Protools 9 Released

[Aearth]

I reckon 9 is a good deal for those who want use PT especially as now you are not limited to their interface, but I'm staying with Logic.
I wonder what Logic is going to come up with?

nIC

[jon.l.hunter]

This is good news for people on PC with non digi hardware

[heathen]

I swore I'd never buy PT until they did this, maybe I will now. Maybe.

[Dallas]

I have even run out of voices at 48k which is 192 voices - go figure.

If you run out of voices now (512 @ 96k) plz post a screen shot

[Sammas]

Oh, so it's not native 64bit? I hope that's not true

Doesn't look like it. It is rumoured that PT9 will have a 64bit version in march 2011.

Otherwise the app will only address <4GB RAM regardless of how much RAM your PC has installed - so we're still only half way there.......

I'm not sure what else can really be expected. Computing is in a transition period from 32bit to 64bit but it is based entirely on system architecture. To run a 64bit app you need a 64bit operating system which needs 64bit processing. At least by releasing 32bit compiles the software is available to both 32 and 64bit users. It will probably remain like this for a few years to come...

[Dallas]

You only get 96 voices at 96k Dallas.....

Slap me with a wet fish if I'm reading this wrong, but:

(from http://akmedia.digidesign.com/support/d ... _69545.pdf page 11)

"Table 4 on page 11 lists the audio playback, recording, and voiceable track limits of each type of Pro Tools system. Playback and recording voices refer to the number of unique simultaneous playback and record tracks on your system. [At 96k = 96]
Total voiceable tracks refers to the maximum number of audio tracks that can share the available voices on your system. (Mono tracks take up one voice. Stereo and multichannel tracks take up one voice per channel.) [At 96k = 512]"

[NYMo]

Hi there,

Try and get that off a single drive !

Cheers
John NYMO Nyman

[Kurt]

Seriously, if The Beatles can do Sgt Peppers on a 4 track, why would you need over 100 tracks for anything?

40 or 50 BGV can easily be bounced to a stereo pair

[thephil]

Seriously, if The Beatles can do Sgt Peppers on a 4 track, why would you need over 100 tracks for anything?

40 or 50 BGV can easily be bounced to a stereo pair

Agreed

[Ben M]

+1

I worked with a girl group on a couple of albums in the 90's using 2 x 24track machines. We would do 50 odd tracks of BV's but would always commit down to 4 or 5 stereo tracks for mix. There's really no reason to run this many BV tracks (40-50) live in your mix. Commit them before you mix angus. You will enjoy mixing much more if your not chasing your tail looking for more processing power. I can't see why in this day and age why we'd need more than 48 tracks for everything (even in a really complicated track)...I mean....I know production values have changed over the years but if ya can't get it happening with less than 48 tracks....then maybe the song isn't strong enough in it's own right.

I'm just saying

[waitup]

I comp down to 16 tracks when I begin a mix

[mylesgm]

Seriously, if The Beatles can do Sgt Peppers on a 4 track, why would you need over 100 tracks for anything?

Too be honest whilst in the main I agree with the concept that a good idea can be conveyed with very little would we have said to beethoven that "the piano is good enough we dont need symphony orchestras?" the beatles line gets trotted out heaps and I just think its a pithy statement that kind of says the Beatles is the pinnacle and we should all quit. F-that... Theres been lots of great music/recordings/productions made with heaps of tracks/resources etc (bohemian rhapsody anybody?) and if its what you want to do or need to do to achieve the sound in your head absolutely go for it. I'm sure the Beatles wanted more 'processing power' in their studio or they wouldn't have had a four track/eight track/larger console/more mics over the course of their career.

M

[Kurt]

My point was more along the lines that they had to work within technological constraints and still managed to put out a fantastic record. If the current technological constraint is 96 tracks, it's hardly an onerous restriction is it?

I sure as hell don't record to 4 track, the tools are there to do more (96@96 apparently!)

According to the interwebs Bohemian Rhapsody was done on 24 track... around 120bgv and lots of bounces.

Seriously, if The Beatles can do Sgt Peppers on a 4 track, why would you need over 100 tracks for anything?

Too be honest whilst in the main I agree with the concept that a good idea can be conveyed with very little would we have said to beethoven that "the piano is good enough we dont need symphony orchestras?" the beatles line gets trotted out heaps and I just think its a pithy statement that kind of says the Beatles is the pinnacle and we should all quit. F-that... Theres been lots of great music/recordings/productions made with heaps of tracks/resources etc (bohemian rhapsody anybody?) and if its what you want to do or need to do to achieve the sound in your head absolutely go for it. I'm sure the Beatles wanted more 'processing power' in their studio or they wouldn't have had a four track/eight track/larger console/more mics over the course of their career.

M

[Ben M]

My point was more along the lines that they had to work within technological constraints and still managed to put out a fantastic record. If the current technological constraint is 96 tracks, it's hardly an onerous restriction is it?

I sure as hell don't record to 4 track, the tools are there to do more (96@96 apparently!)

According to the interwebs Bohemian Rhapsody was done on 24 track... around 120bgv and lots of bounces.

Seriously, if The Beatles can do Sgt Peppers on a 4 track, why would you need over 100 tracks for anything?

Too be honest whilst in the main I agree with the concept that a good idea can be conveyed with very little would we have said to beethoven that "the piano is good enough we dont need symphony orchestras?" the beatles line gets trotted out heaps and I just think its a pithy statement that kind of says the Beatles is the pinnacle and we should all quit. F-that... Theres been lots of great music/recordings/productions made with heaps of tracks/resources etc (bohemian rhapsody anybody?) and if its what you want to do or need to do to achieve the sound in your head absolutely go for it. I'm sure the Beatles wanted more 'processing power' in their studio or they wouldn't have had a four track/eight track/larger console/more mics over the course of their career.

M

I have a copy of the multitrack master of Bohemian Rhapsody (sshhh) and the track count is 24. They obviously bounced alot for the vocal harm parts..and some guitar parts share tracks with some of the vox tracks eg. there's a snare OD on the lead vox track in the heavy lead section plus some other interesting things.....but this was my point before. Commit your parts and make decisions along the way so you don't end up with over 100 tracks in a mix and therefore running out of processing power on your 'puter.
In other words... don't limit what you put in the track just the number of tracks you have a mix time, thus reducing the strain on dsp. Running 50 tracks of BV's live in a mix with processing/comps/eq/etc is gonna suck up most systems juice pretty quick.

Just some thoughts...no rules

[Ender]

For anyone on OSX considering the upgrade who wasn't already on Snow Leopard, I had a fair bunch of probs trying to get my LE8 rig upgraded to PT9.

Based on my experience, I'd consider making a backup of your plugin folder (/library/digidesign/plugins), running the Clean Uninstall of Pro Tools 8, make sure you download and run the new 'drivers' from Avid for your hardware (http://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=379411), and finally doing the full install of PT9. Then grab any latest versions of your plugins, and copy the others over as you need them until its running OK.

The upgrade option just wouldn't work for me no matter what Avid suggested, to the point that PT9 would crash as soon as it was started. I believe it could've been something to do with plugin compatibility (maybe as much Snow Leopard issue?), but checking vendors for latest versions has shown this mustn't be an issue for all plugs.

Now running now without any issues, and loving the ADC, as well as finally being able to see an upgrade path to 24i/o without having to start looking at completely replacing my entire conversion rig. Definitely a huge bonus for LE users who couldn't make the leap to HD, or weren't keen to change DAWs. Still a bit confused about them claiming its 'all the previous toolkits included' without the plugins/instruments, but its a great upgrade despite being a bit of a 'finally' moment.

[rick]

I am not sure what all this pt 9 talk about track count means in the real world

but what i can tell you is the only guys i know that actually work at 96k or 192k for tracking and mixing are rare and more often then not
not the "pro guys" , more the " enthusiasts /hobbyists".. and guys with time on their hands
which i find very telling

dont stress at staying 48 k angus everybody else is right there with you.
running a daw at its limits doesnt make any sense to me at all

but nor does 200 + track counts
if you just listen to each track all the way through once ( you guys with the mega tracks counts are listening to all those tracks right ..?)
you would have to spend 10 hours just checking each track or even writing the automation on the fly
f@#$ that - it seems rather strange place we are currently in .
i dont begrudge anybody as many tracks as they an handle , but i do see the results of people that get lost in the mixing process nearly everyday

if your not having fun the week your mixing the record , ask youself a few private questions about what you are doing to yourself i reckon
if you are having fun .. rock on !

[audioio]

If the current technological constraint is 96 tracks, it's hardly an onerous restriction is it?

Can I print that on a t-shirt and wear it in front my students?

[mylesgm]

[quote="Kurt"]My point was more along the lines that they had to work within technological constraints and still managed to put out a fantastic record. If the current technological constraint is 96 tracks, it's hardly an onerous restriction is it?

I sure as hell don't record to 4 track, the tools are there to do more (96@96 apparently!)

According to the interwebs Bohemian Rhapsody was done on 24 track... around 120bgv and lots of bounces.

[quote="Kurt"]

And this is the point too, they worked to the limitations of their equipment. we have our own limitations of course and our own work arounds too, dynamic voice allocation, full automation of plugins that allow the moving or morphong from one preset to another, easy bounce downs, etc. I guess its all about having a sound in your head and working directly to that not taking the road of "what if do this... or maybe it'll sound better if I do this... maybe I'll do both of those..." etc.

Having a clear vision of the outcome you want and having the experience to direct the process (and understanding the limitations) to get you there is the number one way of getting there quicker, more efficiently and with a much greater success rate.

M

[mylesgm]

and on the upgrade front my upgrade was as easy as pie. Bought the osx upgrade from leopard to snow leopard and did an in situ upgrade. Bought the PT9 crossgrade for LE (this is all on my laptop not on my HD system) downloaded and installed. Everything worked perfectly inc. plugins and was out tracking the next day.

This is a location recording session with PT9 running on the mac/fireface800 with 16 channels of Apogee AD16 conversion.

[Ben M]

Hi Myles

Out of interest are you running a headphones send with your rig or is everyone recording without phones? Are you achieving all 16 tracks through firewire?
and..what are those green units in the lunchbox?

[mylesgm]

Hi Ben,

I'm not currently running headphones out of the fireface in this session but I have done a 26 track locationrecording session with 4 stereo sends for headphones and full mixing of those sends on the dsp of the fireface. This was using Digital Performer about 3 years ago. In this current session I was tracking 14 channels at low latency (cant remember exactly what the buffer was set to) and 48k/24bit with no problems whatsoever.

The Lunchbox is a 51x lunchbox from Prodigy DIY and the modules from left to right are 2x Classic API VP26, 2x FiveFish Audio X12, 2x DIY 5003 API style 3band inductor EQ's and then two more Classic API VP25s. The pale blue pre above the lunchbox is a DEX audio VTMA valve mic pre, in the rack below the lunch box is a DAV dual channel mic pre, a dual 99v rack, and then 4x 3415 neve modules. Underneath the AD16 is a 4ch DIY version of the SSL4k mic pre.

[Ben M]

Very tidy location setup.
Thanks Myles

[mylesgm]

and thats just a part of it! I like doing locations and as I dont have a dedicated space except for mixing/post production I guess I'll be doing it all the more.

There's also a 4 channel nightpro mic pre, a dual channel G9 valve pre, a McGough dual valve micpre/opto comp, siemens 276 2ch, 2 harrison mic pre's (discrete not console strips), 2x 2ch auditronics 501's, 2ch kajaani mic pre/eq strips and thats just the pres.... Its kind of bulky taking a full 24 track rig out on location but I do get to tailor the rig to the session rather than just having a one size fits all 3x 8ch mic pre thing.

M

[jon.l.hunter]

I need some advice

What is the minimum Mac Pro I'd need to purchase to get 24 outs @ 96k with, lets say, 1 Waves Renaissance EQ plug-in on each channel each? Assume for the moment I won't be using Digi Hardware or HD cards

[jon.l.hunter]

Do you think a DUAL CORE XEON 2.6 w/ 12G Ram would get me there?

[walding]

Do you think a DUAL CORE XEON 2.6 w/ 12G Ram would get me there?

I have 2007 Dual core tower for 5 gig of ram and recently did a mix for a client at 96/24 with 60-70 tracks heaps of plugins and AUX tracks, NOT A PROBLEM


You should be fine.

[jon.l.hunter]

awesome. I thought that would be the case.

[audioio]

Do any of our early adopters have experience of file compatibility with previous versions? i.e. PT9 files opening in PT8 or PT7?

[mylesgm]

No problems so far PT8 to 9 or reverse. haven't tried anything earlier.

[Hud]

Did anyone download the install? I'm wondering how large the file is, I don't have never-ending adsl...