Closest DAW software to the good ole tape deck

[Andrew Mayo]

Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
surfaces?

I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
the way.

Currently, much loved, I have a dear old Roland MV-30 midi sound
module/sequencer which, I have to say, is fantastic for getting MIDI
stuff down - with dedicated faders etc. it is immediate and intuitive
albeit the inbuilt sounds are getting pretty long in the tooth. (and
its noise floor ain't so great either)

I would love to be able to bang down primarily MIDI stuff from a
keyboard but also some audio where I am just overwriting on a track by
track basis, soft synths obviously quite a handy feature.

I've had a play with Cubase VST but geez there's a lot of fiddling
around, and weeny tiny little widgets to click on which I can't seem
to enlarge. Also, and I can't exactly put my finger on it, there's a
'weirdness' about Cubase - non-standard ways of interacting compared
to normal Windows programs - weird dialogue boxes etc, that I dislike
very much.

I want to put up (on a BIG laptop screen - 1400 X 1050) a decent-sized
tape transport and, say, half a dozen faders (at a time) with mute,
solo and arm, and then, dammit, I want to treat the damn thing like a
Revox reel to reel.

I don't want to do loops or weird tempo hacking or anything. I don't
do video. I just want something that enables me to do what I could do
on the MV30 quickly and easily. I want it to be nice and stable and
unpicky about hardware, work under Win2K, and work with the Roland
UA20 I just bought. And PLEASE, will it just autodetect the sound card
and sensibly default inputs and outputs so by default on startup track
1 is ready to go, assigned to something sensible. (and can I save my
preferences WITHOUT having to create a dummy project, please?)

Is there anything out there that does this without presenting me with
zillions of little widgets I can't hide. Something that ideally lets
me customise the windows I see so as to just put the bits I want where
I want - and the size I want, so if I want BIG tape transport controls
I can have them. Something that, ideally, would let me take something
like a cheap remote control and use that as a quick and dirty control
surface?.

[Chris T. Young]

You want Cool Edit Pro 2 (or as it's now called Adobe "Audtition").
It's as straight forward as it gets, with the ability to do much more if you
need it to.

-Chris

"Andrew Mayo" > wrote in message
m...
> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?
>
> I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
> substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
> would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
> the way.
>
> Currently, much loved, I have a dear old Roland MV-30 midi sound
> module/sequencer which, I have to say, is fantastic for getting MIDI
> stuff down - with dedicated faders etc. it is immediate and intuitive
> albeit the inbuilt sounds are getting pretty long in the tooth. (and
> its noise floor ain't so great either)
>
> I would love to be able to bang down primarily MIDI stuff from a
> keyboard but also some audio where I am just overwriting on a track by
> track basis, soft synths obviously quite a handy feature.
>
> I've had a play with Cubase VST but geez there's a lot of fiddling
> around, and weeny tiny little widgets to click on which I can't seem
> to enlarge. Also, and I can't exactly put my finger on it, there's a
> 'weirdness' about Cubase - non-standard ways of interacting compared
> to normal Windows programs - weird dialogue boxes etc, that I dislike
> very much.
>
> I want to put up (on a BIG laptop screen - 1400 X 1050) a decent-sized
> tape transport and, say, half a dozen faders (at a time) with mute,
> solo and arm, and then, dammit, I want to treat the damn thing like a
> Revox reel to reel.
>
> I don't want to do loops or weird tempo hacking or anything. I don't
> do video. I just want something that enables me to do what I could do
> on the MV30 quickly and easily. I want it to be nice and stable and
> unpicky about hardware, work under Win2K, and work with the Roland
> UA20 I just bought. And PLEASE, will it just autodetect the sound card
> and sensibly default inputs and outputs so by default on startup track
> 1 is ready to go, assigned to something sensible. (and can I save my
> preferences WITHOUT having to create a dummy project, please?)
>
> Is there anything out there that does this without presenting me with
> zillions of little widgets I can't hide. Something that ideally lets
> me customise the windows I see so as to just put the bits I want where
> I want - and the size I want, so if I want BIG tape transport controls
> I can have them. Something that, ideally, would let me take something
> like a cheap remote control and use that as a quick and dirty control
> surface?.

[Chris T. Young]

You want Cool Edit Pro 2 (or as it's now called Adobe "Audtition").
It's as straight forward as it gets, with the ability to do much more if you
need it to.

-Chris

"Andrew Mayo" > wrote in message
m...
> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?
>
> I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
> substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
> would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
> the way.
>
> Currently, much loved, I have a dear old Roland MV-30 midi sound
> module/sequencer which, I have to say, is fantastic for getting MIDI
> stuff down - with dedicated faders etc. it is immediate and intuitive
> albeit the inbuilt sounds are getting pretty long in the tooth. (and
> its noise floor ain't so great either)
>
> I would love to be able to bang down primarily MIDI stuff from a
> keyboard but also some audio where I am just overwriting on a track by
> track basis, soft synths obviously quite a handy feature.
>
> I've had a play with Cubase VST but geez there's a lot of fiddling
> around, and weeny tiny little widgets to click on which I can't seem
> to enlarge. Also, and I can't exactly put my finger on it, there's a
> 'weirdness' about Cubase - non-standard ways of interacting compared
> to normal Windows programs - weird dialogue boxes etc, that I dislike
> very much.
>
> I want to put up (on a BIG laptop screen - 1400 X 1050) a decent-sized
> tape transport and, say, half a dozen faders (at a time) with mute,
> solo and arm, and then, dammit, I want to treat the damn thing like a
> Revox reel to reel.
>
> I don't want to do loops or weird tempo hacking or anything. I don't
> do video. I just want something that enables me to do what I could do
> on the MV30 quickly and easily. I want it to be nice and stable and
> unpicky about hardware, work under Win2K, and work with the Roland
> UA20 I just bought. And PLEASE, will it just autodetect the sound card
> and sensibly default inputs and outputs so by default on startup track
> 1 is ready to go, assigned to something sensible. (and can I save my
> preferences WITHOUT having to create a dummy project, please?)
>
> Is there anything out there that does this without presenting me with
> zillions of little widgets I can't hide. Something that ideally lets
> me customise the windows I see so as to just put the bits I want where
> I want - and the size I want, so if I want BIG tape transport controls
> I can have them. Something that, ideally, would let me take something
> like a cheap remote control and use that as a quick and dirty control
> surface?.

[DJ]

Along the same lines, sonically speaking, a Paris system comes about as
close to using an analog tape deck as I've heard/seen in a DAW and the GUI
is very familiar to those who are used to analog consoles. It also has an
integrate mix surface. No laptop, no midi, no 96k though.

DJ


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Mayo > wrote:
> >Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> >comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> >without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> >surfaces?
>
> I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
> a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
> probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll
probably
> decide you need it.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[DJ]

Along the same lines, sonically speaking, a Paris system comes about as
close to using an analog tape deck as I've heard/seen in a DAW and the GUI
is very familiar to those who are used to analog consoles. It also has an
integrate mix surface. No laptop, no midi, no 96k though.

DJ


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Mayo > wrote:
> >Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> >comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> >without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> >surfaces?
>
> I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
> a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
> probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll
probably
> decide you need it.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Andrew Mayo > wrote:
>Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
>comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
>without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
>surfaces?

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll probably
decide you need it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Andrew Mayo > wrote:
>Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
>comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
>without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
>surfaces?

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll probably
decide you need it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
> a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
> probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll probably
> decide you need it.

Oh, shut up. I am right now trying to avoid that very conclusion.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
> a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
> probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll probably
> decide you need it.

Oh, shut up. I am right now trying to avoid that very conclusion.

--
ha

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Mayo" > wrote in message
m

> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?

> I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
> substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
> would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
> the way.

That's not exactly how some (many?) people see things.

I mix live sound every week, and I also mix a PC-based 8-track recording of
the same performance with Adobe Audition.

In essence I mix the same performance twice, once on a mixing console and
once on a PC.

No way does the sound quality of what I do on the console come even vaguely
close to the quality of what I can do on the PC.

For one thing, on the mixing console I'm always in react mode or presume
mode and I'm always dependent on my hand-and-eye coordination in real time.

On the PC I look and listen to what actually happened, and then I do what I
think will give the best results, at my own pace. Furthermore, I have as
many second chances as I want.

I think this begs the question - why would I want my PC to be limited to
working like a traditional console and recorder? Not that it can't...

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Mayo" > wrote in message
m

> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?

> I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
> substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
> would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
> the way.

That's not exactly how some (many?) people see things.

I mix live sound every week, and I also mix a PC-based 8-track recording of
the same performance with Adobe Audition.

In essence I mix the same performance twice, once on a mixing console and
once on a PC.

No way does the sound quality of what I do on the console come even vaguely
close to the quality of what I can do on the PC.

For one thing, on the mixing console I'm always in react mode or presume
mode and I'm always dependent on my hand-and-eye coordination in real time.

On the PC I look and listen to what actually happened, and then I do what I
think will give the best results, at my own pace. Furthermore, I have as
many second chances as I want.

I think this begs the question - why would I want my PC to be limited to
working like a traditional console and recorder? Not that it can't...

[reddred]

"Andrew Mayo" > wrote in message
m...
> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?
>
> I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
> substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
> would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
> the way.
>

Vegas or Cool Edit Pro.

>
> I would love to be able to bang down primarily MIDI stuff from a
> keyboard but also some audio where I am just overwriting on a track by
> track basis, soft synths obviously quite a handy feature.
>

That's where a lot of the cumbersome widgets come in. Unfortuneatly, Vegas
does not do MIDI. It is a great 'tape deck' type app, if you ignore the
video features (which can be hidden and are not extensive anyway) with a
good MIDI sync. You can still use the sequencer in your Roland?

> I've had a play with Cubase VST but geez there's a lot of fiddling
> around, and weeny tiny little widgets to click on which I can't seem
> to enlarge. Also, and I can't exactly put my finger on it, there's a
> 'weirdness' about Cubase - non-standard ways of interacting compared
> to normal Windows programs - weird dialogue boxes etc, that I dislike
> very much.
>

Vegas conforms to the windows specs as much as possible, given what it has
to do. Most of these programs appear to have been coded by kids who have
never been in a studio, nor do thay make any effort towards standard GUI
ergonomics for pc users.

> I want to put up (on a BIG laptop screen - 1400 X 1050) a decent-sized
> tape transport and, say, half a dozen faders (at a time) with mute,
> solo and arm, and then, dammit, I want to treat the damn thing like a
> Revox reel to reel.
>

Vegas. Part of the problem is that it was just bought by Sony, apparently,
so it's future is in quesiton. It does not support control surfaces.


> I don't want to do loops or weird tempo hacking or anything. I don't
> do video.

You can basically hide that stuff in Vegas, but who knows what future
versions will be like.

>I just want something that enables me to do what I could do
> on the MV30 quickly and easily. I want it to be nice and stable and
> unpicky about hardware, work under Win2K, and work with the Roland
> UA20 I just bought. And PLEASE, will it just autodetect the sound card
> and sensibly default inputs and outputs so by default on startup track
> 1 is ready to go, assigned to something sensible. (and can I save my
> preferences WITHOUT having to create a dummy project, please?)
>

Yes, I'd like that too. If you find it let us know.

jb

[reddred]

"Andrew Mayo" > wrote in message
m...
> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?
>
> I accept entirely that a PC, mouse and keyboard is not exactly a
> substitute for a dedicated control surface but the deal here is that I
> would like to 'get stuff down' without the technical stuff getting in
> the way.
>

Vegas or Cool Edit Pro.

>
> I would love to be able to bang down primarily MIDI stuff from a
> keyboard but also some audio where I am just overwriting on a track by
> track basis, soft synths obviously quite a handy feature.
>

That's where a lot of the cumbersome widgets come in. Unfortuneatly, Vegas
does not do MIDI. It is a great 'tape deck' type app, if you ignore the
video features (which can be hidden and are not extensive anyway) with a
good MIDI sync. You can still use the sequencer in your Roland?

> I've had a play with Cubase VST but geez there's a lot of fiddling
> around, and weeny tiny little widgets to click on which I can't seem
> to enlarge. Also, and I can't exactly put my finger on it, there's a
> 'weirdness' about Cubase - non-standard ways of interacting compared
> to normal Windows programs - weird dialogue boxes etc, that I dislike
> very much.
>

Vegas conforms to the windows specs as much as possible, given what it has
to do. Most of these programs appear to have been coded by kids who have
never been in a studio, nor do thay make any effort towards standard GUI
ergonomics for pc users.

> I want to put up (on a BIG laptop screen - 1400 X 1050) a decent-sized
> tape transport and, say, half a dozen faders (at a time) with mute,
> solo and arm, and then, dammit, I want to treat the damn thing like a
> Revox reel to reel.
>

Vegas. Part of the problem is that it was just bought by Sony, apparently,
so it's future is in quesiton. It does not support control surfaces.


> I don't want to do loops or weird tempo hacking or anything. I don't
> do video.

You can basically hide that stuff in Vegas, but who knows what future
versions will be like.

>I just want something that enables me to do what I could do
> on the MV30 quickly and easily. I want it to be nice and stable and
> unpicky about hardware, work under Win2K, and work with the Roland
> UA20 I just bought. And PLEASE, will it just autodetect the sound card
> and sensibly default inputs and outputs so by default on startup track
> 1 is ready to go, assigned to something sensible. (and can I save my
> preferences WITHOUT having to create a dummy project, please?)
>

Yes, I'd like that too. If you find it let us know.

jb

[DavidMackBlauvelt]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote

> I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not
> really a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system,
> and it's probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it,
> you'll probably decide you need it.
> --scott

That was my solution. For those of us not wanting to deal with some of the
things other DAW people don't mind doing, or in fact probably enjoy. Best
of luck in your search.

[DavidMackBlauvelt]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote

> I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not
> really a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system,
> and it's probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it,
> you'll probably decide you need it.
> --scott

That was my solution. For those of us not wanting to deal with some of the
things other DAW people don't mind doing, or in fact probably enjoy. Best
of luck in your search.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?

None. If that's what you want to do (and it's what I want to do), get
a dedicated hard disk recorder and mixer. You'll find that after you
add up all the costs - the computer, 24 channels worth of I/O, the
software, and the intangible cost of getting it all working and
learning it, you'll at least break even on the cash and be well ahead
on the time. Track one paying project in the time it takes you to
assemble and debug a DIY computer system and you'll have the recorder
paid for.

You may also want to put together a more modest computer system for
editing and special effects, but that can come later unless your
projects depend on assembling little snippets of recorded material.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?

None. If that's what you want to do (and it's what I want to do), get
a dedicated hard disk recorder and mixer. You'll find that after you
add up all the costs - the computer, 24 channels worth of I/O, the
software, and the intangible cost of getting it all working and
learning it, you'll at least break even on the cash and be well ahead
on the time. Track one paying project in the time it takes you to
assemble and debug a DIY computer system and you'll have the recorder
paid for.

You may also want to put together a more modest computer system for
editing and special effects, but that can come later unless your
projects depend on assembling little snippets of recorded material.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

[David Morley]

In article <znr1065539486k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> > comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> > without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> > surfaces?
>
> None. If that's what you want to do (and it's what I want to do), get
> a dedicated hard disk recorder and mixer. You'll find that after you
> add up all the costs - the computer, 24 channels worth of I/O, the
> software, and the intangible cost of getting it all working and
> learning it, you'll at least break even on the cash and be well ahead
> on the time. Track one paying project in the time it takes you to
> assemble and debug a DIY computer system and you'll have the recorder
> paid for.
>
> You may also want to put together a more modest computer system for
> editing and special effects, but that can come later unless your
> projects depend on assembling little snippets of recorded material.
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Agreed
Go the Fostex/ Mackie/ Alesis route.
You can throw the files in a computer for editing if you want, but these
work just like tape recorders and are EXTREMELY cheap these days.
I reckon all of them will sound just fine.
David

[David Morley]

In article <znr1065539486k@trad>, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

> In article >
> writes:
>
> > Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> > comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> > without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> > surfaces?
>
> None. If that's what you want to do (and it's what I want to do), get
> a dedicated hard disk recorder and mixer. You'll find that after you
> add up all the costs - the computer, 24 channels worth of I/O, the
> software, and the intangible cost of getting it all working and
> learning it, you'll at least break even on the cash and be well ahead
> on the time. Track one paying project in the time it takes you to
> assemble and debug a DIY computer system and you'll have the recorder
> paid for.
>
> You may also want to put together a more modest computer system for
> editing and special effects, but that can come later unless your
> projects depend on assembling little snippets of recorded material.
>
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )

Agreed
Go the Fostex/ Mackie/ Alesis route.
You can throw the files in a computer for editing if you want, but these
work just like tape recorders and are EXTREMELY cheap these days.
I reckon all of them will sound just fine.
David

[Andrew Mayo]

(Andrew Mayo) wrote in message >...
Hmmm. interesting replies. What I didn't make entirely clear was *why*
I wanted something simple.

The reason has to do with the creative process. When you're writing
stuff, you are not in 'why isn't that MIDI coming through?' mode or
'hmm, maybe a little boost at 5KHz would brighten that up'. What you
want to do is just get some performances down, play 'em back, add a
few tracks and rough out your song as quickly as possible without the
gear getting in the way.

Sometimes you just want the thing on permanent record, capturing half
an hour of noodling around, when a great idea might come to you and
then you think 'darn, wish I'd recorded that'.

A dedicated hard disk recording system isn't really ideal because it
doesn't do MIDI and soft synths. Things like soft synths are actually
quite attractive in terms of giving me a huge palette of quickly
selectable patches - compared to hardware synths the big advantage is
that with a 15 inch colour screen a few inches away from your face,
you have a much more powerful user interface and you can therefore do
things like categorise patches e.g pads, piano, etc, and change them
quickly. (yes, I could download those to external synths, too, but the
computer makes it real easy to select them in the first place). Plus
your synth is right there in front of you if you want to tweak
something.

So a PC-based system still seems the best approach but as I said, I
want to have a 'songwriting mode' way of looking at the system which
concentrates just on selecting tracks and recording them - either
audio or MIDI, without unnecessary distractions. Having a second mode
to do mastering/post-production etc. obviously is nice too but by then
the material is recorded.

The problem with all the systems I've played with is that everything's
there all the time. So you have to wade past little widgets and menus
of stuff to do the basics, when what you want is to have a
'songwriter's configuration' mode where most of that left-brain
(right-brain? can't remember which way it goes!) stuff is hidden.

That is why I used the tape deck analogy. Take a simple 8 track deck.
You've got the transport, the VUs and you've got the ability to record
and punch in and out. That's all you need when you're getting your
song down.

Because I am working mainly with MIDI (and some audio), a real
tapedeck obviously isn't going to cut it, though I have, in the past,
used the MV30's sync to tape option to put one sync track down, lock
the sequencer to it, and then overlay audio without actually
committing the MIDI stuff to tape - I can then fool around with it any
way I want. So I could use a hard-disk recording system that way, I
guess, and yes, it'll have real faders and stuff. But the ones I've
looked at have weeny little green screens about 4 inches square, and
unlike 'real' desks, most of the controls like pan and so on are
buried in menu layers, which is annoying. (yes, some of them have VGA
ports. That's nice but I already have a laptop, thanks. Can I have
some remote control software instead?)

So a PC and keyboard actually aren't necessarily a bad control surface
for 'stick it down on tape'. Firstly, with MIDI, there's no level
setting so a MIDI channel just records, so I would like punch in and
out but that's it.

With audio, what you want to do is just plug your input in and then if
its a mic, make the loudest sound you're gonna make, or if its
something else, just strum it, blow it, hit it or whatever. Now, why
in heaven's name isn't a 2GHz multi-pentium whatsit intelligent enough
to say 'ok, so thats 0dB right. Ok, I'll set the channel gain so that
won't clip...by default I'll put a peak limiter in that'll make really
sure, in case.... now, off you go'.

And with MIDI it'd say 'hmm, got channel 1 and 3 coming in, ok, I'll
record those to this track by default; you can split 'em out later if
you want.

Or it'll say 'ok, I'll route that to *this* soft synth and then send
that out on line out'.

At that point I expect to record my MIDI and audio with 24 bit
burnished, unequalised, no-effects perfection, play the damn thing
back, punch in and out, re-record tracks and THEN, when I'm happy,
switch to post-production mode, start EQing, adding some reverb, etc.

I am therefore quite happy to have a cordless PC keyboard balanced
precariously somewhere nearby and use, say the top row of 12 function
keys as track selectors for 12 tracks, and then 'A' to arm, space to
record, return to rewind and so on.... just something ergonomically
sensible.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I'm really quite a technical
person, but when I'm in 'musician' mode, I am not technical and the
damn machines just get in my way. I think this is a fundamental human
nature thing. I mean, if you're writing a novel, you aren't probably
using a word processor's pagination options, you're just getting the
words down. I don't think that the people who design these systems
entirely understand this. The MV30's designers did. It is such a
flawlessly ergonomic system to use because everything's got a
dedicated button with a light over the top of it - no modes, no trying
to shoehorn 40 functions into ten buttons. But the poor old thing's
nearly 14 years old. It's noisy by modern standards. It uses a floppy
disk to store sequences. Its sounds are, well, a bit retro, though it
can control external synths, but then you lose the inbuilt 8 channel
mixer and stuff. (alas, no-one reverse-engineered Roland's voice card
format, so although in fact you could, in theory, add your own
samples, you'd be up for a lot of work making a compatible plug in
rewritable memory card......

Despite being such a museum piece you seldom see one for sale, because
people who own them love them and dammit, they just work!.

So what I want to do is get the same ergonomics but using a PC as the
main control point. I've got my little Roland UA20 - that's two
channels of audio which is fine for me - and I just want to turn a
normal PC keyboard into something halfway ergonomic, which, as I said,
doesn't seem too difficult. Dammit,there's 84 keys on there - who
needs modes!. (actually, it occurs to me that the MV30, I *think*,
sends sysex stuff out when you move any of the mixer faders etc, so in
theory it could become a control surface... hmmm.

[Andrew Mayo]

(Andrew Mayo) wrote in message >...
Hmmm. interesting replies. What I didn't make entirely clear was *why*
I wanted something simple.

The reason has to do with the creative process. When you're writing
stuff, you are not in 'why isn't that MIDI coming through?' mode or
'hmm, maybe a little boost at 5KHz would brighten that up'. What you
want to do is just get some performances down, play 'em back, add a
few tracks and rough out your song as quickly as possible without the
gear getting in the way.

Sometimes you just want the thing on permanent record, capturing half
an hour of noodling around, when a great idea might come to you and
then you think 'darn, wish I'd recorded that'.

A dedicated hard disk recording system isn't really ideal because it
doesn't do MIDI and soft synths. Things like soft synths are actually
quite attractive in terms of giving me a huge palette of quickly
selectable patches - compared to hardware synths the big advantage is
that with a 15 inch colour screen a few inches away from your face,
you have a much more powerful user interface and you can therefore do
things like categorise patches e.g pads, piano, etc, and change them
quickly. (yes, I could download those to external synths, too, but the
computer makes it real easy to select them in the first place). Plus
your synth is right there in front of you if you want to tweak
something.

So a PC-based system still seems the best approach but as I said, I
want to have a 'songwriting mode' way of looking at the system which
concentrates just on selecting tracks and recording them - either
audio or MIDI, without unnecessary distractions. Having a second mode
to do mastering/post-production etc. obviously is nice too but by then
the material is recorded.

The problem with all the systems I've played with is that everything's
there all the time. So you have to wade past little widgets and menus
of stuff to do the basics, when what you want is to have a
'songwriter's configuration' mode where most of that left-brain
(right-brain? can't remember which way it goes!) stuff is hidden.

That is why I used the tape deck analogy. Take a simple 8 track deck.
You've got the transport, the VUs and you've got the ability to record
and punch in and out. That's all you need when you're getting your
song down.

Because I am working mainly with MIDI (and some audio), a real
tapedeck obviously isn't going to cut it, though I have, in the past,
used the MV30's sync to tape option to put one sync track down, lock
the sequencer to it, and then overlay audio without actually
committing the MIDI stuff to tape - I can then fool around with it any
way I want. So I could use a hard-disk recording system that way, I
guess, and yes, it'll have real faders and stuff. But the ones I've
looked at have weeny little green screens about 4 inches square, and
unlike 'real' desks, most of the controls like pan and so on are
buried in menu layers, which is annoying. (yes, some of them have VGA
ports. That's nice but I already have a laptop, thanks. Can I have
some remote control software instead?)

So a PC and keyboard actually aren't necessarily a bad control surface
for 'stick it down on tape'. Firstly, with MIDI, there's no level
setting so a MIDI channel just records, so I would like punch in and
out but that's it.

With audio, what you want to do is just plug your input in and then if
its a mic, make the loudest sound you're gonna make, or if its
something else, just strum it, blow it, hit it or whatever. Now, why
in heaven's name isn't a 2GHz multi-pentium whatsit intelligent enough
to say 'ok, so thats 0dB right. Ok, I'll set the channel gain so that
won't clip...by default I'll put a peak limiter in that'll make really
sure, in case.... now, off you go'.

And with MIDI it'd say 'hmm, got channel 1 and 3 coming in, ok, I'll
record those to this track by default; you can split 'em out later if
you want.

Or it'll say 'ok, I'll route that to *this* soft synth and then send
that out on line out'.

At that point I expect to record my MIDI and audio with 24 bit
burnished, unequalised, no-effects perfection, play the damn thing
back, punch in and out, re-record tracks and THEN, when I'm happy,
switch to post-production mode, start EQing, adding some reverb, etc.

I am therefore quite happy to have a cordless PC keyboard balanced
precariously somewhere nearby and use, say the top row of 12 function
keys as track selectors for 12 tracks, and then 'A' to arm, space to
record, return to rewind and so on.... just something ergonomically
sensible.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. I'm really quite a technical
person, but when I'm in 'musician' mode, I am not technical and the
damn machines just get in my way. I think this is a fundamental human
nature thing. I mean, if you're writing a novel, you aren't probably
using a word processor's pagination options, you're just getting the
words down. I don't think that the people who design these systems
entirely understand this. The MV30's designers did. It is such a
flawlessly ergonomic system to use because everything's got a
dedicated button with a light over the top of it - no modes, no trying
to shoehorn 40 functions into ten buttons. But the poor old thing's
nearly 14 years old. It's noisy by modern standards. It uses a floppy
disk to store sequences. Its sounds are, well, a bit retro, though it
can control external synths, but then you lose the inbuilt 8 channel
mixer and stuff. (alas, no-one reverse-engineered Roland's voice card
format, so although in fact you could, in theory, add your own
samples, you'd be up for a lot of work making a compatible plug in
rewritable memory card......

Despite being such a museum piece you seldom see one for sale, because
people who own them love them and dammit, they just work!.

So what I want to do is get the same ergonomics but using a PC as the
main control point. I've got my little Roland UA20 - that's two
channels of audio which is fine for me - and I just want to turn a
normal PC keyboard into something halfway ergonomic, which, as I said,
doesn't seem too difficult. Dammit,there's 84 keys on there - who
needs modes!. (actually, it occurs to me that the MV30, I *think*,
sends sysex stuff out when you move any of the mixer faders etc, so in
theory it could become a control surface... hmmm.

[transducr]

(Andrew Mayo) wrote in message >...
> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?

if you really want a computer solution, my vote for is some flavor of
pro-tools...to me, it's the most intuitive software package.
evertything is named what you'd expect it to be named, coming from the
analog world...the tools are easy to use and easy to understand and
although it has many features, the bread and butter features that you
are looking for are very easy to use, in my opinion. as far as
anything that may be more convoluted about it (i can't think of
anything at the moment) you can learn those if you need them...

it seems like when it comes to DAWs you will probably get as many
different opinions as you get replies. if you have any means at all to
try some of these out and see which comes off as the most intuitive
for you, you certainly should take advantage if them.

by what you're describing, it seems like scott's advice about RADAR
might be more in the right direction for you. however, mike rivers'
slightly less specific blanket suggestion of getting "a hard-disk
recorder" might be more appropriate since you'd certainly be able to
get a dedicated HD recorder like the ones tascam, mackie or alesis are
making for less than a RADAR system, as i assume bidget is a
consideration. i guess alot of that has to do with what you already
own...

take care
jon

[transducr]

(Andrew Mayo) wrote in message >...
> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?

if you really want a computer solution, my vote for is some flavor of
pro-tools...to me, it's the most intuitive software package.
evertything is named what you'd expect it to be named, coming from the
analog world...the tools are easy to use and easy to understand and
although it has many features, the bread and butter features that you
are looking for are very easy to use, in my opinion. as far as
anything that may be more convoluted about it (i can't think of
anything at the moment) you can learn those if you need them...

it seems like when it comes to DAWs you will probably get as many
different opinions as you get replies. if you have any means at all to
try some of these out and see which comes off as the most intuitive
for you, you certainly should take advantage if them.

by what you're describing, it seems like scott's advice about RADAR
might be more in the right direction for you. however, mike rivers'
slightly less specific blanket suggestion of getting "a hard-disk
recorder" might be more appropriate since you'd certainly be able to
get a dedicated HD recorder like the ones tascam, mackie or alesis are
making for less than a RADAR system, as i assume bidget is a
consideration. i guess alot of that has to do with what you already
own...

take care
jon

[P Stamler]

So set up a computer for soft-synths and record on a hard-disk recorder. Later
on you can load it into the computer and mix when you're not in
creative-floating mode.

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

So set up a computer for soft-synths and record on a hard-disk recorder. Later
on you can load it into the computer and mix when you're not in
creative-floating mode.

Peace,
Paul

[Tom Loredo]

I'm still not completely clear on all your requirements, but if it's
*just* MIDI that you want to track, a cheap, tape-deck like solution
is the now-defunct Alesis MMT-8 sequencer. It's been out of production
for years, but has such a simple interface that it still has a devoted
following. There was a web site, www.mmt8.com, that hosted a ton of
info and user discussion on it, but its ISP accidentally wiped
the site a couple months ago and it has yet to be rebuilt. A Google
search will turn up other MMT-8 sites, though, such as:

http://www.sonicstate.com/synth/alesis_mmt-8.cfm
http://www.harmony-central.com/Synth/Data/Alesis/MMT-8-01.html

It's an 8-track sequencer with a very tape-deck-like interface.
I'm mostly an acoustic musician who just dabbles in MIDI, and for
someone like me (comfortable on a multitrack machine) it was just
the ticket back when I used it in the late 80s.

They still turn up on eBay. I happen to have a pristine one that's
been in its box for over a decade after some light use. It works
fine and I'll be selling it, but not till I save the sequences in it....

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

[Tom Loredo]

I'm still not completely clear on all your requirements, but if it's
*just* MIDI that you want to track, a cheap, tape-deck like solution
is the now-defunct Alesis MMT-8 sequencer. It's been out of production
for years, but has such a simple interface that it still has a devoted
following. There was a web site, www.mmt8.com, that hosted a ton of
info and user discussion on it, but its ISP accidentally wiped
the site a couple months ago and it has yet to be rebuilt. A Google
search will turn up other MMT-8 sites, though, such as:

http://www.sonicstate.com/synth/alesis_mmt-8.cfm
http://www.harmony-central.com/Synth/Data/Alesis/MMT-8-01.html

It's an 8-track sequencer with a very tape-deck-like interface.
I'm mostly an acoustic musician who just dabbles in MIDI, and for
someone like me (comfortable on a multitrack machine) it was just
the ticket back when I used it in the late 80s.

They still turn up on eBay. I happen to have a pristine one that's
been in its box for over a decade after some light use. It works
fine and I'll be selling it, but not till I save the sequences in it....

Peace,
Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

[Guitarboy]

In article >, Andrew
Mayo > wrote:

> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?
no one else on here will suggest this but pro toolsis the most
intuitive and tape deck like daw out there and it has pretty good midi.
for a laptop just get an mbox or a digi 002r and yoe're good to go.

[Guitarboy]

In article >, Andrew
Mayo > wrote:

> Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> surfaces?
no one else on here will suggest this but pro toolsis the most
intuitive and tape deck like daw out there and it has pretty good midi.
for a laptop just get an mbox or a digi 002r and yoe're good to go.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

P Stamler wrote:

> So set up a computer for soft-synths and record on a hard-disk recorder. Later
> on you can load it into the computer and mix when you're not in
> creative-floating mode.

Don't those standalone workstations from Roland, Yamaha, etc., haul in
MIDI and audio simultaneously?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

P Stamler wrote:

> So set up a computer for soft-synths and record on a hard-disk recorder. Later
> on you can load it into the computer and mix when you're not in
> creative-floating mode.

Don't those standalone workstations from Roland, Yamaha, etc., haul in
MIDI and audio simultaneously?

--
ha

[Les Cargill]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
> P Stamler wrote:
>
> > So set up a computer for soft-synths and record on a hard-disk recorder. Later
> > on you can load it into the computer and mix when you're not in
> > creative-floating mode.
>
> Don't those standalone workstations from Roland, Yamaha, etc., haul in
> MIDI and audio simultaneously?
>
> --
> ha

Nope. The MIDI ports are for interfacing to sequencers/DAWs, for
timing. Only transport control and timing messages are emitted by them.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
>
> P Stamler wrote:
>
> > So set up a computer for soft-synths and record on a hard-disk recorder. Later
> > on you can load it into the computer and mix when you're not in
> > creative-floating mode.
>
> Don't those standalone workstations from Roland, Yamaha, etc., haul in
> MIDI and audio simultaneously?
>
> --
> ha

Nope. The MIDI ports are for interfacing to sequencers/DAWs, for
timing. Only transport control and timing messages are emitted by them.

--
Les Cargill

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

> LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

> > Don't those standalone workstations from Roland, Yamaha, etc., haul in
> > MIDI and audio simultaneously?

> Nope. The MIDI ports are for interfacing to sequencers/DAWs, for
> timing. Only transport control and timing messages are emitted by them.

Wow. That seems stupid to me. Snagging MIDI that could later be
offloaded to a computer-based sequencer would seem like a no-brainer.
Maybe that's why my kids call me that.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

> LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

> > Don't those standalone workstations from Roland, Yamaha, etc., haul in
> > MIDI and audio simultaneously?

> Nope. The MIDI ports are for interfacing to sequencers/DAWs, for
> timing. Only transport control and timing messages are emitted by them.

Wow. That seems stupid to me. Snagging MIDI that could later be
offloaded to a computer-based sequencer would seem like a no-brainer.
Maybe that's why my kids call me that.

--
ha

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Guitarboy" > wrote in message . ..
> In article >, Andrew
> Mayo > wrote:
>
> > Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> > comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> > without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> > surfaces?

> no one else on here will suggest this but pro toolsis the most
> intuitive and tape deck like daw out there and it has pretty good midi.
> for a laptop just get an mbox or a digi 002r and yoe're good to go.

I find that Nuendo on a Hammerfall card is the most like a tape machine
in the software domain. Neither one of these is exactly "intuitive" if one
wants to 'operate' it like a tape machine.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Guitarboy" > wrote in message . ..
> In article >, Andrew
> Mayo > wrote:
>
> > Of all the products out there - Cubase, Cakewalk, etc. etc. etc. which
> > comes closest to allowing the user to just simply bang tracks down
> > without endless clicking or the purchase of expensive control
> > surfaces?

> no one else on here will suggest this but pro toolsis the most
> intuitive and tape deck like daw out there and it has pretty good midi.
> for a laptop just get an mbox or a digi 002r and yoe're good to go.

I find that Nuendo on a Hammerfall card is the most like a tape machine
in the software domain. Neither one of these is exactly "intuitive" if one
wants to 'operate' it like a tape machine.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

[david]

In article >, LeBaron &
Alrich > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
> > a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
> > probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll probably
> > decide you need it.
>
> Oh, shut up. I am right now trying to avoid that very conclusion.



I'd aim you PTHD Hank. I've been using it almost exclusively for a year
now after many years of analog multitrack. (Previously I'd used the
earlier incarnations of PT only for multimedia projects, cuz its so
easy to slide stuff around.)

The editing capability is easy and powerful, the converters sound fine,
damn nice clock, the 5.31 software never crashes, some very nice
plug-ins, use your Mac for simple backup, easily transportable data
files, automate stuff while you track, tons more punching capability,
yadda yadda yadda. And I still mix thru my console.

I still haven't gotten it to sound like 2" for basic tracks rock and
roll - no tape compression and wonderful analog top for that - but my
clients are very happy.

For acoustic stuff it's outstanding.



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[david]

In article >, LeBaron &
Alrich > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not really
> > a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system, and it's
> > probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it, you'll probably
> > decide you need it.
>
> Oh, shut up. I am right now trying to avoid that very conclusion.



I'd aim you PTHD Hank. I've been using it almost exclusively for a year
now after many years of analog multitrack. (Previously I'd used the
earlier incarnations of PT only for multimedia projects, cuz its so
easy to slide stuff around.)

The editing capability is easy and powerful, the converters sound fine,
damn nice clock, the 5.31 software never crashes, some very nice
plug-ins, use your Mac for simple backup, easily transportable data
files, automate stuff while you track, tons more punching capability,
yadda yadda yadda. And I still mix thru my console.

I still haven't gotten it to sound like 2" for basic tracks rock and
roll - no tape compression and wonderful analog top for that - but my
clients are very happy.

For acoustic stuff it's outstanding.



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[LeBaron & Alrich]

david wrote:

> LeBaron & Alrich > wrote:

> > Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > > I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not
> > > really a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system,
> > > and it's probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it,
> > > you'll probably decide you need it.

> > Oh, shut up. I am right now trying to avoid that very conclusion.

> I'd aim you PTHD Hank. I've been using it almost exclusively for a year
> now after many years of analog multitrack. (Previously I'd used the
> earlier incarnations of PT only for multimedia projects, cuz its so
> easy to slide stuff around.)

The deal is that at some point I will get some kind of dedicated
recording box that works just like an old analog deck but fits into a
few rack spaces and can go with me without having to haul a computer on
top of the rest of the gear. I have simple Mac action old
(8100/G3.300/AMII&SDII) and new (G4 'book/MIO2992+DSP) but I am finding
that especially for stuff not done here in my own room I'd like to haul
kit to track in the old fashioned manner. I find it much easier to
communicate with the musicians when I'm producing/"engineering" using a
machine that just tracks, conrolled by a straightforward remote,
monitored though an analog console. I can look at people more than I
must look at an LCD and somehow that begets better tracks onsite than
when I'm distracted by the work needed to operate the system.

> The editing capability is easy and powerful, the converters sound fine,
> damn nice clock, the 5.31 software never crashes, some very nice
> plug-ins, use your Mac for simple backup, easily transportable data
> files, automate stuff while you track, tons more punching capability,
> yadda yadda yadda. And I still mix thru my console.

I appreciate all those attributes, but I'd still have to mess with a
computer. In my own situation that somehow keeps me further out of the
musician loop. I can be more relaxed without that; I can feel more like
I'm working from inside the ensemble instead of feeling like I'm "on the
other side of the glass" in these situations where there isn't even any
glass.

> I still haven't gotten it to sound like 2" for basic tracks rock and
> roll - no tape compression and wonderful analog top for that - but my
> clients are very happy.

> For acoustic stuff it's outstanding.

I believe. At this point there are lots of roads to great sound. In this
case it's about being able to help generate good stuff in front of the
mics when I'm trying to help other folks realize their vision, and in
some cases, when I don't want a single added distraction while working
on my own.

--
ha

[Mondoslug1]

>
>david wrote:
>
>> LeBaron & Alrich > wrote:
>
>> > Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> > > I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably want RADAR. It's not
>> > > really a software solution, but a combined hardware/software system,
>> > > and it's probably a lot more than you want to pay, but if you try it,
>> > > you'll probably decide you need it.
>
>> > Oh, shut up. I am right now trying to avoid that very conclusion.
>


yeah you will. I've been working with it a bunch lately....well I'm standing
behind the guy operating it anyway. Seems like a mouse with it would be cool
for selecting regions though & all that stuff but this engineer types real
fast.


>> I'd aim you PTHD Hank. I've been using it almost exclusively for a year
>> now after many years of analog multitrack. (Previously I'd used the
>> earlier incarnations of PT only for multimedia projects, cuz its so
>> easy to slide stuff around.)
>
>The deal is that at some point I will get some kind of dedicated
>recording box that works just like an old analog deck but fits into a
>few rack spaces and can go with me without having to haul a computer on
>top of the rest of the gear. I have simple Mac action old
>(8100/G3.300/AMII&SDII) and new (G4 'book/MIO2992+DSP) but I am finding
>that especially for stuff not done here in my own room I'd like to haul
>kit to track in the old fashioned manner. I find it much easier to
>communicate with the musicians when I'm producing/"engineering" using a
>machine that just tracks, conrolled by a straightforward remote,
>monitored though an analog console. I can look at people more than I
>must look at an LCD and somehow that begets better tracks onsite than
>when I'm distracted by the work needed to operate the system.
>
>> The editing capability is easy and powerful, the converters sound fine,
>> damn nice clock, the 5.31 software never crashes, some very nice
>> plug-ins, use your Mac for simple backup, easily transportable data
>> files, automate stuff while you track, tons more punching capability,
>> yadda yadda yadda. And I still mix thru my console.
>
>I appreciate all those attributes, but I'd still have to mess with a
>computer. In my own situation that somehow keeps me further out of the
>musician loop. I can be more relaxed without that; I can feel more like
>I'm working from inside the ensemble instead of feeling like I'm "on the
>other side of the glass" in these situations where there isn't even any
>glass.
>
>> I still haven't gotten it to sound like 2" for basic tracks rock and
>> roll - no tape compression and wonderful analog top for that - but my
>> clients are very happy.
>
>> For acoustic stuff it's outstanding.
>
>I believe. At this point there are lots of roads to great sound. In this
>case it's about being able to help generate good stuff in front of the
>mics when I'm trying to help other folks realize their vision, and in
>some cases, when I don't want a single added distraction while working
>on my own.
>
>--
>ha
>
>
>
>
>
>