my ongoing quest for a straightforward, no nonsense daw

Status
Not open for further replies.

david henman

New member
...newbie here.
first, i should explain why this has been such a difficult quest.
i am not, and have no desire to be, a professional recording engineer.
i just want to record tracks, and experiment with arrangements.
something i enjoyed doing, without computers, for fifty years, starting with a philips reel-to-reel tape recorder with sound-on-sound back in the early 60s.
and following the evolution of the industry right up to the last portastudio - the mighty korg d3200.
i carefully avoided venturing into computer recording for two decades, because i sensed that it would be an absolute nightmare.
i was right.
i bought an imac two years ago, and quickly became familiar with garageband, which i still use, and enjoy.
garageband proved, from the get go, that a straightforward, no nonsense daw IS possible.
but, as most of you know, it is severely limited.
i am quite happy to work within these limitations, of course.
i am primarily a singer/songwriter, so recording, for me, is the equivalent of note-taking.
i leave the actual recording, processing, eq, compression, mixing and mastering to the professionals.
nonetheless, people keep recommending software programs like reason.
which i tried.
650-page manual - are you kidding me?
thankfully, the folks at propellerhead were happy to refund my money.
next up, cubase.
450-page manual.
i spent two-weeks, constantly in contact with cubase customer service, and with my recordign engineer, who uses cubase, just trying to load the software and get it running.
and then, the real nightmares began - hours and hours of trying to figure out, for example, why i couldn't hear the click track, to site just one of many dilemmas.
cut to the chase - since i made the switch to computer recording, as i predicted, i have spent way too much time tearing my hair out and thinking homicidal thoughts, while glaring at a computer screen.
time that i should have spent playing, writing, singing and, especially, recording.
the only upside to this is that i did, ultimately, figure out why recording software manufacturers have taken something that i have enjoyed doing for fifty years and turned it into a complete mystery, complete with an entirely new language, and no translation.
if you think about it, you will figure it out to. it has to do with this: $$$$$
anyway, i'm back to using garageband.
but there is good news!
manufacturers are starting to wake up and grow up.
presonus recently introduced studio one, and propellerhead has just come out with record, products that at least purport to be, like garageband, straightforward.
simple enough that a guy like me, who programs drum tracks from scratch, one hit at a time, can operate.
 
garageband proved, from the get go, that a straightforward, no nonsense daw IS possible.
but, as most of you know, it is severely limited.

There's the crux of the problem. Simple, straightforward, no nonsense equals limited. It's harder to market that kind of product than it is to boast about all the fancy tricks your DAW can do. People respond better to "more" than they do to "less" and they tend to overlook the tradeoffs.

By the way, you're not the first person I've heard who had trouble with Cubase, and most of the others were experienced studio people. I've been using Sony software for a decade (when it was Sonic Foundry) and I greatly prefer the workflow over Pro Tools in spite of the latter's slightly more versatile routing options. Reaper seems pretty intuitive, though I've had to read the manual to get certain things.
 
garageband proved, from the get go, that a straightforward, no nonsense daw IS possible.
but, as most of you know, it is severely limited.
i am quite happy to work within these limitations, of course.

So why not just stick to garageband?

If recording is just "note-taking" for you, do yo actually need anything more?

Having said that, I switched to Reaper a few years ago, and have not regretted one minute.
 
The Reaper manual is only 398 pages! :D What's your limit in trying to learn something? You can skip about half of it if you are just doing simple recording stuff (skip routing, MIDI, etc)
 
well I recently bought reaper and i think it's great! seems very straight forward, more straight forward than ableton, organising all the plugins and effects is a lot easier, but I'm not gunna lie, I have read no pages of the manual and nor do I plan to. Whenever I have a question it'll either go to google, then youtube, then here (havent had a question come to here yet so fingers crossed), but basically I really dont find it that hard and by far a lot easier than ableton, and it's only £40!
 
He's right, all the so called pro's keep the unwritten language unwritten to make the rest of us feel inferior and waste more money. But aside from my brief rant does anyone know where the reaper manual can be downloaded? preferably for free.
 
He's right, all the so called pro's keep the unwritten language unwritten to make the rest of us feel inferior and waste more money.

I think the 'unwritten language' of the pro arises because he or she learns through knowledge and experience. The rest feel inferior and waste more money because they don't understand that skill arises through practice and hard work, not by reading a manual, nor by acquiring more technology.
 
Hi

I've been recording onto a standalone machine forever too, and am about to jump into PC recording. I've been using Reaper to program drum tracks one hit at a time too, then burning them onto a CD and importing them into my PC. What a pain in the arse, not to mention that I'm stuck with the drum mix... I just can't really work that way. So it's time...

I've also created electronic tracks using VSTis in Reaper as well. I'm finding it reasonably intuitive for someone who is used to a portastudio.

All that stuff about compression, mixing and mastering has about zilch to do with "PC" recording and everything to do with recording, generally. Most people start out saying something pretty similar to you... "I just want to record my songs"... and then, bit by bit pick up recording skills in the quest for making tracks that your friends will say "That's awesome dude" and you will KNOW that they mean it and that it's true.

If you've used a portastudio with 32 tracks then really PC recording, once over the initial set up hurdles, should be all that hard.

Roll your sleeves up, be the old dog who learns new tricks, and get onto it. Or stick with Garageband and its limitations and be frustrated forever. There's plenty of help around when you need it.

Good luck
 
...two reasons:

1. my recording engineer uses cubase, and since he doesn't charge me for most of the work he does for me (he also plays guitar in my band), i feel obligated to at least meet him halfway.
i've been recording tracks in garageband and sending them to him via dropbox. however, this requires him to transfer them from garageband to cubase, which is both time and labour intensive. plus, he likes to work in a higher resolution than garageband is capable of.

2. another reason that i'd like to use more sophisticated software than garageband is that i often record the band live in my studio. garageband can only record eight tracks simultaneously.

i did try reaper and, while i find their customer service and tech support to be exemplary, i found it unnecessarily complicated. however, this was when i was just getting into computer recording, so i was more easily discouraged than i am now. i'm looking into upgrading from garageband to propellerhead "record". i've also contacted cubase to see if they have plans to come out with user-friendly software, but my contacts there are currently on hiatus.

So why not just stick to garageband?
If recording is just "note-taking" for you, do yo actually need anything more?
Having said that, I switched to Reaper a few years ago, and have not regretted one minute.
 
i've been recording tracks in garageband and sending them to him via dropbox. however, this requires him to transfer them from garageband to cubase, which is both time and labour intensive.
Why is that happening? He shouldn't have to convert anything to anything if you're sending him Wav files.

plus, he likes to work in a higher resolution than garageband is capable of.
I don't know Garageband, but can it not record in 24 bit?


i did try reaper and, while i find their customer service and tech support to be exemplary, i found it unnecessarily complicated. however, this was when i was just getting into computer recording, so i was more easily discouraged than i am now
I would suggest trying it again. It's pretty much as simple as a multi-track tape recorder on a computer.
 
...i appreciate what you guys are saying about rolling up my sleeves and doing the hard work it takes to learn how to use the kind of software that is designed for professional recording engineers.

but i need to know why.

why is that necessary?

first of all, i have no desire, at age 65, to pursue a career as a professional recording engineer.

nor have i any desire to engineer my own recordings.

secondly, given that i have garageband at my disposal, and that, as mentioned in my original post, software companies are finally introducing user-friendly software, why would i spend whatever time i have left learning skills i have no plans to ever use?

but, more to the point, as i explained in my original post, i have already wasted far too much of my time, not to mention my sanity, bashing my head against that wall.

this could not be simpler: i want to plug in, adjust levels, hit the red button, and record.

but, in addition to that, i want to take advantage of a couple of features that computer recording software makes easier and faster, including editing, arranging, and drum programming from scratch.
 
Why is that happening? He shouldn't have to convert anything to anything if you're sending him Wav files.

...you'd have to ask him. i take him at his word.

I don't know Garageband, but can it not record in 24 bit?

...there are two parameters that garageband doesn't meet, in regard to resolution, or whatever it's called.

I would suggest trying it again. It's pretty much as simple as a multi-track tape recorder on a computer.

...it SHOULD be, but it's not. not even close. to cite just one example: i spent two entire days trying to figure out how to make the click track audible. two. entire. days. two entire days that could/should have been spent doing what i do, which is sing, write, play, and record. i never did figure it out.

if something that stupidly simple is beyond my grasp, there is only one conclusion: i'm headed down the wrong road.

if something that stupidly simple is beyond my grasp, can you imagine what will happen when i try to create drum tracks, for example?

which, by the way, i did try...and, again, just ended up tearing my hair out.

if i was fourteen, with no day job, and my whole life and career ahead of me, it might make sense, but even then...
 
...it SHOULD be, but it's not. not even close. to cite just one example: i spent two entire days trying to figure out how to make the click track audible. two. entire. days. two entire days that could/should have been spent doing what i do, which is sing, write, play, and record. i never did figure it out.

if something that stupidly simple is beyond my grasp, there is only one conclusion: i'm headed down the wrong road.

if something that stupidly simple is beyond my grasp, can you imagine what will happen when i try to create drum tracks, for example?

which, by the way, i did try...and, again, just ended up tearing my hair out.

if i was fourteen, with no day job, and my whole life and career ahead of me, it might make sense, but even then...
And you're blaming the equipment for this? I found "Metronome Enable" after about 4 seconds of scrolling the top menus, but that's not really the point. The point is that this has nothing to with soft-ware not being "user-friendly". Your metronome example is something you would have found after taking 30 seconds to look for it in the manual.

But I'll just say this in all honesty, and I don't care how it's taken because it's nothing personal. If you can't find a function that would take the majority of people about 20 seconds tops to find, then the problem isn't with any software being not "user-friendly". Maybe you have a mental block against learning some of this stuff. On top of that, I don't think it puts you in a position to start writing to companies asking them to make their programs more idiot-proof.

If you never drove a car before, and you hoped you could just "get in, turn the key and drive", would you write car companies asking them to make their cars easier to drive because you don't want to take the time to learn what breaks and a clutch do?

Anyway, you didn't answer my question about whether Garageband records 24bit wave files. This is important, because if it does (and I'm sure it does), then there's no reason for your "engineer" to be converting any files for any reason.
 
...uh, dude, read the original post. i've been recording for over fifty years. it's either the software or, as you seem to be suggesting, i'm just an idiot.
i read the manual, and the pop-up instructions, regarding the metronome/click track. they are crystal clear, and very explicit.
i read, and followed, these instructions for the better part of a day. over and over.

perhaps you are right, perhaps i'm just an idiot.

but before you come to to that convenient conclusion, you should consider three things:

1. my recording engineer confessed to me that navigating the learning curve of cubase software was also a nightmare for him. he is a professional recording engineer, and owns a recording studio.

2. do you have any idea how many forums there are just like this one? how many similar issues arise, moment to moment, regarding trying to navigate computer recording software?

3. if the software currently available was simple to learn and use, why are companies now creating software that is far more user-friendly?

i should also mention that i spent two entire weeks consulting with my recording engineer, and with tech support at cubase, using teamviewer, trying to get cubase artist 6.5 up and running.

so, yes, i'm blaming the software, and the software manufacturers. deal with it.

And you're blaming the equipment for this? I found "Metronome Enable" after about 4 seconds of scrolling the top menus, but that's not really the point. The point is that this has nothing to with soft-ware not being "user-friendly". Your metronome example is something you would have found after taking 30 seconds to look for it in the manual.

But I'll just say this in all honesty, and I don't care how it's taken because it's nothing personal. If you can't find a function that would take the majority of people about 20 seconds tops to find, then the problem isn't with any software being not "user-friendly". Maybe you have a mental block against learning some of this stuff. On top of that, I don't think it puts you in a position to start writing to companies asking them to make their programs more idiot-proof.

If you never drove a car before, and you hoped you could just "get in, turn the key and drive", would you write car companies asking them to make their cars easier to drive because you don't want to take the time to learn what breaks and a clutch do?

Anyway, you didn't answer my question about whether Garageband records 24bit wave files. This is important, because if it does (and I'm sure it does), then there's no reason for your "engineer" to be converting any files for any reason.
 
16 bit vs 24 bit. A Project at Hi Res 24 Bit can still use 16 bit audio files.
I use REAPER and quite easy to use. Works like a real hardware recorded, to me. I haven't gone deep with REAPER, mostly arming tracks & recording, then using some EQ, etc, then doing a mix.
Have recorded multi-track live off the floor, one track at a time, or drummer with rhythm guitar via headphones to get a recording rolling. I'm using Alesis MultiMix 16 USB 2.0 as my audio interface.
I just did a project where I recorded 3 guitar tracks with REAPER using a basic mix so far on MP3 (vocals, bass, drums), and then forwarded my 24 bit tracks, burned 3 files to DVD to give him, and he mixed with Pro Tools.

David, I recognize your name. Just checked, 16 mutual friends on FB, too.

Johnny from Scarberia
 
...uh, dude, read the original post. i've been recording for over fifty years. it's either the software or, as you seem to be suggesting, i'm just an idiot.
i read the manual, and the pop-up instructions, regarding the metronome/click track. they are crystal clear, and very explicit.
i read, and followed, these instructions for the better part of a day. over and over.

perhaps you are right, perhaps i'm just an idiot.

but before you come to to that convenient conclusion, you should consider three things:

1. my recording engineer confessed to me that navigating the learning curve of cubase software was also a nightmare for him. he is a professional recording engineer, and owns a recording studio.

2. do you have any idea how many forums there are just like this one? how many similar issues arise, moment to moment, regarding trying to navigate computer recording software?

3. if the software currently available was simple to learn and use, why are companies now creating software that is far more user-friendly?

i should also mention that i spent two entire weeks consulting with my recording engineer, and with tech support at cubase, using teamviewer, trying to get cubase artist 6.5 up and running.

so, yes, i'm blaming the software, and the software manufacturers. deal with it.

So you read the manual and found the drop-down menu and it still took you hours to turn on a metronome in REAPER? Yup, it must be the software's fault. :rolleyes:

Once again......Does Garageband record wav files?

You have 3 options:

1) Yes

2) No

3) I don't know.
 
I suggest you try Reaper again. Take a few hours, read the first half of the manual, import the tracks form one of your garageband projects and play wiht the Reaper features a little - the built-in FX, EQ, compression, panning. You can learn things like automation as you find the need for it (you will).
You want better features than you have with garageband, but want them without any effort. Your age and past experience has nothing to do with it, you have to WANT TO learn to use whatever tool works to do what you want. The results speak for themselves - a little work pays big dividends.
 
Pick a software suite that meets all of your needs and then find a friend, colleague, local studio, or anyone at all who knows how to use it.

Write a short list of what you want to do and spend two hours being shown.

Really in this day and age, even the most complicated of software is simplified by way of seemingly endless youtube tutorials.
Modern society is so desperate for youtube hits that you'll probably find a 'how to tie a shoe lace' tutorial.

If you're threw the towel in at the installing and opening stage, you need someone to get your started.

That's my best advice.
 
OK, so I looked at garageband and it does record 16 or 24 bit wav files.

So, my question is, why does this "professional recording engineer with his own recording studio" have to
transfer the files from garageband to cubase, which is both time and labour intensive.
This makes no sense. There should no time consuming labour involved.
plus, he likes to work in a higher resolution than garageband is capable of.
Again, this makes no sense either.

I'm not blaming Dave H. for not knowing these things. But it looks like a case of being mis-lead by someone who's supposed to know what they're doing, but doesn't.

Believe it or not, I'm actually just trying to help. ButI'm not going to put on a schoolgirl outfit and sugar-coat things. (I do that on my own time)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top