Pro Tools 12 vs Studio One 3 vs Logic Pro X

[DetroitT]

I just came off the Cubase Pro 8 demo (Yes a dongle but the same as VSL and others)

Also I'm 2 week into Studio One 3's demo period.
Prior MOTU DP8, Logic 9 (However use X in another location)

HD-Cost for me as well as workflow but more to the future is why I'm looking around.
$600.00/Yr..... now a demanded fee becomes an issue as I relate to a Softtech-cycle budget.

DP8 with it's chunks and video tools very nice.
Cubase Pro8 I got around quit well and it was the least familiar to me in it's current configuration.
Logic a solid building-block (has come a long way from Notator).
Studio One Version 3 strangely logic like (Even CuBase 8 is) and seems a work in progress (Right Track though).
Pro Tools 12 like 11. most expensive upgrade path of any of the others.

Daw-Gonnit I still like working in Pro Tools.
There really does not seem to an apples to apples with any of the above mentioned (And don't even send me to Reaper).
Now I like use and own license to 3 of the above mentioned. (I write regularly)

Pro Tools has a simple elegance for editing (My main profession) and likewise tops my list.
Followed by DP8, Logic X, Cubase and Studio One.

Just a users non technical point of view for this post.

[V5V]

Originally Posted by DetroitT

[...] (And don't even send me to Reaper).

I haven't looked at alternatives to Pro Tools yet, but based solely on comments elsewhere on the DUC I was kind of hoping that Reaper was gonna be a good alternative. What is it you don't like about it?

[cmbourget]

Originally Posted by V5V

I haven't looked at alternatives to Pro Tools yet, but based solely on comments elsewhere on the DUC I was kind of hoping that Reaper was gonna be a good alternative. What is it you don't like about it?

Only to record and mix. No real audio processing, not many MIDI, no instrument.

[cmbourget]

Originally Posted by DetroitT

I just came off the Cubase Pro 8 demo (Yes a dongle but the same as VSL and others)

Also I'm 2 week into Studio One 3's demo period.
Prior MOTU DP8, Logic 9 (However use X in another location)

HD-Cost for me as well as workflow but more to the future is why I'm looking around.
$600.00/Yr..... now a demanded fee becomes an issue as I relate to a Softtech-cycle budget.

DP8 with it's chunks and video tools very nice.
Cubase Pro8 I got around quit well and it was the least familiar to me in it's current configuration.
Logic a solid building-block (has come a long way from Notator).
Studio One Version 3 strangely logic like (Even CuBase 8 is) and seems a work in progress (Right Track though).
Pro Tools 12 like 11. most expensive upgrade path of any of the others.

Daw-Gonnit I still like working in Pro Tools.
There really does not seem to an apples to apples with any of the above mentioned (And don't even send me to Reaper).
Now I like use and own license to 3 of the above mentioned. (I write regularly)

Pro Tools has a simple elegance for editing (My main profession) and likewise tops my list.
Followed by DP8, Logic X, Cubase and Studio One.

Just a users non technical point of view for this post.

If PT suits you, the best economy is to keep.

[DetroitT]

"... I was kind of hoping that Reaper was gonna be a good alternative. What is it you don't like about it?"

Too busy and not as robust as the rest.
------------
"If PT suits you, the best economy is to keep."
Not necessarily (Sure stay at the version I'm at)

It is the company, my clients I need to keep in the loop.
Hence all the comparative analysis (Many are doing)

[Emcha_audio]

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.

Actually that's not true. Please read the user guide page 50

Hardware Buffer Size
The Hardware Buffer Size (H/W Buffer Size) in the
Playback Engine controls the size of the buffer
used to handle host processing tasks such as processing
with host-based, or “Native” plug-ins.
• Lower Hardware Buffer Size settings are useful
for improving latency issues in certain recording
situations or for improving certain system performance
problems:
• On all Pro Tools systems, lower settings reduce
MIDI-to-audio latency (such as when
playing a virtual instrument live and monitoring
the instrument’s output). Lower settings
can also improve screen response or the accuracy
of plug-in and mute automation data.
• On host-based Pro Tools systems, lower settings
reduce all input-to-output monitoring
latency on any record-armed tracks or Auxiliary
Input tracks with live inputs.
• On HDX systems, lower settings reduce monitoring
latency that occurs on tracks that have
one or more Native plug-ins. Lower settings
can also improve the accuracy of MIDI track
timing on systems without a MIDI interface
that supports time stamping. Lower settings
also improve MIDI track timing on tracks using
MIDI virtual instruments that do not support
time stamping.
• Higher Hardware Buffer Size settings are useful
for sessions that are using more Native plug-ins
for playback. These settings allow for more audio
processing. They can also be useful to reduce
errors on machines that require a higher
buffer size.
To change the Hardware Buffer Size:
1 Choose Setup > Playback Engine.
2 From the H/W Buffer Size pop-up menu, select
the audio buffer size, in samples.
3 Click OK.

It is the input buffer that you have no control over and is always set at the lowest possible buffer size. The first selected in the Midi preference is for the midi thru and has nothing to do with the automatic input buffer or hardware buffer. It's only function is to let the data/signal pass through without having to have the record armed on the instrument track. Read page 122 of the user guide

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

It is the input buffer that you have no control over and is always set at the lowest possible buffer size.

The input buffer is what you *do* have control of. The disk buffer is what you do not. it is set to 1024 or 2048 depending on sample rate. Folks from Avid development have discussed this before on DUC. And verifiable by increasing the buffer size and seeing the resulting increase in heard latency.

[Emcha_audio]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

The input buffer is what you *do* have control of. The disk buffer is what you do not. it is set to 1024 or 2048 depending on sample rate. Folks from Avid development have discussed this before on DUC. And verifiable by increasing the buffer size and seeing the resulting increase in heard latency.

I have quoted the user guide page 50. But yes indeed it will affect the latency of what is being played back.

[Darryl Ramm]

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio

I have quoted the user guide page 50. But yes indeed it will affect the latency of what is being played back.

And AFAIK that actual part of the documentation is wrong. or rather poorly written and the implication taken here is wrong.

e.g. see http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=340255 for clarification on what is happening.

You have to be careful about the terminology Avid uses, they never call anything the "input buffer" they call that instead the "Hardware Buffer". They call the other buffer thingy that you can't change the "Playback Buffer". They could have avoided confusion by naming sing the term "input buffer" but I suspect they may have gone with "hardware buffer" for backwards user compatibility/familiarity.

And it would just make no sense to work as you descried, always going with the nastiest small input buffer would cause awful problems all over the place.

[ShiftStudios]

So why then does changing the value on the Playback Engine options window affect playability? If it does not affect the playback buffer something weird is going on. When I have playback issues and it goes all static-sounding I change this buffer either up or down one and the problem is gone for a while. In most instances my sessions, even though they are small with no VI's won't play with anything less than 256 samples at a minimum.

If this doesn't affect playback buffer, then why won't it play back when I have something like 64 selected? If it is truly just input latency, then I don't see how this would matter if all I'm doing is playing back a session and not recording...

Something in my programmer brain is saying the understanding of the hardware buffer setting is flawed in more ways than one...