Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Win)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-02-1998, 01:46 AM
Disco_Doctor Disco_Doctor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hollywoood, CA
Posts: 1,110
Default PT/NT vs PT/Mac compatibility discussion (was \"Question regarding .wav files\")

I'm reposting Steve Rosenthal's reply in this thread so I can continue this thread with a more appropriate subject title...
---------------------------------------------
>Also, would an NT user be limited in some other way by choosing to work this way? Does an NT user have an added benefit to using this FAT disk system?<

At this point, the biggest advantage to working in the FAT system is that PT disk performance is fully optimzed for FAT. There is more overhead currently associated with working on HFS volumes.

Rest assured, though, you can do quite a bit with HFS on PTNT!

--Steve Rosenthal, Digidesign ETS
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-02-1998, 01:47 AM
Disco_Doctor Disco_Doctor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hollywoood, CA
Posts: 1,110
Default Re: PT/NT vs PT/Mac compatibility discussion (was \"Question regarding .wav files\")

Steve (or anyone else),

Could you be a little more specific about "you can do quite a bit with HFS on PTNT"? Does that statement imply that an NT user cannot achieve 32 track performance using HFS? Do the optimizations that you and Mike are referring to not exist when an NT user is using HFS? If so, how substantial (exactly) is the performance hit?

I hope I'm not bugging anybody too terribly much by harping on this so much, but it seems like a really major inconvenience to have to save converted copies of sessions (if I'm not using HFS on an NT system) in order to quickly hand my session to a Macintosh/Pro Tools user.

I'm sure someone at Digidesign has taken into consideration the following facts:

- 100% of the the installed base of Pro Tools users work on Macs
- It is not uncommon to need to open a Pro Tools session on a system other than the one it was originally created on

In light of those facts, I ask myself these questions:

Q: Do I have to convert a Pro Tools session, or a save a copy, or import files, or anything else to open a Pro Tools session on a different Macintosh than the one I originally created the session on?

A: Nope. I just double click the session file.

Q: In light of the million things that can go wrong on a session, do I want to worry about the substantial time and effort involved in converting a session from an "NT format" to a "Mac format" so I can get to work?

A: No way. I don't need the hassle.

Q: Can Digidesign really assure me that this conversion will be 110% problem free?

A: Nope.

Q: Does the producer I'm working for really give a damn about technical problems and/or delays? Does the artist want to hear my explanation as to why they have to wait on me to convert the session for who knows how long and deal with whatever problems might arise during that process in order to begin working on their session that was created with their new Pro Tools/NT system?

A: Very very unlikely.

Q: Do artists, producers, and engineers ask their peers in the industry (whom they know and trust) for advice on purchasing a Pro Tools system before they make their decision?

A: They sure do. I don't know anybody who laid out all the dough for a Pro Tools system without spending a lot of time talking to someone who was already an expert.

Q: If one of those artists, producers, or engineers was asking me for my opinion on purchasing either a Mac or NT Pro Tools system, would I recommend the NT system for any reason?

A: I can't think of a single reason why I would make such a recommendation, even if that reason was that the NT system cost substantially less. (I'd love to be given a reason though - educate me!). I can think of several reasons why I wouldn't make such a recommendation, one of which is this issue of a very inconvenient method of achieving compatibility between the two platforms.

If, just for fun, I make the enormous hypothetical leap of assuming that the unproven PT/NT system will work as well as the proven Mac/PT system, and that the PT/NT system is completely on par with the Mac/PT system - and only then start considering any significant issues (like compatibility issues between the two platforms) - I have to conclude that recommending a PT/NT system is a good way to lose some friends!

Am I wrong to think that implementing completely transparent cross-platform compatibility is really this important?

Opinions welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-03-1998, 04:36 PM
Tim Walters Tim Walters is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 117
Default Re: PT/NT vs PT/Mac compatibility discussion (was \"Question regarding .wav files\")

"Does that statement imply that an NT user cannot achieve 32 track performance using HFS?"

Not at all. We try to overengineer the system so that you can not only get 32 tracks, but 32 tracks with dense edits and automation--denser than we think people will use. Currently, there's a little more "headroom" on FAT, but there's plenty for typical sessions on either file system.

This assumes, of course, that you follow our guidelines and use one drive per 16 tracks of 24-bit audio. If you add an extra drive, you're even less likely to bump up against system limitations.

"Q: Do I have to convert a Pro Tools session, or a save a copy, or import files, or anything else to open a Pro Tools session on a different Macintosh than the one I originally created the session on?

A: Nope. I just double click the session file."

Same deal going back and forth between NT and Mac with an HFS drive.

Again, converting FAT sessions to HFS is a one-step procedure (simply use "Save Session Copy In...", and risk-free, as it does not change the original session. Obviously, if you think a session may end up on the Mac someday it's better to create it on HFS, but if you do need to convert a FAT session it's hassle free (taking about as much time as a disk copy).

"...a very inconvenient method of achieving compatibility between the two platforms."

It's as convenient as can be! Use HFS drives on NT, and it's just a drive swap. It's no different from going from Mac to Mac.

Tim Walters
Digidesign ETS
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-04-1998, 03:25 AM
Disco_Doctor Disco_Doctor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Hollywoood, CA
Posts: 1,110
Default Re: PT/NT vs PT/Mac compatibility discussion (was \"Question regarding .wav files\")

I had the wrong impression...so, that's cool - as long as, as you say, HFS is the format used from the beginning. One more question tho' - if using HFS on NT makes Mac compatibility a breeze, why use anything else? What specific benefits are there to using FAT?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-04-1998, 04:02 AM
Przemek Przemek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Poznan, POLAND
Posts: 1,004
Default Re: PT/NT vs PT/Mac compatibility discussion (was \"Question regarding .wav files\")

How to format HFS in NT ? ;-)
__________________
http://imaginatlh.com/91709
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-04-1998, 10:53 AM
Tim Walters Tim Walters is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 117
Default Re: PT/NT vs PT/Mac compatibility discussion (was \"Question regarding .wav files\")

The main benefit of using FAT (other than the extra bit of performance headroom already mentioned) is that you can open the .WAV files in other PC audio applications (SoundForge, etc.) For someone who has no need of Mac interoperability this could be a big advantage.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
forward compatibility, will HD 7 open LE5.3.1 files? nightwolf 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 07-05-2008 11:00 AM
Mac/Pc compatibility accessing files studio4610 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 2 12-08-2005 09:31 AM
pc audio files compatibility? Jburn34 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 0 07-31-2003 10:46 PM
Sound Files Compatibility with new DAWs silver General Discussion 0 01-13-2000 01:06 PM
Compatibility of SDII files MikeHend Digidesign Hardware & Software 4 09-03-1998 02:29 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com