Protools: Do I need it? What do YOU use it for?

Blade Borge

Blade Borge

Well-known member
I'm a would-be filmmaker. Sound isn't really my thing, only want to know the basics to make movies. Do I need protools? Can it do things as far as sound mixing, making everything sound good and consistent that my NLE can't do? (in this case, premiere).

What do YOU use it for?
 
I'm not familiar with Premiere.

ProTools is cerainly a more powerful tool for audio than what's built into any NLE. But it doesn't seem like you are interested in "going deep" into audio processing... so you probably don't need ProTools yourself - certainly not for now.

Play around with what you can do in ytour NLE, and when and if you need to upgrade to ProTools or some other DAW, you'll know.
 
And as an aside, ProTools isn't the only game in town. Nuendo is coming on strong to give Protools a run for the money as a heavy-duty post workstation.
 
The big advantage with ProTools is that it's the industry standard for post-production. Audio post typically involves a small army of specialized sound editors/recordists/mixers (dialogue, effects, foley, ADR, music, etc.) working in parallel, and session intercompatability is essential.

If you plan on doing all the audio post on one system, then Nuendo et al. may prove cost-effective alternatives to ProTools. If, however, you're planning on hiring or colaborating with other professionals, then PT's the way to go.
 
I would say if you don't know why you need ProTools then you don't need ProTools. If you get to a point where you want to learn about post production audio then there are several books to get you started. (ie Audio Postproduction for Digital Video by Jay Rose)

Cheers
 
What they said. I do sound post for a living and use PT every day. For me yes absolutely it's a necessity. Your getting into filmmaking, use what's i the NLE and when that isn't enough any more get a sound person, they will have ProTools (probably, as pointed out there are some other minor players) and the expertise in audio.
 
all valid points made, if you need to work with post houses, Pro tools baby.

If you want something a tad easier to learn, but still EXTREMELY good, Audition CS3, and I make a prediction that it won't be to long yet then this will also support OMF, then you can also work with post houses.

- Derrick
 
There is a decent alternative for Mac that I use. Digital Performer 5(edit: Just got a Sam Ash mailer, DP6 is on the market). Do I agree that ProTools (And yes, I am PT "Certified" but I chose another platform for my current usage) is a good rig and that it has name recognition/a lot of pro houses are using it, absolutely. But when you are on a budget, a full PT rig could seriously set you back $$. Plus, you will have hardware restrictions. Me, I can use just about any interface that works with a Mac I want, though I use MOTU. According to the manual, .OMF's are no problem for DP5, though I haven't had the need to use that filetype, yet. I do everything in-house at this time.

Not trying to start a PT vs. XXXX DAW (Digital Audio Worskstation) argument, but when it comes down to it, every DAW handles sound the same way, it gets converted into number strings (words, bits and bytes). One thing you didn't mention, what kind of scratch can you afford, and how advanced of a rig do you really need? What bells and whistles do you need and does that program offer it? A rig like mine (not including computer, will run you about 1200-1500 (depending on your interface). A PT LE 003 rig will run about 2000 and change. And PT goes up from there.

PS: On a PC, look at Sonar, another good program for the money.
PSS: Don't forget about some decent studio grade monitors (speakers)
 
Last edited:
On a note, renoise costs $50.
Ive produced my share of client related audio be that for whatever or for vinyl and renoise is my trusted tool for that.
nice track based mixer, loads vsts and those you can find tons of for free.

And yes...get yourself a set of active speakers. keep the old ones for refference, 1 set is never enough.
 
Last edited:
To branch out a bit and answer a few questions.

Sound track Pro is not bad and is part of the FCS so if you have FCP you have STP. It is not sold independently though so it's not really in the same market place as PT et all. It is very well integrated with FCP and if your a picture editor and want to do some basic (and even not so basic) sound work it's a very god choice. It also has the advantage of looking and feeling very much like FCP. This is a down side for audio folks but very much a plus for FCP editors.

Yes in the end all DAW's do the same math on the same numbers. There are arguably differences in the "quality" of the math but unless your doing some super archival recordings it's all close enough. The big differences are the tools built in and available as add ons. PT was an audio editor first. They bought a audio post app and incorporated many (not as many as a lot of folks would like) of it's tools into PT. Late in the game they added MIDI tools. Digital performer (and a slew of others including Nuendo) started life as MIDI sequencers and added audio editing. Many have some post tools but most are aimed at music work in post or just music period. Many have the ability to out put an OMF or AAF (the new OMF) so you can send work to other platforms.

So what you work on and like has a lot to do with what your doing and what tools you like. If your doing a lot of music and especially if your doing a lot of MIDI PT is probably not on the top of your list. If your working as an audio editor in post PT get higher up on the scale, mostly because of the tools. But the reason it's like 80%-90% of the audio post market has more to do with being one of the first on the block with an affordable solution and working very hard with post editors to add the tools they wanted. I know if you go on their boards to day you wouldn't think this was the case but if you have a time machine and go back to the early 90's it's a different story. At that time PT was the cheap alternative to the DAW's of the day that went for upward of $30K (199x dollars!).

There are a lot of capable options out there and any and all could work for you depending on what your doing and who you ned to work with.

For example. In a feature with a budget (I was going to say "professional" but that is not a good definition... so say a film with a paid professional crew) you will normally conform a film a number of times. This can be a HUGE amount of work and if your NLE doesn't output "change notes" (ie FCP) and you don't have conforming software you can be pretty screwed. FCP <> STP can sort of conform, depending on your work flow it will either work well or not at all. There are a number of applications that work with PT that can conform from Avid or FCP projects and Avid can out put change notes. Traditionally films are all cut in Feet and Frames, a lot of DAW's can't work in F+F. So using an other wise fine DAW can be a HUGE problem IF your working on that kind of a project.

OMF is fine as far as it goes but it's a very flawed transfer format. What is sent and what is received are VERY app dependent and not well documented. The only thing that will always be transfered (providing that both apps are capable of the same flavor of OMF) is the sound clips. Fairly often they will come in (with very obtuse clip names) with no automation (levels or pans etc) and always with no plugins etc. It's a very basic transfer at best. So sending an OMF to a post house or mix stage is a good foundation but it's not at all the same thing as sending a ProTools (or what ever DAW they use) session.

And last mini point is PT goes down from that $2,000 price also. The bottom is around $150 for the educational version that you need to get one of a variety of M-Audio interfaces for. So PT really starts around $300 including hardware. Also the place you go up to is a very different beast. A PT HD rig uses dedicated hardware DSP chips. So to be fair it should be compared to a similar product like a Fairlight or (there's another one used in europe that I can't think of). In that neighborhood PT isn't the big overpriced boy, it's in the lower 1/2.


Doc Bernard said:
There is a decent alternative for Mac that I use. Digital Performer 5(edit: Just got a Sam Ash mailer, DP6 is on the market). Do I agree that ProTools (And yes, I am PT "Certified" but I chose another platform for my current usage) is a good rig and that it has name recognition/a lot of pro houses are using it, absolutely. But when you are on a budget, a full PT rig could seriously set you back $$. Plus, you will have hardware restrictions. Me, I can use just about any interface that works with a Mac I want, though I use MOTU. According to the manual, .OMF's are no problem for DP5, though I haven't had the need to use that filetype, yet. I do everything in-house at this time.

Not trying to start a PT vs. XXXX DAW (Digital Audio Worskstation) argument, but when it comes down to it, every DAW handles sound the same way, it gets converted into number strings (words, bits and bytes). One thing you didn't mention, what kind of scratch can you afford, and how advanced of a rig do you really need? What bells and whistles do you need and does that program offer it? A rig like mine (not including computer, will run you about 1200-1500 (depending on your interface). A PT LE 003 rig will run about 2000 and change. And PT goes up from there.

PS: On a PC, look at Sonar, another good program for the money.
PSS: Don't forget about some decent studio grade monitors (speakers)
Click to expand...
 
Pro Tools is the industry standard, but Digi has hobbled their LE product line with some important restrictions where film work is concerned, most particularly time code display. In order to see frame numbers anywhere in PTLE you need to buy the DV Toolkit 2 upgrade, which lists for $1300. It comes with a number of other very nice things, but it more than quintuples the price of the entry level systems (about $300 for an Mbox mini, $1600 with DVT2). Of course it's possible to use PTLE on a film project without seeing TC display, but I think it would get annoying pretty darn fast.

MOTU's AudioDesk, which is the same as Digital Performer minus the midi capabilities, and does have TC display, is included with all their interfaces. The cheapest is the UltraLite 3 at $550. On a budget, for film work purposes, this is probably a better deal if Pro Tools compatibilty is not absolutely required.

Otherwise, a proper PT/film work-ready setup will start at around $2000 give or take a few hundred, depending on the interface. A better PTLE/DVT2 system can set you back over 3 grand, and the HD systems *start* at $10K (list).

Digi has chosen to make it particularly tough for film folks at the entry level.
 
Last edited:
Otherwise, a proper PT/film work-ready setup will start at around $2000 give or take a few hundred, depending on the interface. A better PTLE/DVT2 system can set you back over 3 grand, and the HD systems *start* at $10K (list).
Click to expand...
Thanks, Ted, I should of specified that in my post. Good catch.

I like the option of MIDI should I need to have a score dropped in, MIDI files are small and easy to send via email. All I do is just make necessary corrections, add the effects and arrangement, and then render the audio from the MIDI.
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
I like the option of MIDI should I need to have a score dropped in, MIDI files are small and easy to send via email. All I do is just make necessary corrections, add the effects and arrangement, and then render the audio from the MIDI.
Click to expand...

Asuming you have the same samples the composer has. :)

Almost every program on the market today is better then ProTools when it comes to MIDI. ProTools MIDI editing is clumsy, non-intuitive, and completely different then any other program that I have used. IMHO, MIDI is NOT a selling point of ProTools. It seems to me like they stuck it in and ignored it while other programs moved ahead with improving their MIDI.

ProTools MIDI is certainly capable, but the user interface is years behind.

Sorry for the rant, I just had to get that out.
 
No prob, we all need to rant every now and then. But again, that is why I like DP (not PT), the MIDI control in DP is amazing. I have access to a lot of MIDI samples, modules and samplers. But when it comes down to it, I want the part written and give me the MIDI file, I handle voicing/arrangement with what I want. I will handle effects, etc.
 
Hxd Ped said:
ProTools MIDI is certainly capable, but the user interface is years behind.

Sorry for the rant, I just had to get that out.
Click to expand...

You're right, and it's still a real issue, especially for film composers who write and demo on DP and then need to record the actual score in a major studio on PT. OMF helps, as does running DP under DAE (using PT Hardware), but the translation factor is still very problematic.

DP's midi features and interface are vastly superior to PT's. PT's audio feature set, while similar in its basic form to DP, is by the same token vastly superior. As one example, in PT, performing an operation on multiple tracks is simple: select a track, then shift or command/select the others, then shift/option/do the thing, and all tracks get it. Shift/option/command/do the thing, and all tracks get it *number-sequentially* (for things like I/O assign). Aside from the latter, which is only asscessible through a much less convenient dialog box, no such operation shortcut exists in DP. So - want the same equalizer on 50 tracks in PT? Simple: select the tracks and shift/option/instantiate the EQ on one and it's there on all 50. Takes seconds. In DP? Get ready to do it individually 50 times. Same for aux assigns. So what takes maybe 10 seconds to set up in PT can take 10 minutes in DP. On a film score there may be 50 cues, and you have to do each one separately, so now we're talking hours vs minutes. Yes, you can create template files in DP, but that doesn't get you very far in a large, complex feature film project subject to endless revisions under extreme time pressure.

If PT, as the otherwise industry standard, could catch up in midi, it might eventually be over for the likes of DP. But Digi shows remarkable indifference to that IMO. A real wasted opportunity, and an ongoing workflow PITA for those of us trying to marry the two together efficiently.
 
Last edited:
While it's true that Pro Tools is severely lacking when it comes to it's usefulness as a compositional tool, it has been steadily improving over the last few releases. Digidesign must feel the heat from Apple especially, who provide tons of features that help composers at an incredible price. Surely Digidesign is going to improve their MIDI functionality and compositional features in future versions of Pro Tools.

In other words, I wouldn't count Pro Tools out yet.
 
Brad S. said:
While it's true that Pro Tools is severely lacking when it comes to it's usefulness as a compositional tool, it has been steadily improving over the last few releases. Digidesign must feel the heat from Apple especially, who provide tons of features that help composers at an incredible price. Surely Digidesign is going to improve their MIDI functionality and compositional features in future versions of Pro Tools.

In other words, I wouldn't count Pro Tools out yet.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I believe it was the 7.2 or 7.3 upgrade that largely added midi features, and yes, it's slowly moving ahead in that area. But it was so severely ignored for so long that they still have a very long way to go. Very little midi functionality was added in 7.4, which was almost entirely about "elastic time". It'll be very interesting to see what the next upgrade includes.
 
Meanwhile, DP 6 is out (I just ordered it) and it looks like it's added a very nice array of improvements, many of which are film-work oriented. Looks like I'll be continuing to use both platforms for a good long while...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top