I appreciate you trying to help, but really... Do you think I haven't heard the "Just go buy a DAW and join the lemmings" line before?
You're not winding me up, but I just couldn't resist.
It's not a new idea.
Those of us who still use the Old School analog workflow do so because we've chosen it on purpose. We want to work this way. We've been swimming upstream against the easier/cheaper/blahblah hordes, and frankly find the DAW world to be irritating and counter-productive. Thankfully there is still room in this world for all of us to get along.
I understand the lure of the DAW world. Been there, done that. But I have the luxury of not needing to follow the crowd with this studio. And my customers appreciate it too. Plus, whenever I've needed to share data with a ProTools/Sonar/DigiPerformer/Whatever studio, we find a solution and we move on. The tired warning that "you must be ProTools compatible or you can't survive" is just a marketing gimmick.
As a side note, you'll find that most of us Old School guys don't try to talk anyone else into joining us. But that's a discussion for another forum I suppose.
Anyway, I think maybe you're mis-understanding me:re: "- you don't need to spend $700 on a suitable DAW host - check out the lower-end configurations from Logic, ProTools, Cubase, Nuendo, Ableton, Sonar, Studio One & Digital Performer et al"
I wasn't saying that the DAW was $700. I was referring to the comment made by Celemony Support that the only Melodyne package that supported MTC was their $700 product. I've seen it, and it's not like the Essentials/Assistant/Editor package. Not nearly as intuitive.re: "- the benefits of using Melodyne as a plug-in working inside a 'proper' DAW are many, and go way beyond simple concurrent track aligment and synchronised playback"
I was under the impression that the Melodyne apps functioned essentially the same whether they were standalone or plug-in. Could you elaborate on this? Are you referring to how it affects your workflow in the DAW?re: "- somebody else here suggested using MTC as a means of syncing other hosts...and I reckon that could well include Reaper (sadly, not on the formal Celemony supported DAW list...yet?)"
I think that might have been me, originally. But I'm not trying to suggest that Melodyne syncs with other "hosts" via MTC. I really don't care how you do the plug-in workflow at all.
I'm hoping to bring light to the fact that using Melodyne as a standalone app has some holes in the workflow. But let's not lose sight of the important things: First off, I'm really happy that Celemony decided to make this package work as a standalone app. Very nice. I appreciate that immensely.
This is the first product of its type I found that looks like it will fit into my workflow. But my ability to hear what my changes sound like in context with the rest of the music is lacking. It makes me think that nobody at Celemony has actually tested it this way beyond basic functionality.
If they would just add some way to synchronize outboard hardware to this application, it would make it an instant favorite for all of us who have been waiting more than 10 years for someone to do it.
I think it would be fairly easy.. after all, they have a product that does this already. So the code is there. And I'm not even asking for it to be the slave(which admittedly is tougher). Just output MIDI locate commands and timecode. It makes sense that the computer you're editing on is the master, as that will be the screen you're looking at. Does that make sense, Celemony?re: "Not trying to wind you up, but you really should give proper DAW hosts and Melodyne as a plug-in a try."
No offense taken. I just have too much money and time invested in a different way of working.
Imagine if I tried to get you to toss all your software and computers out the window and buy a 2" analog machine and analog console, learn how to align your recorder, replace all those plugins with hardware effects units... and .... well, you get my drift. It would be more than just the expense of the hardware, it's a whole 'nother way of working.
All the best...
Hilarious. Wanting to maintain a so-called "all-analogue" workflow but more than happy to digitally f**k up the most important element of a track. Hypocrite, no?