Cloud Storage prices are too expensive

[DJ Hellfire]

Anyone else feel like the minimum cloud storage prices are too expensive? The free one isn't even enough to hold a full length stemmed instrumental and the Premium one is too much for just wanting to try it out on a real world project. Not saying $9.99 is a lot of money, but just more than I need to start off with, especially being that most Pro Tools users I know aren't even on 12.

[nige108]

Agreed. The beauty of the way in which the system works is that you and your collaborators can work on the same project within PT.
But this restricted unless you buy more storage. I was hoping to be able use the system to flesh out ideas with my songwriting partner allowing us to both be able to make changes on a track by track basis. Sending stems back and forth does not allow this kind of flow. I can't get one session loaded up into a project even after trimming the fat.

[metalmixer]

yes and no ... there are plenty of plugs that cost $300 - $600 for ONE plug-in.
I would go for the 60GB plan but only getting 10 projects is not enough for me at any given point I am working on 30 to 40 songs at a time.

[electrodaddy]

I'm confused why there should be a restriction on the number of projects? Surely the disk space is enough. Or are Avid not confident on how their systems perform?

[amagras]

Originally Posted by electrodaddy

I'm confused why there should be a restriction on the number of projects?

exactly

[Dizzi45Z]

I also agree that there are a ton of limitations here-- Even with the top plan. An artist can't even have an album with more than 10 songs loaded.

If the storage space is so expensive for Avid and the users, then why do we have to have the whole project loaded in the cloud? If I am tracking drums, I am going to easily fill up a few gigs with multiple takes of the drums which will eat up tons of space. I'd rather just have my main playlist loaded on the cloud. I don't need all of my playlists loaded on the cloud.

I would love to be able to use this with my studio to help my clients get drums recorded at my place remotely, but I imagine that drum tracking will fill up too much space to make it worth it for my clients.

Other studios that I collaborate with would no way be able to stick with 10 sessions and 60 GB with all of their sessions going. They usually record orchestral parts for most of us. So until things change with storage and session limits, I just don't see how PT CC will be able to be implemented in our workflows.

[electrodaddy]

A potentially good concept that has been badly executed by bad marketing and execution. Typical Avid.

[nigelpry]

Has anyone been able to assess what the lossless compression is achieving it terms of saving space?

Also, if you only share selected tracks, not all tracks, is it only tjose selected tracks that eat into your storage allowance?

So your project could be several gigs in size (eg with multiple takes of everything) but if you only share the active playlists, and only certain tracks, then your cloud storage needs are reduced?

I thought that was how it's supposed to work.

Plus I still can't get over the fact that if you have multiple licenses that each have a paid support plan, you still only get the same amount of storage as someone with one license. That's just bonkers.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by Dizzi45Z

I also agree that there are a ton of limitations here-- Even with the top plan. An artist can't even have an album with more than 10 songs loaded.

If the storage space is so expensive for Avid and the users, then why do we have to have the whole project loaded in the cloud? If I am tracking drums, I am going to easily fill up a few gigs with multiple takes of the drums which will eat up tons of space. I'd rather just have my main playlist loaded on the cloud. I don't need all of my playlists loaded on the cloud.

I would love to be able to use this with my studio to help my clients get drums recorded at my place remotely, but I imagine that drum tracking will fill up too much space to make it worth it for my clients.

Other studios that I collaborate with would no way be able to stick with 10 sessions and 60 GB with all of their sessions going. They usually record orchestral parts for most of us. So until things change with storage and session limits, I just don't see how PT CC will be able to be implemented in our workflows.

Especially when you're recording at 192kHz!

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

Has anyone been able to assess what the lossless compression is achieving it terms of saving space?

Also, if you only share selected tracks, not all tracks, is it only tjose selected tracks that eat into your storage allowance?

So your project could be several gigs in size (eg with multiple takes of everything) but if you only share the active playlists, and only certain tracks, then your cloud storage needs are reduced?

I thought that was how it's supposed to work.

Plus I still can't get over the fact that if you have multiple licenses that each have a paid support plan, you still only get the same amount of storage as someone with one license. That's just bonkers.

Doesn't seem like much space saving to me. I couldn't even get one whole beat on there with the free plan.