Protools LE and the fight of its life?

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Where most of Silicon Valley screwed up was by releasing stuff like the Newton where the CPU power just wasn't there yet.

It makes perfect sense to me that apps and processors will be merging into dedicated hardware devices. The whole "Swiss Army Knife" personal computer concept is as dated as timeshare was when the microprocessor came out.

This makes sense intuitively, especially as we spend time dinking around to get it all to work on a multi-purpose pc. However, the economies of scale involved in making a general purpose cpu has kept the software solutions in the forefront for decades now.

From a functionality standpoint, the boundary between what is done in hardware versus software is a flexible one, but the sheer power and continuous improvement of the 808x instuction set cpus has placed that boundary in a pretty constant place for a few decades now. Ditto with the dividing line between operating system and application. Windows/linux/system x also benefit from enormous economics of scale and place another fairly steady line between operating system and application.

My sense is that this dynamic is starting to eat away at the economics of hd systems with their custom and proprietary processors being rapidly outpaced by improvements in intel processors. So I see the trend towards native increasing rather than the other way around.

Entire companies and classes of what we used to call mini-computers have been wiped out with the rising power of the intel chip and the blunt but effective windows operating system. This is due to economies of scale and economies of standardization rather than the relative merits of these technologies compared to alternative designs one can imagine. Even apple found the economics of a lower-production volume chip undesirable and switched to intel. But they do cling to custom, low volume hardware, thereby ensuring their sub-5% market share...

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

No, I'm comparing how much less left brain activity is required for 16 track analog than 24 track analog. DAWs are even worse than 24 track analog.

Ok, I am in complete agreement on that. Its just a view I hardly ever hear espoused. And I am always aware that the music I like best was produced on sub/24 track systems.

[Bob Olhsson]

The 56k chip was utterly obsolete ten years ago! There has been a revolution in hardware cost that I think is every bit as profound as the microprocessor was.

An application pulled into hardware doesn't need to be compatible with anything but input and output. Developers can optimize to an unprecedented degree when they don't have a moving target. The result will probably be vastly superior performance for the same price as just today's software applications. It'll also put an end to software piracy which would be an immense cost savings that competition will pass on to the user.

[nikki-k]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Saying it is for musicians rather than engineers suggests they haven't got a clue about what recording engineering actually is!

Around ten years ago I did my first analog 16 track session in 27 years. Within ten minutes I was livid because it had come crashing home how unintuitive 24 track was compared to 16. I found my mind was on subtleties of mike placement and the rhythm of the session's work-flow rather than making certain I had optimum recording levels which were critical in the crippled narrow 24 track format. The last thing a recording engineer needs to be thinking about is a DAW application. This is exactly why consoles remain popular, you don't have to look at the damned thing and can concentrate on how your mix is affecting the performer while your fingers take care of business.

If there were a worshiping smilie, I would use it here. That was so well put IMO.

[Bob Olhsson]

The problem I have is that I think the music is suffering seriously. All music is infused with the context of the times.

I'm certain that if you applied the same musicians and work-flow today that we used during the 1960s and '70s, the result would be much more engaging, utterly contemporary music having a completely fresh style. The dehumanization of music that is caused by overdubbing, electronic instruments running presets and headphones is a serious musical problem and really a spiritual issue.

[TCM]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

It'll also put an end to software piracy which would be an immense cost savings that competition will pass on to the user.

Thanks God, there is still competition!
And Avid seem to feel it, as they are racking up losses...
Hopefully they see the writing on the wall....


Wasn't there another reply for this before me (by user Jason Grooms), which mysteriously disappeared????
Strange! Censorship???

[peppertree]

Originally Posted by TCM

Strange! Censorship???

What's strange about censorship?



(I just lost a whole thread!)

[sunburst79]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The problem I have is that I think the music is suffering seriously. All music is infused with the context of the times.

I'm certain that if you applied the same musicians and work-flow today that we used during the 1960s and '70s, the result would be much more engaging, utterly contemporary music having a completely fresh style. The dehumanization of music that is caused by overdubbing, electronic instruments running presets and headphones is a serious musical problem and really a spiritual issue.

Like maybe we could all play in the same room at the same time? Make eye contact and interact musically.... Make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. As opposed to concentrating on the parts themselves?

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The problem I have is that I think the music is suffering seriously. All music is infused with the context of the times.

I'm certain that if you applied the same musicians and work-flow today that we used during the 1960s and '70s, the result would be much more engaging, utterly contemporary music having a completely fresh style. The dehumanization of music that is caused by overdubbing, electronic instruments running presets and headphones is a serious musical problem and really a spiritual issue.

I am brought to mind those pix of peter paul and mary all singing around a single omni mike.

As I believe you said in another forum, rock is getting to be a pretty tired genre, and I will add that pop is pretty much fried for me as well. I am surprised to report that the only new music that I enjoy listening to is dance/techno and in some cases rap. Make of that what you will.

I have often said that the requirement that performers look like sex workers while their singing and playing is 'fixed' with autotune and editing is a big part of the problem.

I could go on and on, but I guess I would summarize it by saying that the more mooks have their hand in manufacturing a sound--immitating the 'now' sound, immitating what else is on the charts, the less spiritual content in the music. There's been thousands of words, not the least of which my own, on the lack of willingness to invest in the development of the artists, and other short-term thinking you get from tin-eared corporate types....

And bringing it back to pro tools, I admittedly have no musical achievements to give me cred, but I do have the sense that when you are getting upwards of 100 tracks for a pop song, you can be diluting creative energy or not making editing decisions. Also, my ears don't like to resolve a complicated mush of 100 sounds, so I like simpler stuff like in the 60s.

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The dehumanization of music that is caused by overdubbing, electronic instruments running presets and headphones is a serious musical problem and really a spiritual issue.

That should be framed and hung on the wall of every studio.