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

[Dwayne Russell]

Here are the new features from PT 8:
http://audio.tutsplus.com/tutorials/rec ... -use-them/

In PT 8 they just got around to making a midi editor. Cubase had that 12 years ago!
And who uses Universal View?
This was also PT first score editor. Again cubase had that 12 years ago.

Here are the new features from PT 9:
http://www.avid.com/US/products/Pro-Tools-Software

Again Cubase had the ability to make that many tracks 12 years ago.
And finally delay compensation! But its not automatic yet. You still have to choose between two speeds of it.

All the other features are designed to catch up with Cubase. And what about that so called "industry standard"? Why make the effort to make PT compatible with other DAWS and other Interfaces? If they are the standard then should all the others have o bow to them?

Here are the new features for Cubase 5 and 6:
http://www.steinberg.fr/fileadmin/redak ... atures.pdf
http://www.steinberg.net/en/products/cu ... tures.html

You can clearly see that Cubase is perfecting what PT is just now introducing.

[mazz]

Dwayne,

I tend to agree with you on a lot of those points. I've been editing MIDI data in some sort of notation window since I started on MOTU Performer (now Digital Performer) back in the early 1990s. But Pro Tools was at first very audio-centric (remember Sound Tools?) and I think the MIDI function was sort of tacked on at some point and was never really their main focus until somewhat recently, and the notation editing came in when Avid bought Sibelius a couple of years ago.

I think ProTools became the industry standard because they were basically first, and people swear by anything they use because they have a huge time investment into it and because they know it well.

Folks say that PT is really great for audio editing, well in DP I can do multiple edits across many audio tracks, move stuff around, crossfade, etc., all the very same editing functions, and it may not operate exactly the same way as PT, it works great for me partly because I'm used to it. And I don't have to worry about compatibility with other studios because I just send audio files if I need to collaborate. So it makes no sense for me to switch to ProTools just because someone says it's the "standard". I would rather spend the time practicing my EWI or Accordion than learning another DAW!!!

If someone is getting their first DAW or is thinking about moving to Pro Tools, these are the questions I would ask:

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.
2. Are you doing a lot of MIDI composing and keeping the projects in-house, or with minimal collaboration with other facilities and musicians? In that case, I would say get something that feels right for you and your way of working. For some, Cubase might make their eyes go bleary and Reaper might be the perfect choice, who knows?

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?

I recently attended a master class evening with a guy named Carmen Rizzo. In addition to being a mixer and remixer, he is also an electronic music artist. He basically uses ProTools for everything including MIDI and he didn't seem to think it was a problem. Again, he's been using ProTools for years and so he's used to it. His music didn't sound compromised in any way, he's pretty successful and what he does!!

Again, I agree that ProTools as a composing platform is just now coming into it's own, but just like Microsoft, it's the standard of the industry in large part because of the de facto nature of being the first and of so many people using it. People complain about how clunky Microsoft Word is and how overly complicated it is, but they still go ahead and use it every day, and how many people did you hear complain about having to spend another 10K on hardware when Digidesign obsoleted their previous gear and yet they pulled out the credit card anyway? What is the "best" platform? That's an unwinnable argument. IMO, it's whatever works for that individual and let the end result (the music) stand on it's own.

[billg1]

I'm familiar with AVID from the video standpoint also and I can add that the company excels in the marketing department like no other. In the late 90's i had to purchase a video platform that could handle uncompressed video because I was producing a network level tv show. AVID had the only choice . . . close to $60k for what I needed!!!!!! Just about the time I thought I was going to have to mortgage my house to stay in business NewTek came out with a system that did everything the AVID did PLUS live switching for about 11k. I acquired a demo and straight out of the box used it to switch and post a 5 camera live shoot for the Wailers. I purchased it and never looked back. Avid still reigned supreme not only because everyone was invested in it, but also because the marketing was successful in making "Avid editing" synonymous with non-linear video editing (just like you might blow your nose on a Kleenex instead of a tissue!). Then came DV and firewire and Final Cut Pro emerged as the most widely used system. But by making their product the choice of "pros" in all of their marketing (and by being first) they managed to be the only game for a long time. when they became first with the DAW software/hardware stuff they didn't hold back anything in the marketing and just directly decided to just name the product Pro-Tools. Now finally the competition is tough enough that they've finally had to dump their compatibility "stranglehold" with V9.

Not knocking Pro-Tools at all, I think their products are fine. I just think it's important for people to realize that a lot of what they assume about them could be the result of some of the best, most successful marketing ever.

[Dwayne Russell]

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.

[Dwayne Russell]

when they became first with the DAW software/hardware stuff they didn't hold back anything in the marketing and just directly decided to just name the product Pro-Tools. Now finally the competition is tough enough that they've finally had to dump their compatibility "stranglehold" with V9.

Not knocking Pro-Tools at all, I think their products are fine. I just think it's important for people to realize that a lot of what they assume about them could be the result of some of the best, most successful marketing ever.

Thats is part of what Mazz was saying, that PT was the first.

So happens I was one of the first in the world to use PT. That was before it was Pro Tools. So I remember first hand how that happened.

The original owner of the software was from Fostex. And that leads to what Mazz is saying in that the ONLY reason PT is the so called "industry standard" is because it has been around since the beginning. It was the ONLY DAW for many years.

As to why they are behind now in my opinion is NOT because they think they could not be beat but because the algorithm is so old that it was not set up from the beginning with the new innovations in mind. In order to make the features in PT it takes many more hours of programming and manipulation because of the original algorithm set up.

[eeoo]

Hmmm, not sure I understand the point of all this. Am I to think that all the music I've created over the years would have been much better had I only used Cubase? Somehow I don't think so. If you like PT use it, if you hate it, don't. Just write great tunes and capture great performances and it won't matter what you use.

eo

[Dwayne Russell]

Hmmm, not sure I understand the point of all this. Am I to think that all the music I've created over the years would have been much better had I only used Cubase? Somehow I don't think so. If you like PT use it, if you hate it, don't. Just write great tunes and capture great performances and it won't matter what you use.

eo

We said that.

[eeoo]

We said that.

Oh.

[Dwayne Russell]

We said that.

Oh.

YEah, when its all said an done only the out come matters. PT or Cubase, doesnt matter.

When it comes to the tools of our trade it's just a fun discussion. It is some what important but not critical.

[eeoo]

Yes, well said.