Protools comparison

[crae]

Can some one tell me - If the only reason I use Xite-1 is as an PC interface for recording - will the DSP's be used to reduce latency, and if I use ASIO will my DAW plus XITE via Scope compare favourably with Protools (forget plug ins)

[garyb]

yes, sure. latency should be about the same as any good ASIO interface, 2-4ms.

[dawman]

Or .07 msec @ 64 samples/96k...
The biggest advantage of 96k IMHO.

I use XITE-1 live and use lots of real time parameter modulations, even using 48k and 2.4 msec. I feel/hear no difference.
Maybe with DAW recordings it's an advantage.

[dante]

DSPs don't reduce latency, but Scope routing can be used instead of latency bound software routings in a DAW especially regards monitoring. You can route a signal direct from XITE input (eg mic) to any of its outputs.

I would expect that to have less latency than if you were monitoring a signal travelled through protools.

[garyb]

yes, monitoring in Scope is the same latency as a hardware mixer.

[dante]

In fact, if you loaded a scope project on XITE that connected a hardware input to hardware output would not that routing take place all inside XITE ? PCIe connection only coming into play if ASIO involved ?

[garyb]

correct.

[darkrezin]

I'm not really sure what the OP means ('comparable' in what way?)

In terms of workflow, Pro Tools (the traditional DSP-based HD TDM/Mix systems anyway) is an integrated system - the DAW mixer and FX plugins run entirely on DSP, the CPU is only used for disk operation, MIDI and other functions.

Scope is not an integrated DAW system - it is placed between the DAW and the audio outputs of the Scope cards. Therefore you need to manage 2 mixing environments (Scope and DAW) and save 2 things for each project instead of 1.

Scope environment is much more flexible in terms of routing but I guess it's more 'fiddly'. You can get zero latency operation on both systems.

In terms of sound quality it's subjective. Standard of sound quality is similar, but you're not going to get the same algorithms on both systems. i.e. no Eventide plugins on Scope, no Modular or other cool synths on Pro Tools.

edit - I see you're talking about using Scope as I/O only - low latency is only of any benefit when running plugins and synths, if you're not interested in these you won't see any benefits from DSPs, in Pro Tools or Scope.

[Bud Weiser]

In terms of workflow, Pro Tools (the traditional DSP-based HD TDM/Mix systems anyway) is an integrated system - the DAW mixer and FX plugins run entirely on DSP, the CPU is only used for disk operation, MIDI and other functions.

This is true when talking about TDM plugins and using Protools software only.

Scope is not an integrated DAW system - it is placed between the DAW and the audio outputs of the Scope cards. Therefore you need to manage 2 mixing environments (Scope and DAW) and save 2 things for each project instead of 1.

Well, SCOPE is not a fully fledged DAW but you can record w/ it.
So, when using VDAT, STM mixer(s) and SCOPE DSP devices/plugins, all running on DSP, it´s a integrated system like Protools HD/TDM.

In opposite, when you use Protools hardware and TDM plugins and Emagic/Apple Logic,- isn´t it the same than w/ SCOPE,- Protools losing the "integrated system" appeal ?
When using Logic, there´s the DAW mixer too.

As others said already, ASIO (or AU) enters the ballpark only when using VST (AU) software,- any 3rd party DAW application in the end.

Bud

[darkrezin]

In terms of workflow, Pro Tools (the traditional DSP-based HD TDM/Mix systems anyway) is an integrated system - the DAW mixer and FX plugins run entirely on DSP, the CPU is only used for disk operation, MIDI and other functions.

This is true when talking about TDM plugins and using Protools software only.

Yes this is exactly what I said.

Scope is not an integrated DAW system - it is placed between the DAW and the audio outputs of the Scope cards. Therefore you need to manage 2 mixing environments (Scope and DAW) and save 2 things for each project instead of 1.

Well, SCOPE is not a fully fledged DAW but you can record w/ it.
So, when using VDAT, STM mixer(s) and SCOPE DSP devices/plugins, all running on DSP, it´s a integrated system like Protools HD/TDM.

In opposite, when you use Protools hardware and TDM plugins and Emagic/Apple Logic,- isn´t it the same than w/ SCOPE,- Protools losing the "integrated system" appeal ?
When using Logic, there´s the DAW mixer too.

As others said already, ASIO (or AU) enters the ballpark only when using VST (AU) software,- any 3rd party DAW application in the end.

Bud

You really want to compare VDAT to Pro Tools just because it can record? This is taking fanboyism a little bit too far.

I wasn't talking about Logic/TDM systems, I've never had experience with that setup.

To be clear, my post was for information only, it wasn't intended to say that 1 is better than the other - they are simply different. My post is just facts about what each system is and the strengths of each.

[Bud Weiser]

Yes this is exactly what I said.

No, it´s not.
You said Protools TDM is a integrated DAW system and SCOPE is not.
That´s wrong.

SCOPE is a "digital audio workstation" program as well as all the others,- even freeware.
They all offer different features and limitations.
One of the "missing" features in SCOPE DAW is the MIDI sequencer,- but you cannot say anything without a MIDI sequencer is not a digital audio workstation.

Protools is,- compared to other DAW apps like Cubase/Nuendo, Emagic/Apple Logic, Presonus Studio One Pro 2.x, Ableton Live, Phead Reason since version 6 and even Cockos Reaper 4.x,- by far not the best DAW application out there.

You really want to compare VDAT to Pro Tools just because it can record? This is taking fanboyism a little bit too far.

What ?

When you´re able to record audio, playback audio and process and mix using virtual mixer and plugins,- that´s a DAW (digital audio workstation).
If it doesn´t offer the features you want, buy another one,- Soundscape, formerly a small german company before they were buyed by SSL, is another option.

When these products run mixer(s) and plugins on DSPs, they are comparable in that department.

I wasn't talking about Logic/TDM systems, I've never had experience with that setup.

So much the worse ...

I remember most Protools TDM users here (german music metropole of the 70s,80s and 90s) use Apple Logic Pro (formerly Emagic Logic Audio Platinum) as DAW software because it was always working great w/ Protools hardware, but they rarely touch the Protools software and these people I´m talking about own and run professional studios, publishing and labels.
They need the Protools format for transfers but often hate the Protools DAW features and limitations.
When I was occasionaly hired as a keyboardist by a jingle production company using a very expensive Protools TDM system but w/ Protools software only, that was very cumbersome MIDI wise compared to Logic or other DAW apps.

To be clear, my post was for information only, it wasn't intended to say that 1 is better than the other - they are simply different. My post is just facts about what each system is and the strengths of each.

O.k.,- but that was my intention too.

B.t.w.,- VDAT is still o.k., just because it records and sounds good.
For wave editing, most users use different applications like Wavelab anyway, isn´t it ?

Even I´m an old fart who grew up w/ early MIDI and later the childshoes of digital recording like Digidesign hardware for ATARI ST, Hybrid Arts ADAP and similar systems, I never understood why Protools is the studio-standard up to now.

Finally:
When VDAT isn´t enough for someone in SCOPE, which isn´t rare,- he goes ASIO and loses the DSP integration.
Same happens to Protools TDM when the software isn´t good enough and the user switches to 3rd party DAW sequencing/recording application,- also not a rare case ...

To each his own ...

Bud

[dante]

So there you have it.

We like to call it 'BudLogic'.

[darkrezin]

Seems to me more like prejudiced ranting based on out-of-date knowledge. Engaging in this bullshit is pointless so I'm out. Enjoy your VDAT DAW and Wavelab editing

[garyb]

if you only care about sound quality, use VDAT. it is beyond superior to any sequencer on the market in quality of sound. editing isn't any better than a real ADAT, though.

if you need the editing, use the sequencer. the extra layer from the Scope environment is no big deal. easier isn't always better. if people didn't do the incredibly stupid and ignorant practice of mixing while they create, the extra layer of the Scope environment is minimal. while tracking do basic mixing in the sequencer and just use Scope for routing and ZERO latency monitoring. when mixing, once all the music is created, use the Scope environment as it sounds better. it's about tools and how you use them. some people prefer to do things in a complicated manner and that's perfectly ok, as long as they don't complain about things being complicated...

[Bud Weiser]

Engaging in this bullshit is pointless so I'm out.

pffft !

Enjoy your VDAT DAW and Wavelab editing

Well, I forgot to mention I´m stuck w/ Wavelab 4,- just because it still supports SCSI ...



Bud

[Bud Weiser]

if you only care about sound quality, use PT*. it is beyond superior to any sequencer on the market in quality of sound. editing isn't any better than a real ADAT, though.

if you need the editing, use the sequencer and if you want music, just play**.
When mixing, once all the music is created, use the PT*** environment as it sounds better.
It's about PRO**** tools and how you use them. some people prefer to do things in a complicated manner and that's perfectly ok, as long as they don't complain about things being complicated...

*
**
***
****

fixed

and I tell you, that was much too complicated on this board !



Bud

[garyb]

wow!
sarcasm font?

[crae]

Wow - touched a nerve here I think

You see the thing is - I am not a producer - I am a singer song writer who actually recorded an album that was recorded at Abbey Rd (it was crap and EMI refused to release it and they dropped me - hey ho) and the Album
had a tape op, engineer, and producer - I am totally unqualified to take on those roles so I want the burden removed with out effort and latency - I don't enjoy twiddling knobs - I enjoy writing tunes and recording them for friends and family.

So what I want is a complete virtual Abbey Road studio of instruments and out board with 32 tracks of zero latency recording - simple to use - and total project recall - is that too much to ask (what do you mean YES!)

The way I am going is repurposing multiple PCs and Macs with their own Audio IO interfaces connected via Copperlan to a central Bitwig Daw - that should work shouldn't it?

For instance:
iMac dedicated to Native Instruments Komplete
Windows PC dedicated to Scope
Mac Airbook dedicated to Bitwig

All connected by Copperlan for midi triggering and the Scope handles recording, Audio routing, and effects ......

.....will this work with very low latency ?

[garyb]

sure, it will work with low latency, but in order to use and own a real studio, you will need to learn about being a guy who runs a studio, an engineer. sure, the virtual studio is a little simpler and much cheaper than a hardware studio, the things that make it work or not are the same. a real studio will never be like using a television.

[dante]

Even a Tascam Portastudio was more complex than a Telly back in 80s, as soon as you bought one you are no longer just a singer songwriter. At minimum you needed to know what parametric EQ and bouncing is.