Close

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75
  1. #71

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Stashu View Post
    I really hate to even bring up PT on the Saw site.
    But, when I have long form projects, I do record to a final track. [Real time]
    If I have fixes to do along the line, I do my punch ins, etc, and then, I've got a track with let's say ten regions.
    Yes, I can Bounce To Disk and it would be the full 30 minute program. Or, because I've already added my processing in the original record, and punch ins, I just use the Duplicate feature in PT. This is done roughly about the speed of building the Final Mix SawStudio. [could be faster or slower, dependant on tracks - usually slower]
    Now, I've got one long 30 minute track without 'rendering'.
    It's all in the setup.

    This file I record has no automation, no volume draws, no added EQ. All processing is added before the record process.
    This sounds like the work-around I've heard about that long-form producers using PT have been using to get around the lack of faster-than-real-time rendering. As I understand it, you configure it so that whenever you play a section back (during editing and mixing), you're simultaneously recording to a "build" track. When you're done editing and mixing, having worked your way to the end of the session, you just duplicate the build track. And if you need to make tweaks afterward, you just punch in the tweaked section to the build track and re-duplicate. Still not as clean and elegant as buildmixing, but it's sumpin.
    Dave "it aint the heat, it's the humidity" Labrecque
    Becket, Massachusetts

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    3,493

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by cgrafx View Post
    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.
    OK, sure that is true. But what is this 1985? Who really wants to go back to tape? No me! Have at it if that's your bag I guess.

    You used to also have to spend a bunch of time taking care of the tape decks and all but the smallest studio had assistants just to "man" the tape decks.

    When I started in theatre open reel was king of audio playback. I can still remember spending many of my dinner breaks reworking cue and rebuilding cues because I had to sit and record all of them in real time. I would watch as all my fellow designers (set, costume, lights) all got to go have nice meals during dinner break while I grabbed a burger and fies and returned to the theatre early to get some more changes done.

    I AM SO GLAD I never deal with that bull**** anymore. Now I can make changes on the fly and try them out right then and there. I can completely rebuild a cue that runs for 40+ mins probably in less than 10 mins now, even less depending on how fast the computers are and how much I'm changing. This is all possible because some people were bright enough to make software to edit audio with and others were bright enough to write software that plays back audio for live shows.

    I now am one of the first people to leave the building for diner and I rarely come back until the break time is nearly over.

    Yeah, OK, this is theatre and I am not doing what the majority of DAW users do for a living. I know that. But even so, let me ask this. Just because you were able to listen in real time to your file being rendered, does that mean you automatically just assume that file sounds just like what you heard during that process? I don't know. I guess I wouldn't trust that, at least not if is was something truly important.

    Even after I render my files now within Vegas or ACID or SAW, whatever... I still almost always open them up in Forge and just give them a quick glance and listen. Now if it's a 45 min file, no I don't sit and listen to the entire thing, but I'll at least check the top and end of the file. If it's an interleaved multi-channel file I check each channel to make sure it is what I think it is. I would do the same darn thing no matter how fast or slow the render takes.

    I think the important point here is that real time renders are likely no big deal for those that are recording bands and/or music. Most songs are brief enough that sitting around for 5 to 10 minutes while it renders is no big deal. But not all DAW users are doing that kind of work. For some of us real time renders are a deal breaker. Or least a major pain in the ass. I can remember waiting an eon for a simple edits to render in the bad old days of editing audio on my 386. But it was still faster than tape and razor blade and a hell of lot more accurate with the first try.

    Anyway thank you to all the software developers out there that have made it possible for me to take diner breaks during technical rehearsals. I owe you all... well diner.
    Richard B. Ingraham
    RBI Sound
    http://www.rbisound.com
    Email Based User List: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sac_users/

  3. Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    SAWStudio I like it! not change it for anything, rapid mixing, low consumption, simple, very clean and fast. SAWStudio + plugins + 1 or 2 VST, dont need !!..... very good quality.

    Protools has 2 or 3 things I like in the management and editing of audio, should be included in SAWStudio , but Protools does not pass my test ... clean, good, correct and fresh as SAWStudio.

    I think we must appreciate and support the concept and the way software works, how well does what it does and how it is doing in this way.

    We support who offers this kind of thing .....

    Sorry for my English

    Pedro V.

  4. #74

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by cgrafx View Post
    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.
    Yikes. Why compare with tape? Such limitations are exactly why I don't use tape and am disappointed with that aspect of PT. Huge sticking point? Absolutely!

    For those who enjoy the multi-track tape paradigm just as it is and have no need to work faster... more power to you. However, I am not one of those guys. I also feel that if PT were to offer faster-than-real-time rendering tomorrow, 99% of users would adopt it as their primary work model very quickly.
    Last edited by Dave Labrecque; 06-01-2011 at 07:29 PM.
    Dave "it aint the heat, it's the humidity" Labrecque
    Becket, Massachusetts

  5. #75

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    I'll put my $.02 in on the real time bounce limitiation in the cusumer version of PT. I started off way back when with PTLE. I got good with it and liked it.

    But my needs have changed. I use a DAW to do prerecorded backing tracks a lot of the time. Sometimes 8-10 separate tracks per song and some of those are medleys which can be 13-15 mins long.

    When I look at a program where I have to bounce each of ten, 13 minute long songs at real time, it just takes too much time. Especially if I decide I don't like something about even one of them and have to "rebounce".

    So +1 for a DAW that will bounce faster than real time - for my purposes. I ended up slidlining PT for that one reason. Of course, YMMV.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •