Modern Pro Tools = Better Production Quality?

[Alexander4444]

Have any producers out there experienced a small, medium, or large amount of change in any of these areas,

1) creative flow
2) production speed
3) production quality

with respect to using a more legacy version of Pro Tools (such as Pro Tools 8 LE) vs. a later 64-bit-based Pro Tools.

It's clear that the tools we use are the foundation of musical productions and they inevitably steer our creativity in certain directions. Assuming the same set of plugins are at your disposal in each case (legacy vs modern Pro Tools), are there reasons with respect to the 3 points of interest listed above to choose one PT environment over the other.

This question comes as reaction to realizing that most of the music I love comes from an era that was using much older software. These productions sound very beautiful and great and always makes me wonder, "does 'keeping up with the times' really equate to a potential production of better music?"

[cwsand]

I don't think the newer versions of Pro Tools and/or plugins will have near the effect on production quality as other factors such as the song arrangement, the recording room, the talent and skill of the musicians, mic selection and placement, the preamps and converters used, and obviously the skills and knowledge of the engineer. The software is a set of tools as the name states - but the production will be the result of how you use those tools. Sure, the software has improved to make certain tasks easier, but the most important factors in a great production lies in those things I stated above IMHO. My productions have improved vastly since using Pro Tools 7 - but that's because I've improved as an engineer, not because the software has advanced. The music I love most was all analogue where there was no software (or very little) - and those productions are as good as or better than a lot of music I hear today. But even when Pro Tools was far less advanced than it is today, people were making great recordings because they understood music production - if the processing wasn't available in Pro Tools, they used outboard gear and consoles.

[chrisdee]

It hasn't become any faster to me. What I miss is much faster startup time for both Pro Tools and opening of sessions.

For me this takes way to much time. First 10-15 seconds for Pro Tools then for sessions atleast 15 seconds or longer depending on session. Ideally for me it should open up instantly or atleast no more than 3-4 seconds all together.
But I guess that's a distant dream.

What would be a great addition for better production speed is to be able to have multiple sessions open at once.

[EGS]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

... What would be a great addition for better production speed is to be able to have multiple sessions open at once.

Yes!!! My DVW (Digital Video Workstation !!!) software does this, and it's great! I can copy/paste from session to session.

[EGS]

Originally Posted by Alexander4444

... 2) production speed...

For me, clip gain and offline bounce are helpful.

[JCBigler]

Originally Posted by EGS

Yes!!! My DVW (Digital Video Workstation !!!) software does this, and it's great! I can copy/paste from session to session.

Sequoia and Pyramix can do this.

Would be great if Protools adopted a source-destination work flow option.

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by Alexander4444

Have any producers out there experienced a small, medium, or large amount of change in any of these areas,

1) creative flow
2) production speed
3) production quality

with respect to using a more legacy version of Pro Tools (such as Pro Tools 8 LE) vs. a later 64-bit-based Pro Tools.

In my experience, the difference is between using a full console and using a mouse, not between different versions of PT. It may be that if you investigated the details of production for older music you admire, you'd find that it wasn't made primarily with a mouse, but with a setup that provided a dedicated knob for every function. Of course, analog consoles also provide a helpful coloration and (more controversially) summing circuitry. But even a digital console is a great advantage over a mouse because of the immediacy of access and biofeedback for everything you change.

I recently got a Korg nanoKontrol 2 for changing VI parameters in real time while composing. It's made a huge difference. $75 very well spent.

[Alexander4444]

Originally Posted by cwsand

I don't think the newer versions of Pro Tools and/or plugins will have near the effect on production quality as other factors such as the song arrangement, the recording room, the talent and skill of the musicians, mic selection and placement, the preamps and converters used, and obviously the skills and knowledge of the engineer. The software is a set of tools as the name states - but the production will be the result of how you use those tools...But even when Pro Tools was far less advanced than it is today, people were making great recordings because they understood music production - if the processing wasn't available in Pro Tools, they used outboard gear and consoles.

I very much agree. The impression that a modern production environment should necessarily be up-to-date and host a plethora of effects plugins is leading the focus away from the fundamentals that you mention. It would be a good idea for some (including myself) to produce something that sounds good using a restricted set of tools and very good raw musical material. I seek to understand, for instance, what post-processing chains were used by Trevor Horn in his productions with Seal that create the final sound we hear. I know it's 90% panning, EQ, compression and reverb. However, not knowing what the raw tracks sound like (which may have required very little processing), I naturally tend to complicate things imagining that the remaining 10% is an impossible mystery to solve, or a mystery that could be solved if only I updated the tools I use. No. The extra 10% is either in a better application of the simpler set of tools I currently have, or the 10% has more to do with the early stages how I record in the material, not to be achieved by relying on post-processing or plugins at all.

Originally Posted by chrisdee

It hasn't become any faster to me. What I miss is much faster startup time for both Pro Tools and opening of sessions.

Thank you, I didn't know that session load times had become a bit slower. Only in the case that I have a lot of instances of EastWest plugins (15-20 instances) will it take around 2-4 minutes to load or close a session. This was one of the aspects that I thought would have sped up a bit with the later versions of PT. Thank you for pointing that out.

Originally Posted by EGS

For me, clip gain and offline bounce are helpful.

I have read about these and they sound like they are immensely helpful. Currently, I work with Pro Tools's native Gain plugin in place of the modern clip gain. Using this (as you may know) creates a new whole audio file. This uses hard drive space and adds clutter the Regions List. Deleting the original unused whole audio file is a option, but I usually only do that when archiving a session. There is no counterpart in legacy PT for the offline bounce. That is a cool feature.

Originally Posted by daeron80

In my experience, the difference is between using a full console and using a mouse, not between different versions of PT. It may be that if you investigated the details of production for older music you admire, you'd find that it wasn't made primarily with a mouse, but with a setup that provided a dedicated knob for every function. Of course, analog consoles also provide a helpful coloration and (more controversially) summing circuitry. But even a digital console is a great advantage over a mouse because of the immediacy of access and biofeedback for everything you change.

I recently got a Korg nanoKontrol 2 for changing VI parameters in real time while composing. It's made a huge difference. $75 very well spent.

That's true! While I use the mouse primarily, I really should be taking advantage of the biofeedback aspects of console mixing. Thanks!

[capt kirk]

What is your role? as an engineer or a producer or artist? as an artist, its worse than irellevant waste of time, concentrate on wholly other things....bottom 9/10ths of the pyramid things........if you're a producer, and you need to facilitate the process , for the arist, then by all means use what they they want, get the performance by whatever means neccessary.
If your the engineer, then its the 9/10th s of the pyramid, as having the right tool is paramount to 'your' job. If you absolutely need clip gain or some stupid fkn vocal clam fixer , or you're a gear nut, go crazy......but dont forget why you're doing it, you're there to make songs people like, not play with stoopid fkn equipment......