Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ProTools for Mac OS X Released

Posted by pudge on from the audio-schmaudio dept.

destructo666 writes "Woohoo, the wait is over for Digidesign to get with the program. Read the release and then upgrade and toss Mac OS 9. Now MOTU may finally release DP for Mac OS X." I can't find a link the free version for Mac OS X, though. Some of us are cheapskates, you know.

43 comments

  1. or not... by arson1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    it's not out yet, from their site:

    Pro Tools 6.0 for OSX is scheduled to be released at the end of this year.

    --


    --
    Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things.
    1. Re:or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, kinda makes the title of this article a bit... misleading, doesn't it?

  2. Still not available by aster_ken · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the linked press release the software will not be available until later this year. It will also require DD hardware unlike the "free" version of Pro Tools for Mac OS.

  3. shoulda read the comments.. by godawful · · Score: 3, Funny

    then i wouldn't have gotten my hopes all up. this is just a page announcing the intention to release protools 6 by the end of the year, should update the post to reflect that, that way we wont have more jackasses like myself running around in circles telling everyone that 6 is out, then reading the article. i lost some friends today.

    --
    Live EVERY week... Like it's Shark Week
    1. Re:shoulda read the comments.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      i lost some friends today.

      Don't worry, you can just imagine some new ones.

  4. In other news... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 4, Funny

    New Powermacs released that break the 2 GHz barrier!!!!!!!!*
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    *That is, they'll be out in 2003-4.

    --

    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    1. Re:In other news... by foobar104 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um. Hate to break it to you, but I have a 2 GHz Power Mac G4 right now.

      Yup. Two processors at 1 GHz each. Works great.

    2. Re:In other news... by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Jeebus, do we have to have another conversation about the difference between SMP and clustering??

    3. Re:In other news... by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do you mean, you hate to break it to me? I like Macs!

      Dual 1-GHz is great, especially since OS X can take good advantage of it. I'd take a dual 1-GHz PowerPC over a 2.2 GHz Intel any day. That doesn't mean that 2x 1 GHz PowerPC = 2 GHz PowerPC.

      But it wasn't supposed to be a complaint, it was just supposed to be silly. Don't forget to laugh.

      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
    4. Re:In other news... by Louis_Wu · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be the difference between SMP and raw processor speed? If I have 4 processors at 1GHz each, that isn't the same as 1 processor at 4 GHz. But if I took them apart and soldered them together, that would be one processor. Hey, I've got a new chip development model, I should patent it.

    5. Re:In other news... by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Back in the day, I used to work with some 3D animation houses as a sysadmin and all-around helpful guy. They were using Alias|WaveFront's PowerCaster and PowerTracer software to render single frames across multiple processors in an SGI server. The server had 24 R4400 processors running at, I think, 150 MHz each. For fun, I did a test where I rendered a frame on just one processor, then rendered the same frame on all 24 processors at once.

      The 24-processor render was almost exactly 24 times faster than the 1-processor render. I mean, within a decimal point or something. It was uncanny.

      Now, let's speculate. What if there were such a thing as a 3.6 GHz R4400? Would it have rendered that frame 24 times faster than the single 150 MHz R4400? Well, no, not unless it also had 24 times the cache and 24 times the memory bandwidth. The CPU would have just sat there waiting on data most of the time.

      With a well-tuned algorithm, SMP across two processors can be considerably faster than simply doubling the clock speed of a single processor.

      And then there's the issue of context switching in a single-processor environment. Right now I'm compiling on one CPU as I type this. If I had only one CPU, every time I did anything interactive, the CPU would have to context switch out of the compiler and into another process, handle my action, then switch back. Having two CPUs means context switches are reduced, making the system as a whole more efficient.

      I dare say my 2 x 1 GHz box is better in most ways than a 1 x 2 GHz box would be.

    6. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree, from my experiments, in Cinema 4D, I get around 90% faster with 2 1Ghz procs than with 1 1Ghz, That's pretty damn close to twice the speed.

  5. MOTU by jrg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    with the recent release of digital performer 3.1, i heard that MOTU has put all developers onto the osX version which i heard is in beta. 3.1 is supposedly the last os9.x version.

    i can't wait until i can do all my music stuff in osX, but in addition to MOTU i have to wait for native-instruments to get going on reaktor for osX.

    hopefully, the protools announcement will help others get their asses in gear.

    james

    1. Re:MOTU by Van+Halen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And for what it's worth, MOTU already made a similar announcement back in July (pdf, screen shot). When that happens, I'll no longer have a use for my trusty old 7600, which runs Digital Performer on OS 8.6 since the QuickSilver runs OS X only.

      --

      Say hello to zMac.

    2. Re:MOTU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amen brother.

  6. Upgrade path? by jcsehak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article doesn't mention if you'll be able to upgrade from 5.x or you have to buy a full version of 6. If it's the latter, I'll probably just wait till my next Digi audio interface purchase and get it for free. I'd assume they'd let you upgrade for $99 (like in the past), but after Apple's crap with 10.2, I'm feeling very jaded.

    Which brings me to another point--will it require 10.2? I know other audio programs do, and I hear that 10.2 handles audio in a radically different (and much better) way. One of the key points about 10.2 is that you're supposed to be able to use any audio hardware with any other audio software (or did I hear wrong?). If this means I'll be able to use Pro Tools with a MOTU firewire interface, I'll be very happy.

    --

    c-hack.com |
    1. Re:Upgrade path? by Triv · · Score: 2

      OS 10.1.x's midi interface was practically nonexistant - maybe I was missing something, but I couldn't get it to talk to my Roland JV-1080 at all. It works perfectly under 10.2

      Now all I need are apps. Finale'd be nice. :)

      Triv

    2. Re:Upgrade path? by p940e · · Score: 1
      One of the key points about 10.2 is that you're supposed to be able to use any audio hardware with any other audio software (or did I hear wrong?)

      You're supposed to be able to use any audio hardware that has 'core-audio' drivers with any audio software that supports 'core-audio'.

      Now, if Digi doesn't make 'core-audio' drivers for their hardware, their hardware won't work with other applications. For example, in OS9, digi didn't provide ASIO drivers for the digi001. Luckily, somebody else did (I think it was steinberg).

      On the otherside of the coin, I think Digi can decide not to go through 'core-audio' and to only support it's proprietary audio interfaces. I hope they don't do this...but then, selling audio interfaces is how they make money.

  7. Screen space by theolein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Looking at the screenshots I can suddenly see the wisdom of investing in a Cinema Display

  8. Timing? by cei · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Seems interesting that they announce it today, two days before Cubase SX for OS X is released...

    Granted, Cubase SX for OS X was announced a full six months before the release, but still...

    [And yes, I know ProTools and Cubase are on entirely different levels... And there are probably people who would get miffed if I tried comparing Cubase to Digital Performer too, but it looks like Steinberg will get their music software to the OS X market before any of them. [OK, so Emagic got Logic out the door first, but Apple owns them, so I think they had help...]]

    --
    This sig intentionally left justified.
    1. Re:Timing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not on different levels; they're completely different things. It's like comparing 3D Studio and Premiere. Protools is a sound editing system; Cubase is a music creation tool.

  9. FreeTools? by absurdhero · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Musicians like my brother will really benefit from this. However, the price of protools is prohibitively expensive for most independant artists. A Free (read GNU) alternative would be great for everyone.

    1. Re:FreeTools? by ultraslide · · Score: 1

      Ardour (http://ardour.sourceforge.net/) is as close as the OSS world has to Pro Tools. Sadly its still in alpha(?) and must be built from CVS. Check out Planet CCRMA ( http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software /) if you'd like to check out a great audio distro modification for Linux.

      As far as Pro Tools cost. An MBox (Mac only 4 now) is around $450 street, and a used Digi001 (PC and Mac) can be had for under $700 dollars. If you wanna do 24 bit digital audio with all the tools, that's pretty cheap for a complete HW/SW package.

      I have have an AudioMedia 3 ($250 used) and a Digi001. Digidesign will sell you the software, plus upgrade rights for $50 on these used systems and transfer ownership rights for any original owner. Pretty cool. And these cards will be supported under OSX and are already supported un der WinXP.

      While proprietary HW/SW combinations may not warm my heart with OSS love , I 've clocked several hundred hours in the last 2 months running a Digi001 under WinME!!!! on a P3-700 , without a single problem. My sessions generally run 20-24 tracks with many plugins and edits. Until Linux can offer the same features and stability I'm sticking with (and paying for) what works.

      the 'slide

      --
      "Corporate rock still sucks. What are you gonna do about it?"
    2. Re:FreeTools? by jcsehak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, gee, you mean something like ProTools Free? (free as in beer, not freedom)

      --

      c-hack.com |
  10. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DD hardware?

    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DigiDesign.

  11. lil help here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a Mac guy (other experience as well) with a friend wanting to get into the music business (he has some major ties) and I want to help him with all of this sh*t, and would love some help myself, as I run networks, and I am not a music producing guy.
    Anyone in NYC want to give me and my friend a hand? It would be for nothing more than the opportunity to play with toys he can afford, and I can't.