How many tracks in PT11 non-hd?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Dax Productions

Really? Unlimited? That would be amazing!

PT mixer can have as many tracks as you wish, but the concept of VOICEABLE tracks means how many can be played back at once.

[Dax Productions]

Originally Posted by JFreak

PT mixer can have as many tracks as you wish, but the concept of VOICEABLE tracks means how many can be played back at once.

Well it doesn't right now... 128 in non-hd and, I believe, 768 in HD. In pt10.

After that it will tell you "Too many Tracks for the current Pro Tools configuration."

So this is changing in 11?

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Dax Productions

Well it doesn't right now... 128 in non-hd and, I believe, 768 in HD. In pt10.

After that it will tell you "Too many Tracks for the current Pro Tools configuration."

So this is changing in 11?

I might have to stand corrected, but coming from the TDM land the issue has really been around voices and not tracks.

[Dax Productions]

Don't get me wrong... I'd LOVE more voices in non-HD as well... but for most of the work I do, the bigger bummer is taking a large session home from the studio to edit and having to break it 2 or more smaller sessions because I simply can't open the main session without pro tools dropping all the tracks after 128.

I guess we don't have an official word on this then.

[nigelpry]

I don't know where you've got the 128 figure from ... it's "96 simultaneous audio tracks (mono or stereo)".

Here's the official PT10 comparison chart ...

http://www.avid.com/US/products/Pro-...atures#Compare

... and the preliminary PT11 version, which I saw via a link in another thread but can't track down at the moment ... said the same.

So if you were really desperate, it appears you could merge some mono tracks into stereo and have upto 192 'tracks' of mono data playing back on 96 stereo tracks.

Assuming your system can cope with that.

I'm also assuming that for any genuinely mono tracks that you've merged in this way to keep to the 96 limit, you could set each such stereo track's output to a stereo bus, and create a pair of mono aux inputs, whose inputs would be the L or R mono elements of the stereo bus.

That way, you'll have separated them back to mono 'tracks' and can treat them with FX separately. Bear in mind though, that if you do too much of this, you'll then hit the 128 aux input limit in plain PT.

It is a way to get more more than 96 mono tracks playing back though, if you're desperate enough to make the effort.

[Dax Productions]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

I don't know where you've got the 128 figure from ... it's "96 simultaneous audio tracks (mono or stereo)".

Here's the official PT10 comparison chart ...

http://www.avid.com/US/products/Pro-...atures#Compare

... and the preliminary PT11 version, which I saw via a link in another thread but can't track down at the moment ... said the same.

So if you were really desperate, it appears you could merge some mono tracks into stereo and have upto 192 'tracks' of mono data playing back on 96 stereo tracks.

Assuming your system can cope with that.

I'm also assuming that for any genuinely mono tracks that you've merged in this way to keep to the 96 limit, you could set each such stereo track's output to a stereo bus, and create a pair of mono aux inputs, whose inputs would be the L or R mono elements of the stereo bus.

That way, you'll have separated them back to mono 'tracks' and can treat them with FX separately. Bear in mind though, that if you do too much of this, you'll then hit the 128 aux input limit in plain PT.

It is a way to get more more than 96 mono tracks playing back though, if you're desperate enough to make the effort.

I'm not talking about how many simultaneous tracks can play back.


I'm talking about how many tracks I can have in a session, regardless of whether or not they can play back.

[nigelpry]

Sorry, I obviously should have paid more attention to what you said.

[trakbytes]

Originally Posted by Dax Productions

Don't get me wrong... I'd LOVE more voices in non-HD as well... but for most of the work I do, the bigger bummer is taking a large session home from the studio to edit and having to break it 2 or more smaller sessions because I simply can't open the main session without pro tools dropping all the tracks after 128.

I guess we don't have an official word on this then.

I do understand your question and possibly your need (conforming units for film picture changes, maybe?), but it seems if you are taking this kind of work home, you probably need an HD system there. I don't think many non-HD users are going to need that capability on a native system. If you do, you are working at a high level and should be making enough money to pony up to HD.

Sorry I don't have the answer, but it seems like somewhat of an unreasonable expectation.

[Dax Productions]

Originally Posted by trakbytes

I do understand your question and possibly your need (conforming units for film picture changes, maybe?), but it seems if you are taking this kind of work home, you probably need an HD system there. I don't think many non-HD users are going to need that capability on a native system. If you do, you are working at a high level and should be making enough money to pony up to HD.

Sorry I don't have the answer, but it seems like somewhat of an unreasonable expectation.

If I wanted these sessions to fully play back, I would absolutely need an HD rig. No question. But that seems penalty enough for not owning HD. Isn't it a bit ridiculous that I can't even open my master sessions at home without protools just losing a bunch of information?

Anyways, been dealing with this issue for years now, so I'll continue to deal, but it would be a huge plus if this was changed in 11.

[ThunderKyss]

Originally Posted by Dax Productions

If I wanted these sessions to fully play back, I would absolutely need an HD rig. No question. But that seems penalty enough for not owning HD. Isn't it a bit ridiculous that I can't even open my master sessions at home without protools just losing a bunch of information?

Anyways, been dealing with this issue for years now, so I'll continue to deal, but it would be a huge plus if this was changed in 11.

HD systems are getting dirt cheap now, even PCI-e (relatively speaking). I'd go HD & hold off the upgrade at work as long as you can.