DAW vs other Workflow. Frustrated with computers...

[Chili]

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.

I'm one of those that jump in and say you can't hear a difference between DAWs. I use my own purchased plugs and never use stock plugs, but I am willing to believe if I did, I still would not hear a big difference, if any. There are so many other facets of home recording to contend with first that sonic differences in DAWs or their stock plugs are moot.

I'm also willing to believe those who say they can hear a difference between Cubase, PT and Sonar are those who are listening with psycho-acoustics. They think they hear a difference because they want to believe they hear a difference. Or they are riding a certain products bandwagon, ie. ProTools.

Having said all that, I do believe there are sonic differences between DAWs and stock plugs. Steinberg, Sony and Avid aren't sharing the same code, so the data gets handled differently and I can see how that might alter the sound; especially plugs. But after comparing Sonar and Cubsae (which I did several years ago), I'll be damned if I could ever tell a difference. And you know I've got pretty good ears.

 

[grimtraveller]

I'm also willing to believe those who say they can hear a difference between Cubase, PT and Sonar are those who are listening with psycho-acoustics. They think they hear a difference because they want to believe they hear a difference. Or they are riding a certain products bandwagon, ie. ProTools.

Would you apply that to standalone DAWS too ?

 

[RAMI]

Would you apply that to standalone DAWS too ?

I would say that it applies to the "playback" part of standalones. Take a 24bit wave file and play it on a Tascam 2488, and I THINK it will sound the same as if you played it through anything else, all other things being equal. This is just what I think, and have nothing scientific to back me up.

 

[heatmiser]

Would you apply that to standalone DAWS too ?

I think they're different in this sense, no? Most, maybe all (?) standalones have integrated pres, so that would factor into each model having its own sort of sound, right?

EDIT: irrelevant on playback though I guess. I was thinking of tracking.

 

[RAMI]

I think they're different in this sense, no? Most, maybe all (?) standalones have integrated pres, so that would factor into each model having its own sort of sound, right?

EDIT: irrelevant on playback though I guess. I was thinking of tracking.

Yeah, I thought of what you're saying before posting. But then realized that the playback part isn't affected by that.

 

[Farview]

I would say that it applies to the "playback" part of standalones. Take a 24bit wave file and play it on a Tascam 2488, and I THINK it will sound the same as if you played it through anything else, all other things being equal. This is just what I think, and have nothing scientific to back me up.

I dont beleive the tascam all in one units store pcm data. (I know the 2480 didnt) They also have a fixed bit depth on the mix buss instead of a floating point mix buss, so you run out of headroom pretty quickly if you aren't very careful.

 

[RAMI]

I dont beleive the tascam all in one units store pcm data. (I know the 2480 didnt) They also have a fixed bit depth on the mix buss instead of a floating point mix buss, so you run out of headroom pretty quickly if you aren't very careful.

Aren't we just talking about playing back a file? The 2488 does record and play 24bit. Either way, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned a specific model, because we're not really taking about the 2488. I was just trying to answer Grim's question about playing a file on a standalone.

 

[TyphoidHippo]

I dont beleive the tascam all in one units store pcm data.

Really?! I find that very interesting... What do they store, then? Some kind of spline or predictive data or something?

 

[Farview]

Aren't we just talking about playing back a file? The 2488 does record and play 24bit. Either way, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned a specific model, because we're not really taking about the 2488. I was just trying to answer Grim's question about playing a file on a standalone.

I stand corrected. I never had to deal with the 2488. The older units used some sort of data compression, which is why you had to convert the files to wavs to transfer the audio to a computer. The wavs always took up more space than the format they use.

 

[cplaza]

I would suggest, that working with a DAW can be intimidating, so start with simple things, and then move on to the more complex tasks a little at a time. To get you through the basics, there are plenty of formal training DVDs available. If that approach does not appeal to you then try finding videos on YouTube to get you started. Even the Reaper ($60) and Pro Tools ($300) help text is very useful. Simply tracking and playback are OK until you decide you need some reverb, EQ or multiband compression to bring your mix to life. Of course, you could always buy external hardware gear to do this-if you don't mind their prohibitive price tags. Patience will bring great rewards when using DAWs. Best of Luck.

 

[fetchwood]

I'm with you. I simply don't have the energy. I initially used Garage Band with an audio interface with two inputs and was doing ok, but I wanted to start recording band stuff (and avoid the cost and inconvenience of a paying a recording studio). SO, I spent a bucket of cash and bought Zoom R24 that comes with Cubase. I can record on the Zoom, but after endless hours still cannot get it to recognize the zoom as an audio interface. I downloaded the drivers, I lit candles and incense, I had my engineer friend and my psychiatrist friend come over and still it just will not accept the data. I got it to find the device, but no more than that.
So, I bought Reaper. Same thing. It will find the device, but will not find any data stream.
GAH! Why is it not just a light switch: Find the device, plug it in and track one data goes into the first track I open up in the software.
NO. I'm sure it is a simple button that isn't getting pushed. But I feel like I'm reading braille with my forehead.
Anyone have this trouble?

 

[RAMI]

I'm with you. I simply don't have the energy. I initially used Garage Band with an audio interface with two inputs and was doing ok, but I wanted to start recording band stuff (and avoid the cost and inconvenience of a paying a recording studio). SO, I spent a bucket of cash and bought Zoom R24 that comes with Cubase. I can record on the Zoom, but after endless hours still cannot get it to recognize the zoom as an audio interface. I downloaded the drivers, I lit candles and incense, I had my engineer friend and my psychiatrist friend come over and still it just will not accept the data. I got it to find the device, but no more than that.
So, I bought Reaper. Same thing. It will find the device, but will not find any data stream.
GAH! Why is it not just a light switch: Find the device, plug it in and track one data goes into the first track I open up in the software.
NO. I'm sure it is a simple button that isn't getting pushed. But I feel like I'm reading braille with my forehead.
Anyone have this trouble?

It will get easier when you turn 12.

 

[Chili]

GAH! Why is it not just a light switch: Find the device, plug it in and track one data goes into the first track I open up in the software.
NO. I'm sure it is a simple button that isn't getting pushed.

I feel your pain. It's the major downfall of Cubase in my opinion. It is the first hurdle any user comes across which is sad. They get frustrated and try something else before they even get a chance to experience the rest of the software features. Poor planning on Steinberg's part.

There are some good tutorials in the Cubase section of this site. One by Jimmy who goes step by step to configure the inputs and outputs.

But I feel like I'm reading braille with my forehead. Anyone have this trouble?

Honestly, I don't think I have ever tried to read braille with my forehead.

 

[Farview]

I feel your pain. It's the major downfall of Cubase in my opinion. It is the first hurdle any user comes across which is sad. They get frustrated and try something else before they even get a chance to experience the rest of the software features. Poor planning on Steinberg's part.

I don't understand how this is so hard. Choose the correct ASIO driver, select and name the inputs of the interface, then choose the input you want to feed the channel you want to record on. You would go through the same thing if you were using a mixing board and a tape deck.

The software comes with help files with screen shots. There are dozens of tutorials on youtube. I simply don't get how this is so hard, or how this is a failing on steinberg's part.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Here:

You must first select the Zoom in Cubase. Devices>Device Setup...VST Audio System. In the drop down menu at top, select 'Zoom -or whatever the driver is called'. While on that page, check the 'Release Driver' box. This will allow the Zoom to play WMP, Youtube, whatever, while Cubase is open.

Now, go to Devices>VST Connections (F4 shortcut). Add a mono input bus. You will need to create a input bus for each input needed from the Zoom. For each input bus created, you will left click on the 'Device Port' column (highlighted in yellow), and select the input channel of the Zoom that you wish to use. Leave the default Stereo output bus.

Now, create a track to record to. Project>Add Track>Audio>Mono.

In the 'Inspector' window at the left of the main project window, look for a symbol that looks kinda like this: >] SEE ATTACHMENT

This is where you select the bus you created in VST Connections. You will change this on each track that is using a different input channel on the Zoom.

If you don't see the symbol, click on the track name at the top of the Inspector window to pull to the main Inspector screen.

You will need to also toggle the monitor button on the track to hear the input (it looks like a side view of a speaker). Toggle it back off to hear playback.
--to make this toggle automatically; File>Preferences>VST. In the Auto Monitoring drop down menu, select Tapemachine Style.


Let me know if this gets you up and running.

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't understand how this is so hard. There are dozens of tutorials on youtube. I simply don't get how this is so hard, or how this is a failing on steinberg's part.

You simply don't get how it's hard because it's not hard for you. But the reality is that there is always something that someone, somewhere, finds hard that others will say 'this is easy.'
I've noticed a number of people over the years here say that they find Cubase flaming difficult at the start. I know when I was a digital newb, it was like learning market Greek.....backwards. And when I eventually got through to the support at Steinberg {after holding for almost an hour at a time over a two week period}, they were as helpful as a broken leg three miles into a marathon. All I wanted to know was how to set up a dummy keyboard and get it to play my VSTis. They spoke to me in a language I had never come across !
Believe me, a tape deck and mixing board are simple in comparison !
I'm not saying Steinberg are at fault for making it difficult because I don't think that's the case. It is as it is. But when one approaches a new discipline, some take to it like a shot, some have a hard time but get there eventually and others have a continually hard time. Driving for me was so easy. I learned in minutes. But over the last 37 years, I've seen so many people have difficulty with it and there are some people who, even after 18~20 years of having a licence after passing their test, I am forced to confront the subject of mortality and the fleetingness of life when I'm in the passenger seat and they're at the wheel !

 

[miroslav]

I think these days, with newb computer users....much more is expected from the software/computer than in the past.
IOW, people want the computer to do much of the thinking for them, and there isn't as much patience to work through the more complicated stuff....and in many ways, the newer OSs have tried to go in that direction, something I find annoying at times with the computer second guessing what you want or the best way to do it, but I can see why it's frustrating for some people when they launch a more complicated app that requires some actual thought.
There is a progressive learning curve that must be accepted.

For anyone that was hacking their way through audio/video apps back in the earlier days, odd computer programming logic became common....and, people learned the tricks and quirks of various software, and when something new came out, you could figure it out that much easier. IOW, once you learn that you need to configure A-B-C to get X-Y-Z....it's a common process on most other similar apps....so you tend to know where/what/how to make it work a lot easier than a total newb.

Speaking of Cubase.....I slogged my way through the original Cubase MIDI sequencer, on a 12" B&W monitor...so I got use to that style of app programming. When actual DAW apps came around, it was like super easy to adjust. Then on top of that, I had a lot of video editing and multimedia development apps to deal with back in the early '90s, so after that most apps are pretty simple to figure out....but almost all of them still have their WTF!!!! were they thinking!!!??? moments.

 

[grimtraveller]

Yeah, I can see the sense in that. It's not the developers that are the problem, I fully accept that. I know in my case as a late convert to all things digital {I was 41} and computeresque, I've had a hard time getting my head around things. But one does get the important things.......eventually and often unexpectedly !

 

[Bobbsy]

Interesting discussion!

Okay, a thought:

DAWs may seem complex to simple 4 or 8 track stand alone systems because you're comparing chalk and cheese.

The simple systems are just that--easy boxes aimed very much at an amateur/domestic market.

A fully-featured DAW, on the other hand, is trying to offer the facilities of a huge multi track recording studio in a single computer. Indeed, the interface on my DAW (Audition but I know that's not the software for everyone) quite closely the mimics the workflow in a conventional studio with a mixer, multrack recorder and rack mounted outboard processing. Or, put another way, the amount of patching and routing involved in a large studio environment is a much or more than on a DAW. For the one time I worked on a series involving a symphony orchestra, set up spread over two days before we rolled tape once!

I find the DAW easy but that's at least partly because I've worked in hardware-based studios.

However, just as not everyone could walk up to a 56 channel mixer with five or six racks of outboard and big patch fields and use it straight away, not everyone is going to be able to boot up a DAW and use it. Most people can learn it with time but some folks just aren't "wired" that way.

Two thoughts though:

First, try lots of different DAWs (most offer free trials) and you may find one that "clicks" for you. I've used several different software packages and could get around all of them--but some felt more "natural" to me than others.

Second, the above all refers just to general operations. If the phrase "trouble shooting" applies to genuine problems rather than just a learning curve then, no, that shouldn't be happening. Once you're set up, things should just tick along reliably unless you have some kind of computer fault...and faults should be fixed.

 

[Chili]

I don't understand how this is so hard. Choose the correct ASIO driver, select and name the inputs of the interface, then choose the input you want to feed the channel you want to record on. You would go through the same thing if you were using a mixing board and a tape deck.

The software comes with help files with screen shots. There are dozens of tutorials on youtube. I simply don't get how this is so hard, or how this is a failing on steinberg's part.

They don't put it in any kind of order or make it simple to find the things you need to do. It should all be on one page. But no, you've got to go to Device Settings at the bottom of the menu for the ASIO, then up to VST Connections to assign the channels to inputs. (Why couldn't this be done on the Device Settings page? Why do they make you hunt around for it or even have it in the first place?. Heaven help you if you don't quite understand how this part fits into the setup flow.) Then you go to the track and select which input you want, again. Be careful whether it's Mono or Stereo.

For those who have been doing it for a while, yeah it seems like minor details to squabble over. But for a newb?? When I first started with Cubasis, it took me over two weeks to finally get any sound recorded and played back. I'm not stupid. I have a decent background with sound reinforcement, computers, technology, etc. Steinberg just doesn't make it intuitive at all and they fall down in that regard. The help files sucked big weenies at the time and you had to learn how to use the interface as well. So, any one little stumbling point could have been a myriad of causes. When you go to troubleshoot a connectivity problem, you have got to learn the vernacular to understand the documentation. I get that, it's a huge learning curve. And back then, 9 years ago, YouTube didn't really exist. Not with any value anyways.

Yeah, Steinberg could have done it completely different to be more intuitive. It's that German-engineering frame of mind. Not really taking their market into consideration when developing software. They get a B- from me.