Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#321
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
geoff wrote:
Um - you were asking (or at least the thread was about ...) about a digital music recording program. Podolski appears to be a soft-synth. Pleased for you if that's what you were in fact after, but you may understand the confusion that has developed around this thread, and what has contributed to it. Yes, we went through all that confusion two years ago. What the guy wants is some sort of soft synth where he can write music down and have it played for him automatically. And he doesn't want to spend the money for a big notation system like Sibelius. The various attempts to explain to him exactly what he ws looking for once people figured out what he was trying to do caused him to become upset. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#322
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2016-06-29 01:51:25 +0000, geoff said:
On 29/06/2016 11:42 a.m., Tom Evans wrote: So far I like the setup of U-He Podolski the best, because there's a decent library of instrument sounds that I can acces with one download and it has one interface, and I feel that it has a good range of the kinds of instrument sounds. Are there more programs like Podolski, that contain a large number of good instrument sounds in one package and one interface, that allows me to maximize reverb, and that are free, or don't cost more than about $200 or $300 each? Um - you were asking (or at least the thread was about ...) about a digital music recording program. Podolski appears to be a soft-synth. Pleased for you if that's what you were in fact after, but you may understand the confusion that has developed around this thread, and what has contributed to it. geoff Thanks, Geoff. There doesn't appear to be a difference between a digital music recording program and a soft synth. This definition is from Wikipedia: "A software synthesizer, also known as a softsynth, is a computer program, or plug-in that generates digital audio, usually for music." Tom Evans |
#323
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2016-06-29 12:46:51 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
geoff wrote: Um - you were asking (or at least the thread was about ...) about a digital music recording program. Podolski appears to be a soft-synth. Pleased for you if that's what you were in fact after, but you may understand the confusion that has developed around this thread, and what has contributed to it. Yes, we went through all that confusion two years ago. What the guy wants is some sort of soft synth where he can write music down and have it played for him automatically. And he doesn't want to spend the money for a big notation system like Sibelius. December was six months ago -- not two years ago. It sounds like you don't understand. I don't know how to read music and I don't want to put in the hard work to learn than, because it's hard to learn and I it's unnecessary. That's not a bad thing; there are countless successful musicians who don't know how to read music and they don't care about that because they don't need it. Like them, I like to get to the crux of music-making and dismiss the extraneous aspects. Digital sudio recording makes learning to read music optional. And even many successful musicians playing real instruments don't know how to read music. I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. That does entail having the songs played back for me automatcially, in order to review the songs for editing. There's also nothing wrong with that. It's like a movie-maker playing back his movie in the cutting room to edit the movie. Or do you have a problem with musicians and movie-makers editing their work? The various attempts to explain to him exactly what he ws looking for once people figured out what he was trying to do caused him to become upset. --scott It wasn't the attempts to explain that upset me. It was the insults, like calling me a naive schoolboy and accusing me of being here to cause trouble and presuming that because I like shortcuts and learning my own way that I'm lazy and insincere. Tom Evans |
#324
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2016-06-29 07:12:41 +0000, John Williamson said:
On 29/06/2016 00:42, Tom Evans wrote: On 2016-06-28 14:45:42 +0000, John Williamson said: On 28/06/2016 15:34, Tom Evans wrote: On 2016-06-04 23:11:21 +0000, said: Anyway, just out of interest, did you find an acceptable program in the end? I tried many of the suggested links. Thanks, John. I found that there's a lot of effort requrired to reserach, donwload and install piecemeal the individual sound effects and instrument modulators available from the different companies and few of them were what I'm looking for and some of them don't work. Yes, that's the way it goes, and what works for you won't necessarily work for others, and vice versa. I can't really help with the rest of your post, as my music recording mainly involves putting a small forest of microphone stands up in front of a bunch of live(ish) musicians and asking them to get on with it. Still, it's good to know you're making progress, even if it is slower than you'd like. Thanks, John. Tom Evans |
#325
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 29/06/2016 14:43, Tom Evans wrote:
There doesn't appear to be a difference between a digital music recording program and a soft synth. This definition is from Wikipedia: "A software synthesizer, also known as a softsynth, is a computer program, or plug-in that generates digital audio, usually for music." Whereas to most on here, a "digital music recording program" is one that runs on a computer with a sound interface, replacing a tape recorder (With additional facilities), to put it simply, and a softsynth is a program which may be used to provide input to such a program. It may or may not run on the same computer. Some programs such as the old Cakewalk allow you to work directly with the MIDI control files for a soft synth directly, but not all. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#326
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 29/06/2016 15:01, Tom Evans wrote:
It sounds like you don't understand. I don't know how to read music and I don't want to put in the hard work to learn than, because it's hard to learn and I it's unnecessary. It's not difficult to learn to read a score and transcribe it into control signals for a MIDI controlled instrument, it's not even all that hard to learn to transcribe basic printed chord sequences as used by most guitarists into MIDI control sequences. It's also trivial to take a MIDI file and convert it into a printed score. Musical notation isn't hard to read or write, and has evolved over many centuries to be a convenient shorthand for passing your intentions on to other musicians. They can then follow it even centuries later, and it will still sound as you intended it to (Within limits). We've no recordings, obviously, but music written in the 17th Century can still be performed today, and sound pretty close to what the author's intention was, apart from changes in tonal preferences in some instruments over the centuries. Things like cheap violins sound better now than they did in 1700, for instance, while expensive violins sound as good as they ever did, and are just as mind bogglingly expensive as they were to make. That's not a bad thing; there are countless successful musicians who don't know how to read music and they don't care about that because they don't need it. Like them, I like to get to the crux of music-making and dismiss the extraneous aspects. They are restricted then, in that they can only play what comes into their head at the time or have heard elsewhere and memorised. If they come up with something good and original, that others want to play, they have to either write down the notes or hire someone to do so. Most musicians I know who can't read have very good memories, and can replay a tune after hearing it a few times. It's also common in Jazz, folk and bluegrass circles, where you have a basic groove and mess round with it until it sounds good. The problem then is that if you come up with something great, nobody else can reproduce it faithfully unless they heard it, and have a very good memory as well, as there's no record of how you meant it to go. Digital sudio recording makes learning to read music optional. And even many successful musicians playing real instruments don't know how to read music. That's like saying you know good, successful actors who don't know how to read. Digital music of yours that you want others to reproduce needs to be in a form they can follow. That's either a standard MIDI file, with accompanying samples of what you want to hear when a note plays, a copy of the instructions your chosen program sends to the instruments, and that requires them to have a copy of the same version of the program with the same plugins and instruments installed in it, or a printed score, which any professional musician worth their pay can look at and reproduce with a varying degree of accuracy, according to their skill level. If you just send them a file of the final output, then they have to listen to it, and work out what you've done and how you did it with minimal clues. I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. That does entail having the songs played back for me automatcially, in order to review the songs for editing. There's also nothing wrong with that. It's like a movie-maker playing back his movie in the cutting room to edit the movie. Or do you have a problem with musicians and movie-makers editing their work? If you are producing the final output, however you find it easiest to do is the best for you. However, if you will ever want others to perform your work, you need to find a way to tell them what to do, and traditional notation is very good for that. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#327
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 6/29/2016 9:43 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
There doesn't appear to be a difference between a digital music recording program and a soft synth. This definition is from Wikipedia: "A software synthesizer, also known as a softsynth, is a computer program, or plug-in that generates digital audio, usually for music." The soft synth _GENERATES_ digital audio. It does not _RECORD_ audio. You record audio digitally by using a microphone and an an analog-to-digital converter. The Wiki definition is accurate. In what's traditionally known as the recording processes in this context, the music is generated by musicians playing instruments that create audio, usually music, and then that audio is recorded digitally. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#328
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 6/29/2016 10:01 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Digital sudio recording makes learning to read music optional. And even many successful musicians playing real instruments don't know how to read music. Reading music doesn't have anything to do with it. People played music before there was a way to write it. I don't read music well enough to play what I read, yet I'm still able to record my music. What you're talking about is composition, really. The soft synth allows you to, in essence, create a computer program that plays music using pre-recorded sounds. If you play a keyboard, for instance, by ear, you can use that to generate the program that tells the computer what notes to play and when. I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. That does entail having the songs played back for me automatcially, in order to review the songs for editing. There's also nothing wrong with that. The term "edit" tends to get misused in this context. It's true that much of the recorded music is edited, which involves cutting out parts, replacing them with other parts or just leaving them out, adding new parts, putting things in a different order, and such. To some, "edit" is what they call the process of constructing a finished song from a group of synchronized recordings. Those recordings could be tracks generated from MIDI data and played through a soft synth, or recorded with a microphone, which is how you would record your voice. Most digital audio workstations (DAW) these days put the whole shebang together. That's why they're called "workstations." Given the appropriate interface to your computer, you can record audio, you can record MIDI data, you can choose the sounds that the MIDI data plays (soft synth), you can edit the whole song or individual tracks, you can add one track at a time to build up the song, you can remove or replace parts that didn't come out the way you wanted. Most DAWs throw in some sort of soft synth capability to give you something to get started with. If you don't like the sounds that you're offered, you can add others. If you already have a DAW program that you're happy with and you're just looking for some different sound libraries, that's one thing, and it might be what you're asking about. If you're just auditioning soft synth sounds before you get started with a full DAW package (which it sounds like what you really need), you might start from the other end. Find a DAW you like, and then look for sounds that fit with your music. Your can try Reaper for free, and it's pretty cheap. Studio One (from PreSonus)has a capable free version, as does Tracktion. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#329
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 29 Jun 2016, Tom Evans wrote in
rec.audio.pro: There doesn't appear to be a difference between a digital music recording program and a soft synth. This definition is from Wikipedia: "A software synthesizer, also known as a softsynth, is a computer program, or plug-in that generates digital audio, usually for music." You are oh, so wrong about that. I digital music recording program records digital music, audio and/or MIDI data. MIDI data has no inherent sound - it is just instructions on what notes are to be played and how they are to be shaped. A soft synth produces a sound, just like a hardware synthesizer - the difference being that one lives in a computer, the other lives in a plastic box over there. Do you not see the difference? It has no idea what notes to be played until it's told to play them by a human or computer program. Didn't this all get hashed out last time around? |
#330
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 29 Jun 2016, Tom Evans wrote in
rec.audio.pro: I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. You can't record voice or any other acoustic instrument with MIDI. |
#331
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:50:24 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/29/2016 10:01 AM, Tom Evans wrote: Digital sudio recording makes learning to read music optional. And even many successful musicians playing real instruments don't know how to read music. Reading music doesn't have anything to do with it. People played music before there was a way to write it. I don't read music well enough to play what I read, yet I'm still able to record my music. What you're talking about is composition, really. The soft synth allows you to, in essence, create a computer program that plays music using pre-recorded sounds. If you play a keyboard, for instance, by ear, you can use that to generate the program that tells the computer what notes to play and when. I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. That does entail having the songs played back for me automatcially, in order to review the songs for editing. There's also nothing wrong with that. The term "edit" tends to get misused in this context. It's true that much of the recorded music is edited, which involves cutting out parts, replacing them with other parts or just leaving them out, adding new parts, putting things in a different order, and such. To some, "edit" is what they call the process of constructing a finished song from a group of synchronized recordings. Those recordings could be tracks generated from MIDI data and played through a soft synth, or recorded with a microphone, which is how you would record your voice. Most digital audio workstations (DAW) these days put the whole shebang together. That's why they're called "workstations." Yet, Windows NT offered for workstations. "Convert your Windows Server 2008 to a Workstation" To a DAW? Confusing!!! Why I, unlike many millions, don't use the word "Oldies", because there is no clear cut definition! Jack Given the appropriate interface to your computer, you can record audio, you can record MIDI data, you can choose the sounds that the MIDI data plays (soft synth), you can edit the whole song or individual tracks, you can add one track at a time to build up the song, you can remove or replace parts that didn't come out the way you wanted. Most DAWs throw in some sort of soft synth capability to give you something to get started with. If you don't like the sounds that you're offered, you can add others. If you already have a DAW program that you're happy with and you're just looking for some different sound libraries, that's one thing, and it might be what you're asking about. If you're just auditioning soft synth sounds before you get started with a full DAW package (which it sounds like what you really need), you might start from the other end. Find a DAW you like, and then look for sounds that fit with your music. Your can try Reaper for free, and it's pretty cheap. Studio One (from PreSonus)has a capable free version, as does Tracktion. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#332
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 6/29/2016 3:06 PM, JackA wrote:
Yet, Windows NT offered for workstations. "Convert your Windows Server 2008 to a Workstation" To a DAW? Confusing!!! This is why, like a good technical writer, the first time I used it in that message, I wrote out the expansion of the acronym: "Digital audio workstation (DAW)" - just because I thought person to whom I was replying didn't know "DAW." A Contrived Reduction Of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics (ACRONYM) -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#333
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 29 Jun 2016, Mike Rivers wrote in
rec.audio.pro: This is why, like a good technical writer, the first time I used it in that message, I wrote out the expansion of the acronym: "Digital audio workstation (DAW)" - just because I thought person to whom I was replying didn't know "DAW." And I salute you for that practice. Not defining an acronym on first use is a pet peeve of mine. |
#334
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 30/06/2016 1:43 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
There doesn't appear to be a difference between a digital music recording program and a soft synth. There is a huge difference. his definition is from Wikipedia: "A software synthesizer, also known as a softsynth, is a computer program, or plug-in that generates digital audio, usually for music." Tom Evans Yeah that's pretty spot-on. But to be pedantic (what moi ?!!!) what would generally be described as a 'digital music recording program' does not actually generate music or digital audio - it records sounds or signals generated by separate sources, either virtual or real, internally-hosted or external. Then you have full DAWs many of which can host external virtual instruments, but those instruments are not actually part of the recording program itself, although they may come bundled in a package with it. And then you have virtual instruments.(soft-synths) some of which may include their own recording (or more likely) 'sequencing' functions, but mostly not. Definitions eh ;-) I suspect it was the latter that you were after in the first place, which is the furthest removed from the definition of a digital music recording program. But hey whatever .... geoff |
#335
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 30/06/2016 3:34 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/29/2016 9:43 AM, Tom Evans wrote: There doesn't appear to be a difference between a digital music recording program and a soft synth. This definition is from Wikipedia: "A software synthesizer, also known as a softsynth, is a computer program, or plug-in that generates digital audio, usually for music." The soft synth _GENERATES_ digital audio. It does not _RECORD_ audio. You record audio digitally by using a microphone and an an analog-to-digital converter. .... or digital audio produced by by a soft-synth either hosted and fed to the recording function internally to the the recording app, or running independently fed to the recording app via it's own virtual device output, or looped to the recording app via a third-party driver such as Virtual Audio Cable. geoff |
#336
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 30/06/2016 7:06 a.m., JackA wrote:
Yet, Windows NT offered for workstations. "Convert your Windows Server 2008 to a Workstation" To a DAW? Confusing!!! Not to a DAW. Not confusing. That phrase had nothing to do with music or recording. As you well know. geoff |
#337
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 3:24:50 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/29/2016 3:06 PM, JackA wrote: Yet, Windows NT offered for workstations. "Convert your Windows Server 2008 to a Workstation" To a DAW? Confusing!!! This is why, like a good technical writer, the first time I used it in that message, I wrote out the expansion of the acronym: "Digital audio workstation (DAW)" - just because I thought person to whom I was replying didn't know "DAW." That is GREAT!! I LIKE that thought process. See, most call Digital Audio Software a Workstation. Sort of like saying Photoshop is a Workstation, but they don't. GRANTED, before AUDIO, most DAW was MIDI and that was it. THERE, I might think of it as a workstation, with (music) keyboard and other gadgets. A Contrived Reduction Of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics (ACRONYM) :-) Jack -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#338
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 30/06/2016 2:29 AM, Nil wrote:
On 29 Jun 2016, Tom Evans wrote in rec.audio.pro: I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. You can't record voice or any other acoustic instrument with MIDI. But you can record audio *and* MIDI simultaneously with many DAW programs, and have been able to do so for well over 2 decades. Trevor. |
#339
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 29 Jun 2016, Trevor wrote in rec.audio.pro:
On 30/06/2016 2:29 AM, Nil wrote: On 29 Jun 2016, Tom Evans wrote in rec.audio.pro: I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. You can't record voice or any other acoustic instrument with MIDI. But you can record audio *and* MIDI simultaneously with many DAW programs, and have been able to do so for well over 2 decades. Of course. I've been aware of that for well over 2 decades. I get the impression that the OP is unclear about what MIDI is and can cannot do. |
#340
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 30/06/2016 1:52 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 30/06/2016 2:29 AM, Nil wrote: On 29 Jun 2016, Tom Evans wrote in rec.audio.pro: I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. You can't record voice or any other acoustic instrument with MIDI. But you can record audio *and* MIDI simultaneously with many DAW programs, and have been able to do so for well over 2 decades. Trevor. And some stand-alone applications and VSTi/DXi may even allow one to record voice (etc), manipulate it, and play it back, appropriated pitched, with MIDI or other means. geoff |
#341
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 30/06/2016 1:57 PM, geoff wrote:
On 30/06/2016 1:52 p.m., Trevor wrote: On 30/06/2016 2:29 AM, Nil wrote: On 29 Jun 2016, Tom Evans wrote in rec.audio.pro: I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. You can't record voice or any other acoustic instrument with MIDI. But you can record audio *and* MIDI simultaneously with many DAW programs, and have been able to do so for well over 2 decades. And some stand-alone applications and VSTi/DXi may even allow one to record voice (etc), manipulate it, and play it back, appropriated pitched, with MIDI or other means. Sure, and you can even get voice trackers to create midi messages from vocal input, or other digital audio, which can control MIDI instruments. Trevor. |
#342
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2016-06-29 15:50:41 +0000, Mike Rivers said:
On 6/29/2016 10:01 AM, Tom Evans wrote: Digital sudio recording makes learning to read music optional. And even many successful musicians playing real instruments don't know how to read music. Reading music doesn't have anything to do with it. People played music before there was a way to write it. I don't read music well enough to play what I read, yet I'm still able to record my music. What you're talking about is composition, really. The soft synth allows you to, in essence, create a computer program that plays music using pre-recorded sounds. If you play a keyboard, for instance, by ear, you can use that to generate the program that tells the computer what notes to play and when. I'm interested in multi-track, MIDI recording including voice. That does entail having the songs played back for me automatcially, in order to review the songs for editing. There's also nothing wrong with that. The term "edit" tends to get misused in this context. It's true that much of the recorded music is edited, which involves cutting out parts, replacing them with other parts or just leaving them out, adding new parts, putting things in a different order, and such. To some, "edit" is what they call the process of constructing a finished song from a group of synchronized recordings. Those recordings could be tracks generated from MIDI data and played through a soft synth, or recorded with a microphone, which is how you would record your voice. Most digital audio workstations (DAW) these days put the whole shebang together. That's why they're called "workstations." Given the appropriate interface to your computer, you can record audio, you can record MIDI data, you can choose the sounds that the MIDI data plays (soft synth), you can edit the whole song or individual tracks, you can add one track at a time to build up the song, you can remove or replace parts that didn't come out the way you wanted. Most DAWs throw in some sort of soft synth capability to give you something to get started with. If you don't like the sounds that you're offered, you can add others. If you already have a DAW program that you're happy with and you're just looking for some different sound libraries, that's one thing, and it might be what you're asking about. If you're just auditioning soft synth sounds before you get started with a full DAW package (which it sounds like what you really need), you might start from the other end. Find a DAW you like, and then look for sounds that fit with your music. Your can try Reaper for free, and it's pretty cheap. Studio One (from PreSonus)has a capable free version, as does Tracktion. Thanks. Instead of DAW-hopping to Reaper, Studio One or Tracktion, I think I'll stay with Garageband, which I already know, and add more libraries to it. I just discovered the East West Composer Cloud monthly license option. That would solve my problem of having to hunt down, download, install, test and learn the hundrieds of piecmeal plug-ins, programs, modulators, bells and whistles, etcetera, from scores of different compaines, which would only give me hodge-podge of stuff, only a fraction of which would be useful to me. Composer Cloud is also high end, while much of the free and cheap instruments available on the Web are not good quality. I'm also considering buying the East West Spaces Convolution Reverb plug-in, but I don't know if that's a good idea, because I can add reverb anyway in Garageband or whatever library I add to Garageband. Tom Evans |
#343
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Friday, December 5, 2014 at 10:47:39 PM UTC-8, Tom Evans wrote:
What's the best digital music recording program that comes with many terrific instrument sounds? I'm thinking of buying Logic Pro 10, as I'm a Mac user and I'm using Garageband and a controller to record songs on the Mac, but I'm finding Garageband's instrument sounds are too limited. The price of Logic seems to be good ($200) but I wonder if there's a program that easeir to learn and use; Logic seems to be complicated. I was actually going to suggest Logic, as songwriters seem to really love it because of its many instrument sounds and general ease of use. While a lot of DAWs come with instruments, Logic seems to really embrace that right out of the gate. Full disclosure, though...although I have seen Logic in action many times, I've never actually used it, usually sticking with the old dinosaur that is Pro Tools, which also has a number of instruments (analog-style synth, drum machine, organ, piano). Ken |
#344
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Try N Track studio
https://ntrack.com/digital-audio-workstation.php I like the spectrum analyzer and EQ tools. m |
#346
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:57:58 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
Try N Track studio https://ntrack.com/digital-audio-workstation.php I like the spectrum analyzer and EQ tools. m I rather love n-track unconditionally but about seven years ago, I split my forces and went with Reaper. n-Track 3.x would generate MTC to where my old VF16 would chase it. 4.x, 5x and onward just wouldn't. I viewed that as an estimate of the determinism of the versions. Now we had no right to expect determinism of a Windows software package at all. SFAIK, Reaper never did drive the VF16. The VF16 died but I stayed with n-rack 3.0 until the present day. Reaper is my path forward for full plugin support. -- Les Cargill what is MTC? ? time code? what is VF16? m |
#347
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
makolber:
On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:57:58 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: Try N Track studio https://ntrack.com/digital-audio-workstation.php I like the spectrum analyzer and EQ tools. I rather love n-track unconditionally but about seven years ago, I split my forces and went with Reaper. n-Track 3.x would generate MTC to where my old VF16 would chase it. 4.x, 5x and onward just wouldn't. I viewed that as an estimate of the determinism of the versions. Now we had no right to expect determinism of a Windows software package at all. SFAIK, Reaper never did drive the VF16. The VF16 died but I stayed with n-rack 3.0 until the present day. Reaper is my path forward for full plugin support. -- Les Cargill what is MTC? ? time code? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTC not listed there, but also existing: MTC = Musik Tanz Club in Cologne, Germany, Europe what is VF16? http://vf16.com you do know, that "search engines" for the interweb exist? ;-) SCNR Phil |
#348
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
wrote:
On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 10:57:58 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: Try N Track studio https://ntrack.com/digital-audio-workstation.php I like the spectrum analyzer and EQ tools. m I rather love n-track unconditionally but about seven years ago, I split my forces and went with Reaper. n-Track 3.x would generate MTC to where my old VF16 would chase it. 4.x, 5x and onward just wouldn't. I viewed that as an estimate of the determinism of the versions. Now we had no right to expect determinism of a Windows software package at all. SFAIK, Reaper never did drive the VF16. The VF16 died but I stayed with n-rack 3.0 until the present day. Reaper is my path forward for full plugin support. -- Les Cargill what is MTC? ? time code? Midi Time Code. what is VF16? A Fostex VF16 was a self-contained harddisk recorder. m -- Les Cargill |
#349
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Mike wrote:
"Sounds are as good as you want to pay for. What comes with the basic program varies from blah to pretty good, and what's blah and what's good depends on what you're looking for. " You might be surprised at how good the stock sounds - and plug-ins - are these days. I use Logic Pro X for most things *, and some of the synths in particular are really good - as you say, depending on what you're looking for. It's almost silly that it's only $200. * Meaning that I use it for writing music and Pro Tools for anything that involves audio editing. Flatfish wrote: "The most obtuse and difficult DAW program I ever used was Emagic Logic for the PC. Many years ago of course. I literally could not get a squeak out of that one and actually had a student at the local college help me set it up. What a bear albeit probably the most powerful MIDI program at the time." If I remember right you had to set some things up in the Environment back then. They've changed the interface a lot since Apple bought the company. While there are layers and layers of features (and very few people know or use all of them), just the basics of recording and editing don't seem very complicated to me. |
#350
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/05/2019 9:37 AM, nickbatz wrote:
Mike wrote: "Sounds are as good as you want to pay for. What comes with the basic program varies from blah to pretty good, and what's blah and what's good depends on what you're looking for. " You might be surprised at how good the stock sounds - and plug-ins - are these days. I use Logic Pro X for most things *, and some of the synths in particular are really good - as you say, depending on what you're looking for. It's almost silly that it's only $200. * Meaning that I use it for writing music and Pro Tools for anything that involves audio editing. Flatfish wrote: "The most obtuse and difficult DAW program I ever used was Emagic Logic for the PC. Many years ago of course. I literally could not get a squeak out of that one and actually had a student at the local college help me set it up. What a bear albeit probably the most powerful MIDI program at the time." If I remember right you had to set some things up in the Environment back then. They've changed the interface a lot since Apple bought the company. While there are layers and layers of features (and very few people know or use all of them), just the basics of recording and editing don't seem very complicated to me. I've always found all the German-designed apps really non-intuitive to use. geoff |
#351
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
I've always found all the German-designed apps really non-intuitive to use.
geoff I've never found *any* DAW intuitive until I learned to use it! And that's not intended to be snarky. These are all complicated programs, and there's nothing in our genetic make-up to let you use any of them without reading the manual. What's interesting is that once you learn a program, your fingers know the common key commands without your thinking - even when you switch programs with different ones. |
#352
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/05/2019 12:11 PM, nickbatz wrote:
I've always found all the German-designed apps really non-intuitive to use. geoff I've never found *any* DAW intuitive until I learned to use it! And that's not intended to be snarky. These are all complicated programs, and there's nothing in our genetic make-up to let you use any of them without reading the manual. What's interesting is that once you learn a program, your fingers know the common key commands without your thinking - even when you switch programs with different ones. I 'grew up' on Vegas, which to me was entirely intuitive. Still is, though massively more complex on the video side if you want to get into that. I guess Vegas Pro never a full DAW by the current definition. I believe Reaper was modelled on (or inspired by) Vegas. geoff |
#353
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 5/8/2019 9:21 PM, geoff wrote:
I 'grew up' on Vegas, which to me was entirely intuitive. I grew up on tape. Entirely intuitive, very few things to learn, and practically no "upgrades." -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#354
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/05/2019 10:09 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 9:21 PM, geoff wrote: I 'grew up' on Vegas, which to me was entirely intuitive. I grew up on tape. Entirely intuitive, very few things to learn, and practically no "upgrades." Tape me too. Referring to DAWs here. DAWs....great. Don't have to set-up, align, demagnetise, lubricate, clean, manage tape libraries, etc. And after all that maybe get a sound quality that may barely approach current pro-sumer sound quality. geoff |
#355
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/8/2019 9:21 PM, geoff wrote: I 'grew up' on Vegas, which to me was entirely intuitive. I grew up on tape. Entirely intuitive, very few things to learn, and practically no "upgrades." I grew up on tape too, but editing with tape is not really intuitive at all. I thought it was, until I started writing an article about how to do it and started thinking about the whole process. Why do you cut at the beginning of a word and not at the end? Why do some people like paper leader and others prefer plastic? And what's with timed leader anyway? It just seems intuitive because you've been doing it so long and I suspect the same thing is true of the people talking about DAW systems being intuitive. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#356
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Rivers wrote: On 5/8/2019 9:21 PM, geoff wrote: I 'grew up' on Vegas, which to me was entirely intuitive. I grew up on tape. Entirely intuitive, very few things to learn, and practically no "upgrades." I grew up on tape too, but editing with tape is not really intuitive at all. I thought it was, until I started writing an article about how to do it and started thinking about the whole process. Why do you cut at the beginning of a word and not at the end? Why do some people like paper leader and others prefer plastic? And what's with timed leader anyway? It just seems intuitive because you've been doing it so long and I suspect the same thing is true of the people talking about DAW systems being intuitive. As a kid I would attempt to make those USAF plastic toy jets. After an hour there'd be airplane glue all over the freekin place including all over my fingers. Fast forward a couple decades to me editing/splicing tape. Not pretty. I thank God I don't have to make a mess anymore....at least not recording/editing music ;-) Poly --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#357
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that we're not going back to using tape.
|
#358
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 10/05/2019 5:05 AM, nickbatz wrote:
The second law of thermodynamics dictates that we're not going back to using tape. But the amendment says we can for 'special effects', or for the sake of recovery of programme for more durable archival purposes. geoff |
#359
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
But the amendment says we can for 'special effects', or for the sake of
recovery of programme for more durable archival purposes. geoff True, I forgot about that. |
#360
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/05/2019 9:19 pm, geoff wrote:
On 9/05/2019 10:09 PM, Mike Rivers wrote: On 5/8/2019 9:21 PM, geoff wrote: I 'grew up' on Vegas, which to me was entirely intuitive. I grew up on tape. Entirely intuitive, very few things to learn, and practically no "upgrades." Tape me too. Referring to DAWs here. DAWs....great. Don't have to set-up, align, demagnetise, lubricate, clean, manage tape libraries, etc. And after all that maybe get a sound quality that may barely approach current pro-sumer sound quality. As if ANY tape could remotely approach what is currently the norm for *consumer* sound recording ability. No need to specify Pro-sumer! I grew up on tape too, and am ecstatic to have left it in the history archives a couple of decades ago! There will always be a few who prefer nostalgia of course, to actual sound quality, even if nostalgia comes at *great* expense. :-( |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
(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? | Pro Audio | |||
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? | General | |||
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? | Tech |