What an embarassment!

[Lorin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike connelly:
I've used the AudioFile - it was pretty state of the art about 1995. Nowadays if people are still using it, it's probably because they're not done paying them off yet.

---

...or maybe because they still do exactly what they did when they were new, which was exactly the reason the user bought them in the first place.

I still have a P200 with an ISA S/PDIF interface that I use as a glorified razorblade. It still does what it was designed to do, and just because there are now systems with more features doesn't mean that (a) I need those new features, or (b) that the usefullness of the existing system is affected in any way by the availability of newer systems.

I may decide that I want some of the capabilities a newer system may offer, but that does NOT mean the older system is no longer useful.

[MacDaddy WGAR]

VoicePipes,
You and other who keep referring to this as a demo are wrong. Demos are time limited are feature limited, There is a hell of a lot you can do with this If you can get it running on your machine. I have already produced a promo and took it to work for sweetening on my Mix system.

2nd, If you have identical PT Sessions half way across the world with identical plug in's, all you need to do is e-mail the session reel which contains all your edit and mix info and the fades folder. It has had that ability since day one.

The Big Production house here in Cleveland is running on an NT system and the engineers there are amazing. They write custom programs to do what needs to be done. Obviously I can't comment on the recent systems of the past two years. But I am aware the pc DAWs have made considerable inroads. But I laugh everytime someone in my industry of radio says CoolEdit is great. I have used that and can say it Ain't.

Hopefully Digi will get a solid version for the pc out because the Mac version of PTF has been stable for me.

Bill

[jeffreyc]

twas001, I think you've misread the message. I'm not saying that MIDI stuff is not professional, it's just not Pro Audio, with the emphasis on Audio. I use MIDI stuff myself and am a fan of Cubase VST. I love the MIDI features. But when it comes to Audio, it's just not the same.

Digi are the guys who developed the software/hardware for Audio recording from day 1, while MIDI software developers migrated from MIDI to Audio. It's sort of like MIDI features on Pro Tools is not on the par with those software such as Cubase, Logic etc.

I don't know the others, but the few MIDI software which also does Audio just do not have high sound quality like Pro Tools. I've done comparisons and Pro Tools is still better sounding.

I've worked on different devices including Sonic Solutions, SADiE, DSP, Pro Tools, Prima Music, Cubase VST, Digital Performer, O2R, Mackie analogue desk, RAMSA DA-7, SSL consoles.

I engineered album releases on an O2R (actually I've been doing it for years) with audio recorded on Digital Performer and the result is very good. But it's just never the same sort of high sound quality if I engineer on a SSL 9000G+ with Pro Tools, Apogee converters. No matter how creative or hard working I am, it's never the same high sound quality. That's why people are still buying SSL 9000, Apogee converters (or even DCS converters), etc.

But another thing is, if 95% of general public are satisfied with MP3 quality audio, why should we bother about high sound quality anyway? It seems not justified to satisfy just 5% of people...

[mike connelly]

Lorin, first off, have you ever used the AMS AudioFile?

"...or maybe because they still do exactly what they did when they were new, which was exactly the reason the user bought them in the first place."

Of course they still do what they did when they were new. But now there are tons of options that do the job *better*. I recently had a session at a facility running an AudioFile. The session took five times as long as it would have on protools. I'll never go back there again. That company doesn't HAVE to switch to protools. But if they don't, they're going to lose much of their business to competitors who do.

"I may decide that I want some of the capabilities a newer system may offer, but that does NOT mean the older system is no longer useful."

I never said the old system is no longer useful. But just because the old system is still useful, that doesn't mean that are newer systems that can give better results in less time.

Considering the cost of switching from audiofile to protools and the benefits available, any facility that wants to remain competitive would be foolish to keep using the audiofile. Of course, for someone using audio equipment as a hobbyist, competing for clients isn't such a big issue so it makes sense to just keep using what you already have.

The fact that computers are available doesn't make typewriters less useful. So if typewriters are still useful, why are 99% of businesses not using them?


Mike