alex.
The TelenatorIn case, you haven’t read it elsewhere, the New & Improved Pro Tools is out in version 11, and all the news outlets are full of the story, including, oddly to me, various financial news sites. Now, it can’t be disputed that the high-quality addition of the video tools and features is truly a large step forward. This will interest greatly those needing to do video work along with professional audio, but have a look at the list of other additions to PT11:
Fully redesigned audio engine and 64-bit architecture
o New Avid Audio Engine — Delivers multiple times the processing power of Pro Tools 10 on the same hardware configurations.
o 64-bit architecture — Exponentially increases the number of simultaneous virtual instruments and the performance to handle the most sophisticated sessions.
o Offline bounce — Delivers mixes up to 150 times faster than real time.
o Low-latency input buffer — Ensures ultra-low latency record monitoring without sacrificing plug-in performance.
o Dynamic host processing — Maximizes plug-in count by reallocating processing resources as needed.
Expanded metering
o Extended standards support — Features a broad range of built-in metering standards, from peak and average to VU and PPM, to maintain adherence to regional broadcast requirements.
o Gain reduction — Shows gain reduction for all dynamics plug-ins on each channel.
So, tell me, as the frenzy about this new version and its improvements is hyped and shouted from the rooftops, do you see any features here that might be familiar to you as a user of Podium, you know, maybe some features you’ve had available for use for ages already? Do you think perhaps some people ought to know about Podium before they hand over thousands for the latest Pro Tools?
PulseYeah, I see you Tele.
Funny, isn’t it? And yet people seem no less indoctrinated to the “professionalness” of it.
Recently I was at a store, looking for an audio interface (after mine died, along with the entire PC…and the amp…Still recovering from it) and experienced this nonsense first hand.
I was offered an MBox Pro by the dealer, because, you see, it was “industry ready” and came with PT, which I passionately refused, claiming that PT is the last thing I need.
Strangely enough, I was then faced with him and some random guys, saying things like: “It’s all you will ever need” , “You’ll grow to understand it” and so on.
What can you do in such a situation? I was that close to bombard them with DSP, 64 bit summing engines, null tests, even the McGurk effect and what have you, but found myself with a smirk and a quiet “OK”
Just a real-life example. For amusement’s sake.
All the best
The TelenatorFunny story, that.
I’m considering setting up a special rubbish bin in my work area just for these ‘bundled’ software disks. Last week I had to go out and purchase a bit of guitar gear and included was Steinberg’s Cubase 5 AI; before that it was my 3rd disk of NI’s Komplete 8 (player versions only — half useless unless one pays hundreds to upgrade to full edition).
One great feature about this latest from PT is that a hot thread is ongoing about it over at Reaper, which gave me the opportunity to mention how Podium has had several of these ‘advanced’ features that PT owners are now raving over for quite some time. Worth noting here, too, is that Podium’s metering options way outstrip Reaper’s as well.
Jiri_Smolik3 points I am not actually getting straight.
1) Aren’t today’s PCs powerful enough to handle tons of VSTs already with external devices connected?
2) How many VSTs per one song is averagely used? Considering I can get solid results with 5 instruments and maybe 10 FX (and still handle good CPU usage despite being limited to one core), this seems a bit odd to me.
3) Is it just me or are generally some of “cool” features more like neccesities to work properly on new machines and OS? Not to mention those metering standars, which seems laughable to me to list them as a “ubercool features”(Isn’t K-metering with basic peak scales more than enough?).
I am feeling today’s DAWs have nowhere to go as it is turning around all new engines, stuff I do not understand and care and things that should be considered fixes instead.
kingtubby@Jiri_Smolik wrote:
I am feeling today’s DAWs have nowhere to go as it is turning around all new engines, stuff I do not understand and care and things that should be considered fixes instead.
100% agree – the arguments focus on increasingly narrow points of debate.
The TelenatorJiri,
I get your points, and those just happen to be the same in some I posted over at the PT11 thread when I first responded there.
To answer —
Some of the ones who are still hanging on to their old and dear-to-them various low-CPU XP computers will have issues with running loads of VSTs and VSTis, but these ones won’t be attempting to use the latest, most demanding products in high multiples of instances anyway.
Meanwhile, so many PCs now come with 3.5 to 3.8 Intel quads and so on — seeing more with 7200 rpm HDDs stock, too. Many of us have something less than this but are moving toward upgrading when budget allows (my next big investment). These latest can handle what PT is boasting about in their PR release.
Meanwhile, and in reference to your mention of external FX, PT11’s new advantage is still limited just as all other DAWs are by what each user’s interface will allow. You want 8 separate channels loaded with external FX coming in? Well, be prepared to lay out $2000 for an interface that can give you that.
Somewhat lately, the fools have rushed in as far as setting up these (to me) ridiculously large projects. I see it on a regular basis, and it almost seems like some kind of competition as to who can have 200 plugins in use on a project. I almost dread to hear the end results, and interestingly I rarely see a finished project linked to their posts.
I’m quite enjoying their posts. They set up these massive projects, then become confused or start having other problems, and they report in for help. One chap, having 108 plugins loaded, asked why his CPU meter was ranging 85% and having regular dropouts. I explained that at 85% he was actually getting regular 100% peaks in his CPU that he wasn’t able to see, and that he should go back to square one and learn how to use a DAW properly. It was not received well.
I prefer and greatly enjoy working only a few tracks at a time. I find I can render various ones and be done with the basic track’s sound, free up CPU and move on.
Last, some DAWs are still lacking in metering options, the best example I have mentioned before in this forum is Reaper’s lack of pre-fade metering. This means in mixdown you are going into the master from your channel half blind and difficult to control what FX may be adding in output on your track. Not good.
Jiri_SmolikThanks Telenator for exhausting answer. I guess I can almost agree with evrything you wrote. It acutally makes me tninking some of new features are downright useless for many people(having no use of extra speed if your interface is limited).
I can’t understand how would someone utilize 108 VSTs just on one song.
Did the man mentioned what VSTs did he use? And have you ever heard any of these huge projects that maaged to be finished?
alexWell, some things are much clearer to me, now.
Playing with VSTi’s doesn’t have much to do with mixing. You asked about average song. O.K. I’ve just finished mixing a song that could be considered average – 29 tracks. Drums, bass, od and clean guitars and lead and backing vox. I ended up with 102 plugins and REAPER’s performance meter is showing 50 to 60% (’round 40% are fx). I’m on rather weak machine for today’s standards – 2.5 GHz dual core with 4 gigs of RAM. It took me about 4 hours to do the mix. Hopefully, this answers some of your questions. BTW, it’s absolutely normal to use more than 100 plugins in one session (doesn’t matter how many tracks you have – this was a rather small number of tracks and I decided to do everything in real time (if I had 100 tracks, I’d squash that to some reasonable number in the “pre mixing” stage)).
Now, about PT. I don’t know why everybody seem to hate it. Actually that’s the only DAW that I enjoy using besides REAPER (and don’t forget one thing – if you wanna be a mixer, you gotta know PT, like it or not).
Cheers, Alex
adimatisIn my minimalistic aproach, 100 VSTs are way too many. Way toooo many!
On the other hand, if you use a large number of effects, not all of them need to be different, and in this case a send rather then an insert is a much better idea. Most of the times.
Anyway, about PT improvement… Fine, good for them. I am much more interested in the improvements that Podium will introduce. 😉 It is interesting too see how many innovative ideas that came first in the smaller, more flexible and user-oriented DAWs (like Podium, Reaper, etc.) are now introduced in big DAWs, which are by definition more conservative.
Questions is: what will be the next ideas to make once again the little DAWs more appealing and ground-breaking? And don’t tell me mobility through the tablets and smartphones! 😯
I think I’d like Pro Tools, as far as I got to know it. I never worked with it, but it seem it’s not really the worst when it comes about (my) workflow. But lucky me, I don’t have to worry about this – I consider a utterly waste of money to actually pay those amounts. But hey, some prefer Mercedes, some are perfectly happy with Dacia by Renault! 😉
Jiri_SmolikHi Alex
Your post actually got me thinking about it a bit more. Once you explained where you can get such a number of tracks in a song, I realized I missed something, so I decided to take a look into it and find out more about it and I will be honest, it makes more sense to me now. (it was quite nicely explained here http://forum.recordingreview.com/f8/average-number-tracks-song-40015/)
I admit I did not accout band sessions and pro mixing at all. However I still can not get around one of things from the link I posted, and that is Katy Perry’s song having over 120 tracks. I simply can not hear and work out where all those tracks could go and seems possible for me to make it with around 20, maybe 30 tracks.
Cheers
alexListening to that song wouldn’t help much, but I can try to answer your question in general. Well, you got damn close with your last sentence (20 to 30 tracks) 😀 Although, you couldn’t really get that kind of sound with 20 tracks, the idea is to get from 100+ tracks to, let’s say, 20 (you could limit yourself and pretend that you’re mixing on a twenty four channel board). And that’s not that hard, after all. Where do all those tracks come from? Well, first of all, nowadays, they’re recording drums with 10+ mics (kick – inside and outside, snare – top and bottom, toms, hi-hat, overheads, room mic (or two) …. Then, they may have different kicks for verse and chorus, different samples added, multiple, sometimes (5 or more is not unusual for some genres) ….all kinds of percussion instruments… they layer the hell out of everything, which can bring not only drum samples but also tons of synth tracks, for example, two or even three basses, sometimes… then guitar doubles … full and partial vocal and lead instrument doubles. Tons of backing vox……….. I think you got the idea now. Finally, when you decide how you want and need to group everything and what can be processed together you can bounce a lot of those tracks down and start mixing from there. Actually, you don’t even have to use all those tracks if you feel you don’t need some of them, they’re too much or whatever really. TBH, especially in certain genres, they insist on the huge number of tracks, sometimes, for no good reason (a punk or a blues band simply doesn’t need 100 tracks) . The truth is that there’s a lot of producers who know what they’re doing and why they want so many tracks, some high budget projects, where they have enough money (read – studio time) to record as many tracks as they want, just in case, and decide later what they really want to use, but there’s also a lot of unexperienced people who simply do what they heard was the right thing to do, often with no success. On the other hand, I mixed a hip hop song the other day and all that can clearly be heard now is the kick, bass, snare, hand clap, hi-hat a couple of different synts and, of coarse, 10+ vocal tracks. O.K. some less important instruments which don’t play all the time can also be heard and that’s 4 or 5 tracks more. That’s roughly, what, 20-25 tracks. Actually, that song had nearly 60 tracks and every single of them was really good and contributed to the song.
Hope this explains some things.
Cheers, Alex