performance." It doesn't address the zero latency or other issues. So it's not a very full or even helpful comparison from the perspective of recording, where PT shines.]



Okay, latency is one issue you mentioned. What are the others?

I've yet to have latency issues on my 2007 Mac Pro 1,1 running Logic natively while recording 16 simultaneous tracks.


----------



## JohnG

Rilla said:


> Okay, latency is one issue you mentioned. What are the others?



Stability with hundreds and hundreds of tracks. 

I'm recording this summer with a big orchestra and choir in London. The last thing anyone wants is to start having to fiddle with shutting tracks down or freezing or something with 80-100 players sitting there waiting, just because you want to do one more take (or overdub) and suddenly your recording software runs out of headroom.

There are multiple room mics, gallery mics, spot mics on all the sections; I don't even ask how many simultaneous tracks are going when we do that, since there's an engineer and a separate PT operator. They used to link two PT rigs when it was HD, but I would think with HDX they wouldn't have to anymore.



Rilla said:


> I've yet to have latency issues on my 2007 Mac Pro 1,1 running Logic natively while recording 16 simultaneous tracks.



Congrats. But what you, or I, or any composer might accept regarding latency may be different from what studio players think is acceptable.

Look -- I'm not trying to _sell_ anyone on PT. I need it to do what I do but if I didn't -- why bother?

Studios, more than ever, have to run like a business. They can't afford to stick their heads in the sand and "just do it that way because we always have." Put another way, if they could save $50-100k on PT gear by using something else, they would, provided that they aren't left stuck when the orchestra costs $10k an hour (or more) because they decided to try something unproven. Because that would be the last time anyone wanted to record at that location.

The day another company can match the performance / reliability of PT will be a tough one for Avid, I would think.


----------



## Geoff Grace

JohnG said:


> Studios, more than ever, have to run like a business. They can't afford to stick their heads in the sand and "just do it that way because we always have."


This is true. You don't see a lot of PCM 3348s in operation anymore for exactly this reason.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Land of Missing Parts

Paul Grymaud said:


> Maybe Logic is not a Pro tool (lolly lol) or Pro tools has a lack of logic...
> Not the same $$$ anyway


 Paul, I can never get enough of your posts!


----------



## VinRice

robgb said:


> There is never any reason to choose Pro Tools, except possibly when sharing files with some other Pro Tools user. Look, it was once the greatest DAW on the planet, but those days are long past. Logic, Cubase and, most of all, Reaper, surpassed it a long, long time ago. Industry standards are not always the best standards.



I don't think some people understand how being a 'professional' works. In your home studio or whatever you are free to use anything you like. When somebody is paying you to record a session and they expect to see a ProTools rig then that's what they get. If the Dub Engineer wants to receive a ProTools session then that's what they get. To do otherwise is just dumb. It's really quite irrelevant if another DAW has a do-dad that ProTools does not. The efficiency of having a _lingua franca_ in a high-pressure, high cost, highly time-sensitive business that requires extensive collaboration vastly outweighs any marginal advantages of the latest _tech-du-jour. _Avid understands this which is why the bastards milk it for all its worth.


----------



## FrontierSoundFX

SwedishPug said:


> Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?



I got my start in ProTools and rarely ventured out. I’m not opposed it, but I have invested into Avids ecosystem already. I do mostly multitrack recording and sound design. OMF imports and mixing for video never was a problem.

One quirk I’ve noticed while composing is that the edit window and midi window seem to operate independently. I’d rather be able to click in the edit window and have it seamlessly track with the midi window.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

JohnG said:


> If that is so, why does every major recording studio use DSP based systems?



Impressing clients and using console-looking controllers aside - and force of habit aside - one obvious reason is that add-on DSP + computer beats computer alone every time.

But the needs of major recording studios aren't the same thing as project studios - again stating the bleedin' obvious. The argument has been that it's not acceptable just to do it over if you have an orchestra there, or if a major star just nailed a vocal - that kind of thing.

The truth is that Pro Tools has had some bad days in its career, just like every other digital product.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

You know, you get into a rhythm editing in Pro Tools that I haven't experienced in Logic or other DAWs. It's like a dance.

That sounds weird, I know, but it's the best way I can describe it.


----------



## bill5

SwedishPug said:


> Supposedly Pro Tools is the industry standard but I don't understand why that would be the case over logic pro. Is the audio quality different? Is it faster or easier?


No and no. It's a classic case of people using it because of that perception and fearing either they will lose clients who are stupid enough to care or just assuming it's the best because everyone else uses it. I never used it long enough to become an expert, but from what I have seen and heard from others who are, it sucks in many ways..it's poorly designed, the UI blows, it is NOT esp reliable, customer service is a joke, and the pricing is so horrific it's laughable. If you gave me their top-end version for free I would use the DVDs as coasters.


----------



## bill5

Ashermusic said:


> Amateur musicians tend to "go where the innovation and best work flow is." Professionals tend to go where the stability and most consistent work flow is."


Horse hockey.  Professionals tend to go where all the other professionals go and where they think or know clients want them to be. And that isn't a criticism per se, they fear losing business and all that. I get that. It's understandable. It's just a shame.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

bill5 said:


> No and no. It's a classic case of people using it because of that perception and fearing either they will lose clients who are stupid enough to care or just assuming it's the best because everyone else uses it. I never used it long enough to become an expert, but from what I have seen and heard from others who are, it sucks in many ways..it's poorly designed, the UI blows, it is NOT esp reliable, customer service is a joke, and the pricing is so horrific it's laughable. If you gave me their top-end version for free I would use the DVDs as coasters.



Actually, the UI is excellent and a lot of people who have clients who aren't stupid use it.

It became the industry standard when you had two choices if you wanted to run digital audio on a computer: Pro Tools and Pro Tools. They had a head start of several years. All the other sequencers supported their TDM hardware, and they started the plug-in cottage industry.

You don't dominate an extremely vital, competitive industry for years by being idiots. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't things to bitch about with Pro Tools, and yeah, it was annoying that you needed Digidesign hardware to run the PT software.

But Pro Tools is a really good audio production program.


----------



## dzilizzi

When I first started using PT, it was free with the purchase of an Mbox. I had to buy an audio device anyway and for the price, it was actually a pretty good interface. Its still my go to when I want to work fast. I prefer the bussing on PT over Cubase. And drawing in the midi is so much easier than any other DAW I've worked with because of the smart tool. And? I've never used Logic. But I've used almost all the others, except Reaper and Bitwig.


----------



## Ashermusic

dzilizzi said:


> When I first started using PT, it was free with the purchase of an Mbox. I had to buy an audio device anyway and for the price, it was actually a pretty good interface. .



No I had that as well, and while they called it Pro Tools it was not in any way comparable top Pro Tools HD. I remember attending a Tech Breakfast with Pro Tools based engineer Tony Sheppherd, who said to the Digidesign guys (who owned owned Pro Tools at the time. pre-Avid) "you know you guys should be honest and just call the non-DSP based version "Tools", because there't nothing pro about it."


----------



## Ashermusic

bill5 said:


> No and no. It's a classic case of people using it because of that perception and fearing either they will lose clients who are stupid enough to care or just assuming it's the best because everyone else uses it. I never used it long enough to become an expert, but from what I have seen and heard from others who are, it sucks in many ways..it's poorly designed, the UI blows, it is NOT esp reliable, customer service is a joke, and the pricing is so horrific it's laughable. If you gave me their top-end version for free I would use the DVDs as coasters.



And if you want bill5, I can now list about 75 famous composers and engineers who essentially you just called stupid. They aren't. And maybe, just maybe, they know some things you don't?

A little humility is not a bad thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Ashermusic said:


> No I had that as well, and while they called it Pro Tools it was not in any way comparable top Pro Tools



It was Pro Tools LE, a light version.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf said:


> It was Pro Tools LE, a light version.



Actually I believe he is referring to Pro Tools M-Powered, which as I remember it, wasn't even as capable as Pro Tools LE. Unless you bought an add on it didn't even have SMPTE display again if my memory is correct.


----------



## bill5

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Actually, the UI is excellent


We'll agree to disagree there. 



> a lot of people who have clients who aren't stupid use it.


Obviously. I didn't say (or imply) "if you use it you're stupid." As I and others have pointed out, there are various reasons to use something. The quality of the product itself isn't the only one. And like most things regarding audio recording products, it's subjective anyway. If people who use it like it, more power to them.



> It became the industry standard when you had two choices if you wanted to run digital audio on a computer: Pro Tools and Pro Tools. They had a head start of several years. All the other sequencers supported their TDM hardware, and they started the plug-in cottage industry.
> 
> You don't dominate an extremely vital, competitive industry for years by being idiots.


No, as you pointed out, you can do it by being the only game in town. That's hardly the case now and calling their DAW the best today is more than a little debatable (and again, very subjective). But it's so entrenched with that perception of being "the" DAW to use, merited or not, it will be hard to unseat.


----------



## dzilizzi

Ashermusic said:


> Actually I believe he is referring to Pro Tools M-Powered, which as I remember it, wasn't even as capable as Pro Tools LE. Unless you bought an add on it didn't even have SMPTE display again if my memory is correct.


No, Nick was right - it was PT 6.0 LE. M powered stuff was made by M-Audio, not Digidesign and it wasn't as good. Now granted, the MBox said Digidesign on it, but who knows who actually made it. Unfortunately, the computers at that time were limited to 4 GB RAM. It wasn't until 11 came out that PT native really started working well. I think that was the first version that was 64 bit. TDM was way above my price range. 

And I'm a she.


----------



## bill5

Ashermusic said:


> And if you want bill5, I can now list about 75 famous composers and engineers who essentially you just called stupid.


1. That is essentially wrong. I didn't name or have in mind anyone specific. I was speaking generally. I thought that was obvious. 
2. Fame and intelligence have no direct correlation. I would have hoped that was also obvious, but apparently you disagree. But again, a general statement. I cannot speak to your beloved inner circle of famous people specifically.



> They aren't. And maybe, just maybe, they know some things you don't


Undoubtedly many if not all of them do. Quite a bit, I'd suspect. But that doesn't mean they're correct if they assert that Pro Tools is the best DAW available (assuming they would do so). 



> A little humility is not a bad thing.


Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Geoff Grace

dzilizzi said:


> No, Nick was right - it was PT 6.0 LE. M powered stuff was made by M-Audio, not Digidesign and it wasn't as good. Now granted, the MBox said Digidesign on it, but who knows who actually made it. Unfortunately, the computers at that time were limited to 4 GB RAM. It wasn't until 11 came out that PT native really started working well. I think that was the first version that was 64 bit. TDM was way above my price range.
> 
> And I'm a she.


What? You mean "Lizzi(e)" isn't a man's name? 

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Zero&One

Do bricklayers have similar forums where they argue about trowels, like if the Draper 10" Slicemaster is still better than the EdgePro Muck-Flinger 2.0 on modern building sites?
These things keep me up at night


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

bill5 said:


> We'll agree to disagree there.



That's an easy out.

The interface doesn't work for your workflow. It does for lots of people's, mine included.

Why are you so dug in?


----------



## Ashermusic

bill5 said:


> 2. Fame and intelligence have no direct correlation. I would have hoped that was also obvious, but apparently you disagree.



Whose talking about fame? I am talking about the ability to succeed year after year in a tough industry. And I don't know even a _single person_ who has managed to do so who is not intelligent. So yes, I emphatically disagree. There is a direct correlation between intelligence and consistent achievement in this industry.

And I am humble because unlike you, I don't rate my own opinion over those of more achievement. I am always willing to consider changing my mind when people who may know more than me challenge it. Eric Persing, for one, did.


----------



## artomatic

I've gotten used to the midi flow in PT (a former DP, Logic user) and love the coexistence of audio and midi in one DAW. No more composing on another DAW and porting it over to PT for audio recording/editing. The workflow just works for me.


----------



## Mike Greene

Ashermusic said:


> Whose talking about fame? I am talking about the ability to succeed year after year in a tough industry. And I don't know even a _single person_ who has managed to do so who is not intelligent.


Wrong. If intelligence were essential to success, then how do you explain _my_ success?

Easy answer - Incredible good looks!


----------



## Rilla

JohnG said:


> Stability with hundreds and hundreds of tracks.
> 
> I'm recording this summer with a big orchestra and choir in London. The last thing anyone wants is to start having to fiddle with shutting tracks down or freezing or something with 80-100 players sitting there waiting, just because you want to do one more take (or overdub) and suddenly your recording software runs out of headroom.
> 
> There are multiple room mics, gallery mics, spot mics on all the sections; I don't even ask how many simultaneous tracks are going when we do that, since there's an engineer and a separate PT operator. They used to link two PT rigs when it was HD, but I would think with HDX they wouldn't have to anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats. But what you, or I, or any composer might accept regarding latency may be different from what studio players think is acceptable.
> 
> Look -- I'm not trying to _sell_ anyone on PT. I need it to do what I do but if I didn't -- why bother?
> 
> Studios, more than ever, have to run like a business. They can't afford to stick their heads in the sand and "just do it that way because we always have." Put another way, if they could save $50-100k on PT gear by using something else, they would, provided that they aren't left stuck when the orchestra costs $10k an hour (or more) because they decided to try something unproven. Because that would be the last time anyone wanted to record at that location.
> 
> The day another company can match the performance / reliability of PT will be a tough one for Avid, I would think.



I hear you but you're still talking with a mindset from 2009 imho. With today's tech native systems can handle those track counts, especially computers made in the last 4 years. Pro Tools is good for compatibility from studio to studio, but the advantages it once had over other DAWs has greatly diminished since its inception.

And enjoy PT while you can, because Avid is hanging by a thread on the verge of bankruptcy.


----------



## stonzthro

> "Avid is hanging by a thread on the verge of bankruptcy.



They've been this way for years!


----------



## Dewdman42

If PT wasn't so expensive I would definitely add it to my setup. I'm ok without it though. Not a working pro and no need to conform to client demand there. However, Admiral BumbleBee's recent revelations about DAW transparency (or lack thereof) is making ProTools shine like a star in that dept. It has proven through measurement to be absolutely transparent with absolutely accurate automation, etc.. something that LogicPro is not comparing very favorably. 

Nonetheless, I can't justify the expense of adding PT and figuring out what plugins I have in AAX on top of it all, etc.. So I will just keep living with Noisy LogicPro.


----------



## NoamL

My friend Joe uses Pro Tools and his argument is simple. "It's all going to end up in Pro Tools anyway so why not work in it?" I have never heard of an orchestral recording session or a final filmscore mix being done in any other software.

it's above my paygrade to wonder why ProTools is so dominant in the recording and mixing world but the truth is that everything I've ever composed or arranged in Logic has ended up as prelay tracks in a Pro Tools session.


----------



## Geoff Grace

(Post Geoff is responding to moved to the Drama Zone spinoff of this thread)



The two aren't mutually exclusive. A DAW can be chosen by a user both because other pros are using it, _and_ because of how good it is. People like to say that everything happens for a reason; but in my experience, I find that most things happen for a multitude of reasons. I certainly didn't make my DAW choice for one reason alone. I doubt you did either.

Personally I'm glad there are so many DAWs to choose from. They each have things that make them popular and things that make them unpopular. That's okay. Live and let live, as the expression goes.

Best,

Geoff


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I moved a post from here to this thread's Drama Zone spinoff. People who would like to have a good brawl over why other people use a piece of software are welcome to go there.


----------

