Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

I was considering it; Avid is running an upgrade special through tomorrow ($199). Not sure whether I will pull the trigger.

It mainly seems to target users of the "lite" versions:

To be eligible for the extended Pro Tools | Software upgrade and support plan, you must purchase and activate your software by December 31, 2014. Qualifying products include Pro Tools 9/10 or any version of Pro Tools LE, Pro Tools Express, or Pro Tools M-Powered. Please note that all current Pro Tools 11 crossgrade offers from Pro Tools Express, Pro Tools LE, and Pro Tools M-Powered/MP will also expire on December 31, 2014.

I think you'll be able to upgrade v9/10, but after tomorrow you won't be able to upgrade LE or Express, etc.

 

[TwilightOdyssey]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Yes, that's a great deal if you are using the bundled version that came with your interface! I am a Cubase/Logic guy, myself.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

I agree: Previously I was using a really basic bundled version but in 2014 got v10 with my new interface.

I'm not really sure v10 to v11 is warranted for me at this time. Going from the Lite to v10 was similar to going from Photoshop Elements to full-fledged Photoshop and well worth it. (I'm a big Photoshop user: Going from CS5 to CS6 was incremental at best--I think PT 10 to 11 is similar.)

 

[dominus]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Pro Tools 10 is 32 bit, Pro Tools 11 is 64 bit. That's a huge change.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Oh $#$%, didn't know that. Thanks for the heads-up.

I think you just cost me $199.:17:

 

[TwilightOdyssey]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

LOL. Just make sure all of your favorite plugins will support 64 bit. I lost some of my favorite samples when I went to 64 bit because Samplebase doesn't support it.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

I may still wait. Upgrades from 10 to 11 aren't expiring tomorrow: It's the upgrades from Lite versions that are going away. It's been an expensive year...

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Software and hardware changes should bring improvements in audio quality but the downsides are the increased demands on your computer's processor and the learning curve for yo' brain. These might not be conducive to creating original music productively.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Very valid point--thanks. I'm still getting feet wet with v10.

 

[dominus]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Software and hardware changes should bring improvements in audio quality but the downsides are the increased demands on your computer's processor and the learning curve for yo' brain. These might not be conducive to creating original music productively.

If you're working with virtual instruments (which it looks like the OP is), x64 is pretty much a necessity these days.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

If you're working with virtual instruments (which it looks like the OP is), x64 is pretty much a necessity these days.

I generally do not. But hmmm...I'm about to begin a very quick project that will use VIs. I'm positive the guy providing them uses PT 10 (I saw it).

 

[guitar74]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

I'm behind the times, still working with PT9. Of course my idea of modeling amps is my old ADA MP-! and zoom R8, which by the way, has some great amp tones. Much closer to air moving through speakers. In fact, if I broke down each rhythm track, most people wouldn't know which I recorded with my amps, direct through the ADA, or with the R8.

I don't time stretch much, I find my recordings are better if they AREN'T completely perfect, but I also remember AMPEX tape machines, analog consoles, and being able to push levels to the point that they would sound like garbage in the digital domain. Aah, I miss good old tape compression, but have now given myself away as one of the resident "old guys". I have cut and pasted for little annoying EQ problems so I can take out a certain frequency of a certain part without re-eqing the whole track. Seem to get little "ghost" noises in the low end sometimes, little unexplained weird spikes.

That being said, I would also go with a mono track for the same reasons as everyone else, the ability to pan it where I wanted. This is YOUR project so I would actually specify mono, with his plugins.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

That being said, I would also go with a mono track for the same reasons as everyone else, the ability to pan it where I wanted. This is YOUR project so I would actually specify mono, with his plugins.

Thanks for weighing in, guitar74.

The issue I may face with the virtual drums I'll be getting is that I'm not positive I will get it the way TwilightOdyssey recommended: multiple outputs that will map each part of the kit to its own track (which is unquestionably my preference for many reasons).

If I assume a worst-case scenario (that I will get one track of the whole shebang), would I still want mono? (I don't think so, right?)

but I also remember AMPEX tape machines

When I started it was pretty standard to pay $100 for a 30 minute, two inch 30 ips Ampex reel. Made you think twice about doing another take, let alone 12. Sometimes I think music would be better today if such restrictions still existed.

 

[TwilightOdyssey]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

There is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from still recording that way.
The problem arises (in my opinion) when engineers slough off commiting to ANYTHING, and every option is left open until way past when a decision should have been made (at tracking).

There is another trick you can do if the virtual drums do not support multi-out (unlikely, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility).

What you do is multiple exports on the drums, muting everything but the instrument you are keeping. Make sure to label each export differently!

So, on one pass you mute everything but the kick. Then snare top. Snare bottom. Overheads. Room. Etc. This will leave you with individual exports of each part of the kit in isolation. Then import those tacks back into the session and verify that they are correct and align correctly, and voila! Multitrack virtual drums! I would do stereo exports for overheads, toms, and room. Mono for kick, snares, hi hat.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

This sounds like an interesting approach, though I'm going to press for multiple outputs. That's the way I've worked with them in the past.

Thanks.

 

[TwilightOdyssey]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

It's time consuming, but it works in a pinch. 2 albums ago I used a Linn Drum for a couple of bits. It did NOT endear me to the old way of doing things, lol. I will take Slate, EZDrummer, or Logic Drummer any day over the 9000, classic though it is.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

If I assume a worst-case scenario (that I will get one track of the whole shebang), would I still want mono?

The panning of drum kit sounds is a whole topic in its own right. On a raft of classic recordings, the drums - along with everything else - are in mono. Has this spoiled your enjoyment of those songs?

In a live music context, the majority of the audience experiences acoustic drum sounds as if from a single source.

The only person who truly receives the positional information from a drum kit is the person playing it. To recreate this, it is conventional to pan individual drum sounds on individual mixer channels.

From the drumstool, it is possible to visualise the kit spanning approximately one third of the stereo field. To any listener other than the drummer, this spread is too wide. Hence, a spread of not more than one sixth of the stereo field should suffice. Since most of the "width" in recorded drum kit sounds comes from the Early Reflections and Reverb treatments, it is conceivable that mono audio tracks might actually be preferable.

If the programmed drum parts are supplied as MIDI track data, you get total control over the finished drum tracks. The disadvantage to this is that you have to make exponentially more decisions about your sound sources - choosing drum types, pitches, dynamics, panning, effect routing, assigning MIDI Note Numbers et cetera. This could well be enough to make a person crave the traditional crossed pair and separate kick drum microphone array.

The beat goes on.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

The panning of drum kit sounds is a whole topic in its own right. On a raft of classic recordings, the drums - along with everything else - are in mono. Has this spoiled your enjoyment of those songs?

Definitely not.

In a live music context, the majority of the audience experiences acoustic drum sounds as if from a single source.

Had not thought of that.

If the programmed drum parts are supplied as MIDI track data, you get total control over the finished drum tracks. The disadvantage to this is that you have to make exponentially more decisions about your sound sources - choosing drum types, pitches, dynamics, panning, effect routing, assigning MIDI Note Numbers et cetera

I'll be receiving as audio rather than MIDI data. I will be present when the guy creates the VI drum tracks, mostly to select drum types.

Thanks!

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

If your song structures are already determined, just go straight to a stereo audio track on a per song basis. Only include time-based effects when they are integral to the composition. e.g. Ballad snare epic reverb whilst leaving the rest of the kit either dry or with minor Early Reflections treatment.

 

[dg27]

Re: Pro Tools 10 plug-ins question

Thanks--this is good advice.

This is a very simple project: only one song and I'm trying to keep it as simple as possible. The guy I'm working with (a hired gun who won't be involved in completing it) is simply providing a piano track and a drum track. Other instruments will be added later.