Where is ProTools for X ???

Comments

• Reply 1 of 8

  sizzle chest Posts: 1,133member

  December 21, 2001 7:31PM

  My bet is that you'll see ProTools for OSX only after we've already seen Digital Performer, Logic and Cubase for OSX. Pro Tools may be an important pro audio standard, but I don't think Digidesign is known for quick upgrades to new OS & hardware standards.
  
  
  
  As far as I know, Pro Tools still isn't multi-processor-aware, for example.
  
  
  
  Not only that, Digi will probably require ProTools X to use a floppy-disk-based key authorization.... I know more than one Pro Tools user who had to buy a USB floppy drive JUST to authorize their Pro Tools installation.
• Reply 2 of 8

  hmurchison Posts: 12,423member

  December 22, 2001 6:01PM

  Pro Tools X is a huge undertaking. If they could ship it will full support for Core Audio and MP I'm sure many of you would say it was worth the wait as long as the quality is what you would expect from Digi.
• Reply 3 of 8

  sameoldsht Posts: 66member

  December 23, 2001 3:45PM

  [quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
  
  <strong>My bet is that you'll see ProTools for OSX only after we've already seen Digital Performer, Logic and Cubase for OSX. Pro Tools may be an important pro audio standard, but I don't think Digidesign is known for quick upgrades to new OS & hardware standards.
  
  
  
  As far as I know, Pro Tools still isn't multi-processor-aware, for example.
  
  
  
  Not only that, Digi will probably require ProTools X to use a floppy-disk-based key authorization.... I know more than one Pro Tools user who had to buy a USB floppy drive JUST to authorize their Pro Tools installation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Protools is neither Altivec nor MP aware, 2 of the largest flaws in the program. Doesnt seem to have an effect on how it sells though.
  
  
  
  I believe the audio industry is moving torwards hardware key authorization. The first we've seen of that is Wave's new plug-ins require you put a physical usb device (shaped like a key laff...) into your computer or a hub for the plug-ins to load. I think we can see this kind of thing appear in ProTools itself.
• Reply 4 of 8

  bub Posts: 8member

  December 24, 2001 12:07AM

  I use MOTU's Digital Performer & Composer's Mosaic, & I asked MOTU when will their products be ready for os x. The general tone of the reply was that they are waiting for Apple to make the os ready for digital audio production. I questioned if their products will run in clasic mode, & they strongly suggested to stay away from classic-just run 9.x. There is also no mention of any osx plans on their website. This means I, too, will stick with 9.x for a while.
  
  
  
  Bub
• Reply 5 of 8

  sameoldsht Posts: 66member

  January 1, 2002 3:33PM

  Yeah im not too sure OS X can handle surround sound and thats where music is going in most of these programs (5.1)
  
  
  
  Anyone else know about the surround sound capabilities of OS X???
• Reply 6 of 8

  a holck Posts: 20member

  January 2, 2002 10:30AM

  OSX's CoreAudio can process an unlimited number of floating point based channels with 2 ms latency (of cause dependent on cpu power. Downmixing x channels into 5.1 or 7.1 should be peanuts.
  
  
  
  Regarding Protools on X, you better think mid 2003-2004.
  
  As Protools is VERY dependent on the Digidesign hardware and uses the TDM Audio protocol there is a LOT more problems to be solved than ex. Carbon Cubase.
  
  
  
  CoreAudio wont do shit as long as the hardware boards uses TDM!
  
  
  
  Nuendo from steinberg probably will be the first PRO audio finishing solution on OS X, as its allready carbonised.
• Reply 7 of 8

  harald Posts: 2,152member

  January 2, 2002 11:27AM

  I know something about this from the horse's mouth ... I had a chat with the PT product manager (I've been an audio professional in a previous life) while in San Fran in last year ...
  
  
  
  Me: Core Audio rules, n'est-ce pas? Why not PT for OS X?
  
  
  
  Him: Well, there's no way a PC can deal with the throughput needed for multichannel DSP without hardware. PT won't be using Core Audio.
  
  
  
  Reading between the lines, Digi don't like the fact that when processors get horsepower, their platform will be obsolete. However, it's true that for all the wonderful latency etc. on Core, the are H U G E problems for real-time audio DSP on OS X. Developers are having major problems, and carbonisation ain't enough. 90% of issues are solved on the platform by kick arse processing power.
  
  
  
  And on that note, my next meeting was over in Cupertino. I won't say who I met, nor which department, nor about what. Nope, I'm going to that really fsking annoying "insider" who knows something but says too little for anyone to even make a judgement on his / her veracity.
  
  
  
  I can say OS issues relating to audio are going to be around for a while (but if you know the issues you know that too). Other issues are getting solved on a roadmap that is very cool INDEED.
• Reply 8 of 8

  sizzle chest Posts: 1,133member

  January 2, 2002 4:40PM

  Digi is in serious trouble anyway, once CPU power get sufficient that people don't need TDM outboard processing power for DSP. When the el-cheapo Waves Native Power Pack runs just as well as the Waves TDM pack, Digi is looking at people buying MOTU or other interfaces. Obviously the TDM interfaces are where Digi makes all their money.
  
  
  
  In a few years, the average gaming computer will have enough horsepower to run multiple DSP filters on every track of a 16 track recording of 24/96 audio.