|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Yep, marketing overdrive but there's many things that have to fall in place before I can move..... Apple new computer and new plugs which both are not available.
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OK, I'm outta here, I've had enough fun playing with the troll for one day. :) G |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Quote:
I'm not exactly alone in what I am saying. Furthermore, you act as if I am saying that pro tools 10 doesn't work, or something of that nature. I am just saying that the audio path is not as good. Avid admits that themselves in so many words. Why do you think they are moving to 64 bit? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Quote:
Anyhow, throwing insults at me does not make me wrong. I'm obviously right about what I am saying. I will note that some folks seem to be taking my statement to mean something else. |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Quote:
So your pedantic point is utterly pointless, and simply argumentative, as is your entire presence in this thread in my view. Quote:
Quote:
Moorer and Johnston, and people like that are a more reliable source since they have no real dog in the race, and, frankly, because they are simply more learned. Paul Frindle helped design some nice plugins, I guess, and, arguably, one of the worst sounding consoles ever to come into wide use, but he is not a research scientist and, although I don't know him that well, I do not believe that he would claim to bbe. To my knowledge, Frindle has never designed, or marketed a DAW, although I'm sure at least some, and perhaps much, of his work is good. Anyhow, your "question" is framed in such an obnoxious way that it reveals that you are simply trying to be antagonistic. According to your warped logic, we have to choose between either "Paul Frindle was wrong all along [you fail to state what issue he may have been wrong about]", or, conversely, "You [I] don't know what you're [I'm] talking about". Your pompous statement is improper and bereft of any type of logic because you apparently base your position on the false presumption that either Paul or I must be either right or wrong about everything [or some thing that you fail to reveal]. Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
what I am saying is that the current 32 bit float audio path is not as precise as the TDM 48bit mixer.
I am saying that it is basically pro tools le, with some added bells and whistles. I am saying that they had to use 32 bit rather than 64 bit [which would have been better], as an interim strategy, in order to maintain compatibility with the RTAS plugs and avoid a mutiny in the user base. They say they intend to make the system real 64 bit double, which will be an improvement. For most people with big TDM rigs, and who really understand how to use them, them, it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a "transitional system" at great cost. It makes more sense to wait until they trot out the 64 bit rigs. You don't have to buy every little incremental so-called "upgrade" out of fear you'll fall behind, and most of the smart people don't. Avid is well-known for marketing spin, and trying to make people think that each upgrade is some sort of "milestone", when they are not. They are shameless in that regard. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I'm pretty sure, fwiw, pro tools native does have a 64-bit float mixer. It started with HD|Native, with it's introduction. I think it was a special version of HD 8.5. Then they released Pro Tools 9 with the 64-bit float mix engine for all native systems. They just didn't highly publicize it. I assume to keep TDM guys happy. Finally with HDX they started making a big deal of it. Has nothing to do with whether or not the app is 64-bit. 64-bit pro tools will allow access to more RAM. Hopefully some more efficient code, but that will have to wait and see.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Dell T5810. Harrison Mixbus 32C. Haven't used PT since 2015 and never been happier. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Quote:
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Duck-
For the love of God, must you post 75 times in your own thread?
__________________
Pro Tools 10.3.3 | HD Native | HD I/O 8x8x8 | Mac Pro 8 Core Westmere | 24GB RAM | OSX Lion 10.7.4 | API 3124 | Chandler TG-2 | UA 4-710d | Empirical Labs Distressor EL8X | Kemper Rack | |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: new pro tools is not as good
Sounds like some people are more concerned with bits and stuff, rather than talent... who gives a crap really? Do you think any of the top producers of hit records recorded in the past Decade using pro tools really gives S$%t if the mixer is 24 or 48 or 32 or 64 bit?... let me save you the trouble if looking that up "NO!"
Give me a Sure 57 and a Tascam cassette 4-track recorder and some real talent and it will shine... or maybe some of us need Pro Tools 100 from the future in order to polish, and gold plate a turd... I can't believe I wasted 5 mins of my life responding to this dumb post.. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'm so good at Pro Tools | ianbee | Pro Tools 10 | 64 | 10-13-2013 01:24 PM |
003 only good for Pro Tools? | ergalthema | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 5 | 01-28-2010 07:22 PM |
Good PC for Pro Tools? Under £600 | pezking | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 2 | 06-03-2009 04:28 AM |
New Mac..Is it good with Pro tools?? | gstone | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 4 | 02-05-2009 09:42 AM |
Good PSU for Pro Tools PC | SixChurchStreet | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) | 6 | 01-01-2009 10:36 AM |