DAW vs other Workflow. Frustrated with computers...

miroslav said:
Run your DAW off-line....and then you can turn off all that shit permanently and never bother to install another OS patch.

I know that's not possible for some of you, since your DAW computer is also your everything-else computer.....but no better way than having a DAW-dedicated computer that can run off-line. You can keep it very lean, and there's nothing else to clutter your usage. No need for even anti-virus software....which is always running when you have it installed on any computer.
The only thing to watch for is when you transfer files to the DAW....just have them come from a computer that is properlyt patched with current anti-virus defs....that way the files are clean when they are transfered to your DAW.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, but you could also try running your DAW machine without the internet.
 
What about running a DAW on a PC with internet only for purposes of updating Ilok and registration crap? Works for me quite well here.

I personally have found no need for antivirus when opening legitimate sites. Antivirus IMO is for people that search for things they shouldn't be looking into on a computer they use for recording. Professional or not. No need to update anything, unless something comes up with purchased software that requires it. Pull up 'msconfig' and stop anything in 'startup' that might interrupt connection to your DAW. This includes stupid shit like Adobe, Itunes, and whatever stuff that does not relate to recording. Disable any 'services' that are not MS related and stop auto update. Done.

I would never download anything from youtube or even this site directly to my recording PC. That is where the issues start IMO, when someone expects to look at p0rn and expect to have a trouble free PC. Pick one or buy two.

Working for me here for years...
 
Having a dedicated computer for audio is by far and away the best option. Set it up with what you need and no more, get it stable, image the drive, keep it off line and don't muck with it until and unless the system needs to be rebuilt - then use that image. A heavily used system will probably need to be wiped and rebuilt every 6-12 months to keep it clean and running smoothly.

Constantly adding new plugins, OS and DAW software updates is asking for trouble. Attempting to stay on the bleeding edge of technology and features won't do you any favours in terms of maintaining a stable, reliable system. As tempting as new functions and tools are, if your system works fine as it is and meets all your current requirements, leave it be. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Obviously not everyone can afford two computers, but be realistic as to your needs. You can make real music with surprisingly little computing horsepower.

I have an old PowerMac G4/466MHz system running a Digi001 PCI interface, running ProToolsLE 5.2.3 on MacOS9.1 and PTLE6.1 on MacOSX 10.3.8. I put it together about 5-6 years ago, it was already unsupported hardware back then and well "out of date". The Mac itself cost a mere AU$60, with a few extra bucks to max out the RAM and put in a second IDE hard drive. The interface and card cost AU$250 back then - you can pick up one for about half that these days (just make sure you get the breakout box, cable and PCI card).

That's an 18 in/18 out system with MIDI I/O and 2 mic pres for well under AU$500, that'll record 18 simultaneous tracks and playback up to 32 at 24 bit/44.1KHz off a single 7200 rpm drive. More than enough to record and mix a live band, multi-mic'd drums, the works.

Yes, there are limitations. It won't handle a heap of VSTis nor can I run 50 convolution reverbs either. MacOS9 RTAS plugins are hard to come by, and console surfaces need to be of a similar vintage... though they're similarly cheap on eBay et. al. I'm currently considering getting a Mackie HUI, which now cost a fraction of their original RRP due to Avid dropping support years ago.

Those sorts of limitations mightn't suit everyone - EDM/techno/electronic artists particularly - but with that system I've tracked and mixed a number of rock/blues live shows and rehearsals with nary an issue. It's easily been the most rock solid DAW configuration I've ever owned, and I've certainly spent a lot more time and money chasing my arse on newer systems. I'll never sell it.

It's easy to forget but no one was complaining about the quality of the music they were producing with the then state of the art gear back in 1999 or 2002. You can pick up rigs like this for very little... old ProTools TDM systems are now dirt cheap. If you can get past the desire to have elastic audio, flex time and 2000 plugins, there are some really good, affordable and reliable options out there.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers, Ben.
 
Seriously, even eight tracks at 96/24 won't overpower the bandwidth of even USB 2.0. How much computing power are you looking for? VSTi's take a few more threads in CPU land, but you can run 8-10 on a dual core processor. I haven't ever thrown enough at my quad core i5 to make it glitch. Wish I could figure out what I was doing wrong with my hex & oct core AMDs, I'd still be using them for music and not for gaming machines...well, one of them. Lots of $$$ down the tube trying to figure THAT one out.
 
BroKen_H said:
Seriously, even eight tracks at 96/24 won't overpower the bandwidth of even USB 2.0. How much computing power are you looking for? VSTi's take a few more threads in CPU land, but you can run 8-10 on a dual core processor.
Click to expand...

Idk about this. 3 instances of d16 LuSH-101 on my computer with a dual core i5 and my computer starts glitching like crazy!
 
I too suffer from the "get ready" latency and as such have decided to get a TASCAM D-32 porta-studio and park the computer for a while. I also bought a field recorder; its mounted on a tripod, I walk in, plug in and play..... ultimately, I am a musician wanting to record my work; not a studio tech who happens to play music... I got confused; now I'm not.
 
kidkage said:
Idk about this. 3 instances of d16 LuSH-101 on my computer with a dual core i5 and my computer starts glitching like crazy!
Click to expand...

That synth is a resource hog that wants a 3.7 Mhz i7 just to run itself...I can run 14 NN-XTs add in a couple of Thor and Maelstrom synth parts and 2 Octorex drums and load down multiple reverbs, compressors, stereo enhancers, distortions, etc, etc, etc. all on top of live guitar/piano/bass tracks on my quad i5. VSTis do take more threads (meaning process signals sent through specific cores), but some VSTi's just demand more from a system. And a good load of memory is required for certain things as well.
But I'll stand by my theory that a quad i5 with 8 GB (I run 12) is plenty for a DAW machine. Especially if you've dedicated the machine and gotten rid of the services and background programs that are useless to recording.
 
I just noticed your quandary of a DAW vs a real mixing board, and I have to say that now that equipment has progressed to a whole new level of user friendly options, you now have the best of both worlds in which you can interface your music to a final product that you can enjoy and use in the professional setting. My experience with in home studio work started in the late 70's early 80's which for the most part was "the analog approach". This was a mix of wires connected to many (I do mean Many) different components that contributed to the final mix and production of the vinyl record. Now, I am more than grateful of having the simplicity of using a "computer program of my choosing, and then having a plethora of "USB interfaced" equipment that I can plug into my computer and use VST's to create my "master Mix". The interesting irony is that now I have so many filters, compressors, sequencers, sound suppressors, and goodness knows what other tools in which I can render sound. The flip side is that I don't need a giant music studio to facilitate all that bulky equipment I had to lug around to do all the work. I guess the bottom line is this....You make the music as you see fit, and if you like the analog approach, then this will be your bliss, and if you find the computer and software to be your way to your music creation then you have your answer. Hope this was at least an interesting option for you.
 
You might want to go with a simpler DAW program that literally is so user friendly that you simply install it, and you can start working on music with very little notice to the manual. It is one of the most user friendly programs I have ever encountered in the field of music recording. "Mixcraft 6" is so straight forward and easy to use that very little if any special training is required. I was able to load a track, find the virtual settings, and midi my keyboard right into the software with very little effort. The sound is flawless, and the end result was in my opinion "as professional" as it gets. Their tutorials on "Youtube" give you a nice and easy way to learn the program so you can spend your time making music, and not engineering the world. Give it a try!!
 
Edzbug62 said:
The sound is flawless
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, the sound is "flawless" on all DAW's. There is no difference in sound between one DAW and another. The reason to use one over the other comes down to other issues, like workflow, etc....
 
Last edited:
RAMI said:
Just to be clear, the sound is "flawless" on all DAW's. There is no difference in sound between one DAW and another. The reason to use one over the other comes down to other issues, like workflow, etc....
Click to expand...

Exactly! I've used Reason for 8 years, not because it sounds better, but because I can make better sounds with it. Having the mixer in the upper pane, signal chain (rack) in the middle and workflow/controls in the bottom just works well for me (and thousands of others). There are probably other programs that do exactly that as well, but it doesn't matter. Download one free trial per week for 8 weeks. Take your best shot with each. Take notes. At the end of eight weeks, review your notes AND your feelings about each DAW. Pick one and GO! That was my process. By the way, I was working 40 hour weeks and mowing the lawn and doing housework and cooking at the time, so actual time with each was only about 15-20 hours. That's plenty to get a feel for the workflow you'll get from each.
Now there are several DAWs that have been recommended here, and I believe all of them have free trials. I know Reaper, Mixcraft & Reason do.
 
RAMI said:
Just to be clear, the sound is "flawless" on all DAW's. There is no difference in sound between one DAW and another. The reason to use one over the other comes down to other issues, like workflow, etc....
Click to expand...

Having just had this discussion in another forum....and agreeing that at the "base" level, all DAWs sound the same.....there's a bit more than workflow that can actually create differences/preferences.

Since a lot of people don't use a DAW just at its "base" level (to track and playback), and instead also apply a lot of FX, processing, dithering, etc while working in their DAWs.....those additional processes and computations can in fact create minor sonic differences due to how their DAW/system deals with them.

IOW....if everyone used a bunch of different DAWs at their "base" level, but on identical computers with identical FX/processing...the results would be the same.
However, throw in different hardware, and differences in the FX/processing used...and you can begin to hear *subtle* effects on the sound.

I think that's why some people will say that one DAW sounds better than another....most likely it’s the result of all the OTHER stuff they are adding/applying while working in a given DAW….and that, could be enough to consider, since no one works in a DAW just at its most basic level.....though again, for the most part, I think the majority of people may not notice anything.
You have to have a really great monitoring environment, and a lot of critical listening to compare things…so nothing to really lose sleep over.
 
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said, in less words and with less detail.

I did put "etc...." at the end of my statement.
 
miroslav said:
Having just had this discussion in another forum....and agreeing that at the "base" level, all DAWs sound the same.....there's a bit more than workflow that can actually create differences/preferences.

Since a lot of people don't use a DAW just at its "base" level (to track and playback), and instead also apply a lot of FX, processing, dithering, etc while working in their DAWs.....those additional processes and computations can in fact create minor sonic differences due to how their DAW/system deals with them.

IOW....if everyone used a bunch of different DAWs at their "base" level, but on identical computers with identical FX/processing...the results would be the same.
However, throw in different hardware, and differences in the FX/processing used...and you can begin to hear *subtle* effects on the sound.

I think that's why some people will say that one DAW sounds better than another....most likely it’s the result of all the OTHER stuff they are adding/applying while working in a given DAW….and that, could be enough to consider, since no one works in a DAW just at its most basic level.....though again, for the most part, I think the majority of people may not notice anything.
You have to have a really great monitoring environment, and a lot of critical listening to compare things…so nothing to really lose sleep over.
Click to expand...

Sure, a Saturation plug for Reason will sound different than one for Reaper, unless they're from the same source (and that can still have minor differences). You get more processor power (and therefore more effects) with a faster processor/more memoiry. You get more VSTi's with more processors (dual vs quad vs hex vs oct). All viable points. What's most important is still the sound of the room and the monitor chain...but, like I've said; give a few DAWs a chance and pick the one that you feel best and most comfortable with.
 
WDI said:
I don't think so. Because I'm looking at it from my own experience as a novice. What I record on tape sounds better. All gear being the same except tape vs computer.
Click to expand...

You have to treat the two mediums differently. Tape adds an effect that you don't get by default with digital. But if you up your game on the front end and/or make some different mix choices, you can end up with something that isn't cookie cutter.
 
ashcat_lt said:
I always thought the automatic update thing was just to stop the computer from putting any of its resources into doing anything that you haven't asked it to do. Automatic updates is a service which runs in the background and while it may not do much all the time, it does do something sometimes, and if it decides to do that something right when you need all the processing power you can get it could cause glitches and other stuff and whatever.

That said, most of the stuff that comes across Automatic Updates is security fixes, which are only really necessary if you're connecting to the internet. Don't connect it to the internet, turn off all the network services (again, to free up all the ticks we can) and you won't need automatic updates or anti-virus/malware anything and you can devote all of your processor and RAM to the one thing that really needs it. Use something else for searching for boobs and downloading bit torrents. ;)
Click to expand...
If you don't have the computer connected to the internet, automatic update can't download the updates anyway.
 
RAMI said:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said, in less words and with less detail.

I did put "etc...." at the end of my statement.
Click to expand...

I wasn't contradicting or disagreeing with you....I just wanted to expand a bit with detail on your "etc...." since it's a large part of how people use their DAWs. :)
 
miroslav said:
I wasn't contradicting or disagreeing with you....I just wanted to expand a bit with detail on your "etc...." since it's a large part of how people use their DAWs. :)
Click to expand...

Ah, OK. It's all good. You quoted me and then said "there's a lot more than just workflow....", so I thought that you thought that I thought workflow was the only thing. :)
 
Naaa.....I know you didn't say it was just workflow difference....but I see why you might think I was implying that. :)

I only phrased it that way because I've seen in other discussions workflow gets mentioned as the only real difference between DAWs...and I wanted to point out that plugs, processing and computer systems can also cause some sonic differences between DAWs.

I mean....there are times when people will say, "I used DAW ____ and my stuff sounded great, but when I ran the same project on DAW ____ it sounded different".......and people will right away jump in and say that it's not possible for there to be differences, without even asking if there was any processing involved or if it was just a question of straight playback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top