Anyone using a rack 003? Also, is it worth it to ge the "Factory Pro"?
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > Anyone using a rack 003? Also, is it worth it to ge the "Factory Pro"?
Posted on Jan 19, 2009 09:14 am
Indellable
Music Afficionado
Member Since: Aug 12, 2008
Finally getting ready to step up to Pro Tools and weighing my options. I know I want something rack mountable so I have been looking at the 003. Is anyone using this and could provide some insight? I always love to hear the good and bad. I have been using Digital Performer for the last 2 years and love it but really need the direct compatibility at this point.
Also, am I right in assuming the extra plug-ins are worth the additional $150 alone? Thanks for any input.
Factory:
www.guitarcenter.com/Digi...433-i1173702.gc
Regular
www.guitarcenter.com/Digi...441-i1173546.gc
[ Back to Top ]
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jan 19, 2009 09:51 pm I'll start with the easy part.
Are the plug-ins worth the extra $150 alone? No.
You can buy a DAW such as Sonar 8 Producer Edition and those plug-ins are bundled standard with the program, along with large collection of some of the best software synth's you can buy these days.
Is the Factory Pro bundle worth that kind of price? No.
For that kind of money you can get into something like Sonar or Cubase and an audio interface that is much better and easier to build onto system wise then the 003 is.
Why do I say that you might ask?
Those systems as still the LE version of PT, not a full on HD system or full on Pro studio system. They are limited in track count and everything you want to do such as export an mp3 will cost you money to add the ability to do that. You will still have only the basic of a Pro level studio with no ability to add on or upgrade without significant cost.
Sorry to be so blunt, but PT is no longer the be all end all it once was. There are DAW's out there now at less then half the price that can do much more for much less then that system will ever be able to do.
IndellableMusic AfficionadoMember
Since: Aug 12, 2008
Jan 21, 2009 11:08 am Noize -
Thanks for the honest feedback. I agree with pretty much everything - my only hold up is still the compatibility issue. Otherwise, I would be happy to continue with Digital Performer. However, most serious artists I record with inevitably get their music mixed at higher end studios by professional full-time engineers all of whom are primarily running Pro Tools and therefore prefer Pro Tools sessions to work with. Granted some are probably running HD, all can at least import an LE session. As my mixes get better, I am hoping to cut out that middle man and have artists just take their music elsewhere to get it mastered (until I learn that process of course!). I unfortuntaly fall/fell victim to the mindset that "If you are doing music - you MUST have Pro Tools and you MUST have a Mac." I realize now, neither is completely true. I bought a Mac about 2 years ago and had to forego the wonderful library of PC plug-ins I had accumulated over the years. I would hate to see the same thing happen if I invest $1500 on Pro Tools and they finally allow the compatability to be closer to 100%..
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Jan 21, 2009 11:28 am The mixing down at another studio is indeed an issue. If someone wants to take my project elsewhere I simply tell audition to bounce each track to it's own .wav (batch function, click and walk away) and burn those to DVD under a folder with the song title, and do this for each song. As I name my tracks pretty descriptive names I have had positive reports back. Even when I get large track counts I label them to keep my sanity.
Example...
Kick
FTom
RTom2
RTom1
Snare
OHL
OHR
Rythm
RythmDbl
Rythm2
Rythm2Dbl
etc..
So yeah, not as cool as simply importing a tune but if someone brought me even length, well named files in a seperate folder per song it would literally take me about 5 minutes to set up a session for it.
Just a thought.
IndellableMusic AfficionadoMember
Since: Aug 12, 2008
Jan 21, 2009 02:24 pm CptTripps - thats how I do it now, although I suppose I may need to step up my naming convention game! And until recently, I was doing one .wav at a time which as you can imagine took a bit of time. I was just recently shown how to do it as a batch in Digital Performer which is a life saver. Plus it automatically bounces them as flat files which most engineers would prefer anyway...
Thanks for the reply.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jan 22, 2009 08:49 pm All I can say on the session import export is.
OMF
Open Media Framework or otherwise known as Open Media Framework Interchange.
It allows me to send session's for use in other DAWS or bring in session's to work on here.
I've been using it since its inception since Sonar has had the ability for a long time.
But yes, most wav file's will work as well in raw format. That was how we did it in years gone by.
A bit tedious but no unlike bringing a session in from tape.
