macrae11 wrote:As to the combining sessions like you describe, Pro Tools is absolutely stunning at that. You don't edit anything in the actual file, instead it's directly in the main session but it's incredibly flexible and allows you to import or not import whatever you want. It would be much more difficult for me to do my job without this feature.
This.macrae11 wrote:That's good to hear. MIDI was the last big thing that could prevent Reaper from being considered a "professional" DAW. Even if not everyone uses it, it's really an essential.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:I do still believe that ProTools' days as the "defacto standard" are numbered.
sean.boyer wrote:Just out of curiosity, what types of applications are you guys relying on MIDI for?
Malcolm Boyce wrote:I do still believe that ProTools' days as the "defacto standard" are numbered. Not in the immediate future necessarily, but there are too many up and comers who are embracing other platforms and sticking with them, as well as huge name guys while being "Pro Toolers" are dabbling in other platforms looking to see what the options are. So many heard saying "You'll pry my ProTools out of my cold, dead hand" have also been heard in the same post saying how they've used one version or the other since their first copy of "Sound Tools". This just won't be the case for a huge number of the next generation of recordists. The more the industry resists the "ProTools is the only option" the sooner you'll see Logic and Reaper and other DAWs take their place in studios all over.
I really do draw a parallel between SSL consoles in the 80s and ProTools today. Everybody had to have an SSL then, not because they needed it, but because the industry told them they needed it. Times changed.
macrae11 wrote:The SSL analogy really doesn't work because SSL never had the kind of hold that Pro Tools has, particularly in mid level studios. Also buying another console still hooked up to your 2" machine the exact same way as your SSL did. And even when SSL was the big king, there were still tons of Neve's, API's, Harrisons, Trident's etc. They never had even close to the percentage of WORKING STUDIOS with PAYING CLIENTS that Pro Tools has now. In regards to the post realm, Avid actually has a much stronger hold on that market than they did 5 years ago. With companies like Fairlight going nowhere, their purchase of Euphonix and their vastly superior control technology they're not going anywhere soon.
You're absolutely right that there will be other platforms in use, particularly in small one man shops. But as a standard, PT not only has to lose a lot of ground, but also has to have a competitor that's not "just as good as" but significantly better than Pro Tools to make a massive switch. I get calls specifically for Pro Tools sessions on average probably every other month. Guess how many calls I've had for every other platform combined since I started working here.
macrae11 wrote:99% of the Pro Tools requests do not come from musicians. Actually I can't think of any musicians asking me that sort of thing off the top of my head at all. All requests come from other techs. Whether it's from studios in Halifax, Cape Breton, Toronto, Nashville, or post projects from CBC, LA, anywhere basically. When handling big projects with a variety of techs in different studios, it's just one less thing to worry about. And if they have to worry about it, they'll find someone else that they won't have to worry about it with.
macrae11 wrote:99% of the Pro Tools requests do not come from musicians. Actually I can't think of any musicians asking me that sort of thing off the top of my head at all. All requests come from other techs. Whether it's from studios in Halifax, Cape Breton, Toronto, Nashville, or post projects from CBC, LA, anywhere basically. When handling big projects with a variety of techs in different studios, it's just one less thing to worry about. And if they have to worry about it, they'll find someone else that they won't have to worry about it with.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:I know the current market is dictating that direction, but I suggest it won't always be the case.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:Considerable people, with considerable experience are already trying and favouring other options.
Malcolm Boyce wrote:The hard part will be people having to learn how to be cross compatible platform wise, but that's always been an issue with sessions traveling.
Indeed you're absolutely right and continue to make my point. Same platform transfers are close to idiot proof, with 5 minutes of training. If I'm sending a track to be mixed or something by someone else, I'll do most of the things I would normally do to send a session to another platform. Consolidate regions, triple check every edit point, print any essential effects, etc. However what if a project is part way to completion. Here's a real world example that I was discussing last week with a colleague:Malcolm Boyce wrote:I have no doubt in my mind that if I were preparing tracks for Andrew to mix or OD to, or if he were doing the same, with a maximum of two e-mails back and forth we'd be up and running with no issues. I dare say many wouldn't have the same confidence or ability to provide that degree of understanding and competency.
Mostly soft synths and sequencing. Some external synchronization either sending or receiving MTC/MMC as well as triggering external MIDI sound sources... Old school...sean.boyer wrote:Just out of curiosity, what types of applications are you guys relying on MIDI for?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests