Justin, Actually I was refering to PT LE having to have the hardware to use the software...that is rediculous. I know that PT by it's very design must have the PCI hardware. BUT WHY must it ALSO have the audio I/O hardware? They could definitely work around that, BUT they choose not to, because then someone could use the hardware with the core cards without the Audio interface...they want control. For example, I'd like to get an old TDM system for Beat Detective purposes, etc. All I would do is fly the drum tracks into PT and do the BD work. So why could I not just have the PCI cards and the software to do that? I never want to go IN and OUT. It is a part of the design that you must have their I/O box(es). Or what if I use PT and then want to do some editing while on the plane or traveling on a laptop. Then you are out of luck, you must turn to a non-Digidesign DAW! Also, How many reports have you heard about the questionable sonics that PT can sometimes produce...Most pro engineers will not mix in PT or at least find ways to avoid bouncing and/or using the summing bus. In Oklahoma City, where I live, an acquaintance of mine put in a full-blown studio at his home..."Upstairs Productions"...it was on the cover of MIX mag. a few months ago. He has the latest RADAR system, a Neve 9098 console...highend everything and lots of it...great monitors and a all his rooms are "designed". I know his control room gives an accurate picture of what things sound like. He has gone 'round and 'round with Digidesign about the negative sound issues of PT...he has the latest PT HD system. When he records to Radar and then transfers the tracks via ethernet (I believe) into PT he notices a collapse in both depth and soundstage and a robbing of the bottom end, etc. Others have noticed this too and Digidesign refuses to answer for this problem. Hmmm... So, he avoids the transfer altogether if at all possible. I do agree that PT has some huge advantages like no latency, very fast responsiveness, things like Beat Detctive, sound-replacer, etc, that a record-enabled track will actually record audio before a punch-in just in case you were late on that punch...very cool and great features that the others don't have, BUT that doesn't make the others non-pro. There are many things that DP can do that PT can't, as well.

people use what they're comfortable with. pt is not the only game in town, (i live in la) and the rationalizations for spending that kind of $$ on that system are getting weaker and weaker. omf works for the track transfers - no the plugs don't come with to a different system, that's uneccesary for editing or tracking.
let's see, a dp system and 3 weeks in Hawaii or pt? i can hear the eukeleli's now!! wait - i can even RECORD them on my powerbook with dp!!!
mahalo!

Nick/Kelly:

I am a Logic user (who has been quite happy) and I am wondering if you started on Pro Tools first, then added Logic or vice versa. Did you ever consider doing 100% of your work in Logic?

Thanks

Kelly,
It's from Firesign Theatre. Remember?
Porgy tire biter,
He's a spy and a girl delighter.
Porgy fire fighter,
just a student like you.
(Like me??!!! )
Just a student like you.......

Coming mother.
Heh Heh That boy of mine.
He's not your son Fred.
Stop torturing me Ethel.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

and things were going so well with this thread. oh well...

A brief history or ME (my favorite subject):

I started on a Yamaha QX-21 hardware sequencer, then a QX-5, then an Atari ST running Passport Mastertracks Pro, then very soon afterwards MTP running on a Mac Plus. My tape recorder was a Teac 3340S, of course, and I synced the sequencer to that. Actually, at first I used human sync - pushing Start and hoping it would lock, which it did. Slowly, I moved from MTP into Logic, Performer, and Vision, and around 1989 I upgraded to a Tascam TSR-8.

It wasn't until about 1993 that I ended up buying the PT III NuBus system that Digidesign sent in to Recording magazine for review. It simply wasn't going back; that was my first digital audio system.

Logic's mixing features only became real a couple of years ago, and I've been using Pro Tools for a long time.

So the answer to your question is that I could mix in Logic, but I like mixing in Pro Tools since that's what I'm used to doing. I was using Logic before Pro Tools, but only for MIDI; I was using Pro Tools before Logic, but only for audio.

When there isn't time to bring everything into Pro Tools - which doesn't happen very often - I mix in Logic. And I use Pro Tools for heavy editing, for example I'm cutting up some samples right now, and I wouldn't want to do that in Logic.

Well... I think we're ALL Bozos on this bus.

*That's* showing your age!

Justin. Things were going well with your thread? How Leslie like of you take a stance and make an assinine statement like you did with your pro sumer brain fart daw comparison and then tell us to get off your soap box. There are thousands of artists producing better sounding projects with Nuendo, DP, Logic etc than you could ever realize in 20 lifetimes with your superior blow tools rig. The funny thing is for the money there better sounding alternatives. Most in the know would take Sonic solutions,Sadie, Genex, and others in the 20 to 30 k price range over any blow tools rig. So admit you have been brainwashed and we'll all jump off the soap box. This crap is getting as tired as the Mac vs. pc debates. :rolleyes: