Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
geoff wrote:
On 12/10/2017 2:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: ACID is not a DAW, it's a very specific tool for building music from loops. It has absolutely nothing to do with a DAW and frequently is used to produce files which are imported into a DAW. Um Scott, hate to quibble especially in these circumstances, but what DAW functions is ACID lacking ? I'd say the thing wasn't that it was lacking audio editing functions (although it kind of is because the UI for doing that seems clumsy to me) more than that they are dwarfed by the other functions that are added. You can use it as a DAW... but it's not software intended primarily for that. And I wouldn't want to be comping orchestral takes with it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 12/10/2017 2:04 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote: On 12/10/2017 2:50 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: ACID is not a DAW, it's a very specific tool for building music from loops. It has absolutely nothing to do with a DAW and frequently is used to produce files which are imported into a DAW. Um Scott, hate to quibble especially in these circumstances, but what DAW functions is ACID lacking ? I'd say the thing wasn't that it was lacking audio editing functions (although it kind of is because the UI for doing that seems clumsy to me) more than that they are dwarfed by the other functions that are added. Al contraire. UI is (to me) straightforward and intuitive. And the UI is completely and easily configurable with detachable and repositionable/resizeable windows than you can position across multiple monitors, or hide completely. Like any DAW it benefits from a large size hi-res monitor (or two). Some other DAWs are only just catching up in that area. I found the operation also totally intuitive - if you can use a word processor ... But that's just me. And maybe a few others. You can use it as a DAW... but it's not software intended primarily for that. And I wouldn't want to be comping orchestral takes with it Seems to work pretty well with the bundled GARRITAN orchestra ;-) geoff |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 11/10/2017 7:49 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/10/2017 1:00 AM, Trevor wrote: (in e-mail, but gave a bogus reply address so I couldn't reply directly, but it pertains to this thread Sorry, accidentally hit reply instead of followup. My bad. You are on the wrong track here when talking about "multi-track recording software. I wasn't talking about multitrack software, I was talking about the difference between "true" (who ever came up with that moniker?) and "virtual" (pretty well established) recording. Virtual multi-track is only something that came in with digital recording. I know we both go back further than that, so I'd say the "established" multi-track recording is not virtual. True multi-track is where you can record more than 2 tracks at once. The better name for that is two-channel or multi-channel recording. Even 2 channels is considered "multitrack." Not since stereo became well established in the sixties, for most people anyway. Nobody here ever uses the term "multi-track" for stereo since that time, but yes it's more than 1 track. Virtual multi-track is where you record 2 tracks at a time, but can mix a larger number in the software. Most (not all) software these days can do both given suitable hardware though. That's nobody's definition but your own. That's just "not having as many inputs as you want to record simultaneously." Well established definition here. But as with everything else in life, people often prefer their own definitions. Still you are the first I've heard deny the existence of the "virtual multi-track" concept. The "virtual" part is not a redundant concept for most of us *especially* anyone who ever does live recording. Trevor. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 11/10/2017 8:15 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2017-10-10 14:29:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Tom EvansÂ* wrote: On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like ACID. is that true? What's ACID? I guess you'd call it a loop-based composition tool.Â* Check it out, it's very popular. --scott I already have two loop-based composing tools:Â* Logic and Garageband. So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even heard of. And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on Logic. Jesus YOU claimed you were *considering* Logic, and people tried to help. I'm sure they wish they hadn't bothered with that attitude. If you are now happy, thank them and move on! Trevor. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 11/10/2017 1:39 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2017-10-11 01:17:42 +0000, Geoff said: On 11/10/2017 10:15 AM, Tom Evans wrote: On 2017-10-10 14:29:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Tom EvansÂ* wrote: On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like ACID. is that true? What's ACID? I guess you'd call it a loop-based composition tool.Â* Check it out, it's very popular. --scott I already have two loop-based composing tools:Â* Logic and Garageband. So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even heard of. And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on Logic. Tom Evans But I mixed up the timeline.Â* I forgot that the writer wrote his recommendation a few days before I bought Logic. A rather important fact I would have thought when abusing someone for trying to help! Trevor. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 12/10/2017 9:08 AM, Nil wrote:
On 11 Oct 2017, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in rec.audio.pro: People have been trying to explain this to Tom since he came here. Will Logic allow him to use an external sample library? If so, then his problems are solved. I don't use Logic myself, but I believe it can use external samples as do most recent DAWs. I don't use Logic either, but know someone who has been using external samples with it for at least a decade. Trevor. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 11-10-2017 11:20, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/10/2017 10:42 PM, Tom Evans wrote: My question has been answered because I bought and tried Logic. That's the program I'll use for the forseeable future. Your initial post was a question about what else there is to get since you had some theysay against choosing it, you wanted something else. OK, now get out of here and start making some music. In your next post, include a link to one of your own compositions. Indeed, let us have an open mind and expect a positive surprise. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 10/12/2017 12:57 AM, Trevor wrote:
Well established definition here. But as with everything else in life, people often prefer their own definitions. Still you are the first I've heard deny the existence of the "virtual multi-track" concept. The "virtual" part is not a redundant concept for most of us *especially* anyone who ever does live recording. You're reading what you want to argue with into what I've written. I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack." People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code. In this case, audio tracks were recorded on tape, time code drove a sequencer running on a computer, which in turn played sounds on MIDI-controlled synthesizers. If there were analog tracks available, the synthesizers could be recorded on them for convenience. Otherwise, the synthesizer outputs went into more mixer channels - THOSE were the "virtual tracks." So, yeah, virtual tracks, one or many in a project, have been around for a long time, longer than MIDI actually. Today, however, we do things differently, eliminating (most of) the hardware synthesizers and letting the same computer that's recording "real" audio produce the "virtual" audio in its copious spare time. But, honestly, I've never heard anyone use the term "virtual multitrack" until you came along in this discussion. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
You made a false and stupid assumption This describes everything I've heard from you to this point. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 13/10/2017 1:15 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/12/2017 12:57 AM, Trevor wrote: Well established definition here. But as with everything else in life, people often prefer their own definitions. Still you are the first I've heard deny the existence of the "virtual multi-track" concept. The "virtual" part is not a redundant concept for most of us *especially* anyone who ever does live recording. You're reading what you want to argue with into what I've written. I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack." Good, so what exactly were you complaining about in my original comment? (that you have deleted) People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code. In this case, audio tracks were recorded on tape, time code drove a sequencer running on a computer, which in turn played sounds on MIDI-controlled synthesizers. Do you have a reference for anyone calling them "virtual tracks"? (other than yourself) Never heard it myself. Just as when tape decks were synchronised to give extra REAL tracks, NOT virtual. If there were analog tracks available, the synthesizers could be recorded on them for convenience. Otherwise, the synthesizer outputs went into more mixer channels - THOSE were the "virtual tracks." Not IMO, they were simply hardware synced instruments. But you seem to have your own definition that you are welcome to. So, yeah, virtual tracks, one or many in a project, have been around for a long time, longer than MIDI actually. Today, however, we do things differently, eliminating (most of) the hardware synthesizers and letting the same computer that's recording "real" audio produce the "virtual" audio in its copious spare time. As I said all along, "virtual tracks" have little to do with MIDI, (other than they CAN be MIDI) since you can now have hundreds of virtual tracks of purely acoustic recordings. Basically what we had to do in overdub with degraded sound quality every time a track was copied to add something on top (and then could no longer be edited separately) can now be done on a new track even if you only have a 2 channel interface. But, honestly, I've never heard anyone use the term "virtual multitrack" until you came along in this discussion. Amazing, but irrelevant. I would have thought the concept was obvious to anyone in the industry, but there you go. Trevor. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 10/12/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack." Good, so what exactly were you complaining about in my original comment? (that you have deleted) I understood what you were talking about. What I objected to was your use of the term "virtual multitrack" that you made up, as if it was something really important and significant. I object, in general, to terms that are made up and used for no good reason. If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW? People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code. Do you have a reference for anyone calling them "virtual tracks"? (other than yourself) Never heard it myself. This term has been around for so long I really can't remember when I first heard it. If the rec.music.makers.synth newsgroup archive goes back to the 1990s, you'll probably find it there. I can tell you that there was, maybe still is, a magazine named "Virtual Instruments" that was all about using computers to produce sounds used in musical compositions. That magazine came along after the concept of virtual tracks in a multitrack DAW were pretty well accepted - recording of tracks that yield the sounds of virtual instruments. No need to invent a name for it. Just as when tape decks were synchronised to give extra REAL tracks, NOT virtual. I agree with that except for the "Just as" part. Real audio sounds, and not sequences of commands that cause something else to produce synthesized sounds, are what are recorded on the slave deck. If there were analog tracks available, the synthesizers could be recorded on them for convenience. Otherwise, the synthesizer outputs went into more mixer channels - THOSE were the "virtual tracks." Not IMO, they were simply hardware synced instruments. And that, in a nutshell, is what a "virtual track" is. But I guess you just don't get it. You had to have been there. It was something to really get excited about, knowing that, given time, more processing power, and better hardware designs, the virtual sounds would get closer and closer to the sound of real instruments - or, alternatively, that sounds that aren't made by any organic musical instrument could actually be played and used in a musical composition. You need to read a good book about the history of electronic music, and no, I can't recommend one. As I said all along, "virtual tracks" have little to do with MIDI, Technically, that's true. The Grateful Dead had a DEC PDP-8 computer on stage that played sequences on a voltage-controlled synthesizer to go along with their performances. Though nobody thought to give it a name at the time, that was certainly a virtual track that added to their performance. And, I suppose, one could call the backing track that the lounge lizard uses to augment his one man band could be a virtual track as well. But nobody thought to put that name to it. you can now have hundreds of virtual tracks of purely acoustic recordings. We're getting kind of slippery here. You can have a virtual track playing recorded samples of an acoustic instrument. However, the instrument that was used to create the samples never played the part that comes out of the computer. Basically what we had to do in overdub with degraded sound quality every time a track was copied to add something on top (and then could no longer be edited separately) can now be done on a new track even if you only have a 2 channel interface. Uhhhhh . . . this is what MULTITRACK _RECORDING_ is all about. The exciting development was that you no longer had to mix a previously recorded part with a new part, record the mix, and throw away the original part. If you don't understand that, then there's no point to continuing this discussion. But, honestly, I've never heard anyone use the term "virtual multitrack" until you came along in this discussion. Amazing, but irrelevant. I would have thought the concept was obvious to anyone in the industry, but there you go. It's obvious in the sense that I understand what you meant when you wrote it, but it's also an unnecessary term. Would you say you were "chopsticking" when you were eating your kung pao chicken? No, you're just "eating." -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2017-10-10 22:31:11 +0000, Scott Dorsey said: Tom Evans wrote: I already have two loop-based composing tools: Logic and Garageband. So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even heard of. Because ACID will allow you to use sample libraries from wherever you want, whereas Garageband ties you into the samples that you keep saying you don't like the sound of. And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on Logic. Because clearly there's something you want to do that you're not able to do with Logic. Otherwise you would not be here. --scott You made a false and stupid assumption, Scott. Tautologies are low in information content but they're certainly not stupid. I'm here to follow-up -- to check if anyone answered my question about what DAW they might recommend. To not check if anyone answered my question would have been irrepsonsible. One of the weird things that Usenet learned ( and the rest of the online... things never did ) is that no answer is still no answer. Tom Evans -- Les Cargill |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 13/10/2017 10:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/12/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote: I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack." Good, so what exactly were you complaining about in my original comment? (that you have deleted) I understood what you were talking about. What I objected to was your use of the term "virtual multitrack" that you made up, as if it was something really important and significant. I object, in general, to terms that are made up and used for no good reason. You are welcome to go against the terminology others use of course. But pretending I'm the only one when a simple google search could prove otherwise is pointless. If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW? Ah you want a dictionary entry or nothing. I'm sure I don't care! People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code. Do you have a reference for anyone calling them "virtual tracks"? (other than yourself) Never heard it myself. This term has been around for so long I really can't remember when I first heard it. If the rec.music.makers.synth newsgroup archive goes back to the 1990s, you'll probably find it there. If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW? I can tell you that there was, maybe still is, a magazine named "Virtual Instruments" Virtual instruments is NOT the same thing as virtual tracks. I guess the word "virtual" confuses you, so I'll just give up now. Trevor. |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On 10/14/2017 1:18 AM, Trevor wrote:
I'll just give up now. Thank you. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintoshcomputer user?
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:51:47 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 10/14/2017 1:18 AM, Trevor wrote: I'll just give up now. Thank you. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com Interesting. The same ones I have trouble with, others have trouble with. As I always felt, in usenet forums, you'll always find the king of the hill posters. Jack |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintosh computer user?
"Geoff":
If you wanted to you could try it for free and find out (more intuitive for starters). But you don't want to, so don't. What is it that you are actually wanting to ask or contribute ? He´s only wanting to troll and nothing else! Just like some years ago, when he refused to learn anything necessary to make and record music, because he just wanted to "make beautiful ART" or something like that. It´s exactly the same arrogant behaviour now again... and back then, he also would NOT post a link to any example of his oh so great "ART". Go figure and use a killfile instead of replying to this troll. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Best digital music recording program | Pro Audio | |||
€ HELP: Macintosh Minidisc/Digital Audio Recording/Importing | Pro Audio | |||
€ HELP: Macintosh Minidisc/Digital Audio Recording/Importing | Pro Audio | |||
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? | Audio Opinions | |||
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? | General |