Is it just me - or are the "new and revolutionary" features Avid is now advertising as part of the new PT11 all features that Sonar has included for years? If you watch the new promo video, guys are literally hugging each other, and I'm yelling at the screen "we've been doing that forever with Cake". I realize the HD guys are locked in with it. But I've tried PT10 at home and I didn't care for it as it was missing a lot of Sonar's features. It seems they've closed the gap some, but for them to be announcing those gap closers as game changers ...? Am I missing something here? What did they accomplish with 11 that hasn't been accomplished for years with Sonar? Offline bounce? 64 bit? Really?
 
My apologies if this has already been done. I did a quick search in this forum and didn't get a hit.

Yes you are right. Sonar (and other DAW's) too have had these things for years. But they have to trumpet it now and make some money. It is all advertising. I remember what Tom Oberheim said to me one day and that was you must not get hooked into or believe your own advertising! His ads at the time were saying it was the only analog synth worth having but as he said and we all knew there were others!

What we have to find out now is how much to go from PT10 to PT11. It won't be free folks! Avid are always charging high prices and I am sure this won't be an exception. Just found something and it has been mentioned on line that upgrade costs are from $300 to $500 depending on what version you have. So from PT10 it might be $300! (don't quote me on this) Let us say it is then, is it worth it? 

My son's girlfriend recently bought a second hand MBox 2 Mini and a copy of PT8. All was well until she upgraded her Mac operating system (to 10.7.5) . Ooops now the MBox does not work at all and PT8 definitely won't work. I got MBox back on line but there is not even an upgrade path from PT8 to PT10. On her current new Mac OS PT8 won't even work and she has to spend $700 now to get PT10 or PT11. Pretty bad really don't you think. At least most other DAW's will still install and work under not the latest OS.

PT11 is boasting a new audio engine though and it is meant to be way more efficient so let us see when the reviews start coming out. That could be a good thing. Sonar does not have a new audio engine (yet!). Some changes yes but not new. Studio One has a new audio engine as well from the start that is. One of the few that do. 

AVID are very good at charging a lot of money, be aware. For the cost of some of these upgrades (eg $500) you could buy a whole new program so you would be mad not to consider it. And remember even if you buy PT10 or PT11 now new, you have to spend another $700 (to get the Production Tool Kit) just to bring up to the same speed as Sonar and other DAW's for features and instruments and content etc..

Wineshop. No it’s not just you! 
Speaking as a long-term PT user who is now very much an Ex PT user and a X2 devote, it’s all hype! 

Jeff Evans


So from PT10 it might be $300! (don't quote me on this) Let us say it is then, is it worth it?  

It's $299 for PT10 to 11 Native. Is it worth it, eh sure. For x64 and the new engine which is bragging multiple core efficiencies and the new AAX plugins with low latency, it's good. Did Sonar have all this years ago, yep. Are they rock solid with no lock ups during long recording sessions and are the automation and recording lanes bug free, eh no. I like the PT stability, seriously. But, I can't stand their midi implementation, so archaic.
 
For now, I am a dueling DAW man. Horses for courses.

It's seems quite a few of the major DAWS are playing cathup up with Sonar X2, or at least there latest marketing videos are all about things that were introduced in Sonar X1.

Modular channel strips, Window Docking, Screensets, Take Lanes and Comping. No doubt they're all currently working on implementing Touch.

So whilst I've been considering having a dirty affair with Samplitude Pro X or Studio One V2 of late, it seems they're still playing cath up to the features I already have. The only change I can see would be a possible benefit or degradation in the workflow.

Just my thoughts

Dean
   

Ooof, let's not open this can of worms again... I have always said that Sonar is the musicians choice, PT is the engineer's choice. But even that is changing... slowly.

HOWEVER.. I use PT9 native on a laptop for one thing only: live recording of concerts. Why? It's the ONLY DAW that has NEVER crashed on me at a gig. When Sonar can beat that, I'll change my live rig gladly :O)

Heres the low down on PT11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-rDi7t348

I'm not really going "oooooooooooh!" on this one....

I need it for post production but really fear the upgrade price. Sods law I only bought PT10 a few months ago as well.

If only Sonar had notation as good as PT.

vintagevibe

If only Sonar had notation as good as PT.

@vintagevibe:  +10 - Damn straight.
 
@LJB:  I would agree that Sonar is for musicians and PT is for engineers, however, what the heck is such a great notation function doing in PT 9 (for engineers)?
 
If PT9 is stable for tracking and has superior notation, is it worth upgrading to from PT MP9?  The dropping of wrapper support of VST / VSTi's in PT11 has me concerned, not to mention the big money to upgrade.
 
I'm wondering if I should consider a dual program approach.  Anyone know how well FxExpanion's vst wrappers work inside of PT9?
 
 

the wrapper works kind OK(ish)...around 65% of my VST's work in PT 10

pbognar

vintagevibe

If only Sonar had notation as good as PT.

@vintagevibe:  +10 - Damn straight.
 
@LJB:  I would agree that Sonar is for musicians and PT is for engineers, however, what the heck is such a great notation function doing in PT 9 (for engineers)?
 
If PT9 is stable for tracking and has superior notation, is it worth upgrading to from PT MP9?  The dropping of wrapper support of VST / VSTi's in PT11 has me concerned, not to mention the big money to upgrade.
 
I'm wondering if I should consider a dual program approach.  Anyone know how well FxExpanion's vst wrappers work inside of PT9?