"Sorry Tom Fine, but I don't consider Sound Forge to be a professional platform and I've used SF since version 3.5. What takes SF out of consideration is the fact that SF does not recognize BWF so, there goes any possibility of entering and editing metadata."
Doesn't the newest version of Sound Forge now support BWF? Does that change your opinion at all?
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Corey Bailey
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 7:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] ProTools in an archives workflows?
From what I've read so far, everyone seems to be (overly) conc Hi Jim,
From what I've read so far, everyone seems to be (overly) concerned about the"bouncing" function in Pro Tools. This is only a concern if you are burning a CD directly from the software. If that's the case, yes - it's slow and you are better off using third party software for the task.Otherwise, Pro Tools is just fine from everything from capture to archival. Consider the fact that Pro Tools is the default software/hardware platform for the feature film industry and the vast majority of the music industry. Imagine, if you will, the complex work flow in the post production process of a major film. Now imagine that process multiplied by five or more at any given time, augmented by petabytes of servers.
It sounds to me like you are asking about the process of saving a file as opposed to burning a CD. If you are asking about saving an edited file, the "Consolidate" function is best in Pro Tools and works as fast as your hardware is capable of, plugins included.
What's most important for your needs is your actual workflow and that the software/hardware platform you are using can support it. There are several professional platforms out there and Pro Tools is only one. If you are concerned about hiring youngsters that (only) know Pro Tools, be more concerned that they understand the recording and editing process in general and can grasp your overall workflow. Learning a DAW is relatively easy for anyone who understands the overall process.
Sorry Tom Fine, but I don't consider Sound Forge to be a professional platform and I've used SF since version 3.5. What takes SF out of consideration is the fact that SF does not recognize BWF so, there goes any possibility of entering and editing metadata. SF can only create interleaved stereo files as well which further takes it out of contention for archival. That said, SF is a great bang-for-the-buck for anyone who does not have to deliver a time-stamped BWF. Sony's Sonic Foundry does have an excellent CD authoring program called CD Architect but it is Windows specific.
If you are Linux proficient at all, it can be an excellent and much less expensive alternative. The DAW software that works in Linux is Ardour and it is incredibly competent. It's free with any Linux distribution and a Mac version is available for $40.00.
I still make a living in the film industry and am quite familiar with the workflows. Plus, I'm competent with Pro Tools, Pyramix, Sonic Solutions and several other DAW's so feel free to contact me off list if you like.
Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
From: Jim Sam <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:43 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] ProTools in an archives workflows?
I'm interested in reading any one's workflows using Avid/Digidesign Pro Tools for archival materials, either on or off list. I'm curious about how people are approaching saving Broadcast WAV files; whether they're bouncing through the mix bus or if there's an efficient work around that recalculation.
Hoover Institution Archives