Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leafs
by Gary E. Andrews - 03/04/24 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6
Casual Observer
|
OP
Casual Observer
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6 |
Hey folks-
I'm trying to get my songs sounding more professional. From your experience what is the best, the simplest recording software out there? (I would love eventually to register with Taxi so that's the quality I'm shooting for).
Thanks!
Damien W. Green
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
In what price range Damien? John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6
Casual Observer
|
OP
Casual Observer
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6 |
Any price range; it has to be decent enough to make quality recordings.
Thanks John.
Damien W. Green
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 749
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 749 |
Well I'm using Pro tools 9 at the moment and I love it. You can with out a dought get a pro sound with it, you just need to know how lol this means spending a lot of time with it.
Work for hire Producer. I will also produce and master any old/new work tapes up to demo standards. :-) Just PM or email: Email -- mork1976@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6
Casual Observer
|
OP
Casual Observer
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6 |
Cool; I see that Pro tools 8 is only $200; perhaps it would be worth starting there.
Damien W. Green
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
I'd suggest a DAW (digital audio workstation). However, you'll have to make sure your computer is up to specs to handle these programs. You'll also need a MIDI/audio interface with DAW's. Sonar, Logic, Pro Tools, Cubase, Digital Performer. etc... all do the same thing well. I use Logic Pro and love it. You'll need a Mac to run it. The others will work on any PC as long as they're up to specs. You can Google DAW's to get the details and spec requirements on each. Maybe a stand-alone digital recorder will suffice??? I'm sure you'll get more recommendations here. Good luck, John
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
I use Reaper 4.02. It can do anything and is fairly inexpensive. Most any of the current batch of software can do anything but they are all complicated and require LOTS of time and energy to learn. Reaper has a 400 page manual which is about half the size of a Pro-Tools manual. You can download Reaper for free and try it for 30 days I think.
For something simple that sounds good, you can download Audacity for free and be up and running in a few minutes. The basic sound quality is the same as the others but it is very limiting when it comes to mixing a sophisticated group of tracks.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
Yes, Colin's correct. The programs I mentioned have a long learning curve. Logic Pro has two manuals. One is over a thousand pages, the other over 600 pages. However, if purchased through an Apple Store, you can sign-up for weekly one-to-one training sessions (for a year). I signed-up at an Apple Store in Allentown, PA. The Logic Pro experts there were wonderful to work with. I'd still be trying to figure things out in Logic if it weren't for Apple's training sessions. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382 |
+1 Pro Tools might actually be the easiest to use. Also, having Pro Tools knowledge may be be more beneficial than knowing any other recording program in existence. Not because it's better necessarily. Just more people use it than any other. Almost every big studio uses Pro Tools as their main tracking and mixing platform. With just an Avid Mbox Mini, PT9, A good condenser microphone, and some headphones, you could get very good results
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
It used to be Steven, but times are changing. Here's a list of famous Logic Pro users: http://www.logicprohelp.com/vip_users.phpJohn
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6
Casual Observer
|
OP
Casual Observer
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 6 |
Damien W. Green
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 301
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 301 |
I've used Cubase in the past and liked it. However, I've been using Cakewalk Sonar 7 lately and really like it. It's pretty user-friendly and sounds pretty good.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Most of the important points have been covered. The protools v cubase argument will always continue just like the PC v Mac argument. The advice I would give is to find out what most of the people you will be working with use. For example most folk I know including the studios I use prefer Cubase so it makes more sense to use the same system. It is handy for getting help in areas you are not expert in. Most of the home systems like Audacity and Reaper whilst having a fairly easy learning curve will not produce the pro results you may want. For radio ready you will most likely need the more expensive and difficult learning curve progs like Cubase and Protools or Logic. They are not cheap and also require high PC specs plus expensive hardware and interfaces etc. This gear can cost many thousands.....especially if you are going to use the many plugins and VST apps that most studios have as standard. Whilst I have a pretty neat and hugely expensive home studio...I produce the important stuff in a pro studio relying on folk who are true experts to help me..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,831
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,831 |
Hi Damien:
Welcome to JPF. Lots of opinions and advice so far. You might consider using one of the "free" platforms for awhile to enhance your learning curve about recording techniques... just in case you are not already aware. "Audacity" is probably the most well known but there are at least three or four others that will get you by until you know what you like and need.
Alot depends upon where you are now in your music and recording career. Regardless, my best wishes for success. I hope you'll enjoy your stay with us. JPF is a great place to learn and develop contacts for future use.
Big Jim is "spot on" about using a pro studio if you are already established and working on an album or potential best-seller single.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 348
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 348 |
Dear Damien, To use Pro Tools and to do what you are aiming for you will need to spend about the same amount of money that I did many years ago. £2500-£3000 You'll want a good spec computer. Your processor wants to be at least a duo core You will need at least two hard drives. One for Windows and storage the other for Pro Tools software and audio files. The audio hard drive you need a minimum of 7200rpm for your hard drive but 15krpm if you can afford it. 4GB of ram. Graphics card is not important unless you plan to do any video editing. What you then need is your Pro tools hardware and studio equipment. You want nothing less than the Digi 003 Rack if you are going with Pro Tools: http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/Pro-Tools/Pro-Tools-LE/fc/Pro-Tools-LE-Systems/003-FamilyWith that you will need some powered speakers. Mackie are a good reliable brand. Spend about £500 on those. You'll then want some instrument bundles for your midi work. Inevitably if you are creating top notch stuff you will need piano, strings etc etc so I recommend Komplete for intruments & EZ drummer for your drumming needs. http://www.native-instruments.com/#/en/products/producer/komplete-8/http://www.toontrack.com/products.asp?item=7With that all said you'll then need a decent condenser microphone (£300), mic stand & pop shield. That is the minimum you will need to do exactly what you want. All that said you're looking at about £2500 or $4000. I hope that makes it realistic for you. I taught myself how to do everything so time will be your friend. Enjoy James
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,426 Likes: 16
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,426 Likes: 16 |
Of course for that money, the time, the learning curve and the ability of the players, you could always hire real musicians and do it cheaper. LOL! Most of the "Taxi" forwards come from real studio musicians.
MAB
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 7,911 Likes: 1 |
Of course for that money, the time, the learning curve and the ability of the players, you could always hire real musicians and do it cheaper. LOL! Most of the "Taxi" forwards come from real studio musicians.
MAB Who said he is not a real musician?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
Of course for that money, the time, the learning curve and the ability of the players, you could always hire real musicians and do it cheaper. LOL! Most of the "Taxi" forwards come from real studio musicians.
MAB It depends on how often he wants to record. Years ago I'd record in a Pro studio ($85 an hour). Cost me about 4-$500 a song. Always felt that money clock tickin'. Often I'd settle with a less quality production just to save money. With a DAW set-up, James can record whenever he wants and however long he wants. He won't feel that money clock tickin". He'll be able to take his time and get it right. Even if it takes weeks. Best, John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 348
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 348 |
Of course for that money, the time, the learning curve and the ability of the players, you could always hire real musicians and do it cheaper. LOL! Most of the "Taxi" forwards come from real studio musicians.
MAB It depends on how often he wants to record. Years ago I'd record in a Pro studio ($85 an hour). Cost me about 4-$500 a song. Always felt that money clock tickin'. Often I'd settle with a less quality production just to save money. With a DAW set-up, James can record whenever he wants and however long he wants. He won't feel that money clock tickin". He'll be able to take his time and get it right. Even if it takes weeks. Best, John John that is absolutely spot on. I've used DAW's for 10 years now. Started of with Cakewalk and progressed into the good stuff to up my game. I've recorded songs at studios. It's bloody expensive and you feel pressured to get things done in a shorter time just to save money. I also found that even when it sounded amazing but bring it back to the real world & it didn't sound any better than what I could create at home in fact it was a little dull. Unless you can find a really good studio that just feels so natural to be in I would invest In your own gear. Much more satisfying and after 10 years I've saved a packet! If you listen to my stuff and imagine a small bedroom 10 by 6 with the gear listed above you'll know my reality. Take care Jim
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 54
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 54 |
Most of the home systems like Audacity and Reaper whilst having a fairly easy learning curve will not produce the pro results you may want. For radio ready you will most likely need the more expensive and difficult learning curve progs like Cubase and Protools or Logic.
And what, pray tell, is the difference in audio quality with Reaper vs Protools or Logic?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997 |
Of course for that money, the time, the learning curve and the ability of the players, you could always hire real musicians and do it cheaper. LOL! Most of the "Taxi" forwards come from real studio musicians.
MAB It depends on how often he wants to record. Years ago I'd record in a Pro studio ($85 an hour). Cost me about 4-$500 a song. Always felt that money clock tickin'. Often I'd settle with a less quality production just to save money. With a DAW set-up, James can record whenever he wants and however long he wants. He won't feel that money clock tickin". He'll be able to take his time and get it right. Even if it takes weeks. Best, John Yes the important things to consider are your goals and focus. Q1- Are you more interested in writing songs and getting them OUT THERE? Q2- Are you just as interested in recording your own songs and if not already knowing, learning all about computer set ups and music software and COUNTLESS plug ins?... Files, backing up? Endless upgrades ENDLESS money (if you let it take over) Then about RECORDING itself? Q3- What I think MAB meant was are you the MAIN musician of your songs? Or do you need help? How available is help too you? Q4- Or are you mainly a songwriter, lyrics and perhaps an acoustic guitar or keyboard? Q5- What do you already have to build on? There was a mention of a budget... Then a price for Pro Tools 8 for $200. What computer do you have now? What else? And JIM is sooo right I always say get what your friends have it's INCREDIBLE what they can lend you.... Some answers to consider.... A1 - If your all about writing songs, and pitching them,PENCIL person get SOMEBODY else to produce them. You are most likely no where near in tune to being able to do all that is needed to produce them yourself. FORGET recording there is more to producing than that... Any kind of recording takes TIME and you will spend a GREAT deal more of it trying to do it yourself. Again this all depends on how far into it you are or how far away you are with it... A2- If you are really interested in recording yourself and want great quality be prepared to 1- Sacrifice a great deal of time that you WONT be spending writing lyrics and melodies. The more professionally you want to compete the more time and money you will spend on your recording world! Forget about WHICH software to get... Software does not make a big difference in sound.. HARDWARE does CARDS!... One thing that stops me in my tracks to going to computer digital recording is I would need THREE Eight channel converters, they would have to be GREAT ones.. That's what's gonna make sound. All Harddrives/Computers sound the same.. So about $1,500 a piece on those Apogees to start with. Recording and equipment costs MONEY and the sucky part is computers and computer music equipment is the WORST for investment money wise.. Meaning it is worthless in NO TIME at all. Completely worthless in value... Gear is in general but some stuff sticks nicely. Computer stuff does NOT... So if that matters to someone know it... And the real fun part is the way stuff STOPS working until it gets an upgrade. That's funny since it should work the way it ALWAYS did even if you don't want to upgrade. I have seen this countless times. It's what I LOVE about my hardware recording stuff. Put it in a vault for 100 years and it will do and work the same way it did on day ONE! Computers on not like that no way no how... Forget recording they can't help but screw with your ITUNES and email on a regular basis. And how many times did programs work one day and not any more? Countless time here on our three computers. All of this is irrelevant if you are a Geek. I am not so it drives me insane A3 - Ah recording doesn't mean salt, How well you program or play does... Also singing of course. Your songs have to be executed and equipment has zero to do with that. So again this is for anyone reading along, Great musicians make for great music. A4- The MORE you get into your home studio, the less time you spend on certain writing aspects and even pitching aspects.. Go ahead take your time on your production and recording and see what else it costs you in life not just music... On the other hand I'm all for this, that is why I built my own studio TWICE! I have lost not have, lost a hundred thousand on musical equipment in my life.. I love it though. I treat recording with the same love,passion,dedication and certainly more money as I do writing & playing. My musical investments and doing's have removed vacations new cars and pretty much everything else accept some movies & CD's from my life. This all depends on serious you are and good you want to be... A5- Build on what you have? Don't let ANYONE talk you into Mac or PC or this or that.. Do what's EASIEST Remember you want to be PRODUCTIVE easy makes productive. Talking about gig space and ram speed and latency and files and bits and rates and etc... etc.... etc... is a waste of MUSICAL time. It has zero to do with a TAXI forward Anything you do that takes your hands of your guitar hurts your songs and music in a big way.. So even though we must put our hands on the equipment etc... Make that as easy, and fast as possible. Tech heads and Computer people will NEVER stop telling you, "YOU need this and that" trust me 100% on this... All The best Mike
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Most of the home systems like Audacity and Reaper whilst having a fairly easy learning curve will not produce the pro results you may want. For radio ready you will most likely need the more expensive and difficult learning curve progs like Cubase and Protools or Logic.
And what, pray tell, is the difference in audio quality with Reaper vs Protools or Logic? HUGE BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!! anybody who uses pro stuff and tries to compare it to Audacity or Reaper will tell you the same......Reaper is OK BUT does not nor ever will produce the radio ready sound a pro studio using Cubase or Protools can.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Mike speaks a lot of sense....the fact that someone asks the question what stuff do I need to make decent recordings? is testament to the fact that they do not have the tec know how to do it. IMO it would take, or as Mike puts it waste, too much time to learn....not to mention the huge investment in spending thousands on the necessary pro equipment to produce radio ready recordings.
To make a good radio ready recording it takes two elements.
1. Decent pro equipment costing a lot of cash.
2. Someone who knows how to use it to its best.
One is not much good without the other.
In other words you need cash and time plus a natural ear and aptitude... things most people have not got a lot of to spare. My advice as stated before is to concentrate on writing good songs and then if someone shows interest in one you can go to a studio spend a few hundred bucks and demo it properly. I do not know of many people who have the time and creative aptitude to write a song, perform it, record, edit and master it...where ALL elements are of a decent pro standard. Concentrate on exploiting YOUR strengths and use others expertise to fill in on your weaknesses. Jack of all trades master of none....springs to mind
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997 |
Excellent points Jim, Damien didn't really share where he was at with all this. So it's very hard to give a specific answer especially when we start thinking for him lol as lots of us did. Meaning, covering all the things he might be thinking But what's really helpful about threads like these is all the others who may read it as well. When we cover a lot of ground it answers more & more questions people keep facing time & time again. Jack of all trades master of none, could be written on my tombstone Only the longer I make it in life the more I can chip away at all trades. If you dedicate time and passion to each you can start to master the art of just being a "Jack" LOL Become pretty potent at a few things to help yourself where and when you can. I always thinks these two things to myself 1- What if I had stuck to just the one thing and one thing only,like say one instrument from when I started.. Where would I be now? 2- What if I had only stuck to just the one thing and one thing only,like say one instrument from when I started.. Where would I be now? See the difference?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 54
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 54 |
Most of the home systems like Audacity and Reaper whilst having a fairly easy learning curve will not produce the pro results you may want. For radio ready you will most likely need the more expensive and difficult learning curve progs like Cubase and Protools or Logic.
And what, pray tell, is the difference in audio quality with Reaper vs Protools or Logic? HUGE BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!! anybody who uses pro stuff and tries to compare it to Audacity or Reaper will tell you the same......Reaper is OK BUT does not nor ever will produce the radio ready sound a pro studio using Cubase or Protools can. LOL! The only thing that affects the sound in that equation is the "pro studio". Audio recorded by Reaper sounds exactly the same as audio recorded by Cubase or Pro Tools. What is it that you think Cubase or Pro Tools has over Reaper that makes them capable of producing "radio ready sound"?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,639
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,639 |
I have access to ProTools every day at work and I am even the engineer who installed the system- and still I don't use it because it takes many many hours of concentration to learn the system. I install software on a fast and expensive Apple CPU, hook up the midi cables and interface cable to the motorized mixing console; connect microphones and line inputs from the Foley room (sound effects room), hook up 4 monitors for sync to video, go to the configuration menus and set up the whole system- and still can't actually do anything very interesting with it. Why? Because it takes hours and hours to learn to make it do interesting things.
If you buy a system, be prepared to spend the kind of time the musician spends getting proficient at his instrument of choice.
I think a lot of people who are willing to spend a small fortune on a home studio would be better off buying a $200 recorder with a click track. If you are a decent musician, then play and sing your song to the click track and send it off to someone like Sub. He can take your click track song, lay it down into a time line and add all the parts. He can send it back to you minus vocal and the original reference track. You can then practice your own song until you have nailed the vocals and/or honed the lyrics. Then hire a vocalist or do your own vocal and let Sub mix down the final. You can do this a lot of times for the same money it would take to build a home studio.
If you love technology and the songwriting craft equally well, then maybe a home studio is for you. But my warning is: you had better love the technical part of recording because you are going to spend way more time doing it that you ever imagined, and unless you are good at playing all the instruments, you are going to understand the meaning of creative frustration like you have never known.
Here is my favorite way to record: 1. Know your song like you know your own name 2. surround yourself with the best musicians you can find. 3 teach them your song. 4. Get a crowd together who like you. 5. Play you ass off. Don't forget to push the record button.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Mark I think I answered your question in a previous post.
It is not just the quality of the recording that makes a song radio ready but the quality of the mixing and production not to mention mastering.....most people just do not have these skills and the plugins needed cost thousands. Anyone who spends thousands on plugins and fx etc etc etc is not worryiong about a freebie like Reaper.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382 |
I wish there was a list of famous Pro Tools users to compare the Logic list to, unfortunately the list would be way too long to just browse through. I looked at the Logic list and noticed "Dave Pensado" on there. I'm not sure what he uses Logic for, but I know for a fact that Dave Pensado mixes records in Pro Tools, and has for a long time. I'm not saying Pro Tools is any better than Logic, because it certainly isn't. Either could work for anybody. I was just saying that more people use it for professional tracking and mixing than any other daw. Back when the Digi 001 and Audio Media III cards were out, Pro Tools got a head start. I mean, back then, alot of people were wary of giving up their Adat's. Very few people were using Emagic's Logic, at least back then. If you weren't recording on Pro Tools, you had a couple semi popular options, like Cubase Vst and the original Nuendo, but you had to have a computer with scsi drives, at least 256 mg ram, maybe a 40 gig HD for all that info...which seems like very little now, but in 1999 that stuff was state of the art. Anyway, Logic is one of Pro Tools biggest competitors these days, but it would be hard for anybody to catch up. Kinda like all these companies making tablet computers. There will be people that buy them, but the iPad has many more users and is selling way more by the minute. Logic could indeed be better than Pro Tools for some people. I have used it a couple times. Coming from Pro Tools, there is certainly a learning curve. For tracking real live music, there really is no substitute for PT. For people that do more programmed stuff, then Logic out of the box would be better
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,114
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,114 |
I started using Ableton Live six years ago. I also use an M-Audio interface. I remember being on the phone with M-Audio support for about an hour as they helped me with the settings. In frustration, I told the guy, "boy, I'm supposed to be a musician, not a tech geek". The guy responded that learning the tech side of recording is almost a necessity these days for an Indy musician.
Six years later I still use Ableton and am satisfied with my ability to manipulate it, though I'm by no means at the recording engineer level, I am able to do what needs to be done.
You don't spend 24 hours a day singing, playing, and writing music, so you have time to learn something new. I've learned about recording mostly from trial and error (hands on experience) and reading the manuel. You can't help but coincide it with your music. I've become a better musician just from making musical mistakes while recording. Doing several takes, revising clips etc. Learning to record and playing at the same time. The best guitar lick I've ever written took almost 200 takes to get it right. You can't do that in a pay per hour studio.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 54
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 54 |
Mark I think I answered your question in a previous post.
It is not just the quality of the recording that makes a song radio ready but the quality of the mixing and production not to mention mastering.....most people just do not have these skills and the plugins needed cost thousands. Anyone who spends thousands on plugins and fx etc etc etc is not worryiong about a freebie like Reaper. Again. You haven't answered my question. First I asked what the difference in audio quality was, you didn't answer. Then I asked what Logic or Pro Tools or Cubase or any program that costs hundreds of dollars can do that Reaper can't. You still didn't answer. VST plugins/instruments/master suites can be used in any host that supports them, so if that's your answer, you're incorrect. Somebody who buys Reaper because it's cheap is smart, they aren't missing out on anything. You keep changing the argument, if you're saying "radio ready" has to do with mixing, engineering, recording space, good ears, good hardware, good VST plugins, experience, etc then you're absolutely right. No argument at all. But you still haven't answered me as to how Reaper somehow records audio differently than Pro Tools or what those programs have that Reaper doesn't, which makes it incapable of producing "radio ready" quality. Saying people who invest thousands elsewhere "don't worry about a freebie like Reaper" just sounds ignorant. I'd say after investing thousands in hardware I'd be looking to cut costs on my software
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,639
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,639 |
Getting back to damienwgreen68's original post, he is looking for a software package that is both high quality and simple to use. I think he wants to sound "more professional", not necessarily indistinguishable from an industry recording studio.
I think that disqualifies ProTools and possibly Q base if you are talking "easy to use". Software that I use even though I have access to ProTools, is Adobe Audition which used to be called Cool Edit until Adobe bought it.
Adobe Audition is much more intuitive that ProTools. It let's you pick your bit rate and you don't have to worry about all the plug-ins you wish you had, because it has plenty and they are easy to access. It runs of a PC and you can import a number of audio formats.
I usually record tracks on a portable Roland digital recorder, pop the card out of the recorder and transfer to the PC. That way I don't even need to worry about how good my PC sound-card is.
From inside Adobe Audition, I go to "Multi-track" mode and select "Insert". If I had four tracks on the Roland, I can import them all (up to 32 on mine). They all show up on a Multi-track time line and the are in sync. I can play, muting what I don't want to hear, open up a virtual mixing console, isolate a track and add effects, on and on. Very easy. Export lets you save you final mix as mp3 (Protools amazingly will not let you do this without a plug-in),or any of several other formats.
But by using Adobe Audition, I don't expect my productions to be as good as something coming out of a typical studio in Nashville or LA. It isn't the software though- it's me and my limitations.
Any software, in the hands of the right person is capable of producing recording that are amazing. But expecting your music software to make your music sound professional is a little like asking Eric Clapton to trade guitars with you and then expecting that you will sound amazing playing his guitar.
All of music, from learning to play, to recording to marketing is all done best by a handful of the best. It doesn't mean you can't make good recordings, but don't expect the same results as a studio using the best musicians, the best sound stages, the best software, and the best technicians. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our software, but in ourselves that we are underlings".
The people who are really good at recording production are also the very best at telling you what the limitations of free or cheap software are. The difference probably isn't the technical quality per sec, but the ease, precision and creative intricacies that they find in the software of their choice. When they make their recommendations, they are talking to people who are already quite sophisticated.
Since you have to start somewhere, get the free software because the interface will still have multi-track, envelopes and volume control, possibly R and L Pan controls, a few effects like echo or reverb. Play around and if it is your cup of tea, you will have fun.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997 |
I use a standalone recorder and an analog mixer so I am way out of the loop. Logic tells me, not the program but my mind lol that ALL hard drives sound the same. So how does sound as in your voice your guitar, your drums, your whatever get into the computer and the chosen software? Through converters... Cubase, Nuendo, Pro Tools Logic they dont have a sound... A Studer, an Atari, Teac, Neve, various reel to reels have a sound. So do mixers... So I guess SOUND wise only the converters and sound cards make the difference.. Just like mic pre's rack mount or on a mixing board. Pro Tools has no sound. Now once your music/wav files are in a program the sound coming out can vary greatly... But aside from a software's main screen, it's mixing board and EQ's there are plug ins... Plug ins work the same basically for EVERY music software they are compatable with... So really isn't the ins then eventually the output of your computer what really make the difference. I mean using the best computer that works with the best plugins would seem to give the best results... Some plugins like the few UAD ones I have work off there own card.. They require that so right there is a $600 sound card in the computer just for effects and plug ins... The analog card that sits in the back of my Tascam 24 track recorder costs $1,500 then the three 8 channel cables cost $150 a piece... The mic pre I use to by pass the mixing board even cost $2,000 All this before a single sound is recorded... The hard drive in my machine has ZERO to do with the sound... So the software becomes an after the fact sound wise, unless your printing eq's or compression or some effect, nothing is permanent on your recording.. Now after you've tracked bit rates and ram and rom all start play into it, then the POWER of your software and computer set up factor in... editing is the same on any software basically... So which software SOUNDS better? They have sound? or which is the more professional grade overall... What do the top people use? For as long as I can remember it's been Pro Tools.. Boring as it looks lol... I know my Tascam deck sounded better than my Fostex deck And my digital standalone better than ADAT Jody would know alot about this... Mike
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,916 Likes: 9
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,916 Likes: 9 |
Some months ago I bought Sonar X1 producer because it had lots of toys with it. I haven't worked out yet how to use 80% of them but it's fun to learn. My new computer was built by a so called specialist who said with the new "on board" HD sound I wouldn't really need a sound card. Well, I can honestly say that any recording I make on this high end computer sounds like a telephone message machine. I need to get back my old sound card and good old Sonar 5. My best friend is a Boss BR1200 which I use most of the time now. Sonar I use for tweaking and cropping..... until I get a sound card. Vic
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
|
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574 |
Hi Damien, As you are finding out, you have a choice of using your computer or using a standalone system. Unless your computer is like Vicarn's and doesn't need a soundcard, you'll need a pro quality soundcard or a pro quality interface of some kind. Often these will have a limited, but useful version of ProTools or Cubase or some other recording software included. Yes, there's a learning curve, but it's not much harder than learning to rebuild a carburetor (or maybe an automatic trasmission ). There are online tutorials and youtube demos to help with that. The biggest problem is usually getting a handle on channel assignments and basic signal flow. If you are using standalone, you'll still want to integrate the system to your computer so you can email mp3s and stuff like that. Here are some packages that give you everything you need, some to interface with your computer and some that are standalone. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/studio-recording-packagesHope that helps. Mike
You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash It's only music. -niteshift Mike Dunbar Music
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 301
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 301 |
I've been using the V-Studio 20 as my interface for the past few months and really like it. It's really user-friendly (which is an absolute must for me), and it has some nice built-in BOSS guitar effects. It also comes with Guitar Tracks which is a stripped-down version of Sonar (though I don't use it, so I don't know how good it is). It's limited in that you can only record one track at a time, but that works for me because I tend to do everything myself. I happy with both my interface and software, but I'm not trying to break into the music biz--I just do it as a hobby and to have fun. If I sell a few CDs at gigs or over the net, I'm pleased as punch. So, I guess your long-term goals will factor into the equation when you're deciding what to go with. Hope this helps.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001 |
Hey folks-
I'm trying to get my songs sounding more professional. From your experience what is the best, the simplest recording software out there? (I would love eventually to register with Taxi so that's the quality I'm shooting for).
Thanks!
So which software SOUNDS better? They have sound? or which is the more professional grade overall... What do the top people use? For as long as I can remember it's been Pro Tools.. Boring as it looks lol... I know my Tascam deck sounded better than my Fostex deck And my digital standalone better than ADAT Jody would know alot about this... Thanks Mike, I was hoping to stay out of this... First for Damien: It would help greatly to know what type of computer you're already using. Why? Well, due to the fact that some software is platform specific. Second, how much knowledge of recording do you already have? If it's very limited, then you'll likely want to start with something that is geared toward the consumer/pro-sumer market. Why? Because they generally have easier interfaces and less options. Because there's a bit of "heated" debate of what software is going to sound better, I'll say this: Any DAW can churn out a radio ready piece of music. The limitation comes from the person operating it and the value of the music being created. Is there a "sound" to different DAWs? Technically: Yes. Each DAW uses a different math to achieve their goal. Does that matter to audiophiles? Yes. Does it matter to the average consumer of music? No. Beyond the math it comes down to the interface and what you feel comfortable with. Most people are going to argue that the DAW they use is best. Why? Because it's the interface they know, trust, and believe is best. The arguments of "Oh, you have to have Pro-Tools cause it's what the pros use" or "[insert favorite DAW name here] has the most plug-ins, editing tools, etc, makes it the best!" are essentially hogwash based on personal preference. I've traded files with numerous studios. Some use the same DAW as I do, some don't. Pros know how to transfer sessions between DAWs if the need arises. So don't get caught up in that. I've had a very large number of people who I've worked with, come to my studio, see me presenting at a songwriter's meeting or at a computer store, essentially see me in action, and then switch to the program I use because they liked the end result. They also switch because I make it look easy. Or because they now know someone who has the program wired and can give advice or pointers. Additionally I've been at functions where some of the top operators (who work for the company) of a certain program are presenting and often call out my name as an example of how it gets used and to back them up on what they're saying. However it's not only the DAW or it's associated plug-ins! It's the quality of the audio card, It's the microphones, it's the mic pre's, it's the people playing an instrument or the person singing... All of that matters way more. I could very likely walk in somewhere with a laptop using a free program like Garageband (or even Reaper, which seems to be the bone of contention) and still produce a very high quality piece of work. Would it be as easy for me to record as using my main workstation? Sure. Would I have the same plethora of choices for sounds and editing: Hell No. In the case of Mike's comment of his old Tascam sounding better than the Fostex - I believe it. Why? The converters were likely better. Same thing with ADATs - They helped usher in the digital era in a big way, but they sounded terrible. Why? The converters lopped off everything above 16k. That's a whole lot of sound missing. Getting back to the DAW. I've used a whole lot of them. I kept coming back to one. Why? Because it worked. It allowed (and still allows) for greater flexibility in what I did and do. Plus I liked the interface better. It used to cost over $1,000 for the program alone. All of the virtual instruments were separate and cost more. Now it's probably THE single most cost effective DAW out there [$499 with the DAW, 2 other support programs, 1,000s of samples, a ton of virtual instruments and synths, etc]. One problem is: it is platform specific. Which brings me back to the original question Damien. You've asked a very broad question with very little to go on as to what the needs are and what you already have at your disposal. As you can see there are a lot of varying opinions, being given. Reality is, what's going to be right for you? To a degree Big Jim is right. To a degree Mark is right. In fact, to a degree everyone commenting is correct. BTW - Mark, the answer is up in my post here, but again - it's the math of the DAW. There are minute differences whether one hears them or not. Hope that helps. p.s. - in case you're wondering. I use Logic Studio, otherwise known as Logic. It does require a computer running the recent Apple OS.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Mark I think I answered your question in a previous post.
It is not just the quality of the recording that makes a song radio ready but the quality of the mixing and production not to mention mastering.....most people just do not have these skills and the plugins needed cost thousands. Anyone who spends thousands on plugins and fx etc etc etc is not worrying about a freebie like Reaper. Again. You haven't answered my question. First I asked what the difference in audio quality was, you didn't answer. Then I asked what Logic or Pro Tools or Cubase or any program that costs hundreds of dollars can do that Reaper can't. You still didn't answer. VST plugins/instruments/master suites can be used in any host that supports them, so if that's your answer, you're incorrect. Somebody who buys Reaper because it's cheap is smart, they aren't missing out on anything. You keep changing the argument, if you're saying "radio ready" has to do with mixing, engineering, recording space, good ears, good hardware, good VST plugins, experience, etc then you're absolutely right. No argument at all. But you still haven't answered me as to how Reaper somehow records audio differently than Pro Tools or what those programs have that Reaper doesn't, which makes it incapable of producing "radio ready" quality. Saying people who invest thousands elsewhere "don't worry about a freebie like Reaper" just sounds ignorant. I'd say after investing thousands in hardware I'd be looking to cut costs on my software You are nitpicking and surely having a laugh......I know for a fact that Audacity cannot produce the quality of recordings that pro progs do....I just cannot be bothered to go into all the tech details except to say that it is not compatable with or does not accept a lot of third party plugins and it does not store the files and edits as non destructive is a good enough starting point..... as for Reaper producing good clean pro recordings and doing ALL the things you seem to claim....... then I will take your word for it. That said in this discussuon it is a pretty mute point. I suspect there is a reason why none of the pro studios use Reaper as a first option but if you are happy with using it yourself then great.....you have saved a few bob. I think I have answered your question sufficiently perhaps you just do not like the answer. Pro studios invest in the best equipment and employ only experienced sound engineers... their clients insist on it.......I think most would think it preposterous to save a few bucks using a freeware type music production programon which is not considered an industry standard and is not widely recognised by ALL top artists....OK I am snobbish and ignorant.....and so are all my friends. Interesting to hear how many SMART pro studios you know who use and recommend Reaper......to save a few hundred bucks. I stand by what I said and am sure most people who record to pro standard in pro studios will agree. All the best. JIM
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Jody thanks for the post and clearing up a few important points. You are spot on. The best music production equipment available is a good pair of ears. All the expensive gizmos, equipment and tech knowledge that the industry demands nowadays cannot do anything without "good ears". That said great ears, great equipment and great tech knowledge and ability is an unbeatable combination....regardless of what brands and personal preferences and production systems the ears use. I have heard great recordings using only humble equipment and some real horrors using top end pro equipment that cost obscene amounts of cash.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382 |
Mark I think I answered your question in a previous post.
It is not just the quality of the recording that makes a song radio ready but the quality of the mixing and production not to mention mastering.....most people just do not have these skills and the plugins needed cost thousands. Anyone who spends thousands on plugins and fx etc etc etc is not worrying about a freebie like Reaper. Again. You haven't answered my question. First I asked what the difference in audio quality was, you didn't answer. Then I asked what Logic or Pro Tools or Cubase or any program that costs hundreds of dollars can do that Reaper can't. You still didn't answer. VST plugins/instruments/master suites can be used in any host that supports them, so if that's your answer, you're incorrect. Somebody who buys Reaper because it's cheap is smart, they aren't missing out on anything. You keep changing the argument, if you're saying "radio ready" has to do with mixing, engineering, recording space, good ears, good hardware, good VST plugins, experience, etc then you're absolutely right. No argument at all. But you still haven't answered me as to how Reaper somehow records audio differently than Pro Tools or what those programs have that Reaper doesn't, which makes it incapable of producing "radio ready" quality. Saying people who invest thousands elsewhere "don't worry about a freebie like Reaper" just sounds ignorant. I'd say after investing thousands in hardware I'd be looking to cut costs on my software You are nitpicking and surely having a laugh......I know for a fact that Audacity cannot produce the quality of recordings that pro progs do....I just cannot be bothered to go into all the tech details except to say that it is not compatable with or does not accept a lot of third party plugins and it does not store the files and edits as non destructive is a good enough starting point..... as for Reaper producing good clean pro recordings and doing ALL the things you seem to claim....... then I will take your word for it. That said in this discussuon it is a pretty mute point. I suspect there is a reason why none of the pro studios use Reaper as a first option but if you are happy with using it yourself then great.....you have saved a few bob. I think I have answered your question sufficiently perhaps you just do not like the answer. Pro studios invest in the best equipment and employ only experienced sound engineers... their clients insist on it.......I think most would think it preposterous to save a few bucks using a freeware type music production programon which is not considered an industry standard and is not widely recognised by ALL top artists....OK I am snobbish and ignorant.....and so are all my friends. Interesting to hear how many SMART pro studios you know who use and recommend Reaper......to save a few hundred bucks. I stand by what I said and am sure most people who record to pro standard in pro studios will agree. All the best. JIM Hi Jim, in general, alot of people that use Audacity or Reaper are using their computer sound card, so it wouldn't sound as somebody with nicer equipment. I don't use either program. I have always tried to use Pro Tools wherever I go, if possible. The only other program I use frequently is a 2 track editor (Wavelab) I know a little about Reaper, and I can tell you that Reaper is now 64 Bit, and Pro Tools is still 32. Now when dealing with computer audio, let's say you record at 24 bit 48k. That's how we do it around here. So say you record a vocal into a U67 + Neve 1073 + Tube-Tech CL1b and split the signal into a couple Apogee Mini-Me's s/pdif into the same interfaces, clocked to the Apogees, at 24/48 into two separate computers, with one running Reaper and the other running Pro Tools 9. Virtually identical setups into two computers, with all the settings set exactly the same. Are you gonna hear the difference in the Reaper version and the Pro Tools version. Not likely. You just recorded the exact same program material into the same equipment. The only difference is the program. Most of the mathematics are not as important as how the sound is recorded. It's possible that many people believe because a recording program isn't as expensive, it isn't as good. This isn't true, as with any recording program, you will still be using the same sound engine. For instance, on a Mac, it's core audio. Personally, I wouldn't use Reaper. But not because I think it sounds inferior. It's because I don't want to stray away from something I know how to work, and has never failed to give me the sound I need. Also, I like the way it looks. It's okay to stare at Pro Tools for hours on end. Now crashes, and errors...well...that's a completely other topic. What we are talking about here is, is the recording program as important sound wise as your sound card, A/D and D/A converters, mics, pre's, compressors...well, no. It isn't. The difference is probably negligible at best. You should use the program you like best. Which is where Pro Tools really shines. Been using it since 1998, and won't switch until something better comes along....I may be waiting a long time. Not to mention almost every file I ever get is a pro tools session. I might chuckle if somebody sent me a session from an old Cool Edit Pro rig or something, and it was un-consolidated. And to answer your question, The main reason Pro studios started using Pro Tools first was it was around before everything else was. The very first incarnation of Pro Tools was around back in 1989. Almost 15 years ago Pro Tools could record 48 tracks. Nobody else was doing it like that. Radar had 24 tracks, and that EMU or Paris thing probably did the same, Fairlight was waaaay expensive and it did 24 tracks. Not to mention, Pro Tools had the hardware and better plug-in's at the time. Nobody else was really offering what the big studios needed to record with, and not to mention the awful block-form editing associated with the before mentioned products. So they get the big studios hooked on it, they release the Digi-001 so everybody can use it, and get those people hooked on it, really before most other companies had anything good. Then they released the Mbox and suddenly the Mbox is the coolest thing ever. You can record anywhere with it. Now.... had Reaper had been around back then, and had been making systems for recording since computer based recording was an option, then Reaper might be in Pro Tools position now, and maybe wouldn't have to give their stuff away for almost nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001 |
**snip** I know a little about Reaper, and I can tell you that Reaper is now 64 Bit, and Pro Tools is still 32.
**snip**
Most of the mathematics are not as important as how the sound is recorded. It's possible that many people believe because a recording program isn't as expensive, it isn't as good. This isn't true, as with any recording program, you will still be using the same sound engine. For instance, on a Mac, it's core audio. The concept of 64bit and 32bit means absolutely nothing unless you're dealing with a large amount of sample based instruments. What does it mean? It's the bit rate of the program's compiled code. At 32bit a program can only access a max of 4gigs of RAM. If a program can run at 64bit it can access a ridiculous amount of memory, many terabytes worth - more than anyone can currently afford or even put into a machine. What is this good for? Well, composers who have to load gigs and gigs of orchestral samples into memory so there's no lag when composing. The bit rate of the programs code does not change it's audio quality. So Reaper being 64bit capable means nothing. In fact, unless it's got a way to use 32bit plug-ins, it would mean that most 3rd party plug-ins wouldn't currently run in Reaper. Now if an audio card and a program could do a sample rate of 192/64 - that would be significant. However current computer technology is not available to support such files as they don't even exist yet. As far as I'm aware the only program that can even do 32bit recording depth is Nuendo - but that hasn't helped it's cause of being an industry standard. Mostly because most cards can't do it anyway. The idea that all DAWs on the Mac are using CoreAudio as their sound algorithm is incorrect. CoreAudio is Apple's sound engine for the computer to output sound through Mac's output and to deal with Midi instruments tied to the machine - it's not the DAW's algorithm to output from the program. As I mentioned in my post - one's experience with Pro-Tools is an opinion based on how it works for them and that you know it very well. Something better technically is already around, but it's splitting hairs based on how someone works and what they like in a program. There are editing features in other DAWs that outshine Pro-Tools. BTW: Pro-Tools is no longer the de facto standard. Though it is a great brand name like Kleenex.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Thanks for the info.....I have always used Steinberg progs simply cause that is what everyone in my circle who records music uses...I have Nuendo and Cubase 5 I also use Wavelab 6 another Steinberg prog. All have a variable bit rate up to 32 bit float as opposed to the 24 bit as per protools. The relevance of which software is best or which can produce what is pretty moot. Most of it boils down to preference and what is available and most important what your friends use....probably the best reason for choosing a program..... tutorials and fixes and help are easier from someone more experienced who is using the same stuff. In my area most folks use Cubase and PCs....so I would be crazy to use something that is twice the price and nobody has experience using.
One thing for sure it would be silly to spend thousands on mics, soundcards, interfaces and other hardware and then try to use a prog that you cannot get immediate help with when you run into probs.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
JFI The argument that recording digitally using Macs and Protools is better is long dead.........at one time they were the best simply because they were the only thing available to do the job.....as Jody already stated this technology progressed at a fairly slow rate compared to the opposition who first matched it and now have overtaken it so protools and Macs are no longer king of the hill.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,916 Likes: 9
Top 40 Poster
|
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,916 Likes: 9 |
Seems like most folks here think they know it all. Hands up all that don't. Mine have been up since I started. I don't know anything since reading the start of this post that I didn't know before. On balance I think everyone is right. But............basically you get what you pay for and what talent you put into it.
Vic
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 382 |
**snip** I know a little about Reaper, and I can tell you that Reaper is now 64 Bit, and Pro Tools is still 32.
**snip**
Most of the mathematics are not as important as how the sound is recorded. It's possible that many people believe because a recording program isn't as expensive, it isn't as good. This isn't true, as with any recording program, you will still be using the same sound engine. For instance, on a Mac, it's core audio. The concept of 64bit and 32bit means absolutely nothing unless you're dealing with a large amount of sample based instruments. What does it mean? It's the bit rate of the program's compiled code. At 32bit a program can only access a max of 4gigs of RAM. If a program can run at 64bit it can access a ridiculous amount of memory, many terabytes worth - more than anyone can currently afford or even put into a machine. What is this good for? Well, composers who have to load gigs and gigs of orchestral samples into memory so there's no lag when composing. The bit rate of the programs code does not change it's audio quality. So Reaper being 64bit capable means nothing. In fact, unless it's got a way to use 32bit plug-ins, it would mean that most 3rd party plug-ins wouldn't currently run in Reaper. Now if an audio card and a program could do a sample rate of 192/64 - that would be significant. However current computer technology is not available to support such files as they don't even exist yet. As far as I'm aware the only program that can even do 32bit recording depth is Nuendo - but that hasn't helped it's cause of being an industry standard. Mostly because most cards can't do it anyway. The idea that all DAWs on the Mac are using CoreAudio as their sound algorithm is incorrect. CoreAudio is Apple's sound engine for the computer to output sound through Mac's output and to deal with Midi instruments tied to the machine - it's not the DAW's algorithm to output from the program. As I mentioned in my post - one's experience with Pro-Tools is an opinion based on how it works for them and that you know it very well. Something better technically is already around, but it's splitting hairs based on how someone works and what they like in a program. There are editing features in other DAWs that outshine Pro-Tools. BTW: Pro-Tools is no longer the de facto standard. Though it is a great brand name like Kleenex. Yeah, I didn't mean for it to sound like I thought there was a sound quality difference between 32 and 64 bit programs. There obviously isn't, my point was to point out that reaper may actually be more advanced than he thought it was. At least it's more modern. I didn't say it sounded better. It sure would be nice if Pro Tools was 64 bit. Probably wont happen until PT10. Lame. As far as the plugins in reaper go, if I'm not mistaken that J-bridge thing works both ways right? You can not only make plugins 32-64 bit, but also use 64 bit plugins as 32, I'm pretty sure. Also, apparently I got the term core audio mixed up with that thing in system preferences titled "sound" where you can choose display audio, PT HD, that little speaker thats in the Mac Pro. I guess I thought that as a whole was core audio. I've always called Mac sound "Core Audio" I just thought the term applied to all mac sound There are other people who can make use out of 64 bit though. Ever since I started using Pro Tools many years ago, every upgrade, every new computer, it always still seems like I could use more power. Even with a new 16 Core Mac Pro with 16 gigs of Ram in it, and the new Pro Tools HD Native, plus a UAD Quad card, which not only has great sounding plugins, it keeps me from using too much DSP with the RTAS plugins....anyway, with a computer that poweful, it still chokes sometimes. So 64 but will not only make people using large plugins happy, it would help alot of people who need to use more plugins as well. See with HD Native, TDM is gone. So none of the DSP processing is using the card. Which is why 64 bit is vital, because of the ram limitation of 32.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001 |
So 64 but will not only make people using large plugins happy, it would help alot of people who need to use more plugins as well. See with HD Native, TDM is gone. So none of the DSP processing is using the card. Which is why 64 bit is vital, because of the ram limitation of 32. Actually 64bit is only a means of processor code - it doesn't make things "run" faster or allow more plug-ins. The only true benefit to 64bit addressing in a program is the lifting of the RAM "ceiling", that's it. I run Logic in 64bit. Mostly because of being able to put all sample instruments into RAM, I still choke my machine on some tasks, especially when picture is involved for scoring. Now we're hijacking the thread. p.s. - I agree about the UAD stuff, I use it too. Love it. Also, LIne 6, Studio Devil, Native Instruments, RedWirez, and Waves. All fantastic stuff.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997 |
Ah thanks Jody, I knew you knew and could help. And thanks Stevens as well, Nice reading and learning here. Daminen is gone but others will find this helpful so I'm glad you's hijacked it. I remember 11 years ago when building the studio, going to the music store and finding out what was available and getting into the technical side of things with the young guys at the store... He told me a whole slew of stuff about somethings and I then simply asked, which computer software will let me step on my super cheap punch in punch out pedal with my foot while I'm playing? All went quiet
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,463 |
Mike...It is so easy to do a digital punch in....you do not need a punch in pedal with digital recording...you just record the piece you want to punch in and then slot it in to where you want it. The beauty of digital is that if you make a mistake or want to redo or undo something you can..... easy....... multi takes can be edited and the best bits selected and pasted together to form one good seemless take. Bits can be taken out or added in.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001 |
Ah thanks Jody, I knew you knew and could help. And thanks Stevens as well, Nice reading and learning here. Daminen is gone but others will find this helpful so I'm glad you's hijacked it. I remember 11 years ago when building the studio, going to the music store and finding out what was available and getting into the technical side of things with the young guys at the store... He told me a whole slew of stuff about somethings and I then simply asked, which computer software will let me step on my super cheap punch in punch out pedal with my foot while I'm playing? All went quiet You're welcome Mike. Big Jim is right for current software, it's so stupid simple to do punch-ins automatically that the old method of stepping on a switch is outdated now. However, 11 years ago, they should have said - Logic Audio Pro. Before the automated style it was able to accept a punch control from a foot switch. Probably still can. But why would you when there's Take Folders, Comp Swiping and automated punch-in punch-out points possible?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997
Top 20 Poster
|
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,997 |
Hi Jim & Jody Yes eleven years ago, the kid did not know how to answer me. See he never punched in using a pedal ion his life. So now he had to figure out what exactly I was talking about. Then here was the big catch what, softwares at that times interface had an input for a pedal? Or soundcard had it? Or how much more $$$ was it going to cost to have that input added to my set up? I use a few ways of punching in and out Jim.. but none I mean NONE are faster than the $10 footswitch. See when you are playing an instrument and you are alone your hands stay on your instrument. The right hand never leaves to touch the mouse that sets up the ins and out points to punch in and out. Your eyes neither... Many times I'll just use my right hand to do in and out points, it's pretty fast also in that same time you can just put it in record and them hit loop and it will go back and record... You know what else when recording alone, you keep moving to your computer, what's in front of you a Microphone and you acoustic guitar? Or a Computer? You keep moving out of position of the mic you set up... When I'm rolling through a song I never heard before in one take or so basically, I sometimes slide that pedal out from under the console and record faster than anyone using any other way, anywhere, even faster than a trained professional sound engineer sitting at a board next to me... See I don't have to convey any thoughts or any words to that person Now when I'm drumming or use to be drumming, my feet are occupied so that remote control on wheels becomes the most important piece of equipment in the place. See it has the same face as the recording deck, every control and feature on the machine is on the remote... So not only can I arm tracks from behind a drum set, I can reach over with my left hand and put in the ins & outs for punching the drums over sections. Again, no talking to the engineer as he is me, and no computer to have to look at or touch. The remote is the whole deal... I know they have remotes for computer set ups now they didn't match up to all I have now, then when I was asking about it. Speed and ease is a part of what makes an effective studio. Those two simple things are part of what makes mine so fast and easy. So that makes it cheaper as well to the client. Nothing is faster than you alone with a pedal
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
Forums117
Topics125,689
Posts1,160,840
Members21,469
|
Most Online37,523 Jan 25th, 2020
|
|
"I left my home, only to find a new home, full of heart, soul and dreams. Then, I left that new home, heart intact, but much stronger and energized from the experience" -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|