Post Q #1: MMR8/MMP16 - Why many dub stage use it?

[Bokir]

All,

Just curious, why it still the standard equipment in most dubbing stage? What is it main advantage? What is it with other makes/model (Radar, MX2424, etc)? Couldn't it all be done using PT?

Sorry for this silly question. Thanks.

[charles maynes]

the MMP-MMR sunset is upon us. First, since Tascam has discontinued their production, and secondly, at least here in Los Angeles, It seems that more and more stages are using ProTools for playback.

The benefit of the MMR8 is that it allows for traditional film style punch recording.

It also was one of the few devices which would lock to bi-phase film systems (which also seem to be in their sunset)

Basically, Non-Linear video playback has loosened the requirements to be able to playback in reverse which openned the floodgate of viability for ProTools to be the playback machine for re-recording.

The other machines mentioned , (Radar, Tascam DM24, Akai DD8 etc) all work well also, but their viability is at risk with the higher sample rates that the current digital film re-recording consoles have.

One of course could argue that the Dolby Digital spec of 48k is all that is needed, but I personally see no harm in doing the tracks at a higher sample rate then down-converting the final composite mix.

Mind you I still work on a Mix Plus system-


hope that is useful...

charles maynes

[ekuehnl]

The benefit of the MMR8 is that it allows for traditional film style punch recording.

Which will be available in Pro Tools 6.4.

In addition, you will be able to control auto-input/input-only monitoring per track. Not to mention a ton of other cool new stuff for post.

-Eric

[Dan Pinder]

let's not forget that you can mount any MMR drive in Pro Tools and conform the stems directly. Try that with a Radar!

[charles maynes]

In general, I think that announced features in software should not colour the current limitations of gear-


As to PT6.4 having punch recording and input switching

This is something that traditional stages have had for YEARS with MMR's this means hundreds of films have taken advantage of this functionality so far-




It is still not here with PT, and we do not know the flexibiliy of the system. So, I must say that at this moment in time, ProTools DOES NOT have these features. They are on their way- they are likely to be really great, but they are not in use today.

Now there a myriad features PT offers that make it superior however.

charles maynes

[Waingro]

The MMR/MMP dubbers cannot be compared to Pro Tools because they are completely different products. It would be like comparing and car and a bycicle.

A little history lesson for you guys:

What is MMR-8?

A digital replacement for mag dubbers at the worlds highest budget facilities. It was a product developed for large corporations back in 1995/96 SPECIFICALLY made for hollywood. When I say Hollywood, I mean mostly the large studios. Also the largest of facilities in places like Bablesburg/Europe. The reason pro tools finatics think they stink is because a) You can't edit on them (or at least that is their misconception), and b) they are old and don't look cool.

Important meetings were held in these early years of everyone (large dubbing facilities) coming together to agree on a professional solution to convert from MAG to Digital, and the MMR-8 was the box that pushed this revolution - FOR REPRODUCER & RECORDER ON MIX STAGE ONLY. My guess is 70% of hollywood movies from 1997 up to still today have used these products.

What is Pro Tools?

A DAW used for editorial. MMR-8s are designed for a very niche market - being large corporations. for high end old school style film dubbing consoles where old school mixers can do rock & roll style mixing and generally experience (with proper system design).

Jim Lucas (the main promoter for MMRs) was let go from Tascam. He was the key guy for the product. Digi even has ex-tascam guys going around Hollywood right now trying to phase out the MMRs saying ProTools is a replacement You also have to understand that nobody can afford 100 MMRs so the customers in the world that could and can afford them, already own at min. 100 each. No Pro Tools system can reliably gang the number of tracks in perfect sync like the MMRs. Eg. 1 MM-RC remote can control 100 MMP-16's, thats 1600 tracks of MMP-16 or an alternative could be an 800 track recorder. It's a simple as the MMR-BUS. Can't be done with pro tools. Not that many tracks, not now and not cost efficient.

You have to remember, these products can achieve HUNDREDS of tracks perfectly and since 1996. Think of them as a piece of factory machinery that is made to print money, and thats why they get NO marketing hype, it's because they are busy making money. They have always been in the background working away while no magazine ever talks about it. Nobody needs to because the real money makers are still making money.

Audio post is just one big money game!

Who is fueling the rumors that the MMR-8s are old and shouldn't be used anymore?

Sound Editors, new school dubbing mixers, general industry idiots... You get the drift. Facilities that don't have expensive multi-channel AES/EBU consoles.... Lazy editors that can't do SAVE AS in the 5.0 format because they feel 6.X is the ONLY way to do things, guys that can't afford kingston carriers, guys that want to use USB/FireWire now only, guys that don't know how to use MX-View & Viewnet......

You catch the drift, as the general quality level starts to dip with cheaper low end non-pro technologies, utimately it is these masses that force high end to adapt?

Will they ever be phased out completely?

Nope. Old school big facilities still have their hundreds of DA-88s and they still have decided to use the dubbers for the next 3 years, while keeping them around just like old tape machines. Pro Tools recently failed with their pro tools mock dubber, and fake tape mode punch, that is really non-destructive but just seems to be tape mode. So unfortunately it didn't work out. You have to understand there are many political issues too, at the higher level.

So to answer your original question: "Couldnt it all be done with Pro Tools" - if you mean new school dubbing - Yes, if you mean could Pro Tools do what the MMRs do - No.

The MMRs are sound dummies - NOT workstations

That ends this long story. If you poke me, and you want to hear about What is the MX-2424 and was it supposed to be MMR-24, then that will be my next story boys and girls.

Im gonna go retreat for another month.

[Waingro]

Sorry I just read my message and I see sentences with no endings. Ignore them.

More answers since I forgot to scroll down and didn't even read what people said:

>Tascam has discontinued their production

The product is now a mature product and their is no demand anymore for the product - hence no more is made, because all the facilities that should own them, already own them - due to their hardware infrastructeres and enterprise style system engineering.

b) TASCAM cannot continue the product since nobody from TimeLine works for them anymore, so basically nobody at Tascam really knows anything about them. Everything in the bankruptsy of the company that made them went bye bye along with the personnell that made them.


>ProTools to be the playback machine for re-recording.

The cool thing about Pro Tools is that it can be used in conjunction with the dubbers. You have to remember, the MMPs are basically Pro Tools Playback machines.

>One of course could argue that the Dolby Digital spec of 48k is all that is needed, but I >personally see no harm in doing the tracks at a higher sample rate then down-converting the final >composite mix.

For the next 10 yrs and more probably 15 it's still going to be 48K. The broadcst indstry is a key driver for high end post, and 48K is the VTR standard eg. D5.

SRC is nasty, and all they (mixers) will most likely do is just stick them analog out, so basically the best pro standard is submit elements at 48K 24bit.

Mix Plus sound cool Charles, do you know where I could buy one for cheap? I want to buy a cheap Pro Tools system, as I've decided I will most likely NOT be buying a HD system.

Oh and, the DD8s are the current pro european standard for dubbers by the way. Also a NYC standard. There are TONS of DD8s in Europe.

[Noiz2]

A few points...

You don't have to think 6 is all there is to not want to save as 5.0. To convert any session after 5.0 to 5.0 you have to split all your multi track tracks then delete the old ones. There is also a number of other "little details" that need to be changed and open you up to missing something and having problems later. The alternative, that a number of folks use, is to essentially work in 5.0...what a pain.
NOBODY mixes 800 tracks wide, current PT rigs are capable of track counts in excess of 99.9% of the needs of feature films, video and all ad's.
That said at this time I still think MMR8's work smoother than PT on the stage.

"The product is now a mature product and their is no demand anymore for the product - hence no more is made, because all the facilities that should own them, already own them"

Sorry that is BS. No demand = no sales = no support= dead end. Are you trying to imply that the industry is frozen and nothing is going to change? No more purchases? I'm not sure what your smoking but I wish you would send me some.

"For the next 10 yrs and more probably 15 it's still going to be 48K. The broadcst indstry is a key driver for high end post, and 48K is the VTR standard eg. D5."

Again what universe to you live in? 15 years ago nobody used digital dubbers, 10 years ago Nagra RtR was still the production recording standard. Five years ago DAT was king. Now you are saying were locked to a standard (that is already a bit dated) for the next 15 years?

"SRC is nasty, and all they (mixers) will most likely do is just stick them analog out, so basically the best pro standard is submit elements at 48K 24bit."

I agree with the conclusion but your reason is flawed. SRC is fast easy and not really a problem. We generally work at a SR that fits what we are working with (often 44.1) and then SRC the session to final requirements (remember that "save session copy in" (BTW that is what you ment to write above, "save session as" only allows you to change the name not the format) that we are all too lazy to use?). I strongly suspect that in the next five to 10 years 96/24 will be the post standard, if for no other reason than to "future proof" the sound for the next release format (what ever comes after DVD). With tighter schedules the ability to take a film from "cradle to grave" in a single format will be a very big motivator. I also predict (with my Crystal ball) that in 15 years there will be very few prints struck because the delivery to the theatre will be by satellite transmission, eliminating the need for prints and drastically reducing distribution costs. Film it will be an acquisition only format (if even that) and we will all be mixing to NL video eliminating any advantage that MMR8's currently have. Plus who's going to be able to save to PT v5.0 format fifteen years from now?

[DigiTechSupt]

I'm not sure that anyone was taking shots at Tascam dubbers or questioning their impact and/or use in the Film industry. To say that Tascam dubbers have more than carried their weight is an understatement but, as someone mentioned already in this string, they are bit long in the tooth in 2004.

Also true, comparing dubbers and Pro Tools is an "Apple/Oranges" conversation.

Pro Tools and "dubbing features" is in no way a slam on Tascam or the dubbers, it's simply an answer to a strong request from the Hollywood community, namely the large studios.

By adding trackpunch capabilities and per track input monitoring, Pro Tools is a viable option to replace these dubbers. Also, Pro Tools in place of these dubbers will offer functionality and time savings that is just not possible with any form of "dubber" as it currently exists.

Here are some examples:

- With Pro Tools HD Accel ability to do up to 192 tracks of audio, it is possible (and easy) to use a large quantity of tracks with fewer systems. This can translate into money savings by fewer systems, fewer hard drives, therefore less maintenance time etc. More and more mixers are doing submixes in Pro Tools on the stage so a 192 track system lends itself well to that.

Multiple Pro Tools systems can be controlled via a SoundMaster or similar device for a huge number of simultaneous record/playback audio tracks.

- Since Pro Tools runs on Macs or PCs that already contain up to giganet ethernet connection. These systems are now part of the facility network.

One of the largest "achilles heal" of Pro Tools is hard drives. Unhealthy drives, mixed drivers, mixed drive types can all lead to problems. In the Pro Tools dubber example, these problems, which are very common, can be eliminated by ethernetting data to and from Pro Tools dubber systems. This way each Pro Tools systems can have a set of drives that never leave and/or "foreign" drives are never introduced. This will be a large benefit for Pro Tools stability. Tascam drives have been a large contributor to Pro Tools instability by forcing particular outdated drive formats and types (wide drives in narrow trays, narrow drives, etc.).

- Speaking of drives, the Tascam dubbers are limited to, for the most part, narrow 4 and 9 gig drives. When was the last time you purchased a 9 gig drive? let alone a narrow one? A Pro Tools system can use internal drives, firewire drives, SCSI , SATA, etc . drives with no limits on size (including those 4 and 9 gig drives left over from the Tascams). This can be a large time saver and money saver considering the prices of drives these days and the amount of time it takes to copy/transfer data.

- Sample rates. The debate of use of higher sample rates will rage on... either way, with a Pro Tools as a dubber, your facility is ready for it (whether it comes or not).

- Reel changes. Since Pro Tools can have so many tracks in one session and have large quantities of drive space, Reel changes, typically a fairly timeconsuming operation on a large project, can be done in a couple of key strokes.

A single session can contain mulitple reels all spotted to their appropriate timecode locations.

- The non destructive record mode of Trackpunch. This can be viewed as a plus or minus depending on how you want to look at it.

The downside is that you have to consolidate your tracks after the fact if you want contiguous files.

The upside is that punches can be trimmed if a punch in or out was missed. Considering the number of punch ins that could happen on a daily basis in this environment it's safe to say this could come in handy. Also, if a newer Mac or PC is used for this Pro Tools dubber, consolidating multiple audio tracks can happen literally in a few minutes. Unlike flattening tracks for tape mode of a tascam. Consolidating speed of Pro Tools is based on the speed of the CPU, on a newer Mac or PC, consolidating is 1/5 of real time or less. The same procedure on a Tascam is roughly 5 times real time. For a single 20 minute track of audio, as an example, it's less than 4 minutes on a Pro Tools system vs. roughly 100 minutes on a Tascam dubber.

Remember, one large reason to consolidate or flatten tracks in the first place, was so that it could get back and forth from Pro Tools easily. A Pro Tools dubber partially eliminates that need.

- Editing/last minute changes. Changes and/fixes to edits that need to occur often surface at the dub stage. With Pro Tools as dubbers that are connected via ethernet a change can happen potentially in seconds or minutes regardless if it is done on the stage or back in the editorial facility (in another builiding or city). This functionality is going to get even better with Avid/Digidesign's acquisitions of Rocket Network and NXN.

This same change on a Tascam machine would likely take significantly longer.

- As far as the Trackpunch build of Pro Tools that has been demo'd in Los Angeles in the last few months, it was a beta version and everyone involved was made aware of that well in advance. The purpose of these demo's was specifically for that reason:

1) beta test it in the real world

2) get input and feedback from the people that would be using it.

3) Show it's features and functionality to see if it is capable of doing what we feel it can.

Since then, as a result, bugs have been found and fixed as well as changes made to it's functionality which you will see in upcoming versions of Pro Tools

- Pro Tools compatibility. Since a Pro Tools dubber would be running Pro Tools software there would be no need to translate, convert or "Save copy session..." and all features and functionality would go back and forth between editorial systems, foley systems, ADR systems and dub stage dubber systems.

- Mixed sample rates. Mixed sample rates are a common thing in the dub stage. Pro Tools ability to do digital sample rate conversin (on input) on the fly makes this situation a lot easier to deal with.

- Video functionality. Add a V10 or Mojo and now your Pro Tools dubber has video in it as well, up to and including 1:1 resolutions, 24p, PAL , etc. Also, this video is all Avid compatible so laybacks to tape or another video device have been potentially eliminated. The video sequence can be sent over via ethernet to one of the Pro Tools dubber systems.

- Temp mixes can be done in smaller rooms in preparation for the dub stage, without committing to stems. This can be a huge time saver. Now the dub stage can fix and update, with potentially smaller changes, as opposed to mixing from the ground up. This is currently happening at one more large studios in L.A.

Suffice it to say, replacing traditional dubbers with Pro Tools systems will have the potential of significantly revamping the dug stage workflow.

Jon Connolly
Digidesign Product Specialist

[Craig Henighan]

Jon, excellent excellent reply, that's exactly how PT will be applied to post in the near future at all major and some minor dubbing stages. I for one can't wait, but one thing scares me. What you quoted was:


" Reel changes. Since Pro Tools can have so many tracks in one session and have large quantities of drive space, Reel changes, typically a fairly timeconsuming operation on a large project, can be done in a couple of key strokes."

Reel changes that take 20-25 minutes are a god send after working on a reel which happens to be all guns and explosions, with a car chase thrown in and and a director who wants it ALL loud.

As an industry our ears need those longer reel changes, and for most of us it's the only time of the day when we can get outside!


Cheers


Craig

Sound Dogs