Unlimited inserts?.. (or that of anything else)

[Typhoon859]

Now, before people start getting a bit too clever, I should say that REGARDLESS of what your argument is, there shouldn't be any reason that there MUST be any such limitation in the first place. As a matter of fact, it defeats much of the purpose and clear benefit of mixing and using a DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) in the first place. No matter your ideology for proper workflow, inevitable sound degradation (which would be reflective of more than just the statements you make regarding this), proper amount of correction/enhancement processes in a chain, or anything else of this kind, that is not something which should be by any means enforced onto users. All you end up doing is limiting uses/options. You can never predict all situations and all potential utilization of a dynamic tool such as a digital mixing console.

As a matter of CPU load or anything else of this sort, once again, it should just be a choice for the user to have and/or experience. In no way would it reflect poorly on Pro Tools if users overloaded their system with the flexibility given to them. That would just be a frivolous concern and I would also suspect some conceit.

In my case, I'd say it really is more a matter of organization than it is a necessity of an amount of desired successive plugins on one track. It makes too much sense for me to have similar types of plugins lined up on the same slot in each track, especially for the purposes of bypassing them all at once.

I appeal to you that you see the value in this liberation or this of any other type rather than focus on interrogating my practices or otherwise specific needs. I submit that this wouldn't be much of a contribution in the conversation. Thank you.

I realize there are many others concerns which are presently more important and even for me, other things I feel would also be pertinent to mention for having get fixed/included, done so of course with the naivety of supposedly not knowing Avid's record. Perhaps these other things I have in mind would be even more vital for me and for others in the long run concerning what can at best be described as conspicuous idiosyncrasies within Pro Tools which unnecessarily limit workflow and creative possibilities - and many of them. The matter mentioned here however is currently the most pressing for me considering it has obviously been a consistent discomfort and will furthermore continue to be so for any mixing session/project in the future. I fail to see the issue and/or difficulty in making such a straightforward improvement and it would do nothing but improve the situation of poor image that the company is currently facing (and has been for a while).

PS- It would be nice as an update in Pro Tools 10 as well - not just for what would then simply be another marketing gimmick for PT11 (but that's an argument for another time and perhaps elsewhere XD). Please Avid, make this happen!

[JFreak]

Unlimited inserts?

Well...

How would you implement that on a control surface?

If you can't, then forget it.

[Typhoon859]

Originally Posted by JFreak

Unlimited inserts?

Well...

How would you implement that on a control surface?

If you can't, then forget it.

A rather prompt response which seems to me rather reactionary. I don't think I'll ever fully understand people's desire in being conservative of limitations, especially when the element of uncertainty isn't that high and only a matter of personal conventions are at risk of being broken. It's really dumbfounding to me how people could be so mentally inflexible or trap themselves in such a boxed frame of mind in the first place. Perhaps this doesn't apply to you and it's not the worst thing in the world, but I don't see why you would have otherwise thought in such a way when making your response.

Well firstly, at worst, the limitation just ends up being passed onto the control surface - the same limitation which was already there in the first place; you lose nothing; it's your choice to engage or not. Second, it could be handled same way the lesser number of relative faders are in most cases, if not all. Third, regardless, what you said is simply backwards; it just is. Existing hardware control surfaces, or anything else for that matter, shouldn't limit software in any sort of forward progress. Things of the like that you mention are in fact a well-known limitation of hardware control surfaces and should be something that's understood with the purchase.

Your argument is basically, "If I'm limited in one area, I should be limited the same way everywhere else unless a solution can simultaneously be thought of for everything." This argument also becomes especially weak when the stated issue isn't really much of an issue; I honestly don't even see how it is. Perhaps I'm not as short-sighted. In many ways it doesn't matter anyway, as I've made clear.

[jasonthurley]

I could see a virtual unlimited number of sends of course, but why when your hardware, not just control surface, but computer, etc are going to be limiting factors.

While I agree it could be done I believe the limitations in Pro Tools are based on their professional HD hardware systems that are going to be limited to a specific #.

I dont think there should be a limit on track #'s and sends in the vanilla version of the software as the software should allow you to use all your hardware resources, and allow you to use all those resources, but its not. I dont think it will ever be that way. They may increase the limitations as time progresses, but that also pushed people to have to say buy an HD system to get more track counts, insert points, etc.

I just dont see this happening as they would lose sales of HD systems. Hopefully Im understanding your point.

[Typhoon859]

Originally Posted by jasonthurley

I could see a virtual unlimited number of sends of course, but why when your hardware, not just control surface, but computer, etc are going to be limiting factors.

While I agree it could be done I believe the limitations in Pro Tools are based on their professional HD hardware systems that are going to be limited to a specific #.

I dont think there should be a limit on track #'s and sends in the vanilla version of the software as the software should allow you to use all your hardware resources, and allow you to use all those resources, but its not. I dont think it will ever be that way. They may increase the limitations as time progresses, but that also pushed people to have to say buy an HD system to get more track counts, insert points, etc.

I just dont see this happening as they would lose sales of HD systems. Hopefully Im understanding your point.

Yes, and this is precisely what I meant in the title by "or that of anything else", as in unlimited sends, tracks, and mostly anything else which could be an option and makes sense to have available (or even if just simply doesn't make sense to otherwise have as a forced restriction).

With tracks, I get it. It wouldn't be a realistic expectation although the limitation there is obviously absolutely trivial aside from what you mentioned. In any case, I understand why they did it, but as with most things with Avid, I don't agree with their decision nor do I think it's beneficial for them anyway. In the end, the result of their tyranny shows. If you're going to take a strictly business approach, well first you truly need to have a good leverage in terms of appeal for your product, or in other words, a lot of care needs to go into this kind of product and it needs to show. Second, you'd need to find ways of not exploiting your users in abusive ways. Nevermind that they're not successful in either of those, I'd scrap that model altogether and the proof of a working model otherwise I think really shows if you know/just look into the example of Amazon.com (just arbitrarily).

Anyway, perhaps it's not as obvious with inserts, but who's to claim that a system can/can't handle a certain amount. What if it's just one track that needs that many? What if it's just a combination of plugins with a very light CPU load? What if it's as I suggested and it's just a matter of organization and have only one specific type of plugin per row? In any case, even if it was 100% guaranteed not to work even on one track and even with plugins with only a marginal CPU load plus the organizational concept wasn't a factor, why not let the user try for him/herself? If it really was an absolute fact, then it can be put as a warning or something when trying to add additional inserts past that point. I really see no argument against this and really, why should there be? Not to give the impression of conceit, but it seems to me rather plain. Plus, if you think of it, if this had just been implemented to begin with, you really wouldn't see anyone complaining. That says all there is to say about the nature of this issue I would think.

[Drew Mazurek]

Sometimes limitations breed creativity.

When you only had 24 tracks, you didn't hit record until YOU WERE DAMN SURE, the part sounded great AND was needed to better the song.

[jasonthurley]

I hear what you are saying and overall, great idea. Unfortunately thats where that will stay, an Idea. The most unfortunate part of Avid is they have made no money in years and opening up their software sp users could do whatever they wanted with it would lead to less hardware sales and more software sales at a much lower income for the company. They have been struggling for quite a while now so making proprietary systems and letting users have a "limited" version of their software has allowed them to be able to make more sales where it counts... the expensive hardware/software combo systems they make... but regardless even going to full blown HDX stuffed with as many cards as you can, the software still has a limit and always have as far as I can see....

Do any other DAW manufactures allow unlimited inserts, sends, track count?

[Typhoon859]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

Sometimes limitations breed creativity.

When you only had 24 tracks, you didn't hit record until YOU WERE DAMN SURE, the part sounded great AND was needed to better the song.

This is a very warped philosophy in my view and it would seem that I understood the perspective you were coming from your very first post.

This idea is very easy to come to and equally easy to stay on. This is a limitation on your part in being able to think flexibly and enforce your own parameters if need be. You take that as an ultimate philosophy to maintain and project it as a concept of fact. Not everybody is phased by your limitations, and If I for example felt it appropriate to work with only 24 tracks, I'd set that restriction for myself.

As I made a case from the very first post, regardless of your ideology, you can keep it for yourself. Having the option to have it another way doesn't interfere with it but enforcing it by effectively having the software handicapped would be an action which would be approaching being downright immoral if done for those reasons.

Also, your argument is purely a contingency and it happens to also be an infinitely expanding tautology. This automatically tells you that this argument is erroneous and subject to caprice.

Originally Posted by jasonthurley

I hear what you are saying and overall, great idea. Unfortunately thats where that will stay, an Idea. The most unfortunate part of Avid is they have made no money in years and opening up their software sp users could do whatever they wanted with it would lead to less hardware sales and more software sales at a much lower income for the company. They have been struggling for quite a while now so making proprietary systems and letting users have a "limited" version of their software has allowed them to be able to make more sales where it counts... the expensive hardware/software combo systems they make... but regardless even going to full blown HDX stuffed with as many cards as you can, the software still has a limit and always have as far as I can see....

Do any other DAW manufactures allow unlimited inserts, sends, track count?

Many of the things you described of Avid are the things I meant when I referred to them as having a failing business model. Pushing harder in the same direction with surface-level change is never the solution. Even if it were, I don't see how the suggested flexibility when it comes to inserts contradicts their way of operation. You stated them together as if they are but maybe I'm missing something. Could you expound on that?

At this point, starting from PT10 already, Pro Tools is one version. There's simply the native version and the HDX where the difference is in the purchase of the hardware, additional tracks, along with a few other things. I guess that still makes it two, lol. Whatever the case, they already have all the ploys and benefits in place for using their HDX systems and inserts aren't one of them. If they made it exclusive to their proprietary systems, it would just make people even more pissed anyway. As this would be something new and not particularly huge (just welcome), it would be of no consequence for them to include this feature. As I said, only welcome.

Don't capitulate before the words have even been directly stated. It's a prediction which I also have (although for different reasons) that Avid won't make this happen, but this is again a perspective that any company wouldn't want people to have. Let your dissatisfaction with the fact of the matter be known. The less people treat them like a totalitarian dictator, the less power they'll have over the minds of those people. Their influence is nothing but negative. As you can see with the post above ours, you will always have apologetics as that is the only way people like that can console themselves with their views. We have enough of this. Everything can be "defended" like that. The real-time bounce comes to mind... People find a hard time recognizing things to be a problem and prefer to have a contrived sense of reason behind something rather than having nothing at all. The reason behind this really didn't matter (and unfortunately still doesn't if you're using PT10 such as myself); it's just plain stupid, irritating, and often a waste of time. It's the surrender to this kind of mentality which I am against, even if you don't hold those views. I presume that this notion would be sensible to you.

If you really think what I saw would be a good idea, why suppress the possibility by being dismissive of it in such a formal way? Even if it's of no personal interest to you, something else of the sort might be, and this would be a good cause to be behind for the things which might actually be of interest later on. That would be true to say of anything.

In terms of other DAWs/developers including this feature (so-to-speak) or not, I'm actually not quite sure. It wouldn't matter either way, as that would then only make this an argument for settling. Why? Really, if there weren't any others that did this, I submit that this should only make this an idea even more appealing to Avid. How would it be a bad thing for a company to improve their software especially if it didn't mean in any way stepping on your own toes (which would only speak of an even further broken model if it did)?

[Drew Mazurek]

Originally Posted by Typhoon859

This is a very warped philosophy in my view and it would seem that I understood the perspective you were coming from your very first post.

This idea is very easy to come to and equally easy to stay on. This is a limitation on your part in being able to think flexibly and enforce your own parameters if need be. You take that as an ultimate philosophy to maintain and project it as a concept of fact. Not everybody is phased by your limitations, and If I for example felt it appropriate to work with only 24 tracks, I'd set that restriction for myself.

As I made a case from the very first post, regardless of your ideology, you can keep it for yourself. Having the option to have it another way doesn't interfere with it but enforcing it by effectively having the software handicapped would be an action which would be approaching as downright being immoral if doing it for those reasons.

Also, your argument is purely a contingency and it happens to be an infinitely expanding tautology. That says it all.

I've been called worse than warped.

I have a question for you. Do you think we are at the pinnacle of musical quality? Of engineering? Of songwriting? Of art?

If so, then your argument might have some merit. This argument of "options". But if we're not, then you're toast.

So I ask.. are we at the pinnacle?

BTW, your tone comes off as argumentative, arrogant, and condescending. Maybe I'm losing something in the translation of your ideas to forum posts, but I'd thought I'd point it out in case it's not how you're trying to sound.

[Typhoon859]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

I've been called worse than warped.

I have a question for you. Do you think we are at the pinnacle of musical quality? Of engineering? Of songwriting? Of art?

If so, then your argument might have some merit. This argument of "options". But if we're not, then you're toast.

So I ask.. are we at the pinnacle?

BTW, your tone comes off as argumentative, arrogant, and condescending. Maybe I'm losing something in the translation of your ideas to forum posts, but I'd thought I'd point it out in case it's not how you're trying to sound.

I certainly wouldn't like to seem that this is the position I'm coming from but I also don't want to stifle a point when there is one to be made. As a matter of act, it would be disingenuous of me to do so. I apologize however if that is how I seem. I frankly just find it important to have a critical community for change/improvement, otherwise a business is bound to fail, especially an already wavering one. It leads to further complacency and it isn't something I want to encourage unless I was in the position and meaning to take this business over. In the mean time, it's not helping me in my present cause and this effort wouldn't get in the way of somebody who's effort is the former. It would certainly only help Avid a little bit in the mean time to do this and for very little cost.

As for your question, I don't see how it is an ultimatum in the way that you put it, but in any case, no, I don't see today as being the pinnacle. As a matter of fact, far from it, and Avid is only one of the contributors to the problems keeping it as far from greater heights as it is; Dr. Dre with his headphones is also one and today's Pop music trend and the artists/producers involved would have to be another. If by pinnacle you simply mean "to the the greatest height which something can ever reach", well then nothing ever really is. It's a moot point. A pinnacle would be a turning point where something/someone has reached the limit in terms of potential and has nothing to do but go down down or try to keep it up there - rare that it lasts for long. If you also see this to be the case as I do but therefore a point in your favor, it really does just amount to another argument for complacency, if not simply a demonstration of the mindset for it.

If things are bad, or not at their best, this is only ever a cause for pushing for improvement.

PS- I never meant to call you warped; I mentioned that this was the case of the philosophy you presented. This idea you mentioned there is actually very widespread as a matter of fact and that is the reason for my choice of words. It was actually nothing personal. I hope that clears that up a bit.