Really ?

[matchmix]

Originally Posted by ChrisBové

Hi matchmix,

I'm in communication with the architecture teams at Avid working on silicon support for Pro Tools, Media Composer, and other products. I'm naturally interested in learning from all customers, you included, about specifically what elements of PT you are hoping will benefit from full native integration?

Could you email them to me? [email protected]

The more detail, the better. Thanks.

Well for starters performance with Hybrid is unstable - Sessions playback fine in 2021.7 yet any version beyond that Plugin DSP on heavy sessions is tough. Having large scale sessions working fine in 2021.7 then not working on ANY VERSION (yes I checked them all including 2022.4). Maybe I am out the norm but On out Mac Studio Mac Studio Ultra's performance is no better than our 28 Core Mac Pro's - but it should be when we use ANY native silicon app it smokes our fastest Intel Mac's - mind you this is with large scale sessions that are stereo as well as ATMOS mixes. Create a session in 2021.7 max out the DSP to see where the session will play - then open that session on 2022.4 and your dead in the water then go back to 2021.7 then sesion will play - Avid broke it now fix it. Please and thanks

[deanrichard]

You're right, PT11, not PT12. But if it wasn't a complete rewrite, it was close to it. It introduced the AAX standard, a new audio engine, etc. And it makes sense that it was new software because the original US engineering team was not the group that did PT11. It was outsourced. I did a search, and found this from the Promedia blog, back in 2013. If it wasn't a complete rewrite, Avid did a good job of convincing people it was. Even the UI was modified somewhat.

"Most people have approached this “upgrade” with cautious optimism, mainly due to the fact that it’s more than just another “upgrade;” it’s an entirely new piece of software. About the only thing that isn’t new is the aesthetic look and feel. It still looks like the Pro Tools we all know and love- but don’t be fooled by its’ dashingly bland, predictable look. Everything you don’t see is totally new."

Originally Posted by smurfyou

I can't say for sure what the exact wording was but they definitely inferred heavily that PT was going through a rewrite (for v11 I believe). People repeat it because Avid led them to believe it.

Obviously that didn't happen because it would be monumental and we'd have all new bugs instead of the same old ones.

If anyone needs proof the logs still refer to DAE. Nuff said.

[noiseboyuk]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

"Most people have approached this “upgrade” with cautious optimism, mainly due to the fact that it’s more than just another “upgrade;” it’s an entirely new piece of software. About the only thing that isn’t new is the aesthetic look and feel. It still looks like the Pro Tools we all know and love- but don’t be fooled by its’ dashingly bland, predictable look. Everything you don’t see is totally new."

IIRC wasn’t this the move from 32 to 64 bit? It may also have coincided with the shift to non-US workers too. I remember that era was pretty much featureless for a couple of years - I hope that quote was / is true, I remember reading about this stuff at the time, it was all boring under-the-hood stuff that was needed.

In general, I can think of other DAWs whose code “feels” a lot flakier than Pro Tools. Bugs that get fixed in one version pop up again in the next for Cubase. By contrast, PT feels relatively stable.

[jeffro]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

You're right, PT11, not PT12. But if it wasn't a complete rewrite, it was close to it. It introduced the AAX standard, a new audio engine, etc. And it makes sense that it was new software because the original US engineering team was not the group that did PT11. It was outsourced. I did a search, and found this from the Promedia blog, back in 2013. If it wasn't a complete rewrite, Avid did a good job of convincing people it was. Even the UI was modified somewhat.

"Most people have approached this “upgrade” with cautious optimism, mainly due to the fact that it’s more than just another “upgrade;” it’s an entirely new piece of software. About the only thing that isn’t new is the aesthetic look and feel. It still looks like the Pro Tools we all know and love- but don’t be fooled by its’ dashingly bland, predictable look. Everything you don’t see is totally new."

Not here to argue (I just happened to be down the hall for my 'being hit on the head' lesson), but it looks like you are quoting from protoolstraining.com/blog-help/tips-and-tricks/187-avid-pro-tools-10-versus-pro-tools-11-major-differences.html which was not written by Avid. If we did say it I suppose someone will find it, but even though our press release for PT11 is full of wonderful marketing language it does not make these absolute "entirely new piece of software" and "totally new" claims. Nor does the What's New in Pro Tools 11 doc. Hard to say of course whether their claims were echoes of things said by someone at Avid or they 'rounded up' from the info (e.g. new Avid Audio Engine) provided in our docs.

[Tweakhead]

Originally Posted by jeffro

Not here to argue (I just happened to be down the hall for my 'being hit on the head' lesson) . . .

Jeffro, just hold your head like this, and go "Wahhh !"

I did not intend my last rant to be an attack on either Jeffro, or Chris Bové. They're both on the front lines actually helping us, and are stuck between the users and the corporate crowd. I get it.

Everyone's frustration I think is because we got another release that is still not Apple Native code. Nearly all of us are wanting/expecting to make great strides ahead in terms of CPU power and speed, so that processes like Dolby Atmos, VI's, CPU-hungry plugins, video work, massive mixing projects etc can be done fast and effortlessly. We need Pro Tools operating at full-tilt on the M1 macs (without the machine even breaking a sweat). Sure, from all reports it functions via Rosetta - but that's not the point. The hints that working in Rosetta is good enough is not good enough.

We've all paid money for a year of updates that appear to be either not worth it, or going off at a tangent, rather than focusing on the really important things. I paid for my year of updates, and now I feel like we're not even going to see a native code Pro Tools this year. That's why if it doesn't get sorted out this year, I am simply pulling the plug on my payments - and I'm guessing so will many others. It seems to be the only thing that might get the attention of those fiscal clowns running the rodeo with their latest subscription-only gameplan.

This article from last year on Pro Tools Expert is still a good reference as a starting point for where things should be - and it feels like we've hardly made any progress. Many of the user comments are good too. Notice what is at the top of that list. I can think of at least twenty more things that need to be done, but none of us really have any idea what's going on behind the scenes - hence our frustration. We want Pro Tools to succeed, and we want Avid to succeed.

Now, hold your head like this, and go "Wahhh !"

[jeffro]

Originally Posted by Tweakhead

Jeffro, just hold your head like this, and go "Wahhh !"

That made my day... thank you! (Humor doesn't often translate, and I know there are real concerns being expressed so not making light of those.)

I did not intend my last rant to be an attack on either Jeffro, or Chris Bové...

Didn't take it that way at all.

Everyone's frustration I think is because we got another release that is still not Apple Native code... <snip> ...none of us really have any idea what's going on behind the scenes - hence our frustration. We want Pro Tools to succeed, and we want Avid to succeed.

Understood. Just seemed like things were on a bit of a tangent so I wanted to at least clarify the history a bit. I also really want Avid to succeed - you all have put a roof over my family's heads and have done so for a long (very long) time, and I'm grateful for that and would like it to continue! Frustration about the pace (or lack) of development is understandable. We're here to gather feedback and use it to drive change (and I know that doesn't always happen fast enough). We are sharing the points made here with the rest of the team, and since it's a little challenging with a few of these mondo threads with multiple topics I'll likely be splitting them into their own threads to try and focus things. Thanks (all) for speaking up about these concerns.

"Wahhh!"

[Eric Lambert]

Just to remind people of the obvious: yes, PT is *not* Native. It's one thing to complain about the sluggishness of having to use Rosetta, but let's not forget that it's a workaround so our feelings should be pliable. Your car may technically operate by wrung-out drenched sweatsocks dripped into the fuel tank but when you complain about its performance Kia isn't likely to spend too much time troubleshooting your issue with a tall degree of seriousness.

I understand wanting, and in some cases being forced to order, an M1 Mac (I myself have one in-the-mail), but it's that void between proven compatibility and cutting-edge experimental compatibility that we're dealing with. Sometimes it's like an acid trip in that void and we have to treat it as such. When we decide (or are forced) to move into that void of incomplete compatibility, we have to accept some of the responsibility for quirkiness.

[junkgear]

Really just an FYI, not making excuses for Avid here and I have no idea what shape the Pro Tools code base is in. Porting to M1 isn't as easy as just flipping a switch and now you have an M1 binary. If anyone cares to read it, here is a link to Apple's overview for Porting Your Apps to Apple Silicon. A lot of the things they say take extra consideration seem to apply to Pro Tools. I have no idea how other DAWs are so quickly ported.

[Akiz]

Originally Posted by junkgear

Really just an FYI, not making excuses for Avid here and I have no idea what shape the Pro Tools code base is in. I have no idea how other DAWs are so quickly ported.

Originally Posted by junkgear

I have no idea how other DAWs are so quickly ported.

Let me express some thoughts...

Because "others" are better organised, development teams are committed to the task, their goal is to have a competitive product that will drive more sales and keep their users happy, with additional features as well. This is called proactive development, Avid is reactive, will act when they have no other option. If everyone else can do it except Avid, this is evidence that it can be done, the cause is not technical, it is a matter of priorities. Avid stalls on purpose and will explain later why i think this happens.

I don't think other DAWs are less complex than ProTools. That argument is quite stupid me thinks.
Cubase, Nuendo, Digital Performer etc. for example, are all mature software with "old" code, but they manage to keep up to date with OS revisions, new features and bug fixes in relatively short time. For Avid took a whole year to finally support Catalina!
Ok, if then the software is really too complex, hire better coders and figure it out Avid, that is what you get money for.

Avid is the only one who uses excuses for their incompetence of delivering an updated product like everybody else did.
This is not new, it is happening for some time now, since the introduction of "Annual Plans". They rest assured that cash flow is secured, so why to rush? They added "Folder Tracks" 2 years after the announcement....Folder tracks, not a groundbreaking super hard to code feature! Go figure.....

Why this is happening, because they get payed upfront and there is no motive to drive the development, as i see it and from the facts it seems like that is the case. ProTools is the most expensive DAW to keep current, but the last in the list of new features and OS support.

Somehow the subscription plans and all around this, keep developing just fine, they are ahead of all "others" in that department, right?
That alone marks the Avid's priorities and it is first cash grab and then everything else.

If you think all that, is a bit harsh and might hurt someone's feelings, that's not the goal here and i apologise if that's the case, but.......This is what majority of people who use/used ProTools think for Avid. All the people i know in the business have negative feelings about Avid, that's the buzz out there...

Last but not least....ProTools is a great app in the wrong hands, unfortunately!

Thank's for the patience!

Cheers!

[thin ice]

The real problem is that whilst we were hoping for Apple Silicon native and maybe finally getting ARA, there was simply a juggling of features and a new charging system. What should have been a positive spring release turned into a negative event. Add to that further restrictions on perpetual licenses, that has already been contentious amongst long-term users, and it feels like a major disappointment.

While I appreciate it may be a big job to port for M1 Macs, other DAWs got there some time ago and the platform has been around 18 months. Pro Tools users contribute a lot each year and would expect to keep up.

Personally I have been quite happy with what Rosetta is doing and realise Silicon Pro Tools is pointless until my last plugin is updated too. However, it was the direction of travel on licenses without anything to offer in return that was difficult to swallow.