Real-Time Bounce to Disk...REAL PAIN

[jaykers]

WE NEED REAL TIME BOUNCING, OR HOW ELSE WILL YOU KNOW THAT ALL YOUR MATERIAL IS TRANSLATING PROPERLY. WITH SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE, YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO YOUR BOUNCED MIXED TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE NO POPS OR OTHER ARTIFACTS THAT WERE NOT PRESENT BEOFRE. BESIDES YOU ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO YOUR MIX AFTER YOU BOUNCE ANYWAYS, WHETHER YOU BOUNCED IN REAL TIME OR FASTER. AS FOR LONG MIXES, TELL YOUR CLIENTS THAT QUALITY CONTROL IS MORE IMPORTANT. WHAT IF YOU USE OTHER PLATFORMS TO BOUNCE FASTER AND YOU PUT IT TO A DISK AND WHEN YOU ARE RIDING HOME YOU NOTICED THAT ONE OF YOUR REVERBS DID NOT TRANSLATE THE WAY YOU WANT, NOW YOUR CLIENT WILL NEED TO SPEND THAT EXTRA MONEY ANYWAYS TO FIX IT WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN FIXED BEFORE.

I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN OPTION INSIDE OF PT TO DO FASTER BOUNCES, BUT I WOULD ONLY USE IT LIKE 1% OF THE TIME, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT MATERIAL, IF IT GOES ON A DISK WITH MY NAME, I WILL MAKE SURE IT SOUNDS PERFECT.

I guess for me getting faster to checking my mix on various speakers/devices (in car, home stereo, etc)would be better so that I am not just listening to it on the monitors all the way through.
Of course due diligence on whether or not the quick bounce leaves artifacts or sounds different would happen as well before employing this method.
Its probably one of those personal choices on how you want to work but it seems like the general concensus is to have a choice.
2.2cents (tax)

[Musickman]

Or even if you have been recording all day (say 8-9 hrs.), and the client wants to take home roughs to check out. "Sorry can't do that for you now" unless I want to stay here till 4 AM and then you can pick them up tomorrow.
ROYAL F 'in pain.

[jaykers]

Or even if you have been recording all day (say 8-9 hrs.), and the client wants to take home roughs to check out. "Sorry can't do that for you now" unless I want to stay here till 4 AM and then you can pick them up tomorrow.
ROYAL F 'in pain.

Thats a very good point also

[Mr.BossPlaya]

I guess for me getting faster to checking my mix on various speakers/devices (in car, home stereo, etc)would be better so that I am not just listening to it on the monitors all the way through.
Of course due diligence on whether or not the quick bounce leaves artifacts or sounds different would happen as well before employing this method.
Its probably one of those personal choices on how you want to work but it seems like the general concensus is to have a choice.
2.2cents (tax)

yes it would be great to reference your sounds on other speakers...but again what is the point of referencing your work if you bounced to disk fast and it did not translate properly...you will just be listening and ref. your music that was not accurate in the first place...yes i understand your situation about the long recording sessions. i know after i work all day on a project, i do not want to listen to it on the way home...i much rather pick up a copy the next day to ref....besides your ears need a break after 9 hrs of recording.

[jaykers]

yes it would be great to reference your sounds on other speakers...but again what is the point of referencing your work if you bounced to disk fast and it did not translate properly...you will just be listening and ref. your music that was not accurate in the first place...yes i understand your situation about the long recording sessions. i know after i work all day on a project, i do not want to listen to it on the way home...i much rather pick up a copy the next day to ref....besides your ears need a break after 9 hrs of recording.

Sure, that why I said do the due diligence first to make sure it sounds the same or free of errors.
i.e. test first before using it as a tool.
If it sounds way different everytime you fast process then there is of course an issue which will need to be addressed by the people who write that code or whoever.
You will still need to reference it whether its done quickly or in real time.

[JFreak]

I continue to be amazed that Digi will not change this. (...) Will they ever change this?

Another poster that does not know anything about history of DAWs. In the early days, Digidesign had non-realtime bounce. They *changed* that to realtime. It's better that way, quality-wise. Protools is all about quality; not one error is permitted. Everything must be allright when you play back your session, or when you bounce. There's a zero-tolerance for errors.

Now...

The real reason why Digi changed the bounce to realtime was TDM. It is a realtime process and it cannot be done non-realtime even if there wasn't any outboard gear used. It's always realtime and it's always near zero latency. Always. No exceptions. And when such system bounces, it is always realtime.

Makes sense? Great.

Now how about Native systems? There's no such restriction (unless one uses outboard). The reason why there is no non-realtime bounce is that Digidesign has no reason to develop *two* different playback engines. It's the same zero-error engine that HD has, only that the maximum sampling rate is limited to 96kHz. Same goes to Protools itself; it's the same code base, only that some features have been disabled from the limited version. There's no reason to develop *two* different software. If you're not happy about PTLE, then by all means, buy something else.

And besides; most of the time, non-realtime bounce is not making things faster. Your mix probably has all the bells and whistles instantiated so the cpu meter is at 85% once you're ready with the mix. That's 15% for system and idle processes, and there's only 5-10% additional performance left for the non-realtime bounce. If you have a 5min song, that means you could gain 15-30 seconds. Even if you did ten songs, you would only be able to gain few minutes. It takes more than that to switch sessions!

Think, people, think. Protools is about sound quality. You get 100% quality once the bounce is finished. Not necessarily so with other bounce engines some of which may accept one or two error samples in the final product. Can you hear it? Probably not. Can you accept it? You decide.

[Mr.BossPlaya]

[quote
Another poster that does not know anything about history of DAWs. In the early days, Digidesign had non-realtime bounce. They *changed* that to realtime. It's better that way, quality-wise. Protools is all about quality; not one error is permitted. Everything must be allright when you play back your session, or when you bounce. There's a zero-tolerance for errors.

Now...

The real reason why Digi changed the bounce to realtime was TDM. It is a realtime process and it cannot be done non-realtime even if there wasn't any outboard gear used. It's always realtime and it's always near zero latency. Always. No exceptions. And when such system bounces, it is always realtime.

Makes sense? Great.

Now how about Native systems? There's no such restriction (unless one uses outboard). The reason why there is no non-realtime bounce is that Digidesign has no reason to develop *two* different playback engines. It's the same zero-error engine that HD has, only that the maximum sampling rate is limited to 96kHz. Same goes to Protools itself; it's the same code base, only that some features have been disabled from the limited version. There's no reason to develop *two* different software. If you're not happy about PTLE, then by all means, buy something else.

And besides; most of the time, non-realtime bounce is not making things faster. Your mix probably has all the bells and whistles instantiated so the cpu meter is at 85% once you're ready with the mix. That's 15% for system and idle processes, and there's only 5-10% additional performance left for the non-realtime bounce. If you have a 5min song, that means you could gain 15-30 seconds. Even if you did ten songs, you would only be able to gain few minutes. It takes more than that to switch sessions!

Think, people, think. Protools is about sound quality. You get 100% quality once the bounce is finished. Not necessarily so with other bounce engines some of which may accept one or two error samples in the final product. Can you hear it? Probably not. Can you accept it? You decide.

[/QUOTE]

I could not agree more...its about quality, if that is not what you are looking for, then grab Sonar 4!

[easyb]

Yeah, I always wondered why can't we have a "fast-but-lower-quality bounce" option.


EasyB

Hehehe I remember how many times I waited for LE to finish the bounce just to find that :

- Master was picking at some point
- LE crashed at the end and output full-scale white noise
- My client was fed up of waiting when he only wanted a rough mix after all
- The mix wasn't that good as I thought
- It was another sleepless night

We are LE users here. That means that most of us aren't profesional yet, or don't have the money to have better gear, or both. Quality? Please let me decide how much quality I want (I can)!




EasyB

[Mr.BossPlaya]

Hehehe I remember how many times I waited for LE to finish the bounce just to find that :

- Master was picking at some point
- LE crashed at the end and output full-scale white noise
- My client was fed up of waiting when he only wanted a rough mix after all
- The mix wasn't that good as I thought
- It was another sleepless night

We are LE users here. That means that most of us aren't profesional yet, or don't have the money to have better gear, or both. Quality? Please let me decide how much quality I want (I can)!




EasyB

Then why are you using PT if you are not concerned about the quality? Use Sonar, Cubase, and the others. they are way cheaper than a PT rig. then you can save your 2 minutes of bouncing for reduced quality and price this should make you very happy

[dr_axel]

Your mix probably has all the bells and whistles instantiated so the cpu meter is at 85% once you're ready with the mix.

And then suddenly the bounce stops because of too much strain on the computer. If it was not real-time, the computer could take as long as it needs to finish the bounce, effectively giving that old computer that's getting a bit long in the tooth some extra time!