What 3 things about DP 8 annoy you the most?

[ChrisByrd]

+1 for an 'always on top' option for plugin windows.

[toodamnhip]

For those experiencing performance issues, I'd highly recommend the following, assuming you already have plenty of RAM:

Run DP8 in 64bits in OS 10.8, off of an SSD.

That's what DP8 was made for (well, the 64bit part and the OS10.8 - but the SSD really puts it over the top), and that's when you get amazing performance. Better than any older DP version, better than any 32bit ProTools (so, anything prior to PT11 - which I don't have and haven't tried.)

Works for me.

Whoa...
Are you telling me that the Pro Tools 9 I thought was so efficient was 32 bit? If it is true that it is more immediate and "snappier" in 32 it than DP is in 64, that's quite a piece of info.
I never even thought about whether Pro Tools 9 was 32 or 64. I guess that's because it ran so efficiently I didn;t care.
t that might also explain why I thought DP bet of Pro Tools with VE Pro. DP was 64 bit, Pro Tools 32. At least if I m understanding you correctly.

[toodamnhip]

By the way, I and others have complained about DPs archaic time stretch algorithm. Well, in that regard, I just got through working with Pro Tools elastic audio. It was QUITE impressive.I was able to shift a whole orchestra simultaneously in order to get the bottom basses and cellos in time. The amazing thing was, on the TOP of the orchestra, being stretched with the bottom, there were violins playing long tones. The long tones had no artifacts after being shifted around with the bottom basses. All tracks moved as a group immediately and did so without lag or computer strain. And as far as efficiency, I really think DP would have lagged and stuttered, beach balled etc, when moving an orchestra full of tracks, But Pro Tools was so fast that it was just like pulling on the audio as if was made of taffy, no delays. Impressive.
DP has no tool anywhere near this so if MOTU is reading this and plans on finally making time stretch wishes come true, perhaps they could make something like PT's elastic audio. We've gotten a lot of nice guitars pedals from MOTU over the last few yrs, time for some new fundamental improvements to time stretch.

And, to be fair to DP, I love it's built in pitch capabilities and have learned that most of the time, it actually BEATS melodyne, (except for when stretching audio).
And vocal comping is way better in DP, though it can lag and stutter and crash when edge editing he regions of comp divisions.
So I will be comping and tuning vocals in DP, and stretching orchestras in Pro Tools. With no ONE program being the best at everything. I would love to hear from others here about what other DAWS they use for specific tasks that DP is not as good at. And this does relate to this thread because each on of those tasks that force us to outside DAWS, is something DP could improve.

[Kubi]

So Kubi, where is the best place to put that SSD? Boot or project?

Well I guess both have their place, but I started with the boot drive. Since it takes a LOT of audio tracks on a regular 7200 rpm HD to bring DP to its knees my guess is the project drive as an SSD makes sense only for very "read-intensive" projects - i.e. perhaps film dub mixes where you have thousands of tiny snippets over dozens of audio tracks? But who knows.

The boot drive on the other hand gets accessed all the time, for tiny bits and pieces of OS, DP and other stuff running in the background - and I can tell you changing that to SSD made a world of a difference.

Another great candidate for conversion to SSD of course are drives off of which you stream samples - if you use a lot of sample-based instruments (which I generally don't, really.) But I do know that folks that run humongous virtual orchestra setups got immense gains from switching to SSD sample drives.

SSDs are more volatile than regular HDs, so a regularly updated set of clones is definitely recommended. But that's true for normal HDs too...

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Thanks Kubi. I wonder if intensely scripted VIs, aside from loading faster, would benefit from an SSD? Performance of third party Kontakt VIs come immediately to mind. Not so much in playback but in bouncing. I always seem to have to do them in real time.

Hopefully SSDs will drop a little more in price soon and u can test that theory.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Gravity Jim]

I run four drives internally: boot, projects, samples (VIs) and a utility disc that is mostly for Time Machine, but also has partitions for a clone of the startup drive and a catch-all called The Bin.

I replaced the Boot drive and Samples drive with SSDs. An ordinary 7200rpm drive keeps up with performance to spare for the Projects drive, but using the SSDs for Boot and Samples makes my projects open in about 10th the previsou time, and samples streaming is seamless. This seemed to me the ideal set-up.

[James Steele]

Solution: An "instrument" track could be MIDI and audio from the VI, together in one track.

I'm pretty certain this is how Logic does it, but then there are those who make the argument that the way DP does it allows for more flexibility?

[Timeline]

How many of these items are carry overs from 7.24?
How about a concise list for each version?

[Killahurts]

Solution: An "instrument" track could be MIDI and audio from the VI, together in one track.

I'm pretty certain this is how Logic does it, but then there are those who make the argument that the way DP does it allows for more flexibility?

Well it does. That's why if DP adopted the idea I would want it to be a preference, or better yet, an option on the track itself. To have both methods would put our beloved DP on a much higher shelf than those other dogs.. I mean DAWs.

[Killahurts]

I would love to hear from others here about what other DAWS they use for specific tasks that DP is not as good at. And this does relate to this thread because each on of those tasks that force us to outside DAWS, is something DP could improve.

I use Sonic Studio Soundblade for all my serious CD creating needs. It creates a DDPi set for its output, and uses that set to burn the audio CD. It is a very serious mastering tool.

However, I will burn a simple working ref from iTunes, for speed and convenience, even though it stinks.

And what about DP? As many times as I've tried, I never have been able to get DP to burn a correctly working audio CD. Period.

[Kubi]

Combined MIDI and Instrument tracks to me is such a non-starter... I can see only downsides, and that's before even considering multi-timbral VIs, i.e.:

Where do you put the MIDI plug-ins?
Where do you put the audio plug-ins?
How do you then put VIs in V-Racks? They don't do time...
How is it better to have to copy and paste a whole track of MIDI data vs simply adding or changing the destination, when trying to hear what a certain part sounds like using another VI, or layering VIs?
How do I "retire" a MIDI part but keep it around just in case, when I want to keep the VI to play something else, but not that particular MIDI part?

These are just the downsides that come to mind without thinking much - I'm sure there are more. Like, multi-timbral VIs, as mentioned...

But, perhaps most importantly - what on Earth would be the upside?

[bayswater]

Combined MIDI and Instrument tracks to me is such a non-starter...

I can't agree more. For the reasons you gave, and from experience with other DAWs. MIDI and the instrument it plays on are not the same thing. I think there is merit in keeping a close correspondence to the real or external world of physical objects. (Although I don't really miss the distinction between tracks and channels that most DAWs once had. It must be still there, lurking in the background.)

[toodamnhip]

Combined MIDI and Instrument tracks to me is such a non-starter... I can see only downsides, and that's before even considering multi-timbral VIs, i.e.:

Where do you put the MIDI plug-ins?
Where do you put the audio plug-ins?
How do you then put VIs in V-Racks? They don't do time...
How is it better to have to copy and paste a whole track of MIDI data vs simply adding or changing the destination, when trying to hear what a certain part sounds like using another VI, or layering VIs?
How do I "retire" a MIDI part but keep it around just in case, when I want to keep the VI to play something else, but not that particular MIDI part?

These are just the downsides that come to mind without thinking much - I'm sure there are more. Like, multi-timbral VIs, as mentioned...

But, perhaps most importantly - what on Earth would be the upside?

The downside to separate MIDI and audio tracks become clear when automating various sys parameters in VIs. For example, where do you record certain automation moves in Omnishpere. It has been awhile since I have run into this, but there are scenarios where you get cc data in BOTH the MIDI track aAND the audio track that holds the VI. Again, it has been awhile, so forgive my vagueness, but it is in this area where ONE MIDI/vi track is way more ergonomically streamlined. I recall having to go in and resolve fights between cc data contained in both the VI audio track and the MIDI track. A real pain.

[Killahurts]

Combined MIDI and Instrument tracks to me is such a non-starter... I can see only downsides, and that's before even considering multi-timbral VIs, i.e.:

Where do you put the MIDI plug-ins?
Where do you put the audio plug-ins?
How do you then put VIs in V-Racks? They don't do time...
How is it better to have to copy and paste a whole track of MIDI data vs simply adding or changing the destination, when trying to hear what a certain part sounds like using another VI, or layering VIs?
How do I "retire" a MIDI part but keep it around just in case, when I want to keep the VI to play something else, but not that particular MIDI part?

These are just the downsides that come to mind without thinking much - I'm sure there are more. Like, multi-timbral VIs, as mentioned...

But, perhaps most importantly - what on Earth would be the upside?

Oh Kubi, you're such a damn buzz kill. Why do you have to be so right?

In my scenario, you would be able to revert to the MIDI/VI in the same track, i.e. the audio track is still the instrument track, rendered, reversible. But as far as the other stuff you mentioned, I'm speechless. Not cool!!!

[Killahurts]

But, perhaps most importantly - what on Earth would be the upside?[/i

The upside is, treating an instrument like it's an instrument, not a bunch of components.

But that's the only response I have that's not weak.