Should I invest in Pro Tools?

[worldwidestudios]

I'm a freelance video editor, primarily working in FCP (and to a lesser extent, Avid). Audio is not my specialty, nor do I have a whole lot of talent for it.

Nevertheless, it's quickly becoming a one-man-band world out there for editors, and I'm being asked to clean and sweeten audio more and more often. I've used Pro Tools in the past and found it a very robust tool, a pleasure to work with, as opposed to Soundtrack Pro, which I currently use as it's bundled with Final Cut Studio. But despite it's clunkiness, STP gets the job done most of the time. It tightly integrates with FCP, and of course, it's free with the Studio package. Pro Tools entails not only the cost of entry, but software AND hardware upgrades in the future. Though this is slightly offset by the fact that the MBOX is high-quality USB audio interface with or without PT.

I guess my question is, based on my concerns and your own experiences, is Pro Tools a worthy investment for someone like me?

Thanks so much for your thoughts.

[mikevarela]

Once would ask why your paying clients are asking a video editor to handle audio cleanup and mixing? I know that it's unfortunate today that we all must start to co-specialize in a few different trades, but being efficient and turning out a great product as a one man show is probably not going to happen that easily - or effectively.

I love audio and Pro Tools, but couldn't edit (NLE) myself out of a box if asked too, that's why I've partnered with an editor for just this type of work. This way it's fast, accurate and efficient - not to mention artistically on point from the POV of a trained engineer.

Sound isn't a 2nd place actor, and as such it should be treated with the love and respect that the video gets.

That being said (sorry for the rant), it wouldn't make much sense for you to go buy Pro Tools to handle basic editing and mixing, especially because your clients are expecting a video delivery, not an audio one. So what ever software you use is up to you. Pro Tools isn't expensive by itself (350 for an mbox), but you'll need DV Toolkit for time code support (1200.00) and a small set of plugins for cleanup and mixing (around 500.00), not to mention you should be buying some decent studio speakers to hear what your doing to the audio.

If I were you I'd stick with Sound Track Pro, it's less expensive, has more plugins and works with FCP easily (they use the same conventions).

As you probably already know, the software doesn't do anything by itself, it takes a person who's spent time/money/energy understanding it's functionality and finesse... so there would be a learning curve to doing anything worth listening to.

You're best bet is to co-create and edit with another person who works with audio like you work with video.

If you decide to get software, Lynda.com offers a great suite of how-to videos to help you get started learning.

Good luck

[garnoil]

In my experience and my opinion is that is is not about Pro-Tools or Sound Track Pro or whatever. If you have no talent for audio, no experience, no interest, and are only driven to it by your clients wanting to use a "one man show editor" (as you suggest) , then I think you will most likely fail. I mean, think about it, the only people that are using this "one man show approach" are the cheapest, most unsophisticated, creative-less people in the biz (low end reality shows, corporate, educational, low end advertisement, etc.). How do you think your sound mix (with your new Pro_Tools) will compare to professional sound post artist? Then again, professional sound post artist -real sound post artists not low end commercial post houses that will do anything for a penny-, would probably would not take these type of "one man band" projects.

Investing in Pro-Tools (or any other DAW) is always a terrible investment (as an investment) unless you can actually make money from it. This means, that you are only buying the "tools" for the job.

[worldwidestudios]

Believe me, I'm no fan of being asked to do something I know I'm not qualified to do-- but if they're not going to hire someone else to do it, I might as well charge them the extra fee and do my best.

Could you elaborate a bit on DV Toolkit? Would I not be able to easily go from FCP/Avid to Pro Tools without it? Does it have anything to do with the DigiTranslator plugin I've heard about?

[Newpostguy]

Originally Posted by worldwidestudios

Believe me, I'm no fan of being asked to do something I know I'm not qualified to do-- but if they're not going to hire someone else to do it, I might as well charge them the extra fee and do my best.

Could you elaborate a bit on DV Toolkit? Would I not be able to easily go from FCP/Avid to Pro Tools without it? Does it have anything to do with the DigiTranslator plugin I've heard about?

The DV toolkit will allow you to read and work in TC and frames. Without it ProTools will only offer Bars and beats, minutes and seconds and samples.

The Digistranslator (which comes with the toolkit) allows OMF/AAF import/export.

As others have said based on your story, I would either stick with soundtrack pro for that small level of audio work or find an aspiring sound person to grow with.

[worldwidestudios]

Thanks all for your advice. I guess I'll stick with STP, if for no other reason than the ridiculous $1200 pricetag on working with timecode. And partnering with a dedicated sound person sounds like a really smart idea.

Thanks again!

[gives]

Originally Posted by mikevarela

Once would ask why your paying clients are asking a video editor to handle audio cleanup and mixing? I know that it's unfortunate today that we all must start to co-specialize in a few different trades, but being efficient and turning out a great product as a one man show is probably not going to happen that easily - or effectively.

I love audio and Pro Tools, but couldn't edit (NLE) myself out of a box if asked too, that's why I've partnered with an editor for just this type of work. This way it's fast, accurate and efficient - not to mention artistically on point from the POV of a trained engineer.

Sound isn't a 2nd place actor, and as such it should be treated with the love and respect that the video gets.

That being said (sorry for the rant), it wouldn't make much sense for you to go buy Pro Tools to handle basic editing and mixing, especially because your clients are expecting a video delivery, not an audio one. So what ever software you use is up to you. Pro Tools isn't expensive by itself (350 for an mbox), but you'll need DV Toolkit for time code support (1200.00) and a small set of plugins for cleanup and mixing (around 500.00), not to mention you should be buying some decent studio speakers to hear what your doing to the audio.

If I were you I'd stick with Sound Track Pro, it's less expensive, has more plugins and works with FCP easily (they use the same conventions).

As you probably already know, the software doesn't do anything by itself, it takes a person who's spent time/money/energy understanding it's functionality and finesse... so there would be a learning curve to doing anything worth listening to.

You're best bet is to co-create and edit with another person who works with audio like you work with video.

If you decide to get software, Lynda.com offers a great suite of how-to videos to help you get started learning.

Good luck

Well said!! G

[Brandonx1]

Originally Posted by worldwidestudios

Believe me, I'm no fan of being asked to do something I know I'm not qualified to do-- but if they're not going to hire someone else to do it, I might as well charge them the extra fee and do my best.

I've never understood this. How can having a offline editor mix a show be cheaper then me. I know I'm 100 times faster mixer with 100 times better results and time is money. So, how can it be cheaper or better having a slower, less qualified person mix the program? It seems like it would cost more and have worse results. Can someone explain the logic behind having a video editor mix?
Best

[dr sound]

Originally Posted by brandonx1

i've never understood this. How can having a offline editor mix a show be cheaper then me. I know i'm 100 times faster mixer with 100 times better results and time is money. So, how can it be cheaper or better having a slower, less qualified person mix the program? It seems like it would cost more and have worse results. Can someone explain the logic behind having a video editor mix?
Best

Flat Deals/ One Price for All

[Brandonx1]

Originally Posted by dr sound

Flat Deals/ One Price for All

Producers, EP's, Post Supervisors, Fedex when the show gets sent back due to QC problems? Seems like a lot of work for a flat rate!