Avid Pro Audio Community




Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post | Community Terms of Use | Avid.com Home Page

Google the Forum | Search Knowledge Base | Search Avid.com

Find Support | Support FAQ | Avid Support How To Video Series

Software Updates, Drivers, Manuals, Compatibility, Optimize, Troubleshoot, etc. (Links)

Please post your message once only to the correct forum
Help us Help You - READ THIS Before Posting!



Pro Tools 11 Information


Avid at AES Los Angeles 2014





Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-03-2003, 02:44 AM
Imagine Imagine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Toluca Lake, CA
Posts: 1,316
Default Protools vs Digital Performer

I've been a DP user ever since it was released, so I'm very familiar with the program/ features/sound. Lately, I've been thinking about switching over to PT/TDM.

I guess my main concern is, for those of you who made the switch, was it worth it, and do you find that Protools/converters are better than DP and its converters?

Thanks in advance.
Imagine
__________________
Dean

www.deanlandon.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-03-2003, 09:42 AM
pookadilly pookadilly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 142
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

First of all, you do understand that you can use DP on the front end instead of the ProTools software right? The HD Core system will of course bring you unbelievable power since everything runs on the cards and not on the host processor on the computer. You will be able to use TDM plug-ins as well.

With regards to the converter comment, yes, the Digi converters are much better than the MOTU converters, however, I always recommend using the Digi 192 Digital I/O and Apogee converters on the front end. That's where your sound will truly shine. Clock it all with the new Apogee Big Ben as well and you'll be extremely happy. The jitter ratio on that thing in unreal (next to nothing).

Your conversion, cabling, and clocking are abolsutely the most important elements in a digital studio. Choose Monster Studio Pro 1000 and M-Series cabling (m-series for AES/EBU, SP1000 for everything else except the wordclock cables which you should get directly from Apogee or an authorized Apogee dealer).

Hope that helps!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-03-2003, 10:07 AM
nostatic nostatic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 233
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

the question is, why do you want to switch? If you are able to do what you need to do, then spending money on new hardware and taking the time to learn new software is a bit of a waste...unless you like to spend money on new hardware and take time to learn new software.

As far as converters, it depends on what you are using now.

Are you more midi, more audio, or a mix? What track counts do you normally run? Do you use virtual instruments? Do you need to be in OSX now? All of these things go into choosing what system is best for you. PT is strong in some areas, weaker in others. Same with DP and Logic.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2003, 10:08 AM
Extreme Mixing Extreme Mixing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Van Nuys, CA. USA
Posts: 694
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

If you are using the program mostly for midi stuff and programing, then you will probably be happier using the DP for a front end. You do loose out on a few features, like quick punch. If you're mainly recording and mixing, then Pro Tools is far superior to DP. The PT mixer is great and TDM plugs are, as a whole, the best assortment out there. You do have to have a big set up to really make it rock. I have a mix with 4 farms, and I can do pretty much whatever I want without running out of DSP.

By the way, does anybody know what's up with the MOTU interfaces? They are advertised as +4, but anything above -10 or so on an analog meter is sure to produce an over. And when the over light comes on in DP you are sure to hear the clip. Is there no electronic specification for +4 input levels? I really believe that analog pre amps and compressors have a sweet spot, but you certainly can't come close to it in MOTU land. I never hear anyone complaining about this.

Steve
__________________
Steve
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2003, 10:35 AM
Mark Wheaton Mark Wheaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: LA, CA, USA
Posts: 939
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

also, forgive me if I am wrong, but the MOTU interfaces do not have the clocking options of the Pro tools HD interfaces with their loop sync and the sync I/O.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-03-2003, 10:51 AM
nostatic nostatic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 233
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

the 896 is switchable to -10 or +4

What clock options do you want? There is WC in/out, and you can sync via the AES input (I do this with a Rosetta).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-03-2003, 11:11 AM
EJolson EJolson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 41
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

Something that's always bugged me about the MOTU interfaces, is that word clock appears to get passed from box to box via AudioWire. E.g., in my old setup I had a 2408mkII, a 308 and a 1224. The whole rig derived its clock from a SINGLE word clock input (usually the 2408 which was slaved to an AardSync II). Then the other boxes would "magically" derive their sync from the AudioWire network.

Considering that word clock is supposed to be so fragile and sensitive to cable length/extra buffer stages etc., this never inspired my confidence. Not to mention I always experienced clock glitches, clicks/pops etc. on at least one of my digital boxes (usually whichever one WASN'T the "master" in the MOTU setup).

If you can get your MOTU rig down to a "one-box" setup, you might never experience the problems I did. However, it really seems like amateur hour dealing with that company sometimes. Don't even get me started on their abysmal tech support.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-03-2003, 11:13 AM
Markk Markk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 377
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

I just made the switch from exactly your position. I was a DP user since performer. I love DP and I miss my familiarity with it....but, I had a recent session mixed in Pro Tools and I was hooked...here's my 2 cents:

1. I mix and record audio almost 99% - even play Giga and virtual instruments through Neve and API pres and record them as audio tracks. Pro tools is exceptionally stable and easy to use. More like a traditional big console and deck.

2. I was looking at buying a new G4, an apogee 8000se, mackie UAD, and mackie control but I jumped up to protools HD3 with a 192i/o for the same price. For those of you looking for a great price check out Sam Ash pro.

3. Sound Quality - made 2408 MKII sound like a toy.

4. TDM HD plugins are much better than native. IMO. I don't even think it is the same ballpark.

5. It is expensive to upgrade the plugs like waves - but the DUY, MCDSP are worth it. Amp farm, reverb one, even the digirack plugs - all great.

6. I have recorded and mixed in many big studios (analog situations) and I now feel like I can really compete with a mix done in my personal studio. Put DUY analog and MCDSP analog channel in and you have a really great sound. The best that digital has ever seen to this day.

7. I have already gotten work because I now own a 'Pro Tools' system. Recording, composing and mix work I would never have gotten owning DP.

Do you record all analog? Do you make money doing music? Are you looking to become a pro tools engineer? A lot to think about.

I am very happy with my decision.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-03-2003, 11:15 AM
EJolson EJolson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 41
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

Quote:
Originally posted by pookadilly:
Clock it all with the new Apogee Big Ben as well and you'll be extremely happy. The jitter ratio on that thing in unreal (next to nothing).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Is the Big Ben supposed to be "better" than the Aardsync/Lucid boxes?

Anyway, are you sure you can clock your PTHD rig from the Apogee? I thought the "approved" method of running Apogee converters w/PTHD was to slave your AD8K to the 192IO... not the other way around. Somebody light me up here.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-03-2003, 12:15 PM
pookadilly pookadilly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 142
Default Re: Protools vs Digital Performer

EJolson:

This is straight from Apogee. Grab as many 192 Digital I/O's as you need inputs into your rig. Use Apogee Converters (preferreably the SE version of the PSX-100 because the things just smokes) on the front end. Use Big Ben as the master clock source (yes it's way better than Aardvark products) and slave everything in the entire studio to Big Ben (you can also chain Big Ben's together if you need more clock i/o).

I guarantee you'll love the setup. It's simply amazing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
protools and digital performer omons2273 MIDI 0 12-15-2006 10:13 AM
ProTools/Digital Performer mtools General Discussion 0 12-30-2000 12:32 PM
Digital Performer -vs- ProTools link 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 0 09-08-2000 01:50 PM
Digital Performer & Protools 5.0 Peter Yaro II Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 3 01-20-2000 10:41 AM
Protools, digital performer and MTP AV nommo Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 2 10-14-1999 11:14 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com