What can Protools do that sonar cant?

[Blingx7]

oh ok..well i meant prtools LE , and Mpowered..my bad i should had been more specific when i started this Thread..i kno i posted this thread a long time ago..i aint no better then.But yeh,what i meant was le, and m-powered. so i guess that should change everything now

1. what do you mean by "blend in regions"?

2. The good thing about ProTools is not the software... it is the hardware. As far as i am concerned, any software is fine. It is all about what a persons personal preference is.

3. we are talking about ProTools, not ProTools LE.... not m powered, not mbox, not digi001, not digi 002... we are talking about the full "real" protools hardware... TDM

4. I can get 192 voices in protools (which means even more than 192 tracks)

 

[Blingx7]

i agree , i meant Le and m-powered tho, and yes i meant software..i should had clear dat up when i posted this thread,but i didnt even kno better

no... you do not understand what we are talking about here.

the thing about ProTools is that it does not even rely on your computers processing power at all to deal with audio.

 

[Tim20]

Now I know that Dvyce and I may go round and round about this, but I love debating with him!

Now, having said that, when he talks PT he means the real deal, not the Mbox stuff.

However, not matter what system, ever, ever, ever built, A/D/A conversion is going to have latency. Physics just can't be overcome.

But we need to divide the subject into latency during input monitoring and latency, during recording/mixing.

Input monitoring mixing is really, IMO a BS debate. Just don't do it and monitor it before it goes in. The D/A conversion along with the analog input can work so easy together that input monitoring is a waste of time, except for systems where the input monitoring can really support a 1ms delay. To be there you need a real PT or Radar system.

Radar, OMG, what is that? That would be the other system found in really high end studios.

Now the latency that really matters. The plugin and recording offset latency that makes the mix, after recording, all come together with ZERO latency during mixdown. These days they all do that.

 

[dvyce]

Now I know that Dvyce and I may go round and round about this, but I love debating with him!

Now, having said that, when he talks PT he means the real deal, not the Mbox stuff.

However, not matter what system, ever, ever, ever built, A/D/A conversion is going to have latency. Physics just can't be overcome.

But we need to divide the subject into latency during input monitoring and latency, during recording/mixing.

Input monitoring mixing is really, IMO a BS debate. Just don't do it and monitor it before it goes in. The D/A conversion along with the analog input can work so easy together that input monitoring is a waste of time, except for systems where the input monitoring can really support a 1ms delay. To be there you need a real PT or Radar system.

Radar, OMG, what is that? That would be the other system found in really high end studios.

Now the latency that really matters. The plugin and recording offset latency that makes the mix, after recording, all come together with ZERO latency during mixdown. These days they all do that.

here is the situation where I absolutely cannot deal with latency:

when i am recording something... lets say a guitar... lets say I am recording a screaming heavy metal guitar solo. So, on the track to which I am recording the guitar, I have a distortion plugin, an amp modeling plugin, an EQ and a compressor... these things are absolutely necessary for me to play my guitar solo (I need to hear the distortion and the harmonics and such, to play my screaming ripping heavymetal guitar solo.)

It is impossible for me to play with accurate timing where if when i play a note, I hear it in my headphones 1/2 second or 1/3 second after i pluck the string. This amount of latency is realistic on a host based system. So just to be clear, i am not talking about latency of a few unnoticable samples here and there.


Last year, i built (OK, my "tech guy" built ) a host based system so I could try do do some extra music making at home... the situation i described is exactly what it was like.

Unusable for me.


...and that is, like the thread topic asks, is what ProTools can do that others can't.


...and the Radar, although wonderful, is really a different thing... it is really (like the euphonix R-1)an alternative to multitrack 2" tape.

...but as the Radar people themselves say on their site: "It is not designed to perform mixing and realtime DSP effects like a Digital Audio Workstation."

 

[Tim20]

Dvyce, hope you know I am not really arguing with you, but agreeing.

I find plugins like you are talking, to be a hopeless waste of time and money, because I totally understand how you could never do a guitar part under the situation you described.

Thats why I stick with analog guitar effects. Of course it doesn't hurt to also get a clean copy of the part recorded and use some digital toys later, or even re-amp the guitar.

 

[sammyp]

3. we are talking about ProTools, not ProTools LE.... not m powered, not mbox, not digi001, not digi 002... we are talking about the full "real" protools hardware... TDM"

No, you're a moderator - you should know better. When folks are comparing Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Pro Tools, they're speaking of PT LE or M-Powered. How many people here do you think can afford TDM. Think about it~!

 

[dvyce]

Dvyce, hope you know I am not really arguing with you, but agreeing.

I didn't think you were arguing with me... but even if you were, that would be OK.

Plugins like you are talking, to be a hopeless waste of time and money, because I totally understand how you could never do a guitar part under the situation you described.

...although with my ProTools HD Accel3 system, I can use those plugins just fine with no problems... but, like I said, when I tried to use a host based system recently, it was unusable for just that reason.

...and I just used that guitar thing as an illustrative example. There are times where there is no alternative to using a plugin, like where you have some crazy filter delay that has some crazy pattern where you need to actually "play" the effect... or something like that.

Thats why I stick with analog guitar effects. Of course it doesn't hurt to also get a clean copy of the part recorded and use some digital toys later, or even re-amp the guitar.

plus, the analog gtr FX and amps always sound better anyway

 

[dvyce]

3. we are talking about ProTools, not ProTools LE.... not m powered, not mbox, not digi001, not digi 002... we are talking about the full "real" protools hardware... TDM"

No, you're a moderator - you should know better. When folks are comparing Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Pro Tools, they're speaking of PT LE or M-Powered. How many people here do you think can afford TDM. Think about it~!

Uh... dude... read further back than my last post.

I made a distinction between ProTools LE and a full true ProTools TDM system. This was made clear earlier.

Somebody said (after the specific distinction had been made between PT and PT LE) ProTools uses way too much computer resources...

...then I said (again... clarifying for that person what we were talking about) that we were talking about ProTools TDM, not LE.

I also said that whan it comes to sequencing software they are all the same... use whatever you like. I said when people talk about the "pros" using ProTools, they are talking about TDM systems. It is the hardware that is the draw to ProTools.


It is not about what someone can afford.

It is about knowing what exists and having a proper knowledge of different systems and knowing the difference between the different products.

knowledge is a good thing.

knowledge makes a person more well-rounded and complete.

Knowledge doesn't cost you anything...

...you can't afford not to have knowledge...

...especially in an area that you want to excel in.



The question was "what can protools do that sonar cant"

The absolute fact is, it is very important that I make that distinction and that I explain what makes a "true" ProTools TDM system "special".

When you have people starting out in music, wondering what makes this "ProTools" thing they keep hearing about that "Dre" uses or "pharrell" uses or whatever big major artist uses... and they go to the store and buy an Mbox thinking they now have the same system as their hero...

It is fine if you want to keep your head stuck in the sand... but when somebody asks "what is it that makes this ProTools thing so special", it is important to let them know that what makes ProTools so special is the abilities and power of the TDM system.

I never said you need to run out and buy one.

Software is all a matter of personal preference. They can all achieve the same results in their own ways.


It is like if someone said "I just got a Marshall guitar amp and I don't get what is so great about it. It is one of those little 4inch battery powered things that says Marshall on it." and I responded with "The Marshall amps that have the famous rep are the JCM800 series" (or whatever)

They are different things. There is a distinction between them.


...and you know that somebody is asking "what can protools do that sonor can't" because they hear about all these pros using "ProTools" (and they don't know there is any difference between an Mbox and a TDM system... they just hear "ProTools" and that's it) and they are thinking to themselves "hmmm, I can record audio in my sequencer and I can cut it up and I can use midi in my sequencer and I can use plugins, so why do all these pros use ProTools? what is the difference? They seem to do the same thing"


ProTools TDM is different from ProTools LE. ProTools TDM is not necessary for everybody, but you should at the very least know what it is and what it does... a little knowledge doesn't cost you anything.

 

[Blingx7]

yep..thats exactly why i asked..cause i heard so many people bragging about it and saying every producer uses it all and this stuff.I think protools has acutally brain washed everybody (lol i kno they got me) or maybe Digidesign just had a GREAT marketing plan.(every newbie anyway).but now im starting to get the understanding to all this now

Uh... dude... read further back than my last post.

I made a distinction between ProTools LE and a full true ProTools TDM system. This was made clear earlier.

Somebody said (after the specific distinction had been made between PT and PT LE) ProTools uses way too much computer resources...

...then I said (again... clarifying for that person what we were talking about) that we were talking about ProTools TDM, not LE.

I also said that whan it comes to sequencing software they are all the same... use whatever you like. I said when people talk about the "pros" using ProTools, they are talking about TDM systems. It is the hardware that is the draw to ProTools.


It is not about what someone can afford.

It is about knowing what exists and having a proper knowledge of different systems and knowing the difference between the different products.

knowledge is a good thing.

knowledge makes a person more well-rounded and complete.

Knowledge doesn't cost you anything...

...you can't afford not to have knowledge...

...especially in an area that you want to excel in.



The question was "what can protools do that sonar cant"

The absolute fact is, it is very important that I make that distinction and that I explain what makes a "true" ProTools TDM system "special".

When you have people starting out in music, wondering what makes this "ProTools" thing they keep hearing about that "Dre" uses or "pharrell" uses or whatever big major artist uses... and they go to the store and buy an Mbox thinking they now have the same system as their hero...

It is fine if you want to keep your head stuck in the sand... but when somebody asks "what is it that makes this ProTools thing so special", it is important to let them know that what makes ProTools so special is the abilities and power of the TDM system.

I never said you need to run out and buy one.

Software is all a matter of personal preference. They can all achieve the same results in their own ways.


It is like if someone said "I just got a Marshall guitar amp and I don't get what is so great about it. It is one of those little 4inch battery powered things that says Marshall on it." and I responded with "The Marshall amps that have the famous rep are the JCM800 series" (or whatever)

They are different things. There is a distinction between them.


...and you know that somebody is asking "what can protools do that sonor can't" because they hear about all these pros using "ProTools" (and they don't know there is any difference between an Mbox and a TDM system... they just hear "ProTools" and that's it) and they are thinking to themselves "hmmm, I can record audio in my sequencer and I can cut it up and I can use midi in my sequencer and I can use plugins, so why do all these pros use ProTools? what is the difference? They seem to do the same thing"


ProTools TDM is different from ProTools LE. ProTools TDM is not necessary for everybody, but you should at the very least know what it is and what it does... a little knowledge doesn't cost you anything.

 

[sammyp]

dvyce, nice post - i agree completely! Sorry to misread your intent. Sometimes beers and posting makes one a little hasty on the keyboard eh!?

 

[dvyce]

dvyce, nice post - i agree completely! Sorry to misread your intent. Sometimes beers and posting makes one a little hasty on the keyboard eh!?

it's all good

 

[Tim20]

Dvyce certainly nailed it. The problem with PT software is that it is packaged with highend and low end systems, and a lot of new people don't understand the distinction.

I like Sonar, but have it running into a host based system through Lynx converters. An Mbox can't even begin to hold a candle to converters like the Lynx Aurora, and the Aurora is every bit on par with converters in the PT, Apogee, etc class.

But it is just personal preference. I started out with Cakewalk 9 and just grew with it. Using and acquiring native plugins and then VST when Sonar was able to, it just made no sense to drop it all for the sake of changing software.

I don't want to speak for Dvyce, but I am pretty certain that he needs PT so he REALLY CAN go from his home to bigger studio and have the mix ready to go.

In my case, I do rock, country, bluegrass, gospel and depend on outboard analog. I have a project for the first time that may actually need to be remixed in a high end analog studio. Therefore, I don't need PT, I need the .wav files, so I can take them to a studio that has higher end analog equipment. We may mixdown to digital and analog tape for the final premaster, it just hasn't been decided yet.

 

[theblue1]

That is incorrect.

I am using a ProTools HD system...

It's guaranteed you're not monitoring your input through the converters only one sample behind. Such a thing would be patently impossible. I'm not familiar with the TDM architecture but in a dedicated system you can minimize buffering and you can, indeed, get processing latency very low. As you note, not zero latency... but near zero, to be sure, on a par with a self-contained digital mixer.


I haven't read the whole thread and I realize you all have hashed this out at length, so I'll just stick in my two cents on "real" Pro Tools -- with the understanding that I completely agree on the crucial importance of making a clear distinction between the two very different product tiers:

I completely understand why one might feel that PT TDM is the only "real" Pro Tools as it is the current flagship product and in that sense it continues the lineage of earlier hardware based PT's.


But tell the ARMY of Pro Tools LE users that they're "not real" and I think you'll have some edgy folks on your hands.

If PT LE is not "real" then someone better tell Digi so they can SUE the mofos who are stealing their nameplate.


I simply don't think it's realistic to say that a reference to Pro Tools ONLY refers to TDM systems. And I don't think Digi would agree with that, either.


Now... why don't we compare RADAR with Sonar or Cubase or... ?

It should be just as illuminative.

Or not.



___________

Oh... and on the input monitoring latency thing, I have a handy dandy workaround... it's called an analog mixer and it's truly zero latency (within the bounds of physics, anyhow).

And it was a tiny fraction of the cost of... oh, never mind. It's ALWAYS gonna be apples and oranges.

 

[Tim20]

HE's BACK!

Hi TK.

 

[dvyce]

I haven't read the whole thread

Well, I'll respond anyway... even though I am sure if you would take the time to read the whole thread, I wouldn't have to comment because I believe everything you mentioned has been addressed...

It's guaranteed you're not monitoring your input through the converters only one sample behind. Such a thing would be patently impossible. I'm not familiar with the TDM architecture but in a dedicated system you can minimize buffering and you can, indeed, get processing latency very low. As you note, not zero latency... but near zero, to be sure, on a par with a self-contained digital mixer.

I never said anything about what sort of latency I have through my converters. That is irrelevant to me. Any latency introduced by my converters will be there regardless of what system I am using because my converters will be the same. That is a constant.

What I said is this: ProTools has an indicator on each individual track with a number showing what the actual delay is in samples.

I already gave examples of what those numbers are in different scenarios.

I haven't read the whole thread and I realize you all have hashed this out at length, so I'll just stick in my two cents on "real" Pro Tools -- with the understanding that I completely agree on the crucial importance of making a clear distinction between the two very different product tiers:

If you noticed, I put "real" in quotes.

I did this as a way to differentiate it in this particular discussion.

For these purposes, it IS the "real" ProTools.

If I booked time in a "professional" recording studio based on them telling me they have "ProTools"... I would cancel my session if I later found out they only have an "Mbox"

I completely understand why one might feel that PT TDM is the only "real" Pro Tools as it is the current flagship product and in that sense it continues the lineage of earlier hardware based PT's.

No. That is not why I called the TDM versions of ProTools the "real" ProTools (and I also sometimes referred to it as the "full" version)... I called it that because there are separate products: "ProTools" and "ProTools LE"

They are really completely different systems.

They even use different plugin formats.

If you were on the phone with Digidesign tech support and you were telling them you had "ProTools" and you had an issue with anything, you had better let them know you are talking about "ProTools LE" because they would have very different things to say regarding how to help your situation. They are different.


There are plenty of products in the world where there is a "real" "full" "true" "professional" etc, version... and there is a "lite" "limited" "consumer" etc, version. That is just the way it is.

...and in this particular scenario, where you are talking about "the ProTools used by my favorite major artist and big time engineer to make that #1 record"-- they are using TDM -- not the one you get for $450. -- and since the TDM version is the one being asked about, I think it is perfectly reasonable in this scenario to refer to it as the "real" ProTools... like they use in the "real" studios...

But tell the ARMY of Pro Tools LE users that they're "not real" and I think you'll have some edgy folks on your hands.

I never said that ProTools LE users themselves as people are "not real", but they are surely not using the same ProTools that is used in the "pro" studios.

It is ProTools LE--- "Light Edition"


The software is similar, but there is a reason it is has a different name.

If PT LE is not "real" then someone better tell Digi so they can SUE the mofos who are stealing their nameplate.

Now you are just being silly.

Obviously "ProTools LE" is a version in the ProTools line of products... but it is not "ProTools"... it is "ProTools LE"

I simply don't think it's realistic to say that a reference to Pro Tools ONLY refers to TDM systems. And I don't think Digi would agree with that, either.

If there were a question about "how do I copy and paste audio in ProTools" it would most likely not matter which version of ProTools you used. I would not need to make any distinction in that case.

...But when you are talking about "what is so great about this ProTools that the pros use? what can it do that Fruity Loops can't?" then one of the versions would absolutely be the "real" version... can you guess which one?

Now... why don't we compare RADAR with Sonar or Cubase or... ?

It should be just as illuminative.

Or not.

that was already talked about.

Oh... and on the input monitoring latency thing, I have a handy dandy workaround... it's called an analog mixer and it's truly zero latency (within the bounds of physics, anyhow).

And it was a tiny fraction of the cost of... oh, never mind. It's ALWAYS gonna be apples and oranges.

Although I do use an outboard console (Sony DMX R-100), in a world where you have to recall a mix from last year at a moments notice and have it ready to go sounding exactly the same in a matter of seconds, having a mix full of outboard gear patched and recalled is not a realistic option.

...and that is not a "workaround"... that is a whole other way of working.

There are all sorts of "workarounds"... you can monitor what you are recording directly through your interface rather than through your sequencer... you can use a "low latency monitoring" type thing whereby you will be bypassing all plugins in your sequencer while you are recording and monitoring direct... I am sure there are several things to "workaround" the problem...

...but the question was "what can ProTools do that <x> can't"... and, like I said, you don't need to worry about any "workaround" tricks and you can simply record and make music with no worries like that.




Also, I need to make something very clear... this is not to say anything bad about PT LE or sonor or any host based system... they are all good and serve a very valuable purpose. This is just noting what the advantage of a TDM system is.

 

[theblue1]

Thanks for the detailed response!

I specifically mentioned that I hadn't read every item in the thread so that you wouldn't feel you had to address stuff that had been covered before. But I definitely appreciate the completeness of your answer in light of that!

I don't think we really disagree on anything fundamental.

And I guess I'll just stipulate to ignorance of the preferred usage of "Pro Tools."

In light of your explicatoin, I popped over to Digi's site and, sure enough (as I knew before) they have two separate product lines listed:

Pro Tools|HD Systems
and

Pro Tools LE & M-Powered Systems

... and I note they're mostly careful to refer to each product line with its full name, ie, "Pro Tools|HD Systems."

But I DO note that they refer to the overall software as simply "Pro Tools 7" -- as in this press release:

http://www.digidesign.com/news/details.cfm?story_id=3734

So... I think reasonable minds can very reasonably differ on just what "Pro Tools" might refer to in the original question which was:

What can Protools do that sonar cant?

PS... my 'analog monitoring workaround' is a tracking thing -- because I can't stand even the tiny amount of latency from the 'DSPCueMix' NZL monitoring from my MOTU 828mkII (at least when tracking guitar... don't notice it on my own vocals... I guess 'cause the sound of my own voice in my head is enough to mask the very slight delay on the vocal in the monitor).

Anyhow -- since I mix in the box -- the lack of automation on my analog board is largely irrelevant to the way I work -- and my outboard gear largely goes unused.

Now -- if I was tracking multiple musicians and needed complex montor feeds I would probably have to press the DSPCueMix into service for its multiple mix output capability and some of those issues would come to bear.

Of course, if I was doing that, I'd probably have a Pro Tools | HD System... Just -- you know -- to stay competitive... after all, "Pro Tools" is synonymous in the customer base with computer-based recording, yeah?

 

[dvyce]

So... I think reasonable minds can very reasonably differ on just what "Pro Tools" might refer to in the original question which was:

"what can protools do that sonor can't?"

...except that in the beginning of page 2 in this thread (in my 1st post after I even mentioned anything specific to TDM...and we are now well into page 5, by the way) I specifically clarified I was talking about the Mix/TDM/HD line of systems.

 

[theblue1]

Got it. I understood.

I was simply referring back to the original question -- as you had when you wrote:

...but the question was "what can ProTools do that <x> can't"... and, like I said, you don't need to worry about any "workaround" tricks and you can simply record and make music with no worries like that.

Anyhow, as noted, I don't really think we disagree on anything fundamental at all.

cheers

 

[dvyce]

PS... my 'analog monitoring workaround' is a tracking thing -- because I can't stand even the tiny amount of latency from the 'DSPCueMix' NZL monitoring from my MOTU 828mkII (at least when tracking guitar... don't notice it on my own vocals... I guess 'cause the sound of my own voice in my head is enough to mask the very slight delay on the vocal in the monitor).

i can't stand even the tiniest amount of latency when I record either... that is why I use a TDM system... if there is any latency, it is completely unnoticable.

...and that is why when I recently had a system put together for me (to try to casually make some music at home) trying PT LE with a Digi002 rack, trying Logic and trying Abelton Live-- i used it once and threw it right in the figurative garbage.


...but I think i am going to pick up an Mbox2 so i can use my laptop for live performance with LE and/or Abelton Live.

 

[dvyce]

Anyhow, as noted, I don't really think we disagree on anything fundamental at all.

oh yeah? well i disagree...


...and i think i'll write 3 pages about how i disagree...



j/k