Talk:Pro Tools

Untitled
Hey guys I've started working through this page and adding the information that will help other readers such as history etc. I will also address the impact of PT on popular culture and the recording industry as requested. 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selllerness (talk • contribs)

Who makes Pro Tools? For what platforms is it available?

Perhaps someone could add info on where a new user could learn how to use pro tools. --unknown

This information is online and in the DVD you get when you buy pro-tools --Tm1000 03:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could remove all the marketing bullshit from this article, make it more sober? Agreed!

The "For Dummies" series of books are outstanding. I used "Pro Tools for Dummies" to learn Pro Tools 6.x on an original MBox. Great book!

The whole User Group thing seems like an advertisement. Should it be deleted? Q90 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This entire article reads like it was written by Digidesign. There should be discussion of the large recording-industry backlash against ProTools and DAW recording/mixing in general, including the entire industry of products designed to bypass the perceived undesirable parts of the processing. This includes the advent of the "analog summing device" which is a minimalist mixer designed specifically for use with computer-based DAWs, manufactured by Dangerous Music, Roll Music Systems, SPL Labs, and at least a dozen other companies. Justinulysses (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Alsihad redirect without explanation
I've noticed that someone's cunningly redirected the Alsihad article to the ProTools article... For those who are unaware of this reference and association, some more information and historical references should be provided imo - but by someone who is better-informed than I am! I agree with the Alsihad sentiment personally, I have to use ProTools in my daily life and I'm quite firmly within the cynical camp ;) but for many people it would just be lost on them. So, I suppose one could consider this an RFI on the connotation and reference. Also consider Mixerman's diaries, and places like the ProSoundWeb forums where PT/Alsihad is discussed at great length.

Christopher 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

>I can add it. However, I'd rather not, Its hard to cite the information. Alsihad is a reference from the book The Mixerman Diaries (an E-Book Version is availible for free). Who refers to protools in the novel as Alsihad. The author him self is anonymous, to the general public. However, the term is used by many professional recording engineers familiar with book, and author, and is familiar to most who are active in the professional/semi professional online Pro-audio community.

The term Alsihad refers to the debate about the analog medium v.s digital recording medium. Protools due to the limited power of computer in their initial introduction, was the first viable digital recording platform, since it initially used its own internal computing power, instead of a computers processing power (professional protools systems) still do. Many engineers feel that Tape medium is preferrable to digital medium, because tape has its own sonic characteristics, and protools encourages over editing, since its easier to edit than tape, and therefore also encourages poor performances. This explanation is significant, because the term Alsihad is a play on the word. All I had,  "I wanted to use Tape, however, Protools was All's I had  (ALL'SIHAD=ALSIHAD).

128.189.171.56 06:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

New updates to the "on culture" section
I've started making some large scale changes to the section that was called "Pro Tools in culture". I'll be continuing and finishing this edit by the end of the week (Feb. 11, 2007). In this section I'm trying to illustrate some of the ways that Pro Tools helped to encourage shifts in digital technology, economics, IT, politics, and possibly several other areas. I understand that to most people it seems like just another software package but I'm confident that I can show here that it bears some responsibilty, both directly and indirectly, for where we find our larger culture today. Please don't be put off by unfinished sentences, etc. All will be fixed very quickly.

Neilperry 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have continued substantial editing of this section and renamned it "The Impact of Pro Tools on Culture". I've cleaned up from last night's post and am on track to finish for the weekend.--Neilperry 04:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Added subsections to the "Impact on culture" section.Neilperry 02:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Academic Award"?
Digidesign received a technical Academic Award for the development of Pro Tools in 2004.

Was this meant to say Academy Award? What's an "Academic Award" and why does it link to the Academy Award page anyway? Clarification needed. Inoculatedcities 18:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed this to "Academy Award of Merit" which is what the Digidesign website says it is. Academic makes no sense. Bufflo 22:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
It should be added that there has been criticism of Pro Tools in particular by many musical artists because of its uncanny ability to make really nasty-sounding music sound a lot better than it really is:

"It sounds like you're ready to, cause these rappers are terrible   And the game is unbearable but Imma fix, fix    This feeling that's dead in you got your brains like a vegetable    Use the Pro Tools and tell em to edit it, it" -- Chamillionare, "The Sound of Revenge (intro)" The Sound Of Revenge

I might be able to find other examples


 * the problem with this is that "Pro-tools" is on its way to becoming a genericised trademark, like "Biro" for all rollerball pens. when non-audio engineers talk about "Pro-tools" we can't be 100% sure they're referring to the product itself, and not any other comparable DAW. plus there's no magic button in Pro-tools that makes things sound better - that's just skilful work by the engineer. and let's not get into the misconception that Auto-tune is part of Pro-Tools... eesh. Onesecondglance (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Dedi hardware
Article also doesn't mention you *have* to have specific digidesign hardware to run pro tools, unlike most other DAWs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.224.216 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Charging for minor upgrades
Digi have a habit of charging for minor updates (like paying extra for stereo tracks when they finally introduced this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.224.216 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hd3.jpg
Image:Hd3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ronaldo Cezar de Moraes
coleguinha, gente boa amarrado, solto nao vale nada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.144.75.5 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Issues
Some of this article is really, really good. A lot of it isn't. Just made a couple minor edits, may try to re-work some things over the next few days. Things I'm noticing:

1) It's still not well-sourced; part of the issue seems to be that the main sources of info on Pro Tools are either DigiDesign's site (already cited) and various audio recording forums on the internet, which consist of about 2% actual information, 49% Pro Tools evangelism, and 49% Pro Tools bashing, none of which is verifiable or notable anyway. I'm looking for good sources; if anybody else finds something reliable in a 3rd party publication, please, please add it!

2) Super-listcrufty; does this article really need the model numbers for every single product that works with ProTools?

3) The need for special hardware to run the high-end PT versions is something that's frequently cited as a reason to pick a different DAW; I'm working on trying to include this in a non-ranty, reliably-sourced fashion. e v i l d e a t h m a t h  16:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Include
"The hardware includes an external A/D converter and internal PCI or PCIe audio cards with onboard DSP."

What other hardware is there? --77.109.213.122 (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Pro Tool sales brochure?
The use section sounds like it is trying to seel the application to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.84.11 (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources in "Use" section
Three references claiming to cite Billboard Magazine point to dubious resources on the domain AllBusiness.com. The source material consists of multipage articles surrounded by advertisements and promotional material. There is a "source" link (left column) with a date, but it points to an on-site index. No reference to an actual Billboard Magazine article is provided. In fact, there is no mention of Billboard Magazine anywhere on the site. It is simply "Billboard" in plain text with the copyright notice "© Billboard 2012" at the footer. No logos, no cover images, no "Billboard Magazine," no trade markings, no external links, no evidence of a legitimate association with Billboard proper.

This may very well be a legitimate source, but their poor presentation and lack of reference leads me to believe this source is unreliable. Perhaps if the article were accompanied by an issue date, issue number, page number, etc., it would lend some credibility to this source. However, the overall experience is lacking, and in many ways suggests content farming.

I have tagged the three references as possibly unreliable. ps60k (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The two that I see don't even exist anymore. I've removed them and removed the statement about how "Miami is widely believed to be the first city to broadly adopt Pro Tools", which, as far as I can tell, is solely derived from one of the broken refs. Radiodef (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, here is the article in Google Books, a legitimate article in Billboard magazine from 2001. Page 59 of http://books.google.com/books?id=HBQEAAAAMBAJ
 * Reading the Billboard article, the statement that I've omitted from the WP article on Pro Tools still seems dubious to me. The article is about how a PT training center has opened in Miami, and the statement about Miami being "ground zero" was made by the owner of the training center. Hardly enough to proliferate the statement as "widely believed". Radiodef (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I too agree it reads like an advertisement. Just take a look at Jack White's quote. There's nothing in that section that describes limitations or issues with the software. There should be a fair balance of opinions (if any) especially given that the overall stance is not clear. And there are a lot of reference links missing. More info. --Humorideas (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Systems needs attention from an expert in Pro Tools
What's the deal with this? Radiodef (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OSC DECK/Deck II
The later version of OSC DECK was known as Deck II. This ran natively on Macs, although it could be used with select sound cards. This was later bought and distributed by Macromedia. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pro Tools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004165207/http://www.eqmag.com/article/the-software-chronicles/Mar-06/19100 to http://www.eqmag.com/article/the-software-chronicles/Mar-06/19100
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604161013/http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_recordin_la_vida/ to http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_recordin_la_vida/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204193730/http://www.avid.com/US/press-room/Avid-Unleashes-Pro-Tools-9 to http://www.avid.com/US/press-room/Avid-Unleashes-Pro-Tools-9
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002214830/http://www.avid.com/US/press-room/Avid-Divests-Consumer-Businesses-and-Streamlines-Operations to http://www.avid.com/US/press-room/Avid-Divests-Consumer-Businesses-and-Streamlines-Operations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Pro Tools history source
I would like to point out a really thorough history of Pro Tools published in this independent website, which is well known by audio professionals.
 * A brief history of Pro Tools


 * History of Pro Tools (1984-1993)
 * History of Pro Tools (1994-2000)
 * History of Pro Tools (2000-2007)
 * History of Pro Tools (2007-2012)
 * History of Pro Tools (2012-2018)

This could be a good source to add information to the subject. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Major article rewrite
I have performed a major rewrite of the article. For those interested to this topic, please take a moment to read my revision and tell me what you think about it — or just edit it if you feel something should be changed, refined, expanded or reduced.

Here is a thorough list of changes I have made:


 * Lead section: refined, with some sources added
 * History: rewritten and expanded; in-line sources were provided for each statement; Pro Tools timeline was moved here from the paragraph "History of Pro Tools Hardware and Software" for better readability of the latter
 * Application: rewritten and expanded with the application's distinctive features. Sources were added for each feature mentioned
 * History of Pro Tools Hardware and Software: minor revisions
 * Added new section ("Editions")
 * Information from sections marked as "written like an advertisement" was mostly integrated into the History section, changing the tone and providing more authoritative sources
 * Wikilinks were added
 * Sources were reorganized: citations from books were moved into the Bibliography section; all the information available (such as sources authors and dates) were added, and accurate page citations were also added for books
 * The Infobox was revised (Italian language is not available for Standard and Ultimate editions) and the latest logo, in high resolution and with transparency, was used (to avoid having a white background behind the logo itself) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion-hearted85 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Pro Tools HD wrong details

 * Extensibility: System could be extended with more than two Accel cards. I'm using a HD system with 1 Core and 4 Accel cards to this day
 * Accel cards: were also available as PCI cards (not only PCIe) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4279:A900:6EEC:8050:D26C:7260 (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional authorship
In the section titled "Deck, Pro Tools, Sound Tools II and Pro Tools II (1990–1994)", Peter Richert should be identified as the software developer of the first version of the Digidesign Audio Engine (DAE). This change should be made recognize Peter's contribution to the development of a key component of the Pro Tools system. He was the chief software architect of DAE from 1991 to 2007.

I propose that the following sentence be broken into two sentences as follows...

ORIGINAL:

The editor and the mixer were merged into a single application, while a specific software, the Digidesign Audio Engine (DAE), was provided as a separate application to favor hardware support from third-party developers, enabling the use of Pro Tools hardware and plug-ins on other DAWs.

REVISION:

The editor and the mixer were merged into a single Pro Tools application that utilized the Digidesign Audio Engine (DAE) created by Peter Richert. DAE was also provided as a separate application to favor hardware support from third-party developers, enabling the use of Pro Tools hardware and plug-ins on other DAWs.

MarkRJeffery (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @MarkRJeffery, how do we know DAWbench is a reliable source? ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, and your diligence in verifying sources. It is a good question.  We can consider DAWbench a reliable source regarding Digidesign and Pro Tools history because they use a primary source with their interview of Digidesign Co-Founder in episode 18 of the podcast.
 * https://dawbench.libsyn.com/episode-18-music-tech-pioneers-ii-digidesign-the-early-years
 * At 1:13:05 in that podcast Evan states that Peter Gotcher (other Digidesign founder) and I were the original designers of how Pro Tools would work. I believe that assertion gives me credibility regarding which other individual contributed to the development of the system as it further developed. 2601:645:8880:27F0:B814:8603:EF91:B7BF (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I would support this revision, as the podcast interlocutors seems authoritative. Since the podcasts are two hours long, it would be very important to accurately point out in the citations all the relevant excerpts which support the statements. Filling both the "At" field (with a range, eg "1:10:07–1:10:41") and the "Quote" field (with the transcription) would be appropriate (could we also mention the interlocutor in the "Quote" field?). This would be of great help to the reader to quickly evaluate the source of the statements. I would also support any other relevant addition or revision using the same approach with this source. Lion-hearted85 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I like 's suggestion and I am not opposed to the proposed revision. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @MarkRJeffery Editor without a COI implementing this request. Cheers Duke Gilmore (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)