Trying something new, I imagine, would be a huge risk for them.īut I honestly don’t see an excuse for a home studio producer where that risk is mitigated. They just want what’s been working for them to work the same. ![]() I feel like Pro Tools is for that very traditional audio engineer who has been in a name established studio for 20 something years, and doesn’t care about the money. Pro Tools, while somehow still a standard, is clunky, aging, lacking in responsive development, and fiercely over priced (and their tiered pricing / sub model is face in palm bad). ![]() I caught the Studio One bug and never turned back. Again, because Pro Tools by design integrates so well with consoles and outboard gear, that’s the main reason it’s so popular with engineers for mixing. But many DAWs are at least as good for mixing, if not better. Pro Tools’ main bread and butter is audio recording and editing. I’m a pretty dedicated Logic user for production. And that’s what I use it for.Įverything else I do, production-wise, I do elsewhere. Some come close, like Studio One’s “Layers” while recording. I simply cannot do the things I can do in PT in any other DAW, and I’ve tried them all. Pro Tools also handles audio recording and editing more elegantly and more smartly than any other DAW. The same “intuitive” features that make other DAWs a great experience for producers and writers, are headaches for engineers, who may have to go in and undo things to route things the way they really want. ![]() And it emulates how a console and patchbay functions (and BTW, PT is still far easier than complex patching and routing on a mixing desk). People who describe its routing as “clunky” likely don’t understand that its intended primarily for engineers, who want full control over every aspect of the routing. Pro Tools is designed primarily to integrate with studios and consoles. Oh, then there's Berklee and its obsession with DP, but that is another thing! I do see DP in use in scoring, but actually that is the one place where you do occasionally hear about Cubase (though I've never seen it - almost universally Logic, with the occasional weirdo masochist using PT - and with that much MIDI, "masochist" is entirely appropriate). Never see Cubendo here, pretty much ever. In the US, pretty much just Pro Tools in "True Pro" studios, especially here in LA, with the usual smattering of Logic, Ableton, and others in more "production-oriented" locales. Cubase was pretty common in small-mid-sized places more oriented to production, as was Logic. ![]() Saw Nuendo a lot, Pro Tools some, and the usual suspects (Ableton, Reaper, S1) a whole lot more in the music world. I was in Spain (back in the US now, for a few months), but also spent time elsewhere. Someone who learned on pro tool out of requirement don’t necessarily feel the need to defend their choice of Daw because it wasn’t really a choice. I think the people who are self taught and have spent years dissecting their daw of choice that they feel a more intimate attachment to it and are more vocal because of it. It will most likely be the primary Daw of every major studio because of that standard and there is a very good reason it’s still the primary Daw. On the other hand you will have people who pursue a formal education in production and they learn in a pro tools environment immediately from the start because it is standardized. By the time I was ready to use pro tools I realized logic was just fine for me. Typically when you are self taught you learn with what is available, usually free copies you get with hardware, and work your way up. I think this has a lot to do with price points and the way you approach your entry into audio production within a DAW environment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |