The "I've Upgraded to Pro Tools" thread -- General

[Nick Sevilla]

Cool, thanks for the indepth, and logical , explanation.

Ok, well that sounds pretty much like everything I can do in cubase just a little different. The folder tracks can all remain visible of you can condense to just show the overall folder track, editing the folder track, edits everything in the folder track.

And the VCA thing I think I can handle with group tracks.

The third point you made was pretty interesting, Cubase has the playlist thing where you can assign like tabs to the time line say A for Verse and B for chorus and you can set up the playlist to play AABABA or whatever, but its not grouped for cut paste etc.

Just to be clear I am in no way saying one is better or worse, just curious about comparing the editing/mixing features because I am toying with making the change later this year.

Hi,

In PT HD, there are two completely different types of "groups".

1.- Actual group assignations, which have a lot of editable features, like most all other DAWs. You can tell the group to allow or ignore a large list of automation and editing features for that group. With this type of group you can edit audio and midi regions, as well as edit mixing automation for all channels in the group.

2.- VCA Automation Groups. These are only for mixing and only affect the following features :

Volume
Mute
Solo
Track Input "input listen"
Record Enable

This automation is in fact happening together with the other regular mix automation.

When you have a channel grouped to a regular group, AND a VCA group, it shows TWO volume automation curves, etc.

When removing the channel from the VCA group you can have a dialog ask if you want the VCA automation written into the regular automation.

This to me is very useful to make adjustments to a mix, without changing my mix until the changes become approved. Meanwhile my original mix automation is intact.

Cheers

[Aj]

Has anyone used the new native Protools successfully with RME hardware?

I currently use Cubase, and I'm interested in how Protools interfaces now with RME hardware, and specifically RME's TotalMix mixer app. In Cubase, I just enable zero latency monitoring within Cubase and then do multiple custom headphone mixes via my RME HDSP9652's TotalMix app (which monitors simultaneously at zero latency for both newly recorded signals and playback of existing tracks).

Do-able with my set-up in the new ProTools? I know ProTools enables low-latency monitoring, but I much prefer zero latency hardware monitoring like I've described above.

Also, an unrelated question: if ProTools doesn't have folders, how do you organize like tracks (say, all the drums) into an intuitive collapsible onscreen location?

[Nick Sevilla]

Has anyone used the new native Protools successfully with RME hardware?

I currently use Cubase, and I'm interested in how Protools interfaces now with RME hardware, and specifically RME's TotalMix mixer app. In Cubase, I just enable zero latency monitoring within Cubase and then do multiple custom headphone mixes via my RME HDSP9652's TotalMix app (which monitors simultaneously at zero latency for both newly recorded signals and playback of existing tracks).

Do-able with my set-up in the new ProTools? I know ProTools enables low-latency monitoring, but I much prefer zero latency hardware monitoring like I've described above.

Also, an unrelated question: if ProTools doesn't have folders, how do you organize like tracks (say, all the drums) into an intuitive collapsible onscreen location?

The only qualifier is that if the RME hardware has Core Audio drivers. Then it will work. Do they have these drivers?

Logical

[chris harris]

Since Nick's logical brain apparently prevented him from understanding your actual question, I'll chime in...

You will have some trouble with using your TotalMix app for headphone mixes. This is because PT doesn't support ASIO Direct Monitoring or disabling of input monitoring THROUGH the software. Your TotalMix signal will blend with the signal from PT (which will be slightly delayed) and will cause comb filtering.

I've recently tested monitoring THROUGH PT at a 64 sample buffer size, and the latency is hardly noticeable. I'll be able to use it this way without any problems. And, I assume that I could use AUX tracks to create several cue mixes if I wanted to. But, I use a console. So, my cue mixes are created on the console.

I would advise everyone who's worried about latency to at least test it out at 64 sample buffer setting. You might find that you worried for nothing.

[kingmetal]

I feel your pain Aj, this is the issue I ran into when I upgraded from MOTU hardware to Focusrite hardware in Cubase. ASIO Direct Monitoring is an awesome feature that I have no idea why it isn't more of a must-have for more people. I just run down at low latency (128 samples, thereabouts) and my artists don't seem to notice.

Focusrite interfaces will have a plugin that comes out in early 2011 that basically just lets you interface with their version of TotalMix within Pro Tools and will offer a solution that is far less elegant than ADM. It's really a shame that more people don't use this feature and that Pro Tools does not seem to support it at all.

EDIT: I realize that Pro Tools has a similar feature if you have Avid hardware like the 002 / 003 but that doesn't count.

[Aj]

Ah, thanks for the clear answers... that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I see over at the Avid forum now there are several users disappointed with this issue. Too bad. It also breaks another part of my workflow - always having the mics "live" for monitoring (without adding/enabling tracks in my DAW). This would be a small thing to some, but it's very convenient and important to my work process.

I'll wait until they fix this before investigating an upgrade to Pro Tools. It's borderline, but I'd say right now this is a deal breaker for me.

(This is just an aside that may not amount to much, but I'd also be worried about sessions with lots of virtual instruments/samplers and other high CPU intensive plugs. I have a fast modern machine, but I still occasionally find the need - depending on how processor intense the session is - to raise soundcard latency to prevent any chance of pops/clicks while tracking/monitoring additional live instruments. With direct monitoring enabled, I experience no added latency when I do this...)

[kingmetal]

Can you really not turn input monitoring off at all in PT9? I don't have it yet and my Mbox Micro doesn't allow for inputs at all so I can't test it in PTLE8, but I can't imagine there is no way to turn off local monitoring. That way, you could just have the tracks in open monitoring all the time via TotalMix

[Nick Sevilla]

Since Nick's logical brain apparently prevented him from understanding your actual question, I'll chime in...

You will have some trouble with using your TotalMix app for headphone mixes. This is because PT doesn't support ASIO Direct Monitoring or disabling of input monitoring THROUGH the software. Your TotalMix signal will blend with the signal from PT (which will be slightly delayed) and will cause comb filtering.

I've recently tested monitoring THROUGH PT at a 64 sample buffer size, and the latency is hardly noticeable. I'll be able to use it this way without any problems. And, I assume that I could use AUX tracks to create several cue mixes if I wanted to. But, I use a console. So, my cue mixes are created on the console.

I would advise everyone who's worried about latency to at least test it out at 64 sample buffer setting. You might find that you worried for nothing.

Hi,

Unless you MUTE the pro tools channel being recorded to.

But, that would seem illogical to you, perhaps.

Logical

Postdatum : I answered his original question to his satisfaction. Trying to apply human logic to my answers, is not only illogical, it is also incorrect.

Live Long And Prosper

[chris harris]

That doesn't help with overdubbing punch ins. Try again, Spock.

And, maybe you missed the part where he said, "specifically" and went on to detail exactly what he was asking.

Either way, double Vulcan FAIL.

[chris harris]

I'll wait until they fix this before investigating an upgrade to Pro Tools. It's borderline, but I'd say right now this is a deal breaker for me.

It was almost a deal breaker for me. But, then I tested things with a 64 sample buffer size and it worked alright. I still haven't tried the low latency buffer setting on a big project, though. And, I'd still prefer to just disable PT input monitoring. I'll be shocked if they don't address this GLARING OVERSIGHT in an update soon.

[chris harris]

Can you really not turn input monitoring off at all in PT9? I don't have it yet and my Mbox Micro doesn't allow for inputs at all so I can't test it in PTLE8, but I can't imagine there is no way to turn off local monitoring. That way, you could just have the tracks in open monitoring all the time via TotalMix

Hard to imagine... but, yes. There's no way to disable input monitoring in PT. The mute method is useless for anything but initial tracking, as you'd be muting the audio already recorded on any track you intend to punch in on.

[Nick Sevilla]

That doesn't help with overdubbing punch ins. Try again, Spock.

And, maybe you missed the part where he said, "specifically" and went on to detail exactly what he was asking.

Either way, double Vulcan FAIL.

Happy Holidays to you too!!!

[kingmetal]

Can you really not turn input monitoring off at all in PT9? I don't have it yet and my Mbox Micro doesn't allow for inputs at all so I can't test it in PTLE8, but I can't imagine there is no way to turn off local monitoring. That way, you could just have the tracks in open monitoring all the time via TotalMix

Hard to imagine... but, yes. There's no way to disable input monitoring in PT. The mute method is useless for anything but initial tracking, as you'd be muting the audio already recorded on any track you intend to punch in on.

Hopefully they'll get their shit together and add that feature -- the whole lack of individual track input monitoring or input monitoring modes in PT9/LE is reaaaaally inflexible. Shouldn't need to buy Native/HD for something so basic.

Lucky for me I've just learned to live with 128 samples of latency. It really hurts those of us on the low-end who often need to employ creative solutions like higher buffers on larger sessions though.

Even double-luckily for me Focusrite are releasing a free plugin next year that supposedly handles this situation. Hopefully RME will follow suite (I wouldn't be surprised at all!)

[Nick Sevilla]

Can you really not turn input monitoring off at all in PT9? I don't have it yet and my Mbox Micro doesn't allow for inputs at all so I can't test it in PTLE8, but I can't imagine there is no way to turn off local monitoring. That way, you could just have the tracks in open monitoring all the time via TotalMix

Hard to imagine... but, yes. There's no way to disable input monitoring in PT. The mute method is useless for anything but initial tracking, as you'd be muting the audio already recorded on any track you intend to punch in on.

Hopefully they'll get their shit together and add that feature -- the whole lack of individual track input monitoring or input monitoring modes in PT9/LE is reaaaaally inflexible. Shouldn't need to buy Native/HD for something so basic.

Lucky for me I've just learned to live with 128 samples of latency. It really hurts those of us on the low-end who often need to employ creative solutions like higher buffers on larger sessions though.

Even double-luckily for me Focusrite are releasing a free plugin next year that supposedly handles this situation. Hopefully RME will follow suite (I wouldn't be surprised at all!)

Until the hardware becomes fast and cheap enough... that is.

So far the only things I have seen and heard which do possess very low latency, enough to record and monitor through the DAW, have all been PCI card based audio interfaces :

Pro Tools HD. With the TDM host card.

Motu 2408 / 24 io with the 424 host card.

Apogee Symphony system, with Symphony PCI host card.

All these enable the computer to NOT have to handle the audio streams through its own chipsets, and just operate as a traffic controller, a much less CPU intensive task.

All this blathering on about how no one can wait to "fix" a problem, which in and of itself is not a problem, it simply is the way the native CPU motherboard hardware chipsets can work, is truly entertaining. No one seems to have absolutely the first inkling about how these things work at all, yet feel totally entitled to go on about how they would be better off not spending money for the feature.

Yes, one day we will witness built in audio capabilities close to or better than the more expensive PCI host card based systems.

But, it will not be today. and it will not be invented by a musician. Too many technical details for us mere mortals, I'm afraid.

Logical.

[chris harris]

Man... in your desperation to disguise your being a COMPLETE ASSHOLE as something clever or cute, you're TOTALLY FAILING IN READING COMPREHENSION.

We're not asking for audio miracles. I'm using a PCI based system. In fact, smart ass, I'm using one that you mentioned. I'm using a MOTU system based around the PCIe424 card. I can achieve no latency monitoring of my input signals quite easily through my interface.

The problem here, is that PT does not allow you to DISABLE INPUT MONITORING THROUGH THE SOFTWARE, like every other DAW does. By not allowing this, they've crippled the solution to the latency issue THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED by several manufacturers.

So, the zero latency monitoring that's provided by MOTU, Apogee, RME, etc., is useless with a PT9 system, because the delayed signal from PT will be played back over the top of your zero latency monitoring, causing comb filtering.

The only current work around is to somehow hit record and mute the channel in PT at the same time, when punching in.

The permanent solution, which is apparently obvious to everyone except long-time posters who have decided that rather than being helpful, shitting all over the forum trying to be cute would be more fun, is for Avid to implement an option to DISABLE INPUT MONITORING.

Anyway... what's your fucking problem? You used to have a lot to contribute to this board. Then, suddenly, your contributions have become nothing more than unhelpful, condescending dick spit all over a pretty great forum. You seem to be batting about .111 for humorous "Logical" posts. I assume that the whole "vulcan" thing gives you the balls to have a certain arrogance about things YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT. Were you aware that RME has a no latency monitoring app that works with their Firewire interfaces?!?! OMG!! But, that can only be done with PCI systems, right, Dr.?

Congratulations. You're becoming the new Jeff of the board. Posting for attention and not to actually offer any help. Good job.