Pro Tools

Two little points. If your talking about audio editing for film PT has the best feature set around. Now I haven't tried everything so I can't say there is nothing better but I have played with most. Second I'm not sure where your getting your $ comparison from but they aren't too accurate. You can get an Le setup for around $300 and you can get most of that back when you upgrade. I still argue that to do sound with any decent quality you need to spend a lot more (and have the chops and experience to know how to use it all) but if were comparing bottom level entry systems I don't think you have much to back up you statements except hype. 99% of film post is editing. PT (even Le) has the best editing tools I have come across. Logic LE is what $300 and then you need hardware. Plus it's a midi sequencer turned DAW. If you want to argue for Nuendo then your at least in the right ball park, but that is really getting pricey.

AAF is an interchange format, it's never going to be a session format because it doesn't track enough information. But it is a good transfer format. If everyone fully supported it (like OMF some only implement a portion) it would make compatibility much less of an issue.
 
You'd be right if we were talking about making music, but for post I disagree. The ability to import an OMF file is essential. Unless you are a student or an employee of a school the absolute cheapest OMF-compatible, current-version Pro Tools rig is $1600 ($300 Mbox Mini + $1300 DV Toolkit 2), and you'd be limited to 48 total tracks. Cubase, which does not require useless hardware (the only use I ever got out of my Mbox was to do a test recording to determine exactly how crappy its pres were; it's essentially an oversized dongle), has no track limit and includes a plugin suite that is worlds more robust, is $800. In fact, the $400 lower-end version of Cubase may be OMF-compatible as well. The differences in value between entry-level post systems are ABSOLUTELY real. It's not hype. And I say this as somebody who, for over 2 years, had to deal with the relentless hassle of being forced to rely on other peoples' PT rigs for any OMF's that came my way, because I was still working in the student realm and could not afford the ridiculously overpriced DV Toolkit.

I'm convinced that the only reason that PT is the preferred DAW platform for an entry-level audio post rig is because Digidesign was there first and it has deep footholds in the industry. If Suzy Sound Editor made a decision based on features and price, she would end up with a different company's DAW... and then when she tried to get some things done in the professional sector she'd find that her sessions aren't compatible with any major studios and people scoff at her when she tells them what platform she uses. (I'm guilty of this. Part of me secretly scoffs at my friend who cuts sound in Digital Performer, even though his skills are for real.) Digidesign has, thus far, had the muscle to keep things this way.

The video realm used to be just like this, except it was Avid on the top of the mountain. Apple solved that problem on the low end, and they are poised to erase Avid's dominance in high-end rigs as well. I'm still waiting around for some company to solve the audio post version of that problem. It will happen soon enough.

I know that AAF is an interchange format and not an actual session format. The reason I hold some hope in AAF, though, is that it's not held down by overtly corporate interests. It's a more open format than OMF by its very nature, and with a lot more development it could ultimately create a situation where -- just as you said -- session compatibility is a solvable problem, even when transferring between rival DAW's. (OMF could technically offer the same usefulness, but vertical monopoly is Avid's game so fat chance of that happening.)

Anyway, these reasons and more are why I'm SO glad I work at an educational institution.

And when the pro audio post version of Final Cut Pro arrives, I'll be first in line. (Obviously Logic and Soundrack are not it.)
 
Last edited:
Don't want to get in a fight but I have been doing film on PT for 10 years, I don't do music (much), I don't scoff at those on other systems IF they work. Digi Translator is $500, and while Le limits you to 32 voices, either the music production kit or the DV toolkit, gives you 48 tracks, or up to 96 voices (on a par with an HD system).
I agree that OMF is near essential. I agree that DigiTranslator is overpriced. DV toolkit is??? It's pricey but since your also getting a number of near essential tools (if your a one man band or doing dialog) so ?? As a package it may not be that bad, but I would still give you that.
But if you fold in the price of acceptable hardware you move your price point right up.
Also while I agree to the essentialness of OMF, you have to be working with FCP at least to have the editor be able to give you an OMF. Premier Pro didn't do OMF last I checked, neither did Vegas and most of the lower end crop of PC editing systems didn't either so it's not much use for them.
Final Cut Suite only comes as a bundle and that will set you back close to two grand, so your sort of out of your price range.

THe other thing is "no track limit" is marketing BS. The reality is that all non hardware enhanced systems choke out around the same point, Digi makes it a hard limit, but your not going to get much more on any of the others. Though film often uses pretty non dense tracks so you could in theory get up there. Personally I think Digi made a poor move with the Le thing. It use to be on piece of software. The limitations were determined by the hardware you bought. And if you only needed stereo out you could use your computers sound card. Sessions were 100% compatible (except for the obvious hardware issues).

I agree completely about your price complaints to get OMF, and one you didn't mention a TC display and ruler.
But OMF is not controlled by Avid. Lots of companies support it in one way or another. It's problem has more to do with the fact that it is an "open" standard, and thus not too standard, than with any monopolies.

Digi is a popular whipping boy for those who have a problem paying for professional tools. Ironically you keep ranting about mic pres, priced any of the top on/ Double that. This is a forum dedicated to users of a $4000 camera. Film is an expensive business. I get really pissed at the "I spent $60K on my film now I want to do the sound for free". Then they get outraged at those "outrageous prices".

THere are alternatives to Protools that are still very good for post. On the high end you have Fairlight or Waveframe on the PC (if it's still around) those will set you back $30 grand or so for an entry level box. There are a number in the PT HD range like Prism and Pyramix. There are some in the PT Le range SAW on the PC is a very solid app, Nuendo, Deck and poss Traction (or what ever the Mackie app is called). These are all audio editing apps and can probably do the job. The very last choice I would make is a midi sequencer turned sound editor. But that's just my opinion.

If you cutting film what you need is solid slicing and dicing, Really good media management and compatibility. If your missing any of the three your sort of out of the game. Plugins... they have there use but 99% of the time you won't need anything beyond a good eq and some dynamics, maybe a bit of noise reduction. Most of the apps above include that in the package. If your doing more designy stuff your going to want some plugs that aren't usually included with anybody's apps. The music oriented apps like all the midi apps have a lot of music plugs in them, almost all of which you will never use for film. More is always great but in truth your just not going to use a lot of those plugs. So while being able to use common plugin formats like VST, AU or RTAS is a plus actually getting bundled plugs is not all that useful over the basics.


And though I would hesitate to do a film solely on an PT Le system (well maybe one with the DV toolkit) I have supervised films where some of the editors were on Le and some were on TDM. Other than some limits Le is very capable. I have tested a number of other apps and used a bunch of them and personally I haven't found any with a toolset that works anywhere near as well as PT. Not to say you can't do it. I once did a film on 8 track cass locked to VHS deck. Most films 15 years ago were cut on mag, most films 10 years ago were mixed on mag. But PT came in and changed the industry. Not because they had the money and power to do so (they didn't - they started as a pretty small company) but because they did it better than anyone around. Sonic systems tried to kick them off the hill (and they did have the money) but they didn't make a better tool. Wave frame owned the market when PT started to do film. And they were on PC's, and PC's owned the market (still do). But people when with PT. Partly because it was cheaper at the time but mostly because it was a better tool that was more in tune with the needs of it's users.

Digi is still not a behemoth, they were bought by Avid and even Avid isn't the behemoth. Avid sells to high end and also now to mid range users. The behemoths are selling to the masses. Behemoths are not likely to get a lot of the pro market. The reason is they don't care enough. It's all $$$. You call Digi Greedy but name a company in your "better" alternatives that gives you 50% trade-in allowance on upgrades? How about 25%?, anything. Thought not.
That's one difference between a Pro based company and a consumer based company.

Cheers
SK

factor said:
You'd be right if we were talking about making music, but for post I disagree. The ability to import an OMF file is essential. Unless you are a student or an employee of a school the absolute cheapest OMF-compatible, current-version Pro Tools rig is $1600 ($300 Mbox Mini + $1300 DV Toolkit 2), and you'd be limited to 48 total tracks. Cubase, which does not require useless hardware (the only use I ever got out of my Mbox was to do a test recording to determine exactly how crappy its pres were; it's essentially an oversized dongle), has no track limit and includes a plugin suite that is worlds more robust, is $800. In fact, the $400 lower-end version of Cubase may be OMF-compatible as well. The differences in value between entry-level post systems are ABSOLUTELY real. It's not hype. And I say this as somebody who, for over 2 years, had to deal with the relentless hassle of being forced to rely on other peoples' PT rigs for any OMF's that came my way, because I was still working in the student realm and could not afford the ridiculously overpriced DV Toolkit.

I'm convinced that the only reason that PT is the preferred DAW platform for an entry-level audio post rig is because Digidesign was there first and it has deep footholds in the industry. If Suzy Sound Editor made a decision based on features and price, she would end up with a different company's DAW... and then when she tried to get some things done in the professional sector she'd find that her sessions aren't compatible with any major studios and people scoff at her when she tells them what platform she uses. (I'm guilty of this. Part of me secretly scoffs at my friend who cuts sound in Digital Performer, even though his skills are for real.) Digidesign has, thus far, had the muscle to keep things this way.

The video realm used to be just like this, except it was Avid on the top of the mountain. Apple solved that problem on the low end, and they are poised to erase Avid's dominance in high-end rigs as well. I'm still waiting around for some company to solve the audio post version of that problem. It will happen soon enough.

I know that AAF is an interchange format and not an actual session format. The reason I hold some hope in AAF, though, is that it's not held down by overtly corporate interests. It's a more open format than OMF by its very nature, and with a lot more development it could ultimately create a situation where -- just as you said -- session compatibility is a solvable problem, even when transferring between rival DAW's. (OMF could technically offer the same usefulness, but vertical monopoly is Avid's game so fat chance of that happening.)

Anyway, these reasons and more are why I'm SO glad I work at an educational institution.

And when the pro audio post version of Final Cut Pro arrives, I'll be first in line. (Obviously Logic and Soundrack are not it.)
Click to expand...
 
Just to chime in a bit more on this.No doubt, Pro Tools is and industry standard, and the ability to open your projects in different studios is obvioiusly an important one to some people.

However, if you're looking to get into audio work, or just to have the ability to mix down your own stuff, there are a whole suite of other tools I'd recommend before Pro Tools LE. I'm sure alot of people around here will slam me for saying this, but if you are already an apple editor, I highly recommend taking the time to learn Soundtrack Pro. It's a true pain at first, and takes some real jury rigging to get it to do everything you want it to, but you shouldn't ignore the value of non destructive editing to individual sound files. Right now, I'm mixing down a feature on Soundtrack, including 5.1 surround, and although it is a bit of a pain, the results are worth the work. Truthfully, I would be working with a different audio package right now, but I already have soundtrack, and I'm not looking to invest in another package.

If you're on PC however, Cubase SX3 is an EXCELLENT option over protools. It not only has omf import, a whole slew of plugins, but it also comes out of the box with 5.1 surround capabilities natively built in. There's no dependence on crappy m-audio hardware, and it's probably the best "entry-level" item for an audio post production workflow. Again, I'd use it if i was on PC, but since I'm a Mac guy, and I already have Soundtrack Pro, that's what my budget calls for.

To me, the fact that out of the box you can't import OMF data without a 1300$ upgrade, speaks volumes as to what Pro Tools is about. It's a good piece of software to learn, but the fact of the matter is that it's not offering anything that the other guys don't have, except a couiple of hindrances that require a hefty investment to really get your post-production workflow together.

One request to anyone replying to this post, PLEASE don't tell me that Pro Tools is the industry standard. I know it is, I'm talking about entry level audio here, for people who aren't quite up to an "industry standard" investment.

-Steve
 
Letting you trade up your lower-end hardware for more advanced hardware is nice but it's completely outweighed by the fact that they lock you into their secret roadmap of planned obsolescence for no reason. Some people I know bought an AVOption as part of a new studio that they were putting together. About a year later the AVOption|V10 came out. Shortly after that, the original AVOption was no longer compatible with the current version of Pro Tools. They couldn't find it in the budget to spend another $9-10K on another video interface for PT, and they weren't able to stay with PT6 due to compatibility with the most recent session files being a necessity. To this day they still do not have a V10. The entire investment may as well have been flushed down the toilet.

It happens with their low-end hardware too. 001? Useless. Audiomedia III? Useless. It's almost as if they want you to believe the hardware is actually not good enough for a modern DAW. But if you switch to Cubase, suddenly they become perfectly usable interfaces.

Regarding track count, now that most college freshmen can afford a screaming fast, dual core computer with a couple gigs of ram, the 32-voice limit is a severe handicap. I've even run into the track limit on my single-867 G4, with several insert plugins running on multiple tracks, without even coming close to maxing out the computer's capabilities. Having no artificial track limit is a more than just marketing. Obviously you can't be running 2,000 tracks at once even if they theoretically make that possible, but you could easily be running something like quadruple what PTLE allows -- and if you're a fan of neatly organized track layouts, not being able to do that is frustrating as hell.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start a fight either. It's obvious we're coming at this from very different perspectives. I'm with a studio that has been around for just over one year and is trying to build itself up. People like me -- and anybody else who has just ventured out into the realm of film post (audio or video) within the last 5-6 years or so, including the guy who started the thread -- are used to a software market where the differences between entry-level and high-end are constantly getting smaller and smaller. A geeky 17-year-old kid works a summer job and buys an editing platform to cut together his goof-off DV movies, and holy crap, it's the same exact platform that Walter Murch uses to cut multi-million-dollar features (I know it's not that simple but you get the point), and that's not even an odd thing anymore. By comparison Pro Tools LE's artificially crippled feature set feels like a relic of last decade when pro features were only approachable by those with pro budgets due to actual physical limitations.

Ultimately none of this is important beyond issues of mere convenience. A killer DAW won't transform you into a good sound editor, just like a killer pre won't transform you into a good recordist. This is a craft, which hinges on experience and dependability, and it's an art, which hinges on sensibility and instinct. Some companies' business models still revolve around putting a throttle on peoples' professional viability based on how much money they can invest, but that sort of inconvenience is on its way out (thanks to fast, powerful consumer tech like FCP) and I think the old guard of audio post apps is on the chopping block, like Avid before it.

Again, not trying to start a fight. Both perspectives are important.
 
Last edited:
Have bought Mbox 2 and Protools for 300 Euro, a bit cheaper than normal. I am just beginning, but i must say that i already ran into some trouble with my LE system. Apart from not being able to import OMF files, for now, because of the additional price, i also have an "H/W Buffer size" Problem, which means playback or recording stops in Protools even when i only have one track without Plugins. I havent found a solution to this problem yet. Some say its because of my soundcard, but i cant afford a new one. And its not even sure, that this is the problem.

A lot of people on the Protools support forum have the same Problem, and didnt find a solution. So i would not buy Protools LE unless all of your hardware is supported by digidesign! My opinion for now: Protools is for sure great, but the LE version is not up to par with Cubase and the likes.
 
When you use PT, your sound card is irrelevant because the Mbox 2 is your sound card. As I understand it, when it tells you to increase the buffer size it means your computer can't keep up with the audio it's trying to push, so it wants you to set the Mbox to keep more information in its memory buffer so the computer doesn't "bottom out" so fast.

What kind of computer are you using? Are you running a lot of real-time plugins? What bit depth/sample rate are you running at?
 
H/W buffer problems are most often due to a slow hard drive; and in some cases to computers with really bad USB implementations....
 
The USB interface is just one of the gripes i have with the mbox. Why couldn't they just make it firewire? Oh wait, that's a technology that wouldn't be obsolete in a year or two and wouldn't force you to buy new hardware to go to a new version. Oh now I get it.
 
fleaguit said:
The USB interface is just one of the gripes i have with the mbox. Why couldn't they just make it firewire? Oh wait, that's a technology that wouldn't be obsolete in a year or two and wouldn't force you to buy new hardware to go to a new version. Oh now I get it.
Click to expand...

There is plenty to grip about with any company but a little accuracy please. A lot, maybe most, two track interfaces are USB. First because unlike Firewire pretty much all computers now come with USB (few PC's especially laptop PC's come with firewire). Second USB is not any closer to obsolete than Firewire. In fact if you saunter down to your friendly CompUSA you would probably come to the opposite conclusion. It's damn hard to find firewire anything out side of their small Mac section.

Beat them up for crippling Le, they deserve it, but you won't win any battles with uninformed grand statements.
 
When I started doing post I was on SAW. I couldn't afford Pro Tools. Then they came out with the "toolbox" PT and an AMIII card for $300 and I switched. (I was using PT at work long before that). THe AMIII card stopped being supported After Apple stopped putting PCI slots in their computers, same with 001. However you can still get about 1/2 off if you trade one in on a 002 or 003 box. That gives you firewire interface with software for about $700. So they aren't exactly usless, and if you can use them with Cubase then you could use them with PT, because Digi needs to install the driver and that driver only comes with PT.

But we have sort of gotten off track. My whole point was not to defend Digi. I have had my issues with them and they don't need my help anyway. But to make the point that it's not the best choice to go out and buy stuff and think you can "do it like a pro" because you have a box, anybody's box. It's my biggest complaint with Apple is they have been selling the idea that because you can afford FCP you can make movies like (name you favorite director) with nothing more than the software and a desire to be a big time director. It takes a LOT of work and EXPERIENCE to get good at something. And almost nobody gets good at more than one thing. Murch doesn't sound design AND cut picture on the same film. And you shouldn't direct and do everything else either. I don't have illusions that I could do a great job cutting picture. I would like to learn more about it but it's going to take years before I even know if I can be as good a picture editor as I am a sound editor. So I would hire a picture editor if I were to make a film today. If I couldn't get the cash I would find another way to pay them. It's done all the time. What I wouldn't do is go out and buy what I think would work as an editing rig for the least amount of money I can spend. Folks who have had no money for post have gotten me to do their sound with some creative dealing or persuasive talking. And they have gotten the use of thousands of dollars of equipment that has been work tested and a pile of experience. It doesn't mater what the spend they can't buy that at a store. So my main point still stands. If you don't want to do sound for a living your wasting your money and hurting yourself if you go out and buy some box and "do it yourself".

Get some idiot like me who has been doing this for awhile and spends way more than they should on all the toys you might want. Save your money for a nice opening party.
 
If you want firewire then get the mbox II pro - if you want to save some money then get the mbox mini. Both come with pro tools and quite a few plug-ins.

If you want OMF then you'll need DV Toolkit but consider this. Please somebody chime in on the price comparison.

PTLE with MBOX II and DV Toolkit LIST price $1750
This includes software and hardware.

Nuendo $1000 + the cost of some hardware
Logic $900 plus the cost of some hardware

It's just about a wash until you consider that - the industry standard is pro tools.
Yes, you need to have a supported computer but that's because Digidesign actually tests their products (and supports them). You can and should get what you want but there's a solid reason why pro tools is the standard and it's not because everybody hates it and it dosen't work. It works well everyday in our studio and has been for the past 8 years going from PT Mix to PT HD.
 
Hey guys, from another perspective. I have a 002 with DV Toolkit.

I am also the Avid or Final Cut Pro editor on the projects I mix on the 002.

OMF's are incredible timesavers in the process of mixing for television. The only thing I regret about owning an 002 is that there is no surround.

Most audio mixers probably do a layback directiy to tape. Since I am the picture editor I just send an OMF back to the Avid on an Avid job. The OMF contains the original sequence timecode. No need for sync pops or fussing about. The mix lines right up.

If you have to change some part of the mix, you just remix that section, send out another OMF of just that section, and it drops in place right into your Avid timeline.

OMF also carries along your volume automation keyframes from the Avid so the picture editor can do a rough temp mix and that labor is not wasted when you move to Pro Tools.

Final Cut can export OMF but unfortunately at this time can't import it without 3rd party software.

Also, there are 3rd party software vendors making serious tools for Pro Tools in the feature film/television realm. Virtual Katy for reconforming mixes after picture changes have been made is one.

If you are doing music, then there's lots of software for you, but if you doing features or TV then be thinking Pro Tools.
 
minor correction for a number of posts.
DigiTranslator is $499, so if all you need is OMF the price is about 1/2 the DV toolkit. The toolkit is a better deal for Le because of the other things included but the bottom line for OMF is 500 not 1200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top