my ongoing quest for a straightforward, no nonsense daw

Status
Not open for further replies.
david henman said:
...hey, johnny!
i may go back to propellerhead, not for reaper, but for their new "record" software.
incidentally, were you able to record drum tracks from scratch on reaper, or is that no the way you program drums?
i don't use pre-recorded loops.
i create my drum tracks one hit at a time, using a midi keyboard.
Click to expand...
Drums = 4 ways.
1) use a real drummer. I play a basic rhythm track on guitar, using Zoom G5 pedal with amp models, direct into Audio Interface, while my friend Drums his part. A few times, my guitar track has been the keeper. I get a decent sound with a 3 mic technique. Kick drum Mic, L + R mic at 3 ft either side of kit, and one foot out. Started using SM57's, then now using some Apex 435 condensers.
2) I have all sorts of Drum MP3 at various BPM, I found online. Record guitars to this guide, then, either use real drummer, or get into MIDI programming "after"
3) using a Freeware called JAZZ PLUS PLUS (Jazz++) on Sourceforge. Use the mouse to clikc on the grid for drums, and also use for Pads. Copy & Paste becomes your best friend. Then, Import the MIDI into your DAW, and use a drum program, I use Drum Core Free
4) also, with Jazz++, but use my Roland synth to MIDI "in" drum beats. Then, manually, edit, Copy & Paste. When completed, Import into DAW
REAPER has some MIDI editor, but just doesn't makes sense to me. Jazz++ I've been using since 2000, and looks like Cubase my buddy Rex was using back in the early 90's on his, get this, Atari.
"No one said it would be easy"
 
...i use the 3-mic technique, as well - kick plus stereo overhead. works great for "live" recordings. i often have quite a few singers and guitarists. my interface is a tascam us-1800, which has eight XLRs plus another 6-8 inputs. i can "cheat" garageband's eight-track limit by using individual tracks as stereo tracks. this works well for the drum overheads, and i can record two guitars as a stereo track but, as far as i can tell, a stereo track cannot then be broken down into two mono tracks, so i end up with two guitars panned hard left and right, and no way to control the volume level of each guitar separately.


johnnymegabyte said:
Drums = 4 ways.
1) use a real drummer. I play a basic rhythm track on guitar, using Zoom G5 pedal with amp models, direct into Audio Interface, while my friend Drums his part. A few times, my guitar track has been the keeper. I get a decent sound with a 3 mic technique. Kick drum Mic, L + R mic at 3 ft either side of kit, and one foot out. Started using SM57's, then now using some Apex 435 condensers.
2) I have all sorts of Drum MP3 at various BPM, I found online. Record guitars to this guide, then, either use real drummer, or get into MIDI programming "after"
3) using a Freeware called JAZZ PLUS PLUS (Jazz++) on Sourceforge. Use the mouse to clikc on the grid for drums, and also use for Pads. Copy & Paste becomes your best friend. Then, Import the MIDI into your DAW, and use a drum program, I use Drum Core Free
4) also, with Jazz++, but use my Roland synth to MIDI "in" drum beats. Then, manually, edit, Copy & Paste. When completed, Import into DAW
REAPER has some MIDI editor, but just doesn't makes sense to me. Jazz++ I've been using since 2000, and looks like Cubase my buddy Rex was using back in the early 90's on his, get this, Atari.
"No one said it would be easy"
Click to expand...
 
I'm thinking that this thread is coming to the end of its usefulness. The OP, though outlining his frustration at computer-based recording programs in his quest for something more straightforward, didn't actually ask a question.

...yeah, it was more a case of looking for a few shoulders to cry on, a need to get some of this frustration out, in the company of, hopefully, understanding folks who have been there and can, again hopefully, offer some helpful advice and construction criticism. as you suggest, mission accomplished.

There were two points that seemed to cause the OP some grief:

1 the guy who does his mixing has a problem with Garageband; and
2 the OP would like to record more simultaneous tracks than Garageband can accommodate.

In relation to the first, if the OP isn't doing this already, he can simply send the recorded WAV files to the drop-box, rather than the whole GB project. It then gives the engineer the simplest of tasks, i.e. inserting WAVs (any WAVS) into a Cubase project.

...that's what i have been doing, actually. my engineer sends me a stereo mix of the bed tracks via dropbox, which i import into garageband. when i'm done, i send only my new/recorded tracks back to him via dropbox.

In relation to the second: The number of tracks you can record simultaneously may be limited by GB, but will also be limited by the interface. I don't think we heard what interface the OP is using.

...see above: tascam us-1800. a lot of channels for $300, and acceptable, to my ears, preamps. it came bundled with cubase le. going forward, i will have my engineer set up a template in cubase le that will be used strictly for recording tracks here at my studio that will be then sent back to him. for my own purposes, i'll continue to use garageband. based on all the recommends here, i will take another look at reaper. but i have a feeling that the new software programs being introduced by presonus and propellerhead are designed specifically for situations like mine.

I appreciate the OP's frustration with computer recording. I recall it took me nearly two months to get audio recording to work in Logic in the mid-nineties. As the OP is doing no processing other than recording, the complexity of DAWs is, for him, an unnecessary hindrance.

...my point, exactly!

That being the case, though, just about any DAW will do the job without the user needing to get into the complexities. For example, in Reaper, just load it up, create however many tracks you want, set each track's input channel, hit record. Hit stop. Drag the folder with the recorded files into the dropbox. Done.

...yeah, i gave up on reaper far too quickly - that was when i first got the imac, and was very easily discouraged. with cubase artist, as you well know, it is definitely not that simple. i had hoped to just set up specific templates, so that i wouldn't have to go through all the misery every time i wanted to set up a new project but, after beating my head against that wall for two entire weeks, i saw the proverbial writing on the proverbial wall.

Getting more than eight tracks at once? A bit more complicated, because specific hardware is needed (and maybe software too).

...once i settle on the software program i'm going to commit to, i'll get a second tascam us-1800.
 
David check this place out macprovideo.com no need to read 1,000 pages of a manual jus watch step by step tutorials on a any perfered DAW before you buy to see if it's for you. Email me I can send u full tutorials for some that I have. Jaynm26@yahoo.com jus let me know which software. I find full tutorials on a software and following along with a professional trained individual on a software is much easier and more intuitive than reading a manual. Visual learning is much more helpful.
 
While I agree about the need to simply put in the time learning a piece of software, maybe the trick is to try more different DAWs until you find one where the developers think the same way as you. The User Interface can be very important.

I say this because, for a number of years I used Pro Tools at work. I had formal training from Avid, I used it 8 to 12 hours a day and, even after years of this, it always felt like I was fighting with it rather than cooperating. Then I tried Cool Edit Pro at home and, from day one, it just felt right. Indeed, it felt right even before I knew it as well as I knew Pro Tools.

This isn't me suggesting Cool Edit/Audition for you--the lack of MIDI would likely be an issue--rather it's just to point out that some DAWs will be more "you" than others.
 
Bobbsy said:
try more different DAWs until you find one where the developers think the same way as you.
Click to expand...

One man's intuitiveness is another's nightmare, because our brains are all wired differently and we process information in different ways. That's why, as an illustration, some people work far better by physically manipulating knobs, while others are very effective with a mouse. Programmers tend to program in their own image, i.e. to arrange things how they like to think about things. Most DAWs have similar functionality, but there are differences arising from workflow preferences on the part of the programming team.

In the mid-nineties I tried a number of programs (Cubase, Cakewalk, Logic), but none were as easy to use as MagicX, a midi program used on the Commodore Amiga. Logic was closest, and I ended up using that. Sometime ago I ventured into Reaper, and was astonished at how easy everything seemed to be. Good programming perhaps, but also, as Bobbsy notes, it was probably more suited to how I like to think about working.
 
Just get a program and learn it, for chrissakes.

We wer all computer illiterate and software illiterate at one point. 6 pages for someone who clearly stated more than once that he does not want to learn anything. He just wants to plug-in and play. What a pity-party this has turned into. :rolleyes:
 
david henman said:
...hey, johnny!
i may go back to propellerhead, not for reaper, but for their new "record" software.
incidentally, were you able to record drum tracks from scratch on reaper, or is that no the way you program drums?
i don't use pre-recorded loops.
i create my drum tracks one hit at a time, using a midi keyboard.
Click to expand...

As I said, way, way back before everyone got antsy, I use Reaper to record MIDI drums from scratch, one hit at a time. It's easy.
 
jaynm26 said:
David check this place out macprovideo.com no need to read 1,000 pages of a manual jus watch step by step tutorials on a any perfered DAW before you buy to see if it's for you. Email me I can send u full tutorials for some that I have. Jaynm26@yahoo.com jus let me know which software. I find full tutorials on a software and following along with a professional trained individual on a software is much easier and more intuitive than reading a manual. Visual learning is much more helpful.
Click to expand...

...thanks, but the software that is going to work best for me will undoubtedly be similar to garageband in it's straightforward simplicity. or, to put it another way, any software that is so complex that it requires a tutorial will be crucial to avoid.
 
I spent 10 years or more learning Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.3 before moving, for various reasons, to Reaper.
I certainly didn't attain black belt status with CW, I bought it because it was all I could afford, but Ibecame handy with it & could do what I needed to do as well as learning something new everytime I used it.
I've been using Reaper for about a year and am learning new things everytime I use it. Having the manual at hand is very, er hum, handy as is the user forum and the folk around here who know it inside & out.
I don't expect to know how everythying works until I need to use it & learn to use it.
I was pretty much the same with my 1st motorcycle back in 1979.
I couldn't afford & couldn't drive a car. I needed something to get me to and from the various places I worked casually at (across about 40 square miles & a diff location almost every day).
I bought a beat up old 2 stroke Yamaha RD250.
I was shown how to kick start, pull in the clutch, drop it in gear then let out the clutch to go...soon after that go point I realized I had to find the brake - I hadn't ridden before & it hadn't been pointed out. After a swift bit of trial & fall over I knew where both brakes were as well as how to use them in concert.
Eventually I found the indicators too.
By the time I went for my licence, (10 years later), I was reasonably good at riding it whilst complying with most road rules.
Somehwere in there is the point I was trying to circumnavigate.
 
RAMI said:
Just get a program and learn it, for chrissakes.
We wer all computer illiterate and software illiterate at one point. 6 pages for someone who clearly stated more than once that he does not want to learn anything. He just wants to plug-in and play. What a pity-party this has turned into. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

..only to you, dude. and your credibility went out the window with that car manufaturer analogy. you probably should have taken the time to think that one through before presenting it.
 
....ten years is a long time to spend learning how to use computer recording software. but, hey, if i had no other options, that is what i would have to do, too.

thankfully, there are other options.

getting back to rami's car manufacturer analogy, and your reference to learning how to ride a motorcyle: i learned how to drive, and got my driver's license, when i was sixteen.

that is roughly around the same time that i got my first reel-to-reel tape recorder and began to learn how to record.

i''ve been driving for fifty years. and i've been recording for fifty years.

this whole thread is the result of me asking two simple questions:

how did software manufacturers manage to take something i had spent fifty years mastering and turn it into a complete mystery?

and, more importantly, why?

finally, if there is a valid reason why i need to spend ten years, or even ten weeks, unravelling that mystery, then i would have no other option.

but, as far as i have been able to gather - and, trust me, i have spent an inordinate amount of time asking questions - there isn't a valid reason for that.



rayc said:
I spent 10 years or more learning Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.3 before moving, for various reasons, to Reaper.
I certainly didn't attain black belt status with CW, I bought it because it was all I could afford, but Ibecame handy with it & could do what I needed to do as well as learning something new everytime I used it.
I've been using Reaper for about a year and am learning new things everytime I use it. Having the manual at hand is very, er hum, handy as is the user forum and the folk around here who know it inside & out.
I don't expect to know how everythying works until I need to use it & learn to use it.
I was pretty much the same with my 1st motorcycle back in 1979.
I couldn't afford & couldn't drive a car. I needed something to get me to and from the various places I worked casually at (across about 40 square miles & a diff location almost every day).
I bought a beat up old 2 stroke Yamaha RD250.
I was shown how to kick start, pull in the clutch, drop it in gear then let out the clutch to go...soon after that go point I realized I had to find the brake - I hadn't ridden before & it hadn't been pointed out. After a swift bit of trial & fall over I knew where both brakes were as well as how to use them in concert.
Eventually I found the indicators too.
By the time I went for my licence, (10 years later), I was reasonably good at riding it whilst complying with most road rules.
Somehwere in there is the point I was trying to circumnavigate.
Click to expand...
 
david henman said:
how did software manufacturers manage to take something i had spent fifty years mastering and turn it into a complete mystery?

and, more importantly, why?
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the complexity of recording using tape. After fifty years of mastery it will be second nature and seem a breeze. I too grew up on tape. But just recently, some one who knew this asked me to help them with a TASCAM 234 multi-track cassette thing. I can't figure it out at all.

Software manufacturers haven't turned it into a mystery. Users have. Because they want to be able to do more and more things. And anything new or different is mysterious.
 
I'm gonna reply to the original post here, because while you got a lot of answers here, this need not be so complicated, from where I'm sitting.


Two main things stand to get in your way, again, from where I'm sitting.

Firstly, understand the basics. By that I mean generic workflow; The stuff that's the same across every day.

When you work with tape and you can't hear the compressor working, I imagine you understand that there needs to be an unbroken audio signal path.
You can see the cables, you can diagnose and understand.

It's the same in a DAW, but you obviously can't crab the leads with your hands.
I set up a click track in 5 or 6 clicks of a mouse. It's not even almost complicated, but it was when I knew nothing about it.

Second is motivation. I can't presume to know your situation, but I too used very basic software.
When I went to study I was told I needed to step up to logic or Protools, or whatever.
The college held a PT course so I signed up.

I was qualified to sit the test before the course even started because I wanted to learn it.

It's very much a deep end scenario though. You have to want it, and you have to just do it.


I know I've already said it twice, but if you can get side by side with a real person who knows the drill, it will solve all your problems.
Even if it costs you a fistful of notes to get into a local studio, it'll be worth it.


On the other hand, you're just giving wav files to someone else to work on, so why not just get a digital multi tracker and be done with it?
 
I'm gonna reply to the original post here, because while you got a lot of answers here, this need not be so complicated, from where I'm sitting.


Two main things stand to get in your way, again, from where I'm sitting.

Firstly, understand the basics. By that I mean generic workflow; The stuff that's the same across every day.

When you work with tape and you can't hear the compressor working, I imagine you understand that there needs to be an unbroken audio signal path.
You can see the cables, you can diagnose and understand.

It's the same in a DAW, but you obviously can't crab the leads with your hands.
I set up a click track in 5 or 6 clicks of a mouse. It's not even almost complicated, but it was when I knew nothing about it.

Second is motivation. I can't presume to know your situation, but I too used very basic software.
When I went to study I was told I needed to step up to logic or Protools, or whatever.
The college held a PT course so I signed up.

I was qualified to sit the test before the course even started because I wanted to learn it.

It's very much a deep end scenario though. You have to want it, and you have to just do it.


I know I've already said it twice, but if you can get side by side with a real person who knows the drill, it will solve all your problems.
Even if it costs you a fistful of notes to get into a local studio, it'll be worth it.


On the other hand, you're just giving wav files to someone else to work on, so why not just get a digital multi tracker and be done with it?
And it's been said before, why not just stick with garageband? It doesn't have any real limitations within your field of use.
 
david henman said:
...thanks, but the software that is going to work best for me will undoubtedly be similar to garageband in it's straightforward simplicity. or, to put it another way, any software that is so complex that it requires a tutorial will be crucial to avoid.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry--I tried to be helpful but I cannot let this stand.

You're a singer songwriter. How long did you spend learning to play the instruments you use? How much study of music notation and theory did you do for your song writing?

Why should you assume that the process of recording and mixing music should take any less effort? If you're not interested in learning how to do it properly, you can pay a professional to do it for you. Or stick with something like Garageband and put up with it's limitations. Just as a grand piano takes more practice to play than squeaking out "Mary Had a Little Lamb" on a plastic recorder in the school ensemble, so mixing is a skill that must be learned if you wish to do it well. The assumption that there should be a simple way to do elaborate mixing is a flawed idea and, dare I say it, an insult to those who HAVE learned the skills.

None of this nullifies my point that the User Interface can make a big difference and maybe there will be something out there that suits you better. However, even if you find something you like, don't assume that you'll be able to use it properly without some effort on the learning curve. Put it this way: what are my chances of finding a musical instrument I can play to a high standard with no training or practice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top