[1150Post]

FWIW...

At one point, Euphonix was talking about some PTools-Euphonix System 5 integration. I remember discussing with Chris Pelzar (right before he bailed on Euphonix and went back to AMS Neve, which was right before he went to Fairlight) about the System 5 allowing plug-in parameter adjustment with scribble strip ID's and levels on faders, similar to a Pro Control. It would make sense, as well. The System 5 is similar to the Pro Control in that it is a collection of Fader Packs and a Master module that all communicate with the DSP core via ethernet. We had one in house for several weeks, and it really set up and operated well... But then we were using an R1 and not ProTools.

And I agree with a previous post that mapping PTools faders and mutes to a console would be great for those folks who are getting "premixes" done entirely in ProTools. That way you could map the faders/mutes out to the console and simply pick up where the recording engineer/designer left off, if that was what you wanted to do.

However, in the TV post world, it's more important to me to use ProTools to record my console automation information, so that it can be ediited, copied, pasted, and altered just as if one was mixing inside of Protools. I know that it's possible, at least in theory... Soundtracs has a Console that integrates with the Sadie editor that is available in England/Japan/Europe (it was also available here in the States for a while (we demoed it), but a Fairlight/Soundtracs co-op agreement shut it out of the states, apparently???) The integration was slick, but I just can't stomach the Sadie. You can use midi, but who really wants to do that? I mean, what major console is midi controllable anyway?

I always suspected that Euphonix and Digidesign would wind up in bed together, as the System 5 is so similar to the ProControl that, pre-HD platform with TDM fuzziness, etc, it only seemed to make perfect sense to have Protools integrate and record and edit the automation data of a world class mixing console as if it was a ProControl. But now with the HD's sound and precision, I have to wonder if it's really that crucial to use an external console (Flame Shields Up!), or if it's even in Digi's best interests to do so?

I would prefer ProTools spend some time working out it's mixer model so that operators didn't have to use different delays on channels to compensate for different plug-in latency.

For example, AMS/Neve mixers (at least the Logic series, which I am familiar with) auto compensate for DSP latency issues, ensuring proper time alignemnt of all channels, auxes, busses and masters, regardless of how much, or little, DSP is allocated in the form of EQ's, Filters, Compressors, gates, Expanders, or even a Fader. I would love to see ProTools develop a mixer model with that same "intelligence" built into it. I mean, can such a time aligned mixer model really be that hard or far off in the distance? This would be a better use of precious R&D or Product development time. I could be wrong, but I'd have to figure that it would take a serious amount of development and coding and testing to develop the hooks necessary to have different automation systems latch into ProTools. And to what end?

This is why I am intrgued by V.6.0 as apparently (I think?...) you can automate plug in substantiation. ie... If I have Ch1.Plug slot A as a Waves Q6 eq, I can at any point automate this plug in changing to, say, an L2 or C4, all of which, apparently, create differing amounts of latency. Well, isn't going to create issues with the audio if one is changing channel latency amounts through automation? The channel will either have to automute during the swap, or be muted manually, as I imagine a click or pop will be unavoidable.

So, since plug-ins create different amounts of latency, it would be cool if each channel strip/aux/master fader had a "Latency Pool", or a built in standard amount of latency that each substantiation of a plugin could draw upon... that would maintain proper time alignment through the mixer no matter what plugs were used where. Of course, once the "Latency Pool was used up, you would not be able to employ any additional plug-ins on that channel until something was removed, thereby giving back to the "Latency Pool".

Then, I think Digi could ignore the console manufacturers and develop their own large scale ethernet controller with scads more dedicated knobs and such... because at that point they would have finally built a correct and proper mixer.

True, we all use things for the way they sound, and Neve, SSL, digital, analogue, all have their signatures... as do API and Sony, etc... And all of these sound great to some or most people. Well, I think the HD rig has a great sound as well, and that HD may be the platform that moves Digidesign into the center of the studio, as opposed to sitting to the left or right of the $XXX,XXX.00 console.

And yes, I realize that if it was as easy to do as it was to have to have me hastily describe how I imagine it done, it would have already been finished. So, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Just my $0.02. And if you made it this far, thanks for listening!

Brad McIlvaine
Audio Designer/Mixer
Henninger Digital Audio/1150 Post
Washington, DC 20036