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

Trevor

September 6th 17, 09:32 AM

On 6/09/2017 5:45 AM, PStamler wrote:
> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:40:14 PM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>
>> I want a program with better ounds than Garageband, one that's
>> Mac-compatible, and that's as easy as possible to use, and not over
>> about $200.
>>
>> I'm considering Logic Pro X, but I read a few review by users who had
>> crashes with the new version, so I'm not sure about that one.
>>
>> I tried leasing East West Music's Composer Cloud's Goliath collection,
>> but the accompanying program, called Play, doesn't allow for
>> multi-track recording.
>
> Check out Studio One Prime (free)

From their web page, Prime appears to be stereo I/O only, and OP
specified multi-track recording. Of course many confuse true multi-track
with virtual tracks though so only he knows for sure.

> and Reaper (cheap).

A pretty good choice at the price.

Trevor.

Tom Evans

October 10th 17, 01:56 AM

On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:

> Tom Evans > wrote:
>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>
>> I want a program with better ounds than Garageband, one that's
>> Mac-compatible, and that's as easy as possible to use, and not over
>> about $200.
>>
>> I'm considering Logic Pro X, but I read a few review by users who had
>> crashes with the new version, so I'm not sure about that one.
>>
>> I tried leasing East West Music's Composer Cloud's Goliath collection,
>> but the accompanying program, called Play, doesn't allow for
>> multi-track recording.
>
> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like ACID.
> is that true?
> --scott

What's ACID?

Tom Evans

Tom Evans

October 10th 17, 01:58 AM

On 2017-09-05 14:40:02 +0000, said:

> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 7:40:14 PM UTC-4, Tom Evans wrote:
>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>
>> I want a program with better ounds than Garageband, one that's
>> Mac-compatible, and that's as easy as possible to use, and not over
>> about $200.
>>
>> I'm considering Logic Pro X, but I read a few review by users who had
>> crashes with the new version, so I'm not sure about that one.
>>
>> I tried leasing East West Music's Composer Cloud's Goliath collection,
>> but the accompanying program, called Play, doesn't allow for
>> multi-track recording.
>>
>> Tom Evans
>
> Why not use virtualization/emulation software, then you can run most
> any Windows app! :)
>
> Jack

Thanks, Jack.

I don't know what 'virtualization/emulation' software is.

And I only use Macs, so I don't wnat or need Windoze apps.

Tom

Tom Evans

October 10th 17, 02:06 AM

On 2017-09-05 17:41:05 +0000, Nil said:

> On 04 Sep 2017, Tom Evans > wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>
>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>
>> I want a program with better ounds than Garageband, one that's
>> Mac-compatible, and that's as easy as possible to use, and not
>> over about $200.
>
> I know a couple of people who use Garage Band with excellent results. I
> believe that computer audio recording sound quality these days is much
> more a function of your I/O hardware, not the software.
>
> If it's primarily sample playback you want, I know someone who swears
> by Reason. Costs more than $200, though.

Thanks, Nil.

I bought Logic a few days ago. It cost me $280, plus taxes.

I disagree about sound quality being determined more by hardware than
software; so far some of the instrument sounds I've sampled in Logic
(such as horns, synths and reverb) are far superior to some of the
instrument sounds in Garageband.

Tom Evans

Tom Evans

October 10th 17, 02:11 AM

On 2017-09-06 08:32:46 +0000, Trevor said:

> On 6/09/2017 5:45 AM, PStamler wrote:
>> On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 6:40:14 PM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
>>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>>
>>> I want a program with better ounds than Garageband, one that's
>>> Mac-compatible, and that's as easy as possible to use, and not over
>>> about $200.
>>>
>>> I'm considering Logic Pro X, but I read a few review by users who had
>>> crashes with the new version, so I'm not sure about that one.
>>>
>>> I tried leasing East West Music's Composer Cloud's Goliath collection,
>>> but the accompanying program, called Play, doesn't allow for
>>> multi-track recording.
>>
>> Check out Studio One Prime (free)
>
>
> From their web page, Prime appears to be stereo I/O only, and OP
> specified multi-track recording. Of course many confuse true
> multi-track with virtual tracks though so only he knows for sure.

What's the difference between 'true' and 'virtual' multi-track recording?

Even though I don't know what 'true' multi-track recording is, I don't
think there's any meaningful difference, because with virtual
multi-track recording I can make songs that incorporate multiple
instruments' sounds, which is what I want to do.

Tom Evans

>> and Reaper (cheap).
>
> A pretty good choice at the price.
>
> Trevor.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 10th 17, 03:12 AM

On 10/9/2017 9:11 PM, Tom Evans wrote:

> What's the difference between 'true' and 'virtual' multi-track recording?

"True ... recording" must be a term that was invented because someone
coined the term "virtual ... recording." With virtual recording, you
record a MIDI track which is in essence a program that says what note,
when, for how long, and how loud, on what instrument gets played to the
listener, or for a multitrack production, for the person mixing the tracks.

Conversely, a "true ... recording" is one where an instrument is played
by a real person, it makes a sound, and that sound is captured by a
microphone and recorded.

Each has its place. It's the application and the user that determines
which one is more appropriate to use.

> Even though I don't know what 'true' multi-track recording is, I don't
> think there's any meaningful difference, because with virtual
> multi-track recording I can make songs that incorporate multiple
> instruments' sounds, which is what I want to do.

The difference is in the "human element" more than the sound. When
virtual instruments first came on the scene some of the sounds were
pretty cheezy due to marginal performance of analog-to-digital and
digital-to-analog converters, and lower resolution recording due to the
high cost of memory and storage space. Today there are some pretty good
sample libraries that are only distinguishable from live instruments by
the skill of the person creating the MIDI tracks, who, more often than
not, isn't a player of the instrument that he's virtualizing.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

geoff

October 10th 17, 08:01 AM

On 10/10/2017 1:56 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>
>> Tom EvansÂ* > wrote:
>>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>>
>>> I want a program with better ounds than Garageband, one that's
>>> Mac-compatible, and that's as easy as possible to use, and not over
>>> about $200.
>>>
>>> I'm considering Logic Pro X, but I read a few review by users who had
>>> crashes with the new version, so I'm not sure about that one.
>>>
>>> I tried leasing East West Music's Composer Cloud's Goliath collection,
>>> but the accompanying program, called Play, doesn't allow for
>>> multi-track recording.
>>
>> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like
>> ACID.
>> is that true?
>> --scott
>
> What's ACID?
>
> Tom Evans
>

Check here :
http://bfy.tw/EO7Q

Also you seem (more than) a little confused with the difference between
'music recording' and 'music creation'.

You are comparing the quality of in-built sound libraries between
Garageband and Logic, not sound quality in the generally accepted sense.
Though I don't doubt that of Logic would be likely superior....

geoff

Scott Dorsey

October 10th 17, 03:29 PM

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
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

geoff

October 10th 17, 09:45 PM

On 11/10/2017 3:29 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> 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
>

Yep - the original. Also with full DAW functionality thrown in.

geoff

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 10th 17, 09:49 PM

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

> 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.

> 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."

> 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."

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Tom Evans

October 10th 17, 10:15 PM

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

Tom Evans

October 10th 17, 10:38 PM

On 2017-10-10 02:12:24 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

> On 10/9/2017 9:11 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
>
>> What's the difference between 'true' and 'virtual' multi-track recording?
>
> "True ... recording" must be a term that was invented because someone
> coined the term "virtual ... recording." With virtual recording, you
> record a MIDI track which is in essence a program that says what note,
> when, for how long, and how loud, on what instrument gets played to the
> listener, or for a multitrack production, for the person mixing the
> tracks.

It's not the program that says what note, when, for how long, and how
loud, and what instruaments are played. It's the composer who
determines those aspects of the songs -- using the program as a tool to
achieve those aspects of the songs.

> Conversely, a "true ... recording" is one where an instrument is played
> by a real person, it makes a sound, and that sound is captured by a
> microphone and recorded.

It's not as clear-cut as you declare; MIDI recording can incorporate
sampled sounds, which are recordings of musicians playing physical
instruments. Entire songs can be MIDI recordings of snippets of
misicians playing instruments, or combine them with synthesized
instrument sounds, and the voices of the central musician and other
physical or sampled or synthesized human voices.

> Each has its place. It's the application and the user that determines
> which one is more appropriate to use.
>
>> Even though I don't know what 'true' multi-track recording is, I don't
>> think there's any meaningful difference, because with virtual
>> multi-track recording I can make songs that incorporate multiple
>> instruments' sounds, which is what I want to do.
>
> The difference is in the "human element" more than the sound. When
> virtual instruments first came on the scene some of the sounds were
> pretty cheezy due to marginal performance of analog-to-digital and
> digital-to-analog converters, and lower resolution recording due to the
> high cost of memory and storage space. Today there are some pretty good
> sample libraries that are only distinguishable from live instruments by
> the skill of the person creating the MIDI tracks, who, more often than
> not, isn't a player of the instrument that he's virtualizing.

It sounds like you're denigrating MIDI multi-track recording in favor
of physical recording, which as silly as denigrating denigrating
digital art in favor of physical art.

The important thing is: what emotional effect does the music or the
art have on the viewer or listerner respectively? The tools of
music-making and art-making are irrelevant.

Tom Evans

Scott Dorsey

October 10th 17, 11:31 PM

Tom Evans > wrote:
>
>I already have two loop-based composing tools: Logic and Garageband.
>
>So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even heard of.

Because ACID will allow you to use sample libraries from wherever you want,
whereas Garageband ties you into the samples that you keep saying you don't
like the sound of.

>And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time
>and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on
>Logic.

Because clearly there's something you want to do that you're not able to
do with Logic. Otherwise you would not be here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

geoff

October 11th 17, 02:17 AM

On 11/10/2017 10:15 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 14:29:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>
>> Tom EvansÂ* > wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like
>>>> ACID.
>>>> is that true?
>>>
>>> What's ACID?
>>
>> I guess you'd call it a loop-based composition tool.Â* Check it out, it's
>> very popular.
>> --scott
>
> I already have two loop-based composing tools:Â* Logic and Garageband.
>
> So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even
> heard of.
>
> And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time
> and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on
> Logic.
>
> Tom Evans
>

He said "something like Acid" , which you have something like. And never
said "need" so WTF ?

You come here asking for advice, then act like a dick-head when it is
offered. Are you a spoilt 14-year-old or something ?

geoff

geoff

October 11th 17, 02:30 AM

On 11/10/2017 10:38 AM, Tom Evans wrote:

>
> It sounds like you're denigrating MIDI multi-track recording in favor of
> physical recording, which as silly as denigrating denigrating digital
> art in favor of physical art.
>
> The important thing is:Â* what emotional effect does the music or the art
> have on the viewer or listerner respectively?Â* The tools of music-making
> and art-making are irrelevant.
>
> Tom Evans

Nobody is denigrating anything, apart from your apparent total lack of
comprehension of what people are actually saying. And most of us
appreciate deeply the aspects of composition, performance skill and
nuances, and the effect the end result is desired to have on the listener.

Guess what - we also all know what MIDI is, loops are, virtual
instruments are, sample-players are, multi-track is, multi-channel is,
digital (and analogue) recording is , etc, etc etc.

Is is you who apparently refuses to have the finer details and your
obvious misconceptions and misunderstandings clarified.

You have purchased and learned Logic, which can do pretty much all of
the above. Great.

Is there something else that you actually want to know, or just to
engage in some ****ing contest about Logic v. Everything Else ?

geoff

Tom Evans

October 11th 17, 03:07 AM

On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:

> Tom Evans > wrote:
>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>
> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like ACID.
> is that true?
> --scott

I don't know why you think I don't wnat DAW software, when I explicitly
wrote (above) that I do.

And Acid didn't get a good review, and it sounds from the review like
it's not as good as Garageband, which I wanted to upgrade from.

(http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/sony-creative-software-acid-music-studio-10-597320)

Since I started this thread, I bought Logic. And because I now have
Logic, and because I also have logic, reason and common sense, I know I
don't need to buy another DAW now (ACID), which, from the review,
clearly sounds like it's quite inferior to Logic.

Tom Evans

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 11th 17, 03:12 AM

On 10/10/2017 5:38 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> It's not the program that says what note, when, for how long, and how
> loud, and what instruaments are played.Â* It's the composer who
> determines those aspects of the songs -- using the program as a tool to
> achieve those aspects of the songs.

Oh, piddle! You know what I mean. For some forms of music, there's a
composer who . . . er . . composes the music. For other forms of music,
sequences of notes are programmed and they're put together to make a
piece of music. Nobody actually plays anything.

But my point is that in one instance, a musician directly plays an
instrument to make a sound. In another instance, the sound might be
generated electronically, someone (who might or might not otherwise be
called a "musician" hits a drum and records its sound, which is played
back under the direction of a computer, that may or may not have been
programmed by a musician or other human.

>> Conversely, a "true ... recording" is one where an instrument is
>> played by a real person, it makes a sound, and that sound is captured
>> by a microphone and recorded.
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you declare; MIDI recording can incorporate
> sampled sounds, which are recordings of musicians playing physical
> instruments.Â* Entire songs can be MIDI recordings of snippets of
> misicians playing instruments, or combine them with synthesized
> instrument sounds, and the voices of the central musician and other
> physical or sampled or synthesized human voices.

Right - but the musician whose name is on the record isn't playing
exactly what the listener hears. Now I'll admit that with "true"
recording, there's often some manipulation of the sounds coming from the
musician or singer, but it starts out being related to the song being
recorded, not some arbitrary sound that's pasted in under computer
control when the composition or emotion calls for it.

> It sounds like you're denigrating MIDI multi-track recording in favor of
> physical recording, which as silly as denigrating denigrating digital
> art in favor of physical art.

Not at all. It's not that one is good and one is bad, they're just
different. And if you insist on assigning names to the approaches to
production, then there should be definitions that go with those names,
and the definitions should be meaningful.

> The important thing is:Â* what emotional effect does the music or the art
> have on the viewer or listerner respectively?Â* The tools of music-making
> and art-making are irrelevant.

Agreed. But that's not what we were discussing.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

geoff

October 11th 17, 03:20 AM

On 11/10/2017 3:07 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>
>> Tom EvansÂ* > wrote:
>>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>
>> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like
>> ACID.
>> is that true?
>> --scott
>
> I don't know why you think I don't wnat DAW software, when I explicitly
> wrote (above) that I do.

You (now) have DAW software that also has the other functionality. So
congratulations.

>
> And Acid didn't get a good review, and it sounds from the review like
> it's not as good as Garageband, which I wanted to upgrade from.

Acid has had plenty of fantastic reviews. You may have read one less
than enthusiastic review, so whoop-dee-doo. It is Windows only, so turns
out irrelevant anyway.

>
> (http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/sony-creative-software-acid-music-studio-10-597320)

Try checking out reviews for Acid Pro, which is a better comparison, and
what we have been referring to.

>
> Since I started this thread, I bought Logic.Â* And because I now have
> Logic, and because I also have logic, reason and common sense, I know I
> don't need to buy another DAW now (ACID), which, from the review,
> clearly sounds like it's quite inferior to Logic.

If you wanted to you could try it for free and find out (more intuitive
for starters). But you don't want to, so don't.

What is it that you are actually wanting to ask or contribute ?

geoff

Tom Evans

October 11th 17, 03:29 AM

On 2017-10-10 02:12:24 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

> On 10/9/2017 9:11 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
>
>> What's the difference between 'true' and 'virtual' multi-track recording?
>
> "True ... recording" must be a term that was invented because someone
> coined the term "virtual ... recording." With virtual recording, you
> record a MIDI track which is in essence a program that says what note,
> when, for how long, and how loud, on what instrument gets played to the
> listener, or for a multitrack production, for the person mixing the
> tracks.
>
> Conversely, a "true ... recording" is one where an instrument is played
> by a real person, it makes a sound, and that sound is captured by a
> microphone and recorded.
>
> Each has its place. It's the application and the user that determines
> which one is more appropriate to use.
>
>> Even though I don't know what 'true' multi-track recording is, I don't
>> think there's any meaningful difference, because with virtual
>> multi-track recording I can make songs that incorporate multiple
>> instruments' sounds, which is what I want to do.
>
> The difference is in the "human element" more than the sound. When
> virtual instruments first came on the scene some of the sounds were
> pretty cheezy due to marginal performance of analog-to-digital and
> digital-to-analog converters, and lower resolution recording due to the
> high cost of memory and storage space. Today there are some pretty good
> sample libraries that are only distinguishable from live instruments by
> the skill of the person creating the MIDI tracks, who, more often than
> not, isn't a player of the instrument that he's virtualizing.

You implied the falsehood that MIDI is the master and controller of the
musician. In truth, a good musician can be the master and controller
of MIDI.

And a good MIDI muliti-track songwriter and musician IS indirectly
playing the instruments, and can be just as creative and just as good
at his craft -- by mixing different instruments and tracks in infinite
combinations, and specifiying every nuance of his songs in a myriad of
ways -- as a musician playing physical instruments only.

And just as with digital artists compared to traditional, physical
artists, the digital, MIDI musicians have available to them MORE
creative possibilites than musicians making music who use only
traditional instruments, such as pianos, drums, guitars and wind
instruments.

You have a narrow, negative perspective on digital music. Fortunately,
I'm broadminded, and very thankful for and excited about the astounding
creative possibilites that MIDi music provides for talented, home-based
musicians like me, and at low costs.

Tom Evans

Tom Evans

October 11th 17, 03:33 AM

On 2017-10-10 22:31:11 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:

> Tom Evans > wrote:
>>
>> I already have two loop-based composing tools: Logic and Garageband.
>>
>> So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even heard of.
>
> Because ACID will allow you to use sample libraries from wherever you want,
> whereas Garageband ties you into the samples that you keep saying you don't
> like the sound of.
>
>> And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time
>> and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on
>> Logic.
>
> Because clearly there's something you want to do that you're not able to
> do with Logic. Otherwise you would not be here.
> --scott

You made a false and stupid assumption, Scott.

I'm here to follow-up -- to check if anyone answered my question about
what DAW they might recommend. To not check if anyone answered my
question would have been irrepsonsible.

Tom Evans

Tom Evans

October 11th 17, 03:39 AM

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
>>
>
> He said "something like Acid" , which you have something like. And
> never said "need" so WTF ?
>
> You come here asking for advice, then act like a dick-head when it is
> offered. Are you a spoilt 14-year-old or something ?
>
> geoff

He wrote "something more like ACID", but only recommended ACID and
didn't recommend any program other than ACID. Therefore, clearly ACID
was his recommendation. Only a dickhead would not be able to figure
that out.

And by criticizing me for writing "need" instead of "want" is just
splitting hairs.

But I mixed up the timeline. I forgot that the writer wrote his
recommendation a few days before I bought Logic.

Tom Evans

Tom Evans

October 11th 17, 03:42 AM

On 2017-10-11 02:20:39 +0000, Geoff said:

> On 11/10/2017 3:07 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
>> On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>>
>>> Tom Evans* > wrote:
>>>> What's the best digital music-recording program for multi-track
>>>> recording that I can use with my Mac and my controller keyboard?
>>>
>>> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like ACID.
>>> is that true?
>>> --scott
>>
>> I don't know why you think I don't wnat DAW software, when I explicitly
>> wrote (above) that I do.
>
> You (now) have DAW software that also has the other functionality. So
> congratulations.
>
>>
>> And Acid didn't get a good review, and it sounds from the review like
>> it's not as good as Garageband, which I wanted to upgrade from.
>
> Acid has had plenty of fantastic reviews. You may have read one less
> than enthusiastic review, so whoop-dee-doo. It is Windows only, so
> turns out irrelevant anyway.
>
>>
>> (http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/tech/sony-creative-software-acid-music-studio-10-597320)
>>
>
> Try checking out reviews for Acid Pro, which is a better comparison,
> and what we have been referring to.
>
>>
>> Since I started this thread, I bought Logic.* And because I now have
>> Logic, and because I also have logic, reason and common sense, I know I
>> don't need to buy another DAW now (ACID), which, from the review,
>> clearly sounds like it's quite inferior to Logic.
>
> If you wanted to you could try it for free and find out (more intuitive
> for starters). But you don't want to, so don't.
>
> What is it that you are actually wanting to ask or contribute ?
>
> geoff

My question has been answered because I bought and tried Logic. That's
the program I'll use for the forseeable future.

Tom Evans

Nil[_2_]

October 11th 17, 07:56 AM

On 09 Oct 2017, Tom Evans > wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> I disagree about sound quality being determined more by hardware
> than software; so far some of the instrument sounds I've sampled
> in Logic (such as horns, synths and reverb) are far superior to
> some of the instrument sounds in Garageband.

The sound quality of samples starts with the I/O hardware the recorder
of the samples uses. You can process those samples with any software
you want.

You may like the samples included with Logic better than those included
with Garage Band, but that says nothing at all about the sound quality
of Logic or Garage Band itself.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

October 11th 17, 10:31 AM

On 11-10-2017 03:39, Tom Evans wrote:

> But I mixed up the timeline. I forgot that the writer wrote his
> recommendation a few days before I bought Logic.

Which you specifically removed from getting suggested by saying that you
didn't want it. And Scotts suggestion was "something like Acid", to
which could be added Cakewalk, tho' I do not really now current versions.

Another question you have is why have more tools when you have one. And
the answer to that is a question: "Why do guitarists have multiple
guitars?".

> Tom Evans

Kind regards

Peter Larsen.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

October 11th 17, 10:36 AM

On 11-10-2017 03:29, Tom Evans wrote:

> On 2017-10-10 02:12:24 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

>> ....

> You have a narrow, negative perspective on digital music. Fortunately,
> I'm broadminded, and very thankful for and excited about the astounding
> creative possibilites that MIDi music provides for talented, home-based
> musicians like me, and at low costs.

For a newbie questionee you are unusually narrowminded and ill informed
and very good at avoiding getting advice in the future.

For success in whatever your quest in life reconsider your attitude.

> Tom Evans

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 11th 17, 11:13 AM

On 10/10/2017 10:29 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> You implied the falsehood that MIDI is the master and controller of the
> musician.

Plunk!

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 11th 17, 11:17 AM

On 10/10/2017 10:33 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> I'm here to follow-up -- to check if anyone answered my question about
> what DAW they might recommend.Â* To not check if anyone answered my
> question would have been irrepsonsible.

The DAW has no sound. The important thing about choosing a DAW for your
work is to find one that you like to use. Sounds can come from anywhere,
and you can pick ones that fit the music you want to create.

As you keep saying, it's the person creating the music that's most
important, not the tools he's using.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 11th 17, 11:20 AM

On 10/10/2017 10:42 PM, Tom Evans wrote:

> My question has been answered because I bought and tried Logic.Â* That's
> the program I'll use for the forseeable future.

OK, now get out of here and start making some music. In your next post,
include a link to one of your own compositions.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

geoff

October 11th 17, 11:34 AM

On 11/10/2017 11:17 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 10:33 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
>> I'm here to follow-up -- to check if anyone answered my question about
>> what DAW they might recommend.Â* To not check if anyone answered my
>> question would have been irrepsonsible.
>
> The DAW has no sound. The important thing about choosing a DAW for your
> work is to find one that you like to use. Sounds can come from anywhere,
> and you can pick ones that fit the music you want to create.
>
> As you keep saying, it's the person creating the music that's most
> important, not the tools he's using.
>

Though the tools used may make his (or her) process of realising their
music ideas more straightforward, or less so.

FWIW when I tried Logic ( a PC version in early days) and
notwithstanding its undoubted power and complexity it had, I found the
user interface and learning-curve was the most obscure and unintuitive I
have ever come across (not having used Protools). In fact I find that
with most German software. Must be a left/right brain thing.

The other extreme, which I went with, was Vegas (for pure audio
recording - no MIDI or loop tools) which is incredibly elegant and
straightforward though now developed more as a video production tool
(still incorporating all the audio functions). And Acid for doing what I
couldn't easily in Vegas.

Have also tried Cakewalk, Cubase, Samplitude (also good), and
(increasingly) Reaper. Plus breifly played with most others.

geoff

Scott Dorsey

October 11th 17, 02:50 PM

Tom Evans > wrote:
>I don't know why you think I don't wnat DAW software, when I explicitly
>wrote (above) that I do.

Because you keep talking about MIDI. Traditional standard DAW software has
nothing to do with MIDI, it is used for recording and editing audio sources.
You don't have audio sources.

You talk about wanting a DAW but then you describe a compositional tool.

>And Acid didn't get a good review, and it sounds from the review like
>it's not as good as Garageband, which I wanted to upgrade from.

Well, then get something else. Just make sure it allows you to import
external sample libraries.

>Since I started this thread, I bought Logic. And because I now have
>Logic, and because I also have logic, reason and common sense, I know I
>don't need to buy another DAW now (ACID), which, from the review,
>clearly sounds like it's quite inferior to Logic.

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.

You need to get your mind around the differences between sample libraries
and sample playback, and the difference between DAWs and compositional tools.
Because until you do, nobody here is going to be able to help you because
none of us will be able to figure out what the hell you want.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey

October 11th 17, 02:53 PM

Nil > wrote:
>
>You may like the samples included with Logic better than those included
>with Garage Band, but that says nothing at all about the sound quality
>of Logic or Garage Band itself.

People have been trying to explain this to Tom since he came here. Will
Logic allow him to use an external sample library? If so, then his problems
are solved.

I don't think he gets yet the difference between samples and softsynths.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

geoff

October 11th 17, 08:12 PM

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 ?

geoff

Nil[_2_]

October 11th 17, 11:08 PM

On 11 Oct 2017, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

> People have been trying to explain this to Tom since he came here.
> Will Logic allow him to use an external sample library? If so,
> then his problems are solved.

I don't use Logic myself, but I believe it can use external samples as
do most recent DAWs. A friend of mine has made a lot of decent-sounding
stuff using Garage Band and its built-in samples plus some external
ones, plus tracks of real instruments and vocals. He recently got Logic
to have more features, but his main process is still about the same.

> I don't think he gets yet the difference between samples and
> softsynths.

That seems clear.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 12th 17, 12:12 AM

On 10/9/2017 8:56 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> What's ACID?

What's a DAW? Acid is a pretty decent DAW as we use the term today.
Because it's 8 or 10 years old and hasn't been updated much, it doesn't
have all of the built-in sounds and signal processing that you get with
a modern program (and those "extra" features are all different), but
Acid's strength when it was a new program is in how it can manipulate
samples and pre-recorded audio streams ("loops") in both pitch and time.

It was, and probably still is, very good at building "remixes" (in the
DJ sense) because you can take a recording, for example, of a drum part,
and adjust it in time to fit the tempo of your song, and tune it,
sometimes way down, or way up, to create a new sound that plays like
that drum part. It does support MIDI so you can also built virtual
tracks using a sample library for the kind and quality of instruments
you want to use. You can also record audio to add vocals and real
instruments, and there's a mixing console for mixing all the tracks.

It's best for creating "assembled" music rather than played or composed
music. If you just want to play piano, guitar, bass, brass, strings, and
drums on a keyboard, it will happily do that and play sounds that you
assign to those tracks. And, as Scott has said over and over again,
those sounds are YOUR choice, and aren't limited to whatever the
software vendor chose to throw in to get you started.

Logic may indeed be more suited to the way you work, but it will (or at
least should be) be a function of how comfortable it is for you to move
from one step to the next. If the sounds that came with it are OK,
that's fine, but there are plenty of other sounds out there, some free,
some fairly costly. Some recorded in ways that suit "lo fi" productions,
some that are very carefully recorded with good microphones in a good
studio, and a drum sample set may include half a dozen different snare
drums, a dozen toms, five or six kicks and more cymbals than you can
stand to listen to. Pick what goes with your songs. That's what you do
with your producer hat on.

Or just have fun.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Scott Dorsey

October 12th 17, 02:04 AM

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."

geoff

October 12th 17, 03:10 AM

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

Trevor

October 12th 17, 05:57 AM

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.

Trevor

October 12th 17, 06:01 AM

On 11/10/2017 8:15 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 14:29:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>> Tom EvansÂ* > wrote:
>>> On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more like
>>>> ACID.
>>>> is that true?
>>>
>>> What's ACID?
>>
>> I guess you'd call it a loop-based composition tool.Â* Check it out, it's
>> very popular.
>> --scott
>
> I already have two loop-based composing tools:Â* Logic and Garageband.
>
> So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even
> heard of.
>
> And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time
> and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on
> Logic.
>

Jesus YOU claimed you were *considering* Logic, and people tried to
help. I'm sure they wish they hadn't bothered with that attitude.
If you are now happy, thank them and move on!

Trevor.

Trevor

October 12th 17, 06:08 AM

On 11/10/2017 1:39 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On 2017-10-11 01:17:42 +0000, Geoff said:
>> On 11/10/2017 10:15 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
>>> On 2017-10-10 14:29:26 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>>>> Tom EvansÂ* > wrote:
>>>>> On 2017-09-05 13:52:27 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>>>>>> It doesn't sound like you want DAW software, but something more
>>>>>> like ACID.
>>>>>> is that true?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's ACID?
>>>>
>>>> I guess you'd call it a loop-based composition tool.Â* Check it out,
>>>> it's
>>>> very popular.
>>>> --scott
>>>
>>> I already have two loop-based composing tools:Â* Logic and Garageband.
>>>
>>> So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even
>>> heard of.
>>>
>>> And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend
>>> time and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and
>>> money on Logic.
>>>
>>> Tom Evans >
> But I mixed up the timeline.Â* I forgot that the writer wrote his
> recommendation a few days before I bought Logic.
>

A rather important fact I would have thought when abusing someone for
trying to help!

Trevor.

Trevor

October 12th 17, 06:15 AM

On 12/10/2017 9:08 AM, Nil wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2017, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> rec.audio.pro:
>> People have been trying to explain this to Tom since he came here.
>> Will Logic allow him to use an external sample library? If so,
>> then his problems are solved.
>
> I don't use Logic myself, but I believe it can use external samples as
> do most recent DAWs.

I don't use Logic either, but know someone who has been using external
samples with it for at least a decade.

Trevor.

Peter Larsen[_3_]

October 12th 17, 09:05 AM

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

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 12th 17, 03:15 PM

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

Tobiah

October 12th 17, 03:38 PM

> You made a false and stupid assumption

This describes everything I've heard from you to this point.

Trevor

October 13th 17, 03:32 AM

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.

Mike Rivers[_2_]

October 13th 17, 12:23 PM

On 10/12/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack."
>
> Good, so what exactly were you complaining about in my original comment?
> (that you have deleted)

I understood what you were talking about. What I objected to was your
use of the term "virtual multitrack" that you made up, as if it was
something really important and significant. I object, in general, to
terms that are made up and used for no good reason.

If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that
legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW?

>> People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual
>> tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by
>> synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code.

> Do you have a reference for anyone calling them "virtual tracks"? (other
> than yourself) Never heard it myself.

This term has been around for so long I really can't remember when I
first heard it. If the rec.music.makers.synth newsgroup archive goes
back to the 1990s, you'll probably find it there. I can tell you that
there was, maybe still is, a magazine named "Virtual Instruments" that
was all about using computers to produce sounds used in musical
compositions. That magazine came along after the concept of virtual
tracks in a multitrack DAW were pretty well accepted - recording of
tracks that yield the sounds of virtual instruments. No need to invent a
name for it.

> Just as when tape decks were
> synchronised to give extra REAL tracks, NOT virtual.

I agree with that except for the "Just as" part. Real audio sounds, and
not sequences of commands that cause something else to produce
synthesized sounds, are what are recorded on the slave deck.

>> If there were analog tracks available, the synthesizers could be
>> recorded on them for convenience. Otherwise, the synthesizer outputs
>> went into more mixer channels - THOSE were the "virtual tracks."
>
> Not IMO, they were simply hardware synced instruments.

And that, in a nutshell, is what a "virtual track" is. But I guess you
just don't get it. You had to have been there. It was something to
really get excited about, knowing that, given time, more processing
power, and better hardware designs, the virtual sounds would get closer
and closer to the sound of real instruments - or, alternatively, that
sounds that aren't made by any organic musical instrument could actually
be played and used in a musical composition.

You need to read a good book about the history of electronic music, and
no, I can't recommend one.

> As I said all along, "virtual tracks" have little to do with MIDI,

Technically, that's true. The Grateful Dead had a DEC PDP-8 computer on
stage that played sequences on a voltage-controlled synthesizer to go
along with their performances. Though nobody thought to give it a name
at the time, that was certainly a virtual track that added to their
performance. And, I suppose, one could call the backing track that the
lounge lizard uses to augment his one man band could be a virtual track
as well. But nobody thought to put that name to it.

> you can now have hundreds of virtual
> tracks of purely acoustic recordings.

We're getting kind of slippery here. You can have a virtual track
playing recorded samples of an acoustic instrument. However, the
instrument that was used to create the samples never played the part
that comes out of the computer.

> Basically what we had to do in
> overdub with degraded sound quality every time a track was copied to add
> something on top (and then could no longer be edited separately) can now
> be done on a new track even if you only have a 2 channel interface.

Uhhhhh . . . this is what MULTITRACK _RECORDING_ is all about. The
exciting development was that you no longer had to mix a previously
recorded part with a new part, record the mix, and throw away the
original part. If you don't understand that, then there's no point to
continuing this discussion.

>> But, honestly, I've never heard anyone use the term "virtual
>> multitrack" until you came along in this discussion.
>
> Amazing, but irrelevant. I would have thought the concept was obvious to
> anyone in the industry, but there you go.

It's obvious in the sense that I understand what you meant when you
wrote it, but it's also an unnecessary term. Would you say you were
"chopsticking" when you were eating your kung pao chicken? No, you're
just "eating."

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Les Cargill[_4_]

October 13th 17, 01:32 PM

Tom Evans wrote:
> On 2017-10-10 22:31:11 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:
>
>> Tom Evans > wrote:
>>>
>>> I already have two loop-based composing tools: Logic and Garageband.
>>>
>>> So I don't see why you think I would need ACID, which I'd never even
>>> heard of.
>>
>> Because ACID will allow you to use sample libraries from wherever you
>> want,
>> whereas Garageband ties you into the samples that you keep saying you
>> don't
>> like the sound of.
>>
>>> And Logic is a high-quality pro tool, so why would I need to spend time
>>> and effort learning ACID, after I've already invested time and money on
>>> Logic.
>>
>> Because clearly there's something you want to do that you're not able to
>> do with Logic. Otherwise you would not be here.
>> --scott
>
> You made a false and stupid assumption, Scott.
>

Tautologies are low in information content but they're certainly not
stupid.

> I'm here to follow-up -- to check if anyone answered my question about
> what DAW they might recommend. To not check if anyone answered my
> question would have been irrepsonsible.
>

One of the weird things that Usenet learned ( and the rest of the
online... things never did ) is that no answer is still no answer.

> Tom Evans
>
>

--
Les Cargill

Trevor

October 14th 17, 06:18 AM

On 13/10/2017 10:23 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 10:32 PM, Trevor wrote:
>>> I never denied the existence of the concept of "virtual multitrack."
>>
>> Good, so what exactly were you complaining about in my original comment?
>> (that you have deleted)
>
> I understood what you were talking about. What I objected to was your
> use of the term "virtual multitrack" that you made up, as if it was
> something really important and significant. I object, in general, to
> terms that are made up and used for no good reason.

You are welcome to go against the terminology others use of course. But
pretending I'm the only one when a simple google search could prove
otherwise is pointless.

> If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that
> legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW?

Ah you want a dictionary entry or nothing. I'm sure I don't care!

>>> People were recording time code on analog tape and adding virtual
>>> tracks (as many as the available hardware would allow) by
>>> synchronizing MIDI sequencers to time code.
>
>> Do you have a reference for anyone calling them "virtual tracks"?
>> (other than yourself) Never heard it myself.
>
> This term has been around for so long I really can't remember when I
> first heard it. If the rec.music.makers.synth newsgroup archive goes
> back to the 1990s, you'll probably find it there.

If you didn't make up the term, can you provide a reference that
legitimizes it, other than a post on the WWW?

> I can tell you that
> there was, maybe still is, a magazine named "Virtual Instruments"

Virtual instruments is NOT the same thing as virtual tracks. I guess the
word "virtual" confuses you, so I'll just give up now.

Trevor.