Software vs. Software

[macrae11]

Which always brings me back to how I could build an insane Sonar/MOTU rig, and still have five thousand dollars left for what it would cost for a comparable ProTools rig.

... But that's another thread altogether.

Well you said it's another thread altogether, so here it is. I think your statement is somewhat misleading. For example

Sonar 7 Studio edition ----$299.97
MOTU ultralite-------------- $549.97
--------------------------------$849.94

Mbox 2 Pro--------------------$699.97


Not quite a fair comparison I known, the Mbox has 4 less ins and 6 less outs. But the price difference shows that, so it's fairly equal.

Also if we go into lower systems, you can learn PT on a Mbox 2 micro for $249, or a Mbox 2 mini for $295. Same software that comes with the $3000 003 rig, for less that the price of Sonar; and they come with an interface.

Now I realize that these are fairly middle of the road to low end systems, but if we go high end it gets even harder to compare, because the units have even less in common. But lets try.


MOTU HD192 PCI-e-------- $1799.97 ----------price/channel of I/O $150
Sonar Producer 7 ----------$499.97


Lynx Aurora 16-----------$3355.94 --------- price/analog channel of I/O $209 -----price/analog or digital channel of I/O $104
Protools HD1--------------$7995

Now I'm assuming this is the comparison you were thinking of. However these systems still aren't comparable. For starters the MOTU HD192 only gives you 12 channels of I/O so you would at least have to double up on that. Many people are of the opinion that MOTU convertors are of lesser quality than several other well known manufacturers convertors, but I won't factor that into the equation, seeing as how quality of convertors seems to play a lesser role in our market.

The price of the HD1 card is quite misleading. I'm grabbing all my prices of of Sweetwater. Now they've actually got a price listed at retail for the HD1, with a contact us link below it. I'm not sure of the marketing behind this, but on high end Digi product everything seems to be listed at retail or not listed at all, and then you call or email and get the real price. Annoying perhaps to little studies like this, but the people who buy this level of stuff are used to it. I have seen stuff at half of retail regularly, and lower, especially now that HD has been out for a few years. So that takes about $4000 of the Digi price, and leaves a difference of about $3400


But also the HD1 offers internal processing, which the Sonar system(and very few other sysems) offer. With only 1 card 96 simultaneous audio tracks can be run with ZERO tax on the host processor. with 2 cards, 192 tracks. Also every card after the first one is significantly cheaper (usually at least half) so your processing power grows exponentially.

Also the latency. HD has virtually zero latency(basically the latency inherit in the converters) with no regards to what your processer is doing. So if I want to add my 79th and 80th tracks to a plug-in heavy session. I can just do that without thinking about it. No changing buffer settings, no deactivating tracks. The Apogee Symphony systems are coming close to being able to do this in a native system, but they're not quite there yet, and not nearly as seamlessly.

Then there are the post features, the best control surfaces, the fact that all your hardware and software comes from one company, TDM plugins, arguably the best routing and automation features (although Nuendo 4 has some cool new ones), standardized session formats with most of the rest of the world, Digidelivery, video editing, Beat Detective, 10 cue mixes simultaneously.... etc etc.

So for me all of these features make up for the $3k-$4k price difference several times over. Maybe you wouldn't use many of these things, so it's not worth it for you. I've steered many people to other programs that I thought would suit their needs better. And maybe even with Sonar 7/Cubase 4/Logic 8 etc has caught up with many of these features. I'm not as in the loop as I was a couple of years ago when I was selling all this stuff. I just know what works for me and makes me the most money.

I just thought I should give everyone a fair shot at seeing the other side of the coin. It's not as black and white, dollars and cents as it might seem on the surface.

[Malcolm Boyce]

You will never get two different systems that do the same things. Even silly little things that some have... and some don't, make the difference.

While I appreciate what you are getting at with the comparison, you are looking at it in the reverse of what I mentioned. Build the Sonar/MOTU rig first, and then buy the comparable ProTools rig. To get a ProTool rig that will meet or better, you will spend substantially more money... including computer, peripherals, and the like. I'm not looking at bells and whistles, I'm looking for solid I/O, and enough processing to do what you would need. As far as features go, I guarantee that Sonar does things that ProTools doesn't, the same as ProTools does many things the others don't. When you strip it down to necessities and compare, ProTools will be more expensive.

And yes, I was talking about something substantial in a rig in response to Al's rant suggesting an HD rig.

Maybe you and I will have to do a proper build and cost comparison as a little experiment...

[Malcolm Boyce]

It's not as black and white, dollars and cents as it might seem on the surface.

That is correct!

[macrae11]

computer, peripherals, and the like. I'm not looking at bells and whistles,

Computer should be the same, as the same one should be able to run PT or Sonar. Not sure what you're referring to peripherals, but they should be the same as well.

I'm looking for solid I/O, and enough processing to do what you would need.

Again this is subjective. What processing do you need? for a beginning recordist, I'm almost postitive they won't need hardware processing. But for me I've had sessions with our G5 dual 2.3 w/ 4.5 GB RAM HD2 system, where I've ground the entire thing to a halt. 80+ tracks and tons of plugs. I still don't have enough processing power. Maybe with an octocore I might be alright. However peoples needs are different. What you might call bells and whistles, I call essential features.


The point that I was really trying to make though, is that you can't make comparisons between a native rig and a TDM rig. The philosophies are fundamentaly different. Things like hardware processing and zero latency aren't bells and whistles, but part of the core of a TDM system. They don't have an option to do a lesser system, and native systems don't have the option for hardware processing, so it's almost impossible to compare.

[Malcolm Boyce]

computer, peripherals, and the like. I'm not looking at bells and whistles,

Computer should be the same, as the same one should be able to run PT or Sonar. Not sure what you're referring to peripherals, but they should be the same as well.

I thought we would have a Mac/PC issue there... My understanding that Mac OS and associated hardware was still more expensive/performance. Is that not the case? Sonar would be Windows only still for the most part.

I'm looking for solid I/O, and enough processing to do what you would need.

Again this is subjective. What processing do you need? for a beginning recordist, I'm almost postitive they won't need hardware processing. But for me I've had sessions with our G5 dual 2.3 w/ 4.5 GB RAM HD2 system, where I've ground the entire thing to a halt. 80+ tracks and tons of plugs. I still don't have enough processing power. Maybe with an octocore I might be alright. However peoples needs are different. What you might call bells and whistles, I call essential features.

I think for quite a while, users like you and I will be able to over tax systems, no matter what we have in front of us. As the rigs get bigger-faster, the plugs that we are running are hungrier...

I know in Sonar, track "freezing" is the workaround that allows users to do pretty much any processing, and still run latency in the <5ms range.

You are correct that it is impossible to do a perfect comparison between the two.

Let's say I'm in a position of spec'ing a recording rig for a client who wants 24 in, 8 out for AD/DA, mic pre ins, not just line in. No control surface, and processing and software to get a hearty rig enough to satisfy someone getting started, with room to grow over the short term.

My question is, would it not be far cheaper for someone like this to go with something not ProTools? I'm asking because I really don't know.

[macrae11]

I thought we would have a Mac/PC issue there... My understanding that Mac OS and associated hardware was still more expensive/performance. Is that not the case? Sonar would be Windows only still for the most part.

The Mac being more expensive/performance gap is closing all the time. The only way you can get a significantly superior price/performance ratio with a PC is if you custom build it. Not a problem to do, but without massive amounts of research to make sure you get the correct motherboard that works with the right soundcard that works with the right RAM, takes a lot of time. The companies that build systems like this for audio that are basically bulletproof, like MusicXPC, charge as much or more than for comparable Apple products. It's all the time and testing that makes it more expensive. Now often you can build a system that won't have all these problems, but there's always a risk. This is why most big operations for audio, video, graphics etc tend to go towards macs. With everything standardized these risks are greatly reduced.

Sonar is still windows only, but that doesn't mean PC only. Macs are now some of the fastest running windows machines around now. Particularly in the notebook sector, Macbook Pros run Windows better than almost all the comparable PC machines. And as for PT in can run either mac or PC.

I think for quite a while, users like you and I will be able to over tax systems, no matter what we have in front of us. As the rigs get bigger-faster, the plugs that we are running are hungrier...

I know in Sonar, track "freezing" is the workaround that allows users to do pretty much any processing, and still run latency in the <5ms range.

Yeah that's for sure, although with the Mac Pro Octocores, things are starting to get close even in a professional environment. People have been saying for a couple of years that TDM is dead and long live native, but for pros that's simply not true yet. Probably in another 2-3 years that might be the case, at least for the current chipset they're using in HD. Although I'm sure they'll come up with something new before then. I am hoping in the next couple of years Digi will come out with a HD Native system, that's a medium system between LE and a full HD rig.

Freezing works, but like you say, it's still a workaround. I like having the luxury of not having to worry abou that kind of stuff, and just make music. Even with HD though that's still not always possible.

Let's say I'm in a position of spec'ing a recording rig for a client who wants 24 in, 8 out for AD/DA, mic pre ins, not just line in. No control surface, and processing and software to get a hearty rig enough to satisfy someone getting started, with room to grow over the short term.

My question is, would it not be far cheaper for someone like this to go with something not ProTools? I'm asking because I really don't know.

Well this is one area, where PT doesn't do as well, the midrange system. This is what I was referring to above about the HD Native. Formerly the LE standard was limited to 18 simultaneous inputs, so the only option was to go HD. Obviously this is overkill for most musician types. There is one product that M-audio makes that is capable of doing 36 I/O with PT M-Powered. It's the ProFire Lightbridge. It's strictly ADAT or SMUX operation so you have to pair it up with whatever converters you like. If you're on a Behringer budget, or a Prism budget, this will work. However the Lightbridge does not "officially" support 36 I/O. Officially it's capacity into PT is 18 I/O. So for that reason I wouldn't want to spec that system to a client claiming it can do 36 I/O, because if there's a problem and they call Digi, Digi will say that it will only do 18.

So for a 24/8 system, I would recomend something other than PT. If you go HD obviously you're in another realm altogether. For the smaller systems, as I showed before, they're quite competitive. But that midrange market is a rather large hole in the Digi line up. Personally I think 16 I/O is more than enough for anyone with a home system, certainly beginers. But there are lots of people out there like yourself Malcolm, who need a pro system but to whom HD is not really a reasonable solution. That's why I'd like to see an HD Native solution. Something that can handle 32 I/O, unlimited tracks, Delay compensation. The companies that require HD will still use HD, but they would open the door to a lot more midrange professionals.

[Malcolm Boyce]

...Well this is one area, where PT doesn't do as well, the midrange system.

I think that's the problem area I'm talking about. What you're calling "midrange" systems.

Personally I think 16 I/O is more than enough for anyone with a home system, certainly beginers.

I agree totally. Most peoples eyes are bigger than their actual needs. I have to prove this to folks all the time. "OK... Let's count up inputs for your bed track session... What's that??? Only 14?"

[Alain Benoit]

Or you can do what we are doing here at Fluid.

PT LE Digi 003 Rack and an Alesis HD 24 slaved to it.
This gives us 42 simultaneous I/O.
Alot less money than an HD rig and still the benefit of a PT session.
I think that we proved on the KT sessions that this can work fairly seemlessly. That is my idea of a 'midrange' setup.

[macrae11]

Or you can do what we are doing here at Fluid.

PT LE Digi 003 Rack and an Alesis HD 24 slaved to it.
This gives us 42 simultaneous I/O.
Alot less money than an HD rig and still the benefit of a PT session.
I think that we proved on the KT sessions that this can work fairly seemlessly. That is my idea of a 'midrange' setup.

This was kind of the other option I was thinking about, just because Al was doing this specific thing. However this is obviously stepping outside the parameters of strictly DAW vs DAW. But it is a great hybrid setup for an OTBer who wants a little digital editing/mixing, with a greater compatibility with the rest of the DAW world.