Close

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75
  1. #11

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    PS. . . having become proficient at a handful of DAWs I can say that each have their strong points and weaknesses. At the end of the day each individual has to decide what tool set works best for them. There is no "perfect be it all DAW" out there. . . . .
    Joe

  2. #12

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by soundtrack2life View Post
    In your first sentence you said you wanted to use PT9 for "mixing". Is this to run live sound or to record a live show and mix afterwards? If live sound is the case then I would say neither PT9 or SAW and your should be looking at SAC...
    Personally, I think this comment of Joe's is KEY to the discussion.
    Until we know what the OP actually meant to say and ask, this thread just reads like all the other PT vs. SAW threads...... and the debate goes on, and on, and on,..........

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    1,509

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by UpTilDawn View Post
    Personally, I think this comment of Joe's is KEY to the discussion.
    Until we know what the OP actually meant to say and ask, this thread just reads like all the other PT vs. SAW threads...... and the debate goes on, and on, and on,..........
    He was very clear.. they have a Presonus Live board they just purchased to mix on.

    PT9 would be for recording/session mixing not LIVE use.
    ---------------------------------------
    Philip G.

  4. #14

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Grekim View Post
    Unless using HD, you are forced to monitor through the DAW. Not sure about version 9, but I suspect you still can't adjust time line placement of audio, compensating for soundcard in/out.

    I'll just add to the list as I think of things. Editing and mixing aside, right?

    F-Key views. Love it.
    Individual track waveform heights.
    No dongle and easy install.
    What do you mean by monitoring through the DAW? Why would you be forced to do that?

    And what do you mean by adjusting time line placement of audio to compensate for soundcard in/out?

    Also, you can adjust individual waveform heights in PT9.
    Dave "it aint the heat, it's the humidity" Labrecque
    Becket, Massachusetts

  5. #15

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by cgrafx View Post
    He was very clear.. they have a Presonus Live board they just purchased to mix on.

    PT9 would be for recording/session mixing not LIVE use.
    FWIW I have a Ramsa DA7 that I used as a front end for SAW and now Pro Tools. . . . . BTW I never mixed down song one on it. And the original post says "now they are considering using Pro Tools 9 for mixing" no mention of the Presounus Live board to mix on. . . . . . I take nothing for granite
    Joe

  6. #16

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Labrecque View Post
    What do you mean by monitoring through the DAW? Why would you be forced to do that?

    And what do you mean by adjusting time line placement of audio to compensate for soundcard in/out?

    Also, you can adjust individual waveform heights in PT9.
    Qualifier: I've used v8 but just read about v9.

    In SAW you can adjust the waveform heights of each track separately. In PT all the tracks get the same waveform zoom level.

    If you were to send a pulse out of a DAW and record it back in, chances are the recorded track will not line up exactly with the source track. You can't compensate for this in PTLE 8. Again, not sure about 9. In SAW you can adjust for this.

    Monitoring: In SAW you have a few monitoring modes available. One of which allows you to monitor using an external mixer or the soundcards built in DSP mixer. So the signal while recording does not pass though the DAW. In PTLE 8 and PT 9 native, you simply can't do this. If you mute the track you are recording into so that it does not pass audio through the DAW, then you also lose your cue mix for that track which is usually pretty crucial for a punch-in.

  7. #17

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Grekim View Post
    Monitoring: In SAW you have a few monitoring modes available. One of which allows you to monitor using an external mixer or the soundcards built in DSP mixer. So the signal while recording does not pass though the DAW. In PTLE 8 and PT 9 native, you simply can't do this. If you mute the track you are recording into so that it does not pass audio through the DAW, then you also lose your cue mix for that track which is usually pretty crucial for a punch-in.
    If true - this is a HUGE item turn off for PT9 in studio overdubs.
    I like the flexibility SS (with or without SAC) offers in recording through the channel processing live OR doing the external mixer monitoring mode for complete latency free headphones WITH cue mix of the track until punchin.
    Carl G.
    Voice Talent/Audio Producer
    www.creativetrax.com

  8. #18

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Quote Originally Posted by Grekim View Post
    Qualifier: I've used v8 but just read about v9.

    In SAW you can adjust the waveform heights of each track separately. In PT all the tracks get the same waveform zoom level.
    I'm only dipping my toe into PT9 at this point, but I've learned that you can indeed adjust individual waveform height with a certain key+drag combo.

    If you were to send a pulse out of a DAW and record it back in, chances are the recorded track will not line up exactly with the source track. You can't compensate for this in PTLE 8. Again, not sure about 9. In SAW you can adjust for this.
    One of the new things in PT9 is automatic delay (latency) compensation. Not just in HD, anymore.

    Monitoring: In SAW you have a few monitoring modes available. One of which allows you to monitor using an external mixer or the soundcards built in DSP mixer. So the signal while recording does not pass though the DAW. In PTLE 8 and PT 9 native, you simply can't do this. If you mute the track you are recording into so that it does not pass audio through the DAW, then you also lose your cue mix for that track which is usually pretty crucial for a punch-in.
    If I'm understanding you right, that's handled by Auto Input Monitoring in PT9. What you hear from the track switches from track audio to input audio when you punch in.
    Last edited by Dave Labrecque; 05-17-2011 at 05:38 PM.
    Dave "it aint the heat, it's the humidity" Labrecque
    Becket, Massachusetts

  9. #19

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    Nah, not the auto delay comp thing. That's internal. I mean when the audio goes out of the soundcard to your headphones and you play to what you hear and the sound comes back in and it's late in the timeline because of soundcard processing and (I think) driver monkey business. You can compensate for that in SAW if you want to. Sometimes you really need to!

    Nah again, try setting up any PT native or LE system so you are monitoring through an external mixer. Record a track. Punch-in on a spot while listening to the first take. You will hear double...like the track is going through slapback delay. You can't turn off the sound running through PT without also turning off your cue mix.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    3,493

    Default Re: SAW VS Pro Tools 9.0

    My suggestion for this venue (based on the little we know here...) sell the Presonus, it's a piece of crap and use the money to build a SAC system.

    Then use SAW to record but get a PT 9 license as well. The SAW users community is a small bunch and like it or not many folks know how to use PT, so it's a safer bet if other "outsiders" need to make use of it for whatever reason.

    I guess you could say the same about the Presonus, but a digital console that has any kind of a digital glitch when you recall a scene is worthless in my opinion. (and this console does from all accounts) Add the no moving faders so when you recall something, the faders are not necessarily showing you reality and I walk away from it at that point. I might use it for a submixer or very tiny acts.

    Just my preference.
    Richard B. Ingraham
    RBI Sound
    http://www.rbisound.com
    Email Based User List: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sac_users/

Posting Permissions

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