What makes Pro Tools pro?

[MusicMadness]

Recently I see more and more people complaining on Pro Tools, not buying update plans and eventually landing with another DAW. I'm a relatively new user to PT, I bought it 2 years ago and I'm still learning. I switched from Reaper which I still occasionally use and this year I finally bought a license ($60) and now I wonder is there anything in Pro Tools that I cannot do in Reaper. I like how PT is organised, I like keyboard shortcuts, I like the way it looks but o the other hand Reaper is very customisable, I can easily make custom menus or assign shortcuts to any available action, I can even make it look like Pro Tools and so my question is: what is special in PT so it costs that much (nearly 20 times more than Reaper)? I mean for stereo music making, which is probably the most common use for PT. What are THE features that people choose it instead of anything else? If you were up to pick your first DAW ever once again to learn from a scratch and work on later, what would make you like Pro Tools the most?


PS. I wish this thread wouldn't end up like every other DAW wars thread, I'd really like to learn some cool options or eventually poke AVID if there's really nothing fancy in it but just 'industry standard' cliches etc.

[Blinkofani]

Where you’re mistaken is thinking stereo music making is the common use of PT. Once you realize that, the rest will need no explanation.

Blink

[deanrichard]

I'm not the best person to speak about this. I'm a Reaper user this days, but like you my primary output is stereo music. For me, Reaper is great.

A huge part of PT's market is video Post Production. I'm in over my head discussing that market, but I do know that in that arena Pro Tools is a "standard", and that by itself makes it essential for those users. The work is done by teams of people, not individuals. And while Reaper supports surround formats, AFAIK PT, and possibly Nuendo, are the only common DAWs that supports Dolby ATMOS. I don't know enough to enumerate other features that make PT a better choice for post production, but I'm sure others here can.

Originally Posted by MusicMadness

Recently I see more and more people complaining on Pro Tools, not buying update plans and eventually landing with another DAW. I'm a relatively new user to PT, I bought it 2 years ago and I'm still learning. I switched from Reaper which I still occasionally use and this year I finally bought a license ($60) and now I wonder is there anything in Pro Tools that I cannot do in Reaper. I like how PT is organised, I like keyboard shortcuts, I like the way it looks but o the other hand Reaper is very customisable, I can easily make custom menus or assign shortcuts to any available action, I can even make it look like Pro Tools and so my question is: what is special in PT so it costs that much (nearly 20 times more than Reaper)? I mean for stereo music making, which is probably the most common use for PT. What are THE features that people choose it instead of anything else? If you were up to pick your first DAW ever once again to learn from a scratch and work on later, what would make you like Pro Tools the most?


PS. I wish this thread wouldn't end up like every other DAW wars thread, I'd really like to learn some cool options or eventually poke AVID if there's really nothing fancy in it but just 'industry standard' cliches etc.

[MusicMadness]

Originally Posted by Blinkofani

Where you’re mistaken is thinking stereo music making is the common use of PT. Once you realize that, the rest will need no explanation.

Blink

Actually yes, I can't find any reason why all the big and small music studios around the world based on PT should be considered as uncommon phenomenon. Of course, I'm aware that in case of sound for video there's not that much on the market. On the other hand Dolby Atmos support and multichannel stuff was implemented quite recently and generally Avid is more a video than sound company so does it mean that they gonna focus more on developing PT for video than music making?

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by MusicMadness

does it mean that they gonna focus more on developing PT for video than music making?

That's been their MO for a while now, for reasons mentioned above (i.e. audio post is their hot spot). For composer who lean heavily upon MIDI, PT is practically abandonedware. Opcode's StudioVision, an app from two decades ago, was FAR ahead then as compared to PT today. I swear, I'd pay $7,500 to have SV built into ProTools.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by MusicMadness

Recently I see more and more people complaining on Pro Tools, not buying update plans and eventually landing with another DAW. I'm a relatively new user to PT, I bought it 2 years ago and I'm still learning. I switched from Reaper which I still occasionally use and this year I finally bought a license ($60) and now I wonder is there anything in Pro Tools that I cannot do in Reaper. I like how PT is organised, I like keyboard shortcuts, I like the way it looks but o the other hand Reaper is very customisable, I can easily make custom menus or assign shortcuts to any available action, I can even make it look like Pro Tools and so my question is: what is special in PT so it costs that much (nearly 20 times more than Reaper)? I mean for stereo music making, which is probably the most common use for PT. What are THE features that people choose it instead of anything else? If you were up to pick your first DAW ever once again to learn from a scratch and work on later, what would make you like Pro Tools the most?


PS. I wish this thread wouldn't end up like every other DAW wars thread, I'd really like to learn some cool options or eventually poke AVID if there's really nothing fancy in it but just 'industry standard' cliches etc.

First: if you actually wish this thread would not end up like the 100's of others you could not have picked a worse title ..

Moving on _____

As far as what makes it pro ? For professional use it is still the industry standard (most used) in both Post as mentioned above, but also still in the vast majority of professional Audio production studios. So that alone makes it "Pro" Also It was the first DAW to gain wide acceptance in professional recording studios ...So that is what historically and currently makes it "Pro" tools..

That said and more to your question : for Home studio, it is true that almost andy DAW can do what Pro Tools can do (albeit from somewhat,,,, to sometimes drastically, differently) ...But if you want to understand why PT may still be a desirable choice , Even for just simple 2 channel output ? Then the simplistic general answer is for the recording and editing audio, it is one most full featured well organised DAWs going, for fast efficient and intuitive audio editing ..

For example I tried Reaper back in 4 and did not really care for its workflow or GUI . Yes its potential for customization is arguably its biggest asset, but can also be its biggest negative as it was for me ( given that many DAW's especially PT automatically offer a number of features that you have to tediously set up in Reaper) which is I am guessing is one reason it is such a small download comparatively,,

For example to my knowledge neither it (Reaper) nor any other DAW I am aware of, actually has a multi tool that functions like the one in PT (where you do not have to keep going back to the toolbar to use the different tools)..

For me PT has far and away the most visually logical and easily workable GUI, for example the full channel strips in the mix window (laid out like a big analog console) is unmatched IMO. Also the fact that you can switch back and forth between full screen Edit and Mix windows with either a keystroke or top of window click is unbeatable.

I have also tried Studio One which I liked but still found things I like in PT absent and I have used Reason as slave to PT but it's audio editing is very clunky IMO.

But ultimately it is really only you who can decide if the GUI , workflow ,features is worth the subscription price

[TrackerLe]

I love Protools Ultimate with HDX and its great to work with it...
But my problem is... Avid wants us to make many compromises...
Protools Ultimate is the ONLY Daw, which wants me to disable Hyperthreading, to disable Turbo Boost, to disable Wifi and more...

Hey, other DAWs like Logic or Reaper and co work out of the box...No Bios Tuning or on Mac Apps like CPUSetter necessary...

I really hope Protools Ultimate 2019 ends this "incompatibility" and give us a stable Audio Engine without tweaks to make it work... No 91** and co Errors..
Then a dream may come true...

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by TrackerLe

Protools Ultimate is the ONLY Daw, which wants me to disable Hyperthreading, to disable Turbo Boost, to disable Wifi and more...

Does Avid officially recommend disabling hyperthreading? I know it's used as a workaround for certain scenarios where the CPU gets pounced on, but I didn't realize it was in Avid's documentation. It seems like more of a tweaker's game. And disabling WiFi, of course, just seems silly. It shouldn't make a difference. Is this Apple's issue, or Avid's? I guess it depends on which company you ask.

[Bob Olhsson]

If you want to get a job assisting the top people, you simply need to know Pro Tools. The reason why is that it was the very first multitrack audio workstation that runs on a desktop computer and nothing has come along that is enough better to be worth the time to learn for most busy pros.

If you only expect to be self-employed, you have many choices and may well find something better suited for what you are trying to do.

Because it is the standard of the film industry, I trust there will be fewer compatibility issues because that is a top priority for Avid. Every project most of us do is worth more than the price of any DAW. The ability to open an old session is a big deal to me.

[LDS]

Originally Posted by MusicMadness

Actually yes, I can't find any reason why all the big and small music studios around the world based on PT should be considered as uncommon phenomenon. Of course, I'm aware that in case of sound for video there's not that much on the market. On the other hand Dolby Atmos support and multichannel stuff was implemented quite recently and generally Avid is more a video than sound company so does it mean that they gonna focus more on developing PT for video than music making?

No reason at all?

Pro Tools is one of the few combined hardware/software DSP platforms available on the market. When you buy a HDX rig, you are buying a software controlled digital hardware mixer. Just like a digital hardware mixer, you are guaranteed a specific amount of I/O, track counts, plugin inserts and low latency and sample accuracy.

Reaper doesn't do that. Or Nuendo, Cubase, Logic, or any other entirely native solution. They are still capable systems, but they do really offer what Pro Tools HD rigs do in such a convenient, integrated system. I remember the first time I sat behind an Avid D-Control to mix. It was a real revelation about the power of Pro Tools. it is like the perfect marriage of the best aspects of digital technology, with the best aspects of an analogue workflow.

Originally Posted by TrackerLe

I love Protools Ultimate with HDX and its great to work with it...
But my problem is... Avid wants us to make many compromises...
Protools Ultimate is the ONLY Daw, which wants me to disable Hyperthreading, to disable Turbo Boost, to disable Wifi and more...

Hey, other DAWs like Logic or Reaper and co work out of the box...No Bios Tuning or on Mac Apps like CPUSetter necessary...

I really hope Protools Ultimate 2019 ends this "incompatibility" and give us a stable Audio Engine without tweaks to make it work... No 91** and co Errors..
Then a dream may come true...

It is a bit of a downer, but for some reason I can't help but think Apple are partly to blame for the issues. HDX was working great one day, then it suddenly worked not-so-great. There is a lot of internet banter about the inclusion of the T1 and T2 security chips that have become common place in Apple products that were released from 2016 onwards... that is about the time HDX turned a little sour. And it seems those chips are being blamed for a lot of low latency issues on USB interfaces as well. Perhaps Apple added/changed something intrinsic in OSX to accomodate the T1 & T2, and screwed a lot of audio users in the process.

Fingers crossed 2019.3 sorts it out, and the TB3 connectivity issues as well.