Why is pro tools good

The drum machine designer also makes it easy to import your own sounds and start programming quickly. Since version As far as audio in Logic goes, the Takes feature and Quick Swipe comping are amazing for quickly crafting the perfect vocal production. With Flex Editing, you can also adjust pitch and timing of recorded audio with minimal artifacts. For engineers, it is really easy to set up custom configurations in track presets for recording ensembles or drum kit configurations where your favorite inserts and sends are pre-configured.

Logic can only be run on Mac or Hackintosh systems the latter of which is not recommended and currently only supports Audio Unit plugins. Pro Tools is still the industry standard—especially in the U. It is still arguably the most powerful DAW for recording, editing and mixing audio. The industry standard in digital audio, Pro Tools is still arguably the best DAW for post production and mixing—and not only because pretty much every commercial recording studio has it on their computers!

While I initially found it to be the least intuitive DAW, once you get used to the way it works it can be incredibly fast for chopping up audio and arranging ideas on the grid quickly. I will agree with their marketing team that it is the industry standard and is arguably still the best DAW for recording and editing audio.

Pro Tools also has, in my opinion, some of the most intuitive key commands for editing audio clips, making it extraordinary for audio engineers and producers who mostly work in recording, rather than in-the-box sound generation. Additionally, the built-in elastic time and pitch functions can be fairly transparent and allow for some amazing editing of recorded material. The MIDI editor in Pro Tools is consistently getting better, but it still has a long way to go before it will match the amazing capabilities of those in Logic and Cubase.

If you write and record using physical instruments, work with lots of audio files, or if you produce or record bands and other live ensembles, Pro Tools may be the perfect DAW for you. Reaper is a chameleon of a DAW that can look—and do—practically anything you want. Having said that, it tends to be a better tool for engineers and really tech-focused music makers as there can be a lot to setup involved in customizing the platform and getting it working ideally for your individual setup.

The open architecture of this DAW has made it possible for the user community to customize it so much so that you can download Cubase or Pro Tools-esque skins. It opens in less than 5 seconds on my MacBook Pro, which is faster than any other DAW on this list, and seems quite resistant to crashes.

Some other standout features include Tabbed projects that allows you to open multiple projects at once within tabs, and also allow you to drag and drop content including instruments amd plugins from one project to the next. Guilty as charged. But not because I'm jealous somehow. Just simple irritation with PT users who, unlike just about every other DAW user, assume that the whole world runs on PT, and don't even bother to ask about a preferred format for export in a collaborative scenario.

A person can have their wildly unrealistic wishes, can they not? Last edited by joeq; 16th October at PM.. That means that you will have the exact same issue with a new industry standard whatever it will be as you now have with Pro Tools. The people in the industry will be sending you ". You are right back where you started, plus now you have to learn one more new DAW.

You know what would be a worse scenario? No industry standard at all. Then people would be sending you files from every DAW ever made and you would need a copy of each one of them to open those files, and a modicum of knowledge in how to get around in each DAW if only to set up a decent export. That's not only the definition of "industry standard", it is the justification for having an "industry standard". It means that nobody has to own more than two DAWs. The one you like, and the Standard.

Still beats the hell out of owning ten DAWs which is what the world would be like if there was no standard. Want to get your DAW ownership down to only one? Here are your only realistic options: 1. We already live in a world of no industry standard. Everyone automatically asks "what DAW do you use, do you need it bounced to audio or can I send the session" for collabs.

The extra step that sometimes happens is having to bounce audio tracks for the person you're sending to. No one has to know more than one DAW, and everyone can use whatever they want. Except Protools users, by ccmdav 's account I haven't collabed with a Protools user in years so I don't know. This is every other DAW user though. The thing that's actually happening in the world: bounce audio for the next guy.

Depends on the form of collaboration, I suppose. I highly doubt anyone would want to be comping vocals from a bunch of bounced tracks, or doing a dialogue edit. One of the innate benefits of DAWs over other recording devices like tape machines, or digital hard drive recorders, etc is that the process is non-destructive.

Bouncing is destructive. I don't know anyone that does it by choice Wonderously myopic world view of music. Last edited by newguy1; 17th October at PM..

You pretty much demonstrated newguy1's point. No mention was made in the OP of recording studios yet you made that assumption.

The OP actually mentions composing, not a recording studios. Well, the thread title asks about the "industry standard". How can you not assume the relation with recording studios? Because someone says he likes to compose with DAW X in his home studio has no influence on the "strength" of the industry standard.

Top Mentioned Manufacturers. Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn. Subscribe to our Newsletter. This meant loads of studios invested in a Pro Tools system for those who needed to do that kind of editing. And that meant people learned to use Pro Tools because that was what available at the studio when they needed it, and that meant they wanted pro tools at the next studio, because they didn't want to re-learn.

And hence it became industry standard. It's like Windows. Everybody uses it, nobody wants to re-learn, etc. Technical aspects are no longer relevant. Only being early, available and good enough. This is not to be taken as a pitch against Pro Tools.

I've never used it it's too expensive for me. I'm sure it's bloody awesome. But that's not the reason it's "industry standard". Their approach to building the entire DAW system was, from the outset, very different.

And I believe that's what set them apart and got them entrenched in the professional audio scene. You couldn't, for the longest time, buy a version of ProTools that just ran on whatever computer you had in your studio.

Instead, you bought rack-mounted boxes from ProTools that were loaded with general computational devices and DSP devices for accelerated audio processing. There were hard limits on what you could do with the box: a box would support X simultaneous tracks of audio at Y sampling and bit depth and Z plugins running.

The use of dedicated hardware meant their development was simplified: they didn't have to write to buggy drivers, they didn't have to support myriad of hardware options. It meant they could converge faster, get things very stable.

A ProTools setup was, especially in the early 90's, a setup that didn't crash much, and not at all in comparison to things like Logic or Cubase or CakeWalk that ran on general hardware. It also didn't break a sweat when you ran it at the limit because the limit was set to ensure there was processing overhead available. If you wanted more tracks, more plugins, better bit depths, you just bought another processing box and expanded the computational power of your ProTools setup.

You didn't have to "know computers" to expand it. It was, more or less, a drop in upgrade -- add the box, connect it in, and you got extra tracks in your sessions. The closed system also meant hardware controllers were easier to design.

I'm fairly certain they were way out in front with the "hands on" interface, tactile sliders and knobs that controlled the "in the box" mix that was happening. So if you wanted something reliable in your studio, at first you bought ProTools.

And then, over time, if you wanted what all the other pro studios in the area had, you bought ProTools. And if you wanted to move mixes from one studio to another, you bought ProTools.

But at first, you bought ProTools because it was super stable, unlike all the other DAW options at the time. Hans Zimmer, the biggest film composer out there, among many others such as Harry Gregson-Williams, does all his writing in Cubase.

Williams has an intriguing setup which, I think, records whatever he composes on Cubase into a Pro Tools system simultaneous as audio tracks. Zimmer writes in Cubase, does the mixing in Pro Tools. So in some cases, one DAW is just not enough. The truth is, Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic, Sonar, etc are pretty much all excellent and are capable of what you need.

I tried PreSonus and it's workflow is amazing, and that's the point - how's the workflow? As for Pro Tools being "first", first is a relative term. I'd always thought of Cubase Steinberg as being earlier than Digidesign. But that's perhaps from a MIDI standpoint. If you're a mainly a MIDI composer, you really don't need to fork out at all on Pro Tools - it's major strength is Audio file processing.

Also bear in mind that in readers' poll's and music magazine reviews, Pro Tools hasn't been number one, and in many cases even top 4 or 5 for several years including and How good a DAW is depends on your needs as a musician, and your workflow style. Pro Tools also had a foot up because of its integration with its own hardware which made it fit in to the studio environment nicely..

Cubase and Logic at el were more software based and better for smaller and home set ups.. Why, Avid didn't even have their trademark on movies when the credits scroll until just recently. And that's not uniform. Some have it; others don't.

It's not about "how many songs can I get in this much RAM? It's about doing it live Different DAW's have strong points. For instance listen to typical top 40 artists recorded in pro tools and hear how it sounds full and piercing. THEN listen to Diplo who'm does everything in Abbleton live- Notice the songs sound like they are all in similar "room" Abbleton has more of a "Breathe" as opposed to a real nice tight quickly fading out signal in Pro tools.