I'm beginning to wonder if Pro Tools is engineered to rely on DSP cards so much that when you get close to the "DSP headroom" (summing, bouncing, rendering) actually suffers.:confused: :sneaky: $$$
And why they cannot allow more track counts on the budget Pro Fools. :barefoot:

What I noticed right away when I switched from Pro Tools to Samplitude was an instant improvement in how my computer and DAW itself handled plug-ins and mastering (summing). I hear a superior sonic phase coherency. Transient cohesiveness ...
I also know Object editing is the smartest thing to ever happen in a DAW. It not only does what it does so awesome... when used wisely with confidence... you can reduce MASS CPU by dealing with the object instead of how other DAW's require a plug-in or process to run all the time in the background.

I build a mix through Objects in Samplitude. At the end of a session, I may have a half dozen plugs running and that's it. Usually on the Groups. The channels are almost always clean.
I also don't use third party plugs on the session DAW. I have no need for them. My DAW is about the basics. Its a virtual analog console. (in/out, stock EQ, pan, fader, Aux and Bus). What more do you need? Which is where the Object editor comes in.

If I want special shit, it comes from outboard synths and effects that I create for that session. If I need serious spacial effects, thats when I look for a Bricasti or Eventide. I never load my DAW up so hard that its running more than 50%. And we're talking up to 80 tracks or more.

Thoughts?

Attached files

Your negativity towards Avid and PT is well documented. :ROFLMAO: (y)I have no idea why they do anything they do and this is a discussion that has been rampant since PT4.0. I wasn't posting as a comparison and if I had personally been tutored on something else I would be just as happy in probably different ways, as each DAW programs have their own strengths, including ProTools. Please don't take this as a defense of Avid.....they are the devil about manymany things.....All of us in the community that use this program have our own sets of hatred for them. I'm really happy you are on a platform that allows your skills and creativity to thrive and blossom. I think we mix in a very similar way and seek and clean structure that can then be easily enhanced and manipulated. You in your way and I in mine. And thats the ticket anyway. The rest is tools.

But my question had nothing to do with personal ,
It was about the sum and DPS relation. What do you think?

Could i have finally answered the mystery to the puzzle?

If not, then why would this solution for you actually work?

This is the only reason i am continuing your much interesting solution about Pro Tools.(y)

Davedog
Something else that I would be seriously interesting, I wonder how your final mix would sound if your ME captured on Samplitude. Its free for a month BTW.
If it in fact improved your mix, wouldn't that be an interesting and beneficial discovery?

I'm not trying to sell you on what I do. I'm trying to simply improve us all, me as well each and every day.
Just saying...

Davedog, post: 430779, member: 4495 wrote: He records my 24/48 session into his DAW at 16/44.1 in real time. This doesn't create ANY converting as it is simply a recording into a different machine with no clocking involved.

Thank you for that.
So he has two DAWs as well?
I'm starting to get curious about that.
I think i'll try and make some tests (even though i only have PTs at work)

I would suspect, even passing the PT session over to Samplitude, and bouncing down using Samplitude, the master will sound as good or better. I;m mentioning this because I know you don't have an independent converter to capture to. If you got the cheapest PC, loaded in Sam demo and simply did minor "master" steps, it will sound better than PT will.
I could be wrong or uniformed, but I don't know anyone that would master with PT.
Its worth the test imho.

audiokid, post: 430792, member: 1 wrote: I would suspect, even passing the PT session over to Samplitude, and bouncing down using Samplitude, the master will sound as good or better. I;m mentioning this because I know you don't have an independent converter to capture to. If you got the cheapest PC, loaded in Sam demo and simply did minor "master" steps, it will sound better than PT will.
I could be wrong or uniformed, but I don't know anyone that would master with PT.
Its worth the test imho.

Chris, I'm a believer of the second DAW capture for a while. I haven't tested it yet because all I got was 2 focusrite interfaces (saffire 56 and a 8i8) and I didn't thrust the converters. Now that I've switched to RME fireface 800, do you think its D/A is good enough ? I have an AD96 in my tracking gear, so I could use the 8i8 spdif input.
Would it make sens ; FF800 D/A, AD96 A/D, spdif 8i8 on second DAW ?
Even then I'm wondering if I shouldn't wait to have better D/A then the fireface, you know that export options works very well in Sonar x3...

Also you mention doing mix to master a few times, does that meen that you run mastering tools in realtime on the second DAW ?

pcrecord, post: 430795, member: 46460 wrote: Chris, I'm a believer of the second DAW capture for a while. I haven't tested it yet because all I got was 2 focusrite interfaces (saffire 56 and a 8i8) and I didn't thrust the converters. Now that I've switched to RME fireface 800, do you think its D/A is good enough ? I have an AD96 in my tracking gear, so I could use the 8i8 spdif input.
Would it make sens ; FF800 D/A, AD96 A/D, spdif 8i8 on second DAW ?
Even then I'm wondering if I shouldn't wait to have better D/A then the fireface, you know that export options works very well in Sonar x3...

When I first started hybrid mixing I owned 2 Fireface 800's and although they worked as a DA, they did not sound as good as other options later on. There was a definite improved sound to more expensive DA's. not to mention, improved stability with a different interface but that is only relevant to the mutichannel mixing. PCIe interfacing is better when you are into more OTB channel counts.
When I started capturing to the second DAW, I was using Lavry Blacks which where a good improvement to the FF800.
The second ADC should be as good as you can afford and it should also have the DAC as well because this is where you judge your entire workflow ( recording, mixing and mastering) from because you are ultimately mixing into the capture DAW as you work.

Being said, I would use whatever I had. You can easily compare the two methods and judge for yourself. Thats the beauty of this system. It enables you to demystify everything. This is why I suggested Davedog try Samplitude to see if even Pro Tools as a second DAW is worthy of this or if all his benefit is coming from how he is summing Pro Tools now. I suggest Samplitude only because it is imho, superior for mastering and therefore, will not lie to you like Avid apparently does. Its a mastering DAW used by some of the most accredited ME in the world. Its the reason I use it as well. It tells the truth. Why use something that is fooling us right?

pcrecord, post: 430795, member: 46460 wrote:

Also you mention doing mix to master a few times, does that meen that you run mastering tools in realtime on the second DAW ?

I used to use an arsenal of choice mastering gear and record the sum in realtime. I have done extensive tests proving to me that none of it made a difference to a point, it actually is worse. I do not use outboard analog mastering gear anymore. I record directly from one DAW to the uncoupled second DAW and make final mastering moves on DAW 2. The moves I do on the second DAW is a big topic at this point for me so I can't begin to continue without writing a long and boring thread, however, I can tell you that this is where the mix opens up for me. Its where two DAW's replaced thousands of $ in very expensive gear and where my hearing tuned in to a lot of unnecessary.
In a nut shell, I track DAW one into DAW 2 and study multiple mixes side by side, sometimes null testing two version as well, while using both Master section tools and channel tools to arrive at the best mix.

Think - DAW 2 is the replacement of the firsts DAW's master and monitoring section.

niclaus, post: 430791, member: 33719 wrote: Thank you for that.
So he has two DAWs as well?
I'm starting to get curious about that.
I think i'll try and make some tests (even though i only have PTs at work)

No, he has one DAW. He gets my stereo mixes which are not down-converted as simple files. My mix is produced ITB from my session and remains in my session until it is exported at the SR it started at. Had I recorded at, say, 96khz then he would get the mix @ 96 and he would then record it in real time into his machine @ 16/44.1 which is the destination SR which CD's are produced. There's no intertwined clocking which is what Chris does with his system.

audiokid, post: 430790, member: 1 wrote: Davedog
Something else that I would be seriously interesting, I wonder how your final mix would sound if your ME captured on Samplitude. Its free for a month BTW.
If it in fact improved your mix, wouldn't that be an interesting and beneficial discovery?

I'm not trying to sell you on what I do. I'm trying to simply improve us all, me as well each and every day.
Just saying...

I'm sure it would sound great. All DAWs, properly used usually do. At least for what I do.... I have one question for you...What was the last version of ProTools that you spent any time on? The reason I ask is one of curiosity only. My feelings about ALL these pieces of gear and all these programs is that they are all tools and ONLY tools and it is up to the user to interface with these tools in the best way possible. I have no allegiance to any computer program except the one I use in my daily work in my studio. It could be ANYTHING....I really don't care except I learned on the one I use. That's as far as it goes with these things for me. Its always a pleasant revelation to learn something new and exciting about the tools that makes the job better and easier and THIS was my intention with sharing this information. As a comparison, I think ProTools has a much steeper learning curve simply because there are things it will do that you cannot get from the company but have to learn from other users. Its here that I think you get the brilliant solutions not as something rooted in the foundations of a company that seemingly makes questionable decisions without any regard to the loyalty of their own customers. Here we agree. As to how it sounds, I have no way of comparing and I'm sure that whatever ANYONE chooses to use, if they have skills and patience, they will be able to build quality sound and music through their efforts. I've heard a lot of really fine sounding stuff made on 'starter' or 'free' software that had everything to do with the skills and ears of the creators rather than the tools used.

6.5.3 I believe it was and then a bit on 10
Being said though,
I really think you are missing my intent as to why I keep asking you about your process and mentioning Samplitude as a way to help isolate something (not buy into it indefinitely). I hope you dig deeper as to why you think Pro tools suffers on the Master section.
I'm personally interested in your process and how much of it is related to your CPU choking.

Never the less, (not talking to you specifically Dave :)
its not my intent to convert one soul to anything so I wish we (or me at least) could all quite having to confirm that over and over on RO. The site is well committed to users here to learn regardless of support of purchase. I like to think the last thing we all are doing here (at least the seasoned Pro's) are trying to convert people. I like to think of this site, and my personal contribution as helping us save mistakes or improving goals based around sharing our stories. Its shop talk and nothing more.

Back to Dave...
This process is hard to get a handle on (why it actually improves a sum) so I'm only suggesting my clinical process that works for me when I am trouble shooting sonics. That's it, nothing more intended. :)

Generally speaking again :)
I always have a hard time with, I don't know why it works, it just does. I am one of those guys that likes to debate, problem base learn, disemble something to find out why I should do it again.

A Sound Devices USB Pre2 would be an excellent device for 2nd capture.

TheJackAttack, post: 430805, member: 34377 wrote: A Sound Devices USB Pre2 would be an excellent device for 2nd capture.

John, where have you been? Yellowstone?
I agree. I've actually been trying to get them to send me one. Its top on my list as new remote gear as well.

Yup. Stuck here slapping bison on the @$$ and wrangling tourists.

Like this 2yo.

Attached files

looks like over 1000 lbs. Looks like it has headphones on. What is that band around the head?
Looks like its on a nice lawn, not supposed to be there. Were you asked to go there and move it? How do you do it?

Those are his horns. He is lying down in front of a willow tree and a light pole is in the background. That is my car in the foreground. At one point I was about a foot from him.

The Tower of Power has nothing on this bad boy.

Davedog, post: 430801, member: 4495 wrote: Had I recorded at, say, 96khz then he would get the mix @ 96 and he would then record it in real time into his machine @ 16/44.1

I am sorry but there is something i don't get. If you give him files, "He would record it in real Time into his machine" but from what?? What is the reader and What is the recorder (his PT rig i guess)?

One would have to have a DA device such as an HD24XR or some other device/DAW to go out and then a new device or DAW to do the AD at the new sample and bit rate.

In this manner the clocks are not linked at all. Each device utilizes it's own internal clock.

I am exporting a file. I am not 'bouncing'. I simply highlight and export the file I have created in my session which is a real time recording of the mix through the use of Aux's and vca masters across all the groups. I do NOT down convert or convert at all in this process. He opens the files and records them into his machine at the destination SR. Its exactly like sharing files across the internet except these are not converted from their original SR from the session. Is ProTools the only DAW that allows offline work? I don't think so.

audiokid, post: 430804, member: 1 wrote: 6.5.3 I believe it was and then a bit on 10
Being said though,
I really think you are missing my intent as to why I keep asking you about your process and mentioning Samplitude as a way to help isolate something (not buy into it indefinitely). I hope you dig deeper as to why you think Pro tools suffers on the Master section.
I'm personally interested in your process and how much of it is related to your CPU choking.

Never the less, (not talking to you specifically Dave :)
its not my intent to convert one soul to anything so I wish we (or me at least) could all quite having to confirm that over and over on RO. The site is well committed to users here to learn regardless of support of purchase. I like to think the last thing we all are doing here (at least the seasoned Pro's) are trying to convert people. I like to think of this site, and my personal contribution as helping us save mistakes or improving goals based around sharing our stories. Its shop talk and nothing more.

Back to Dave...
This process is hard to get a handle on (why it actually improves a sum) so I'm only suggesting my clinical process that works for me when I am trouble shooting sonics. That's it, nothing more intended. :)

Generally speaking again :)
I always have a hard time with, I don't know why it works, it just does. I am one of those guys that likes to debate, problem base learn, disemble something to find out why I should do it again.

ProTools 6.5.3 was only a drop in the bucket of what PT HD 10,11,12 today is capable of and sonically, an inferior product. The business model of the company is to blame for many of their losing customers and for the general mistrust of what the program can really do. As far as my process and how it relates to what I WAS hearing, I didn't know what I was missing until I heard the difference. Just like anyone else. When I began to think of the mixer in PT as an analog styled console with a setup like the classic large format console with a similar workflow it begand to make sense. Then when I discovered that it went sooo much further than any analog console could ever achieve I began to understand some of why its the industry standard. I know a lot of pro level Producers and engineers and while they all have their hates for company policies, they understand this at such a dee[ level and how this enhances their creativity to the point that its seems to be endless. But I'm just a hack and a beginner at this so I'm not the person to query about the technical side of things. Everything I know I was taught.

Dave, your ME has to do the conversion in one way or another. They either do it with dual DA AD setup or ITB. Those are the only real options. I fully believe that PT is better now than the last version I had to use. It is a tool whether I choose to use it or not. I know people that get great results with PT. Again, just a tool in the box.

Exactly, that is What i mean...
So the ME just import the files to the final SR (since you said he didn't have two DAWs).
So protools is doing the SRC?

Davedog, post: 430820, member: 4495 wrote: He opens the files and records them into his machine at the destination SR

Sounds to me like daves ME is using a 2 daw or a mix down deck of some sort. Unless the ME uses multiple sample rates in the same session. I feel like the limitation of txt is making this harder to envision than it is.

niclaus, post: 430824, member: 33719 wrote: Exactly, that is What i mean...
So the ME just import the files to the final SR (since you said he didn't have two DAWs).
So protools is doing the SRC?

Yes. On his end, not mine. My files remain unconverted from their original SR. His conversion is better than mine so it makes sense. (Black Lion Avid Omni)

niclaus, post: 430824, member: 33719 wrote: Exactly, that is What i mean...
So the ME just import the files to the final SR (since you said he didn't have two DAWs).
So protools is doing the SRC?

Sorry Niclaus I missed you saying this, thus my stupidly about Daves ME using two decks. I'm trying to think less, life seems better that way...

So, since I'm slow to the draw on this. How does your ME go about his SR conversion?

Dave mentions both a Black Lion converter and the Avid Omni. The Black Lion Audio is a nifty little box.

Ok that is starting to make sense.
The black lions you are referring to must be the adc or a the dac box, but then you'd still need two DAWs to go from the omni to the BL (or the other way around)...
Or it is just PT doing the conversion on its own but then the Black lion has nothing to do with it, right?

I am sorry to insist on that but i am just trying to understand. Thank you for your Time on that, Dave.

Dave is saying he himself converts nothing. The Mastering Engineer has two DAW's-or a playback machine (into the BLA) and a DAW with the Omni.

Yes that is what i figured, but then he said the ME has only one DAW.

Anyway, it is probably not that important.
Thanks Jack.

This is the pinnicle point in a discussion where we go from chat to study. :love:

niclaus, post: 430836, member: 33719 wrote: I am sorry to insist on that but i am just trying to understand. Thank you for your Time on that, Dave.

I have a few questions that I would like to keep asking or pointing out as well. :D

Niclaus- A hard disk recorder such as an HD24XR or any of the more modern boxes going into a high quality DA digitally functions perfectly well without a DAW. I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

niclaus, post: 430838, member: 33719 wrote: Yes that is what i figured, but then he said the ME has only one DAW.

Anyway, it is probably not that important.
Thanks Jack.

This inho, is extremely important.

oh OK, that make sense!!!
Thanks Jack

I think the gist is that if you have very high quality ADC and DAC as separate units a dual computer setup provides superior bit rate and sample rate conversion (uncoupled clocks). If you have mediocre converters your mileage will vary versus your ITB skill and the program writer's skill. I'd like to think that even middle road converters will achieve smoother results than ITB but I have no data to back this up.

audiokid, post: 430841, member: 1 wrote: This inho, is extremely important.

Yes, i know, that is not what i meant.

TheJackAttack, post: 430843, member: 34377 wrote: I think the gist is that if you have very high quality ADC and DAC as separate units a dual computer setup provides superior bit rate and sample rate conversion (uncoupled clocks). If you have mediocre converters your mileage will vary versus your ITB skill and the program writer's skill. I'd like to think that even middle road converters will achieve smoother results than ITB but I have no data to back this up.

I think i am going to do some tests soon...

Davedog, post: 430821, member: 4495 wrote: ProTools 6.5.3 was only a drop in the bucket of what PT HD 10,11,12 today is capable of and sonically, an inferior product.

All in good fun Dave, thank you for being part of this discussion. You are adding good in a very good way.

Okay... My point is not to keep driving a nail in PT, but there are some holes in this statement.
I wish this DAW was better but it isn't. If it was, why are so many people, including you continuously trying to figure out wtf is wrong? I don;t have this issue with my DAW at all. So how can all these DAWs just be considered a tool when they are in fact, a lot more to do with calculations and technology.
I mean, even you are doing something pretty odd in hope that it is improving the weird behavior that is occurring in the summing section of Pro Tools. It sounds to me that its still as goofy as it was the last 5 versions.
Why are so many people going OTB to improve their PT rig? The only thing that has improved with Avid is they have a bit better converters than the last run.
My point once again is to ask us all, if it could be possible that because PT is really PCIe dependent, could they be purposely or unknowingly be building a DAW that looses stability as it reached the DSP limits? Could this be why the DAW sums or bounces goofy?

Davedog, post: 430821, member: 4495 wrote: I didn't know what I was missing until I heard the difference.

Exactly my point.