CreamWare vs. Pro Tools

A place to talk about whatever Scope music/gear related stuff you want.

Moderators: valis, garyb

blazesboylan
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: The Great White North
Contact:

Post by blazesboylan »

OK I'm curious -- has anyone used both? (I haven't.)

By "Pro Tools" I mean either Pro 24 or Mix 24 or HD 1. (Dig 001 / 002 / etc are of no interest to me because they don't have onboard DSPs.)

I ask because I just received this month's e-newsletter from Digidesign. There is a "special" on right now: upgrade your Mix 24 system to HD 1 for only...

...$2,495!!!

Specials page

That's an upgrade price. Meaning you don't keep your old hardware. You exchange it for the new stuff AND pay that price. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Now I've never used the Pro Tools TDM plugins myself. What are they like? How do they sound relative to CW's? Are they that much better? Or is this mainly "name brand" pricing?

I'm not interested in starting an ideological "what's better" war here. Honest! But if anyone has compared and contrasted SCOPE plugins to Pro Tools, I would love to hear what you think about the sounds of the 2 systems.

Cheers,

Johann
samplaire
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Warsaw to Szczecin, Poland
Contact:

Post by samplaire »

The stock DigiDesign plugs ()the ones you obtain buying the hardware (I mean those plain plugs, if there aren't any additional in the promotional bundle) are so-so. But if it comes to buying additional plugins - for me there is no difference between them and their RTAS or VST counterparts. The sound quality of the ins/outs is very good.

For me, if I could afford, I would have both platforms in two computers (one with CWA stuff and the other with PT) working for my success. It's because of the ProTools software as an audio sequencer. For me, there is no replacement for PT software. I don't like MIDI handling in PT, though. It's unpleasant for me and not intuitive. That's why I wouldn't swap my Logic for PT-as-the-midi-sequencer.

CWA stock compressors, eq and delays are IMHO way, way better than the DIgiDesign ones (found in DigiRack bundled with the PT software)

_________________
Image Sir samplaire scopernicus

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: samplaire on 2004-06-23 01:41 ]</font>
User avatar
firubbi
Posts: 1156
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 4:00 pm

Post by firubbi »

i'd rec few albums with digi Mix + Mac. what to say? its a very little bit better sound than pulsar2. the rev plug that comes with the bundle is very good but as samplaire said rest of stuffs... eq delay...is not. and its expensive.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firubbi on 2004-06-23 03:54 ]</font>
User avatar
darkrezin
Posts: 2133
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: crackney

Post by darkrezin »

routing is limited... I prefer the modular free routing of SFP to the old-skool engineer-oriented channels/aux architecture of TDM.
samplaire
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Warsaw to Szczecin, Poland
Contact:

Post by samplaire »

On 2004-06-23 03:51, firubbi wrote:
the rev plug that comes with the bundle is very good
A well known producer Piotr Siedlaczek told me there was a blind poll regarding TDM reverbs and the DVerb won the competition (I don't know which ones vere in the list but I think the TrueVerb, RenesainceVerb and ReverbOne)
User avatar
firubbi
Posts: 1156
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 4:00 pm

Post by firubbi »

that was DVerb that i liked. that studio bought true verb which was native. may i'm not sure but native don't sound like Dverb.
maybe because of DSP? anyway i fall in love with SFP :grin: getting into it day by day.
blazesboylan
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: The Great White North
Contact:

Post by blazesboylan »

Cool, thanks guys.

I've used the PT LE sequencer (no DSPs or plugins) and it seems pretty standard to me. It's not that different from Nuendo or Digital Performer in terms of interface. Dunno if the full version is a lot slicker?

Mind you I can certainly understand liking the PT sequencer better than Logic. I prefer damn near anything to Logic! :razz:

As far as old skool goes :cool:, CW does it better than anyone. You can, of course, still use auxes strictly for effects with CW. OR you can use them for anything else -- just like with an old skool console. For example, you can use the aux returns on a mixer for extra inputs. Nice!

Also the mess of virtual cables in a SCOPE project looks remarkably like the mess of cables on a studio floor. :smile: I'm waiting for someone to come out with a "Virtual Dust" plugin.

(In all seriousness, a "Virtual Cable Tie" or a "Virtual Snake / Loom" would be wonderful.)

Incidentally I hate to admit that there's anything I don't like about CW. :smile:). So it doesn't surprise me that you prefer Digi's stock reverb, Firubbi.

I don't know if CW's reverb is missing anything but presets, really. I've spent so much time trying to get certain sounds out of the Masterverb whatever-it's-called. But damnit, I just want a "Drum Room" or a "Small Room" or a "Cathedral" that sounds huge right off the bat.

Otherwise CW plugs are great. Chorus and flanger sound better than anything outboard I've heard. I've even stopped using outboard parametric EQ because the PEQ4 sounds so nice.

Anyway back in 2001 I had 2 companies to choose from: Digidesign and CreamWare. Nothing else provided the studio-type functionality that I needed at the time. In fact, still these are the only 2 companies that provide studio-in-a-PCI-card functionality. I chose CW because of price. But I am continually amazed at the performance of this beast.

And I'm continually amazed at the price! One could upgrade from Mix 24 -> HD1... Or one could keep one's Mix 24 card, buy a SCOPE Professional card and a whole bunch of plugs, and have exactly Sir Samplaire's ideal setup. :smile:

I still can't believe CW isn't used by more studios. I hope this changes in future. Time will tell...

OK I'm done bubbling (for now). Thanks guys!

Johann
User avatar
valis
Posts: 7684
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: West Coast USA
Contact:

Post by valis »

Personally I *like* logic more than PT or Steinberg etc. I will admit that one thing I miss being stuck on 5.5x is sample-accurate preview in the arrange window, something that nuendo/sx and PT do very well (helps with complex edits & crosssfades across many tracks). Anyway that's just horses for courses...

PT LE is ONLY the software sequencer and as such its missing about 80% of why people buy Pro Tools for 'studio' use (the dsp/mixfarm cards, the selection of 'high end' algorithms for the dsp plugins, the ability to integrate it with multichannel digital & analog gear, the necessity of buying the full HD setup only to replace the converters with something 'better' down the road--last one is a poke at Digi :razz: ).
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

the real advantage to pt over cw is that pt has that nice integrated control surface.

support for mackie control(said to be in progress before the court filing) or some other nice expandable surface would significantly narrow the gap....
marcuspocus
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Canada/France

Post by marcuspocus »

Yes, mackie control integration + something to record/play/edit audio/midi is "all" thatr miss to kick pt in the butt :wink:
samplaire
Posts: 2464
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Warsaw to Szczecin, Poland
Contact:

Post by samplaire »

On 2004-06-23 14:53, blazesboylan wrote:
I've used the PT LE sequencer (no DSPs or plugins) and it seems pretty standard to me. Dunno if the full version is a lot slicker?
It's identical. The only difference is the range of possibilities (more tracks) and, AFAIK, better sync capabilities and there are A LOT more TDM plugins than RTAS in the market.
Mind you I can certainly understand liking the PT sequencer better than Logic. I prefer damn near anything to Logic! :razz:
OK, I belive they didn't invent the midi sequencer to annoy me so I'm sure there are perhaps even more people to admire that (including my business partner) :wink:

_________________
Image Sir samplaire scopernicus

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: samplaire on 2004-06-24 03:36 ]</font>
blazesboylan
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: The Great White North
Contact:

Post by blazesboylan »

Sir Samplaire: It's true, Logic was not invented to annoy you. It was invented to annoy me!!! :smile:

Valis: Editing wasn't what killed my interest in Logic -- I just found the whole thing non-intuitive. Nevertheless, when I was doing "real" work (these days I just play), editing took up about 33-50% of my time. Taking a track that has been sloppily cut at a non-zero position, compressing it and raising the volume, makes a horrible belching sound. Taking 30+ tracks like that is a nightmare. I hate editing, but it is a major part of mixing.

In fact, editing should really be an industry all to itself. But it's not very sexy, and few people in the semi-pro world realize its importance.

Incidentally the easiest-to-use editor I've tried is actually Vegas. Unfortunately it doesn't have OMF support, otherwise it would be my sequencer of choice.

GaryB and MarcusPocus: it would of course take much more than just an outboard interface to "kick PT's butt". :smile: 3rd party plugins, session file support, and dogma seem to me to be the 3 big issues for pro studios. They all have monster SSLs with flying faders anyway, what do they need Mackie Control for?!? :smile:

Nevertheless I'm glad to hear that SCOPE plugins stack up well to TDM sonically. This is a major consideration for any semi-pro studio.

The rest (hardware control etc) all in due time...

Thanks for the feedback all!

Johann
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

actually, ssls are kinda passe' these days(think euphonics or the like)....and there are many professional studios with pt that use the protools control surface for mixing.

i wouldn't expect cwa to "challenge" pt for dominance in the pro market. pt is THE system for good reasons as have been stated:
1. having been there from the beginning, they have built an effecient support network.
2. pricing of the product allows that network.
3. having been there from the beginning, many developers have written plugs for the system
4. having been there from the beginning, people are used to them.
5. session file support...weeeelll

not all professional studios only cater to major labels. most truly professional studios do work for tv and video games and videos and cds of every sort from training to infomercial to porn to church work. they record all kinds of music and sometimes major hits come out of them. most engineers confortable with hardware would feel better not using a mouse. the lack of a control surface would make one hesitant to pick cw over pt. mackie control was a good choice by cw(when they originally planned it for v4) as it's also used by cubase, sonar and logic. any other good control surface that was supported would be fine as well, i'm sure(although mackie control is a fine product, i'm no mackie-head). it would be unreasonable to expect a company the size of cwa to build it's own surface, but support for a standard one is not out of the question...

i'm sorry, but i've seen too much gear. real studios use all kinds of stuff and i see no reason that cwa boards couldn't be useful in the most high dollar studios(not for everybody, but then what is?). being a pt beater to me means that for no sacrifice in audio quality(or very,very little sacrifice.. in fact, clients remarked that they liked the way that their new system sounded BETTER than some work that had recently been done on a pt system...) one could save literally thousands of dollars. this might not appeal to snobs who must use the most expensive stuff regardless of the situation, but it will appeal to those who budget matters to, to those who just like the system, and to those who like using something a little different.

certainly, there are many things that one can do with a cwa system that are completely impossible with a pt system and THAT makes it very worthy. anyone involved in production would be much better served by a cwa system imho for the flexability and synths(and greater choice of i/o hardware).

there's plenty of room for everything so...use what you like. i think that it's pure snobbery to say that professionals(those who make their living at something) wouldn't be well served by cwa when there are grammys and oscars around work done on their systems. just because it's priced in the consumer range doesn't make it semi-pro.(the lack of an integrated control surface does that. :wink: )

blazesboylan, thanks for the set-up for the rant :wink: i know that you have more than a little real world experience, and i'm really not challenging that. as you said, sound first, control surface(and any other cool features) can follow....

respect.

oh yeah,i really like the layout of the logic mixer and i think that logic's handling of midi and vstis makes much more sense than cubase or sonar, sooo, another "to each his own"(using sx these days tho!).





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-06-25 04:17 ]</font>
blazesboylan
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: The Great White North
Contact:

Post by blazesboylan »

Damn it! My kingdom for a smiley! Hubird, where are you, I need "rolling around on the floor" smilies!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That fervid post made my day GaryB. I'll undoubtedly be back soon to try to prod more out of ya. :grin: But in the meantime -- thanks!

Johann
User avatar
garyb
Moderator
Posts: 23380
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ghetto by the sea

Post by garyb »

:grin:
:oops:
User avatar
bassdude
Posts: 1004
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: ACT, Australia

Post by bassdude »

On 2004-06-25 04:04, garyb wrote:
actually, ssls are kinda passe' these days(think euphonics or the like)....
Yep, Euphonics (Sharc DSP's in dig consoles) and these:-
http://www.fairlightau.com/products/mix ... -40153.htm

(using creamware cards and fx)..drool.

Although SSL's dig consoles are also using sharc dsp's so not too passe. :wink:
hubird

Post by hubird »

@ blazesboylan




Image
Image.......................Image
Image
scary808
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Utah

Post by scary808 »

On 2004-06-25 04:04, garyb wrote:
actually, ssls are kinda passe'...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2004-06-25 04:17 ]</font>
I think the days of the large format console are numbered. Still it's all about the SSL preamps, those EQs, & oh yeah that wicked compressor on the stereo buss.

On the subject of Digi vs CW. I suppose it depends on what your doing with the stuff. If your doing the one man band thing & occasionally tracking/mixing bands I would go CW.

If you plan on renting out your studio, bringing in "work in progress" projects,
or doing post-production I would go Digi.
Another advantage of PT is that amazing
Beat Detective. A disadvantage is their
miserable stock Digirack plugins. I'm
sure you know what the good ones cost.
It's ironic to me that people bitch
about CW's prices.

Hey, even better! Why not do both?
Granted you would need two computers
& a way to get lightpipe back & forth
but your power would be unparalleled!
User avatar
nprime
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Canada, eh?

Post by nprime »

I think we are slowly drifting off topic here. Since Scope does not include any form of native sequencer or recorder you can't really compare PT to Scope. You kinda have to compare scope/nuendo or scope/sonar or whatever combination.

I spent a lot of years on PT in the early ninties dong tons of editing and I found it to be a great tool for the purpose...

I now use sonar and find it clumsy in comparison.

The sound of Scope is what got me, that and the great effects and synths that were IMHO "thrown in" for the price I paid.

I have a friend who uses the DIGI stuff and I can't say the "come with" plug-ins are in the same league with Scope.
blazesboylan
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: The Great White North
Contact:

Post by blazesboylan »

Yes NPrime, we've definitely drifted off topic. :smile:

(Incidentally, though, I do think it's perfectly legit to compare CW hardware + plugs to PT just hardware + plugs.)

Nevertheless I'm still enjoying + learning from this thread. So... I'm about to drift even further out!

About the Euphonics and Fairlight and so on: I'm not convinced. Maybe those are big in Hollywood, GaryB. And granted, Bassdude, the Fairlights are extremely powerful consoles, by the looks of 'em. But Fairlight has been coming and going for years, so whether or not it's a better mousetrap, I wouldn't count on it being around for very long. (Though it'll keep coming back of course!)

Euphonics has really targeted the film industry. Maybe they're hoping that surround music DVDs or SACDs or something really take off. But so far noone (that I've heard of, anyway) is doing music in surround. So we'll see if that changes. But in the meantime Euphonics has a very niche market, and is priced accordingly.

I suspect the trend for big studios will, in future, be in the opposite direction. Toward the whole "vintage", "analogue" etc industry.

Despite the trend toward "vintage" and "analogue" (or whatever else), SSL hasn't lost its foothold yet. Don't forget, it takes 5+ years to pay off a large format console. You don't just switch them in and out because "Mix" magazine says there's a sexier brand out there. And up here in Canada, at least, SSL and Neve stil rule supreme in the biggest studios. In medium-sized studios of course there is no "standard". There are thousands of consoles in use by mid-sized studios. I'll get back to the "missing medium" shortly though...

I do agree 100%, Scary808, on the downscaling trend. Who needs 80 inputs in a mixing console?!? That's ludicrous, even in the biggest studio.

Whatever the trends in consoles, I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll see more and more gear in the "cheap crap" and "expensive boutique" categories for a while to come. The music recording industry, at least, seems to be dviding into two camps: the experts and the plebeians. The experts control the trends and standards and prices so that the pro industry is beyond the reach of DIYers. They also don't like to share useful knowledge with the plebs, and they certainly don't like the plebs buying their holy imperial gear.

Thus this whole "vintage" trend. I really do think it's more about control than it is about quality. You can disagree with me, of course. But we have all been swept up in silly ideas of "warm" and "fat" sounding gear. Why? Why not get caught up in gear that reproduces sound accurately?

I confess to being caught up in this craze too. I like "mud" and "dirt" and "colouring" too.

But maybe, just maybe, if I hadn't been brought up on the sound of inaccurate audio equipment -- maybe I would think "warm" and "fat" and so on are just euphemisms for a bad reproduction.

In spite of everything I hate about "democracy" in general, I look around me and see that every lasting standard in audio is (either by accident or by design) inaccessible to the small / medium business or home user. Even as technology gives us the opportunity to develop cheap high-quality gear, the industry becomes more stratified and the "middle ground" disappears.

Thank goodness there are still a few companies left filling in the middle ground between cheap crap and overly expensive "pro" gear. Thank goodness for the few manufacturers of affordable, high-quality gear. Thank goodness for CreamWare! :smile:

And thank goodness for PlanetZ. There aren't many "middle ground" discussion forums, online or anywhere else, I tell ya. Places where even nattering obnoxious DIYers like me can learn something useful each and every time we visit.

Long live the middle ground!

Cheers and thanks, as always, for y'all's comments,

Johann

P.S. Loved the line "most truly professional studios do... infomercial to porn to church work." Classic. :smile:

P.P.S. Thanks for the smilies Hubird! Since I promised it, my kingdom is yours if you want it. But you're already King of Smilies! :grin:
Post Reply