my ongoing quest for a straightforward, no nonsense daw

Status
Not open for further replies.
...actually, no. aside from rami and one or two other folk who appear to have "issues", most of the members here seemed to be eager to understand my confusion, and eager to help.

i got a lot of advice that i intend to use, and a lot of food for thought.

folks like you and rami seem far more concerned with making unflattering assumptions about me - probably better i just leave you to it.



Lt. Bob said:
yay! ... I get to join in! :)
first off I'm pretty much a liberal dem thank you very much.

we just get tired of people who ask questions and then get mad when people suggest answers which is what you did.

Our answers weren't good enough for you .... "were we too dumb to understand your questions?" ..... you think you're the first guy that has done this? And you don't see that telling us we apparently have reading comprehension problems was the first insult thrown?
You're gonna come back saying you asked a simple question and we were just unable to understand it which is what you did right off the bat.
But basically every single person here understands this stuff a LOT better than you do yet you don't want to listen to anyone at all.

And yes , I too started recording 50 years ago on tape (actually I don't believe you did but I did) and yes, there are adjustments to make changing over.
But when people tell you a few very simple things that you can do and your immediate response is that you don't want to do those things "because you're not trying to be an engineer" .... then it's obvious that you don't really want to learn even the simplest thing.
And you don't want to be told even the simplest things.

We've seen it time and time again ..... someone asks a question and then replies to every answer that he already knows that or that he's mastered recording over 50 years.
Sorry ..... but you haven't or you'd have never needed to ask any questions on this basic stuff.
It's not the questions that turn us off ....... it's the arrogant obnoxious responses to people genuinely trying to help that do it.

com'n ...... toss an insult my way ......... I'll be so hurt!
:laughings:

At least you can spell though ...... I'll give you that.

Don't laugh ..... that's a poorly understood skill here!

:D
Click to expand...
 
david henman;3934189 said:
folks like you and rami seem far more concerned with making unflattering assumptions about me - probably better i just leave you to it.
Click to expand...
in my case I made no assumptions ..... I simply quoted what you said and responded to what you said.
 
...finally heard back from my contact at steinberg:

Hi David,
Steinberg also makes a program called Sequel that is our answer to Garageband. Sequel projects can be opened in Cubase but the Cubase rig owner would also need to have Sequel as well.
 
david henman said:
...finally heard back from my contact at steinberg:

Hi David,
Steinberg also makes a program called Sequel that is our answer to Garageband. Sequel projects can be opened in Cubase but the Cubase rig owner would also need to have Sequel as well.
Click to expand...
but in either case a wave file could be imported and used in either of them.
 
I had some medical tests last year and could only eat Jello for 24 hours. I don't like Jello anymore.
 
david henman said:
...again, i cannot comment on this. i am not an engineer. my engineer, who i happen to admire and respect, simply suggested it would make his job easier if i send him my tracks in cubase. i am simply trying to accomodate him.

i have no idea why this is such a problem for so many here.

if i can find a way to accomodate him, great. if not, well, at least i tried.
Click to expand...
Maybe your terminology when you say "tracks" dont you mean "sessions"?? If you had GB and he had cubase he would ask you to record in cubase so he could mix your "sessions"
 
david henman said:
...i have already answered this question quite a few times. we really are just going around and around, no?

sigh...

i'm a singer/songwriter/guitarist. the purpose of home recording, for me is as follows:

1. to create demos of my songs
2. to experiment with the arrangements, parts, etc
3. pre-production - ie demoing a song (for free) before taking it to the studio
Click to expand...
OK based on this quote...
david henman said:
i am primarily a singer/songwriter, so recording, for me, is the equivalent of note-taking
Click to expand...
and this quote from your first post...And taking your needs into account just recording and arranging and note taking like a rough draft (like when I wanna jot something down real quick I use the "Text Application" not "Microsoft Word") Im sorry but I would have to say stick with garageband if that what you know. Seems like you were happy with it. (I mean it is way easier than Reaper) Stick with GB, I mean stick with what you know. Something just to record on to give to your mix eng so he can mix it I think you already have what you are looking for. If thas all you need to do GB what your currently using, is the best option. Even I use GB for this purpose. If I have a quick file I want to see or a stereo mix I want to hear and lay down a quick Idea without having to pull up a session and cut on all my gear I pull up GB drop the stereo song in and record with my mic just to get down the idea or rough draft. Or If I do a quick arrangement without starting up all my gear or I throw it in GB. I think GB is perfect for this purpose. Just stay with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top