Pro Tools 12 vs Studio One 3 vs Logic Pro X

[ShiftStudios]

Okay, quick action recap for anyone who's listening or cares.

Firstly, what do we consider a strength of Pro Tools? Stability used to be one...

Okay, here I go.

For the last two weeks I have been copying a session between PT, Studio One 3 and Logic Pro X, in the quest to find the most efficient DAW. I can work around interface and design issues, stability and performance, I cannot. So here we go.

3 minute session, 48k, 24bit.

Did not count plugins or tracks, but they are identical in each session.

Pro Tools 12 requires a buffer size of 1024 samples to play and work effectively (mostly, I still get playback issues fequently).
Studio One 3 requires a buffer size of 512 samples to play back and work without error.
Logic Pro X requires a buffer size of 64 samples to play back and work without error.

So I know which one I'd choose if efficiency and performance were my key deciding factors.

There's also the little issue of Pro Tools being terribly optimised. Want proof? Okay, here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyi5a2oq9s...%20am.png?dl=0

Both sessions open, both not playing. Logic Pro open, not a whisper from the fans until I start playing and modifying at the same time. Fans kick up to full as soon as I open Pro Tools, whether or not its playing, that's terribly optimised...

I do love Pro Tools, at least I love what they were, not what they've become. The great part is, I'm not married to Pro Tools, so I can happily go on dates with other DAWs and not feel guilty.

Anyhow, I'm off to Logic land now, the grass seems greener over there somehow. I guess I'll be spending more time creating music and less time trying to make my DAW work. I'll miss some of you, but should you ever feel the need to regain your sanity, you'll find me floating around the Logic boards.

[cmbourget]

You can not do this analysis without Cubase 8

[albee1952]

"Pro Tools 12 requires a buffer size of 1024 samples to play and work effectively"
This suggests am underpowered machine, but to be certain, you would need to also test/compare with Pro Tools 11. I have also not had a great time with 12, but on my setup, 11 runs like a champ with no stability issues(and running at a 64 buffer for most any session under 80 tracks).

[ShiftStudios]

Originally Posted by cmbourget

You can not do this analysis without Cubase 8

I would like to compare Cubase 8 also. Alas, another dongle I'd need to own... And getting my hands on Cubase in Australia is not the easiest thing to do, neither was Pro Tools though to be fair. Does Cubase even run on Mac?

Originally Posted by albee1952

"Pro Tools 12 requires a buffer size of 1024 samples to play and work effectively"
This suggests am underpowered machine, but to be certain, you would need to also test/compare with Pro Tools 11. I have also not had a great time with 12, but on my setup, 11 runs like a champ with no stability issues(and running at a 64 buffer for most any session under 80 tracks).

I also had the issues with 10...

Not sure though how this is not a fair analysis... As I said, exactly the same tracks and plugins in all DAWs, can't get more apples to apples than that. I've eliminated the plugins and Audio as the problems since it is exactly the same in all DAWs. If Logic and S1 3 can handle it, but Pro Tools has a hard time, I would put more in the fact that Pro Tools is not optimised than that I have an underpowered machine. Exactly which super-computer would AVID like me to own to use their software... seems slightly limited in their potential customer base if I can run it fine in other DAWs, but need a super-computer to run Pro Tools.

[zedhed]

Originally Posted by ShiftStudios

... And getting my hands on Cubase in Australia is not the easiest thing to do, neither was Pro Tools though to be fair.

I don't think it can get any simpler than to go to the Avid website store & purchase/Download Pro Tools.

That's what I've been doing for years without a hitch and I live further away than you.

[ShiftStudios]

Originally Posted by zedhed

I don't think it can get any simpler than to go to the Avid website store & purchase/Download Pro Tools.

That's what I've been doing for years without a hitch and I live further away than you.

Yeah, but NZ isn't full of crazy lunatics. :P

I needed a iLok when I purchased it, so I had to find and get in touch with a local supplier to get a hard copy of Pro Tools with an iLok. Some local suppliers can be a pain in the backside to deal with. Since then though I agree, the purchase process has been smooth sailing. :)

[cmbourget]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, Cubase runs on MAC. And Steinberg provides a free 30 day trial full version.

[Kris75]

Originally Posted by ShiftStudios

Okay, quick action recap for anyone who's listening or cares.

Firstly, what do we consider a strength of Pro Tools? Stability used to be one...

Okay, here I go.

For the last two weeks I have been copying a session between PT, Studio One 3 and Logic Pro X, in the quest to find the most efficient DAW. I can work around interface and design issues, stability and performance, I cannot. So here we go.

3 minute session, 48k, 24bit.

Did not count plugins or tracks, but they are identical in each session.

Pro Tools 12 requires a buffer size of 1024 samples to play and work effectively (mostly, I still get playback issues fequently).
Studio One 3 requires a buffer size of 512 samples to play back and work without error.
Logic Pro X requires a buffer size of 64 samples to play back and work without error.

So I know which one I'd choose if efficiency and performance were my key deciding factors.

There's also the little issue of Pro Tools being terribly optimised. Want proof? Okay, here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyi5a2oq9s...%20am.png?dl=0

Both sessions open, both not playing. Logic Pro open, not a whisper from the fans until I start playing and modifying at the same time. Fans kick up to full as soon as I open Pro Tools, whether or not its playing, that's terribly optimised...

I do love Pro Tools, at least I love what they were, not what they've become. The great part is, I'm not married to Pro Tools, so I can happily go on dates with other DAWs and not feel guilty.

Anyhow, I'm off to Logic land now, the grass seems greener over there somehow. I guess I'll be spending more time creating music and less time trying to make my DAW work. I'll miss some of you, but should you ever feel the need to regain your sanity, you'll find me floating around the Logic boards.

This post is not accurate as PT 11/12 is ALWAYS at a buffer of 1024. The only time it's not if a track is record enabled OR you have "first selected" chosen under MIDI prefs.

PT 11/12 has a dedicated input buffer. You have no option to choose an output buffer.

So you can't actually measure a session in this way. Unless you are using the "First selected" option under midi prefs.

[ShiftStudios]

Originally Posted by Kris75

This post is not accurate as PT 11/12 is ALWAYS at a buffer of 1024. The only time it's not if a track is record enabled OR you have "first selected" chosen under MIDI prefs.

PT 11/12 has a dedicated input buffer. You have no option to choose an output buffer.

So you can't actually measure a session in this way. Unless you are using the "First selected" option under midi prefs.

Okay, so based upon your reply, Pro Tools, even though it always runs at 1024, is still less efficient than Studio One 3 or Logic Pro X. Regardless of what Pro Tools decides to do, I chose 1024 and it finally stopped giving me enough playback errors to be mostly useful. Logic Pro X however, worked perfectly fine at 64 samples.

All you really stated was that Pro Tools is so inefficient that it forces you to use 1024 samples and still can't do the job as well as S1 3 or LPX.

The point I am re-iterating here is that you can do the same job in LPX or S1 that you can in pro tools, and you don't need a super-computer to do it.

EDIT: So the post is accurate, because I had it set to 1024, and if you are saying it ALWAYS is, then it's irrelevant.

[Kris75]

Originally Posted by ShiftStudios

Okay, so based upon your reply, Pro Tools, even though it always runs at 1024, is still less efficient than Studio One 3 or Logic Pro X. Regardless of what Pro Tools decides to do, I chose 1024 and it finally stopped giving me enough playback errors to be mostly useful. Logic Pro X however, worked perfectly fine at 64 samples.

All you really stated was that Pro Tools is so inefficient that it forces you to use 1024 samples and still can't do the job as well as S1 3 or LPX.

The point I am re-iterating here is that you can do the same job in LPX or S1 that you can in pro tools, and you don't need a super-computer to do it.

EDIT: So the post is accurate, because I had it set to 1024, and if you are saying it ALWAYS is, then it's irrelevant.

That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that you did not know how the buffer size works in Pro Tools 11 and above and that you may inadvertently have multiple tracks on the input buffer

From the "What's New in Pro Tools 11 Doc"

Pro Tools 11 provides a new low-latency input buffer.
This ensures ultra-low latency record monitoring
without sacrificing plug-in performance. The
low-latency input buffer is automatically engaged
while monitoring virtual instruments, and also for
record-enabled tracks or input monitor–enabled
tracks

FWIW, I can run HUGE sessions on my 4 year old Lenovo z570. This is not a super computer at all.

I am also aware that other programs may be more efficient than PT, but the test you ran is not actually a reliable way to see the difference.

I am aware that PT is picky on the machines that it runs on, but perhaps your system is not set up for Pro Tools in the best way possible. Maybe you don't want it to be. That is all fine. But PT11/12 is not as inefficient as you made it seem. That is all I was getting at.