General Music Chat

As per what Scott said I use Sonar 8.5 instead of the X1. They went all nutty with the menus, like the Microsoft philosophy of changing the location of everything and adding two or three clicks for stuff that used to take one. This makes it better to sell training videos and of course a sad attempt at making anything previous obsolete. I found the X1 to be a large step backward in working efficiency. Although it is a little more gentle on the resources, at least on my machine, but overall was a waste upgrading it in my opinion.

If 11 doesn't do the job, I still have 12 on the way. If that doesn't do it, I'll use an older version.

A friend of mine uses Nuendo and he wouldn't use anything else either. I guess it is whatever you are used to using.

I do not like the thought that Sonar 11 changed Everything. Time will tell if I like it or not. I have loaded Sonar 6 and Sonar 8 before to see if I liked them. I thought they were pretty good. Maybe 12 will have some changes if there were enough complaints about 11.

On the other hand, Guitar tracks Pro 4 is a gas. I have used it and I really like everything about it. I guess it is more like Sonar 4 than previous guitar tracks programs. It has some really nice graphics and is very easy to use even without reading any instruction book. And I do like that about it.

That's why I have the attitude against cakewalk/sonar.
You don't break the sh*t out of things and leave people out to dry...

Reaper if you're a technical tinkerer, Studio One if you ever used something like visual studio, or Cubase or Pro Tools (9 and 10)

I'm a negative creep

Give it a try.

Then tell them to pay me for advertising for their Cajun arses.

http://studioone.presonus.com/news/studio-one-free/

I am going to stick with Sonar for a while when I;m not using Guitar Tracks. I don't believe any company would purposely change anything if they didn't believe the changes to be an improvement. They know from experience that customer satisfaction is crucial. The last thing they want to do is tick you off.

Granted you have the learning curve, and if the rest of you are anything like me, you hate changes and the new learning process. But, once learned I find that most software is in fact an improvement in some areas. Changes in the sound engine and other processes are well worth the time to learn, however unpleasant they are at the time.

I looked at Zone today. All the reviews were divided. The software was considerable improved, and the down side again was a re learning process that takes time... a LOT of time.

I just want to play, record, and come up with a good master. That takes sophisticated software. If it didn't Studios would all be using cheaper software or some of the free ware. I am torn between hard study for vastly improved results and just recording with what I have.

I didn't like the move from 98 to Xp, and I don't care for some of the Windows 7 crappy system drivers that let you down with your favorite software. ( So I have heard on some forums) In fact, there is a whole bunch of stuff that I don't like about win7. Mostly the fact that it won't let you do some mods that you are used to being able to do.

I do not like the brain dead move to little square apps that make your computer look like a stinkin smart phone or an iPad under the Win 8 platform. GIVE ME BACK MY FRIGGIN DESKTOP!! Such a PIA to use with a mouse if you do not have a touch screen.

Nope, I;m not eager to re learn a process that I have already learned once. Sometimes changes work out for the best once mastered. I'll find out as soon as I load up my 64 bit systems.

For someone like Sans, the Free edition would give him unlimited tracks (only about 6 plugins though), and never expires.
It's a step up from having to do things with Audacity, and you dont need a super computer to run it.

The thing I like most - Everything stays on one screen. Not a bunch of different windows popping up.

Right now I have Studio One Artist and it runs fine on a dual core Athlon chip - Windowss 7.


Come up with a good Master you say?

http://www.presonus.com/videos/player#P ... -Mastering

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


If that piques your interest, theres other neat stuff:

http://www.presonus.com/videos/player#P ... Management

http://www.presonus.com/videos/player#P ... -2-Comping

http://www.presonus.com/videos/player#P ... nd-Editing

http://www.presonus.com/videos/player#P ... ntegration


Now I feel like a grimey spammer...

Now I feel like a grimey spammer...

You are a grimy spammer.


I tried Audacity but I was so used to the great graphics's on the not so inexpensive ones that I didn't even try to record anything on it. I saved the download though. I most likely will give it a fairer shot this winter when I am through with the excitement of the new toys. I'm still waiting for my Win7 OS.
Like a complete moron I bought Win7 Ultimate when it was going for $199. The other day I found it for $139 or so. I did get two copies of Win7 pro for about $78 which is far less than most places I have checked. Those are still in the mail.

I'm going to copy the links you posted.

There is no substitute for a real and true analog board. Continuous wave allows for infinite gradients of effects, tone and such. Computers are alright but they be a whole lotta clippin ana clampin goin on... before the mixing even begins...

There is no substitute for a real and true analog board. Continuous wave allows for infinite gradients of effects, tone and such. Computers are alright but they be a whole lotta clippin ana clampin goin on... before the mixing even begins...

We all pretty much use analog boards for vocals in every studio around here.

What do you record into? A noisy tape recorder? Just curious. If it goes digital anywhere in the analog chain it may as well be all digital. The reason being that a good digital A to D converter changes the analog signal the first time. After that it does not need another conversion until is is D to A again.

I for one do not wish to go back to LP's and scratchy needles and popping noises from dust and scratches. And I care little for the multiplications in the noise floor when adding tracks on a tape machine. And then you need the compression and expansion circuits needed for the needle to stay in the groove. Just saying..... Everything has it's problems.

Slacker, just wondering (being in the same boat as Sans) what you would suggest for a simple to use program for recording drum tracks. Looks like I'll be moving, which means I'll have to get into remote recording and file sharing with the guitarist I work with. I've got mics and PC, need an interface, but watching Tom work with his recording system is mind boggling for me, and even he says it is a real chore at times. He has Cubase, and indeed, he favors using an analog board for mixing. He suggested I get a lesser version of Cubase which he can walk me through, which seems practical enough. Bells and whistles are not my thing.

I may sound like a skipping record (remember those?) but, Reaper: http://www.reaper.fm
Free to download and try out the full version. After 30 days you get a popup that reminds you to pay, but does not cripple the product in any way. The manual is pretty extensive, but much of it is the advanced stuff you won't need starting out (MIDI, routing, etc).
It doesn't matter what DAW you use when collaborating remotely, you just save the individual tracks to WAV format and share them that way. If you use the same DAW, you can of course send the whole 'project' back and forth, but that file size can get pretty large.

For the audio interface, decide what the maximum number of tracks you want to record simultaneously is. How many mic preamps will you need for this? Make the decision based on those requirements - anything more than 8 inputs/6 preamps is going to limit you to a few brands that are more-or-less equal for quality (Presonus, Focusrite, Tascam, Motu ...).

Mic preamps. Forgot about that.

Gets expensive right quick, doesn't it? I'm using Earthworks mics, so the preamp has to be good. The guitarist just purchased a new one. He had a MOTU. Wasn't working out as well as he wanted. He got an Audient, I believe. He's very happy with that so far.

Ray,

I bought a Mackie 1202 for around $300 for mike inputs. Later I bought a Behringer Zenyx 1202FX for downstairs for $99. The Behringer sounds every bit as good as the Mackie for 1/3 the price. Not only that but the Behringer has 100FX thrown in. (Good ones at that). Would I buy another Mackie? Nope. Why bother when I get the same specs from a unit costing 1/3 as much? As far as build: The Behringer is built every bit as sturdy as the Mackie.

Both of these units have 4 silent mike pre amps and phantom power. They both also have 8 line level inputs. You can also get the Behringer with many more silent mike inputs for just a bit more.

Check your emails.

I bought a Xenyx 1212FXUSB and returned it the next day! The preamps were crap! Noisy, and with the gain cranked all the way I could barely get any volume from my Shure mics. Picked up a Mackie ProFX12USB for $20 more and its preamps are great, same FX choices and more connection choices. YMMV

I have a Mackie Pro12. The thing is Earthworks apparently chews up typical preamps for breakfast and spits them out at lunch. To really get out of them what they can give, according to the manufacturer (and we have gotten astounding stellar performance from them) you have to really make sure your preamps are worthy of the juice consumption. Not sure why from my limited perspective, but the guitarist decided to spend some extra on the Audient and it paid off.

The only things I believe I need are interface and recording software (other than a preamp).