Paul, While I don't disagree with anything you say, I think you miss the point. People come into the studio with PT sessions from other places. They want to be able to continue to run them. Even if the hardware isn't that good (and PTLE hardware isn't, but it isn't that bad either) it's good enough to run their session. If nothing else, it's nice to be able to run old stuff even when I've moved on to new systems.
I'd be willing to dedicate a slot in one of my machine somewhere to keep this capability in the background after you manage to get Ardour in my foreground. ;-) Mark p.s. - I though this thread was supposed to be a joke? -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:linux-audio-dev-admin@;music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Davis Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Fwd: Opinions on running VST or DirectX plugins on Linux in real time > Actually, if I wanted to get my hopes up, I would have asked for Pro >Tools running under wine. Now that would be quite an accomplishment... > > Being that I'm just a user type, I actually don't understand why this >sort of thing doesn't actually work. because the windows API that ProTools is written for is a rats nest of undocumented behaviours. its likely that PT has all manner of small hacks within it to work around various aspects of the way windows works. its very hard to write an emulator that embodies all those quirks. even if wine implemented 100% of the known windows APIs, PT probably still would not work because of differences between the way wine has implemented something and the way it actually works under windows (versus the way its documented to work, if it is actually documented). i would note that windows is not entirely alone in this respect ;) > PTLE has it's own hardware. No one >talks to it except Pro Tools. I'd love to be able to run it, why? other than that you have the hardware :) seriously, i've read very few reviews that suggest that PT h/w is particularly good. people who want high end converters spend $$$ on apogee d8800's, for example. the point about PT is that they've nicely packaged what people think they want (*). only recently, with things like the MOTU 24i/o, the RME interfaces and so forth, has it begun to be possible to ask "is ProTools the right audio interface for high end multichannel work?" the answer is generally "its OK, buts its not the best, and i can't use it with lots of other software". still, given that you PT h/w, i can understand your desire to be able to use it. --p (*) whether this is true of PT HD remains to be seen. i am convinced that 192kHz is nothing but a marketing ploy by various sectors of the media business. nobody has ever convicingly argued (e.g. double blind tests) that using 192kHz at any stage of the recording process creates any discernible difference to more than 0.5% of the human population, if that. "the people want what the people get". sigh.