• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

DAW With Focus On Recording Rather Than Internal Beat Making and MIDI?

#61
Basslice said:
If you have a problem with that you can get Reaper for $60 and it will probably do what you want. My cousin owns a professional studio and he uses Cubase.
Click to expand...

Both of those are also excellent choices.

I was a Cubase user for many years, starting with the version that ran on an Atari ST, and was pretty much the only game in town. It only got better with each succeeding release.

And Reaper is awesome if you’re running Windows. It’s especially convenient for recording raw tracks since you can easily customize your workflow. I have a copy I use when I just want to get something down fast and don’t need all the features (although Reaper is pretty feature rich too) of Mixbus. And the regular price is a true bargain as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ObsessiveArcher and Basslice
#62
QweziRider said:
I'm stuck on Cakewalk (Sonar for me, but CW is now free). Yeah, it has a metric ton of stuff I don't need, but it can very easily be used for nothing but audio. If I don't need it, I don't bring it into play. I started out with doing nothing but audio in older Cakewalk, so it can be done without having to see any of the stuff you don't need.
Click to expand...
Cakewalk pro is free.
So, yeah, try it before you spend a penny anywhere else.
Cakewalk has a huge amount of midi and beat capability, but you can save your workspace template to only show what you use.
Two things CW has that make is great: Pro Channel: a single built-in effect chain of all common effects (comp, eq, tube, reverb, channel and tape emulator) I barely use my UAD anymore.
And
Drum replacer: use a tunable filter to find a specific instrument in your drum track (ie snare, kick, etc) and then use it to trigger a sample kick. (You can literally set up a fake drumset with boxes and sauce pans and record a track, then “replace” it with great sounding drums.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Highroler79 and QweziRider
#63
Peeved T-40 said:
I've never been able to get past the hump of the learning curve on any of the DAWs I've used. My brain just doesn't understand them. If you give me a bunch of gear and let me weir the whole thing up physically then I have it in my head and I can use it. But for some reason when you put all that on a flat screen, I just don't get it and have never been able to get anywhere with them
Click to expand...

I get the impression that you'd be best served by a dedicated hardware recorder, rather than involve a computer.

Several companies (including Zoom) make cheap 8 track digital studios, with integrated mixing consoles, mic preamps, I/O, effects etc.


I know you've expressed a dislike of Avid products, but the great thing about Pro Tools is that I can configure it to operate exactly like an old 4-track cassette porta-studio (or 24 / 48 track deck etc), by simply :


1. Put it in destructive record mode.

2. Only create 4 mono audio tracks.

3. Only create 1 stereo Aux return.

4. Only create 2 mono effects sends (post fader)

5. Only create 1 mono cue bus (pre fader)

6. Turn off the grid.

7. Turn off the computer screen.

8. Operate the system entirely from a control surface.




I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine you can probably follow steps 1-7 on Reaper, or Studio One.

Where Pro Tools really shines, and many other DAWs get left behind, is in control surface integration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basslice
#66
monkeyfinger said:
Protools is the industry standard because it was the first fully functional non-linear audio recording and mixing system. So when there was nothing else, studio engineers leaned that tool. Since learning these systems is very time-consuming, most have chosen to stick with that product. I don't think it is the best choice for someone new. Protools is reluctant to make and substantial changes to its product for fear of upsetting its user base. So it sticks with its antiquated model.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the parasitic subscription based payment and i've had huge issues with their DRM and Avid in general as a company.
 
#67
#69
dbsfgyd1 said:
+1 on Cubasis. Also a great tool for remote recording sessions. You will need a PC or a Mac. iPad they state will work. ChromeBook will not.

While as far as I know there is no limits on the amount of tracks, keep in mind, the files can get very large and storage space on your hard drive may disappear pretty quick. .
Click to expand...
I have an old Windows 7 computer. A good sized HD in it, and I think one added USB HD.... it's video that eats data storage space.... I find that my audio work doesn't seem to pile up too quickly, even on a computer that is sort of old. I try not to go too crazy on the number of tracks, the more important bottleneck is how many VST effects and such you are running. Sometimes the computer will hang up when I first boot up Cubase; but re-booting or re-starting cleans that up right away.

Again, I've had a very stable successful experience with Cubase. Here's a 5 song album I recorded and mastered in house: (sorry about the chorus effect in the opening seconds - I'm happy with everything else!)

"Nameless" (Edgar Allan Poe) Full Album By John Spignesi Band - YouTube
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kelly robinson and dbsfgyd1
#71
I'd been using Magix Samplitude Pro X4 but I still haven't got it running again on the new machine. It still includes sequencing & virtual instruments, etc. but seemed more focused on multitrack recording & mixing than other recent DAWs I'd tried & seemed pretty smooth to me. I'll likely wind up upgrading to the latest version when I finally get around to getting set up on the new box.
 
#73
monkeyfinger said:
They list audacity as #1 in that article. I don't think it is a credible source.
Click to expand...

^This.

Audacity is fine for what it is if you prefer an extremely barebones environment to work in. Anf it was considered pretty rad when it first came out. Podcasters who are just starting out tend to cut their teeth on it. And it’s better than nothing I suppose. But there are much better tools available today to work with. Even for beginner podcasters.
 
#76
40Hz said:
^This.

Audacity is fine for what it is if you prefer an extremely barebones environment to work in. Anf it was considered pretty rad when it first came out. Podcasters who are just starting out tend to cut their teeth on it. And it’s better than nothing I suppose. But there are much better tools available today to work with. Even for beginner podcasters.
Click to expand...

I liked it a lot better when it came out. I used to use it back in the day for various things but over the years they've just made one weird design discussion after another and at this point, every time I touch it I feel like it's fighting with me to do even simple things. There's probably ways to set it up and change a lot of the stuff that I don't like but I really don't care. It's not worth the time
 
  • Like
Reactions: 40Hz and equill
#77
I’m a big proponent of Studio One. I use it on a PC at our studio and on my personal MacBook. I came from Logic (really good, but I mirrored my setup with the studio’s DAW of choice, S1), and tried Pro Tools, Reaper, and Mixbus. Settled on Studio One.
I’ve recorded 4 projects this last summer and fall without a hint of MIDI. All live bands and players. MIDI never got in the way. I’m just now playing with some virtual instruments and sequencers.

A big time vote for Studio One.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MonetBass
#78
Peeved T-40 said:
I've never been able to get past the hump of the learning curve on any of the DAWs I've used. My brain just doesn't understand them. If you give me a bunch of gear and let me weir the whole thing up physically then I have it in my head and I can use it. But for some reason when you put all that on a flat screen, I just don't get it and have never been able to get anywhere with them
Click to expand...
The key is to join a forum like GearSlutz or HomeRecording.com and ask questions in the right noob room. You'll get the guidance.

It's basically this: get your interface talking to your computer, set your inputs and outputs and learn how to arm a track for recording, and you are good to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 31HZ, Basslice and Geri O
#80
Standalone said:
The key is to join a forum like GearSlutz or HomeRecording.com and ask questions in the right noob room. You'll get the guidance.

It's basically this: get your interface talking to your computer, set your inputs and outputs and learn how to arm a track for recording, and you are good to go.
Click to expand...

Ok, I know I'm just being stubborn and argumentative on this one, especially because it's really a tiny thing but it's one of the things that drives me nuts about the design philosophies of most DAWs.

Why do I need to arm the track? I come from film. I use Adobe Premiere. Being meant for video means it's also a DAW. When I want to record to a track all I have to do is hit record on that track and it starts recording. I don't have to send my input to it, I don't have to arm it. All I have to do is tell Premiere to use my interface and then it will record to any track I want in one click. Couldn't be more simple
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standalone

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back