LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2012

ARSCLIST October 2012

Subject:

Re: ProTools in an archives workflows?

From:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:04:31 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

Well, I've been working with Cool Edit Pro, the predecessor of Adobe Audition for many years on a very stable WinXP DAW, so isn't it just a case of what works for you?

--- On Wed, 10/31/12, Henry Borchers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Henry Borchers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ProTools in an archives workflows?
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012, 11:53 AM

Mark,

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
appropriate format.

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.

-- 
Henry Borchers
Broadcast Media Digitization Librarian
University of Maryland
B0221D McKeldin Library
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-0725






On 10/31/12 10:15 AM, "Mark Donahue" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Henry,
>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
>Protools.
>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
>ProTools
>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
>hours.
>(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,
>
>Mark Donahue
>Soundmirror, Inc.
>Boston, MA
>
>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
>>used
>> 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
>>bouncing
>> 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
>>with
>> it but if you spend enough time with it and learn the keyboard
>>shortcuts,
>> nothing moves faster.
>>
>> Henry Borchers
>> University of Maryland
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager