eratu

EDIT: BTW, As any hard core PT operator will tell you, you don't absolutely *need* offline bounce anyway. They have workarounds. Those workarounds are not the most user-friendly, but they do obviate the pressing need for offline bounce. If anything, I believe Avid will just make those workarounds more user-friendly, to try to diffuse the issue even more...

The main workaround is that you can route the output of a bus to a track and thus record you mix or groups or stems. With quick punch on one can effectively leave those tracks to record all the time. In other words, your "MIX RECORD" track (or however you want to call it) is always up to date with whatever you are doing. Whenever you want to export, you just consolidate all the regions and export. (These are faster than real-time processes).

Now the silly thing is that Sonar can theoretically do that too but Cakewalk have knowingly and purposefully blocked the ability to route a bus to a track. (Or a track to a track). I really really wish Cakewalk would remove that artificial limitation.

It's been a long while since folks were this stirred up about new DAW software. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

Yeah, these are amazing times indeed! Totally agree, it's going to be an interesting ride.

There is a lot going on in DAW land. We, the users, can only benefit.

UnderTow

This is Sonar's home court - we all love Sonar and frankly, I am surprised and pleased to see the moderators let this thread/discussion run this long on the main board.. it's a credit to them and says alot.. much respect!!

But I see alot of people in this thread (not unexpectedly) putting up some pretty biased and incorrect statements about what PT9 is and represents to the DAW market today.. for example:

1). Offline bounce - From everything that I have read from PT users .. this was considered nothing more then a minor annoyance - It is certainly not a "deal-breaker' from what I can tell according to them

2). Input monitoring - again I don't understand it;s functionality but according to many - This is present in PT9 (and was available in PTLE)

3).ADC/PDC - The fact that this "hurdle" has been crossed by Avid is the key factor - regardless of what other "minor" features may or may not be missing... this one makes it a viable option

4). Most Cubase, Reaper, Logic users that I have seen discussing PT9 are not looking to "jump ship" - instead they are looking to use what is widely considered the "industry standard" DAW for mixing and editing..they say they will use their current daw for compositional work...

again - I just think there needs to be some balance - It does not appear to me to be an either/or proposition but rather a "my preferred daw" PLUS a functional PT version for compatibility, mixing, etc. without having to make large capital investments in hardware one may not need or want..

anyone who says this is not game changing is just being naive to say the least...has nothing to do with our comfort level with Sonar or any other DAW

The real truth about Pro Tools!

Why is it we don't see anything real new breaking news or stuff from Pro Tools?
I'm talking about native x64 support, x64bit RTAS, better audio engine (16bit internal mimic to only 24bit), no earth breaking new functions? The only thing that's new is the GUI!


we wont see anything in a long time.. only problems. Just wait and see, what will they do when Windows 8 release end of 2011/2012? Windows 8 x64 = no more x32bit only Native x64.

The truth is that they need to rebuild PRO TOOLS from scratch. New audio engine---> go back to the drawing board from scratch again. Just take a look at the forums, talk to the support guys...--->Watch them.  We all can see how desperate everything are now when the truth start catching up. They only thing that happens right now is they try to fix it fast and patch it up. They try to get it to work anyway with their old 32bit drives from win95, 16bit audio engine fake 24bit....trying to hold it together, get some more $$$€€€£££ from their Users...



Talk to the programmers at AVID and you get the real truth and the bigger picture...dinosaur Titanic.
Just wait and see, I bet AVID selling their Pro Tools company end of 2011 too...


Great site, fresh look...why...if Pro Tools were so fresh as their site looks I would use Pro Tools....
http://www.avid.com/US/


Time will tell WHO's right!
Best regards
Freddie

ba_midi

But even this is doable if your sound device has (ASIO) returns.

I can take any mix I want, just like you describe for PT, and do it in Sonar if I route things properly.   My MOTU Ultralite MKiii has 'returns' and all I have to do is make sure I'm not getting a loopback (feedback) - which is easy by not using input echo - and not sending the out back into itself until I'm done with the record-mix.

It's a workaround for sure- but the point is, it's doable.

Not with my interface unfortunately. Well I could do a digital loopback but that isn't practical or something I would want. Anyway, Cake should just remove the limitation. It is only there because they think the users are not smart enough to avoid feedback. I hate it when a company treats their customers like that and actively removes functionality to "protect" their users. (Kind of tells you who they are aiming their products at...)

Maybe they changed it in X1...

UnderTow

Game changing, like if Microsoft started selling Internet Explorer 9 separate from Windows 7. 

long time listener ...
first time caller...

Yes PT is the de-facto installed studio standard, and honestly I have only seen it and never used it, I grew up on Cakewalk from DOS and a gaming port midi to a SC-550... then a midi synced verion and Samplitude... and then to Vegas for a little while then Sonar. Hardware wise from soundsblaster ISA cards, DAL ISA cards and then a whole mess of M-Audio stuff all the way to RME lightpipe and O2Rs where I have stopped, for now

If AVID does for Pro Tools what it did for M-Audio it should be interesting to watch but not own...

It has taken AVID quite some time to deliver 64 bit versions of their M-Audio drivers for Win 7, and they really still dont work

just look at their forums their as well as the Pro-Tools forum... there are some very unhappy users out there... and those poor HD $15k dudes...

mpx

wintaper

but I almost feel a little bad for CW that there are so many messages are talking about their competitor

True. But, their competitors' release seems a bit more "functional" than X1's UI rewrite. It's a bigger game-changer.


Plus - being fluent in 8.5.3 - I'm not excited to learn a new interface just for X1. 8.5.3 works just fine for now and I haven't been held back by the GUI.


Of all the things I've seen asked for on this forum ... a whole new UI on top of essentially the same engine definitely wasn't one of them.

Yep a bigger game-changer ......come on Wintaper , it's just reaching were all otha daws are since half a decade ,
: native operation , delay compensation , and what ever (on the theory) sound card you want and ulimited tracks (oh yes ulimited in avid aritmetic = 96 )....

so please a bigger game changer compared to the previous joke named PT 8 ....

Because being the most objectif possible except the real good workflow for post-prod and full compatibilty with big studio majoritary format, where' s the revolution ?

Exactly Zo. That is the reality. 

Rythminmind , isn't it quicker to do it all in one daw ....the time your gaining in edition in PT is it superior to the time lost by the sonar to PT process ?

Edit : i'm not even talking about the offline bounce point , that Jim is speaking about !

D K


This is Sonar's home court - we all love Sonar and frankly, I am surprised and pleased to see the moderators let this thread/discussion run this long on the main board.. it's a credit to them and says alot.. much respect!!

But I see alot of people in this thread (not unexpectedly) putting up some pretty biased and incorrect statements about what PT9 is and represents to the DAW market today.. for example:

1). Offline bounce - From everything that I have read from PT users .. this was considered nothing more then a minor annoyance - It is certainly not a "deal-breaker' from what I can tell according to them

2). Input monitoring - again I don't understand it;s functionality but according to many - This is present in PT9 (and was available in PTLE)

3).ADC/PDC - The fact that this "hurdle" has been crossed by Avid is the key factor - regardless of what other "minor" features may or may not be missing... this one makes it a viable option

4). Most Cubase, Reaper, Logic users that I have seen discussing PT9 are not looking to "jump ship" - instead they are looking to use what is widely considered the "industry standard" DAW for mixing and editing..they say they will use their current daw for compositional work...

again - I just think there needs to be some balance - It does not appear to me to be an either/or proposition but rather a "my preferred daw" PLUS a functional PT version for compatibility, mixing, etc. without having to make large capital investments in hardware one may not need or want..

anyone who says this is not game changing is just being naive to say the least...has nothing to do with our comfort level with Sonar or any other DAW

 
Well said!
 
I'm not sure why some people get so defensive when discussing other DAWs.  I love working in Sonar, but I do recognize when other DAWs do things better.  In this case, PT9 is ahead in the mixing and post production areas.  On the other hand, Sonar is more competent in the MIDI/Composing areas.  They both have their strength and weaknesses, just like any other DAW.  No one is forcing anyone to switch to Pro Tools today, so why can't we have an unbiased discussion?  Like it or not, PT9 is a big game changer, for better or worse.  I'm positive that anyone working with the big boys is appreciative of AVID's new offering.  It's all over the net :-)
 
BTW, more kudos to Cakewalk for always keeping an open mind about these type of discussions.  You guys ROCK!
 
 

ba_midi

UnderTow

ba_midi

But even this is doable if your sound device has (ASIO) returns.

I can take any mix I want, just like you describe for PT, and do it in Sonar if I route things properly.   My MOTU Ultralite MKiii has 'returns' and all I have to do is make sure I'm not getting a loopback (feedback) - which is easy by not using input echo - and not sending the out back into itself until I'm done with the record-mix.

It's a workaround for sure- but the point is, it's doable.

Not with my interface unfortunately. Well I could do a digital loopback but that isn't practical or something I would want. Anyway, Cake should just remove the limitation. It is only there because they think the users are not smart enough to avoid feedback. I hate it when a company treats their customers like that and actively removes functionality to "protect" their users. (Kind of tells you who they are aiming their products at...)

Maybe they changed it in X1...

UnderTow

I think you hit the nail on the head as to "why" they don't remove the restriction.   But - as much I as I wish otherwise - many users don't read the manual, don't take the time to really learn such a complex piece of software, so I almost don't blame CW for those types of restrictions.    Heck, some can't even use the metronome properly :O
 
 

Cakewalk could always add free routing as an option with a warning attached to it.  UnderTow is totally right!
 
 

Zo


Rythminmind , isn't it quicker to do it all in one daw ....the time your gaining in edition in PT is it superior to the time lost by the sonar to PT process ?

Edit : i'm not even talking about the offline bounce point , that Jim is speaking about !

I don't switch from one to the other. I use two DAW's for a few reasons. One optimized for tracking/mixing with high buffers & zero drop outs. I use mostly hardware processing, live instruments, & hardware synths. Latency isn't an issue with a hardware based workflow. So I tweak out my 1st system to work best as a mixing/editing tool. The 2nd system is for any low latency realtime VI's or crazy FX/sound design tasks. I treat it like a stand alone synth & FX processor. I record the output into the tracking system. This gives me a zero downtime creative workflow. No changing buffer/latency settings mid project & no downtime while a client is setting behind you. This method also lets you use the best tools/software for the task at hand.  This is a common setup scenario for many composers / client based mixers.

Jose7822

Well said!
 
I'm not sure why some people get so defensive when discussing other DAWs.  I love working in Sonar, but I do recognize when other DAWs do things better.  In this case, PT9 is ahead in the mixing and post production areas.  On the other hand, Sonar is more competent in the MIDI/Composing areas.  They both have their strength and weaknesses, just like any other DAW.  No one is forcing anyone to switch to Pro Tools today, so why can't we have an unbiased discussion?  Like it or not, PT9 is a big game changer, for better or worse.  I'm positive that anyone working with the big boys is appreciative of AVID's new offering.  It's all over the net :-)
 
BTW, more kudos to Cakewalk for always keeping an open mind about these type of discussions.  You guys ROCK!
 
 

Agreed. I appreciate the level headed view point. Being able to look at tools as just a tool is something everyone should do. So many get emotional wrapped up in the "tool". A bit bizarre actually. Use whats best for the task/setup at hand. That goes for anything. Software, computers, instruments, bike riding, whatever. Mix & match to create what works best for you. Just like plugins, rack gear, & sports equipment.

im stoked for both releases, im gonna buy an x1 upgrade and pro tools 9. for a few years now i have been running both sonar and pt together and now i canrun them both through the same interface awesome, and when i can afford a v studio controller i will use it with both as well... sweet..

cool , are you going to stay hybrid or native ?

sorry for the hijacking ...