Pro Tools

[twotoedsloth]

Hello,

Can I run Pro Tools on an underspecced Macbook Pro? It only has 8 gigs of RAM, and the Avid website says I need 16 gigs of RAM.

It will only be used for remote stereo recording of classical music.

Thanks,

Peter

[Wonks]

Do you really need Pro Tools? Just to record, why not use another DAW, e.g. Reaper, that will definitely work in 8 GB RAM? If you normally work in pro tools you can always transfer the files over to work on.

[Sam Inglis]

It works fine on my Mac which has only 8GB RAM.

[twotoedsloth]

Thanks for your reply Wonks.

In this case we have to run Pro Tools. I use Reaper in Fedora Linux myself, but my co workers all insist on running Pro Tools on a Mac. $13 a month is cheap enough to keep my colleagues happy. However, buying a new Mac is not in the cards... so I'm hoping that Pro Tools will run well enough to get the job done. Unfortunately I can't upgrade the RAM on my Mac.

I'm going to give it a try, I only have $13 to lose... Are there any Mac tweaks that might let Pro Tools run a bit more efficiently?

Many thanks,

Peter

[zenguitar]

Peter, just because your colleagues use Pro Tools, doesn't mean that you have to use Pro Tools.

The requirement of the job is to make stereo recordings of classical music.

And your laptop running Linux and Reaper is more than capable of doing that job perfectly well. And if your colleagues think that Pro Tools is what 'the professionals' use; they are (self-evidently) stating that they aren't sufficiently professional to import a time stamped stereo .wav recording into Pro Tools (because that is a basic skill for a Pro Tools user).

Sure, $13 a month is cheap. But free for no material benefit is a lot cheaper.

Of course, this a people problem not a tech problem.

OK, I'm just back from the pub (mellow, not pissed, don't worry) so you are free to take this with a pinch of salt, but I hope you see that it suggests a perfectly valid approach, if presented 'soberly'.

I would suggest that you point out that your MacBook Pro is under specified to run Pro Tools and there is a risk that that would lead to unsatisfactory recordings. However, you can also suggest that if they buy you a current MacBook Pro that meets the recommended tech spec for Pro Tools and show that they are team players; you would be prepared to spend $13 a month of your own money for the Pro Tools licence to demonstrate you are also a team player.

You have a laptop/software combination that is more than capable of doing the job in hand. Your colleagues have systems that are perfectly capable of importing your recordings into the software of their choice with no compromise in quality or professionalism. You don't need a new computer, and you don't need to risk compromising a system that works well for you by implementing Mac tweaks that might help Pro Tools run on an under specced MacBook Pro.

The solution is to have a polite, sensible, conversation with sensible people.

Best of luck

Andy

[The Korff]

It works fine on my Mac which has only 8GB RAM.

Ditto!

[Guest]

It will only be used for remote stereo recording of classical music.

I basically work within the classical music world and find many involved can be narrow minded, and as for classical electronic musicians, they usually have narrow ideas of what software is, and is not, acceptable. For me, Zenguitar summed it up perfectly.

[Aled Hughes]

ProTools works fine ond my Surface Pro with 8GB of RAM

[Watchmaker]

I'm a ProTools H8tr but even in this case is doesn't appear to make sense to use it as a one off software.

A totally inept metaphor sprang to mind: Tanqueray and Beefeaters are both gin and will clean windows as well as make old memories fade in a blizzard of tears. Same with DAWS. Having a preference for flavor is not necessarily meaningful to the end goal.

[Wonks]

But Avid definitely state 16GB RAM as a minimum requirement for the latest PT12. Has anyone asked them why?

[Hugh Robjohns]

Can I run Pro Tools on an underspecced Macbook Pro? It only has 8 gigs of RAM, and the Avid website says I need 16 gigs of RAM.

It will only be used for remote stereo recording of classical music.

It seems, from the experience of others, that it will indeed run on a machine with 8GB of RAM...but I also agree with others that there is absolutely no point in doing when it involves a unnecessary monthly outlay given that you already have a reliable system working with Reaper.

However, I am a little unclear as to the requirements.

If you are simply feeding a stereo mix into the laptop which will then serve as nothing more than a stereo recorder, no one should have any problem whatsoever. All any operator needs to do is set it to record or play. Hardly a challenge for an experienced Pro Tools user, regardless of whatever recorder software is actually employed for the job!

On the other hand, if the requirement is to take in multiple sources and create a stereo mix within the DAW environment itself, that's a very different challenge and I can appreciate why other users might prefer to carry out that work on a familiar DAW like Pro Tools. Although, if they're expecting to use a lot of processing or plugins along the way, the limited RAM of your laptop might then become more of an issue...

That said, while I might understand the nervousness at being deprived of a familiar and beloved PT platform, I'm not one to condone the 'PT is the only way' mantra... Reaper is one of the many other widely used professional DAWs, and I'm a firm believer that a competent sound engineer should be able to use the widest possible range of tools, at least at a basic level of competency. Reaper has much the same feature-set and facilities as PT. It works in much the same way. And any experienced PT user should be able to get to grips with it in a very short period.

So stick with your linux/reaper setup, and encourage your colleagues to expand their horizons a little bit... My two pen'eth, for what it's worth, anyway...

[The Elf]

Pro Tools as a definitive 'must' is no more. It has rung down the choir invisibule. Anyone still clinging to that needs a bit of a naked lunch moment.

OK, I loathe PT, but I still use it when I absolutely have to (becoming more and more rare) - importing audio from another DAW is a doddle, so anyone who really wants to use PT should have the chops to do it.

[Mixedup]

No, Pro Tools is not a necessity. But come on guys... it's perfectly legitimate to use PT. The OP asked a simple question to which there is a simple answer: yes, it will work on a Mac with 8GB RAM.

[Hugh Robjohns]

No, Pro Tools is not a necessity. But come on guys... it's perfectly legitimate to use PT. The OP asked a simple question to which there is a simple answer: yes, it will work on a Mac with 8GB RAM.

Legitimate and possible, yes.

Essential or necessary, no.

I make no apologies for kicking back against the damaging insistence that 'Pro Tools is the (only) industry standard DAW'.

[twotoedsloth]

Greetings gentlemen, and thanks for your kind and supportive comments.

The fault is mine, I was misleading you unintentionally.

I personally won't be running Pro Tools on a Mac. However, I work at a university and we have about 300 student recitals in addition to faculty concert, large and small ensembles, coming up in March, April, and a few in June.

Obviously I can't record them all myself, though given enough time I would prefer to handle them.

Last year, my colleagues and I made do with Fedora Linux and Ardour, though I am using Fedora and Reaper this year

So, my colleauges/assistants made a soft demand for Pro Tools, and I do want to keep them happy, but I can't afford to buy them a new Mac, which is why I was hoping Pro Tools can get by with 8 gigs of RAM. They won't be running any plugins, and it will be a straight analog stereo feed from a DAV BG1 to a MOTU Traveler MK III. If they feel a burning need to add eq or compression the MOTU has it built in.

Long story shorter... my co-workers are demanding Pro Tools on a Mac, and while I can tell them to bugger off, I would like to do the best I can to accommodate them.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long post. I will try to install Pro Tools on our Mac, if it doesn't work, last year's linux/ardour solution is still fine.

Many thanks,

Peter

[James Perrett]

Why not give them the choice of using Reaper on the Mac as well? At least their sessions would then be compatible with yours - and Reaper is happy with well under 1GB of memory.

[Watchmaker]

So brand cache takes up about 7 gig of RAM?

[zenguitar]

I think you are being remarkably generous to your colleagues Peter, and that is to your credit.

But I am increasingly under the impression that your colleagues have made their soft request because they have been influenced by Pro Tool's completely undeserved reputation as 'the industry standard'.

I do understand that when you rely on assistance of your colleagues and assistants, it is important to keep them happy. And, with that in mind, I do appreciate that it might well seem easier to meet their request than have the conversation explaining that they are misguided in their request.

However, might I suggest that instead of having that awkward conversation you email a link to this topic to some of those who are so insistent on using Pro Tools. They will be able to follow the discussion themselves, and I am sure that if they wanted to sign up and ask further questions to get peace of mind, they would be welcomed and get polite and compelling answers.

There is a forum regular here (one who hasn't contributed to this topic, yet) who is a partner in a serious studio with Pro Tools workstations who does a lot of high end classical work. The clients love the Pro Tools rigs, but he sits down with the annotated score, a laptop and Reaper uses that in preference to Pro Tools to produce masters for major classical labels.

We aren't Pro Tools 'haters' here, it's a fine piece of software. But there are many other equally fine pieces of software out there that are on a par with Pro Tools, and what we do hate is the narrative that to achieve pro quality, you need Pro Tools. That is an outright lie, propagated by the ignorant.

We look forward to explaining this to your colleagues/assistants

Andy

[Wonks]

So brand cache takes up about 7 gig of RAM?

James never said that. In another post he said he could record 24 tracks (no other processing) with Reaper on Linux with less than 1GB RAM. OS X itself requires more than that so you will obviously need more on a Mac (or a Win PC).

Other DAWs do require more memory to run than Reaper, but not necessarily an extra 7GB. The RAM requirements will vary significantly on how many tracks you have, how many plug-ins are running, how many sampled instruments you have loaded. Reaper certainly won't run a big mixing session with 1GB RAM, but sometimes 16 GB or even 32 GB won't be enough if you are doing a big film score with massive orchestra samples.

Take away the O/S's RAM requirements and most DAWs will run a decent sized project within 4 or 5 GB of RAM, especially if using SSDs which reduce the need to pre-load so much data.

Sample instuments push up the RAM requirements, whilst effect plug-ins mainly require processor power and very little RAM. So a project that's all recorded tracks doesn't necessarily need a huge amount of RAM to run happily.

[Mixedup]

I make no apologies for kicking back against the damaging insistence that 'Pro Tools is the (only) industry standard DAW'.

And neither do I, as you know very well. But the OP never mentioned anything about Pro Tools being an/the industry standard.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Flogging a bit of a poorly pony here... but it was implied by the colleagues insistence on using PT rather than accepting the existing Reaper installation...

H

[James Perrett]

So brand cache takes up about 7 gig of RAM?

James never said that. In another post he said he could record 24 tracks (no other processing) with Reaper on Linux with less than 1GB RAM.

I'm not using Linux - I have a 24 track setup on a 14 year old Windows XP laptop with 768MB of RAM using Reaper and a Focusrite Saffire Pro 26io. This laptop is too slow even for web browsing these days but Reaper runs happily on it. I can appreciate that newer operating systems require more memory but a well written DAW requires very little memory for itself for basic recording and playback.

[Watchmaker]

So brand cache takes up about 7 gig of RAM?

James never said that.

Oh, indeed, my sarcasm did not hit the mark. My humble apologies.

[Wonks]

Appologies, James for getting the O/S wrong. been so long since I used XP that i forgot how little RAM it actually required to run.

And Watchmaker, yes, I did miss the sarcasm. Must try harder!

[Mixedup]

Flogging a bit of a poorly pony here... but it was implied

Well I'll cease flogging shortly, but... it's equally possible that these folk were familiar with PT and nervous of using a new system on the session. Or that they liked to work in PT elsewhere and would prefer to record and edit on PT and take the session files home. Or that they have PT at home and wished to prep a session in advance... Or... you get the idea: inference versus implication, and all that...