A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » Pro Audio
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the best digital music-recording program for a Macintosh computer user?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 12th 17, 02:04 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,249
Default 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."
Ads
  #42  
Old October 12th 17, 03:10 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,437
Default 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  
Old October 12th 17, 05:57 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,608
Default 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  
Old October 12th 17, 06:01 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,608
Default 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 Evans¬* > 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.¬* Check it out, it's
>> very popular.
>> --scott

>
> 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.
>
> 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  
Old October 12th 17, 06:08 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,608
Default 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 Evans¬* > 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.¬* Check it out,
>>>> it's
>>>> very popular.
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.¬* 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.

  #47  
Old October 12th 17, 09:05 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,270
Default 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  
Old October 12th 17, 03:15 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,810
Default 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  
Old October 12th 17, 03:38 PM posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 534
Default 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  
Old October 13th 17, 03:32 AM posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,608
Default 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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best digital music recording program Tom Evans Pro Audio 357 July 2nd 16 12:38 AM
Ä HELP: Macintosh Minidisc/Digital Audio Recording/Importing Marc Wielage Pro Audio 0 March 13th 04 08:57 AM
Ä HELP: Macintosh Minidisc/Digital Audio Recording/Importing Maurice Rickard Pro Audio 0 March 9th 04 08:42 PM
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin Audio Opinions 1 December 19th 03 06:08 PM
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin General 0 December 19th 03 07:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.