is pro-tools over rated?

what can pro-tools do that cubase, live, dp, logic, sonar, etc can not do? does the le version of pro-tools come with m-box, digi001 and digi002?

the mbox cost $450 and the pro-toolz le software comes bunbled with it, out of the $450 how much is the soundcard and how much is the software?

correct me if i am wrong but a true pro-tools system is the $10,000 one and not mbox or digi001 or digi002.

is mbox or digi001 or digi002 better than a tascam, yamaha, etc control surface/soundcard and logic or cubase or sonar or dp or live?

someone please explain. thanks.

I'm a faithful Pro-Tools LE user and it works great for what I do. As for it being over-rated, that opinion can go both ways because not everyone likes it but it is industry standard so you can't go to the big studios with a cubase file and expect them to have it running there. The deal with the LE vs the HD or TDM system is all the diference between hardware and processing speed since the HD system is hardware based and uses DSP cards instead of the computers processors. So you it being over-rated is based on the user.

might be....i think protools is pretty tight. but i doubt its the only most useful software editor out there

The deal with the LE vs the HD or TDM system is all the diference between hardware and processing speed since the HD system is hardware based and uses DSP cards instead of the computers processors. So you it being over-rated is based on the user.

thanks for breaking it down for me.

that opinion can go both ways because not everyone likes it but it is industry standard so you can't go to the big studios with a cubase file and expect them to have it running there.

can you go into a big studio with wave files created in cubase and load those wave files into protools?

is pro-tools the industry standard because they were basically the first on the block?

u can take Wav. files where ever..... and no pro tools wasnt the first software on the block...

and no pro tools wasnt the first software on the block...

what was and how did it become the industry standard?

everything to me is all a matter of opinion, some peeps have there likes and dislikes about all software and hardware... anyway, here is a lil article that was emailed to me a while ago from www.record-producer.com:


The reason for recommending Pro Tools goes back in history. Steinberg's Cubase was the first MIDI sequencer with the graphic interface that is universal today. They didn't invent it, but they were the first to apply it to MIDI, and later to audio sequencing. All the way through Steinberg's company history, they have sold largely into the 'hobbyist' market. Granted, many professionals have used Cubase, and still do, but that's not where the company makes its bread and butter.

Contrast that with Digidesign. Digidesign started out making new sound chips for drum machines. But then they came up with Sound Designer, which initially was a sample editing program. But Sound Designer soon acquired the ability to record and edit stereo audio, and suddenly the world had changed.

Digidesign rapidly orientated themselves towards the fully pro market, and the acquisition of the company by Avid - top players in broadcast video - sealed that. When Pro Tools first came out (I still remember being at the UK launch party), it was for pros from day one, and in fact Digidesign had already incorporated the requirements of professionals, which they found out through an extensive process of consultation.

To cut the story short, any software that sells into the pro market must have the features that pros need, and without any clutter caused by superfluous gimmicks. And if it doesn't cut the ice with the pros, then they won't buy it - no amount of marketing will make them buy something they can see is not going to work for them.

Software sold into the amateur market on the other hand is sold almost entirely by marketing. The buyer takes it on trust that it will work as promised. Mostly it does, but with the burden of many 'features' that are simply not necessary, and many 'quick' options that only encourage the production of cookie-cutter music.

One day Pro Tools will be bettered by something else, and Record-Producer.com's recommendation will change. But for now, computer-based recording is like a canoe race - if you're using Pro Tools then you're paddling downstream!



now to me.... this is still all a matter of opinion for the most part, but truth is as we all know it... most major productions currently to date have involved the use of Pro Tools, and there is one opinion for there reason on why....besides that fact that it is highly used around the world

I would agree that probably any product that is an inudstry standard
IS over-rated. But I think that we've been too conditioned that everything is a conspiracy, that the average person is stupid and just 'doesn't get it' and that people who actually own and run companies are evil, manipulative thieves.
Yes, ProTools could be better. Yes, Cubase has more midi options.
Guess what? I could give a fu%k man. The problem I have with all these other programs trying to re-invent the wheel is that, NO their floating point 64 bit architecture will not make a better record for me, and 2, I can't swing with a program that has too many features. So what if logic can do my laundry via midi. Use whatever you are comfortable with. I like PT becuase I know it, it sounds good enough to get away with, and was cheap for the interface. Now, could I have saved $100 and now be using cubase?
Yes, but everyone I give files to is a professional and has protools. Even if they prefer cubase, they own PT. So why would I waste my time?
I spend countless hours over the past few years listenening to engineers and producers berate protools, and hear why they chose to go with the so-called super-system that they own, or cheap cop-sout system that they scrounged together. Then, the next day, I usually have to go to their studio and learn their overblown system, so I can rescue files and convert it to something that protools can read. I would say to anyone teetering on the edge of that decision to get over it, use a few, see what SOFTWARE you actually like to use, and then buy the package for that one. They can all mix and match, except protools. I guess they were the only ones to figure out, hey, if we spend time on this system, you should use the whole thing, instead of stealing our program and using some crap-ass card to save money. Is it the best conversion in the world? Hell no. But my opinion is, you get what you pay for. For ease of use, feature set for the stuff I gotta do, etc, I stick with ProTools. If you learned on cubase, use cubase. Nobody outside of the engineering community cares about this stuff. They only care about how good your songwriting is. If you are just an engineer, you should want to run the most compatible thing you can. Which, with regard to professional studios, is protools. It's not a conspiracy agains drum&bass producers who don't have any cash, it just IS...And I actually LIKE the top of the line, industry stuff being very expensive and standardized. Keeps more suckers who are not willing to put alot in...out of my world. You think protools is too expensive and over rated? Try producing video and watch your gear budget tripple!

what pro-tools unit are you using (if i may ask)?

that was very well put tru pro

lets keep it real ...

how many individuals that come to this site will ever record in a "BIG STUDIO"?

my point is that for a bedroom beatmaker (not producer because we are starting to use this word incorrectly) having mbox, digi001 or digi002 is no big deal.

having a yamaha, tacsam or mackie control surface/soundcard with live4/5, cubase, etc is the same as having the mbox, digi001 or digi002 pro-tools setup. in this respect i think pro-tools is "over rated".

Try producing video and watch your gear budget tripple!

i am a drummer by trade and when i am in the studio it does not make a differents to me if the music is going to tape or computer. the only thing that i am concerned about is how my performance is captured and i am in the studio at least 10 times a month.

in my studio i use echo indigo (with a lappy) because i only use vst/vsti with cubase sl or live4 and all the music stays in the digital domain. i know my setup is not for everyone but i think i can get the same results as mbox, dig ..... but not the same as the "big studio".

i do not think having mbox, digi001, or digi002 is the industry standard maybe the "big studio" pro-tools setup is but not mbox, digi ....

The thing is M-box, 001/002 make it EASY to transfer PT files to the "Big Studios" that use the HD and TDM systems, without having to mess with indivual wav files and dumping them. I for one like it when some one has a digi 001/002, m-box PT file when I'm transfer to my HD rig because it's fast and you lose NOTHING in the transfer. (plugins, mix settings etc)

not really.

because the best have made platinum records on protools, cubase, logic or sadie or whatever......It just depends on what suits your needs and what you feel comfortable with.


i hate cats that are trying to compete with you like, oh you got this gear..well mine is better..lets fight..like wtf?! easy there turbo...

thats my rant for the day

Word, I agree w/ M and w/ T. I feel the Mbox IS trash. But hey, if I
bring a laptop to UK to record garage rappers, I'll use it. No, I will not buy the Mackie Spike or some M audio shit and go learn cubase. Why would I do that when stuff at the same price point usually is all the same quality, especially when it comes to stability and conversion quality?
It also depends how you like to work. I mean, I like to do a mix on the
board for a 'beat tape' version of a beat, then later, it goes in the CPU dry, and gets mixed discreetly. That may go to a fully blown studio for vocals, or it may not. But I have the option to just mail the disk. I don't have to render efx, or go back to rendered cubase tracks, remove all my ish, then
re render them, etc. But some of yall make stereo 2 tracks and then redord to it. I do that to sometimes, and I could have done it on an adat.
Same result.

All I want is for non-PT users who came up using something else to stop fronting like the reason they did it was for superior audio, or that ProTools is a ripoff, or whatever. You use cubase cus you are used to it, or becuase you record more midi tracks that you do vocals; either/or, or both. I learned on PT, so that's what I use. Some of yall use cubase or whatever else for the exact same reason.

You know, my first record was recorded at the now-closed but ever famous Unique studios in Times square, NYC, on 2 inch analog. Yes it sounded sonically thicker than ProTools, but I can't afford 2 inch tape.
But my songwriting is much better now, and I would rather concentrate on that. I think if your voicings, gain structure, phase alignment, mixing and mastering are done right, you can do it on a 4track cassete. It don't matter. Coincidentally tho, you will have to bring the 4track to the studio, so they can dump it into the computer. They will probably use protools.

M Walker, you are definately the man, but hell no will I get sucked into
a battle of infinate nitpickery by detailing any of my gear for you, hahahah!
Don't let em get at you tho, you got it!

What ever happened to full plug-in delay compensation as a reason? Check da files!