Just be happy that you're working on a Protools!

[Michael Klinger]

Hi, just blowing off a little steam. I thought i'd share a few words about my longing for a Protools system all day today, as I ran into several session stopping situations in Fairlight MFX3, and knew It would have been a no-brainer in Protools So, the next time you find yourself complaining about PT, be happy for yourself instead.

For the record I am a Fairlight MFX3 user, some of the time and a Protools user (and Protools enthusiast) the rest of the time.

Session 1: radio spots:

Problem 1-1: Pull elements from session done last year in Fairlight and add them to session done today to finish spots. OOPS session done last year at 44.1, this year at 48. S.O.L. in Fairlight. Bump elements to DAT and back to Fairlight.

Problem 1-2A: Radio spot a little short -- savvy client wants to time stretch spot a little to get it to even :60 rather than solving through more editing. Cannot easily time stretch batch of elements in Fairlight. Must bounce down mix to 2 tracks.

Problem 1-2B: Fairlight does not support plug-ins, so cannot bounce to disk , becuase mix is derived from outboard gear and console. Instead re-record mix into Fairlight as a stereo mix.

Problem 1-3C: All of this is a waste of time beause I know how useless, and unaaceptable sounding Fairlight's time stretch is, but I do it, anyway so the client can hear it, and then I promise client to duplicate my effort in Protools as soon as I can.

Problem 1-4: (I get this one every day): Client wants a CD to walk with. Although Fairlight theoretically does support this, Our Fairlights do not. So the mix has to be printed to DAT and dubbed to CD in our dub room.

Session 2: more radio spots:

Problem 2-1: At the start of the session, I am told that we need to pull a voice tag from a spot done several months ago. Ther are no elements available except the original Fairlight backup. I know how to find the exact project backup, and I'm convinced that I know how it would be labeled, but due to the way a Fairlight backup works I cannot scan the archive and find the clip, instead I have to restore the entire project (which happens to be a hefty one) to access the single tag, 30 minutes later we finally have the tag.

Problem 2-2. In Fairlight there are things called file exstentions which are kind of like "Save As" in PT. In order to get the tag as an unconsolidated clip you have to first "borrow" the clip -- and then keep the clip. But in a file exstension you are screwed, becuase you cannot differentiate between the one clip that you just borrowed, and the rest of the media, which is considered "borrowed" from the master project. The only happy medium is to keep all media, a long and wasteful process.

Problem 2-3: client wants to time compress some voice over linesin spot. I cringe at the thought, because of issue mentioed in problem 1-3C, but in this case I do it and leave it in the final version, because spots need to ship immediately.

Problem 2-4: Client wants CDs (see problem 1-4).

Problem 2-5: Client wants to send MP3 files to their client via the internet (we also now get this every day). We cannot do this in Fairlight, because it will neither support MP3 or internet connection. Sure you can get it to send files over the internet, but that is only after adding $100,000 worth of hardware and upgrades. 2 servers, 2 software applications and a built for warfare disk array later, you can still only do WAV files. So we do as usual, dub it to DAT, send it to the dubroom, where it is redundantly digitized into yet another computer, and made into WAV files, MP3 whatever.

That's a typical Fairlight Day.

[KamaSutra77]

Dang, those fairlights blow huh? Glad I'm not into radio production. In fact ive avoided it for just such reasons.
Question: Do you find yourself steering new clients away from fairlight? Are the clients requesting fairlight by name? Why? Does it cost the same for the client? Is the quality the same?

I think this is what happends when you hype specific technology to the clients and artist. How many embarrasing times have I read an interview where a talented artist talks nonsense about mediochre technology. beliving all the while that the magic words had been said and the message of quality and prestige was duelly endowed uponst thier vested works of merit charm and grace?

I 2nd the blowing steam notion.
All those in favor?

[MAM]

I feel your pain! (sometimes)
Unfortunately, there is no "perfect" workstation, Protools included. I use Protools on a day to day basis right now for post. A lot of your problems seem to stem from the Fairlights not being upgraded/configured for the type of work that you need to do. With the exception of the timestretch quality (yet it does suck), all of those problems (and even the timestretch) could be solved by solutions offered by Fairlight. Yes, they are expensive, but a really tricked out Protools rig with all the goodies is not cheap either. Somehow I wish we could just cram together a Protools system and a Fairlight into one big "Super Workstation" and it would make everyone in post happy. I do agree with most of your gripes, I went through them also. A lot of that wasted time is gained back though when you really get down to the speed of the Fairlight's interface and machine control capabilities - a very weak point in Protools IMHO. But, it sure is nice when you can open up a Protools session and everything is back the way you saved it, no muss, no fuss.
I guess I am "rambling" not "venting", sorry. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Matt

[MAM]

Oh, and what are you guys backing up to? When I was in F-land we would backup to MO and just stick in the session we wanted and "keep" the needed clip using the "import" function. Unless your projects are HUGE, this worked great for us.

Matt

[Rock_Artist]

Just wondering if Fairlight support WAV (as I understood) why you simply don't export it using Removable HD or alike into a PC and CDR/WAVE it wouldn't that be more simple than get it into ADAT (I'm sorry but I'm using only Pro Tools and pretty happy with it [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ).

[Michael Klinger]

Kama and Matt, thanks for the replies!

Kama -- I've asked that exact question to our scheduler, and I can tell you this. In the five years that I've been working with Fairlight, we have NEVER had any client or future client ask about or even mutter the word Fairlight when booking studio time. In contrast, we constantly are being asked about Protools and PT related formats and delivery. I recognize that for a good number of them this is simply a buzzword that they know that equates to "workstation." But Protools is the one that clients talk about when it comes to receiving and delivering elements. Only once have we delivered Fairlight elements to another studio, and that was not by request, that was me speaking up, and offering them a better way, after I became aware of what studio they were going to in S.F. -- and I happened to know that that studio ran MFX.

Matt -- Yes I have also wished for the superworkstaion that you describe,and I do enjoy the pure speed of MFX, and wish that navigaiton was as easy on PT as it is on MFX, but If I was building a multi-room facility today, you couldn't torture me into choosing Fairlight as a platform. On the other hand (if my other hand was left after all of the torture), I could write a manifesto on why I would pick Protools, and little of it has to do with a consideration of the realtive speed of MFX to PT.

Matt, you were wondering about backup. We backup on XBYTE. I'm not sure that your idea about using MO for backup would be a realistic solution. First M.O is kind of a dying medium, and we work on too many projects, and shuffle too much media around, and the cost, and space would be prohibitive.

Here's just one final example that I touched on a bit in my original post:

Think about what it takes to get your Workstation files delivered on the internet, using exisiting DSL service.

In the case of a recently built Protools Rig -- it was a CAT5 cable -- cost $5.

In the case of Fairlight (and I'm not making this up) We got a bid for $100,000. Major hardware upgrades, a connectivity package, a server, two software packages, a second server from a third party, more software, more drives -- so that we could. . um . . . make WAV files. As you can see from what they were proposing, they missed the point of what we were trying to do, and instead wanted to bury us in more hardware, and not even provide a true solution. I have built several Protools rigs. My recent $30,000 version does everything that we want to do and more, including digital picture, OMFcapabilities, and a huge online SFX library.

Certainly Fairlight got a lot of things right the first time around, but what have they done in the last 8 years that is worth mentioning. Fairlight's model; "If it doesn't do it-- you don't need it."

[spigots]

Big Sound,

I have been a Pro Tools user since 1992 (Pro Deck and Pro Edit). I took a position at a Fairlight facility last July. I HATED Fairlight at first. I (like you, it seems) am on an MFX3 system, NON PCI, Exabyte BU, bare bones really. I wish I had the time to rebut/discuss all of your points, because I am where you are to a degree. Our lease comes up in 5 months. I was due to attend AES in Sept., to compare Digi, Fairlight, DSP, SAdie, etc. as I am directly responsible for all audio purchasing decisions for our company. After the attacks, I rescheduled for the end of NOV.

Due to Digidesign's unfortunate decision not to attend, I have elected not to go 9since thier presence was my main reason for attending).

My number one reason for possibly staying with Fairlight? It has never crashed. Not once. In 3+ months, not so much as a hiccup.
As someone who has seen PT corrupt files, lose files, not recognize files, not recognize backups, not even know how to frigging boot, this is a BIG plus.

I will address a few of your points. Please don't take this as any kind of a slam fest, or a Fairlight endorsement. YOU (Big Sound) are EXACTLY the the kind of user I need to learn from to help me make my decisions in the coming months.

<<Problem 1-1: Pull elements from session done last year in Fairlight and add them to session done today to finish spots. OOPS session done last year at 44.1, this year at 48. S.O.L. in Fairlight. Bump elements to DAT and back to Fairlight.>>

The last version of PT I was on (5.0.1), you could import the files at a different SR, but if you wanted great conversion qualities, it was at about twice real time (best mode?).
So eitherway, you're talking some serious time. AND, if you used good converters to do your D/A/D, the quality was probably a bit better than PT SRC (as has been discussed at length here on the DUC). ADVANTAGE: Protools (Ease of use)

<<<Problem 1-2A: Radio spot a little short -- savvy client wants to time stretch spot a little to get it to even :60 rather than solving through more editing. Cannot easily time stretch batch of elements in Fairlight. Must bounce down mix to 2 tracks.>>>

How short was it? An extra five minutes of editing to preserve tone and timbre of voice beats the h*ll out of time compression EVERYTIME. Different strokes, I guess. But for reasons of discussion; ADVANTAGE: Protools

<<<Problem 1-2B: Fairlight does not support plug-ins, so cannot bounce to disk , becuase mix is derived from outboard gear and console. Instead re-record mix into Fairlight as a stereo mix.>>>
A BTD in PT IS A REALTIME RE-RECORD!!! A single patch cord from mix out of console to an input of Fairlight and you're happily bouncing away. PLUS: You can take your 24 bit session, dither it at the console (or other outboard), and do your bounce at 16 bit dithered INTO THE SAME SESSION. Also, I've yet to see 6 month long threads about the sound quality of a Fairlight BTD. ADVANTAGE: Fairlight.

<<<Problem 1-3C: All of this is a waste of time beause I know how useless, and unaaceptable sounding Fairlight's time stretch is, but I do it, anyway so the client can hear it, and then I promise client to duplicate my effort in Protools as soon as I can.>>>

PT wins here, hands down. Fairlight's Time Compresion is only just BARELY usable. I rarely go over 3 or 4 %. ADVANTAGE: PT.

<<<Problem 1-4: (I get this one every day): Client wants a CD to walk with. Although Fairlight theoretically does support this, Our Fairlights do not. So the mix has to be printed to DAT and dubbed to CD in our dub room. >>>

There are VERY inexpensive work-arounds that you should explore. PT itself CANNOT burn a CD, you must use a 3rd party software for this. You must also buy a CDR recorder, etc. Baring this in mind; get a cheap 500+ PIII Wintel PC. Fit it with an M Audio 24/96 Sound card (SPDIF I/0) and reliable CDR drive. Put Cool Edit 2000 on it. It Cool Edit 2000 record/converts into MANY more formats that PT. Record DIRECTLY into this "Utility" PC. Edit/convert with Cool Edit 2000 . Burn your CDs. It takes NO MORE time that PT. ADVANTAGE: Draw.

<<<Problem 2-1: At the start of the session, I am told that we need to pull a voice tag from a spot done several months ago. Ther are no elements available except the original Fairlight backup. I know how to find the exact project backup, and I'm convinced that I know how it would be labeled, but due to the way a Fairlight backup works I cannot scan the archive and find the clip, instead I have to restore the entire project (which happens to be a hefty one) to access the single tag, 30 minutes later we finally have the tag.>>>

PT wins here, if you're using exabyte for Fairlight back-up. See other posts above for options. ADVANTAGE: PT

<<<In Fairlight there are things called file exstentions which are kind of like "Save As" in PT. In order to get the tag as an unconsolidated clip you have to first "borrow" the clip -- and then keep the clip. But in a file exstension you are screwed, becuase you cannot differentiate between the one clip that you just borrowed, and the rest of the media, which is considered "borrowed" from the master project. The only happy medium is to keep all media, a long and wasteful process>>>

Fairlight also has a VERY handy Bounce function. Bounce that one file to an adjacent track, delete the "borrowed" clip, and copy it back. ADVANTAGE: draw.

<<<Problem 2-3: client wants to time compress some voice over linesin spot. I cringe at the thought, because of issue mentioed in problem 1-3C, but in this case I do it and leave it in the final version, because spots need to ship immediately.>>>

ADVANTAGE: PT (discussed above).

<<<Problem 2-4: Client wants CDs (see problem 1-4).>>>

See solution above.

<<<Client wants to send MP3 files to their client via the internet (we also now get this every day). We cannot do this in Fairlight, because it will neither support MP3 or internet connection. Sure you can get it to send files over the internet, but that is only after adding $100,000 worth of hardware and upgrades. 2 servers, 2 software applications and a built for warfare disk array later, you can still only do WAV files. So we do as usual, dub it to DAT, send it to the dubroom, where it is redundantly digitized into yet another computer, and made into WAV files, MP3 whatever.>>>

As all of the pundits on the DUC are always preaching: No internet on your audio machine, right?

With that philosophy in mind, take the cheap 500Mhz PIII Wintel PC we built before. Add internet capabilities for next to nothing. Viola, your shootin' mp3s all over the globe. ADVANTAGE: Draw.

I haven't checked the DUC in a month or so, but I'll pop back over here daily to keep up with this thread. Bash away. I 'm looking forward to dual user opinions.

Frank

Good lord. I guess I did have time to discuss/rebut all the points. And I just wasted an hour of my life. Good night.

[MAM]

This is Fun! I've wanted to have this kind of discussion for a long time now, as I may be moving back to my old facility (Fairlight based) and they are wrangling with staying with Fairlight or moving to Protools.
A little backround. I started out doing music/post on Protools then moved to a Fairlight based shop. I am now back to PT at another place.
Some things to discuss. It all seems to come down to the type of work you are doing. At the first PT place and the one I am at now, the primary work is corporate and longform TV, with a smattering of Radio and TV spots thrown in. For this type of workload and demand for differing types of files imported and exported, PT seems to be the best solution. I love being on the Mac, having control of my files in a GUI instead of OS9 command line stuff etc. BUT, the Fairlight facility that I worked previously is a predominantly TV and Radio spot house (the name has a "Todd" in it) and for that type of work - especially lock to picture work, I think that the FL blows away PT in the following ways:
Machine control: Having both the machine and the audio move together with a stationary playhead at center absoulutely rocks. As an example, I love the ability to grab 8 stereo tracks of sound effects, then referencing one little sound in the middle of all of those, scrubbing to a visual sync point in the picture, then dropping the whole thing and you are done. PT can do something similar, but using machine control it is always tweak your sounds, hit online playback, preroll, play, tweak sounds again, hit playback, preroll, play etc. If Protools could handle machine control in the same way it would be a monster.
Retrieval of old elements:
Ok, say you have an ad client who needs to recall 4 different radio spots from four different sessions on different dates, then record new tags for these spots, while also being able to change the mix. In PT you would have to either bounce or export out the various stems or tracks and then import them into your new session, or use the import tracks function. Here's the catch though - each of said 4 sessions has multiple spots in them on the timeline. You have to open each one of these, find the spots and then export or bounce. Import tracks could work, but you would have to delete all the unneeded audio except the spots you were after. LARGE amount of time. Now we will do the same thing on FL.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we backed up to MO disks. I am not sure what kind of volume you are dealing with Bigsound, but at Todd, we were booked out a good 130 hours per week between two rooms, doing probably 25-50 spots a week, and never had any space or other limitations backing up to that format.
So, start up a new session, throw in your first backup disk, and hit the "Import" function. Open up your source session, scroll around and audibly and visually find the desired spot. Set your tracks and range, hit "keep" and boom - your spot is in your new session, with all clips, just like you had them originally. Repeat this process 3 more times and before you know it, your done. Unfortunately, I don't think PT will ever be able to do this, due to how the system architechture (SP?) is designed. Man, that would be great though.
And if I remember correctly, they have reduced the cost of their networking products to a more "sane" price structure, so you may want to look into that.
Now that my post is geting obnoxiously long, I think I'll quit and see what others have to say before my hands fall off.

Matt

[Michael Klinger]

R.A., Frank and Matt, Thanks for the continued discussion! For those just listening in. We aren't P.O.'ed with each other -- but it might look that way.

First R.A -- Yes you can do WAV files, but it is complicated, because you need extra harware and software. I'm not xfering to ADAT -- just regular DAT.

Frank and Matt: First of all I agree completely about solving timing problems through editing, rather than time compression --- even with good time compression. Fairlight users should be insisting on solving it through editing. That's what I do nearly all of the time. But sometimes you gotta do what the client wants. Also, it has become common for producers to use T.C. for an effect or to deliberately give V/O a speedy sound during legal, etc. I always try to talk them out of it, and then you get into the realm of hearing how they were able to do it at studio x and studio y, and that's what they want. So the answer becomes "no problem." Aside from that, even if MFX time c. was okay sounding, think of how versatile the audiosuite t.c. is. You can batch t.c every clip seperately, so that during a re-edit you can still recognize the elements. Or if it makes more sense to BTD and do it as a full clip you can, or more likely you can pick and choose what you will use it on and what you won't use it on, or mix and match the approach. I might be inclined to not t.c. the music bed, but instead just t.c. the v/o. Beyond the quality, it is about versatility.

CD burn -- I appreciate all of the Fairlight workarounds, but in PT I already have a CD burner in the PT rig. It's nearly impossible to buy a Mac without one. The $79 Adaptec (or Roxio now) Toast software is a non-issue. And again I must emphasize versatility. Yes, I might have to bounce to disk my final product to a file I can use in Toast, but in other occasions I might not have to. It might be as easy as exporting a few regions or if the client's objective is to simply leave with a CD of all the raw vo takes, then I can initialy set up the session in 44.1 (AIFF or SD2 for that matter), and simply click and drag all of the raw takes into Toast, and burn a CD at 8 times or so speed, without any conversion. Plus think of all the other useful things that a PT rig's CD burner can do. I can use it as a backup medium, or as a way to deliver small sessions, etc. Clients and receiving studios alike enjoy a tidy Protools session of a v/o record with all the takes already there and labled, rather than 45 minutes of DAT to workstation xfer. There is also an issue of studio time. Clients appreciate a CD being burned in the room, when they have one foot out the door and are ready to jump into a taxi and head to the airport. In addition, we like it because what was otherwise a dubroom function is being handled while the studio clock is still running, but that fact doesn't hit most clients, nor do they care -- they just like the convenience. On the other hand building out secondary digitizing "companion" CD burning units for each of our four Fairlights, takes up valuable real-estate inside the studio and also doesn't seem to make economic sense. Doesn't it seem seriously wrong to spend the kind of money it takes to buy MFX, and still have to buy a companion system tperform the kind of delivery functions that clients want these days? Instead, we have one unit like this in our dub room, and the process of shuffling the dub there is a time consuming one, subject to congestion and staffing issues.

Regarding D to A, sample rate conversions, BTD quality issues, or 96K/24B: In most of the work that we do, our clients have a very limited sense of sound quality, and these issues are esoteric at best. Believe me, I have heard not even one complaint about the sound of a BTD here, and for my purposes BTD sounds fine. Frankly our clients are far more concerned about where we are ordering lunch from, than the subtle difference in BTD quality, or PT vs MFX quality. They do notice however when I can do cool tricks like automating a reverb. Like many studios we are analog and digial hybrid, and the lack of integrity regarding this issue is out of my conrol. I can tell you this our integrity for a digital signal is far better implemented on the Protools side.

In regards to my dilema with file extensions in Fairlight. Bouncing the clip is an excellent suggestion. I hadn't thought of that!

In regards to the M.O versus xbyte. That sounds like a budget buster to me. I haven't priced out M.O.'s lately but aren't the 1.3gig versions about $40 each. You certainly were doing a brisk business with the todds, but we go through boxes of xbyte's at about $6 per tape and 5 gig capacity.

On the PT rigs I use DDS3 data DAT holds about 12 gig -- at $11 each. Better than this discussion - how about a little help here Fairlight? Couldn't they do something with their backup module to make it more useful, such as making it appendable, searchable, and allow resore on a clip level?

Regarding internet connection: I have no problem connecting up long enough to transfer files as needed. Perhaps I am a fool, but I think that this is a non-issue. Despite that, I have a simple method of controlling my exposure to the internet. Its called the CAT5 cable. To reduce my exposure, I phyically leave it unplugged from the wall, until I need it for file xfer, and I never do any un-needed web surfing on the PT rigs.

Regarding machine control, (this is a solution related to the kind of work we do) we are not yet using machine control with PT, we are howver digitizing Quicktime with Miro, and then slaving PT and laying back to masters via time code, etc. I can't imagine any other way to cut to pix on PT than Digital Picture.

On the MFX, we are slaving 3/4" work pix to MFX -- this is an issue of not having better gear -- but this method really sux compared to digital pix in PT.

Lastly I haven't even touched on the issues of component availability, our confidence in being able to self configure, troubleshoot, and upgrade PT vs MFX; our ability to be able to understand PT on a system level. Or the stack of very pricey repair and replace invoices for Fairlight, versus the ones from Digidesign -- actually we don't have any invoices from digidesign to compare with. We have about one major Fairlight repair or component replacement every month. On the Protools side we have been spending a lot of money too, but on new G4's, and system enhancents, not repairs.

Anyway that's all for now.

-Mike

[spigots]

Great responses guys.
I'll chime back in next week when I have some time to mull it over.

Have a good weekend

Frank