Can this be? Only 16 stereo inputs in PT9?

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by trakbytes

very few users need more than 32 I/O channels. How many analog consoles had that much I/O, and at what cost? How many machines of days of yore could record that many inputs anyway?

It's not yore anymore. There were no VI's in days of yore. There was no expectation back then that a film composer would deliver stems. He only delivered a paper score. It's a whole new game, and the hard/software companies that provide the tools that make it easiest and cheapest to play will win.

I really like the suggestion of using another program to print the stems. Fits the Unix philosophy of using several smaller programs in cooperation, rather than a giant piece of bloatware, to get a job done. The ideal candidate in my view is Reaper, due to its low cost and light weight.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by daeron80

Fits the Unix philosophy of using several smaller programs in cooperation, rather than a giant piece of bloatware, to get a job done.

You mean RISC CPU architechture, right? It has nothing to do with UNIX which is software (albeit many proprietary UNIX systems run RISC CPU's but that's another story -- today many UNIX systems run Intel CPU's which are CISC by design but have adopted some kind of hybrid RISC thinking along the way). Nevertheless, it is a bad analogy to bring in UNIX in this context.

RISC = Reduced Instruction Set Computing
CISC = Complex Instruction Set Computing

This is for nerds who code Assembly. You're not nerd enough to know the difference

[Keybeeetsss]

& the saga continues...


GET A MAC

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by Dism

Seriously... what are you doing that requires more than 32 I/O, but can't justify the investment into HD?

It's not simply that Avid limits it to 32. I see everyone's point about Avid still needing to be a focused 'hardware' company. But the one thing that's just 'stupid' is that if your 3rd party ASIO hardware rig, like a MOTU, one can go UP to 48 or more tracks. You have to physically 'defeat' hardware paths so the the channels you WANT to have access to fit into the FIRST 32 HOLES in the grid in the I/O window of PT9. It's maddening. They should let you light up '32 red record' lights (from any hardware path) and disallow the 33rd record indicator. This HAS to be changed at 9.0.1 or 9.1 at the latest. It's MADDENING.

[L-Dogg]

Thanks dterry for jumping in there. It is still a bit over my head. I suppose I will try work stuff out on my own, do a little research on it.

I do appreciate the offer of help and I may take you up on it at some point.

I did go to the VEP page after I posted last night and looked at the downloadable manual. I was able to understand a bit better from the diagrams.

[formfunction]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

I They should let you light up '32 red record' lights (from any hardware path) and disallow the 33rd record indicator. This HAS to be changed at 9.0.1 or 9.1 at the latest. It's MADDENING.

While it seems like a logical idea, what happens when you are using harware inserts, or monitoring an external source on input. Does the software then subtract that i/o from your "red lights"? I guess so...
Reality is that you are in the "vast" minority with your input scheme and unless there are a LOT of similar situations (and I cannot foresee that since the vast majority of interfaces are in the 2-8 channel range, some 16...) your HAS to be changed is a dream. BUT, I hope they do to, because on the surface your suggestion makes sense. ff

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by JFreak

You mean RISC CPU architechture, right?

No, nothing to do with hardware. It's a philosophy of programming and program usage. That there's some advantage in make programs small and focused rather than everything expanding until it can read mail, as the saying goes.

[MacPC]

Originally Posted by daeron80

It's not yore anymore. There were no VI's in days of yore. There was no expectation back then that a film composer would deliver stems. He only delivered a paper score. It's a whole new game...

"It's a whole new game" summarizes the situation nicely. The composer's job, owing to impossible deadlines and, to a lesser extent (in my experience anyway), lower budgets, has now forward-integrated into that of an engineer.

We composers, who once used a pencil and score paper, and whose "technology" consisted of Omnifax, a piano and coffee, are buying PT and learning how to master tracks. This is after conceding many years ago -- a decade? fifteen years? -- that we had to be our own synth guys and even, to some extent, perform the stuff as well.

As far as scolding me for not doing my homework before buying, how much research is one expected to do? I called engineers with whom I've worked and who know EVERYTHING about PT. But of course they don't use PT9 and already have hardware. I called Digi / Avid pre-sales. They never (and still haven't) called back. I went to the website and looked "real hard" for specifics about inputs. And please, someone wag a finger at me and tell me one more time that a "pro" would know that a channel always means mono. Feel free.

And, as I said, the vendors -- all the ones I normally check that cater to composers -- are hawking "now you too can use PT with your existing hardware." Except that's like saying "you can use our fuel for your 747" without mentioning that only the first class cabin will be available for actual seating.

So, could I have made more of an effort? One can always make more of an effort.

Originally Posted by daeron80

the hard/software companies that provide the tools that make it easiest and cheapest to play will win.

Yes, I think so too. I have been relying on engineers to deal with Digi for a long time and am sorry I fell for this limit-ware.

[NewdestinyX]

Originally Posted by MacPC

"It's a whole new game" summarizes the situation nicely. The composer's job, owing to impossible deadlines and, to a lesser extent (in my experience anyway), lower budgets, has now forward-integrated into that of an engineer.

We composers, who once used a pencil and score paper, and whose "technology" consisted of Omnifax, a piano and coffee, are buying PT and learning how to master tracks. This is after conceding many years ago -- a decade? fifteen years? -- that we had to be our own synth guys and even, to some extent, perform the stuff as well.

As far as scolding me for not doing my homework before buying, how much research is one expected to do? I called engineers with whom I've worked and who know EVERYTHING about PT. But of course they don't use PT9 and already have hardware. I called Digi / Avid pre-sales. They never (and still haven't) called back. I went to the website and looked "real hard" for specifics about inputs. And please, someone wag a finger at me and tell me one more time that a "pro" would know that a channel always means mono. Feel free.

And, as I said, the vendors -- all the ones I normally check that cater to composers -- are hawking "now you too can use PT with your existing hardware." Except that's like saying "you can use our fuel for your 747" without mentioning that only the first class cabin will be available for actual seating.

So, could I have made more of an effort? One can always make more of an effort.

I have been relying on engineers to deal with Digi for a long time and am sorry I fell for this limit-ware.

MacPC, I have been following this thread diligently and am a bit appalled at how some fellow 'pros' have treated you. Though your situation is way more complex than mine has ever had to be -- I've built a couple of studios that have needed some convoluted setups. Though the idea of having to do another 'print' step just to deliver stems doesn't appeal to the audiophile 'purist' in me I have however understood perfectly, for work flow's sake, WHY you have to do it. There IS a way to eliminate that step in the VEPro as others have mentioned but it would be several 'down days' for you to get the flow going.. and sadly -- without HD -- PT9 canNOT help your current situation. They have 'artificially' sealed the input IO count to make sure they still have an HD product line - which as a pure 'business man' I totally get.. Though I realize it WOULD piss off a lot of my client base.. It IS what it IS - if you know what I mean. I'm intrigued to follow your progress if you ever decide to go the VEPro route.

Thanks for posing what seems to be a common 'film guy' problem and sharing the 'plight' of how we music guys have HAD to become engineers too. I was always 'both' simultaneously -- but that's not the case for many. It's all been about budgets getting smaller and smaller. For a short season in the late 80's early 90's we were getting 'very efficient' and had WAY less studio costs to produce our CD's and the record companies hadn't caught on yet.. So we made a LOT of profit in those days.. Then the record companies caught on to us... and realized were were doing most of the editing, some cutting AND mixing AT HOME.. $100K budgets dropped to $50K overnight.. and everything even lower started dropping. Now some guys who are 'desperate to make it' in Nashville are sending my clients in the Philly area that they'll produce a song for $300 with 4 studio musicians mixing and mastering.. Oh how far we've 'fallen'.

[BaileyBass]

Originally Posted by NewdestinyX

For a short season in the late 80's early 90's we were getting 'very efficient' and had WAY less studio costs to produce our CD's and the record companies hadn't caught on yet.. $100K budgets dropped to $50K overnight.. and everything even lower started dropping. Now some guys who are 'desperate to make it' in Nashville are sending my clients in the Philly area that they'll produce a song for $300 with 4 studio musicians mixing and mastering.. Oh how far we've 'fallen'.

While in principle you have some points, your timeline is off by at least 10 years. Tape was alive and well in the early 90's and non-destructive editing and multi-track HDisk recording was later on that decade. And 100k was a VERY lowbudget Rock record in the late 80's, early 90's. Even contemporary Jazz had bigger budgets (than 100k) way back then. It is true that times have changed.... just later than you thought. SB