nope !!

in fact for what i understood, they provide instant like two weeks licences for you to not beinf=g stuck in your current project and then to make your plugins supllier re-give you licences , if they want !!

sounds about right jim

Jim Roseberry

but sadly no further improvements in areas a lot of people were hoping for and now that PT9 is released I can see PT getting far more attention. There's a lot of excitement buzzing around and a lot of that is about PT9.

 
I just got a copy of PT9.
Right off the bat, I'm disappointed in one major area.
It's not a 64Bit DAW.
 
Well... make that two areas.
When starting...
"Access violation... unable to read location 0X8825A401"
 
So yeah, it's "Pro Tools"... but (to me) the reality is far from the fantasy that's associated with the name.  
IMO, 8.04 under x64 was crap... and 9.0 seems more of the same.  

I was actually going to mention a few friends I know who bought PT HD and they crash regularly.  It drives them up a wall.   They are good techs too, so it's less likely to be that it's user error on their part.
 
I don't know about PT9 -- but if someone can show me ONE piece of software that has NO bugs, or show me one piece of software that NEVER crashes, I'd be shocked.
 
I have no doubt PT9 or any other DAW have some solid good things about them - just as SONAR does -- but it really is just a PR game otherwise.
 

http://www.gearslutz.com/...9-adc-not-working.html

Zo


http://www.gearslutz.com/...9-adc-not-working.html

I must admit I was shocked to learn PT didn't have PDC (or as they call it ADC)!   And, the fact they're just getting to it (almost 2011) is also shocking.

But there are things Sonar doesn't have that shocks others, I suppose.

SongCraft

ba_midi

Zo


http://www.gearslutz.com/...9-adc-not-working.html

I must admit I was shocked to learn PT didn't have PDC (or as they call it ADC)!   And, the fact they're just getting to it (almost 2011) is also shocking.

But there are things Sonar doesn't have that shocks others, I suppose.

That's a good point Billy! I agree it's shocking!!

I just been over there to read that ADC, hmmm it seems like PT9 is ending up to be a very expensive white elephant!

As I've said previously (recent posts), I'm sticking with Sonar, and now after reading the cons (^) including Jim's post about PT9 I doubt very much I'd be purchasing PT9 in the near future.  My money would be better spent on other things such as X1 and a bottle of Dom Perignon ;)

-

I certainly can afford to buy PT9 if I so choose.   But so far I am not convinced I would gain anything that I cant' do now.  And I don't feel the need to own the "name' (ie, to say I have Pro Tools).  

I've got complaints about Sonar...  about Live ... about Repear -- and no doubt I'd have complaints about PT9 as well.  But MORE importantly is what I can get done with the products I've chosen to use (Sonar & Live) as my mainstays.

Those who choose otherwise will have their reasons as well.   That's why, to some extent, I find these types of threads a bit academic.

But something else that should be said, even if it's not directly related to how this thread started  -- and that is:

I've been in touch with a number of advertising people I know (both from my past involvement in the jingle biz and friends who went into the ad industry) have all stated that one of the newer (though not brand new) marketing "ploys" is to *infiltrate product forums* such as these.  Stir things up.  Mislead if necessary.  Lead if possible.  Just muck things up / stir the pot, so to speak.

One technique they use, not unlike wartime techniques, is to pose a question in such a way that causes curiosity if not doubt about the competitors product.   An example:
"Hey I heard such-and-such a product can't do [fill in the blanks] - is that true??"

So while I try not to automatically doubt anyone's sincerity around/in forums, I also don't accept every question (posting) as completely genuine unless it has all the ingredients of being genuine.

As a number of smart people have said throughout human history:  "Question everything" 

Glyn Barnes

ba_midi


I've been in touch with a number of advertising people I know (both from my past involvement in the jingle biz and friends who went into the ad industry) have all stated that one of the newer (though not brand new) marketing "ploys" is to *infiltrate product forums* such as these.  Stir things up.  Mislead if necessary.  Lead if possible.  Just muck things up / stir the pot, so to speak. 

Now, now, that never happens here

Right - at least not every half hour

in response to post #2 and a couple of others on page one of this thread...


could you please give a few (or more) suggestions aside from the asio setting that would provide greater stability for a pc?

Sorry if this was already mentioned (haven't read the whole thread) but I'd wager that PT9's imminent release is one factor in the dropping of the price for Sonar X1 Pro...
Not that I'm that interested in pro tools (like others here, the only reason I'd use it would be for session compatibility and to say "yeah I have pro tools"), but it is nice of them to join us in the modern era of ASIO support and delay compensation

I have lost 2 Iloks. All they do is contact you to confirm that you have lost it. Once they confirm it they disable the old Ilok Auths on the lost one and change your temp Auths to full time. It works and yes ZDT is worth it.

Just deal with Ilok. It really makes life easy.

Jim Roseberry

but sadly no further improvements in areas a lot of people were hoping for and now that PT9 is released I can see PT getting far more attention. There's a lot of excitement buzzing around and a lot of that is about PT9.

 
I just got a copy of PT9.
Right off the bat, I'm disappointed in one major area.
It's not a 64Bit DAW.
 
Well... make that two areas.
When starting...
"Access violation... unable to read location 0X8825A401"
 
So yeah, it's "Pro Tools"... but (to me) the reality is far from the fantasy that's associated with the name.  
IMO, 8.04 under x64 was crap... and 9.0 seems more of the same.  

Hi Jim,

Not that I'm promoting PT9, but FYI for another perspective for what it's worth -- I just got it here too, installed and working very stably on a non-DAW Penryn quad-core Win 7 x64 system with a Focusrite Saffire. I don't intend to install it on my main i7 machine, but I did want to see how well it would work on a machine not optimized for DAW work. Was able to run a decent session at 128 sample latency, even got it down to 64 with clicks. 128 was smooth as butter. Sonar can't run on this machine with this driver at 64 either. The session had 40ish tracks with 60ish plugins at 30% CPU.

The only problem I've had with it so far is with changing the latency. Either my system, PT9 or the Saffire driver doesn't allow a latency change without a reboot. Strange, and I haven't diagnosed it yet. Could be something I'm missing with the driver I didn't notice before, or it could be an issue with PT9. So that's an unknown for now. But once set up (and rebooted!), working just fine at 128 on a non-DAW with a surprisingly decent load of tracks and plugins.

Installation went more smoothly than any prior incarnation of PT I've used to be frank. I haven't pounded it, but from what I can tell so far, it is indeed working well -- or at least, better than expected based on my prior experience with PT. I was very surprised about the performance... I expected about half the performance of Sonar -- or worse. However, this does not appear to be the case so far. Vin (TAFKAT, the benchmark guy) has done some initial testing and his performance numbers look surprisingly good, and that lines up with my brief experience so far.

As for finding a lot of people who have problems with PT9 and their hardware, of course you're going to get a large number of complaints -- it is used by more people so the forums will have more reports of hardware issues, particularly with a large group of people that just gained the option to work with ASIO devices. There's going to be a learning curve for them and also Avid. IMO, that's to be expected, since the forums will not be reporting even a fraction of the proportional number of people who have successful rigs.

If I'm getting a stable system (so far) with the type of session I loaded above on this non-DAW machine, with virtually no effort other than authorizing an iLok, I think PT9 may be more stable than your initial go might suggest.

This, frankly, is going to be a challenge for other DAW developers... PT9 does not appear to be an unwieldy, crash-prone mess that some people might be hoping for. Not a bad impression for a 9.0.0 release. I'm not saying that to promote it -- just simply an observation from someone who uses several DAW apps, and also coming from someone who is a fan and supporter of Cakewalk.

As for feature comparisons, as has been stated before, we can all go back and forth, and Sonar will come out on paper just fine. In practice, it will also do well in the real-world, particularly as a MIDI platform. While PT9's MIDI is decent (and well designed, frankly), it is not nearly as deep as Sonar or Cubase. So for composers, or at least people who spend a lot of time in MIDI-land, PT9 is not an ideal platform, IMO. You brought up 64-bit -- and I agree, its lack of 64-bit is also a big drawback for anyone who needs the extra RAM for samples, etc... So I can't see a composer with a big Kontakt template getting anything extra out of this... it would be far better to use Sonar x64 or Cubase x64 for composing with tons of plugins and samples.

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the basic PT functionality is there, so when it comes to session compatibility and collaboration with the large body of PT users, PT9 has the obvious advantage... and as far as film/video post, it does what you expect it would do.

I honestly believe and predict a lot of people will consider a two-sided workflow comprised of a creation phase and then a mix/finishing phase... Sonar/Cubase/Logic for Composing + PT9 for Mixing/Finishing kind of workflow, especially people who are in the industry and deal with other studios and/or have clients. I just can't see a switch to PT9 for composing-only due to the inferior MIDI toolset and lack of x64.

Anyway, just my two bits so far. These are initial thoughts only, after having PT9 for a mere 12 hours. :) Can't wait to see how Sonar X1 does. But so far, Sonar 8.5 sits nicely along side PT9 on the same non-DAW machine. There don't appear to be conflicts with them so far, and honestly, they seem pretty complimentary.

PRO TOOLS HD VS anything....I wouldt use it even if they gave me their software and hardware for FREE!

That should wrap it up!

wait a minute... do you even need the microphone?

I love Freddie's stuff.

and I love Freddie.

:-)