AV's future - in doubt

[robsayers]

i've received the mailout decribing the intended features and support for the new "pro-tools/24AV" planned for the end of '99.
might i beg and plead digidesign to please keep audiovision in tact "as is" and just add in some of the world of pro tools such as:
32-64 track capability, audiosuite plug-ins, and 24-bit recording/playback...i think i'm familiar with most (if not all) comparable daw's out there, and (in my opinion) audiovision is unquestionably the best for working with picture (short form)...loosing such features as the "clip editor", "universe bar", and multiple machine control (via "micro-lynx") would not be worth the other features, and i'd be looking at hanging with AV as long as possible, and then switch over to Fairlight...if i have to work around "pro-tools" shortcomings (for posting), i'd rather work around them on a Fairlight...

[remix]

This topic should've ended with a question mark.

I'll concur with Mr. Sayers on most of his counts. I will say however, that I am not opposed to the overall intended direction of Audiovision as laid out in the mailing.

I relatively sure Audiovision can't be kept "as-is" with a few important revisions, but it should continue in the direction that is has so well established since its inception.

If you're going to change the basic definition of the tool, forcing Audiovision users to learn anew and then compensate for whats missing, this would be a huge mistake (I wanted to type "tragic", but it is only a computer after all) on Avid/Digi's part and will surely cost them users.

My advice to Digidesign would be to take the extra time if you need it, to make absolutely certain that PT24|AV will be a step up form AV and not a side or back step.
And please be assured, that plug-ins alone are not a step up.

As a daily AV abuser, I've come to know and love some of the features included. Try using AV without the clip editor for a day and report back here on how it was. I'd venture to guess it wouldn't be a picnic. Having previously worked on AMS Audiofiles and NED Post Pros among others, has convinced me that an "offline" editor is an extremely useful tool and one that given a choice, I would not work without.

Clients bring me elements on a myriad of formats. No multi-machine control is a bad deal.

The "Universe bar" is super convenient. If you took it away from me I'd be dissapointed, but I'd live. It's very nice to be able to glance at an overview of what you've done. Mixing sveveral spots per project on one timeline knowing you can get to any spot in an instant is a blessing. Hmmm, maybe I cant deal without it.

Basically, we like your software now. We'd like it to do a few things better than it does now. I personally, would make "some" sacrifice to gain a few very important features, but not too much. And probably not two of the three things I've mentioned above.

I'd like to see some other AV users post here regarding their feelings about the intended direction of PT24|AV, and when given a moment of free time, will scan and post the important issues of the mailing online somewhere for all to peruse and discuss.

If anyone at Digi is listening, please feel free to contact me via email here;

mix@dark.net

or better yet!, give me a call

Steve Rosen
Howard Schwartz Recording
212.687.4180

[remix]

Of course when I posted the previous reply. I was doing so purely by memory. Now that I have the actual upgrade form in front of me, let's add on a bit.

Clip-based Volume and EQ
In an actual session, with actual clients breathing down my neck, clip-based volume and eq tweaks are a godsend. Rather than jerking around with an on-screen mixer or my console when asked if "that line can be a bit louder"
it's a very nice feature to be able to select the clip in question, then bump the level with a quick key combination.

Multiple Levels of Undo / Autosave Attic
Do I even have to mention why this is important?

Let me say again, that while it may not appear obvious, I do look forward to a better product in the end. I think we all need to work together to figure out exactly what constitutes "better product".

[sswatson]

Remix, you raised some thought provoking points.

I too use the Clip based Volume/EQ levels *extensively*. Nothing like a quick Option-up_arrow to change volume. Sure beats what you have to do in Media Composer or Pro Tools (excepting perhaps Pro Tools with one of the cool HUI's...) The nice thing about clip based Levels is the precision of where volume changes take place. I often use it to knock out spikes in the audio track. In Pro Tools you have to do a little more work for the same result w/ drawing your rubberbanding or reshaping the wave with the pencil tool.

On the plus side for rubberbanding: It saves disk space. And when you have lots of projects online at once, this can be really helpful with the disk space management. On this note: Pro Tools file management heirarchy is ONE BILLION times better than AV's! AV = one folder with every media file.. Pro Tools nicely breaks 'em down by project and then further by Audio Files and Fade Files. Very nice.

ON use of the Microlynx and multimachine control: I use my microlynx with Pro Tools to slave video machines to it. I had to do a little work around with making a template for it in the OMS studio setup. If you want more details I posted it here a while back. Not as clean a solution as using it with AV but it does work.

One thing I would hate to see disappear: The Mark In / Out / Current Position indicators that tell you that you are right on the money when dropping a clip into the timeline. (The little blue or yellow half-moons that appear...)

Also, when you multi-select clips in Pro Tools it highlights the whole region (from time in to time out) So if you had:
CLIPS A B C
and tried to just grab A and C (without B) and drag em in Pro Tools you are out of luck. Whereas in AV this *IS* possible and beatifully useful!

I will wrap this up before it gets long enough to compete with War & Peace.

-Sam

[Chris Drozdowski]

There is nothing like having a half dozen semi-attentive clients sitting in your studio going in and out of involvement, throwing requests at you after you have started to set up for a layback, moving vo after it's been eq'd and balanced, requesting a layback to 3/4" without timecode, needing an agency version that's almost the same as the on air except for a few spots in the middle that have been opend up 5 or 6 frames, asking to see the mix up against a copy of the picture that exisits on VHS and wondering if the sync on that piece of dialog looks out, to make a mixer apprieciate the difference between a DAW that was designed for Professional Post Production and an inexpensive Mac Based Editor/mixer designed for musicians and "project" studio work that does everything you need except the 10 things you do 1000 times a day. I too have worked on audiofile, post-pro and pro-tools and AudioVision is the most impressive system I've ever seen. To strip any of the features from the existing system in order to stuff the AudioVision into the Pro-tools way of "work around-go and get coffee while I do this edit" life is a shame!
By all means add avr77 to Pro-tools but please do not take AudioVisiion apart to do it. I can't believe there is know way of improving AudioVision without "semi-pro-izing" the entire platform. I Know of no engineer (mixing national TV spots) in NYC who thinks that pro-tools is anything other than a "project", "un-supervised", "Mix Prep" Platform. If they do use pro-tools for spots it's because they didn't want to spro=ing for the extra bucks for AudioVision or they have some ties in the music end of the biz.
I would rather stick with the 16 track PCI AudioVision untill my hardware fails and switch to the "F" system than be stuck with the madning limitations of the Pro-tools system. I will not switch if the proposed system eliminates clip based anything, multi-undo, any clip editor/timeline features, or machine control capability. These features are why I can easily get through the session I described (without exageration) above with the greatest of ease. And don't think that my clients are un-aware of this.They make comments all the time about the speed and flexability made possible by the above features and I use them every single day.
Thanks for the therapy and I appologise for all the mis-spelled words.

[bgmix]

Having read my ny friends postings,
I'm going to put this in my own straightforward way:

Hey Avid/Digi!

Audiovision is the best there is.

We just want more tracks and the TDM Buss.OK?
Nothing else needs to change. OK?

I've used almost every workstation there is and I'll stay with the av untill i just can't anymore. Then if fairlight has a video track by then i'll go that route. PT WON'T DO IT for a primary editor. (i have one that i use for playback tracks so i'm well versed in its capabilities)

DON'T KILL THE BEST AUDIO POST DAW THERE IS!

[bgmix]

I to would love to talk to anyone at Digi that's interested.

Please Call:

Bob Giammarco
East Side Audio
212/867-0730

[albertine]

I've just read this thread and I must say that, having begun moving a half-dozen AV's aside to accomodate new ProTools, it's a time of mixed feelings here at our shop. The reasons for our change to PT are primarily grounded in satisfying clients who have come to expect certain things that PT does well and does quickly - DSP functions, rapid editing of dialogue during ADR and dialogue pre-records (that god-awful waveform display in AV slows everybody down!), and more tracks. We've had our editors doing marathon training with some of the best PT gurus in LA, and we've just about got our new ways of working ironed out and ready to present to the clients. But we miss the AV editing paradigm tremendously. I would agree with the thinking here that PT is a really crappy editor compared to the AV (and to Fairlight, for that matter). In fact, I've said any number of times now that our move to PT "is eleven steps forward and ten steps back."

Right now, if you want to have any sense of power and capacity when using PT for post, it becomes necessary to purchase a bunch of software from either Wildsync or Gallery, and neither of these suites give you a Clip Editor, multiple bins, the F9 and F10 keys, In/Out marks, Active Track selection, etc.

I agree that PT should try to keep AV as completely intact as possible because, without a doubt and regardless of all its shortcomings, AudioVision is the best audio post editor by a long shot, arguably right along with the Fairlight.

If anyone at DigiDesign is lurking about, our most important features would be the Clip Editor and the F9/F10 keys (which pin the currently-selected clip to the cursor's position, either by the head [F9] or by the tail[F10]). The clip-based level and EQ is also critical.

- BA

[remix]

FYI

The upgrade feature list as mailed to AV PCI users can be looked at here;

http://www.dark.net/avupgrade.html

Thank God for OCR

[albertine]

I've just looked at the aforementioned upgrade chart and I have to say "thank god" for all that Digi's got planned. Let me implore DigiDesign, however, to implement the multiple-undo and attic features of Avid ASAP - I mean, this is 1999, who could possible think a single undo is sufficient! Also, the ability to edit multi-track sub-sequences in the clip editor is an extremely important Avid feature.

Since you're trying so hard to keep AudioVision intact, why not do it right and go all the way!

- BA

[CoolBeans]

Given the choice between the "new and improved" AV, and the current one, I'll stick with what I have, thank you. Working in a commercial post production environment as I do, places demands on the engineer that your "upgrade" would actually make more difficult. The particulars have been covered here in detail by my peers, so I won't belabor the obvious. Suffice it to say that in my humble opinion, AV is the best box on the market for commercial production. I'm in the process of building a 3 studio facility in Manhattan, and was planning on an AV in each room. I will definitely go another route if you lose the features described in the mailing.

[helloe]

It's obvious that the majority ( if not all ) of the current AV users would rather stick with what we have now instead of going to a Pro Tools environment! However change is inevitable and I think that the most logical request that can be made is: PLEASE do not make a good system worse in the name of " Progress ".
It is typical for a manufacturer to wreck a perfectly good system trying to make it better!
Please don't take anything away from the current system. Isn't the idea of making something better to add to it , not take away from it. I will gladly stay with AV 4.1 forever before I would ever consider trying to edit with the current Pro Tolls interface. In fact I'd rather be asking "Paper or Plastic " before I'd do a session with Pro Tools.
I will however give Digi the benefit of the doubt seeing as how the " Upgrade is FREE ". Please don't let us down!
C. Roberts

[3TMIX]

As a new user to AV I have been reading the latest news with a nagging sense of deja vu
Back when the best DAW on the market was Screen Sound, it dominated the market. Now it's a dinosaur, well on its way to extinction. Why?, because SSL stopped upgrading its products, and listening to its users. I have moved away from ALL SSL products for that reason
PT simply won't do for post production. I want to work with a product that is going to expand and grow, not give up its best features to blend into a new product
If anyone at Digidesign would like to discuss this Please call

Tom Goldblatt
East Side Audio
212-867-0730

[Digidesign]

Anyone who has used different DAW's will agree that they each have strengths and weaknesses. Because we cannot simply "map" the AudioVision user interface onto Pro Tools, we have to gradually add AudioVision's strengths to Pro Tools. PT and AV are based on two entirely different software code bases, so adding AudioSuite, TDM, or ProControl to AV would be incredibly inefficient. Re-engineering AV's best features into a software option for Pro Tools is the only sustainable, practical solution -- and it's already well under way.

We recognize that this strategy may never fully satisfy the expert AV user and that it is a huge pain to switch DAW's. Still, the emerging combination product does offer an option to AV users which will have compelling strengths -- yes, even as compared to AV. I encourage you not to prejudge it ("don't
knock it 'til you've tried it").

I also think it's cool that Digi is offering PCI AV users the option to try this new product with effectively zero outlay. Digi is not going to "rip apart" AV -- we plan to continue to sell it for as long as there is demand. It's not like Digi is going to invade your studios and force you to try PT24|AV. It's entirely up to you when and if you want to switch over. AV as you know it will not change for the worse. I have several associates who still use the N.E.D. Synclav and PostPro unapologetically even though there has been little ongoing development for several years now. If you think Pro Tools and
PT24|AV are wrong for you and your work, you won't have to use them. But you should probably try to make an informed decision.

As for AV-specific features, Digi has several AudioVision systems here in Palo Alto and we know exactly what's cool about the Clip Editor, Universe Bar, multi-machine control, discontiguous selections, clip-based volume and EQ, Bins, multiple undo's, AutoSave Attic, etc. It's not that we don't want to do
these features -- in fact we plan to do them as soon as possible.

The features described in the mailer are just the beginning of what should be a long series of feature development. Since some post professionals seem to have a penchant for legal action, we're unable to describe this road map of features beyond what we're confident we can accomplish over the next year or so. The purpose of the mailer was to try to get people excited about what we
ARE doing, not create negativism about what we AREN'T releasing in the next
year or less.

Concerning release timing, a few of the posts mention waiting until we have every AV feature duplicated before releasing the new product. We want to offer whatever new features we've got as quickly as possible so that:

(1.) AV users can begin to evaluate PT24|AV
(2.) PT users can benefit from them

I'd say it's pretty misguided to call Pro Tools "semi-pro" and to assert that there are no legitimate post professionals using PT. I assume that's just hyperbole. If so, we got your point. Pro Tools is only just beginning to realize its potential as a mature, custom-tailored post tool. If anyone can
deliver such a "dream" product, it must be a stable, flexible company with lots of engineers (eg. Digi).

We're all really excited about Digi's next few product releases. I urge you not to sell us short just because we might not get a Clip Editor into PT24|AV's first release. We ARE listening, we ARE trying, and we plan to continue to deliver really cool,useful products.

Tim Claman
Post Products Manager, Digidesign
tclaman@digidesign.com

[This message has been edited by Digidesign (edited 01-19-99).]

[remix]

Thank you Tim...

I think the tone of this particular topic took a turn for the nastier. I tried to stress in some of my posts that I am for a new better solution. It seems as if you guys are moving in the right direction.

I think the negativity is borne from growing to love a particular system and wishing it could be developed further and to it's fruition.

We realize that nobody will be forced to upgrade, but by the same token, without upgrading, how are we to get a feel for the new system? Current AV software won't run on the newly configured PT24AV hardware, will it?

I do hope that eventually, you get it right, and re-create an amazing post production solution. I just urge that you continue to pay attention to the users to whom the success or failure of the final product is based. Not that I am any great authority to people at Digi, but if the first thing I heard about the migration to PT was that mailing, how am I to know that people like me, users of AV, were contacted regarding a general upgrade direction?

In any case, If you are looking for the users to be involved, right here in this column of posts, you have names and numbers of people putting your system to use every day to the tune of several millions of dollars in bookings every year. They might be a good place to start.

Sincerely,
Stephen Rosen

HSR
212.687.4180

[helloe]

Thanks Tim,
It's good to know your paying attention. I realize that Digi cannot just make what we ( the users ) want w/out having to consider $$ & time. However I do believe that your gonna have to prove yourselves before the negativity in these posts dissapear. We have all been burned by the promises ( NED, SSL,Avid ...) and we just don't want to see something that finally works VERY good go unsupported! It can get very frustrating to have to re-organize every 2 years just because companies think they need to make things better, when all they really have to do is listen to the users and keep up to date. I'm sure this year will be another NAB year of unfulfilled promises like so many in the past have. I really like AV! It is efficient and flexible and to see it go the way of the dinosours will only leave a bad taste in my mouth for Digi. Again, I will say that I will be glad to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please keep in mind, as you re-engineer this system, that we ( the users ) are really the key to your $ and success. and as history has showed , once you get burned by a company, you will go looking for another!
( please accept this post w/ all due respect. )
Craig Roberts ( helloe@ix.netcom.com )

[julius chan]

Greetings from Australia, land of Fairlights and a smattering of AudioVisions. I have been lucky enough to have 2 AV4s on the last feature I worked on, all the other systems were tools, and a lone Fairlight. As we are a long way away, and upside down, Avid/Digi don't seem to really communicate down here. Any info I can glean is from lists like this. It would seem sensible for a "referendum" on the subject of Avs future development, with all Av users submitting their likes and dislikes. Sure I'd like to see a super system with 24 bit, plug ins up the wazooo, and the basic structure of bins, clip editor, undo retained. Digi/Avid whoever you are, wherever you are, do a mail out, ask the dudes and dudettes at the coalface what we need. It is a great tool, I prefer to cut on it rather than anything else, but there's a lot of hardware/software grunt under the hood just itching to be unleashed. Do you know exactly how we use 'em? do ya?
Julius Chan mpse
(upside down sound editor)

[Lee Blaske]

As the owner of a large PT|24 system, I view the rolling of AV feature into PT as a very positive step. I mainly work with music, and some sfx, so I don't need a lot of the features you guys refer to, but I would dearly like to have better video integration in PT. It would be great to have a powerful, Avid designed hardware solution, rather than rely on a third party product that isn't up to snuff.

With Motu, Event, et al nipping at Digi's heels with cheap native daws, it seems to me that a cost effective TDM audio/video workstation would give Digidesign a real competitive edge.

I realize that it's hard getting used to new things, but I've gotta tell you, whenever I watch someone working on an AV, I love the quality of the video, but I can't imagine how you can do anything with only 16 tracks and no TDM. From an audio standpoint, it's downright primative.

Lee Blaske

AudioVision is nice, but the part that kills me is one folder for everything. Split it up like Pro Tools, and add TDM plugins and it's PERFECT. More tracks would be nice too, but I don't want to be greedy.

[Chris D]

I have to thank Tim for his time and effort in replying to all the posts, mine in particular. Steve (the guy who turned me on to this thread) has suggested that the nasty tone of the posts is a sign of frustration. YOU BET YOUR SWEET MUTE BUTTON IT IS. As Helloe (Craig) says, Digi has got some splainin' to do before we AV users, myself in particular, will say "Gee I guess we were not being screwed after all." Let's take a look at the past few years events.

1996 Wow this AV platform has come a long way! What are you running this baby on...No kidding Matt, a Quadra????. But you suggest I get the new PowerMac 8100? OK you got a deal!!! So they realy are writing code like crazy and new features are suggested by the users and they get them into the code asap?...that's great!!!

1997-98 So you mean to tell me that the 8100 is not getting any software up-grades but for 15 thousand or so you will give me the same functions and a better picture??? That doesn't sound so hot. Oh, If I buy the new PCI platform I'll be able to take advantage of future software up-grades. Yea, but I haven't seen any new features except (change current timecode and sample rate pull-up/down) in over two years! Oh the last two years was spent making my 8100 obsolete...I understand...where do I sign.

1999 Let me get this straight. Were talking no new features for pci AV but you have this new product Pro24|AV which is not yet, but will be soon, as good as the AV I had Three years ago?? Well that doesn't sound so good. In fact, it kinda puts me in a nast MOOD!!!

Let me say the jury above is still out, and with good reason. It is not a matter of knock it till you've tried it, it's just that there is a history here that can't be ignored.You say that Digi is going to "sell"(read not improve?) as long as there is demand. Well I don't remember the last time I've even seen an ad for AV in any publication. That's probably why we feel abandoned.

I believe that Digi is stable and flexible and has lots of engineers. Unfortunately, they seem to only write for the type of code that ProTools is based on. Otherwise how do you explain the total lack of support for AV.I Know in my heart they would have been able to come up with "cool and useful" features for AV if they were told to. Something, Anything. Bin sample rate conversion, a rubband fade tool? perhaps.

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to face the fact that AV is up on blocks somewhere on the Major Degan and the majority (the ProTools users) are drive the ship.So....now were do I sign???

[cyberdc]

my take on it is that the reason they're giving us the upgrade for "free" is that it's not really an upgrade. Taking away features is a step backwards. sure, whenever a product line goes through the upheaval that AV has gone through (Avid>Digi) there's bound to be an adjustment period. Ask any kid who has lived with his mother all his life and now has to go live with dad.
I say, do what you have to do to preserve AV's current features then add some new ones, then charge us for an honest to God upgrade. We'll pay, we always have....
I'm suddenly reminded of a conversation I had with a guy who wrote code for Avid Media Composer during the first Avid symposiumn in Dallas in the early nineties. They were showing a new product called Audiovision in one of the demo rooms. I asked the guy if they could incorporate the AV features into media Compser and he said, "Sure it's just a matter of writing more code. But the marketing department will never let it happen." Ahhhh the joys of capitalism.

[AndyK]

That last post reminded me of something that seems to have been left out of the AV upgrade discussion. That is compatibility with Media/Film Composer. Anyone who used AV around say version 1.0 will recall that you used to be able to hook up your MediaComposer drives to your AV, boot up, and open up the MediaComposer project and ALL of its bins and start editing. No OMFI, no redigitizing. For anyone that edits sound originating on Media or Film Composer this is a HUGE time saver. AudioVision is essentially that, an editing tool, and while plugins and dynamics are cool, if you're doing sound for films you're probably going to end up on a stage where all that can be done anyway. (Or just open up the sequence in PT and do it in there if you really need to) Now that would really be something, to bring back some functionality from a 1.0 release!

And one more thing about the media file structure. AV lets you put media in subfolders within the MediaFiles folder. So just make new folders within that folder to organize your media. AV rebuilds the media database when you start up or return from the finder. AV is smart, it locates your media for you. Try finding a file when PT asks you for it and you have 50+ gigs of SFX, prod dial, music, etc all on line. Not so easy.

[EC]

udioDear Digi,

While I do promos for most of the networks and for cable, most of my work is long form documentary for Discovery, PBS, A&E, and specials for HBO. All of these are done using the AudioVision as my editing platform. I have a good knowledge of the capabilities of ProTools.

I won't talk about what others have defined as important, such as universe bar, multiple undo, auto save, clip based eq and volume. Their comments represent my feelings exactly.

So, what about time compression/expansion. I hope you are planning a serious improvement over the lame ones in ProTools. AV has one, and it is as near perfect as I have ever heard.

How about clip slip? In AV, when you want to keep the edit in and out points, but want to move the audio within the edit, clip slip is the ticket. Suppose you've just batch digitized an EDL with an hours worth of material, and find that the source was off by three frames. And suppose there are 300 edits using this material. In AV clip slip, you highlight the tool, highlight all the clips, type in th offset, and presto. What do you do in ProTools, guys?

ON the "A V Upgrade Info" sheet, you mark PT as being able to import an OMF. Sure, that's true in one sense. But in the process it loses all the clip markers, such as tape source and original timecode source information. What if you have to replace media? How can you batch digitize? The answer is, you can't.

Also, when you import an OMF to PT, clip volumes turn into automation. Editing with automation on is slow, and if you select a roomtone or ambience from one clip to use in another clip, the automation goes with it. You would probably say, if you were a PT user, "just turn the automation off." But suppose a client has selected mics between a lav and a boom on a scene with many people in it. Turning off the automation negates the clients choices. Clients are not happy when you undo the work they may have spent months accomplishing.

It just seems to me that when something ain't broke, don't fix it. You shouldn't call your sheet the "A V Upgrade Info" sheet. Call it the "PT Upgrade Sheet." It is not an upgrade for AV users, not by a long shot. And, AV comes at a premium over PT--I have to buy PT and then buy AV on top of it. What's the problem? You can sell it for more than PT alone.

I know you have already decided to trash AV in favor of a new and improved PT. I'm sure the guys at Fairlight are thrilled.

Ed Campbell
National Sound
NYC

[TD]

A belated addition: I agree, AV is the best audio post editor out there. And after viewing Digi's new system (extreme Alpha version) at NAB 99 and discussing the transformation of AV into ProTools Broadcast or whatever they're calling it, with Digi's product manager, I'm certain of one thing. AV's dead. The only features from AV that appeared in the PT version are video, the keyboard and maybe the "world" view. Otherwise it was PT 4.0. Digi argued at the NAB AV booth that fundamental differences such as the clip paradigm were no different than PT's regions - just a different name - and defended the antiquated DOS-like region directory in PT versus AV's bin structure. Finally, as the AV users milling around the Digi booth began to voice(loudly) similar opinions (much like this thread) Digi's product manager fell on his sword and confessed that they simply do not have acess to AVID's AV coders and have no way of integrating the code from one product into another. End of story. He finished by saying that AV was a money loser, that was never taken seriously by AVID and finally dumped in Digi's lap and that Digi felt bad too. It's amazing to see a company as big as AVID this dysfunctional. A chance a perfection and they blew it.

[bgmix]

ok.

I'm sure the digi sales staff will love this answer: but after a lot of discussion and excelent points by all, the only solution?

buy both!

run them on two cpus, side by side, let PT chase AV. with this combo you get the best of all worlds, great video, great editing, and all the great PT stuff you don't have in AV.
Files are compatable, so that's a no brainer, and if you twist your sales reps arm a little it prices out comprable to a fairlight or competing daw.

let's face it, AV future isn't in doubt, it's gone. we just don't want to let go.

even with the best of intentions, PT24AV is a long way (years, if you ask me) away from what we want. remember, the fairlight has been around for a long time and it is just recently been developed to the point where it's decent. Even at that, it's still not as good as the combo i've mentioned above.

*sigh*