opinions about article? [Archive] - SAWStudio / SAC User Group

studio-c

11-05-2005, 10:15 AM

NIce article. And a big part of the music store business model is that they can get less-expensive, less-knowledgeable people to sell you boxes that do stuff. I have met very few people at Guitar Center who know what they're doing. Maybe one hardcore audio enthusiast in the pro-sound department.

An analogy (uh oh, here comes the tangent) comes to mind. Bear with me. Did it ever occur to you why we have so much fried food in this country? Because with a set temperature and a timer with a buzzer, you can get low-qualified people to produce easily repeatable food. To have someone creating bernaise sauce, grilling meat, or sauteeing requires some finesse.

Considering the detail necessary to keep up with technology and art, it's obvious that we DAW'ers have dedicated a good part of our lives to learn our craft and operate with technical skill, artistic virtuosity, and business savvy.

It's easier to buy a box.

(End of tangent) :)

UpTilDawn

11-05-2005, 12:39 PM

Wouldn't it be just as easy (of a job) to put something in an oven and bake it? Fried is usually faster...

I eat fried food because of the taste more than anything else.

Just an observation...
I'm off to a gig.

DanT

Bruce Callaway

11-05-2005, 12:52 PM

Cary, you could add comments about the Mac vs Windows systems and how PC power has grown sustantially so that most off the shelf systems have enough power these days.

Cary B. Cornett

11-05-2005, 03:39 PM

Cary, you could add comments about the Mac vs Windows systems and how PC power has grown sustantially so that most off the shelf systems have enough power these days.

I should think about the win vs. mac thing, but I did mention the increased power of more recent PC's in the article. Perhaps the description wasn't clear enough...

Bruce Callaway

11-05-2005, 04:25 PM

Ok, I read it again and it doesn't jump out at me. I guess the message I think would help is that as discussed on this forum, it is relatively easy now to buy the power, RAM and storage you need to support the most CPU intensive applications. This wasn't the case a few years ago.

Mark Stebbeds

11-06-2005, 03:00 PM

Mark Stebbeds

11-06-2005, 03:37 PM

I have just posted a new article on my website, titled "Why You Want A DAW (http://www.cprec.com/html/why_you_want_a_daw.html) ". This is definitely pitched at "entry level" and so is deliberately quite basic. I am very interested in any opinions and/or constructive criticisms from this group.

Sorry, pushed "submit" by accident, so let me finish.......

You give inaccurate misleading info regarding the value of Pro Tools products, both entry level, and "full blown". I will assume you intended your article to be informative, and not misleading.

For under $500 you can get Pro Tools LE and an M2 box, about the same money as SS Basic and an inexpensive two channel sound card. The differences are PT LE has 32 channels and SS basic only 24, hardly "limited versatality" as compared to "other" DAWs as you suggest, and your sessions are instantly compatable with virtually every major recording studio and post production house on the planet Earth, without the need for third party conversion apps at additional cost.

You comment that a "fully loaded" Pro Tools system is probably not a good choice for a beginner is accurate. But you go on to say that hardware MUST come from Digidesign, and that simply isn't true. With a Digital I/O box, you can use any converter hardware you choose, with products from Apogee that can be used WITHOUT the digital I/O box.

Furthermore, you imply that every couple of years a Pro Tools system must be replaced. This is not any more true than every couple of years ANY DAW must be replaced or upgraded to stay current. What you fail to mention is that Digidesign is the ONLY company that allows substantial upgrade credit when you exchange your old hardware for new. And this applies to ANY Digidesign product purchased since the creation of the company. Who else can say that? Try upgrading from Saw Pro and see what happens.

For example, a Pro Tools HD 2 system is "full blown", and powerful enough to handle probably 95% of any heavy duty pop music recording sessions, with up to 192 tracks. Combined with a 192K interface (8 analog I/O and 8 digital I/O) sells for just under $15K web site list price, and just under $12K street price at ANY dealer. (I paid $950 less). But if you trade in your old Mix Plus hardware to Digi, you pay only $6300, or only $5300 if 96k is enough for you.. Who else will do that for you? That's a trade in value of over 55%. And of course you can do better if you sell the old stuff on ebay, and buy from a dealer.

http://www.digidesign.com/exchange/pdf/USCan_Accel_Exchange_Retail_Feb0205.pdf

I don't understand what the mystery is regarding the price of Pro Tools.... just look at the web site, and knock off a little more than 20% to estimate a real street price..or call a dealer.

Mark

Cary B. Cornett

11-06-2005, 05:38 PM

Mark,

I appreciate the added detail you offered.

You give inaccurate misleading info regarding the value of Pro Tools products, both entry level, and "full blown". I will assume you intended your article to be informative, and not misleading.

Your assumption is correct. I do not wish to mislead, nor is it my intent to "flame" Digidesign. My primary point is that PT is not the most cost-effective quality solution for the DIY recordist, however serious they may be. In that context, session interchange and buzzword value (client recognition) are not necessarily important.

For under $500 you can get Pro Tools LE and an M2 box, about the same money as SS Basic and an inexpensive two channel sound card. The differences are PT LE has 32 channels and SS basic only 24, hardly "limited versatality" as compared to "other" DAWs as you suggest,

I would like some more detail on this. First of all, does PT LE offer a comparable internal mixing setup, meaning stuff like EQ and dynamics without resort to added plugins, to what SS Basic does? Does PT LE use processor power as efficiently as SS Basic does? Would sessions of similar complexity be handled equally well with either platform on a given machine? What do available plugins for PT LE cost relative to those available for SS Basic? (Yes, I know that EXACT comparisons are difficult, but I am sure you can figure some "near equivalencies" for features and quality). Granted the session interchange capability with larger PT systems can be a real advantage for a "professional" studio, but again for many "personal studio" users this is far less important.

You comment that a "fully loaded" Pro Tools system is probably not a good choice for a beginner is accurate. But you go on to say that hardware MUST come from Digidesign, and that simply isn't true. With a Digital I/O box, you can use any converter hardware you choose, with products from Apogee that can be used WITHOUT the digital I/O box.

You still need that proprietary Digital I/O box, though, therefore you cannot use, say, an RME HDSP 9652 or any of several other good professional interfaces for Pro Tools. So at least SOME of the hardware MUST come from Digi.

Furthermore, you imply that every couple of years a Pro Tools system must be replaced. This is not any more true than every couple of years ANY DAW must be replaced or upgraded to stay current.

A friend of mine is a long-time PT user, who has been through at least two major system upgrades. That is where I learned about the upgrade costs, and the pressure to continue them.

What you fail to mention is that Digidesign is the ONLY company that allows substantial upgrade credit when you exchange your old hardware for new. And this applies to ANY Digidesign product purchased since the creation of the company.

True, Digi offers what sounds like reasonable upgrade pricing. Still, it's a LOT of hardware to have to periodically obsolete.

Try upgrading from Saw Pro and see what happens.
Actually, I DID upgrade from Saw Pro to SSL. I've been through a few such upgrades, each one an excellent investment. Further, I did not have to bulldoze a bunch of hardware with each upgrade. I have done some hardware upgrades, but on MY schedule and at MY pace.

I don't understand what the mystery is regarding the price of Pro Tools.... just look at the web site, and knock off a little more than 20% to estimate a real street price..or call a dealer.

I never said there was a mystery, only that PT was not as cost-effective as some of the "native" systems out there. At no time did I say (nor intend to imply) that PT was a ripoff.

I am, however, considering some revisions to my article, and I will likely re-examine some parts in light of your comments.

AudioAstronomer

11-06-2005, 06:08 PM

Yeah, some of the PT stuff is misleading. Not all hardware must be digi, upgrades rarely mean replacing everything and an Mbox includes PT, tons of plugins, an interface (a good one at that) for about 250$ used. Of course it's not good as saw in my opinion, but it is certainly a cheaper solution. More 'cost-effective' probably not. Most entry-level PT packages come with a number of decent plugins that are cpu efficient and do the job. Much like saw does.

Of course it's my opinion (well I think it's fact but...) that saw's built-in EQ, comp, echo etc.. are much MUCH nicer than what's included with a PT package but I have to say it's not far off from being a good second option. In an unbiased article even I as an avid sawstudio user and VIP, I would still say the entry level protools systems are on-par with ssbasic + a cheap interface. Im making the assumption we're working with a beginner who is still learning and knows little in the differences of things and 'just wants to get stuff done'. I would note that the sawstudio support is MUCH better than digi's in everyway, which should be extremely important for a beginner.

Good article other than that I think. It would probably be good to add links to other daw software. A good list to start: Digital Performer, Logic, Live, Tracktion, N-track, Sawstudio, Multitrack Studio, FLstudio, Reason (really an instrument), podium, protools, pyramix, cubase, nuendo, samplitude, bidule, ardour, muse, rosegarden, energyXT, sonar, orion and kristal. That's all I can think of off the top of my head, im sure i forgot some here and there.

mghtx

11-06-2005, 06:12 PM

I came "oh-so-close" to getting an Mbox when it first came out. And I'm SO glad I didn't get it. I wouldn't have known, at the time, that digi required a specific chipset on the MB for the thing to run. I WOULD HAVE BEEN P*SSED.

I followed along with the DUC for a long time and saw a LOT of problems with with it. The regular "guitar joe" picking one up at the local guitar center doesn't know either. And you kind of have to search for this info on their site to find out.

It's funny because I was just about to get a 001 and found out just in time that digi were discontinuing it. And now DUCer's want a PCI rig again.

Anyway....for the "home recordist" there are a lot of killer deals out there now. There's Sonar Home Studio for (I think) $150, Cubase SE3 for $100, Traction 2 for $150, and of course SawStudioBasic.

I think if I were "in the mood" for PT LE I'd go with the M-Powered deal now. But I'm not sure about the chipset deal with it.

Mark Stebbeds

11-06-2005, 07:11 PM

[QUOTE]Your assumption is correct. I do not wish to mislead, nor is it my intent to "flame" Digidesign. My primary point is that PT is not the most cost-effective quality solution for the DIY recordist, however serious they may be.

<snip>

I would like some more detail on this. First of all, does PT LE offer a comparable internal mixing setup, meaning stuff like EQ and dynamics without resort to added plugins, to what SS Basic does?

I don't want to turn this into a sales pitch for Digi on this forum. So look for yourself. I can't post a direct link, but....

www.digidesign.com -->Products-->Pro Tools LE-->Software--> Bundled Software to see what plug-ins, and applets "comes with".

It's a lot of the same stuff that comes bundled with PT HD, only Real Time Audio Suite versions that run off of the processor, instead of TDM versions that run off of the Accel cards. With HD you get both.

Granted the session interchange capability with larger PT systems can be a real advantage for a "professional" studio, but again for many "personal studio" users this is far less important.

It can be an advantage to anyone who ever needs to hand something off to another studio.

You still need that proprietary Digital I/O box, though, therefore you cannot use, say, an RME HDSP 9652 or any of several other good professional interfaces for Pro Tools. So at least SOME of the hardware MUST come from Digi.

Yes, with the exception of Apogee, you need the Digidesign digital i/o. Just like you need a digital I/O on any system you wish to use third party outboard converters. And yes the Digital interface is more expensive, but is designed for pros, not hobbyists.

A friend of mine is a long-time PT user, who has been through at least two major system upgrades. That is where I learned about the upgrade costs, and the pressure to continue them.

There have been two major hardware upgrades in hardware in ten years at Digi. How many times have you upgraded in ten years? First there was a 24 bit upgrade in the mid ninties(?), and more recently HD for 96k and 192k sample rates. Many older Mix and Mix Plus systems are still in use today at the highest professional level.

I bought HD about a year ago, because I was a newbie. It made sense, because the refurbished older systems were almost as much money. But the majority of my associates are still using Mix Plus systems. They will likely wait to upgrade until after PCI Express becomes the norm. Just like you will, when nothing works in a standard PCI slot anymore, within a year.

True, Digi offers what sounds like reasonable upgrade pricing. Still, it's a LOT of hardware to have to periodically obsolete.

It is never obsolete, just discontinued like anything else you buy from any company, say RME for example. 9652? What about HDSP 9652? Want 96K? Dump that junk. Every few years, there's better stuff. And they stop making the old stuff.

Anything you EVER bought from Digidesign has a upgrade path.

Actually, I DID upgrade from Saw Pro to SSL.

Good, because you can't do that anymore.

I
've been through a few such upgrades, each one an excellent investment. Further, I did not have to bulldoze a bunch of hardware with each upgrade. I have done some hardware upgrades, but on MY schedule and at MY pace.

Your implication that you have to "bulldoze" a bunch of hardware with each software upgrade is absolutely incorrect. And when you decide to on YOUR OWN schedule and pace, you get decent rebates. They refurbish and resell. Open market resale value is also quite high.

I never said there was a mystery, only that PT was not as cost-effective as some of the "native" systems out there.

That may be true, but not to the degree that you imply. You dedicated two paragraphs on how "cost efficient" Digi wasn't.

And as far as "entry level" systems go, the playing field is quite level.

Mark

Cary B. Cornett

11-07-2005, 07:54 AM

I just posted a revised version of the article. The responses I got here helped me to recognize that the article could be better. For one thing, the focus of the article is primarily that getting and using a DAW is a good idea, even for the beginning recordist. Specifics of HOW to select and set up are best left for other writing, but I did find it necessary to point out my preference for Native systems in terms of cost/performance and ease (by lower cost) of upgrades.

I also decided that spending too much time "dissecting" PT distracted from the main "mission" of the article. My main reason for mentioning PT in the first place was to point out that it is not the ONLY professional grade alternative, just the best marketed. PT is, after all, "the elephant in the room", meaning basically impossible to ignore (which is a testament to the effectiveness of Digidesign's business planning, for which we must give them their "props") in a serious general discussion of DAW's. I have severely toned down that aspect, and focused (more properly) on hardware DSP vs. Native systems in a more generic sense (which Mark should agree is fairer to Digi than my previous treatment was).

I look for further comments on the "new" version...

AudioAstronomer

11-07-2005, 08:22 AM

In my opinion, DAWs that require dedicated hardware DSP are often more expensive than they need to be for the performance offered. These systems can be difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade ***8220;one part at a time***8221;. Usually upgrades require bulldozing the whole system, at a substantial cost that must be paid all at once.

Not presented as an opinion... but most DSP based systems like are easy to upgrade one part at a time, particularly protools. They are much more modular than native systems in terms of interchangability. The idea of 'bulldozing' is a bit offbase as well for that very reason. I think perhaps your experience with dsp systems is a bit limited, you should check out some of the systems and see how they are put together and upgraded, very similiar to a native system but with different "parts" and "steps".

Years ago, of course, there really was no other choice.

Saw and N-track have been doing multitrack as long as the other dsp-systems out there with rivaling performance. Samplitude and others (cooledit in particular but not pure multitrack) very close as well.

Other things that maybe mentioned, but maybe perhaps out of the scope of the article's intended simplicity: DSP systems can also use the host computer's processor for processing, and Native systems can freely use dsp cards such as emu, uad-1, powercore etc.. Sorry for the nitpicking, I can go overboard sometimes :)

mike_da_min

11-07-2005, 08:23 AM

AHHH YES..... THE SLO(PRO) TOOLS DISCUSSION HAS RETURNED.....YIPPEEE!!!!!
Look everyone let's get this straight: THIS IS A SAWSTUDIO USER FORUM. Most everyone here uses Saw as their main rig, so of course alot of information here is geared towards how we use the product and how it is veiwed in comparison with other products.

The article was not misleading. I have learned in Biblical Studies and the art of Hermenuetcs and Exegesis (EMAIL ME IF YOU NEED A DEFINTION) that you look at the context. The author stated three keys words, "IN HIS OPINION".

You must realize that this is written from one man's point of view and so obviously when you read with the idea the one man is trying to convey one thought and that thought is: BUY SOMETHING AFFORDABLE, THAT YOU CAN USE AND LEARN AND THAT WON'T COSTS ALOT OF MONEY TO MAINTAIN."

He didn't say don't buy protools, he said that it costs more money to maintain over a longer period of time. 100% of you including Mr. Stebbords should agree with that. Pro-Tools vs most other DAW's cost more to maintain and upgrade. You even said why Mark: because all other studios use it, so if you want to run with the bigs dogs you need to have compatible gear. I don't even remember him saying anything to plug saw other than it was "HIS" favorite, not that it should be your choice.

I would challenge any long time Saw users to go and look at what you have spent over the last couple of years to run saw. Just run it not get new monitors and new mics, but just run it. Other than the costs of the program, and a good sound card, what else do you need. A 40.00 stick of 512 memory from FRY's Electronics.

I used CUBASE for a long time. I had an external HD and 1 Gig of memory with a decent sound card. Went from sl to sx 1.0 to sx 2.0 to sx 3.0 and never had to buy any new equipment.

On the Digidesign website:
(www.digidesign.com-->software-->compatability)
There are at least 4 pages of requirements for running the MBOX alone.
There are three motherboard chipsets that ARE NOT compatible w/ the MBOX.
There are a list of "M-Audio" approved cards you can and CANNOT use.
There are links to check and see if your computer is capable of running PTLE
For the Mac, certain older apps wont run on certain OS.
Some video cards are known to cause problems.

This is just a fraction of an 12 webpage report on running anyform of Pro Tools.
Go to SAW studio website: ONE PARAGRAPH
http://www.sawstudio.com/SAWStudio/SystemRequirements.htm

Go to the stienberg website: ONE PARAGRAPH
http://www.steinberg.de/displaydoc_sbb839.html?Product_id=2442&Langue_ID=2&doctype=153&templ=10&division_id=&loc=doc153

Cakewalk: ONE PARAGRAPH:
http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/sonar/system.asp

I could go on but you get the point. A newbie who is just starting out needs to do just that START OUT.

I could name at least 5 people running Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar and other DAW's who can't get crap done because of the DAW choice of software. I don't know any SAW users (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) having that problem and if there are I GUARANTEE that the support they get here could have them up and running in less than an hour. (WHO WANTS TO BET!!!!!!!!!!)

The author is simply saying don't bite off more that you can chew cause if you do you might not like how it taste.

If you pick another "rig" other than saw, that's cool, just make sure you don't have sell your soul to get it and you give your life to maintain. For most, music starts out as a hobby, and a HOBBY shouldn't costs an arm and two legs.

cereal is here.....gotta go.

:D :D :D

AudioAstronomer

11-07-2005, 08:41 AM

This had nothing to do with what daw is better for what and why. There was simply some info that was incorrect or skewed slightly.

One should note that It's not all mark either. Fairness is just that, just because 99% of us here (im sure there's some lurkers) love saw doesnt mean other daws should be unfairly represented or 'bashed'.

Saw is great, and I wouldnt suggest anything else unless there was a very good reason. I dont think it would be right to mislead someone who is looking for information (i.e. reading the article) to promote a cause. Even if it's a great and good cause that is still propoganda and in my eyes (should be in everyones) is very evil and wrong. Folks should be free to inform themselves correctly and make their own decisions where it is right or wrong.

Mark Stebbeds

11-07-2005, 09:41 AM

I just posted a revised version of the article.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do here Cary, but your statements are still incorrect. I just don't get it.

Your statement that "These systems can be difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade “one part at a time”, is absolutley false. What you are calling impossible is commonplace. Upgrading one part at a time is extremely easy and reletively inexpensive. I just did it a month ago. And combining "parts" from previous versions is a no brainer, and happens every day. A recent session I did in a studio included an Apogee, an old 888/24, and an RME ADI-8. Plugged them in and rocked on.

Your statement of "Usually upgrades require bulldozing the whole system, at a substantial cost that must be paid all at once", is absolutely incorrect. Upgrades are usually software, most for free. Old "Legacy" hardware still runs on the new software, and with the old hardware. You are WAY off base, and just wrong.

Your statement of "Years ago, of course, there really was no other choice." is incorrect as well, particualarly as it applies to "entry level" folks. DAWs as we know them have only been around since the early nineties, and there have always been alternatives, SAW being one of them.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

11-07-2005, 09:54 AM

[QUOTE]Look everyone let's get this straight: THIS IS A SAWSTUDIO USER FORUM.

Let's get this straight. If you don't like a thread, don't respond and throw flames.

Cary asked for input, and we provided some. There is a difference between an opinion and incorrect information.

This is just a fraction of an 12 webpage report on running anyform of Pro Tools.
<snip>
Go to SAW studio website: ONE PARAGRAPH
<snip>
Go to the stienberg website: ONE PARAGRAPH
<snip>
Cakewalk: ONE PARAGRAPH:

Your lack of understanding is obvious, as it is obvious you have never used anything in the PT family.

I could go on but you get the point.

Actually, I have no idea what you point is.

Mark

Cary B. Cornett

11-07-2005, 12:05 PM

Your statement that "These systems can be difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade “one part at a time”, is absolutley false. What you are calling impossible is commonplace. Upgrading one part at a time is extremely easy and reletively inexpensive. I just did it a month ago. And combining "parts" from previous versions is a no brainer, and happens every day. A recent session I did in a studio included an Apogee, an old 888/24, and an RME ADI-8. Plugged them in and rocked on.

AFAIK, the "added" equipment you listed is all converters, right? Perhaps I wasn't specific enough, but I was talking about the CORE hardware requirements, especially the DSP. I have not heard of any running PT system that uses both the old Mix Plus cards and the latest HD dsp cards in the same setup, for example.

Your statement of "Usually upgrades require bulldozing the whole system, at a substantial cost that must be paid all at once", is absolutely incorrect. Upgrades are usually software, most for free. Old "Legacy" hardware still runs on the new software, and with the old hardware. You are WAY off base, and just wrong.

Is it possible to run the latest PT HD software on an old Mix Plus system? Certainly there have been software "updates" within a given product, but software written for "the next new system" is not, AFAIK, backwards compatible with the old hardware. I do not know whether, and to what extent, this may include any plugins, but then the plugins are not "core" components of the system.

Can you add a piece of new HD hardware, say a DSP card, to an otherwise unchanged Mix Plus system and have it work? <stopped for phone call>

<resume with new info> I just spoke with my PT-user friend and asked a few questions. He has been through 4 major PT upgrades over the years. I was able to find out from him that
1) Yes, there ARE some "piecemeal" hardware upgrades possible with PT, but
2) These involve careful research (read: extra work), and
3) Even "minimum impact" upgrades still run in the thousands of dollars.
I will correct my article accordingly, and notify when this is done.

Your statement of "Years ago, of course, there really was no other choice." is incorrect as well,
Nope. The very first DAWs were custom dedicated systems, such as the AMS AudioFile. The next step I first remember as being a thing called Sound Tools, which ultimately became ProTools, and the first ProTools systems came out some time BEFORE any personal computers had enough power to handle multiple tracks with mixing and processing internally. At that time the ONLY way was with add-on DSP hardware. I remember seeing still other systems (including the one that eventually developed into Otari's RADAR) that did not even trust the internal drives of the the computer. IIRC, all of this was before 1990, which predates your claim of

DAWs as we know them have only been around since the early nineties, and there have always been alternatives, SAW being one of them.
Mark
Perhaps "as we know them" limits the definition somewhat, but you would have to be more specific. SAW was probably one of the first "native" DAW systems capable of decent performance, and its apparent intro date of 1992 is at least a couple of years after the earlier hardware-based systems that I saw. er... pun not intended.

Cary B. Cornett

11-07-2005, 12:20 PM

I have just posted another update of the article. I altered some of my comments about hardware-based DAW systems in the interest of accuracy. I believe that there are no remaining factual errors in the text, although some may still find my OPINIONS disagreeable :p

Naturally Digital

11-07-2005, 12:24 PM

What you fail to mention is that Digidesign is the ONLY company that allows substantial upgrade credit when you exchange your old hardware for new. And this applies to ANY Digidesign product purchased since the creation of the company. Who else can say that?Uh, Soundscape has a history of offering upgrade credit... They've been doing that for over a year now on their SSHDR-1 product.

mike_da_min

11-07-2005, 12:26 PM

WOW, I am really surprised at the way My words were mistaken. Great Job Mark, using a PARTIAL QUOTE. Read the whole post again

I have used PT with my last job. They bought the Pro Tools HD system with the control 24, and a whole lot of other stuff because they felt that CUBASE would not cut it. Since then, the $4000.00 mac has crashed two times, they have had to replace the lacie hard drives and the brand new system which costs upwards of 40,000 has not completed a project yet. (look them up www.marbleice.com) and coincidentally the system was installed by $200.00 hour techs who still couldn't get everything to work. Now this is not a smack on Pro Tools, but it is just my experience. Just like the article IT IS MY OPINION. The article writer is saying the same thing I am: PICK SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN USE WITH EASE.

Since QUITTING, I am in the middle of releasing my first fully produced album which was done in 5 weeks without a single glitch. (the artists website is www.abosiesinc.com) and I will start on my second project in three weeks with another artist

I AM NOT SAYING DON'T BUY PRO-TOOLS, JUST GET WHAT IS EASIEST FOR YOU AS A NEWBIE. NOW AS PRODUCER IF I BOUGHT THE MBOX AND DISCOVERED THAT IT WILL ONLY RECORD UP TO 48K ACCORDING TO THE DIGI WEBSITE AND I KNOW YOU WANT 192 WHY WOULD I TELL YOU TO BUY THE MBOX??????? IT DOESN'T FIT YOUR NEED.

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING FIND WHAT YOU NEED AND FILL IT WITH THE RIGHT DAW.

WE ALL CAN ADMIT THAT PRO-TOOLS CAN BE EXPENSIVE. AS A NEWBIE PRO-TOOLS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. SAWSTUDIO IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. CUBASE IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. FIND WHAT YOU USE AND WORK WITH IT.

MY EXPERIENCES WITH PRO-TOOLS ARE MY EXPERIENCES AND I SHARE THEM WITH PEOPLE SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORK FOR A COMPANY THAT SPENDS 40,000 AND HASN'T CUT AN ABLUM IN THREE YEARS. OR WORK WITH A RECORDING STUDIO (www.srsrecording.com) THAT WHEN THEY WENT FROM PT 5 TO PT 6 THEY HAD TO SWITCH OPERATING SYSTEMS. THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAPPEN WITH MY PRO-TOOLS EXPERIENCES. I HAVE HAD THE SAME NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES WITH CUBASE. SAW HAS WORKED FOR ME, NOT THAT IT WILL WORK FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT IT WORKS FOR ME.

Continue to use what you all choose, but do research. Look through the SAW FORUM, STEINBERG FORUM, CAKEWALK FORUM, DIGI FORUM, SAMPLITUDE FORUM, FL FORUM, and see what the users are saying and decide which forum do you want to be apart of. WHAT EVER WORKS FOR YOU!!!!

AudioAstronomer

11-07-2005, 12:40 PM

*sigh* You people scare me sometimes. All this ruckus because mark tried to correct something, tossing a bit of opinion. Would seem most of the article is opinion (which isnt bad at all), and this thread as well. Why get all irrate at a fellow with an opinion?

Especially when mine matches up pretty closely with his... how come i dont get flamed?

Pedro Itriago

11-07-2005, 01:43 PM

Mark Stebbeds

11-07-2005, 01:55 PM

Cary,

You are correct that a full blown PT sytem is more expensive than a native system, and not the best choice from a cost efficient standpoint for the hobbyist or project studio that does not have to interface with the pro audio world.

But I don't understand why you are beating this to death, and you incorrect on the cost and upgrade opportunites for the entry level systems, under $500.

I'll try to answer your questions.

[QUOTE=Cary B. Cornett]AFAIK, the "added" equipment you listed is all converters, right?

No, I upgraded to HD3, and bought a bunch of popluar plug-ins, at a substantial discount off list price. (70%)

I have not heard of any running PT system that uses both the old Mix Plus cards and the latest HD dsp cards in the same setup

No, the HD and Accel cards are 96/192k, and the Mix Plus are not. They are not compatable. However you can still use the 888/24 converters if you choose.

If you want to upgrade to 96 or 192k, you need a new PCI card for any computer. You can't use that thing you bought five years ago to run with SAW, and support 96k. Same with PT.

Is it possible to run the latest PT HD software on an old Mix Plus system?

There is nothing known as "HD software".

Most of the PT sofware updates of recent years were for OS upgrades on the Mac platform. OS 9 apps are not compatable with OS ten, and that includes ALL apps, not just PT. Now Mac has just come out with "Tiger" to replace "Panther".

These were not necessarily feature upgrades, but of course several new features were added along with the OS upgrades. PC versions followed suit.

I have v6.7, and v7.0 just came out last week, and requires "Tiger" for the Mac.

All of these upgrades had nothing to do with the PC platform. All versions will run on XP just fine.

Certainly there have been software "updates" within a given product, but software written for "the next new system" is not, AFAIK, backwards compatible with the old hardware.

At some point, I believe the PT upgrades stopped supporting the old 48K hardware, maybe at version 6.7 (last winter) But thousands of those systems are in use today.

ALL versions are upward AND BACKWARD compatable. You simply "save as" an older version. It even does the SRC and file format conversion for you.

Can you add a piece of new HD hardware, say a DSP card, to an otherwise unchanged Mix Plus system and have it work?

No, see above. 44k vs. 96k/192k. It doesn't make sense.

I just spoke with my PT-user friend and asked a few questions. He has been through 4 major PT upgrades over the years.

Sounds like your friend thinks it's a good idea, since he keeps doing it, but it was unlikely that he NEEDED to do it so often, but instead choose to.

I remember this PT chain over about a 12 year period.....NuBus to PCI (just like ISA to PCI), 16 bit to 24 bit, HD (just like 96/192K)

I've upgraded my "native" DAW AT LEAST that many times. And anyone how hasn't has no business owning one.

Nope. The very first DAWs were custom dedicated systems, such as the AMS AudioFile.
<snip>
Perhaps "as we know them" limits the definition somewhat, but you would have to be more specific.

Now you're just trolling.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

11-07-2005, 02:04 PM

I have used PT with my last job. They bought the Pro Tools HD system with the control 24, and a whole lot of other stuff because they felt that CUBASE would not cut it. Since then, the $4000.00 mac has crashed two times, they have had to replace the lacie hard drives and the brand new system which costs upwards of 40,000 has not completed a project yet. (look them up www.marbleice.com) and coincidentally the system was installed by $200.00 hour techs who still couldn't get everything to work.

PT, like most DAW hardware and software, is easy to install. Just plug stuff in, install the software, and you're good to go.

Your story sounds like incompetent people, and certainly not the norm.

Mark

Cary B. Cornett

11-07-2005, 02:21 PM

The only thing so far on this thread (not on the article which I haven't read yet) is the fact that some people (not the autor of the article -Cary- in this trhead at least) are including external converters as part of a DAW which imho, are not.

If you happen to buy a pci card with internal converters that's another story, but external converter, unless conecting to a daw thru a proprietary interface, are not part of a DAW since they can be interconnected in many ways with differents DAWs.

It would be like stating that preamps or mics are part of a DAW.
Pedro,

What you said is pretty much in line with the logic I am using. This thread is reminding me, however, of how difficult it is to deal with comparisons of different DAWs because of the difficulty of coming up with a common set of agreed "rules and definitions" for the debate that everyone involved interprets in the same way. This discussion has certainly fallen afoul of that problem.

Anyway, the clarity of your statement is appreciated :)

Cary B. Cornett

11-07-2005, 02:38 PM

... I upgraded to HD3, and bought a bunch of popluar plug-ins, at a substantial discount off list price. (70%)

I have heard before about Digi's relatively liberal discount terms for upgrades. No dispute there. Still, the "price of admission" for these is definitely NOT trivial. No doubt a good business investment for a commercial studio, but that is not the target audience of the article.

If you want to upgrade to 96 or 192k, you need a new PCI card for any computer. You can't use that thing you bought five years ago to run with SAW, and support 96k. Same with PT.

Never said different. However, the HD product did more that just raise the sample rate limit, and in fact I was not addressing the sample rate issue at all.

ALL versions are upward AND BACKWARD compatable. You simply "save as" an older version. It even does the SRC and file format conversion for you.

I wasn't talking about session interchange between versions at all. I was talking about the compatibility of the new software with older generation hardware, as in whether one will run with the other AT ALL.

Sounds like your friend thinks it's a good idea, since he keeps doing it, but it was unlikely that he NEEDED to do it so often, but instead choose to.

In our conversation today, my friend pointed out that this was a Business decision, which has paid for itself. Again, no dispute there. He also said that he is not personally a "fan" of PT, and believes that eventually something else will displace it in the professional recording world.

I remember this PT chain over about a 12 year period.....NuBus to PCI (just like ISA to PCI), 16 bit to 24 bit, HD (just like 96/192K)
Yup, sound about like what my friend did.

I've upgraded my "native" DAW AT LEAST that many times.
I have no quarrel with that, but I don't see how it refutes the logic advanced in my article. In fact, my point was that it is likely EASIER to upgrade a native system.

And anyone how hasn't has no business owning one.
I'm not quite sure what you intended there. Do you mean, "users of native systems will get no business?" I offered no opinion about that, and again there are many DIY recordists to whom that issue is not relevant.

mghtx

11-07-2005, 03:02 PM

how come i dont get flamed?

I hereby flame you.

Mark Stebbeds

11-07-2005, 03:47 PM

[QUOTE=Cary B. Cornett]I have heard before about Digi's relatively liberal discount terms for upgrades. No dispute there. Still, the "price of admission" for these is definitely NOT trivial.

The price of admission is UNDER $500 for the same software the pros use, plus a decent sound card, but limited to 32 tracks and runs native plugs instead of TDM, and most ALL TDM plugs have RTAS versions. And it comes with DOZENS of popular native and third party plug ins.

You don't understand this, do you?

However, the HD product did more that just raise the sample rate limit, and in fact I was not addressing the sample rate issue at all.

Like what?

No, it was greater resolution. Maybe some improved software features, and I'm sure they improved the electronics, as well as the throughput hardware.

I wasn't talking about session interchange between versions at all. I was talking about the compatibility of the new software with older generation hardware, as in whether one will run with the other AT ALL.

Who gives a rat's ass. The sessions are compatable. Digi is a hardware company. They give away older versions of their software for free at trade shows, because it requires their hardware. The older hardware systems are ubiquitous, and operating all over the world. The sessions are interchangeable. Good grief man.

[QUOTE]In our conversation today, my friend pointed out that this was a Business decision, which has paid for itself.

Same here. In about two months.

He also said that he is not personally a "fan" of PT, and believes that eventually something else will displace it in the professional recording world.

We'll that settles it then. :rolleyes:

I have no quarrel with that, but I don't see how t refutes the logic advanced in my article. In fact, my point was that it is likely EASIER to upgrade a native system.

There is no logic advanced in your article at all in regard to PT, just an opinion formulated with little or no experience, and laden with incorrect and misleading information.

An accurate statement would be something like....An entry level Pro Tools system can be had for under $500, not including computer, and be compatable with major recording studios and post production houses all over the world. The system can be upgraded in small increments, with resonalble trade ins offered on your current gear as you need to expand. However, full blown TDM systems can be very expensive.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

11-07-2005, 03:48 PM

... how come i dont get flamed?

Go fly a kite. :)

Mark

AudioAstronomer

11-07-2005, 08:08 PM

Go fly a kite. :)

Mark

for 4 hours this evening :) Long wait for the new kayak(s)...

Cary B. Cornett

11-08-2005, 06:33 AM

[QUOTE]

The price of admission is UNDER $500 for the same software the pros use,

My language at that point was not clear enough. What I meant was, for an owner of a "top-level" system, the price of admission for any UPGRADE to that system was not trivial.

Furthermore, in the final version of my article the only reference I make to PT is that their top-line systems are the best-known example of a hardware-based DAW system. All of the arguments later advanced now correctly are focused on comparing 'hardware DSP" vs. "Native" systems as a class.

At no point here am I flaming either PT or Digi, but your responses at this point sound as though I was indeed flaming. Look, I'm only interested in facts, and the way those facts apply to my argument and its intent. You, and others, have supplied some useful facts that enabled me to improve the article, for which I am grateful. A fair number of your arguments beyond that miss the point of what I am saying or trying to do, and I am hearing a fair amount of unnecessary anger.

I am not attacking either you personally or your choice of working tools. I do not see how my opinions, especially when clearly marked as such, should bother you when they are not intended as attacks against you or anybody else.

If I have sounded as though I was making personal attacks, I apologize, for that was never my intent.

Carl G.

11-08-2005, 09:10 AM

[QUOTE=Mark Stebbeds]
in the final version of my article .....
Cary, I enjoyed your article and this thread.
Thanks.... and thanks to Mark and others for input.

Each has merits (Pro-Tools and all others)....
But... watching all the PT videos, etc...reinforces the fact that I'm VERY happy that for my personal use, style and application that there is SAWSTUDIO!! Of course that has nothing to do with your article... but I just wanted to thank-you for helping gain greater insight and appreciation for SAWSTUDIO!

BTW, I did notice in the PT videos how they fade out and back in while the guy 'waits' for Bounce to Disc in real time to finish. In real studio time I don't get to do it that fast :) .... so, I felt a little like I was watching a 'magic show'.

Mark Stebbeds

11-08-2005, 11:22 AM

[QUOTE=Carl G.] I did notice in the PT videos how they fade out and bac

This was supposed to have been an update that hasn't yet come. 7.0 just came out, and I don't know if it was included.

I really don't mind waiting three or four minutes to Bounce a mix of a pop song. I find that I go back and tweak a few things. But I would imagine this would be a pain for folks doing long programs. I've been told that the purpose of this is to include outboard processing or effects that are routed back into the mix, a common feature in power user sessions. Makes sense, and doesn't require any convoluted routing or patching.

On the other hand, I save hours of time "consolodating" tracks (making single sound files out of tracks with many regions) in PT that is a manual track by track operation in other apps. You can do an entire 120 track session with one click. These files are pre fader and pre inserts.

One would think if PT could do that, they could get off line mix to file together.

Mark

Mark Stebbeds

11-08-2005, 11:23 AM

BTW, I did notice in the PT videos how they fade out and back in while the guy 'waits' for Bounce to Disc in real time to finish. In real studio time I don't get to do it that fast :) .... so, I felt a little like I was watching a 'magic show'.

Oops, I screwed up the last post.....here it is again.

This was supposed to have been an update that hasn't yet come. 7.0 just came out, and I don't know if it was included.

I really don't mind waiting three or four minutes to Bounce a mix of a pop song. I find that I go back and tweak a few things. But I would imagine this would be a pain for folks doing long programs. I've been told that the purpose of this is to include outboard processing or effects that are routed back into the mix, a common feature in power user sessions. Makes sense, and doesn't require any convoluted routing or patching.

On the other hand, I save hours of time "consolodating" tracks (making single sound files out of tracks with many regions) in PT that is a manual track by track operation in other apps. You can do an entire 120 track session with one click. These files are pre fader and pre inserts.

One would think if PT could do that, they could get off line mix to file together.

Mark

Ollie

11-08-2005, 11:47 AM

The consolidation of regions in pro-tools is a great feature. I have seen my audio buddies do it. There are plenty of times when I want to do this in Saw. I usually do the following steps
1. copy the track to another layer or track
2. Get rid of all the automation
3. keep the volume back at zero
4. pull up the the mix dialogue
5. Print it.

It would be nice to do this in a one shot move.

Mark Stebbeds

11-08-2005, 12:18 PM

Look, I'm only interested in facts, and the way those facts apply to my argument and its intent.
<snip>
I do not see how my opinions, especially when clearly marked as such, should bother you when they are not intended as attacks against you or anybody else.
<snip.
If I have sounded as though I was making personal attacks, I apologize, for that was never my intent.

Cary,

You are entitled to put anything in your ariticle you choose, but you
asked for opinions (on your opinion), and I provided one based on my limited experience of owning Pro Tools, but many years of experience using and interfacing with it in a high profile community.

I thought your comments on this thread were far more accurate than what you are posting on your web site.

Your comments about "bulldozing" an entire system to upgrade is just plain wrong. It doesn't work like that. It never has. And by the way, in this thread you asked if HD hardware could be used with old versions of PT, and the answer is an resounding YES (I looked it up). Until v6.7 earlier this year, all software updates since HD came out supported both Hd and Mix hardware And FWIW, ALL versions of PT are still supported by Digi. And because of that, thousands of pre HD systems are flourishing all over the world, for those who have no need to upgrade.

So from you site, this is just plain wrong....

"These systems are generally fairly difficult to upgrade “one part at a time”. In fact, such upgrades are commonly done by bulldozing the whole system, at a substantial cost that must be paid all at once."

Now having said all of that, you are correct that it can be very expensive, but it doesn't have to be. And the entry level to pro level upgrade path has MANY stops before HD TDM hardware.

And I agree with your PT friend in one regard. I'm not a big fan of the interface either, and I find some of the old style features that have been around for years very outdated. It was a business decision for me as well. On the other hand, it's very intutive, the mixer is incredibly flexible, file exchange is easy, and tech support and third party support is excellent.

Mark

Carl G.

11-08-2005, 12:54 PM

I've been told that the purpose of this is to include outboard processing or effects that are routed back into the mix, a common feature in power user sessions. Makes sense, and doesn't require any convoluted routing or patching.Mark
Now that you mention it....that might be a nice feature in SawStudio too, I guess! (for those with multiple inputs).

On the other hand, I save hours of time "consolodating" tracks (making single sound files out of tracks with many regions) in PT that is a manual track by track operation in other apps. You can do an entire 120 track session with one click. These files are pre fader and pre inserts. Mark

Seem kinda like what I do with one click on "Save and Trim Session" (or extract Session for a selected consolodation) in SS. I love the feature.

Mark Stebbeds

11-08-2005, 01:15 PM

Seem kinda like what I do with one click on "Save and Trim Session" (or extract Session for a selected consolodation) in SS. I love the feature.

Does this create new sound files out of tracks with multiple regions like "consolidate"?

Mark

UpTilDawn

11-08-2005, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Stebbeds: On the other hand, I save hours of time "consolodating" tracks (making single sound files out of tracks with many regions) in PT that is a manual track by track operation in other apps. You can do an entire 120 track session with one click. These files are pre fader and pre inserts. Mark

Originally posted by Carl G.: Seem kinda like what I do with one click on "Save and Trim Session" (or extract Session for a selected consolodation) in SS. I love the feature.

I'm confused a bit...
Does consolidation in PT create one continuous region as well as a continuous soundfile as Saw does when building mix to HotTrack, (for instance), or does the view in PT's "Multitrack" continue to show individual region chunks after consolidation as Saw does after "Trim" or "Extract" operations?

DanT

Mark Stebbeds

11-08-2005, 01:52 PM

I'm confused a bit...
Does consolidation in PT create one continuous region as well as a continuous soundfile as Saw does when building mix to HotTrack, (for instance), or does the view in PT's "Multitrack" continue to show individual region chunks after consolidation as Saw does after "Trim" or "Extract" operations?

A lot of the confusion regarding features of different apps is nothing more than the "name" someone gave the function.

In PT, "Consolidate" creates a new soundfile and region and replaces the individual regions on that track(s). The previous regions remain in the regions list. So if you want both versions available, you "save as" another session name (what SS calls EDL) before "consolidate", which points to all of the same audio. It's all still there.

"Trim" is a separate function called "Compact" that removes all or part of the unused audio, with parameters for "padding" the edges of regions for future tweaking or crossfading.

"Export" is also a seperate function, with adjustable parameters and functions, including SRC and format conversion (BWF, AIFF, SDII), and where you are exporting it to.

Mark

Bob L

11-08-2005, 03:37 PM

Carl,

You can easily use external processing gear now in SAWStudio by simply setting an Aux Send Master Output routing to any device and then setting the Return Input Source to any device also... patch your physical reverb into the proper devices and you will have live zero latency send and return to that piece of gear during playback... but... that means all buildmix operations can no longer be used... you must play the session back live and re-record the mix to a two track, DAT or another DAW... the same SAWStudio on a new track will suffice also.

Bob L

Cary B. Cornett

11-08-2005, 04:28 PM

I thought your comments on this thread were far more accurate than what you are posting on your web site.

I have explained the meaning of the article's language in more detail in these posts, but I feel fairly certain that I have made the language in my article much more accurate in light of the added information I have gotten both here and elsewhere. It is, of course, always possible to interpret some language in any writing in a way that is different from the author's intent...

... this is just plain wrong....

"These systems are generally fairly difficult to upgrade “one part at a time”. In fact, such upgrades are commonly done by bulldozing the whole system, at a substantial cost that must be paid all at once."

I was told that one has to carefully research the process (by looking at info on Digi's website) in order to do "partial" system upgrades. In my experience, careful research is not something done by most people, and therefore I termed the process "difficult". As for bulldozing being the "usual" upgrade method, that is what I was given to believe, although of course proof of this would require the ability to dig through Digi's details sales records. Actually, my choice of the word "commonly" rather than the stronger "usually" or "mostly" was precisely because I do not have detailed statistical data, although the anecdotal information I had suggested that "small step" upgrades of the hardware-based systems were/are not especially common.

Now having said all of that, you are correct that it can be very expensive, but it doesn't have to be.
"Very" is, of course, a relative term, but I was assured that even fairly minimal hardware upgrades still ran to thousands of dollars, which for most of us is definitely not trivial.

And the entry level to pro level upgrade path has MANY stops before HD TDM hardware.
I assume that "pro level" means the hardware-based systems, and it was WITHIN this class that my comments were directed, since those comments are specifically definec in the article as bein with reference to "hardware DSP based" systems, which would definitely NOT include the "entry level" packages as I understand them.

And I agree with your PT friend in one regard. I'm not a big fan of the interface either, and I find some of the old style features that have been around for years very outdated. It was a business decision for me as well. On the other hand, it's very intutive, the mixer is incredibly flexible, file exchange is easy, and tech support and third party support is excellent.

Mark

I definitely have no dispute with any of these latter points, although they are not addressed at all in my article. Thanks again for your willingness to explain your points in more detail.

Mark Stebbeds

11-08-2005, 05:24 PM

[QUOTE=Cary B. Cornett]
I was told that one has to carefully research the process (by looking at info on Digi's website) in order to do "partial" system upgrades.

<snip>

As for bulldozing being the "usual" upgrade method, that is what I was given to believe,

<snip>

although the anecdotal information I had suggested that "small step" upgrades of the hardware-based systems were/are not especially common.

Well, quite frankly and simply put, you have been given incorrect information on all three counts, or info based on narrow experience, and not reality. Your comments above are NOT TRUE. And if you don't have any experience with it, why are you writing about it? Write about something you know, like SS.

I do not understand why you ask for opinion, and then defend falsehood or inaccurate innuendo, and then say your are interested in "facts".

I would consider posting incorrect information like this to be a disservice to the audio community, for both pros and hobbyists alike.

I assume that "pro level" means the hardware-based systems

All Pro Tools systems are hardware based, but not necessarily TDM (DSP) based. If the software does not "see" the required hardware, it won't even open. But yes, I was referring to TDM as "pro", although it is ubiquitous in project studios.

Mark

Cary B. Cornett

11-09-2005, 06:14 AM

[QUOTE]

Well, quite frankly and simply put, you have been given incorrect information on all three counts, or info based on narrow experience, and not reality. Your comments above are NOT TRUE.

I have removed the comments about hardware upgrade difficulty, and limited my remarks to what I KNOW. I see no reason to try to support my basic premise, that hardware DSP based systems are not maximally cost effective, particularly for the beginner, with arguments that "generate more heat than light", so I have stripped it down to the core issue of the added cost of required proprietary hardware.

I do not understand why you ask for opinion, and then defend falsehood or inaccurate innuendo, and then say your are interested in "facts".

You assume that I argue for the sake of fighting, which would in fact be a waste of my time. When I offer a clarification or a counter-argument, I expect further refutation if there is still something lacking in my statements. My "defenses", as you call them, are efforts to seek as exact and clear an understanding of the issue as possible, and the more detailed responses that you have given to my arguments are exactly the sort of information that I was after.

Naturally, where we disagree I expect you to defend your position as ably as you know how, which is best done by offering more facts, or more detail about the facts, after which it is up to me to reply in kind until either
A) we agree, or
B) we agree to disagree.
Even in the latter case, at the very least you will have made me articulate my own position better than I had before, an likely I will come away with some degree of understanding that I did not have before, even if I do not arrive at exactly the same conclusions you do.

If I was not interested in the facts I would not have continued this discussion, because I am certainly not expecting you to change your views about the issue at hand. You accused me of "trolling" earlier, which I had to think about. I have indeed been trolling.... for more facts, or a more detailed exposition of them. I see nothing about that that anyone should find offensive.

All Pro Tools systems are hardware based, but not necessarily TDM (DSP) based. If the software does not "see" the required hardware, it won't even open. But yes, I was referring to TDM as "pro", although it is ubiquitous in project studios.

The term "Pro" is, of course, so broadly applied in marketing these days that its meaning has been badly devalued, but of course there is no reason for a "closed" personal/project studio not to use the very best equipment that its owner can afford. You have, however, underscored my argument that any system that requires specific proprietary hardware, be it PT, Sadie, whatever, sets certain limits in terms of flexibility on its users, especially of the same purposes can be served without requiring a "closed" hardware platform. IMO, if you buy a PT system, it has to be at least partly because you like/want the hardware (and there is no argument that Digidesign has developed some excellent hardware).