PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Jon Solitro
What have people found are the benefits of going HD? Are they worthwhile? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Pro Tools Accessibility group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread CHUCK REICHEL
Hi Jon, For my self its one word! LATENCY :) YMMV CHUCK REICHEL soundpicturerecord...@gmail.com www.SoundPictureRecording.com 954-742-0019 GUFFAWING :) In GOD I Trust On Apr 5, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Jon Solitro wrote: What have people found are the benefits of going HD? Are they worthwhile?

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Jon Solitro
Yeah thats what I was thinking. I have a quad core Mac pro which seems to handle anything. What is the benefit of tracking with plug ins? Can I mix in surround without HD? Sent from my phone On Apr 5, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jon, Aside from 0 latency,

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Poppa Bear
Yeh, I myself track with reverb and compression. The reverb does often help inspire the performer and the compression helps me to get an idea of what a mixed down product will feel like. Message - From: Jon Solitro To: ptaccess@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 7:14 AM

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Jon Solitro
Makes sense. This topic is slowly morphing….another question….how is tracking with compression helpful? It's all after the fact if you're using a plugin compressor right? the audio will still clip? On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Poppa Bear heavens4r...@gmail.com wrote: Yeh, I myself track with

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread byron harden
i never thought of tracking like that with plug in comp. will try that today slau. very interesting On Apr 5, 2013, at 2:17 PM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jon, Tracking with compression, at least in plug-in form, would be helpful to control dynamics. Especially when

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Jon Solitro
Ok, so I'm confused. What's the difference between HD and HD Native? I thought Native meant it uses the computer's processors just like regular Pro Tools. And the benefit to HD was the outboard processing cards. On Apr 5, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Slau Halatyn slauhala...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jon,

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Ricky Prevatte
I cannot wait to try this with my ProTools demo. Since I've had this board I have had very little clipping at all. Doing this from my Board is very easy. It has built in compression and reverb. I can track with reverb or compression and not printed it Ricky Prevatte LMBT 1154

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Slau Halatyn
That's how some cats were using Pro Tools back in the days before I solved the metering problem. Insertion of limiter plug-in and recording to another track. Again, there's latency but only a little. On HD systems, it's hardly detectable. Slau On Apr 5, 2013, at 3:29 PM, byron harden wrote:

Re: PT vs PT HD

2013-04-05 Thread Slau Halatyn
You're partly correct. HD Native does use native processing but it still uses a card for 0 latency routing. The interfaces still connect to a PCI card. Only the plug-in processing is handled by the host CPU while routing is handled by the card. HTH, Slau On Apr 5, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Jon

Modifier keys

2013-04-05 Thread John Boral
If a sighted person had 24 tracks and wanted to record on the first ten tracks starting with input #6 going through to input #16 in order, they would hit the command and option keys together while clicking the mouse on the input field of the first track and start with #6. I can't figure out