Is it really that difficult to be a one man band?

[rigs]

All I want to be able to do is record a guitar track, then play it back and record a bass track over that then keyboards etc, etc. Once I have a few tracks down to create a song I could play it back through a P.A. and sing along. (One man band). Because of latency issues or lack of some high priced computer it seems to be impossible and frustrating. I think it would be easier to just buy some 8 track recorder or something equivalent. I know I would lose editing options but these computer software programs don't seem to be up to speed. Is it just me or what? Any recommendations?

 

[obsidian3d]

The latency is almost never the fault of the software from what I've experienced. It can be caused by a sound card if you're using a cheap one, but usually it will be the actual computer. If your computer isn't powerful enough then you will get lag when recording and playing back audio.

 

[legionserial]

What spec is your PC? They don't need to be particularly hi-spec.

Software is more than up to speed these days. Especially for the needs you're describing. What software are you using?

It's more than likely that you just need to do some tweaks, or get a decent soundcard or something. Unless you are using some hideously old PC, in which case it's to be expected that nothing will work on it.

If you can tell us what you're working with, exactly what you want to do with it, and the exact problems you are having then we might be able to help.

 

[johnnymegabyte]

All I want to be able to do is record a guitar track, then play it back and record a bass track over that then keyboards etc, etc. Once I have a few tracks down to create a song I could play it back through a P.A. and sing along. (One man band). Because of latency issues or lack of some high priced computer it seems to be impossible and frustrating. I think it would be easier to just buy some 8 track recorder or something equivalent. I know I would lose editing options but these computer software programs don't seem to be up to speed. Is it just me or what? Any recommendations?

You might want to check what Backing Tracks exist for the songs you plan to perform

• www.guitarbackingtrack.com
• www.guitars101.com
• www.guitarchaos.com
• www.guitarblast.com

 

[oretez]

Communication with HD is never going to be instantaneous (even quantum computing will impose interesting time constraints) . . . somewhere between 25 and 33 ms is when the 'lag' becomes noticeable, roughly equivalent of 43-62 ft with genuine slap back echoes possible at 55 ft. so you start daisy chaining nearly imperceptible delay on successive tracks and it becomes noticeable fairly quickly . . . beat frequencies among 'close' but not sync'd tracks becoming noticeable before actual 'delay'

Analog recorders deal with a lot of the same issues (with fewer tech 'fixes') but since the 'delay' is fixed by distance between record and play back heads (and speed of tape) the artifacts are a bit different (but can be just as messy . . . SWS vs. SOS)

general purpose computers, no matter what their 'speed' specs are not configured to execute the kind of thing you are talking about. modern consumer OS have been optimized for static data . . . anything that can be buffered & packet switched . . . rather then simply trying to correct the issues with 'faster' hardware (which might ultimately be necessary depending on goal) is seldom the most effective approach. Multiple HD's (getting audio off the OS drive) making sure (even today) that things are operating in DMA mode, making sure you are using the most robust drivers for audio gear, disabling read/write caches, disabling as many superfluous (to audio goal) OS 'calls' (time sync's, palm sync's any & all background network, any & all Anti mal ware supervision, any and all firewalls, etc). making sure your HD's are capable of the demands, even with NTFS fragmented drive, with regard to streaming data, is still a fragmented drive . . . an OS (Vista) that does not release memory, CPU cycles efficiently, software that fails to release memory can all compound basic hardware issues

so while we have refined how to accomplish what you are trying to do, yes it is actually pretty difficult and has required decades of collaborative effort to make it affordable . . . but something like the Fostex MR8HD might be a cost effective solution more amenable to your goal (standard disclaimer: no affliation with fostex or any retailer, etc.)

 

[oretez]

oh, yeah and in practice setting up an effective (for you) click track and using it as your timing reference for all successive overdubs does tend to improve time sync

human response time is going to be longer then HD seek time

 

[Bristol Posse]

No it's perfectly doable. I and many others here are managing just fine

Some things to try:
First go herehttp://www.blackviper.com/ this gives you a checklist of background services it's safe to turn off which will improve your system performance

second. Make sure you are using asio drivers for your audio gear as this will cut down on latency.

third get something simple like reaper or acid music studio or one of the light versions of the recording software available. They don't have as much bells and whistles as the "Pro" versions but will be more than adequate to get you started and will usually have some method of offsetting latency and allowing you to control how many samples are buffered in recording which can allow you to lower the inherent latency involved in any type of recording

fourth. You don't need a super high end computer do record tracks one at a time. a Five year old pentium with the tweaks from steps one and two should be more than enough. it's generally all of the bloat ware, virus stuff, itunes, windows updates, apple updates, java updates, google updates etc that kill the performance of any computer so turn them off

fifth if your using Norton anti virus (or heaven forbid 360) get rid of it, massive resource hog, and find something leaner like ESET NOD 32 to handle safety and security

 

[oretez]

OP asked if it was difficult. And it is . . .'doable' but not simple. The difficulty has been spread out over decades of collaborative effort and reduced, slightly by speed enhancements of gear (but with regard to using general purpose computers the 'quiker' enhancements have been offset by 'bloat' developments and it is possible that OP would find 'optimizing' a general purpose machine and maintaining that optimization to cross the threshold of 'difficult'( I've got more then one client (half my age) who find email to be difficult))

It's doable and possible to develop stable systems . . . But if I were getting paid for a show I don't think I'd be comfortable without a back up, to a general purpose computer. Where at times I've gone into these situations with a Korg D16 and Boss Loop station (without other B/U) and typically would have been OK with idea of performing something even if power were disrupted

On general purpose you can't avoid compromises imposed by OS, you can mitigate some but integrating multi channel streaming audio is neither transparent nor trivial Nor is ASIO a panacea it is what we use because it's what's there . . . But it dinosaured a number of kernel streaming approaches that might have been superior (for live audio) to ASIO which was developed for specific software applications. For playing live if you can reduce backing tracks to a stereo pair it is possible that Windows drivers are more effective (it depends on the specific situation) . . . Haven't been to the Black Viper site recently and while it was an incredibly useful resource for Win98, with introduction of XP and differently spec'd hardware many of it's specific 'tweaks' had lower impact, some of the most useful advice (from Win98 days) simply could not be implemented easily by a casual general purpose user (Being able to force assignment of an IRQ was very helpful in Win98 and effectively impossible under XP, many of the registry management mods in Win98 are either ineffective or impossible under XP . . . And a significant reason for maintaining an Audio only stripped down system is Win's dysfunctional (for the consumer) registry management if you now introduce XML configuration files (for hard or software) and you have a new almost impossible for typical end user to manage prescription for disaster (particularly in 'live' settings)

Doable, but there are challenges, and he's already discovering challenges that implying that it is not 'difficult' suggests that OP is, perhaps, a bit slow . . . and it is possible depending on OP's specific requirements and how he values his time, that a hardware box optimized for audio might be appropriate choice. And most current models at least nod in the direction of easing moving data to and from computer (for editing) . A general purpose computer can be more flexible, but that flexibilty imposes challenges

 

[legionserial]

Until the OP can give us more information, all of this is pointless. I asked him several posts back what he had in his computer. He hasn't been back and I don't think he will be. I get the feeling he was just letting off steam rather than actually looking for any advice.

 

[Bristol Posse]

No it's pretty simple and no implied slowness on anyone.

Whilst the mechanics behind the process are incredibly complex it really boils down to optimized system and correct software for the purpose (including drivers) and that is not difficult at all it may not be intuatively known because the advertising of home systems as Blazing Fast may lead people to feel there is no need to consider optimization but once yo know, simple as pie.

OSs are not perfect, better alternatives get shelved because they weren't the first to be adopted, the physical properties of sound waves, transmition of voltages through cables and even electrons flowing within silicon are all interesting points of discussion but in most real world situations we have the OS we have, ye canna change the laws of physics, Jim so basically Lean your system and get the right software to work as well as posiible within these limitations.

 

[legionserial]

Way I see it, 20 years ago, the computers controlling our nuclear launch systems probably weren't anywhere near as powerful as the ones we have now in our homes.

Therefore I'd say you most likely could get a decent stable live one man band setup with a home pc. Yeah we can go into the technical intricacies, but all that does is overcomplicate things. Fact is, if you know the smallest thing about tweaking a PC (knowledge you can easily gain from the internet), it's not much of a task running a stable system.

 

[gecko zzed]

Oretez noted that "And it is . . .'doable' but not simple.".

I note the technical reasons that Oretez cited, and I have no real quibble with any of them.

But I really think that the vagaries of an operating system and the inherent lag are minor concerns in the grand scheme of things.

It is "'do-ble' but not simple" . . .not because of the nature of the computer, but because of the difficulty in getting credible mixes for stuff you've recorded yourself if you are just venturing into recording.

I've not experienced any difficulties with a computer system in playing back through a PA; I've experienced stability, inconsequential lag, and good sound.

But . . . to be on the safe side, you can always take your recorded tracks, burn them to a CD and play that. That also works well.

 

[legionserial]

It is "'do-ble' but not simple" . . .not because of the nature of the computer, but because of the difficulty in getting credible mixes for stuff you've recorded yourself if you are just venturing into recording.

I totally agree to the extent that it almost goes without saying.