SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

[Dave Labrecque]

I love Chess and rarely loose

And how are you at spelling?

[John Hernandez]

And how are you at spelling?

No...he means he likes an "intense" bout...

[Naturally Digital]

No...he means he likes an "intense" bout...

yeah, I prefer a tight game myself.

[Microstudio]

And how are you at spelling?

What.... I spelled Chess right?

[Richard Rupert]

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.

[bit]

One of the biggest drawbacks with PT in a live situation is the drop-out (and noise) you get when you insert a plugin. You would have to make a template with plugins and aux tracks patched and ready. And when the gig has started you can forget about patching an extra delay or compressor.
In Saw the plugin patching is smooth and noisless and works instantly. You will probably not have to insert more than a delay and a reverb or two anyway.

If you get a crash, you might have to take a 10 minutes break using PT. Usually you have to restart the computer. Saw is back up in seconds. And is more stable. PT9 is seems to be more stable than PT8, but in the long run I still bet on Saw to be more stable.

BIT

[RBIngraham]

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.

I have not seen or worked with it yet myself but from everything I've read so far the answer would be no you must still sit on your thumbs while it renders in real time. I keep meaning to ask a couple of college friends who are PT lovers and I'm sure they upgraded the minute it came out if they finally got with the times and that most people do everything inside the computer.

[Carey Langille]

As far as i know, the answer is no to faster than realtime yet, but in my case , when i use pt, i use harware inserts to bring reverbs and delays into the system so Faster than realtime is not possible on ANY system when you use real hardware units in a mix.... Of course you could always go through your mix and write the effects to new tracks . ect. ect .ect.. but it all takes time...REAL TIME!

[MikeDee]

I love Chess and rarely loose

Did you ever mention the Sicilian to someone and he or she thought it was a piece of pizza?

I've always loved the Dragon and the Najdorf...Poisoned Pawn, anyone?

[Dave Tosti-Lane]

I have not seen or worked with it yet myself but from everything I've read so far the answer would be no you must still sit on your thumbs while it renders in real time.

No, still real-time for anything that has processing or mix changes. You can export a track out for archive, but not with fx or volume changes. Logic, on the other hand, does have faster than real-time bouncing. The big thing PT9 brought to the table was release from being held hostage to Avid interfaces. And stability, which finally is as good as V1.03 was 20 years ago. Were I still on PC platform, I'd see no compelling reason to switch from Studio, though I'd probably pick up a PT9 license as well if I was doing a lot of work with other studios.
Working as you and I do in Theater - most of the reasons people cite for one or the other fall away, and it comes down to what you become comfortable with, and what you use as a final playback destination. This is why I don't mandate one platform or DAW or another for students in our program. (and why I keep both PC and Mac playback and editing options going in the theater)

I agree with you though that the real-time restriction for mixdown makes PT an unfortunate choice for the kind of multitrack stitch-together of 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