I think pro tools has an evil brain of its own.

[mazz]

We're all passionate about our tools, but in the end, they are just that. It's all about the music, right?

I went back and read the original post about ProTools crashing with a lot of fades and all I can say is that any DAW could exhibit that behavior. But it does feel good to rant when things go south in the middle of a deadline!!

On to the next rant!!

[jonathansorensen]

Not knowing anything about Cubase...do you think there would be a drastic learning curve for me? I'm not sure if you're familiar with your way around Pro Tools or not, but I can't imagine Cubase being TOO different. But of course, I could be way off here. Time for research. Earlier I made the transition from Adobe Audition 3 to Pro Tools quite nicely. The only thing for me though, is my MBoxPro. I imagine the Mbox is not compatible with Cubase, which would mean I'd have to get some AD conversion going on. More money

I know that gear is one thing, while music is another...but I just wanna make sure I can work smoothly/quickly.

Cubase is very user friendly and can be learned quickly and easily. However, I recently posted a couple of threads wondering if I should move from cubase to PT simply because of compatibility issues. If you work with other writers, producers, etc. you might wanna stick with PTs.

Best,
jon

[billg1]

I often do long distance collabs where everyone is using a different DAW and we never have compatibility issues.

[Dwayne Russell]

I often do long distance collabs where everyone is using a different DAW and we never have compatibility issues.

Yeah, I never understood that either.

[mazz]

I often do long distance collabs where everyone is using a different DAW and we never have compatibility issues.

Yeah, I never understood that either.

a .wav file is a .wav file

[Dwayne Russell]

I often do long distance collabs where everyone is using a different DAW and we never have compatibility issues.

Yeah, I never understood that either.

a .wav file is a .wav file

YEah and an AIFF file is also a wav file basically.

[watksco]

For me, the bottom line is: Can you make music on it efficiently without things that would impede your flow? Again, if one is just starting out, ANY DAW will be a steep climb and if one is switching, it's going to be more of a process of breaking old habits and being open minded about things that are designed differently. If one is already making music on whatever system they are using and the music is great and comes out the way they want, why switch?

That's what I was trying to say...

I sold pro audio gear for a number of years and the amount of times I heard people insist that if they just had 24bit or the lowest THD or...well you get the picture . It was a pi$#ing contest...or focusing too much on the gear. Then you'd get a guy walk in who just wanted to listen to his demos on some different speakers that he'd recorded using an sm58 and a 4-track and were blown away with the quality and the creativity...nothing (or very little) to do with gear. That's why I'm a bit "bah humbug" about 'mines better than yours'. Make the most of what you've got and live and let live I say!

I agree with Bill though, the reason I got pro tools in the first place, all those years ago was probably cause I'd bought some of the hype. It wouldn't matter what DAW I had, the bottom end of my mixes would still suck

Scott

[mojobone]

Dwayne,
1. Are you opening a commercial for hire studio where you would be having various projects and engineers coming through? If the answer is yes, then I would say get ProTools and don't look back.

Mazz, the only reason someone would choose PT for this reason is because of perception NOT compatibility. If I have a PT session in my studio and I bring it to another PT studio, not all my session will open unless that studio has EXACTLY the same plugs I have or there are only audio files. Right? Therefore PT being compatible between studios is a bit of a myth. Since any Cubase session can be transfered to any PT studio, the only reason anyone would get PT for this reason is perception and not reality. It just makes them feel good.

But dont get me wrong, I dont have any problem with people wanting to feel good.

I pretty much agree with everything else you said. People can use anything they like. But one DAW clearly is more advanced and intuitive than the other and that DAW is Cubase.

The issue is more one of convenience than compatibility, or rather of compatibility with people instead of files or sessions. Engineers often track in larger studios and mix in smaller ones, (or vice versa; a professional music project is seldom completed in a single facility, these days) and most have a few go-to devices, whether software-based or otherwise. ITB mixers tend to haul around bunches of dongles, i-Lok and the like, so as to have their licensed plugins available on nearly any system. I know of some folks that won't mix without certain Massey plugs, which are Pro-Tools only. Some people like to track to analog tape, then dump everything to P/T for mixing, it's all good, if the result is good, but stating one's opinion as if it were a fact would be an invitation to a flame war on most messageboards.

[Dwayne Russell]

The issue is more one of convenience than compatibility, or rather of compatibility with people instead of files or sessions.

I am aware of all that and I mixed that way too at one time. But, it still does not make sense because audio files are audio files not matter where you mix.

People think they need PT to go to major studios because they believed what someone told them, not cause its true. Even a popular engineer can believe something that is not accurate.


It is no more convenient to load wave files into PT than it is to load a PT session with wave files into PT. Is it?

Maybe with PT it is. With Cubase its not.

[mojobone]

It's convenient to use the tools you're most familiar with. That would include DAWs.