[[email protected]]

I have a very small operation and mainly I use Ivory/DFH as a VST with
some basic plugins.
Currently I have been using N-Track but I am not very fond of the
interface and I am looking to upgrade.

I do mostly real time playing, IOW I use the DAW as a tape machine,
rarely do MIDI editing but I do have quite a bit of Vinyl/tape (Otari
8 track) that I will be converting to DVD in the near future.
IOW I prefer to replay a part real time and punch in/out rather than
editing MIDI note data.,
I currently have an MAudio Delta 66 card and an Maudio MidiSport 2x2
MIDI USB Interface.
My machine is a 3.2ghz PIV HT with 2 gig memory and 6 7200rpm drives.

For effects I use basic stuff, nothing out of the ordinary.


I play traditional Jazz BTW.

Which program do you feel would be best for me?
I like a clean, simple, intuitive interface that will allow me to do
basic editing.

I looked at the new Sonar, having used Cakewalk many years ago (DOS
and the first Windows version) but the interface seems extremely
cluttered to me.
Cubase looks cleaner, and Ptools cleaner still.


Thank you for all advice!

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 28, 1:02 pm, wrote:

I like a clean, simple, intuitive interface that will allow me to do
basic editing.

I looked at the new Sonar, having used Cakewalk many years ago (DOS
and the first Windows version) but the interface seems extremely
cluttered to me.
Cubase looks cleaner, and Ptools cleaner still.

I'd go with ProTools. They've come a long way toward making it user-
friendly and while Cubase is a pretty popular program, ProTools has
really taken over as the standard, particularly with the low cost
versions that make it affordable for personal studios.

The downside with ProTools is that you need to use specific hardware
with it, but there's an M-Powered version from M-Audio that will work
with your Delta 66 card. You can download a trial demo version and see
how it looks and works on your computer:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u....html#download

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:17:00 -0700, Mike Rivers
wrote:

I like a clean, simple, intuitive interface that will allow me to do
basic editing.

I looked at the new Sonar, having used Cakewalk many years ago (DOS
and the first Windows version) but the interface seems extremely
cluttered to me.
Cubase looks cleaner, and Ptools cleaner still.

I'd go with ProTools. They've come a long way toward making it user-
friendly and while Cubase is a pretty popular program, ProTools has
really taken over as the standard, particularly with the low cost
versions that make it affordable for personal studios.

I'd put it the other way around. ProTools WAS the industry standard,
(maybe still is) and is working hard to dominate the personal market.
But the "hardware dongle" policy is a serious restriction. ProTools
would have to quite uniquely superior to its competition to justify
it, and, to my mind it just isn't.


The downside with ProTools is that you need to use specific hardware
with it, but there's an M-Powered version from M-Audio that will work
with your Delta 66 card. You can download a trial demo version and see
how it looks and works on your computer:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u....html#download

[[email protected]]

On Oct 28, 2:27 pm, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:17:00 -0700, Mike Rivers
wrote:

I like a clean, simple, intuitive interface that will allow me to do
basic editing.

I looked at the new Sonar, having used Cakewalk many years ago (DOS
and the first Windows version) but the interface seems extremely
cluttered to me.
Cubase looks cleaner, and Ptools cleaner still.

I'd go with ProTools. They've come a long way toward making it user-
friendly and while Cubase is a pretty popular program, ProTools has
really taken over as the standard, particularly with the low cost
versions that make it affordable for personal studios.

I'd put it the other way around. ProTools WAS the industry standard,
(maybe still is) and is working hard to dominate the personal market.
But the "hardware dongle" policy is a serious restriction. ProTools
would have to quite uniquely superior to its competition to justify
it, and, to my mind it just isn't.

The downside with ProTools is that you need to use specific hardware
with it, but there's an M-Powered version from M-Audio that will work
with your Delta 66 card. You can download a trial demo version and see
how it looks and works on your computer:

http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_u...-main.html#dow...

Hi Mike and Laurence
Yea generally I spend most of my time on the performer side of the
glass and there is no doubt ProTools is the defacto standard although
I am seeing Cubase and Nuendo more these days in the places where I
gig.
I've downloaded the Protools demo and it seems pretty intuitive to me.

I have played around a little with Cubase SX3 and I like the layout of
that as well.
It seems clean and organized to me and the pool makes life so easy for
organization of tracks etc.
A quick look at Protools seems to indicate "regions" are the
equivalent of the pool sort of.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cubase's work flow seems aimed more at
electronic type composers, MIDI editing, sound stretching etc while
ProTools work flow seems to be aimed more at a huge virtual tape
machine.
At least that's the way it seems to me?

Both have dongles, which sucks but that's life these days.

Can fonts, screen layout and stuff be altered with these programs or
is it a matter of what theme/setup I am using for Windows XP.
Guess I should have mentioned I'm running Windows!!! Duhhhh! sorry

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

wrote:

Which program do you feel would be best for me?
I like a clean, simple, intuitive interface that will allow me to do
basic editing.

I don't know how it is to use, but there is LE version of Samplitude out,
seems to me to be aimed directly at the former Cool Edit 2000 market
segment, which is where you are from your description.

Even Magix Audio Cleaning lab might interest you, there is a basic editor
included. You don't get as many settable settins as - for instance - in
Audition. But it might be too tempting to clean up too much ..... always
remember that all cleanup is a trade-off. You sell quality to get less
perceived annoyance on your current playback system, get a new one and you
may end up wishing the trade-off had been different or just not done.

I looked at the new Sonar, having used Cakewalk many years ago (DOS
and the first Windows version) but the interface seems extremely
cluttered to me.
Cubase looks cleaner, and Ptools cleaner still.

Thank you for all advice!

Looks, looks, looks, yes - look and feel matters for the operator .... what
matters for the end result is how what they do sounds in case you need to
"do something".

The big packages out there also include the full version of Samplitude and
Adobe Audition and - way beyond budget mountains - Sequoia (sp?). Browse for
demos ...


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 28, 9:29 pm, wrote:

I've downloaded the Protools demo and it seems pretty intuitive to me.

I have played around a little with Cubase SX3 and I like the layout of
that as well.
It seems clean and organized to me and the pool makes life so easy for
organization of tracks etc.
A quick look at Protools seems to indicate "regions" are the
equivalent of the pool sort of.

What you'll find as you look at these programs is that the vocabulary
isn't standardized. To me, a "region" is the part of a file (which
could be the whole file" that plays at a specific time. I don't know
what a "pool" is. So they might be equivalent in those two programs,
or not. But ultimately just about all programs can do the same things,
the differences are in how they label, display, and locate things.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cubase's work flow seems aimed more at
electronic type composers, MIDI editing, sound stretching etc while
ProTools work flow seems to be aimed more at a huge virtual tape
machine.

I think that's a reasonable way to look at it. Cubase started out as a
MIDI program. What eventually became ProTools was one of the first
audio recording and editing programs, and ProTools didn't really start
to get its MIDI chops in order until it had to support virtual
instruments. Supposedly it's pretty good now, but since you pretty
much play real instruments, if there are still MIDI weaknesses with
ProTools, they probably won't affect your workflow.

Both have dongles, which sucks but that's life these days.

The difference is that Cubase will work with just about any hardware
and the dongle only enables the software. If you decide to change out
your sound card for something with better converters or more I/O or
DSP monitoring, Cubase will still work with it whether it's another M-
Audio interface, or a Mackie, a Presonus, Focusrite, Lynx, or Prism
Sound. ProTools would restrict your choice of hardware.

Can fonts, screen layout and stuff be altered with these programs or
is it a matter of what theme/setup I am using for Windows XP.

To a certain extent, but often things like mixer layout screens and
fonts are fixed.

[daz.diamond[_2_]]

What you'll find as you look at these programs is that the vocabulary
isn't standardized. To me, a "region" is the part of a file (which
could be the whole file" that plays at a specific time. I don't know
what a "pool" is.

the pool in cubase lingo is basically an overview of the media involved
in a project. whether recorded or imported, all media is visible in the
pool - its just a list, with info about sample rate, bit depth, file
locations and the like, with additional functions like finding a
particular file within the arrangement/project, previewing, deleting,
resampling etc

But ultimately just about all programs can do the same things,
the differences are in how they label, display, and locate things.

absolutely

Correct me if I am wrong, but Cubase's work flow seems aimed more at
electronic type composers, MIDI editing, sound stretching etc while
ProTools work flow seems to be aimed more at a huge virtual tape
machine.

I think that's a reasonable way to look at it.

besides a history lesson and marketing targets, they all employ a
'hyper-tape' type setup unifying audio, midi, and automation in one
interface, but obviously going beyond the abilities of tape. That said,
they all have weaknesses, but with enough thought there's usually a
solution - and often more than one.

Both have dongles, which sucks but that's life these days.

The difference is that Cubase will work with just about any hardware
and the dongle only enables the software. If you decide to change out
your sound card for something with better converters or more I/O or
DSP monitoring, Cubase will still work with it whether it's another M-
Audio interface, or a Mackie, a Presonus, Focusrite, Lynx, or Prism
Sound. ProTools would restrict your choice of hardware.

besides hardware differences, its about your style of working. It can
take years to become fully fluid in any of these powerful tools as there
are simply so many things that you can do with them, but if you know
what you want to achieve, its often just a case of understanding the
nomenclature, so that 'muscle memory' can take over, creating the
smoothest path from ears and imagination to finished product. The more
'invisible' an interface becomes, the more powerful it will be, but
thats so much down to personal preference, so, if you find a particular
tool intuitive, and the hardware side works for you, within budget, go
for it.

fwiw as primarily a cubase user, I can generally use logic, protools,
cooledit and so on - the problems occur when vocabulary changes from one
platform to another.


hth
daz
xxx

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 29, 8:43 am, "daz.diamond" wrote:

the pool in cubase lingo is basically an overview of the media involved
in a project. whether recorded or imported, all media is visible in the
pool - its just a list, with info about sample rate, bit depth, file
locations and the like, with additional functions like finding a
particular file within the arrangement/project, previewing, deleting,
resampling etc

If the kind of projects you're doing involve importing, placing, and
editing audio files that came from somewhere (or your own samples)
that could be pretty useful. If you're doing real studio recording
with re-takes, punch-ins and overdubs, it could be a real mess.
There's no reason NOT to have it, but not everyone will use it, or use
it in the same way.

they all have weaknesses, but with enough thought there's usually a
solution - and often more than one.

Usually more than one, which is why if you describe a process and ask
three people if you can do it, you'll get five different explanations
of how to do it, as well as a couple of explanations of why you can't.
g

[daz.diamond[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:43 am, "daz.diamond" wrote:

the pool in cubase lingo is basically an overview of the media involved
in a project. whether recorded or imported, all media is visible in the
pool - its just a list, with info about sample rate, bit depth, file
locations and the like, with additional functions like finding a
particular file within the arrangement/project, previewing, deleting,
resampling etc

If the kind of projects you're doing involve importing, placing, and
editing audio files that came from somewhere (or your own samples)
that could be pretty useful. If you're doing real studio recording
with re-takes, punch-ins and overdubs, it could be a real mess.
There's no reason NOT to have it, but not everyone will use it, or use
it in the same way.

yeh, it can be messy, but then if you start off by naming your recording
tracks appropriately, then take numbers get automatically appended to
the file names, and its really easy to follow - not sure how much use it
actually is in a tracking situation, but then if its not needed, it can
simply be ignored.

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:16:54 -0500, Abyssmal
wrote:

Nuendo is good with renaming.If I have 10 different clips of guitar on
one track,it will usually name them Audio 01_01,Audio 01_02,etc.
I can highlight them all,go to edit/rename-then type the name
guitar and nuendo will add sequential numbers after them,so it will
appear as guitar 1,guitar 2,etc.
The original file name is still on the upper left toolbar.

Of course, if you'd had the foresight to name the track
songname_guitar before you recorded anything, they would have had
meaningful names from the outset.

But then you still find people who refuse to place each new project in
its own folder, let alone set up meaningful track names. They end up
with a big pile of clips named Audio 01..... belonging to lots of
different songs. Cubase/Nuendo makes a pretty good job of keeping
track. Until you decide your disk is filling up and try a "delete
unused" operation :-)

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 29, 10:16 pm, Abyssmal wrote:

At least we as digital audio engineers only have a few hundred files
max in a project to deal with.

A movie like Shrek may have 5 million + files.
I would hate to have to rename all of them!

And a tape project might have six reels of tape. How much simpler is
that? But it's true, we used to have to put the kazoo on the third
verse on one of the background vocal tracks. That's where console
automation came in handy.

Nuendo is good with renaming.If I have 10 different clips of guitar on
one track,it will usually name them Audio 01_01,Audio 01_02,etc.
I can highlight them all,go to edit/rename-then type the name
guitar and nuendo will add sequential numbers after them,so it will
appear as guitar 1,guitar 2,etc.

That's pretty slick. I've long wanted to figure out how to do that
with Windows or even DOS. Somehow "rename Audio 01*.* Guitar*.*"
doesn't work the way I expect.


I also create a new directory for each session,and copy external files
to this directory before importing them,if needed.

That's pretty smart. You probalby also create a subdirectory for your
to-be-imported files so they won't get mingled with the recorded
files.

Some of the file asset management programs like Dreamworks use can
recognize and categorize over 300 file formats,and you can manually
add proprietary format recognition and set the specifications for
recognition and categorization.

Asset management is a hot field these days, I guess because we have so
many assets to manage in our projects.

[Scott Dorsey]

Abyssmal wrote:

A movie like Shrek may have 5 million + files.
I would hate to have to rename all of them!

I can do that with one command on my computer.
ls *.dat | awk '{ print "mv "$1, substr($1, 1, length($1)-4) ".aui" }'

Some of the file asset management programs like Dreamworks use can
recognize and categorize over 300 file formats,and you can manually
add proprietary format recognition and set the specifications for
recognition and categorization.

This is what human beings are for. And awk.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On 30 Oct 2007 09:18:11 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

A movie like Shrek may have 5 million + files.
I would hate to have to rename all of them!

I can do that with one command on my computer.
ls *.dat | awk '{ print "mv "$1, substr($1, 1, length($1)-4) ".aui" }'

What DAW do you run on that computer?

[Tonehenge[_3_]]

One word...REAPER. www.cockos.com

wrote in message
ps.com...
I have a very small operation and mainly I use Ivory/DFH as a VST with
some basic plugins.
Currently I have been using N-Track but I am not very fond of the
interface and I am looking to upgrade.

I do mostly real time playing, IOW I use the DAW as a tape machine,
rarely do MIDI editing but I do have quite a bit of Vinyl/tape (Otari
8 track) that I will be converting to DVD in the near future.
IOW I prefer to replay a part real time and punch in/out rather than
editing MIDI note data.,
I currently have an MAudio Delta 66 card and an Maudio MidiSport 2x2
MIDI USB Interface.
My machine is a 3.2ghz PIV HT with 2 gig memory and 6 7200rpm drives.

For effects I use basic stuff, nothing out of the ordinary.


I play traditional Jazz BTW.

Which program do you feel would be best for me?
I like a clean, simple, intuitive interface that will allow me to do
basic editing.

I looked at the new Sonar, having used Cakewalk many years ago (DOS
and the first Windows version) but the interface seems extremely
cluttered to me.
Cubase looks cleaner, and Ptools cleaner still.


Thank you for all advice!

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007 09:18:11 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

A movie like Shrek may have 5 million + files.
I would hate to have to rename all of them!

I can do that with one command on my computer.
ls *.dat | awk '{ print "mv "$1, substr($1, 1, length($1)-4) ".aui" }'

What DAW do you run on that computer?

I'm not running any DAW on it right now.

But you could run that command with zero changes on a Mac running Pro Tools.
I never thought I'd see the day that I recommended the Macintosh because of
its superior command line interface... but that day has come...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Abyssmal wrote:
On 30 Oct 2007 09:18:11 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Abyssmal wrote:

A movie like Shrek may have 5 million + files.
I would hate to have to rename all of them!

I can do that with one command on my computer.
ls *.dat | awk '{ print "mv "$1, substr($1, 1, length($1)-4) ".aui" }'

You can rename a whole directory of files in windows by simply
selecting all{ctrl-A},then right click 1 file and rename it.All of the
files will be renamed to the typed name with sequential numbers.

Actually, it occurs to me that if you install the Cygwin software tools
kit, that command will probably work on a Windows machine as well.

The problem is when someone say's I liked that chorus we did 6 months
ago with what's his face when we named the song something or another,
and they ask can you find that chorus?

Computers aren't good at that kind of thing, but I have worked with
people who were.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:03:09 -0500, Abyssmal
wrote:

That is simple.Unfortunately my experience has been totally digital,so
I missed out on the good old days of recording to tape.
As an artist ,I recorded to tape,but never had the privelege of
engineering to tape.

I did. Believe me, it was no privilige :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:03:09 -0500, Abyssmal
wrote:

That is simple.Unfortunately my experience has been totally digital,so
I missed out on the good old days of recording to tape.
As an artist ,I recorded to tape,but never had the privelege of
engineering to tape.

I did. Believe me, it was no privilige :-)

I did it this morning and it was just fine. It's not wonderful or
terrible, it just is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Oct 30, 12:28 pm, Abyssmal wrote:

You can rename a whole directory of files in windows by simply
selecting all{ctrl-A},then right click 1 file and rename it.All of the
files will be renamed to the typed name with sequential numbers.

But this will not do much good when 10 tracks are guitar,30 are vocal
tracks,etc.

I didn't know that. But do you have to select all the files in the
directory? Can you just select all the Track01 files and rename them
to Guitar, then select all the Track02 files and rename them Guitar?

The hip hop label I worked for had about 500 beats,and each of these
were recorded by many artists at various times over 5 years,so there
were probably 4,000+ versions of these beats.

Definitely assets needing management, unless they're expendable - once
you use one you don't want to use it again.

The problem is when someone say's I liked that chorus we did 6 months
ago with what's his face when we named the song something or another,
and they ask can you find that chorus?

That's what's so nice about tape. People can more easily accept the
answer "We decided that one was no good so we recorded over it." With
digital recording, the tendency is to keep everything just in case,
but then you have to be able to figure out what you have and where to
find it.

[Larry[_8_]]

Nothing beats Logic 8.

[Ivan Katz]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:29:16 +0000, Laurence Payne wrote:

On 30 Oct 2007 09:18:11 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

A movie like Shrek may have 5 million + files. I would hate to have to
rename all of them!

I can do that with one command on my computer. ls *.dat | awk '{ print
"mv "$1, substr($1, 1, length($1)-4) ".aui" }'

What DAW do you run on that computer?

I was going to ask the same thing
Looks like Scott might be running Linux or some form of Unix.

If he is running Linux, Ardour is a decent hdisk recording program.
It's not in the same league as Protools or Cubase though IMHO.

[Ivan Katz]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:08:39 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:03:09 -0500, Abyssmal
wrote:

That is simple.Unfortunately my experience has been totally digital,so
I missed out on the good old days of recording to tape. As an artist ,I
recorded to tape,but never had the privelege of engineering to tape.

I did. Believe me, it was no privilige :-)

I did it this morning and it was just fine. It's not wonderful or
terrible, it just is.
--scott

As an artist first and my own engineer a distant second, some of my best
work was done on an old Otari and a couple of ancient EV microphones that
I would drag to nearby church to record my playing their Baldwin grand
piano.

These days I'm digital but I find that I am fiddling more than playing
and creating.
Sometimes I wonder if digital/DAW is actually better or worse.

To stay on topic, I use both Cubase SX3 and Protools M-Powered.
I also use Audition and Sound Forge.
Protools is the latest arrival and I find that I am using it more and
more as I learn the program.
It just feels more natural to me.