Sequoia vs Pro Tools

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:16 pm

FifthCircle wrote:

For me, it is the editing model and the cross-fade ability. Pro Tools doesn't even come close to what I can do in Sequoia... I'll leave the sound arguments out of it- PT HD is quite good in that department.

From a money perspective, I can get just as much computer in a custom built turnkey Sequoia DAW as I can in say a PT HD3 system at about half the price... For doing large tracking projects (ie film scores) where I have large numbers of tracks at high resolution (48 tracks at 96K for example), I'd probably go with a PT system as it can handle the I/O better than a native system.

Sequoia can also burn CDs and generate DDP images that I can send off to replication. Pro Tools has none of that... In an operation that is a single person operation, it makes the workflow easier...

Just a few thoughts...

--Ben

PT cannot do PCM either.

I would also recommend SAWStudio. It is very powerful, built on machine language that practically bypasses Windopes. Go to their website and download the working demo. www.sawstudio.com

PT TDM is still the best for power-house processing, high track counts at high sample rates, etc. Also, it has the least tatency. BUT, no matter whose system you go with, you are forced into updating OS, DAW software, plugs, etc, if you want/need support.

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:35 pm

Quote:

PT cannot do PCM either. -- Sheet

Sorry, what is the "PCM" ?
Thanks,
Costy.

Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:49 pm

Quote:

PT cannot do PCM either.

Huh? This makes no sense... Do you have the right letters for your acronym?

PCM stands for Pulse Code Modulation which is the way that all of your "standard" digital audio is sampled... By standard, I mean non-DSD/dbx, etc... When you talk about 24/96, 16/44.1 etc... that is all PCM audio.

--Ben

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:24 am

PT TDM is still the best for power-house processing, high track counts at high sample rates, etc. Also, it has the least tatency.

That's because of all the OUTBOARD hardware involved. Comparing to all the native stuff is just apples and oranges. (No pun intended...) PT's HD is quite impressive; it is a huge investment of rack mounted gear, with DSP farms, cards, HD controllers, a control surface; and you still need a host computer to run it. Yep, it can do a LOT of tracks, with ridiculously low latency; just about transparent in that dept. It also costs between $20 -$30K for all the bells & whistles.

Samp/Sequoia comes on a CD-ROM and runs with whatever you have under your hood, from a P3 on up. It's not better or worse in that way; it's just a completely different kind of app.

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:50 pm

FifthCircle wrote:

Quote:

PT cannot do PCM either.

Huh? This makes no sense... Do you have the right letters for your acronym?

PCM stands for Pulse Code Modulation which is the way that all of your "standard" digital audio is sampled... By standard, I mean non-DSD/dbx, etc... When you talk about 24/96, 16/44.1 etc... that is all PCM audio.

--Ben

Holy crap, I was reading another paper about DSD, SACD and DVD-A. I had single-bit PCM in my head. POWr is what my intent was.

If you look at Magix's dither vs. PT HD's in "Tweak Head" mode, the results are not subtle. PT HD's dither is not as good.

What was the dbx remark about. They have nothing to do with DSD. That's a Sony thing.

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:52 pm

JoeH wrote:

PT TDM is still the best for power-house processing, high track counts at high sample rates, etc. Also, it has the least tatency.

That's because of all the OUTBOARD hardware involved. Comparing to all the native stuff is just apples and oranges. (No pun intended...) PT's HD is quite impressive; it is a huge investment of rack mounted gear, with DSP farms, cards, HD controllers, a control surface; and you still need a host computer to run it. Yep, it can do a LOT of tracks, with ridiculously low latency; just about transparent in that dept. It also costs between $20 -$30K for all the bells & whistles.

Samp/Sequoia comes on a CD-ROM and runs with whatever you have under your hood, from a P3 on up. It's not better or worse in that way; it's just a completely different kind of app.

Compare apples to apples. You don't have to have controllers for PT.

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:31 pm

sheet wrote:

What was the dbx remark about. They have nothing to do with DSD. That's a Sony thing.

The short-lived dbx digital from what, 15 years ago or so... The competitor for the Sony F-1. Also went to a beta machine. If memory serves me right, it was another variant on the 1 bit recording idea.

POW-R is indeed a great dither, the Magix standard dither isn't bad, either... I prefer POW-R for what I do, but I have also had good results with Magix's internal dither...

Quote:

Compare apples to apples. You don't have to have controllers for PT.

I think he meant that to run Sequoia, you need nothing besides a sound card and a computer. Sequoia doesn't need controllers, either- especially since the idea of objects mixing is completely different than a fader-based mix. A PT HD setup has a lot of extra stuff from expensive I/O boxes to processing cards to the Sync I/O, etc...

--Ben

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:00 am

I think he meant that to run Sequoia, you need nothing besides a sound card and a computer. Sequoia doesn't need controllers, either- especially since the idea of objects mixing is completely different than a fader-based mix. A PT HD setup has a lot of extra stuff from expensive I/O boxes to processing cards to the Sync I/O, etc...

Exactly. I'm suggesting that it's really pointless to compare them on any kind of similar cost per function basis. They have two completely different approaches to doing things.

I don't expect any fully involved PT's users to want to switch to Samp/Seq (why WOULD they, after that kind of investment?), nor do I think a seasoned Samp/Seq would find a reason to leave a fully functional app for a lot more $ outlay. Two very different ways to get the job done.

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:21 pm

Quote:

Magix really needs to produce a good video demo

If I remember, you can find more video on the german site.

Why I prefer Samplitude? Because I can't imagine to work now without object editing. When you use it one time, you find that PT, Nuendo etc. are prehistoric softwares Rolling Eyes

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:26 pm

I did a 12 track recording (120 voice choir, piano & string quartet accomp, solosits, announce mic, etc.) with Sequoia, Friday night on location at 8 p.m., recorded it all via laptop to a FW HD, and got back home from the gig by 11 p.m. Took a short food/mental break, and then began working on it around midnight. (Hey, I have no life, I can do this sort of thing when I have to... Wink

)

By 3 a.m., I had 90% of it complete. Removed air handler noises, processed the live ambient tracks (for applause, etc.) Trimmed & leveled the solo tracks, polished up the piano tracks, added three separate hi-end room sims/Aux's (one for the choir, one for the piano and the gold-plate setting for the vocal soloists.)

Trimmed objects, used all kinds of log & cosine fade ins/out, adjusted levels with volume drawing tools as well as the object function tool, EQ'd everything just as I needed it (looked up to see my CPU usage was topping out at 20%...hoooeeee!), and did all kinds of ubelievable things with the object editors, as well. The HVAC system - which they would NOT turn off for us - had a discernable "Whine" at about 980HZ which showed up on most of the tracks, so I had to precision-notch-out (with the FFT tool) this noise as well. Did a lot of judicious low-end rumble removal as well with the FFT & EQ tools track by track, object by object.

Of course, there was the mandatory "clap-along" that all these white-suburban (read: LAME) choirs attempt - their singing ability immediately DROPS once they start clapping; FORGETABOUT clapping with any feel or vibe, either - so I had insane peaks with the sound of 100+ people attempting to keep time. I would have never been able to fix this without the multiband & brick wall limiting I can dial up with both the odject-based limiters and the master multiband and final limiter in Samp/Seq's. toolset, much less get any usable levels out of this track alone.

Even added a little tape warmth after all the cleanup (god, I love that AM suite plug-in!)

There is no way in the world I could have pulled off the mix I did in the time I spent on it, and no way I could have turned it around as fast as I did with anything else. (Clients are eagerly awaiting copies ASAP, of course).

While I started on two new events today, my assistant finished burning the copies, printed the covers & tray cards, and we'll shrink wrap 'em all in order to get them in the mail and outta here by Monday or Tuesday.

Simetimes, time IS money with fast-track projects like these, and Samp/Seq is worth the price each time I get something this frantic to finish up. I'm not all about fast & furious, quick & dirty, but I really do love it when I have all the tools in front of me to make it happen so beautifully. I expect to have a lot of happy clients after this one, no small thanks to the power of working with this software. Even in the best of studios a mere ten years ago, I would NEVER have been able to even remotely aprpoach this kind of recoding.

Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:29 am

Costy wrote:

Thanks Ben,

Good to know. Right, in PT the non-destructive (real-time, RTAS)
plug-ins are asociated with tracks not with "regions", as far as
I know.

Costy.

...and that's one of the strongest features in Samplitude/Sequoia...because you can, use a plug in in real time for just a portion of audio, not the entire track, or make combinations of tracks, objects, buses, aux, and the master.

So....you can run complex projects on a slow cpu...and using less tracks, because maybe you won't need as much tracks as with other software.

For example, in a Protools LE system you have 32 voices available, if you only put a short sample on a track you already used a voice, even if that little part is only a few seconds long.

Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:16 am

Hmmmm...if I may add something that is being discussed at another forum:

Many clients have succumbed to the advertising hype - that if its not done in PT, it is not a pro level project....especially at the level my client 'base' is situated....(no majors, few indies, mostly demo, lots of forensics)...Pro audio may be the ONLY profession that has this level of hype (how many folks refuse to ride in a cab based solely on the kind of car?)...and as much as I LOVE Samp, I do get a bit tired of the oft requested 30-45 minute dissertation of why my shop is every bit as capable (and in most cases more so) than the guy down the road with a PTHD3...

I've been a Samp user for seemingly ever now, and am seriously looking at either an HD1 rig or a Sequoia rig....each has advantages, each has disadvantages...I've used an HD2 system, and while it was quite "slick" I found it to be relatively time consuming on the editing side, but a bit quicker and more stable on the tracking side...note my time on the HD2 was somewhat limited.

Ken

Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:40 pm

I only peruse this board every once and a while, since I am wrapped up in so much these days....however, I thought I'd chime in once again. Ben has really done a fine job explaining the benefits of Sequoia/Samplitude versus Protools. Thanks Ben!

I too am more than happy to provide input, having been a Sequoia user for 32 months now, and a Samplitude user for over 6 years. I have also worked on SADiE for 3 years, Sonic solutions for over 10 (and have trained people how to use Sonic) and Protools on/off for several years. I have also driven the old Dyaxis workstation (care not to remember that). In my studio, I have two machines running Sequoia. One is a portable system for location recording and another is a full blown workstation with DX and VST plugins gallore and a TC Powercore to boot. I also have Cubase in my studio as well, which I have only to run the SRS Circle Surround plugin which is specifically programmed to run with Cubase/Nuendo only.

I'll try not to repeat to much which has already been said.

I will agree that PT is a better tracking system. It is very stable and able to handle tons of tracks with stability. It is also great for mix to pix applications. However, there are other systems that track extremely well. I have used outboard HD recorders such as MX2424s and other such devices for this application when necessary. Then I port that audio from those systems to my Sequoia DAW for the rest of the project. Note - I have not used Sequoia version 8.2 yet (but will in the next 2 months or less). Sequoia 8.2 has major enhancements for tracking and other applications as well.

With the systems that 'track' extremely well, I have found they usually have several downfalls when it comes to being able to manipulate the 'fine details' of sound. I have found no other system that allows for extreme/detailed editing and 'within' track manipulation (ie. object level manipulation with DX/VST support as previously described) AND sound excellent AND be as cost effective as Sequoia.

Before buying Sequoia 32 months ago, I was strongly looking at all systems for the center point of operations in the Corbett Studio. PT was eliminated from my choices quickly as it lacked many fine detailed editing features that I was used to from other software. Also, the dedicated hardware was/is costly. Furthermore, when PT upgrades hardware, their software usually gets updated along with it, and leaves those with older hardware left behind. This has gotten much better as of late. The only other system that attracted my eye was Pyramix. Pyramix is an excellent system. However, at the time, I conducted several tests and found that I would need at least two dedicated hardware boards with Pyramix to achieve the same results as I do with one, high grade built PC with a Pentium 4, 2.4 Gig processor, a Lynx card for I/O and no dedicated hardware. Keep in mind Pyramix needs a quality PC to run it as well as dedicated hardware. If I were doing DSD and PCM work, I'd choose Pyramix in a heart beat.

Some other information. I exchange sound files with PT, Cubase/Nuendo, SAW and other system users on a regular basis. I have also have had people with those systems be very impressed by Sequoia. The common response I get from those who have the other systems is "yeah, I could do that, but it would take me at least twice as long to accomplish that." My only complaint about Sequoia, is that they could use an even better distribution net here in the US that has more knowledgable staff -and- that they had more tutorials (aka videos as mentioned before), as it does have a sizable learning curve.

I am now in the processes of making some major changes in the Corbett Studio once again. I will undougtedly be purchasing a new computer that will become the central point for all operations in the studio. It will have Sequoia version 8, with all the plugins we currently have (mostly Waves, TC and Antares). This improved system will also have full Linear Equalization and restoration plugins from Algorithmix, as well as DVD-A Authoring and mix to pix support. I have no doubt in my mind that this is the correct choice for the Corbett Studio, which specializes in classical, jazz and acoustic recording (both on location and studio/multi-track). The savings alone from using Sequoia continues to allow me to use funds to purchase other gems, such as great microphones, mic pre's, etc. And far as being concerned about marketing hype, I simply say this "We use Sequoia, the software is like Protools on steroids, please feel free to come see." That phrase works most of the time for the clients I desire.

Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:23 pm

Awesome thread!

I'm looking at Sequoia now. This topic is 4 years old. How do people still feel about SEQUOIA ?

Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:42 am

Wow...what an old thread!

Anyway -
I still feel quite positive about Sequoia. I've had the opportunity to work on a great deal of the software suites out there from PTHD to PTLE to Cubase/Nuendo, Vegas (just got Vegas 9 for Video again!!!) and Logic.

The fact that I'm not tied to specific hardware always makes me happy. The ability to make red book CDs so easily makes me very happy! The object-oriented editing is fantastic and the editing model is unbeatable! Also, to me, it's the most like working with an ATR and a mixer.

Also, the built-in effects are awesome! The EQ and compressors rock. Plus, I have NO problem with MIDI on Sequoia (granted, it's gotten a LOT better than it used to be).

Anyway - if you've got the $3K to drop, I can't imagine a better DAW.

Cheers-
J

This topic sponsored by: