I don't want to start a discussion about CW vs Protools.., but I guess that's allmost impossible to avoid .
Actually I've never had the chance to work wiht Protools software or hardware, but I'm wondering about the DSP differences or similarities of these two platforms.
We all know, first from CW's advertising, that Luna/Pulsar/Scope have very low latency (because ULLI). I've heard that PT have DSP on the hardware and because of that PT has allmost zero latency, is that 100% true???. I also would like to know what kind of chips PT uses for DSP.
Please correct me if i got that wrong, but isn´t ULLI an interface for communication with OTHER Programs? Within the Scope System itself the latency is IMHO almost zero, too. With zero i mean the lowest latency technically possible of course.
As you said, everybody works (and hears) in a different way, and sure some will like CW better and other ones PT. At the moment (and when some of the bugs are fixed for sure) i´m one of the first category!
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas N. Adams
HidiHo !
I 've used Protools (Mix3) in cunjunction with pulsar+a16 (on 2 different computters of course). The sound of Pulsar/A16 is as good , except that Protools is more proprietary and doesn't have adat by default (you got to buy the adat bridge). So a pulsar sytem (SFP) is more open and easy to integrate.
ProTools has a few function that are really cool, for moving samples with keyboard, and great automation.
There is latency , i can't tell how much, but there is latency. I don't know how the new system behaves, but I think you reach the dsp limit less quickly.
I think protools is great for editing functions (you do in a few minutes what takes me a lot of time to do in cubase: tracking and automation)and for some plugins but certainly a bit expensive for what it is.
I think that if you are recording bands and acoustic stuff ie. you are using your computer as a replacement for a tape recorder, nothing comes even close to PT. Nothing.
But on the other hand you want softsynths, samplers, seq. etc. the picture is different.
Then i would rather go for a (several!!) Scope card and Logic.
Because it is a much more open platform and you can do so much more.
But what PT does, it does extremly well.
.
