PT 10 ...a disappointment?

[Irish916]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

Once again, where does avid drops the ball when they said that they would keep development and updates (bug fixes) for PT 9?

IMO, Avid drops the ball when they promote a new version of a product when 9 was never fixed fixed. As a paying customer, this creates distrust in the brand and a negative experience.

So to your point, Avid has said publically they will still support 9 with updates. The release of 10 tells us they've allocated significant resources to the next version- suggesting to most that energy and dollars are moving away from 9 to 10. That's just the way business happens. The time, money and innovation is applied to the next release. This doesn't mean 9 won't ever get fixed, but updates will come much more slowly. Furthermore, if I learn that PT 10 or 11 resolves the issues that I have with 9, I'll be looking elsewhere- as that'll be the straw.

Look - I know that no software if perfect. I get it. I'm just concerned that huge multicore CPU issues in PT9 and the rather dismissive approach Avid is taking on it.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by Irish916

IMO, Avid drops the ball when they promote a new version of a product when 9 was never fixed fixed. As a paying customer, this creates distrust in the brand and a negative experience.

You do realize that this is the case with all software out there right? vista -> win 7 is an other good example. Snow leopard still had bugs when apple released lion. And there are many others that does the same. You can't fix all the bugs in a program, as when you fix some, some may creep up from fixing the others.

[Irish916]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

You do realize that this is the case with all software out there right? vista -> win 7 is an other good example. Snow leopard still had bugs when apple released lion. And there are many others that does the same. You can't fix all the bugs in a program, as when you fix some, some may creep up from fixing the others.

Absolutely- No argument from me on that. The point is it's it creates a negative perception. Does it stop the Avids and the Microsofts from looking to make a profit? No. I get it. I'm sure there are people who are having fits with Sonar or Cubase that they don't have with Avid. Goes both ways.

PT9 was the first attempt at unlocking PT from the hardware requirements they've had for years. For all intents and purposes, it's really version 1 of it's kind, right? I bought this back in March, which wasn't too long after it released. Avid pushes version 10 a mere 7 months later? To top it off, they are asking for another $300 for people to upgrade?! Even the worst sports video game has a production cycle of 9 months. This is too soon, and if you're like me and you just shelled out the $600 to get in the club 7 months ago, and you get in and realized the product you bought is severly undercooked - why would pay another $300 clip gain that you can get for free on other DAWs?

Compare this to my experience with Roland and Cakewalk X1. X1 was a totally new interface design for them. There were bumps in the road, but Roland resolved many of them with the first two release packs. Then they decided in the third release they would add significant new functionlity (something on par with clip gain in PT10) with the new console mix features. Did they charge their customers for this? No. They realized X1 was rough and customers deserved more. That approach is in contrast to what I'm seeing here. This reminds me of the Microsoft introduction of Vista after they just pushed out ME a few months prior. How many people jumped to MAC after that mess?? Just saying.

[wescravn]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

It could not have been a .x update since they actually reworked a lot of the base code in PT (a lot needs to be done still to complete the move to 64 bit)

Really? Practically every other product is 64bit already. Cubase, Sonar, and a year and half ago Logic.

Are you implying the audio engine is outdated and antiquated? I think I heard this on another forum somewhere. Maybe a complete rewrite is in order.

[Dism]

Originally Posted by wescravn

Are you implying the audio engine is outdated and antiquated? I think I heard this on another forum somewhere. Maybe a complete rewrite is in order.

It is. We're talking about a 20 year old software here. A lot of its code is still based on when it migrated from OS9. There was no need to rewrite in the past because 64 bit was never an issue. As the need became more prevalent, it became more evident that rewriting both RTAS and TDM would be necessary, and that TDM cards wouldn't be able to host 64 bit plugins.

Thus, we have AAX. When RTAS and TDM are dropped, PT can be rewritten for 64 bit.

[wescravn]

Originally Posted by Dism

It is. We're talking about a 20 year old software here. A lot of its code is still based on when it migrated from OS9. There was no need to rewrite in the past because 64 bit was never an issue. As the need became more prevalent, it became more evident that rewriting both RTAS and TDM would be necessary, and that TDM cards wouldn't be able to host 64 bit plugins.

Thus, we have AAX. When RTAS and TDM are dropped, PT can be rewritten for 64 bit.

Why don't they just support CORE AUDIO (AU)/VST3 which are mature formats? Basically with UAD/Focusrite/Thunderbolt/Protools Native, etc TDM is unnecessary

TDM was great when computers were slow, but there now faster. Definitely powered plugins are great, that's why I use UAD.

[Lee Blaske]

Another huge disappointment from Avid. Still no 64 bit support (a deal killer for those who use large virtual instruments), still no off-line bounce (this regularly saves me hours of time in Logic), still not screen sets, still no freeze function, and the list goes on...

I'm down to using PT HD9 only for packing and unpacking sessions when I deal with collaborators who only use PT.

I could maybe see PT HDX making sense for certain, large post operations and recording situations where a zillion inputs are needed. Most of us, though, get far better performance from native systems using other applications.

The idea that PT HDX users who have spent a fortune on their systems will need to sit around and wait in real time for bounces and stem extractions seems ridiculous in this day and age. Time is money, isn't it?

[timmyboylad]

I bought Pro Tools 9 less than two months ago. Now they're asking me to spend over half as much again to go to the next version? I'm not going to bother. The new features are more geared toward an individual stringing together loops in his/her bedroom and calling it music and nothing that I can see about making it a better software for tracking and mixing in a real studio (such as being able to disable direct monitoring).

Cubase is a much more powerful software for making music the old fashioned way.

So, with the advent of PT going native, I thought I'd be moving over to PT from my long time use of Cubase. That will not be. I might be willing to stick with it if it didn't cost me $300 to get to the next version.


Too bad.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by wescravn

Why don't they just support CORE AUDIO (AU)/VST3 which are mature formats? Basically with UAD/Focusrite/Thunderbolt/Protools Native, etc TDM is unnecessary

TDM was great when computers were slow, but there now faster. Definitely powered plugins are great, that's why I use UAD.

tdm is gone now phasing out. Your UAD is very very antiquated compared to the new HDX dsp card that Avid just launched.

Au and vst3 are proprietary products of apple and steignberg. If pro tools went with those, not only would they have to pay to be able to use those format, but then they would give their competitors access to allot of Avid's proprietary plugins. Feeding even more the competition.

TDM format is gone, AAX will ensure that wither or not you are using native, bare pt10 or the HDX cards, that the sound will remain the same plugin wise. With the option of having a new dsp format that also combines the host power to make something that is more powerful than anything on the market.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by Lee Blaske

Another huge disappointment from Avid. Still no 64 bit support (a deal killer for those who use large virtual instruments), still no off-line bounce (this regularly saves me hours of time in Logic), still not screen sets, still no freeze function, and the list goes on...

I'm down to using PT HD9 only for packing and unpacking sessions when I deal with collaborators who only use PT.

I could maybe see PT HDX making sense for certain, large post operations and recording situations where a zillion inputs are needed. Most of us, though, get far better performance from native systems using other applications.

The idea that PT HDX users who have spent a fortune on their systems will need to sit around and wait in real time for bounces and stem extractions seems ridiculous in this day and age. Time is money, isn't it?

Hmm tell me, what happens when you use outboard gear, like many pros are doing in recording studios, and that you cant because you want to bounce offline?? The option will come, there's bigger things that needed to be done first, and they are mostly done.