Logic vs pro tools

[8salacious9]

So I have logic 9 and as a music producer am extremely comfortable with it.

My question is what does pro tools have that is essential for mixing audio for film?

Everyone almost seems to use PT, but why not logic?

Iv never used PT so maybe someone who does could answer?

 

[knightly]

PT hit the digital scene first imitating analog controls pros were familiar with. Pros invested time and money into protools solutions. Its established. I use Sound track pro. It has a better interface for me... I've ALWAYS hated the interface in PT. So, no... it's only necessary if you're exchanging files directly between audio editors (although there are ways to go between audio apps as well.

 

[Alcove Audio]

There are plenty of sound editors at the low/no/mini/micro budget level who use platforms other than Pro Tools to edit and mix. As always, it comes down to talent, skills and the listening/mixing environment.

Pro Tools is the standard because it got there first. It is without question the standard at the mega-budget level because of the associated hardware. The processing of the audio takes place in Avid (formerly Digidesign) hardware, and multiple PT systems can be slaved together to give you well over a thousand tracks. There are also quite a few plug-ins that are exclusive to Pro Tools HD.

At low/no/mini/micro budget level Logic will work just fine. Most indie projects will have perhaps 20 to 40 audio tracks if you're not going to someone like me.

The issue is not track count, but CPU usage. Remember that audio mixing takes place in real time, and many audio processing plug-ins are real CPU hogs. Imagine 100 tracks each with an EQ and a limiter/compressor, ten or more tracks with one or more noise reduction plugs, and half a dozen IR reverb aux returns. Even the best of computers will have a very hard time managing that kind of load.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

My question is what does pro tools have that is essential for mixing audio for film? Everyone almost seems to use PT, but why not logic?

There are quite a number of reasons, some of them basic issues, some of them due to professional practises/requirements.

On the basics side: Logic has always been very unreliable when it comes to dealing with OMFs and AAFs and also unreliable with regards to sync accuracy (+ or - a frame). Logic is also limited with it's routing capabilities, particularly it's bussing, which is of vital importance for creating all the stems and other submixes which are required for film and TV sound. It's automation capabilities are also limited compared to ProTools.

On the professional side: ProTools offers rock solid system integration for locking together several PT systems as well as a range of peripherals for frame-edge sync, single or multi-user control surfaces, machine control and facilities for operating in complex post-pro server environments. Plus many, many other features (such as field recorder workflows, to name just one) specifically required for audio post which Logic simply doesn't have.

Logic is great for manipulating, creating and producing MIDI based music and in some respects it's even better for this task than ProTools because that is what Logic was designed for. While Logic has had some audio post features bolted on over the years it is still basically a MIDI sequencing program rather than a serious audio post tool and is simply incapable of fitting into most/many professional audio post workflows.

G

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Agreed it's the standard because it IS good and it basically got there first.

My guy actually uses Sonar, we are all PC based (no Macs) and it's what he already owns and is comfortable with.

 

[wheatgrinder]

I started with cubase, tried to switch over to PT, but the PT hardware I had EOL'd on win XP and the last supported version of PT software on the Digi01 and XP would not support VST plugins, so I went back to cubase.. works great for me.. But thats me..

 

[AudioPostExpert]

You can of course use Logic, Sonar, Reason, Cubase or just about any other audio program to mix a film, just as you can use iMovie and various other consumer software to edit a film. The difficulties arise when you start working at the professional level; either the tools or functions you need don't exist or to get what you need requires a time consuming work-around.

When it comes to picture editing, the workflow at the professional level is not vastly different to the workflow at the lo/no budget indie film level but this is not the case with audio post! Even low budget TV usually requires at least 2 audio post professionals (with 2 ProTools systems) and at the other extreme (high budget features) there maybe as many as 70 audio post professionals involved and as many as 50 different ProTools systems being used concurrently. How data can be moved between systems, integrated into bigger systems, replaced quickly and edited en-masse becomes of vital importance. Also, the often complex and convoluted delivery specifications for various distributors and broadcasters means the software needs to provide for complex routing schemes and all of the above needs to happen usually within unrealistic time frames, which is where the automation options and audio post centred functionality become essential.

ProTools dominates the market not because it was there first but because it has the functionality required at the professional level to get the job done in the time allowed, Logic and the other softwares mentioned do not! Not to mention that as the market leader all the specialist 3rd party audio post tools are developed primarily with ProTools in mind. The only other software which comes close and provides any realistic competition to ProTools is Nuendo.

G

 

[wheatgrinder]

Thanks guys for this topic..

Inspired me to investigate \ try some things with my work flow, I just discovered and tested that I can export OMF with individual per track wave files in PPRO 5.5 and import that OMF file into cubase 6!

This gives me all the individual audio clips in the right places, trimmed, and on separate tracks in cubase!

I dont like that if I have sequence B embedded in sequence A then exporting the OMF of sequence A only produces ONE audio track for the embedded sequence B.

I think I see now why the PPRO nest command has a different behavior then just creating a new sequence and dropping other sequences into it. When using the "nest" command you add your clips to a sequence and then highlight some of those clips to make a NESTED sequence. When you nest this way, the audio tracks are left EXPOSED in the parent sequence, you can then link the nested sequence to its audio tracks so that when you move the nested sequence everything stays lined up like you wanted.. sorry rambling..