Again I have to disagree with you. Unless you are mixing channels, dealing
with hours of material is still really fast with Pro Tools, not to mention
the most stable DAW I've ever worked with. This includes normal Pro Tools
10 as well as Pro Tools 10 HD. With Pro Tools, I have never needed to mix
down in real time to produce deliverables. Pro Tools is very transparent
with the files it saves. If set correctly before transferring, no mix down
is needed for archival masters. The right file just simply shows up in the
audio directory and in the regions. Creative derivatives is as easy as
right clicking the file in the regions and exporting the file in the
The only time I would NEED to do real time bouncing that I can think of is
when I was using outboard gear such as encoding/decoding to Dolby SR for
film. In that case, faster than real time bouncing isn't an option with
any DAW. For transfer jobs, unless I was doing restoration or special
processing, I have never had to do realtime bouncing with Pro Tools.
Broadcast Media Digitization Librarian
University of Maryland
B0221D McKeldin Library
College Park, MD 20742
On 10/31/12 10:15 AM, "Mark Donahue" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The problem with ProTools is that creating deliverable material happens in
>real-time, not faster than real-time. On a large project it doubles the
>amount of time required to do the transfer. Protools is a very sharp tool
>for 3 minute pop song production, but for long form work or work requiring
>processing or mixdown of large amounts of material it is really a non
>starter. When you are working against the clock to be productive, faster
>than real-time processing is your friend.
>We normally quote transfer jobs based on hours of finished material. If it
>takes you twice as long to make the finished product, you make half as
>much. All you have to do is look at the folks that deal with the large
>sound collections at LOC, Smithsonian, Harvard...... None of them use
>To be honest, before v10, I would have said that it was not a very good
>tool for acquisition, but with the addition of n-channel interleave at the
>acquisition stage, it makes it a far more attractive option. WIth
>Native 10 (Not LE) having most of the tools requires to do real production
>work up to 32 tracks at a cost of $600 (+hardware), it's not a bad deal.
>But at the end of the day, the real-time bounce thing is the Achilles Heel
>of the system.
>On the other hand, the creation of deliverable materials in multiple
>formats with metadata is one of the places where Pyramis really shines.
>with a single button push I can create WAV/BWAV, FLAC, AIFF, and 4
>different kinds of MP3's at different sample rates and bit rates all with
>metadata encoded. I did a project this summer that required delivery of
>WAV, FLAC, MP3-320k and MP3-128k in both complete running time and for
>individual tracks for 75 programs ranging in length form 30 min to 4
>(Average was just under 1.5 hours each). The total number of delivered
>files with Metadata was just over 1000 with a running time of 410 hours.
> If I was using ProTools, it would have added 8 WEEKS of bouncing of time
>to the project.
>As always, YMMV,
>All the best,
>On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Henry Borchers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I would completely disagree with you on this point. Pro Tools is very
>> useful for archival transfers. It's just very quirky if you have never
>> a DAW before. It is, on the other hand, the most transparent DAW on the
>> market if you know what you are doing. It doesn't have real time
>> for mixing but all FX can be bounced in real time if done right.
>> Pro Tools has been around forever and it has a lot of legacy baggage
>> it but if you spend enough time with it and learn the keyboard
>> nothing moves faster.
>> Henry Borchers
>> University of Maryland