From: Ian Stewart Cairns <ian_stewart.cairns@...> > >It's interesting. What goes around comes around. A few years ago I recall >an >angry f-erenc posting on this list, bashing Digidesign, on a fairly >regular >basis. I remember this, f-erenc will remember this and I am sure other >old- >timers will too. Since f-erenc got his nubus Pro Tools system his >attitude >has changed. Absolutely fair enough; anyone is entitled to change his >mind. I've owned Digi gear since 1991, and ProTools/TDM since 1995, before I was ever involved in the (original) LogicList. If you read my original digi-hate posts, these are the highlights: 1) Digi takes 5 years to recode SoundDesigner II to be compatable with the very file format (split stereo) they thrust on us in 1991. Previously, SDII had only been interleaved stereo compatable. 2) To this day, Digi still hasn't recoded SampleCell software to be split stereo compatable. 3) Digi actually REMOVES the hardware sampler support from Sound Designer II as of version 2.6 in around 1994. This is the exact prime feature that SDII was sold on during its inception in the mid/late 1980's. 4) Digi forces users to do a big song-and-dance workaround to get DATa (their DAT backup software) to work with non-SDII, even though it was crippled on purpose to dissallow this. Digi eventually releases a version without this artificial crippling. Remember, this is back in the earlier 90's before CDR is (or most other backup methods) remotely affordable. And there were other rants for sure, but never counter to the following paragraph: > >FWIW, I happen to think f-erenc's current position is emminently more >reasonable. In the DAW-stakes, a fully-loaded Pro Tools setup is >untouchable >for the price at the moment - despite the protestations to the contrary. >I >believe f-erenc is also right in saying that the Digi hardware will >evolve, >get better, get cheaper -- in essence do more for less. I have used Pro >Tools >professionally on several occasions and it can't be beaten at the price. >The >software/hardware combination is rock solid in my experience. The TDM >system >is wonderful, the automation is a dream and the mixing capabilities are >as >good as any I've ever used. Most of all, most of the time it just works >(a >bit like the Mac actually). I feel sure f-erenc will agree. Oh, I definitely agree. And I've never not agreed with this aspect of Digi gear. > >That said, here I am at home looking for a new home-recording set-up. Now >can >I afford a brand-new MixPlus system. Well, I suppose I could stretch it >if I >really wanted to (and experience penury for the rest of my life). But >more >likely, I will opt for the native route. Actually, the ideal scenario >would >be to combine hardware DSP with native processing, perhaps using one of >Creamware's Scopr/Pulsar cards. The gap is narrowing in terms of what >native >systems can (in theory) achieve and what Pro Tools can (consistently) >deliver. But some of the claims made by companies who really should know >better are truly irritating. For example, Steinberg are claiming that >their >Nuendo http://www.nuendo.com will do away with the need for hardware DSP, >that hardware DSP is old-fashioned and out-moded. Nice marketing, but >patent >nonsense. You could throw a neutron star's worth of DSP at a PT system >and >still not be satisfied with the number of plug-ins available. If you're running a business with paying clients, then it's reasonably easy to pay for PT. If not, then it's a humongously expensive hobby. However, not everybody who CAN'T just PT is merely a hobbyist. Aspiring professional musicians who want their own personal recording system may not need PT. In fact, if no clients are ever around, then the reliability of PT isn't, er, shown off quite as much! > If no clients were ever at my studio, would I still have bought a leather couch.... just for me????? > >I think the native DAW's ARE catching up. I think that yes, it is likely >that >eventually they will eventually render hardware solutions unnecessary. >But >not yet. Agreed, agreed, and agreed. However, the parallel processing of a TDM system can only be matched by some wickedly fast all-in-one native system. And that's not including reliablity. TDM hardly crashes for a similar reason that Roland VS880 or ADAT hardly crashes. > > >I am typing from within the BeOS ("Mail-It", since you ask), and am >salivating at the prospect of next year purchasing a dual-athlon machine >running at say, 2ghz, running Logic Audio (or perhaps Nuendo if Emagic >bails). I am sure the bang-for-the-buck compared to PT will be >extraordinary, >but if I had the money I would still buy a new G4 and PT MixPlus. In my >view >it is still the best there is, is the industry standard for a reason and >costs surprisingly little. Compatability is a whole other issue. I'd miss out on several thousands of dollars a year of contracts if I couldn't deliver a PT session. In the post audio industry especially, PT is almost used like a generic word (like kleenex). I was doing just music for myself, there's no doubt in my mind I would be very excited about LAMP and a G4 with some cheap (but not cheezy) soundcard like the MOTU stuff. Cripes, have you heard Emagic's new ES1 software synth?? Ooops, get back in that bag, cat.... f-erenc "Without chemicals, he points"