# ProTools for sequencing? What are the issues?



## JohnG (Nov 26, 2010)

For those using ProTools for sequencing, how is it for sequencing? What are the issues going from a "regular" DAW?


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 26, 2010)

JohnG @ Fri Nov 26 said:


> For those using ProTools for sequencing, how is it for sequencing? What are the issues going from a "regular" DAW?



My experience with PTLE8 was that it lacks the film scoring features I love about DP. I barely use that program and I have personally had problems with the RTAS versions as far as CPU is concerned. I had one doofus say I didn't have a powerful enough system. If you need more than a Quad Core Mac Pro with 8gb of RAM than that's a useless program AFAIC.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 26, 2010)

It's a heck of a lot better than it used to be, but for me, I don't think it can ever work just because of the way it's laid out. In Logic or Performer, on the arrange page, you have all these nice easy-to-see "blocks," that are two bar kick and snare patterns, or an 8 bar bass line for the verse, or 16 bar string parts.

So I can hit Apple-L to make the kick and snare block loop indefinitely. I can option drag the bass line block to the second verse, and see exactly what it is, since I've labeled it "bass verse." I can nudge the string block just a teensy bit up so it doesn't lag behind the beat.

ProTools doesn't work that way. All the things I described can be done, but not as blocks. You actually go into the individual tracks, find the notes in question, and copy and paste, or nudge or whatever, from there.

Another annoyance is that track names can't be as long, especially when you make the tracks smaller. So when you shrink a track height (so you can fit more than 10 tracks on the screen,) VSL Violins Staccato becomes VSLVNSO.

Personally, I see no reason whatsoever for anyone (who works mostly with MIDI) to go from a normal sequencer to ProTools LE. I can see using *both* if you have to deliver ProTools files for clients, but to actually switch completely? No.

ProTools HD is a slightly different story, in that it's advantages in handling audio can become a factor that might make a switch worthwhile (assuming you need to record live stuff a lot.) For me, though, if MIDI will be involved (beyond a click track or minor overdubs,) I always use Logic.


----------



## RMWSound (Nov 26, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Fri Nov 26 said:


> It's a heck of a lot better than it used to be, but for me, I don't think it can ever work just because of the way it's laid out. In Logic or Performer, on the arrange page, you have all these nice easy-to-see "blocks," that are two bar kick and snare patterns, or an 8 bar bass line for the verse, or 16 bar string parts.
> 
> So I can hit Apple-L to make the kick and snare block loop indefinitely. I can option drag the bass line block to the second verse, and see exactly what it is, since I've labeled it "bass verse." I can nudge the string block just a teensy bit up so it doesn't lag behind the beat.
> 
> ProTools doesn't work that way. All the things I described can be done, but not as blocks. You actually go into the individual tracks, find the notes in question, and copy and paste, or nudge or whatever, from there.



Option dragging a region (or "block") works the same in Pro Tools as logic. You can also name the region "Bass Verse" if you want by doing Shift+CMD+R with the region highlighted (showing region names is a preference in the view menu). You can duplicate an entire region with CMD+D, which will just put another immediately after the one you have selected (So just hit that as many times as you need regions). 

To nudge an entire region all you have to do is set your nudge value in the transport section and tap "-" or "+" on the numeric keypad with the region selected. 

There are a lot of features in Pro Tools that aren't always obvious, which is part of what I like about it. I'm always finding new, quicker ways to do things. 



> Another annoyance is that track names can't be as long, especially when you make the tracks smaller. So when you shrink a track height (so you can fit more than 10 tracks on the screen,) VSL Violins Staccato becomes VSLVNSO.


I agree with this. Don't know why they can't let you expand track names width if you want to.

Overall I think Pro Tools is a good choice for those of us who have used it for recording and/or post work, and are used to the way it works. I have used Logic for 6+ years, but I am still much quicker with Pro Tools, and to me, the audio editing in Logic is much further behind the curve than the MIDI editing in Pro Tools. That's why I switched to PT for composition.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 26, 2010)

I might at least upgrade to PT9 for mixing and sending out PT files instead of stems. I don't do that much film work mind you. The current one is so small that I'm just sending AIFF mixes to the director.


----------



## Mike Greene (Nov 26, 2010)

RMWSound @ Fri Nov 26 said:


> Option dragging a region (or "block") works the same in Pro Tools as logic. You can also name the region "Bass Verse" if you want by doing Shift+CMD+R with the region highlighted (showing region names is a preference in the view menu). You can duplicate an entire region with CMD+D, which will just put another immediately after the one you have selected (So just hit that as many times as you need regions).


You're right. I'm so used to ProTools not splitting MIDI regions as I record them that I forgot I can split them later. Possibly it's just my default settings, but as it is now, if I record a verse bass part, stop, then record a chorus bass part, ProTools makes it all one region (as opposed to two,) which is where I lose the "block" way of thinking.

But indeed, they can be split, and possibly even made to automatically split during recording in the Preferences window. It's the "one long MIDI file" that bugged me, which is my mistake.

Looping as you describe is a little different than what I'm thinking, though. In a Logic or Performer loop, the "loops" aren't independent copies, they actually refer to the original region. So if I adjust the kick in the original region, all the looped sections will have the same change. Possibly ProTools has this ability as well, but I don't see it.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 26, 2010)

dcoscina @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> I might at least upgrade to PT9 for mixing and sending out PT files instead of stems. I don't do that much film work mind you. The current one is so small that I'm just sending AIFF mixes to the director.



...and the radio stations want to receive only mp3`s.


----------



## kdm (Nov 26, 2010)

Personally, I like working in ProTools for scoring, despite some limitations vs. other options. Here are my pros and cons, fwiw:

Pros:

1 - Fast workflow - I don't need a lot of midi processing, but pulling up quantize, transpose, etc is a single key command, then you can step through the options, and enter to apply - faster than mousing to enter.

2 - Key editor seems faster to open than Nuendo/Cubase, but a few missing items there.

3 - VI hosting within PT is poor, and VEPro doesn't work here, but if it does work (seems fine on Mac, so may just be a Win issue) - then problem solved.

4 - Sibelius integration is very nice to have. See cons section for my one caveat.

5 - With window configs and memory locations and mix groups, I have each section of my template at a key commands away (using x-keys) - very fast to isolate the work area and only have the 200+ midi tracks visible when needed.

6 - Spotting to video is excellent, and afaik, not in Cubase 5 (Nuendo only). 

7 - Parabola and s-curve tempo changes (not in Cubase/Nuendo - don't know about DP or Logic).

8 - Nice range of controller options, and with Euphonix on board, Eucon within PT will only continue to grow over the next year and beyond. 


Cons:

1 - VI hosting directly in PT performs well below Cubase/Nuendo/Logic/Reaper (not an issue if using VEPro, etc) - abysmal compared to Reaper actually.

2 - No window layout recall of controller lanes to call up velocity, cc11, etc - manual only - more clicking than other DAWs (I have x-keys shortcuts in Nuendo to call up my key controller lane views).

3 - Opening the score editor view takes longer the more midi tracks in the project - a 256 track template will take about 5 seconds to load the score view, even if you are only editing one track. I think PT is caching a score view for every single midi track whenever the score editor is called, rather than only preparing the selected track or tracks. Problem is, it always does this each time, so it's 5 seconds of waiting for every track opened in score view. Key editor view is fine.

4 - No parabola or s-curve tool for controller/automation drawing (a plus for Cubase/Nuendo).

To me, editing in general is faster in PT once you have the shortcuts down - at least on the audio end. It's less feature-heavy than other DAWs, but personally, I like the tradeoff for a faster workflow in other areas.

Setup is way faster in PT than other DAWs due to the ability to tab/ctrl-tab between tracks when naming, cascade/multi/duplicate routing assignments, etc. I also like being compatible with PT mixers and editors.

Just my .02. Whether it's better or worse for your workflow is user-dependent of course.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 26, 2010)

I've played around with every single DAW and once I went to pro tools I've never wanted to touch another program. I think the sequencing is off the chain and once you know all the amazing short cuts you will be rockin out those tunes. Best midi editor and audio editor ever IMO


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 26, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> RMWSound @ Fri Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Option dragging a region (or "block") works the same in Pro Tools as logic. You can also name the region "Bass Verse" if you want by doing Shift+CMD+R with the region highlighted (showing region names is a preference in the view menu). You can duplicate an entire region with CMD+D, which will just put another immediately after the one you have selected (So just hit that as many times as you need regions).
> ...



Just use the midi mirror editing button then what ever u adjust in one loop will adjust in another


----------



## mverta (Nov 26, 2010)

I've done my last 2 films and 3 commissions entirely in Pro Tools HD3 and love it. All my 2010 demos are done on the same one setup, which I can use for anything. I've never had any stability issues or anything, and it's ultra-fast having everything right there. But then again, I do almost zero MIDI editing with orchestral stuff, so perhaps that's an issue for some.

Anyway, I recommend.


_Mike


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Nov 26, 2010)

Hey Mike,

So you're saying you don't do any editing of note placements, controller editing......volume.......dynamics.......velocity, copying and pasting in your sequencer?

How do you achieve this, by performing each part live until it's performed correctly?
Do you add dynamic data on asecond pass, or use foot pedals, etc. to do it all on first pass?

Just curious............... it's quite a claim you're making.

Mr A


----------



## mverta (Nov 26, 2010)

Mr. A, that's correct - no editing. It's a philosophical choice - if I'm trying to recreate something human, it's best to embrace the humanity of a performance. Humans are neither quantized nor perform mathematically precise controller curves, ever. And they never will. I perform and re-perform until it's right. No two performances are the same - just like a real performance. And music has never, ever, required "perfection" to be emotionally and dramatically motivating. Sometimes I have to slow things down, say, for harp glisses, to compensate for the fact that my fingers are only so fast, but it's still a real performance. People should do what they feel is best for their music, of course, but this is my process for attaining what I feel is the most musical result.

I made a video recently, for a family friend, showing my input and playing techniques live. I figured they're what everyone does, but perhaps not. Maybe I'll tack a graphic at the top and post it...


_Mike


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Nov 27, 2010)

Mike,

I get it........ I perform my stuff in as well, all of it. I just choose to apply some of the controller data on a 2nd pass, so I can "perform it" as well. I think if you are trusting your ears and musical intuition, then subsequent "performances" can still be just that, performances. And little bits that don't feel quite right can be "punched in" like a real recording session. I believe we are talking about the same thing for the most part.

The editing process in Pro Tools is very clunky compared to the other DAWs, this is why I asked. I don't think I could have the patience to work in the PT sequencer now; they'd have to come a long way to match the elegance of Cubase/ DP / Logic.

But it sure would be nice if they did.......... !!!


----------



## juniorhifikit (Nov 27, 2010)

I've used Protools since the beginning, but I'm mostly a mixer and only a part-time composer. Lately, the midi side of Protools seems pretty much on-par with most other sequencers, and KDM's review in the earlier post is pretty spot-on. I'm so used to the keystrokes in Protools that it's the most efficient to me. I never stop to even think about it really... it's like breathing! 

A few minor gripes though:

- the track names being too truncated to read when the track size is reduced.
- the count off without pre-roll seems not quite accurate
- there was a problem with ADC and midi performances being placed early from where they were played, but I think it's now fixed.

Digi keeps saying that RTAS performance is just as good as any other plugin format (if the developers abide by some secret rule book) but I haven't seen the proof yet. I don't tax my system that heavily with plugin instruments, so I can't yet comment.

I have another thread about multiple cues and tempo changes in a single timeline, which is still clumsy in Protools. Not sure how well that's handled in other sequencers...


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 27, 2010)

I like the look and layout of PT and really considered using it full time but the RTAS limitations just kept me from sticking with it.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2010)

I don't care what AVID say, but the RTAS performance is just really bad. It's not just me, it's many of us that think so, and also pretty much the majority of people over at the AVID forums.


----------



## kdm (Nov 27, 2010)

Dan-Jay @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> I don't care what AVID say, but the RTAS performance is just really bad. It's not just me, it's many of us that think so, and also pretty much the majority of people over at the AVID forums.



RTAS-VIs - yes it is bad, but I am finding it to be mainly sample-based VIs that perform poorly, but I don't have benchmark tests to say if algorithmic VIs (Absynth, Reaktor, etc) are on par with VST/AU.

RTAS-plugins - no. Many if not most/all RTAS general plugins (EQs, comps, MBcomps, etc) perform as well, or in some cases, better than VST in Cubase/Nuendo.

Improving RTAS-VI performance is 19th on Avid's ideascale list in popularity, so hopefully it will be improved soon.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 27, 2010)

Yeah, even when using Vienna Ensemble Pro I still get that stupid message about not enough resources available or some such nonsense. Even in DP7 which is only 32 bit still, I don't get that when using VE PRO.


----------



## mverta (Nov 27, 2010)

My RTAS is just loaded to the hilt and I've never had any issues... so weird... I'll consider myself lucky, I guess?

Mr.A - The way I perform, it would be basically impossible to do my controller moves in a second pass. I've tried once or twice, but there's just no way, as I ride almost every note-on and sustain in a very specific way. But we've all got our little tricks, don't we?


_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2010)

And I think that right there is the biggest difference between using PT and other sequencers: if you play keyboards well then you don't ned to do much editing, and it's set up best for that kind of a workflow.

My keyboard skills aren't totally abysmal, but I'm a keyboard-as-tool player and therefore rely on a combination of playing and editing. (Plus I use an EWI for some things, and occasionally KAT pads.)

In other words, it's not quite as fast to get around if you're bouncing around between lots of tracks. And that's what orchestral sequencing involves more than anything else - cutting and pasting at the same position, transposing by octave, doubling certain notes with other instruments...

The other difference between using PT and other sequencers is subjective: I find myself bouncing things to audio and then doing things like reversing, pitch-shifting, or manipulating them in other ways, while in other sequencers I'm more inclined to use the instruments to come up with the sound I'm hearing.


----------



## mverta (Nov 27, 2010)

midphase - I'm sorry, is there some alternate universe, where insane, unreasonable deadlines aren't the norm?  I suppose I should clarify that speed in composition and orchestration are necessary adjuncts if one wishes to have ample time to perform the music properly.

Nick - as for what orchestral sequencing involves more than anything else, I have to respectfully put a vote in for those of us that don't copy and paste when sequencing, because it's not human. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single case where that would work. If you have a doubling - say trumpets and flutes - and you copy and paste, you're going to have that robotic/impossible perfection/clone problem built into your sequence. I mean... _ identical_ performances? Really? Identical? Plus, my flute samples behave very differently than my trumpet samples... 

I'm starting to see why editing is such a big deal for people. For a given number of hours of life, I suppose one alternative to editing might be to break out some Hanon books and work on your fingers a bit... 


I'm certainly not coming down on anyone for what they need to do to get their music in, but I have a feeling people are grossly underestimating the aggregate effect all this non-human stuff has on an an otherwise wannabe-human performance. The human brain is extraordinarily sensitive to that sort of thing. 

And for those who think my mockups are decent, I will absolutely say that 80% of it is the performance, and not the template or the reverb. I have no magic reverb settings or equipment; or samples, for that matter. I've heard way better sample templates than mine, but usually with fairly horrific performances, for exactly these kinds of reasons.


My .10c


_Mike


----------



## RMWSound (Nov 27, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Fri Nov 26 said:


> RMWSound @ Fri Nov 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Option dragging a region (or "block") works the same in Pro Tools as logic. You can also name the region "Bass Verse" if you want by doing Shift+CMD+R with the region highlighted (showing region names is a preference in the view menu). You can duplicate an entire region with CMD+D, which will just put another immediately after the one you have selected (So just hit that as many times as you need regions).
> ...




Ahh yes, now that you mention it... I do miss the "alias" regions that change when you change the originals. I don't believe PT can do that. 

One other thing that bugs me is in the MIDI editor, note velocity is represented by different shades of blue rather than scaling color like logic. I miss being able to quickly open up a MIDI region and spotting the 1 or 2 notes that were too heavy/light. It's much less immediately obvious in PT (Maybe there is a setting for this as well that I don't know about?)

As far as the RTAS inefficiency. I was worried about that too, but I have found that switching between different buffers in PT is much quicker and more stable than Logic, so to me it doesn't seem like a big deal. Plus, maybe I'm crazy, but I swear the 512 buffer in PT feels a lot more like the 256 buffer in Logic than the 512. In Logic I have an impossible time playing anything percussive at 512, but that really isn't an issue in PT.

I've also been testing a multi-computer setup with a second computer hosting most of my samples (the ones I always leave loaded) in VEPro, and I've found that each instance connected to a remote server only takes 1-2% CPU as opposed to 8-10% locally. So, this seems like the direction I am headed.


----------



## kdm (Nov 27, 2010)

RMWSound @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> One other thing that bugs me is in the MIDI editor, note velocity is represented by different shades of blue rather than scaling color like logic. I miss being able to quickly open up a MIDI region and spotting the 1 or 2 notes that were too heavy/light. It's much less immediately obvious in PT (Maybe there is a setting for this as well that I don't know about?)



Oddly, Steinberg took color coded controllers out of Nuendo 5 - all grey now - a "design decision" supposedly. You have to go back to Cubase 5 to get color coding.

I'll ditto Mike V's approach and thinking as a concept worth considering, at least since that might be a key factor in how well PT works for scoring for others. That's what I think draws me to PT - faster when performing parts (assuming one is an experienced keyboard player) - esp. with an accurate, quality controller keyboard/faders. Most modern controllers issue rather inaccurate, scattered controller data so you end up editing to adjust for severe jumps that aren't in the performance). 

PT's half speed playback/record is great for the odd times that I need to perform something slowly to get the performance right.

Midi replace actually works well in PT for the performance approach - replacing note by note as the cursor passes a note start - overwrite/replace in some DAWs replaces complete clips or loop/punch sections at a time. fwiw....


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 27, 2010)

As usual, when someone says it is best all one way and another says it is best all another way, both are wrong.

i am a better than average keyboard player. With many parts I can play it well enough so that little or no editing is necessary. 

That said, I can also do quantizing that is musical enough by using Logic's Q- strength and Q range settings to where no one would know that it was quantized because of human it sounds.

So yes, having the capabilities is a good thing and PT still comes up a little short in that department IMHO. My guess is however that with in a year or so that will no longer be true.


----------



## mverta (Nov 27, 2010)

Jay,nobody's process is "wrong."

But I'm curious, if you can play it, why would you quantize it? And surely you're not suggesting a randomized quantize algorithm is equal to a human being's performance. Ah, wait, that's not what you said; you said some people can't tell the difference. 

Nevermind. We do agree.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 27, 2010)

mverta @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> Jay,nobody's process is "wrong."
> 
> But I'm curious, if you can play it, why would you quantize it? And surely you're not suggesting a randomized quantize algorithm is equal to a human being's performance. Ah, wait, that's not what you said; you said some people can't tell the difference.
> 
> ...



My point was exactly that, nobody's process is wrong or necessarily produces non-human results. The only one who is wrong is one who claims that his is the only way to get a good musical result.

Because I cannot play everything I can conceptualize to my satisfaction in the amount of time I have to spend and sometimes a "randomized quantize algorithm" is not only equal to a human being's performance, it is musically superior. Human beings, even fine players, are not perfect. So if I play it almost the way I want it and with a few keystrokes brings i closer rather than performing it 4 more times and then cutting the best sections of each, I will choose that. And I promise you you would only know if I told you because when I play it really well or I quantize it the way I do, if you looked at my Logic event list, you would not see much difference as MIDI is MIDI and the resolution is still limited.

If a tree falls in the forest, I don't care as long as no one I care about is in the path of the falling tree.

I will give a little tip of the hat here to Rohan Stevenson, who step enters everything and and achieves great musicality. I would not have believed it possible to make it sound as good as he does step entering, but somehow he does.


----------



## mverta (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm sorry, Jay, but the point at which you claim to have quantified the whole of human expression, such that you can replicate it with algorithms is where you lose me.

Nevertheless it does appear Pro Tools is better suited for accomplished performers, I guess, which is news to me.


_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2010)

Mike, I don't leave the parts identical - I randomize one of them or use a different quantizing grid (often one that I create by tapping in the rhythm). But a lot of orchestration is not glamorous: unison/octave unison and doubling important notes. And if you don't want to play each part in - I have enough trouble playing it in the first time! - then you bounce around tracks all the time, cutting and pasting in the same position.

And nobody will know.

In any case, if you do like to work that way then I'd say that it's not Pro Tools' strength. That doesn't mean it's not possible, just that it's not as fast for that kind of thing. 

I use PT for all kinds of other things, though. It's a great program.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2010)

By the way, Mike, listen to some of Craig Sharmat's cues. His MIDI programming is great, and he'll be the first to tell you he's not a keyboard player. A lot of his stuff is entered as notation, never mind step-entering.


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 27, 2010)

mverta @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> I'm sorry, Jay, but the point at which you claim to have quantified the whole of human expression, such that you can replicate it with algorithms is where you lose me.
> 
> Nevertheless it does appear Pro Tools is better suited for accomplished performers, I guess, which is news to me.
> 
> ...



Human expression is limited with MIDI in a way it is not with acoustic instruments. And I am not saying the performance will be identical, just saying that it may turn out to be no less musical, and perhaps even more on certain parts.

I think Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern pretty much proved that mathematical formulas are not an enemy of expression anyway.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 27, 2010)

Whatever works...

Interesting thread. The combination of RTAS and most people's description of still-fairly-crude midi editing are definitely keeping me away. And from a post-audio perspective, Pyrmaix is still leagues ahead. So unless a job comes in which means I can't avoid it off any more and have to face the beast, I'll wait to take my next look when Protools 10 arrives...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2010)

What about the MIDI editing do you consider crude, nbuk? And how is Pyramix still leagues ahead from a post-audio perspective?


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2010)

mverta @ Sun Nov 28 said:


> My RTAS is just loaded to the hilt and I've never had any issues... so weird... I'll consider myself lucky, I guess?
> 
> Mr.A - The way I perform, it would be basically impossible to do my controller moves in a second pass. I've tried once or twice, but there's just no way, as I ride almost every note-on and sustain in a very specific way. But we've all got our little tricks, don't we?
> 
> ...



Sorry. To all I ment RTAS VI versions, not RTAS plugins like EQ ect, ect. The bottleneck of the RTAS VIs is where the issue is at the moment.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 27, 2010)

The midi editing in PT is bloody brilliant. IMO. I don't see anything crude about it. It changed my workflow alot. This is my opinion though, but I tried DAWs from Cubase, to FL Studio and PT was the one I liked most. It's personal taste, but I wouldn't ever think it would make anyone stay away from PT.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 27, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Nov 28 said:


> how is Pyramix still leagues ahead from a post-audio perspective?



Crossfades. With Protools you have to render or have them on separate tracks. With Pyrmaix, you simply smash two clips together, and there's your crossfade, and you're onto the next. Double clicking opens the fade editor for tweeks if you need to (you usually don't, the algorithm is seamless). Slipping and sliding is a cinch. The workflow is fantastic.

Clip gain - if I understand correctly you can't change this without a render in protools. Again, it's another 1,000 operations-a-day task that takes 2 seconds in Pyramix.

The other thing in Post - Protools can't auto-reconform audio. This is unbelievable to me. There are third party solutions, but I understand they are not very reliable. With Pyramix it's all built in the basic version, and it works (usually!) extremely well. This one feature alone would literally double my dub time on some projects if it wasn't there.

Also track counts are limited in Protools, not in Pyramix. Just crossfading 2 7.1 sound effects will eat up 16 tracks in Protools, so this is a major concern. By contrast, this same operation in Pyramix 7 can be done on a single track.

I've yet to meet a dubbing mixer who uses both and prefers Protools!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 27, 2010)

Hm. Well, the fades are separate files, but you just hit command F (or use the tool). You can also edit the types of fades.

But yes, it's true that there's no clip volume. I've never worked in surround so I don't know how that works.

It sounds to me like Pyramix is a very different program, though. Does it even have MIDI?


----------



## kdm (Nov 27, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Nov 27 said:


> The other thing in Post - Protools can't auto-reconform audio. This is unbelievable to me. There are third party solutions, but I understand they are not very reliable. With Pyramix it's all built in the basic version, and it works (usually!) extremely well. This one feature alone would literally double my dub time on some projects if it wasn't there.



The 3rd party options actually perform very well - Conformalizer, Virtual Katy, etc are very much in use in film post in LA.

Pyramix may be great, but it's not nearly as common as PT, so compatibility is a big limitation there - PT is Avid and most of the film editing is on Avid (or secondary work on Final Cut), so there is a direct connection to ensure long term compatibility between both editing departments for production stages. 

Pyramix may be much more common for DSD mastering afaik. No midi though, so it's a secondary/separate step for composers.

Sequoia has fantastic crossfading (as does Nuendo), but I would never score in Sequoia, and left Nuendo due to problems that greatly offset the crossfade advantages. As Nick pointed out, fades/crossfades aren't that difficult in PT though I wouldn't mind seeing that improved to be on par with Sequoia, Nuendo, Pyramix, etc.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 28, 2010)

Nick - the point is that every render is a minor pain and every render takes time. In a day, I will literally make hundreds of fades (and clip gain changes). So each one stacks up to make for a big difference in the end. Pyramix doesn't have midi, and that's probably a good thing - it aims to excel in what it does rather than spread itself too thin. So it's never an option for a VI musician - the context in which I raise it here is that if Protools did its job better it would be an appealing buy for an additional Post production application for me, as it is it isn't.

KDM - yes, "it's the standard" is the single reason to use protools in by book (from a Post Audio perspective), and the only reason it's now so dominant - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I've heard several stories in the past year or two of facilities who are purchasing new systems. The dubbing mixers always want Pyramix, the management always buy protools. Comfort for the clients, I guess. As it is, Pyramix is common in UK TV, less so in film. The way I see it, it's common to run a single computer using Pyramix (with MassCore especially it can handle unbelievable amounts of audio and processing) so it suits TV well. The feature film paradigm is different - there will be scores of crates, each running protools for a specific area of the dub, which gets round a lot of protools' resource limitations.

I've no direct experience of Conformalizer et al, I'm going on 2nd hand reports that all these are far from straightforward in use. With Pyramix it's built in - select the files you want, point them at the folder with the media you want and bingo, pretty much.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2010)

I wonder whether PT's new ability to use Core Audio / ASIO (although only up to 32 channels, I read) will boost the number of composers who use it for midi as well as audio? 

It appears to me that most engineers who swear by PT do so precisely because of the PT hardware -- expensive, but once you have it, it's very solid. So it's ironic that the unshackling of PT from its hardware (or maybe better put, the accommodation of alternate hardware) might lead to a lot more people checking out its midi capabilities.

I realise that it's very difficult to develop enough knowledge of many midi programs to have valid comparisons between platforms, and thanks to those who have contributed opinions here.


----------



## Dan Mott (Nov 28, 2010)

JohnG @ Mon Nov 29 said:


> I wonder whether PT's new ability to use Core Audio / ASIO (although only up to 32 channels, I read) will boost the number of composers who use it for midi as well as audio?
> 
> It appears to me that most engineers who swear by PT do so precisely because of the PT hardware -- expensive, but once you have it, it's very solid. So it's ironic that the unshackling of PT from its hardware (or maybe better put, the accommodation of alternate hardware) might lead to a lot more people checking out its midi capabilities.
> 
> I realise that it's very difficult to develop enough knowledge of many midi programs to have valid comparisons between platforms, and thanks to those who have contributed opinions here.



Hey John.

You've probably done this already, but there are a tone of midi tutorials on the AVID site which shows what the midi editor can do. Maybe you'd be able to make an easier choice when comparing to others you have used in the past. Good thing is they're videos tutorials and the guy is making a track with it. It's pretty neat.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2010)

Actually, I had a quick look for them on Wednesday but didn't spot them, Dan-Jay. Thanks for the pointer. I'll have another go.

With the press of getting things done, it's hard to keep up with all the developments. Even the sequencer I use every day has reams of features that have accumulated that I don't use and might be great.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 28, 2010)

John you do have good points. I bought PT8Le years ago and barely use it because of some stumbling blocks, one of which is whenever I load an insert the MBox2 goes silent and I have to re-boot the program. I'm sure PT9 has rectified this however and I'm curious to try it out. For me, it's a small investment and probably one that is a wise move. I do like the Sibelius integration although I still think DP's interpretation of rhythmic realtime input cannot be matched, and it's customization of the click tracks. 

PT8LE has barely any video scoring features much less a SMPTE counter but I know PT9 has also included the toolkit from PT8LE options as a standard so that might help.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2010)

dcoscina @ 28th November 2010 said:


> I know PT9 has also included the toolkit from PT8LE options as a standard so that might help.



I heard that too, David, and agree that it is a big boost. It is daunting to consider switching DAWs and I'm not ready to do it without a pretty serious test drive. If PT were 64 bit, that would be a pretty big plus, but I believe it's still 32 bit and thus one may run into memory ceilings, even leaving aside some of the RTAS questions others have raised. So that's no advantage over DP.

Even given all this, PT version 9 does seem like a meaningful step in the direction of composition. It also seems likely to further prevent a new standard from emerging for audio because it allows people with investments in other hardware to become PT users.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 28, 2010)

I think Pro Tools still does not have some of the MIDI utilities and just the way MIDI is handled in Cubase 5.

I think for composers dealing with DAW composition daily - Cubase is a serious option - I am not sure how good DP and Logic are - probably as good since so many people use it.

But if you do feel like switching, you must give Cubase a serious look. Its got a rock solid engine, routing is very easy and comprehensive, VST protocol is better - VSTi's first release VST versions - RTAS dont always work.

Plus huge problem - PT is not 64 bit yet and even if it does, its going to have teething issues for quite sometime. Cubase is a more evolved MIDI environment with better compatibility with all the major sample developers with a solid engine and awesome for Film Scoring. Its also rock solid in 64-bit environments.

Even if some things dont work - you probably have VE Pro already Or Jbridge which works very well is a very popular option.

But most plug ins are 64-bit anyway. Cubase also supports Multi-Core.

All in all - very hard to overlook for $500.

I am not sure about other DAW's but the Logical Editor is an extremely powerful thing in Cubase. Media Bay just got better - organizing your sounds and loops is great.

I suspect we will also see a MIDI Pool in the near future - which will kill it completely. And of course, you can do Macros for anything! Even for punching in Major Chordsm Runs - what have you! These things are just shortcut away!



Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 28, 2010)

Hey John,

I get it now. I thought you wanted to move from DP. Obviously, PT is great with Audio.


You can probably go for a MADI solution. You can get PT for mixing/summing. Instead of bouncing tracks - take multiple outs and track them into PT live in a single pass.

You can then work with the audio in PT. I used to be on PT few years back. I had PT LE 7 and a Digi 002 Rack.

Unfotunately, I started to hate LE because of its stupid track count limitations and lack of MIDI functions. I moved to Cubase and never been happier as far as a DAW is concerend.


Btw, all those tempo and meter options are available in Cubase too! But definitely, at one point DP was the only one to have that I think - I may be wrong! Always curious about DP - but its not very popular, so I dont know anyone who uses it personally.


If you are just using PT for mixing, you may not need more than 4GB Ram. So 64-bit is not an issue!


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 28, 2010)

nbuk, I only dispute one thing: that the fades in PT take any time worth talking about. It takes a small fraction of a second for any fade to be "rendered."


----------



## JohnG (Nov 28, 2010)

Can anyone give a bit more colour on PT hosting virtual instruments?

Someone wrote that it's better with soft synths than with sample-based VIs -- any experiences to relate, positive or otherwise, on this front?


----------



## mverta (Nov 28, 2010)

John -

My default template brings in 5 Gigastudio PC's via 3 192 Interfaces, and I'm running 1 RTAS instance of VSL (VE Pro), 3 Kontakt3's, 1 Play, 1 Zebra, 2 Kontakt4's, 8 instances of Altiverb 6, 5 7-Band EQ plug-ins, ReVibe, and Master x3 on the Master Bus.


Never had a hiccup.


_Mike


----------



## Ashermusic (Nov 28, 2010)

mverta @ Sun Nov 28 said:


> John -
> 
> My default template brings in 5 Gigastudio PC's
> 
> ...



Dated technology :twisted:


----------



## mverta (Nov 28, 2010)

If it ain't broke...


_Mike


P.S., But yeah, it's bullshit.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 29, 2010)

Superior as Pyramix may be, it's not the usual delivery format for film etc. where I work, which puts it at something of a disadvantage, even if it's merely perceptual. Might be worth a separate thread?

It's more the midi editing and hosting-within-PT-itself that is aœ  o   ¾4Á  o   ¿þ  o   ¿4  o   ¿\B  o   ¿\¶  o   ÃÞE  o   ÃÞc  o   Ãél  o   Ãé²  o   ÄƒÒ  o   Ä„5  o   ÄŒ  o   Äõ  o   Ä˜  o   Ä˜A  o   Ä˜c  o   Ä˜v  o   Äàš  o   Äà¸  o   ÄèY  o   Äè†  o   Æµ  o   ÆÅ  o   Æöw  o   ÆöÀ  o   Æþ'  o   Æþr  o   Ç”  o   Ç½  o   Ç  o   Ç>  o   É;  o   É;  o   É<g  o   É<²  o   É>  o   É>®  o   É°  o   É°7  o   É±”  o   É±Þ  o   Ê:  o   ÊX  o   Ê¡  o   Ê‚  o   Ê¬Í  o   Ê¬î  o   ÊÎL  o   ÊÎ½  o   Ê


----------



## JohnG (Nov 29, 2010)

Thanks, David. I'll check out the Avid site for that guide. The videos of PT-midi-in-action show only a 4/4 dance tune being sequenced. The video as an intro shows good basic functionality, but doesn't exactly demonstrate deeper midi capabilities.

Regarding DP, obviously it's annoying that they haven't yet even announced a 64 bit version. To get around that, I use Bidule in standalone outside DP (hardware loopback for audio) so as to avoid software solutions like VE PRO or Soundflower or what have you. I am having zero problems with any plugin -- still on Kontakt 3.5 to avoid any memory server dust-ups. Hardware loopback doesn't appear to introduce any noticeable latency and doesn't seem subject to incompatibilities.

Bidule has a 64 bit version now for Mac and can host Omnisphere, Kontakt 4, and the Spectrasonics stuff as well. The 32 bit version can host K3.5, PLAY, and anything else that is installed as 32 bit versions.

So in other words, the 64 bit issue for DP, while annoying, is dealt with and it also means that it's quick to open each file.


----------



## dcoscina (Nov 29, 2010)

I don't know whether it was VE Pro (I didn't use it as a V-rack, just as an instrument insert-hmmm), but when I got rid of PLAY Platinum, and I decoupled VE Pro server, it behaved. This is one of the few reasons I like Logic- because I don't have to rely on VE Pro. I can load VI PRO into its own track and control it from there.

I'm a little surprised that Avid didn't develop 64 bit versions of their PT9 although they might have gotten stopped by the supposed iLok/PACE 64 bit compatibility issues. 

When perusing the Avid website, they indicate that VSL is compatible as an RTAS but just for OSX funnily enough. I know when I run VE PRO through PT8LE, it doesn't take too much resources until I load a K4 Symphobia 2 multi. Then it hates it!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2010)

> But it's still an operation, right? A keystroke / mouse operation... and unrendering for changes? And a ton of additional files as a result? Just sayin'...



It's a total, 100% nonissue, nbuk. You've pointed out several perfectly legitimate advantages to Pyramix, but this is simply not one of them.

Fade files simply sit in the folder with all your audio files, where they require no intervention. If you want to edit a fade, you simply do it again to replace it (although you can delete the fade file by select-delete). You must issue a command to crossfade between two files if you want to differentiate between that and simply butt-editing them. To batch-fade you simply highlight beginning and end points, hit command/F, and all regions in between are cross-faded.

You could have an impassioned argument that calculated fades - which for example Logic also uses - have advantages, but then you could also argue that putting on the right sock before the left one is important.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 29, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 29 said:


> It's a total, 100% nonissue, nbuk. You've pointed out several perfectly legitimate advantages to Pyramix, but this is simply not one of them.
> 
> Fade files simply sit in the folder with all your audio files, where they require no intervention. If you want to edit a fade, you simply do it again to replace it (although you can delete the fade file by select-delete). You must issue a command to crossfade between two files if you want to differentiate between that and simply butt-editing them. To batch-fade you simply highlight beginning and end points, hit command/F, and all regions in between are cross-faded.
> 
> You could have an impassioned argument that calculated fades - which for example Logic also uses - have advantages, but then you could also argue that putting on the right sock before the left one is important.



Each to their own! Once you're used to doing basic fades on things like atmoses by simply slamming two clips together, or paste a clip overlapping the end of an existing one and it's job done without a single other keypress, you don't wanna go back. Can't tell you how liberating and fast it is, and I'm not exaggerating to say I might do this operation hundreds of times in a day. But - promise - won't bang on it any more! The fade issue is way less important with music anyway.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 29, 2010)

Of course to each his own. But to me it's important to be able to determine the length of the crossfade, which in PT is determined by the length of the selection. That applies to music or anything else. If you want all the fades to be the same, you just do them en masse to the whole selection.

Sorry for banging on this further.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 29, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Nov 29 said:


> Of course to each his own. But to me it's important to be able to determine the length of the crossfade, which in PT is determined by the length of the selection.



Of course - it depends on how far I slam in one file to the next one!

Apologies also from me for dragging it on!


----------



## JohnG (Nov 29, 2010)

Thanks, tripit, for the comparison. DP's what I've been using so that's really helpful.

Have you used a lot of odd meters? 5/4, 7/8, 9/8 etc.? Is it possible with PT to subdivide the clicks any way you like in those bars, so that 7/8 can be 3+4 or 4+3 if you choose?


----------



## tripit (Nov 29, 2010)

Hey John,
I do use odd meters and you can do them in PT no problem, but you can't subdivide the click like we can in DP. 

You can change the click beat duration though - 1/4 to 1/8 etc.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 29, 2010)

So you might have to have a lot of weird meters to get the clicks you want, but you can do it, I guess.


----------



## poseur (Dec 6, 2010)

JohnG @ Sun Nov 28 said:


> It appears to me that most engineers who swear by PT do so precisely because of the PT hardware -- expensive, but once you have it, it's very solid. So it's ironic that the unshackling of PT from its hardware (or maybe better put, the accommodation of alternate hardware) might lead to a lot more people checking out its midi capabilities.


for clarity's sake:
i (and many others) have been using Lynx hardware
--- not Digidesign hardware ---
w/PT for some years, now.
problem-free.

generally,
it seems to me that some folks who come to PT-midi from a Logic/Cubase background
are not so thrilled w/PT-midi;
certainly, that was still the case for me, personally, w/PT8.
{i haven't installed PT9, yet, though i don't believe there were any updates to MIDI-ness in it?}

i'm also of the opinion (& experience) that PT should certainly be capable of handling
sample-based VI's, internally, much more efficiently & regularly than it did
through PTv8,
if it in fact is being sold to composers.

just sayin'.....
got no dog in any potential "fight", here.


d


----------



## José Herring (Dec 6, 2010)

JohnG @ Mon Nov 29 said:


> So you might have to have a lot of weird meters to get the clicks you want, but you can do it, I guess.



I don't know if it has been mentioned, but this is easy to get around in any sequencer. You could just build the click track you want the old fashion way by just recording a separate click track to "tape" as we use to say. Just take a click sound and program it using midi and record the results to a different audio track. If you're sequencing you can even do this as you compose. That way you can set it up any way you want to regardless of what the DAW makes you do.

best,

Jose


----------



## noiseboyuk (Dec 22, 2010)

I've been thinking about protools again. Far from sold on the idea, but feel the need to check it out in a little more detail. Is it me or is their website awful? I'm trying to find a list of included plugins... can't find a thing. Nothing I can find in the online docs either. Can anyone point me anywhere?!


----------



## tripit (Dec 22, 2010)

Mike Greene @ Fri Nov 26 said:


> It's a heck of a lot better than it used to be, but for me, I don't think it can ever work just because of the way it's laid out. In Logic or Performer, on the arrange page, you have all these nice easy-to-see "blocks," that are two bar kick and snare patterns, or an 8 bar bass line for the verse, or 16 bar string parts.
> 
> So I can hit Apple-L to make the kick and snare block loop indefinitely. I can option drag the bass line block to the second verse, and see exactly what it is, since I've labeled it "bass verse." I can nudge the string block just a teensy bit up so it doesn't lag behind the beat.
> 
> ...



Sorry if this has already been mentioned.... 

Actually, you can loop midi regions very easily in PT. You put the track view to region view not note view, it shows up in blocks. Then you can either hit option/command L and it brings up a loop window or what I do is just grab my 4 or 8 bars and hit command D and it will just duplicate it down the line. Keep holding it until you've gone as far as you want. It's fast. You can nudge a block use the nudge key as well, as well as drag blocks anywhere you want. You can also separate blocks by using command E. One thing PT does really well is work in blocks, it was designed to do this from day one with audio, and they've carried it over to midi. 

There are few features that I hope they will add to midi soon. One would be to be able to view midi tracks as playlists, giving you the ability to "comp" them like with audio tracks.


----------



## lulgje (Dec 23, 2010)

Freeze track

Offline Bouncing

The two most important reasons why I am not ready to move from Logic Pro to Pro Tools 9.


----------



## mushanga (Jan 9, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Sat 27 Nov said:


> But indeed, they can be split, and possibly even made to *automatically split during recording in the Preferences window*. It's the "one long MIDI file" that bugged me, which is my mistake.


Hi Mike...did you find out how to change this setting in the Preferences? I am a recent Logic -> PT9 convert, and this has been bugging me ever since I made the move!


----------

