SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

[Dave Labrecque]

I'm not attempting to bash PT here with this question (it matters not at all to me what people choose to use as their DAW... I've made my decision to use SAWStudio and it works great for my purposes and I am extremely happy). However... can anyone tell me if PT 9 is capable of mixdown faster than real time?

And a reminder: this is just a question with no implications. I truly am curious about that.

Amazingly, with all it's powerful capabilities and world-wide acceptance as the most standard of standards for large swaths of the industry, PT is still not able to do faster-than-real-time renders. I find this bewildering, stupefying. And -- a real drawback with many forms of production.

[Dave Tosti-Lane]

Amazingly, with all it's powerful capabilities and world-wide acceptance as the most standard of standards for large swaths of the industry, PT is still not able to do faster-than-real-time renders. I find this bewildering, stupefying. And -- a real drawback with many forms of production.

Actually, I agree. Their argument seems to be based on a limited view of the way recording works - they always say "You have to listen through the whole mix anyway to be sure everything sounds right, so what difference does it make" - or - "If you have effects being applied through insert-returns from external processors, you have to do it real-time anyway"

I don't think it's a capability thing - it's not that they couldn't do it if they wanted to, it's that they don't seem to accept it as a desirable goal.

Of course, they are not alone in deciding that certain features are unimportant, or that their users are asking for something they don't really need.

When someone brings it up on their forum, the same thing happens that happens here with certain other requests - a few people say they agree, and several people jump on the person requesting the feature telling them they're wrong to think they want that.

Of course here, it can go to another level where Bob may initially say I don't think so, but then figures out how to do what they asked for and more in the next update.

Dave Tosti-Lane

[Ian Alexander]

Actually, I agree. Their argument seems to be based on a limited view of the way recording works - they always say "You have to listen through the whole mix anyway to be sure everything sounds right, so what difference does it make" - or - "If you have effects being applied through insert-returns from external processors, you have to do it real-time anyway"

I don't think it's a capability thing - it's not that they couldn't do it if they wanted to, it's that they don't seem to accept it as a desirable goal.

Of course, they are not alone in deciding that certain features are unimportant, or that their users are asking for something they don't really need.

When someone brings it up on their forum, the same thing happens that happens here with certain other requests - a few people say they agree, and several people jump on the person requesting the feature telling them they're wrong to think they want that.

Of course here, it can go to another level where Bob may initially say I don't think so, but then figures out how to do what they asked for and more in the next update.

Dave Tosti-Lane

Of course the flaw in this thinking is that to KNOW what you have in a mixdown, you have to listen to the new file after it's rendered. I wonder if they ever envisioned DAWS being used for long-form programs like narration, etc. Often clients don't want to pay for another hour of studio time to render or bounce. In many cases, it's going to a post session anyway, so if there's an issue, there's time to deal with it. That's not to say I don't care about issues, but I do admit to a certain amount of trust with some files.

It's interesting to see what "features" designers will try to protect you from and what they'll let you hang yourself with.

[RBIngraham]

hundreds of short regions that we commonly do in building soundscapes for theatrical design. Studio's 6 libraries and rapid audition features make it really powerful for that kind of work. (As I recall telling you repeatedly years ago before you tried SAC and got hooked ;-) )

Dave Tosti-Lane

I still work most in Sound Forge and Vegas. For most of my sound cue construction I simply find little use for having a large virtual console on the screen. But that's just me.

Having said that, I use SAW fairly regularly to build more complex cues and I don't have 6 libraries because I am on SAW Lite. But to be honest, I find them somewhat annoying. Why I can not just open an instance of Windows explorer and drag and drop files onto the time line baffles me some days. Still there are a lot of other things I really like about building cues in SAW.

Anyway, what really baffles me is theatre sound designers that like to work in PT. I don't get it. Some who I actually have a lot of respect for actually. (you know who I'm talking about!)

Realtime renders make zero sense to me. But that's because I have no need to listen in real time to 45 mins worth of bird chips that are made up of maybe 3 or 4 looping segments that may be 3 to 10 minute long samples each. Just to give a simple, stereotypical example of the kind of thing we do for a living. Nor do I need to listen to my 45 minutes of preshow music render either. It's just a playlist turned into a single .wav file. Although I guess my methods may just be outdated now. Seems no one actually wants to have to create audio files in their audio editors anymore prior to tech rehearsals, they want the playback tools to be both playback and audio editors as well. Sigh.

[soundtrack2life]

While an offline bounce would be good for certain situations in PT. Of the late I have been summing OTB and using a 2buss compressor and recording back to a channel in PT. So even if Avid implemented it I would not have a need for it for my workflow. But there are still those projects if I am totally ITB and it would be very nice if Avid offered it. . . . at the very least as an option to bounce offline or real time. I have said it before there is no perfect DAW! Each have their pluses and minuses. . . .
Joe

[Dave Tosti-Lane]

I
Anyway, what really baffles me is theatre sound designers that like to work in PT. I don't get it. Some who I actually have a lot of respect for actually. (you know who I'm talking about!)

Yes, me too. I don't get that either. Though most of them do also use Logic. (the software anyway )

[Richard Rupert]

I posted the question regarding real time mixdown simply out of interest; I have no plans for switching DAWs. But I can say that if I were, PT would NOT be an option because of this shortcoming. And again, I didn't start this thread... just clarifying for myself. I DO get asked occasionally why I'm not using PT, since it's the "industry standard".

Let me give you a perfect example of why PT would be unacceptable for me and the way I use SAWStudio: After I mix and master an album I send it home with the client with instructions that he (or she, of course ) listen back on various playback systems and take notes of any consistent mix issues and where they occur in time in each song. The client returns with notes and we open up each song and address the issues, then make a new mastered CD. Sometimes with some clients this will go three or four rounds before we are satisfied we've caught every little problem. There may be only one small issue on each track, but if I had to wait until the full song rendered in real time, then again real time rendering after the mastering step, I can guarantee that my clients would be settling for a much less "tweaked" product. And maybe it's just me... but I don't feel right anyway about charging a client to sit and watch the computer work.
YMMV.

[cgrafx]

Just to play devils advocate for a moment. Everybody does realize that if you were tracking to tape, you'd have the same realtime playback issue.

You don't get faster than realtime mix-downs or transfers from a multi-track analog tape system.

So while the fact that a fully digital system with all in the box effects can do faster than realtime mixes and bounces its not like this is has been a huge sticking point for most situations.

Thats not to say that this isn't a nice plus.

[Grekim]

The real time mix becomes an issue for really tight budgets. But we've been over this before and you wouldn't send anything important anywhere without a real-time listen anyway. There are plenty of things I don't like about PT, but this isn't one of them.

[soundtrack2life]

The real time mix becomes an issue for really tight budgets. But we've been over this before and you wouldn't send anything important anywhere without a real-time listen anyway. There are plenty of things I don't like about PT, but this isn't one of them.

FWIW real time bounce has never been an issue for me personally or any clients. Since PT is the "industry standard" clients must just think that this is the way it should be anyway. . . . With that said I do actually prefer a real time listen as well and actually kind of like it. YMMV
Joe