24 Oct
2002
24 Oct
'02
2:41 p.m.
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: linux-audio-dev-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-dev-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Davis
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:21 AM
To: linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu
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.