label requesting hard drive with all pro tool files

[dani]

i've yet to come across plugins that don't react the same in offline mix down, as live. and to be honest, they have no excuse to behave any differently. the time base is completely arbitrary (1 second is only 44,100 samples, shouldn't matter how fast they are computed)

i've heard rumors that UAD don't like offline mix downs. whilst there's no reason this has to be the case, i wouldn't put it past UAD to have some sort of external clock which isn't sync'd with the CPU clock.

and yea, joey has a point. four stems, drums, guitars, vocals, and anything else, ought to be enough for anyone!

my inner fan boy dies a little when i see labels "requiring" pro-tools (ie not any other DAW) files.. :|

thanks,

 

[James Murphy]

labels request what they know from the bigger studios and producers they work with... not what people on forums use... they also ask for very specific things for graphics, like Photoshop files, etc... they want a standard, and like it or not, PT is the audio standard, Photoshop is the graphics standard, etc.... not sure about design apps for putting together CD layouts, but i'm sure there is one that is considered standard. Standards save labels hassle and money, and they allow for studios to receive/send projects to/from other studios more easily... that is desirable... not something to cry or "die inside" about. Only those that haven't entered that arena yet and stepped up to the plate and learned and/or bought what they need to integrate ever bemoan that particular paradigm, because once you've adapted, or at least facilitated a certain level of adaptability to the standards, a lot more work opens up for you. And, despite what you want to believe, the fact is that many plug-ins do indeed perform quite differently in offline bounces than they do in real time.

if you are all honest with yourselves and choose work-flows that lead to the best audio result, and tools that allow you to interface more seamlessly with the recording industry, you'll be a lot further along the path of becoming a part of that industry, rather than spending more time as a guy on a forum that chats about being part of the industry, but who really just wants to find the quickest and easiest path for everything, than you need to spend.

not trying to offend anyone, but it is a fact that some tools are standard, some are not... use anything you want, and as long as your results are good, you'll be ok generally... but don't fool yourself that it won't be a pain in the ass for you and ultimately those that employ you that you don't use the standard tools... this is true in every industry.

some guys, like Sturgis for a good example, will survive just fine without "standardizing". they are usually guys that, like many of you, are operating as islands unto themselves... but ultimately to grow they will have to embrace some degree of integration... and even Joey has said he's been asked for PT compatibility by clients already. Quite a few engineers however do not own gear, or at least not much of it... they work at studios, and usually more than one... standardization is key for this to happen.

i bounced mixes (off-line) in DP for years... and always compared them to real-time (on-line) printing to a new track and exporting... the latter always won. many many very respected audio engineers say exactly the same regarding on-line/off-line mix bouncing, irrespective of the DAW used... so it should be clear that pointing out "the numbers" is not the whole story.

it's just like burning CDs.... SOMEthing suffers at higher burn speeds (of course you don't hear it thx to robust error correction and bit interpolation) despite the fact that it's the "same info"; very high burn speeds result in much higher bler (Block Error Rate) in CDr media. it's not an exact comparison of course, just an analogy... but it should help clarify the point that the numbers going in don't necessarily reflect those coming out in exactly the same way, depending highly upon what process is use to crunch them.

 

[dani]

yea, i understand your point, and yea, standards do have to exists. i know that PT / PT HD are the big players, but it can be something of a straight jacket for smaller recording engineers.

my inner fan boy dies, because i just can't stand what is essentially a cut off, for smaller names, in the music industry. and chances are, it's gonna stay like that. i can only hope that people like sturgis continue to exist..! i continually bash cubase, but i don't think i'll ever leave it.

regarding offline/live mix downs.. i'd hardly say that quite to the standards of a double blind A/B test, although it's something i am actually quite interested in. the VST standard (at least) doesn't really differentiate between live playback, and an offline mixdown, so i really can't understand how it can produce different results (with exception to random elements.

that said, PT HD is like UAD, in that plugin processing is done on DSP cards, rather than the CPU, so if if a level of synchronicity isn't kept between the card and the host, i guess there could be differences in a live mixdown/offline mixdown. as i said before, there is no reason this has to be the case, though. i also know nothing of the TDM/RTAS standards.

i don't want this to turn in to the next big sneap argument! haha

(guess i ought to keep my mouth shut, really..!)

thanks,

 

[nwright]

yea, i understand your point, and yea, standards do have to exists. i know that PT / PT HD are the big players, but it can be something of a straight jacket for smaller recording engineers.

I think if you know your way around just about any other DAW besides Pro Tools, as well as knowing Pro Tools itself, you can work within them pretty interchangeably. I'm by no means even approaching a level of Brian, James, Joey, Ermz, Lasse and countless others on here, but I can say I've had absolutely smooth workflows running between Pro Tools and Nuendo over the last year. I've been doing more studio based tracking on PT/home mixing on Nuendo, and I *feel* like I've been able to integrate both well enough where working within 2 DAW's and passing work between them has not become an issue. Most of the time it's taking the tracked files and dumping them into Nuendo for the mix (and editing sometimes), but rarely back from Nuendo to PT. But, the process would be the same if you are only talking raw files. I'd think that if someone wanted to do that on a higher visibility level, they'd be fine doing it...But I do think there'd be a point where it just wouldn't make sense to keep doing it that way once enough projects were constantly coming in...Until the time comes where they can afford to escape that environment.

I guess for me I've found the idea of PT being standard not so much a straight jacket as it is being an avenue that has opened up to more business. Most of the AE's around here are dedicated PT guys (like James says), so when I go in during tracking and say I'll be taking it home to mix in Nuendo, they are skeptical. But once I/we consolidate and move to an external drive, they see how easy it is...From this, I've garnered more business. And, getting something like PTLE or PTMP can further help bridge the gap for a home studio guy with aspirations of working with real studios without sinking a lot (relatively speaking) into a rig that would be cost prohibitive for a modest home studio engineer.

 

[James Murphy]

exactly my point Nate, thanks.... yes, standards make it EASIER for AE's, not harder... and this is true for the "little guys" on up to the "big shots".

 

[Ermz]

Totally agree. FWIW, I'm very glad that PT is the standard. If it were Nuendo or Cubase, we'd be right screwed. We'd have to carry around our macros on usb drives because the out-of-the-box functionality of those DAWs is an absolute atrocity. Not to mention the various hardware possibilities that could be going on. It's a standard for a reason, and one I gladly welcome.

I've also been working between those two DAWs for years, nwright. It can get a little tedious at times, but the process is very straightforward and easy. Just takes a bit of time, is all. The biggest issue tends to be when the drummer decides he wants to go back and re-edit the drums after you've recorded guitars and vocals .

If it were a perfect world, I'd be running a HD rig for pure convenience, but their price puts them out of the range of guys like me. I'm slowly clawing my way to the top here, but I'm not quite in a place where the HD rig would pay itself off quickly enough. The hope is that they come around with an entirely native solution sooner rather than later (which is inevitable, just a matter of time until they admit defeat and drop the aging model).

As much as Digi's monopoly stifles the competition to a degree, the fact is that they still have the most powerful, intuitive DAW on the market. If the other companies actually pulled their heads out of their asses for a second and attempted to challenge ProTools on even ground, they may force Digi's hand into releasing a native solution sooner. That would put all the DAWs on more or less even footing. Though for some reason every manufacturer apart from Digi seems to have allergies toward logical design.

 

[nwright]

Totally agree. FWIW, I'm very glad that PT is the standard. If it were Nuendo or Cubase, we'd be right screwed. We'd have to carry around our macros on usb drives because the out-of-the-box functionality of those DAWs is an absolute atrocity. Not to mention the various hardware possibilities that could be going on. It's a standard for a reason, and one I gladly welcome.

I've also been working between those two DAWs for years, nwright. It can get a little tedious at times, but the process is very straightforward and easy. Just takes a bit of time, is all. The biggest issue tends to be when the drummer decides he wants to go back and re-edit the drums after you've recorded guitars and vocals .

If it were a perfect world, I'd be running a HD rig for pure convenience, but their price puts them out of the range of guys like me. I'm slowly clawing my way to the top here, but I'm not quite in a place where the HD rig would pay itself off quickly enough. The hope is that they come around with an entirely native solution sooner rather than later (which is inevitable, just a matter of time until they admit defeat and drop the aging model).

As much as Digi's monopoly stifles the competition to a degree, the fact is that they still have the most powerful, intuitive DAW on the market. If the other companies actually pulled their heads out of their asses for a second and attempted to challenge ProTools on even ground, they may force Digi's hand into releasing a native solution sooner. That would put all the DAWs on more or less even footing. Though for some reason every manufacturer apart from Digi seems to have allergies toward logical design.

I've been fortunate enough that if/when the time comes that I have enough clientele with money to spend, I've already got a studio/freelance opportunity in place, so the move to Pro Tools HD - for me - is of no money spent on my part...It's purely the band's, which is what completely sucks! I've got a standing offer that I can move into the studio as their "metal/hard rock" guy, but the clients I have to bring in myself. Every new project that comes up, I try to convince them this is the way it should be done, and the increase in cost will only serve to make their project better...No one has bitten yet. They end up choosing to have me come out and record "demo style" in their rehearsal spot thinking it will sound just as good. That said, I don't have any hatred towards Cubendo. I know it pretty well, it works for me in mixing. My biggest gripes would come from the tracking and editing side.

I so envy some of you dudes! I *wish* I could have a post like this one Brian has made!

 

[digitaldeath]

James: While I see your points quite clearly, I'm afraid that sometimes I get the feeling that you have this "god complex" when it comes to discussing such issues. Yes, you work with major labels on a regular basis and we are all quite aware that PT is the "industry standard" - no need to assume that many people here don't know what they're doing simply because some users here are not yet operating on a full-time commercial basis and may not be running a PT rig (please compare the PT US usage to that of Cubase European usage). I value your posts, I always learn something new, but this is starting to sound like your anti-piracy debate (correct but repetitive).
You seem to forget that it's not an industry requirement to have a PT HD rig - it's also not an industry requirement to record & mix everything in PT. Anyone can use whatever DAW they want, and bring the stems into a PT LE session using a cheap-ass M-Box. They are still meeting the "industry standard" minimum requirements.
Please note that I state all of this not out of contempt, just as a matter of opinion.
Myself and Ermz have discussed the points he raises quite a bit around here; every other DAW developer seems to completely miss the ball when it comes to ease of editing and the huge demand for a Beat Detective clone. It's for these reasons that I chose to use PT, not because it's the "industry standard" for the sake of being compliant.

 

[Lasse Lammert]

I'm thinking about closing this thread tbh.
the initial questions have been answered clearly and everyone knows where it'll be going from now.....
what do you guys think about opening a pro/con PT thread in the equipment section? I think it'd actuall y be cool to have a dedicated thread for that to reference to in future discussions....cause all this has been said before.
otherwise I fear this thread is gonne end like countless others before....

 

[006]

So.... about studios requesting a HDD with PT files..

 

[digitaldeath]

I'm thinking about closing this thread tbh.
the initial questions have been answered clearly and everyone knows where it'll be going from now.....
what do you guys think about opening a pro/con PT thread in the equipment section? I think it'd actuall y be cool to have a dedicated thread for that to reference to in future discussions....cause all this has been said before.
otherwise I fear this thread is gonne end like countless others before....

I agree. However, I think we're all well aware of the pros & cons of PT.
I think more of a PT tips thread would be much more beneficial to the community, where everyone can share their tips & tricks.
Perhaps you could grace us with a Beat Detective video sometime soon Lasse?

 

[James Murphy]

James: While I see your points quite clearly, I'm afraid that sometimes I get the feeling that you have this "god complex" when it comes to discussing such issues. Yes, you work with major labels on a regular basis and we are all quite aware that PT is the "industry standard" - no need to assume that many people here don't know what they're doing simply because some users here are not yet operating on a full-time commercial basis and may not be running a PT rig....

You seem to forget that it's not an industry requirement to have a PT HD rig - it's also not an industry requirement to record & mix everything in PT. Anyone can use whatever DAW they want, and bring the stems into a PT LE session using a cheap-ass M-Box. They are still meeting the "industry standard" minimum requirements.

>>"not trying to offend anyone, but it is a fact that some tools are standard, some are not... use anything you want, and as long as your results are good, you'll be ok generally... but don't fool yourself that it won't be a pain in the ass for you and ultimately those that employ you that you don't use the standard tools... this is true in every industry."<<

that quote from my post pretty much makes most of your reply redundant. other than that, despite your claims to appreciate my posts, the rest of your reply seems simply designed to carefully take a pot-shot at me while avoiding being moderated. talk about passive-aggressive.

 

[Ermz]

I agree. However, I think we're all well aware of the pros & cons of PT.
I think more of a PT tips thread would be much more beneficial to the community, where everyone can share their tips & tricks.
Perhaps you could grace us with a Beat Detective video sometime soon Lasse?

I'd still love to do a beat detective video - I just can't get my head around how to get it all recorded easily. I'll be getting sent a calibration mic from Event soon, so that will handle the speaking duties, but I have no idea what method to use in order to record video, the sound of the DAW, and the sound of myself narrating.

@Lasse: I think locking threads tends to be when you hit a certain point that you really start to hit on the freedom of the members. Part of what made this place great was that discussions were free to go as they wanted to. The last thing the userbase need is the insecurity of wondering whether somebody will be silencing them, moving them around or whatnot.

If you're wondering about this discussion going in a PT vs other DAWs direction that's been done before, it's fine, as long as the thread doesn't get bogged down with people baselessly insulting each other. Everyone that doesn't want to take part can quite happily just avoid the thread.

 

[Kazrog]

are these Cubase export features real time?...

There's a checkbox in the export window for "Realtime Export," so that's an option readily there and you can keep it on by default if you want. Here's an example shot from one of the sessions I'm working on lately:

As you can see, a lot of options. For the use case we're talking about, if I was actually transferring to PT I wouldn't re-import the audio back into the audio pool for the session (that would be silly obviously) but this works really well. I also own Pro Tools M-Powered with an M-Audio JamLab as my dongle for doing session transfers, etc. I route the output of the JamLab's headphone port to 2 quarter inch line ins, which I monitor analog via my FireFace 800's monitor mixer app if I need to audition PT sessions on my speakers, etc.

I simply prefer working in Cubase, I'm faster with it than any other DAW, and I'm familiar enough with PT that it's really easy for me to convert sessions between the apps. I think that owning a copy of PT is probably an essential for anyone who does work with labels and big studios, but that doesn't mean you have to have an expensive PT rig. I view PT as a file transfer utility.

 

[James Murphy]

I think that owning a copy of PT is probably an essential for anyone who does work with labels and big studios, but that doesn't mean you have to have an expensive PT rig. I view PT as a file transfer utility.

and this is a perfect example of what i was saying when i said that as an AE advances in a career he/she will need to embrace a certain level of integration to the standards in order to be compatible. thx Shane.

 

[Lasse Lammert]

@Lasse: I think locking threads tends to be when you hit a certain point that you really start to hit on the freedom of the members. Part of what made this place great was that discussions were free to go as they wanted to. The last thing the userbase need is the insecurity of wondering whether somebody will be silencing them, moving them around or whatnot.

If you're wondering about this discussion going in a PT vs other DAWs direction that's been done before, it's fine, as long as the thread doesn't get bogged down with people baselessly insulting each other. Everyone that doesn't want to take part can quite happily just avoid the thread.

you're right, I didn't intend to lock it, it was merely a little reminder because the insults already started.

The last thing the userbase need is the insecurity of wondering whether somebody will be silencing them, moving them around or whatnot.

no problem there...as long as posts are in the correct subforum they won't get moved by "someone".
and as long as they're not advertising piratcy/leaks etc noone's gonna get silenced either!
Feel free to contact me via PM if you think I moved a thread without a proper reason or something.

 

[digitaldeath]

you're right, I didn't intend to lock it, it was merely a little reminder because the insults already started.



no problem there...as long as posts are in the correct subforum they won't get moved by "someone".
and as long as they're not advertising piratcy/leaks etc noone's gonna get silenced either!
Feel free to contact me via PM if you think I moved a thread without a proper reason or something.

Lasse, forgive me if you misinterpreted my post but I did not intent to insult anyone. I simply stated a matter of opinion, an opinion which I feel that James took to heart. The issue will be resolved via PM.

Niall.

 

[Andy Sneap]

yknow i just send a hard drive of the sessions and bill the label, I dont actually have time to be messing around and they only want it as a backup, they own it, so they have the right to have it. As far as the session etc, I'm really not that bothered just cause someone can see your settings etc doesnt mean they can mix like you.

 

[zvish]

yknow i just send a hard drive of the sessions and bill the label, I dont actually have time to be messing around and they only want it as a backup, they own it, so they have the right to have it. As far as the session etc, I'm really not that bothered just cause someone can see your settings etc doesnt mean they can mix like you.

I wanna be in that label

 

[nwright]

Shane, what version of Cubase is that? I've never seen an export dialog box that looked like that?

Also, out of curiosity with the tangential topics in this thread, I did a null test on a mix I've been messing with lately (Nitrobattery's song on here).

Real time export vs. offline process results in a perfect cancellation of everything but SOME of the replaced drum hits. Obviously, the differences due to what sample was chosen during each export style...It'd be funny, though, a tom fill with 4 hits spread among 3 toms would produce and errant 1 or 2 hits per tom.

What suprised me, though, was none of the reverbs were heard. I would have thought the reverb would have used a bit more randomization (I used Waves Rverb).