Pro Tools 2019 !

[deanrichard]

Yeah, they are charging for doing nothing but changing a single variable in the code. It is basically Avid saying "we didn't get anything done over the least three months, but the Marketing Dept wanted a new source of revenue anyway".

Originally Posted by TimNielsen

The angst is this. Opening up additional voices isn't something that costs Avid a penny. Every other DAW in existence has opened up close to a thousand tracks. It just feels like such a money grab.
...

[JFreak]

That's one way of seeing it, but think about this:

IF it was just changing 256 to 384 in a code, then WHY it also works with DSP hardware? Can it be so that the new soon-to-be-released code is 50% more efficient? ... and ... IF the code was more efficient by that ballpark, then HOW MUCH work is behind that achievement?

Yep. And while we all know on the native-land the limitation is just a number in the code, Avid needs to support the systems that are running the code and therefore there must be a limit. It isn't wise to say unlimited everything would be fine, because it really isn't.

Who's to say native system can handle as many voices as multiple DSP cards? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All we know is the limit goes hand in hand with one-card DSP system, mainly because of consistency -- a session made in DSP-land can be opened in native-land and if you have multiple cards you know the session might be too hard for native to run perfectly.

With that said, placing a lower voice limit for standard software is just pure marketing dept nonsense, we're on the same page with that one.

[deanrichard]

I was a Software Engineer for 23 years. It's a one line code change, unless Avid has hired the worst software engineers ever. It's fundamental design. If the track count was a hardware limitation it would not be possible to overcome it in software. So obviously it's a simple software change. In fairness, there is a QA effort to assure the track count changes work as expected, but that's standard with any code change. Also, in native PT, increasing the track count in the software does nothing to guarantee the computer you're running will work with track counts that high.

It's possible Avid is working on bigger features that simply weren't ready yet, and felt the need to put something in a new release. The subscription plan increases the pressure to make every new release appear to add value.

Originally Posted by JFreak

That's one way of seeing it, but think about this:

IF it was just changing 256 to 384 in a code, then WHY it also works with DSP hardware? Can it be so that the new soon-to-be-released code is 50% more efficient? ... and ... IF the code was more efficient by that ballpark, then HOW MUCH work is behind that achievement?

Yep. And while we all know on the native-land the limitation is just a number in the code, Avid needs to support the systems that are running the code and therefore there must be a limit. It isn't wise to say unlimited everything would be fine, because it really isn't.

Who's to say native system can handle as many voices as multiple DSP cards? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All we know is the limit goes hand in hand with one-card DSP system, mainly because of consistency -- a session made in DSP-land can be opened in native-land and if you have multiple cards you know the session might be too hard for native to run perfectly.

With that said, placing a lower voice limit for standard software is just pure marketing dept nonsense, we're on the same page with that one.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

Also, in native PT, increasing the track count in the software does nothing to guarantee the computer you're running will work with track counts that high.

My point exactly, which is why the limit is there in the first place. I don't protest that, but as many others, I have to admit having different limit on standard software and ultimate software has MARKETING spelled all over it.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

If the track count was a hardware limitation it would not be possible to overcome it in software.

Incorrect.

Especially not true with DSP, because if you find a way to get same outcome with another algorithm faster, you get huge wins -- but it takes time and sometimes even luck.

[chrismeraz]

I see an awful lot of bitching around here. If you don’t like PT, switch to another DAW and shut your trap, like a grown man. Christ. Nobody “owes” you perfect DAW. PT could improve but it is still AMAZING. I use it to record and mix, and it puts a smile on my face every damn day.

[clausiii]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

It's possible Avid is working on bigger features that simply weren't ready yet, and felt the need to put something in a new release. The subscription plan increases the pressure to make every new release appear to add value.

This.

Maybe Avid hasn’t shown everything new at NAMM because they’re not sure if it’s ready and stable until next release.
Let‘s wait and see when it’s out.

Too much speculation here.

[Sardi]

Originally Posted by chrismeraz

I see an awful lot of bitching around here. If you don’t like PT, switch to another DAW and shut your trap, like a grown man. Christ.

Exactly.

Shutting your trap is how most things are solved. Never voice your opinion. Stay silent and things will improve.

One just needs to take a look at our history. Slavery being abolished, women being allowed to vote, gay marriage... All of these things happened because people shut their trap like ‘grown men’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JFreak]

Voicing an opinion is good, b*tching is bad.

Say... "I really expected something more, perhaps this update isn't for users with my kind of workflow this time. Last time I got some but damn now I have to wait for another future release... I was hoping to see x, y, or even z here, but I guess I'll have to keep using a, b, or c for some more time" ...instead of... "That no-good Diva once again RELEASES NOTHING (for me), unbelievable! Who takes this cr*p when a, b, and c just released x, y, and z -- christ, when do they listen to US USERS (=me)"

See... there's a difference, isn't there?

[Sardi]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Voicing an opinion is good, b*tching is bad.

Say... "I really expected something more, perhaps this update isn't for users with my kind of workflow this time. Last time I got some but damn now I have to wait for another future release... I was hoping to see x, y, or even z here, but I guess I'll have to keep using a, b, or c for some more time" ...instead of... "That no-good Diva once again RELEASES NOTHING (for me), unbelievable! Who takes this cr*p when a, b, and c just released x, y, and z -- christ, when do they listen to US USERS (=me)"

See... there's a difference, isn't there?

There are a LOT of comments in this thread that are constructive. Perhaps people are sick and tired of voicing their opinions in a constructive way as they feel that no one is listening and haven’t been for years.

I don’t know. But I do know that I can sympathise with a lot of people’s frustrations. There’s soooo many ideascale submissions that haven’t been looked at. Bugs that have been around for years that seem to never get fixed. At some point, you really do get fed up.

Dismissing people’s genuine frustrations as bitching and telling them to be a man is... well, I don’t know how to put it nicely and fear I’ll just be called out for bitching.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk