Is Pro Tools better?



On Mon 2012-Jun-25 17:52, Scott Dorsey writes:
At this point I see it more like a Peterbilt. It's pulling a lot of
heavy loads all over the industry.

And there's a need for that.

Indeed.

The thing is.... classical music production, pop music production,
jazz production, film soundtrack production, voiceover production,
and game soundtrack production all have different demands, and there
are various special-purpose tools for all of them. Some of those
tools are Peterbilts and some are Ferraris.

Right, and what I need is more akin to your Ampex in
functionality and user interface. I don't need to run a lot of plug ins or do fine editing. I'm doing location
recording.
I've got high track counts if needed, or lwoer track counts
at a higher sampling rate and bit depth, tan easy to manage
ui and with oen step in between I can give the client files
he can take to any pt shop and import. My next recorder
will endeavor to remove that intermediate step hwoever.


Pro Tools... it's not really either one, but with the market these
days most folks don't need either one anyway.

Right, and i resemble that. Again, I ened that familiar
interface, like your Ampex <grin>.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
.