Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MT Groove]

djwayne wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 22:58

and my point is that nobody in my circle of friends is using Pro Tools...maybe I need new friends.....????? Of course it would be good to have that knowledge under your belt, but up till now, I can't even get the demo's to work without crashing.  Even the new PT for M-Audio stuff won't work with my current sound card configuration, which means I'd have to set up another computer, buy the $350 program, just to work with it...My feelings are a program that costs $350 should work with any sound card...this program does not. From what I've read, PT doesn't work with the new Tiger software either.... This is why I'm sticking with Audition 1.5, it actually works.

I don't have friends using Pro Tools either.    But I do have clients using it.  Believe me, I'm not a huge Pro Tools supporter, but I got an MBox installed on my system just so I can open client's sessions so I can export.  I installed it and it works just fine the first time.  Of course there is the limitations of the USB MBox but I don't really need it to do much at all.  There must be some configurations issue with your computer that caused it to crash.  

[RKrizman]

LawrenceF wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 14:56

Thanks for your help.  Once I feel confident I can sit down and mix on it in an effcient manner I'll put it away until a client asks for it.

I'd plan on spending at least the rest of the weekend.

-R

[RKrizman]

[quote title=djwayne wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 13:55]

MT Groove wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 15:12

Well, it may be an industry standard, but I don't use it.

It's sort of like Yogi Berra's favorite restaurant that's so crowded that nobody goes there anymore.

-R

[djwayne]

"There must be some configurations issue with your computer that caused it to crash."

I know the problem is that the new PT program is not designed to work with either the 1010LT or Revolution 7.1 sound cards, which I have in my system, and don't want to take out for their speacial features. I also have the 2496 card installed, and PT will work with that by itself, but not if the other cards are installed, so that means I'd have to strip my computer of the other cards and I'd lose my 5.1 capabilities, as well as my multi-channel recording capabilities, and go backwards to only being able to record or playback on two tracks at a time. I know this because I already tried it.

So for me, it would be a $350 downgrade, but I would pick up the midi recording features of PT.

Audition 1.5 works fine with all three cards installed, but doesn't record midi.

[zboy2854]

LawrenceF wrote on Fri, 06 May 2005 16:52

When you say 32-bit do you mean recording at 32-bits in Nuendo?  Just as an FYI most native apps are 32-bit float internally for dsp including PTLE I think. Lawrence

Yes, I mean recording at 32 bit.  The audio files as they're being recorded are actually larger when you set the project setup to 32 bit recording, and the dynamic range is wider.  I admit I don't quite understand it completely, but I do know that cumulatively there's a huge difference in the depth and bigness of the mixes I've done since moving to 32 bit in Nuendo.

[Fergal T]

zboy2854 wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 01:23

Yes, I mean recording at 32 bit.  The audio files as they're being recorded are actually larger when you set the project setup to 32 bit recording, and the dynamic range is wider.  I admit I don't quite understand it completely, but I do know that cumulatively there's a huge difference in the depth and bigness of the mixes I've done since moving to 32 bit in Nuendo.

Hmmm, there are no commercially available soundcard converters are able to sample at a depth 32bit float - the maximum is 24bit int.

If you are setting Nuendo/SX to record at 32bitfp, you are still only gonna be sampling 24bits of information for each sample - just using 32bits of harddisk space to store those 24bits! You're wasting space. It doesn't matter whether you put the 24bits you've received from your soundcard into a 24bit file, or a 32bit float file - you've still got exactly the same snapshot of information so there *CANNOT POSSIBLY* be a difference in the sound quality...

There is, however a definate advantage to internally bouncing to 32bit float, if you are going to apply further processing to the bounced file, when working in something like Nuendo or SX which performs it's internal calculations at 32bit float, as you WOULD lose data by going from 32bit to 24bit and back again.

Note though, that no matter what bitdepth you record at, Nuendo/SX will do it's processing at 32bit float.

I had to explain this very thing over on cubase.net earlier this week... here's the thread:
http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13930&postd ays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

-Fergal
(Lawrence, check for a PM...)

[LawrenceF]

[quote title=Fergal Toohey wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 05:32]

zboy2854 wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 01:23

-Fergal (Lawrence, check for a PM...)

I did.  Nothing there.  

Lawrence

[zboy2854]

Fergal Toohey wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 05:32

Hmmm, there are no commercially available soundcard converters are able to sample at a depth 32bit float - the maximum is 24bit int. If you are setting Nuendo/SX to record at 32bitfp, you are still only gonna be sampling 24bits of information for each sample - just using 32bits of harddisk space to store those 24bits! You're wasting space. It doesn't matter whether you put the 24bits you've received from your soundcard into a 24bit file, or a 32bit float file - you've still got exactly the same snapshot of information so there *CANNOT POSSIBLY* be a difference in the sound quality... There is, however a definate advantage to internally bouncing to 32bit float, if you are going to apply further processing to the bounced file, when working in something like Nuendo or SX which performs it's internal calculations at 32bit float, as you WOULD lose data by going from 32bit to 24bit and back again. Note though, that no matter what bitdepth you record at, Nuendo/SX will do it's processing at 32bit float. I had to explain this very thing over on cubase.net earlier this week... here's the thread:  http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=13930&postd ays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 -Fergal

I understand that the converters are only passing 24 bits on the way in, and that Nuendo is recording the files to the hard drive as 32 bit by adding the other 8 bits.  However...

From the Nuendo manual:
There are two advantages to 32 bit float recording:
1. With 32 Bit float recording you don't risk clipping in the recorded files.  This can of course be avoided with 24 or 16 bit recording as well, but requires more care with the levels.

i.e. You can record hotter signal into Nuendo when recording at 32 bit float.  The manual goes on:

2. Nuendo processes audio internally in 32 Bit Float format - recording in the same format means the audio quality will be kept absolutely pristine.  The reason is that the effect processing in the input channel (as well as any level or EQ settings you make there) is done in 32 Bit Float format.  If you record at 16 or 24 Bit, the audio will be converted to this lower resolution when it's written to file - with possible signal degradation as a result.

If you record in 32 bit float format the bit depth will not be reduced-which means there's no risk of clipping at this stage.    If you record in 16 or 24 bit format the available headroom is lower which means clipping can occur if the signal is too loud.

So basically, there are tangible benefits to recording at 32 bit float.  It only makes sense, since there would be no point to Nuendo/Cubase offering 32 bit recording as an option if all it did was eat up extra disk space and nothing more.

[tom eaton]

You CANNOT record a hotter signal into Nuendo because it uses 32 bit processing.  Your 24 bit converter does not suddenly change where it clips because the engine that follows it has higher resolution.  You can turn up a full scale 24 bit file after it has been recorded, but RECORDING into the system is not changed by the processing bit depth.

-tom

[zboy2854]

While it is true that you cannot get higher levels INTO the converter, you CAN get hotter levels to disk by using the software's input gain, or if you have plugins on the input.  I do it all the time.  My statement was not meant to imply that the increased gain took place BEFORE Nuendo, but rather IN Nuendo and BEFORE printing to disk.

[Fergal T]

zboy2854 wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 13:16

While it is true that you cannot get higher levels INTO the converter, you CAN get hotter levels to disk by using the software's input gain, or if you have plugins on the input.  I do it all the time.  My statement was not meant to imply that the increased gain took place BEFORE Nuendo, but rather IN Nuendo and BEFORE printing to disk.

Aha, actually, now I get you.

I had forgotten that you can put VSTs BEFORE disk now.

that makes a difference, alright. However, there is absolutely no need to record at 32bit if you aren't doing any predisk processings...

-Fergal

[Bob Olhsson]

zboy2854 wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 06:29

From the Nuendo manual: There are two advantages to 32 bit float recording: 1. With 32 Bit float recording you don't risk clipping in the recorded files.  This can of course be avoided with 24 or 16 bit recording as well, but requires more care with the levels.

Amazing! Whoever wrote this is an idiot! I'd be very worried about the technical competency of any developer allowing this kind of misinformation to get into their manual.

[David Schober]

This sentence caught my eye...

Quote:

From the Nuendo manual: 2. Nuendo processes audio internally in 32 Bit Float format - recording in the same format means the audio quality will be kept absolutely pristine.

Absolutely pristine??  What is this, the backcounty of Yosemite?

and another...

Quote:

If you record in 16 or 24 bit format the available headroom is lower which means clipping can occur if the signal is too loud.

That is plain BS.

I'm not saying Nuendo sounds bad...but whoever writes their manuals doesn't understand how their system works and doesnt' have a clue about hwo to write.

This reading this stuff sounds a lot to me like Spinal Tap's "It's one louder."

Lastly, the idea that:

Quote:

You can record hotter signal into Nuendo when recording at 32 bit float.

Is just plain wrong.  And even if it was true.....SO WHAT?  Since when did loud equal good?  

[LawrenceF]

OK.  I'm continuing on the learning path.  I'm gonna list some likes and dislikes comparitively to SX.  Just a few...

Likes:

1.  Space remover tool.  Nice.  Makes cleaning up tracks easy.  
2.  Rearranging plugs in the slots, drag and drop.  Very cool.  SX 2 cannot do that.  I love that feature.
3.  It plays nice with my d8b.  I can set locates on the control surface and use the transport.  Makes working with it much easier .
4.  Plugins stay on top.  Great.  In SX they fall to the back when you go to the arrangement window or mixer.
5.  EQ III.  Very nice.  Great design and it sounds good.  Free!
7.  Moving channels around in the mixer.  In SX 2 I don't think you can do that but you can move tracks around in the arrangement window and the mixer follows.  It's nice to be able to just do it from the mixer though.
8.  Loading plugs.  A lot of plugs load without glitching the audio.  More than SX which glitches a little on just about every load while playing.

Dislikes:  

1.  Automation.  It's comprehensive but somewhat convoluted.  Too many steps for automating plugins.  In SX it's a lot more straight forward and every parameter is automatically exposed to the timeline as soon as a plug is loaded.  In PT I have to go to another screen to expose individual or groups of plugin parameters to the timeline.  Unless again I'm missing something.  

2.  The mixer.  I just don't like it.  Not enough display options and no way to bring a full fader to the edit screen except for that floating fader.  I'd like to have an option to replace that panel on the left with a full mixer channel that follows the channel selection.  SX's 3 mixers are multi-staged vertically and horizontally allowing you to show as much or as little as you need with the least being nothing but faders with names.  This allows full faders at the bottom of the screen and tracks across the top or vice versa.  I would often have a seperate mixer with nothing but aux returns or audio groups.  If you've got 48-72 tracks you can have 24 in each mixer and have all of the full sized faders stacked on the screen at once.

3. Bypassing plugins?  It seems you have to open them to bypass.  There should be a bypass switch on every plugin slot.

4.  No "standard" eq.  In most daws every channel has it's own built in eq that's always available.  In PT you have to insert an eq plug.  In SX if I want to do a quick "non-critical" eq it's right there on the channel like a conventional mixer and available without acessing the mixer.  Digi should build the EQII in as the default 4 band ch eq and leave the plugin slots available so you can just switch one in and go to work.

4.  Track sizing.  PT gives you 5-6 sizes but I prefer to size tracks freely from almost nothing to full screen and anywhere in between.  SX's track sizing is free like that with scroll bars to size vertically or horizontally for the entire project or you can select groups of tracks and size them freely.

5.  Stopping playback to do many things.  They gotta address that at some point.  One of my "likes" above moving tracks falls under this category as does creating new send/return routings.  I can take a small audio glitch but I really hate stopping the track when I'm in the middle of a flow.  What is it about the audio engine that can't change these routings in realtime?

That's it.  I like it though and will continue to learn and use it.  The interface and design choices drag me down a little though.  PLEASE... don't use these comments as a invitation to go "YEAH, THAT'S WHY I HATE PT."  That converstaion is over.

All in all I'm getting good results from PTLE.  I'm sure as time passes I'll learn some new things.  I'm still trying to quantify the tiny sound difference between PTLE and SX but generally PTLE (to me) sounds "tight and crisp"  while SX sounds more "open and detailed" and seems to have a little better seperation.  This could be because I have the MBox running on it's internal clock though.

While it seems getting a "tight" mix is a little easier in PTLE the SX mixes seem to have a little more depth and space.  Both sound really good and I could mix a "record" in either.

Those are my early impressions.  

Lawrence

[wireline]

Glad to read its working out for you, Lawrence (how ya been?)  But I'm just curious as to a few things:

- Isn't the PTLE option just going to cause that much more (option anxiety) when it comes to mixing?  I remember we talked about this some time ago, and we both agreed that having too mnay choices could actually slow the process down some...Now you've got Cubase (which thanks to you I am exploring heavily), PTLE, AND the d8b.

- So what do you do when platform A has exactly what you want for a track, but that option is not available in platforms B or C?  But then the next track, an effect/option you GOTTA have is available on B, but not A or C?  (See where I'm going with this?  Can you run PTLE simultaneously and drop n drag between the two?)

- Aside from your learning experiences, what benefits have you seen from actually taking the PT plunge?

(You can email me direct if you prefer...)