Pros and Cons Re: Recording Softwares

[Agent_So]

mga bro medyo konting survey ulit.. hehehe

give nyo naman pros/cons ng bawat recording/editing softwares...  ease of use, suggestions, advice, etc..


cubase
pro-tools
sonar
etc..

thanks in advance..

[KitC]

Wow! I was hoping some others would lend their thoughts first, but...

Ok, I'll start with Sonar. I've been using Cakewalk since the Pro Audio 4 days when I chanced upon a cd that contained cakewalk. Previously, I was using MOTU Freestyle and Voyetra Orchestrator which came with my X3 and AWE32, respectively.

For midi, Cakewalk/Sonar is just great. It does the job without much fuss and nonsense, and timing seems solid to me. Audio was included with the Professional 4 version and has always been a part of Cakewalk since. Since I'm now using PE4 and PE5, I've grown quite used to this product for what it does best... midi. Having very good audio capabilities, as well as a good complement of synths and fx increases it's value tremendously and you can complete projects with everything out-of-the-box. If I were to nitpick, sidechaining and better mastering fx would be important for me.

I also own Cubase SL2 and I prefer how Cubase uses VSTs natively compared to Sonar's VST adapter. Midi is not so tight as Sonar's, but I love the way Cubase does automation. Sonar is catching up since version 4 and I can't wait to see what version 6 has in store. I also plan on upgrading to Cubase Studio 4 since each program has strengths that I utilize for certain jobs/projects.

The major disadvantage to these 2 great programs is that they are only as good as your audio interface and your computer. These programs just crawl on a low spec pc while using a soundblaster as your audio interface is just a plain waste of cpu cycles when it comes to recording. I'm no snob when it comes to gear, but having come from a 'blaster background, I can say that if you're serious about recording, get a good soundcard first.

[abyssinianson]

My take on the stuff I use:

Cubase/ Nuendo - I like the way the user interface is laid out, its integration with VST and MIDI, its company support, and its stability on my DAW. I use Nuendo 2 for my video projects in post-production work and it works very well. With the release of Cubase 4, I am interested in just how different both Cubase and Nuendo are going to be because, for people doing music and video work, having a common work environment in Cubase 4 for vid and music will make things much easier (and cheaper) to maintain a consistent workflow.

Cubase and other non Pro Tools sequencers like Sonar and Logic are much widely used in Europe as a standard than they are in the US, especially Cubase and Nuendo. I find that PT is the industry standard in most of the US places I've done projects in although they support all sequencers too.

Pro Tools - I don't know what PT format you are talking about since there are a few incarnations of PT like PT LE, PT Free, PT TDM, and PT HD (1-3). I work on a PT HD 3 rig at home and the advantages are that it is widely used in a lot of pro level studios so all i usually need to do is just burn my session files and files into a DVD to work in different DAW based studios. For post production work, this is key because you are working against a time-frame and you wouldn't want to be bothered with importing issues and compatibility. Also, my PT HD rig allows me to use hardware integrated accel cards that take virtually all of the music production load off my processor. I can run a lot of plugins and tracks will little difficulty until I start stacking up the MIDI tracks - this is where PT has yet to match  Cubase, Logic or Sonar. I don't know about PT 7 but people say the jump in performance for MIDI integration has really improved a lot.

Like with most things, there are trade offs and it really depends on what you are looking for. I really looked for ease of use in my Cubase/ Nuendo rig so I stuck with that package as my main platform and I love it. However, since I work a lot with studios for post production work, working on a skeleton frame of a project in PT enables me to work much faster had I originally done the project in a non PT environment. If I need to do conversions and adapting, I do that at home before heading off somewhere. I opted for accessibility and a means to help me work faster and better with the least amount of IT headache. I can troubleshoot at home but when you are on the crunch and the studio time costs money, you want to get in and out as fast as you can.

Oh yes, going with Logic, Sonar or cubase allows you to mix and match with different audio interface companies. With PT, you have to use their hard ware. I used to be an M-Audio user for my Cubase stuff but I've since swapped out my Delta 1010 for an RME Multiface II/ Creamware Scope Pro combo. The new machine is not up and running yet so I can't say how different this thing is from my previous setup although I've heard a lot of good things about the Multiface II.

Hope this helps.

[luminamusic]

its too technical for begginers

[abyssinianson]

its too technical for begginers

if thats the case, go get a 4 track cassette recorder. you can't get any simpler than that. i actually keep a mini recorder around for recording fragments of riffs which is my basic sketchpad for working out chord structures, songs, and working on fills to complete existing projects.

[Agent_So]

its too technical for begginers

well, so what? everyone starts from scratch diba? and whats wrong in asking.. the reason why im duin this cause i want to learn... i know you have gain much knowlege over this softwares cause you have been duin it long before me..and im just starting.. why? wala na ba mga beginners karapatan pagaralan ito?

[KitC]

I don't think that's what abyss meant. Agent, you are right when you state that we all have to begin somewhere, I myself started with my dad's open reel tape recorder though it was just fooling around transfering LP's to tape and trying to find the best combination of tape speeds and tape formulations.

It's usually a natural progression going from one media to another. I got hooked on midi through my keyboard's onboard sequencer; from there on, I discovered Cakewalk. Having audio included with Cakewalk Professional 4 was just an added bonus at the time and I was able to tap into the audio recording capabilities of my AWE32. The ability to burn cd's also opened up a whole new world, and it also opened up a can of worms since I had to learn about digital media from the ground up.

Yes, the technology isn't easy to learn, but if you're fighting with what you've got, then you're using the wrong tool for the job. Some people take easily to computers and software, others prefer hardware recorders from the simple 4-track cassette up to the 24- or 48-track Otari monsters. The thing is, though, tape has had it's heyday. If you understand tape, well and good; it will get you out of a bind when your pc DAW decides to go bellyup and you have a 4-track on the ready. Chances are, you can easily be recording on a 4-track while waiting for your DAW to boot up. Many times has the muse been lost while waiting for the software to load. Sometimes, though, the best piece of compositional hardware is the pen and paper.

[Agent_So]

sir im not refering to abys.. hehehe.. pm kita sir reason ko..

[KitC]

sir im not refering to abys.. hehehe.. pm kita sir reason ko..

Understood.

Just to add to what abyss' said, I also do a lot of musical sketches with my keyboard's onboard sequencer. Much easier than waiting for my daw to boot.  

[jplacson]

I'm a current Pro Tools M 7 user.  Came from Sonar.

I rarely do MIDI anything, so I can't compare or rate PT7's new MIDI interface, but from what other PT users are saying, it's at par with all the rest now...so there.

Recording-wise... it "feels" more intuitive.  By that, I mean, a lot of the commands are easier to remember if you're coming from an analog/old school background.  Coming from absolute scratch, all pro-level software systems are equal in UI... whichever one you learn FIRST, is usually the one you find easier to use.

PT has the "pro" level advantage in that most commercial studios run it on their higher end suites... so files from both PT M and LE open up fine in HD... and vice versa (moving from an HD back down to M or LE will lock out plugins that are not on those systems... they will still be there when moving back to HD for finishing... this is mainly for mixing and over-dubbing)

Sonar is great too... no real complaints... automation isn't as easy as with PT though...but that's not really a huge issue... 5 more min with the manual and it's just as easy.  Sonar also works with nearly all interfaces... so no need for special hardware... just start playing around with your built-in sound card or SB product.

PT (M & LE) is a bit annoying in that bouncing tracks is done in real-time...period.  No other option.  PT will never do a "draft" mode for bouncing.  All bounces are done at maximum quality.  This preserves audio quality, but also it tough when all you want to do is export a quick 96kbps mp3 version to email to a friend.  The quickest way I've found is to just zip the entire session folder and send it via FTP or something.  (Unless you're lucky enough to have a Digidesign server)

Personally, I like PT.  I wouldn't say it's the end-all of all music programs... far from it.  But it fits MY needs...and it works the way I want it to work.

Why did I choose M over LE?  Interface options.  LE is VERY limited.  You're stuck with the MBox/Pro, or the 002... period.   They aren't bad interfaces... but I prefer switching interfaces depending on my needs.  And the fact that LE comes with every Digi interface means you're paying for it each time.  You pay for M once... then just upgrade your interface as needed.  M-Audio hardware also has the option of working with other software... so you're not stuck with Protools if you don't like it... but it's there if you need it.

Again, M-Audio isn't the end-all... it's what "I" like.  They have great support, stable drivers (most of the time), and work on Mac and PC... so they work on all my systems.

**Oh, and another thing... no matter what software you decide yo go with... just play with it... record everything...anything... sounds of your room... rough takes... EVERYTHING.  The more you use it, the more you can make the most of it.  Don't be too lazy to fire up your PC and start the software.  Even at 3 in the morning, if you have a riff you feel like recording... take the time to boot up.  It will make you way more efficient on your platform of choice, and you'll learn the shortcuts and tweaks a lot better.**

[abyssinianson]

jp is right on the money - experiment. there is nothing wrong with trying stuff out. in the end, all the sequencers are basically the same so if you do decide to go with one brand, know that they really don't differ that much from its competitors because they all do the same thing. I came from a Cubase background, in fact, I started with 3.1 before adding PT years later, and even then, it was only because my projects started getting much complicated and I simply needed the compatibility with larger studios. In the bigger scheme of things, I picked up pro tools easily because I knew my way around Cubase after years with it.

If you dont feel comfortable with a larger, full blown sequencer, Adobe Audition (formerly Cool Edit Pro) has multi track recording capability, and costs much less than Logic, Sonar, Cubase, or pro tools.

you also mentioned that you have the software(s)...test them out. if they are demo versions, which I hope they are, then you ought to get a good feel for their features with the limited versions of the full packages. it ain't no secret that I hate piracy too so, yeah, if there is any of that type of tomfoolery going on its best that it be discreet.


@jp: you are right about PT's bounce feature. it irks some people that I know but it suits me fine since I typically bounce with the full fidelity of the audio anyway, even in Cubase and Nuendo.

@Kit: the pen and paper theme still rings true with me. I actually draft out song structure while working out chords because sometimes songs sound better with a bridge, sometimes they don't; it all depends on the strength of the chord progression whether or not it needs that "stepping stone" towards the eventual climax. oohh....hardware sequencers, i remember those. very dependable. i thought those were going the way of the dinosaur until I found out Underworld still uses hardware sequencer's instead of the uberpopular Ableton Live.

[jplacson]

@jp: you are right about PT's bounce feature. it irks some people that I know but it suits me fine since I typically bounce with the full fidelity of the audio anyway, even in Cubase and Nuendo.

Yup..I agree.  I figured, you go through all the hassle of setting up your rig, and firing up all your gear anyway, what's waiting 5 min for a song to bounce, instead of 1 min?

For those that just wanna get their feet wet in audio recording, I suggest Audacity.  I still have it on my system "just in case".

[Erdy]

its too technical for begginers

Para hindi maging technical sa beginners, maraming mabibiling PC RECORDING  or HOME RECORDING Magazine sa Book Sale usually cost 30 pesos up sa mga back issues. Maganda itong basahin dahil magkakaroon ka ng idea kung paano ang proseso sa recording studio, mga tips, magagandang soundcards, sequencers, softwares etc.

[pmack]

sirs, pasingit naman po.
what do you think of adobe audition?
thanks...

[abyssinianson]

sirs, pasingit naman po.
what do you think of adobe audition?
thanks...

oks yun - very basic pero very capable na mag record in multitrack mode. Long time user ako sa Cool Edit bago nag change into Adobe Audition. Kung bumili ka ng copy sa Audition, very good ang support and updates sa Adobe since it is a big and well staffed company; wala akong reklamo sa kanila.

[KitC]

Audition is ok for audio and I've used it's predecessor, CoolEdit, in a post production environment. I find Audition very good for batch processing and it's noise reduction technologies are very powerful. I just don't like the way it does fx parameter automation and it's mixer view doesn't sync with the automation.

[abusound]

Hi Guys,

I'm fairly new to this forum, but I really would like to give my views drawing from experience. I'm a sound engineer by profession both here and anywhere else in southeast asia. I've been given the chance to work with analog, 2-inch tape based recording systems. I'm a Pro Tools certified trainor as well, and have been using Pro Tools for more that 10 years now.

All the other software mentioned in this thread are all good, as a software. Each has its own specialization and it's own hangups. One thing I noticed with the other softwares is that there's a lot of mix and matching and experimentation that is needed to be done before you get the sound quality that you need. You will have to add other third party products just to get to a certain level of functionality that you are aiming for. Lastly, these softwares does not even guarantee to which audio resolution it can handle up to a certain track count. Take for example NUENDO, it boasts of giving out 64 tracks. Yes it does, but that is at 44.1kHz, 16 bit. If you tweak it to 48kHz, 24 bit, it can give you 64 tracks for just 2 minutes before it crashes. Try doing it at 96kHz and see if you can still do any playback. Same thing goes with SONAR, AUDITION, MOTU, LOGIC. They cannot Guarantee track counts and audio resolution. They will always say that it will depend on the hardware that you will use. Sadly, they are referring to third party hardware that you will have to purchase separately.

Now as I've mentioned, I've been using Pro Tools fro 10 years. And believe me, it has it's own flaws. One particular flaw is it's buffer under run error. But I can't consider it as a real flaw since it pertains to the computer's need for additional RAM. Pro Tools has 3 systems that are currently out: Pro Tools M-Powered, Pro Tools LE, and Pro Tools HD.
Pro Tools M-powered is the consumer Pro Tools. Thhis is goos for home based musicians. But you have to deal with latency here because of the M-Audio hardware. This is also based on the Pro Tools LE software. Also, this is the only version of Pro Tools which you have to purchase the software separately. Pro Tools LE and HD on the other hand are both used on the Professional and Broadcast side. The software comes free with the Hardware. Pro Tools LE guarantees 48 tracks of audio with an edit density of one edit point every 5 millisecond. Just think of the edit density as the Read/Write acces to your hard drive. that's how stable Pro Tools is. It guarantees up to 96kHz, 24 bit, and you can even mix different audio resolutions. Pro Tools 7 does resolution conversion automatically. It also saves your session automatically every 10 minutes, so you don't worry about crashes.  Now Pro Tools HD is entirely different from it's LE brother. HD is highly scalable. Can go as many as 512 tracks, 96 simul i/o, 192kHz, 24 bit audio resolution. And is the standard for multichannel audio recording and mixing. Can handle mono, stereo, lcr, 5.1 and 7.1 mixing.

I still go with so may other details regarding pro Tools, but I know it will just become boring.

Just give me a call or sms me if you want to hear some more.
my mobile is 09178048527.

[Agent_So]

I still go with so may other details regarding pro Tools, but I know it will just become boring.

oh please sir, more! it is very informative lalo na sa professional na katulad nyo.. please continue! =)

[dantuts]

agent_so...

try adobe audition.. just like KitC and Abssy said.. maganda yun for starters.. pero ginagamit din yan ng mga pros..

[starfugger]

very interesting info about pro tools.  thanks abusound.  

experience ko sa cubase sx 3 ok naman.  ive recently tried recording over 70 tracks at 48-khz, 24-bit and so far so good.  with all the busses and group tracks added the count goes up to around 90. umaandar pa naman  like abusound said, it really depends on one's hardware and pc specs.

[abyssinianson]

just as a tidbit, Hazel, the new cubase 4 does not seem to have DX plugin support with the initial release and there is a huge hooplah over at the Cubase forums calling for its reinstatement. I am one of the disappointed people making a ruckus because I was just about to purchase my upgrade.

I hope a patch is released for this because I have projects using DX stuff that I can't open in Cubase 4 if I have it.

[abusound]

Hey thanks for your positive reaction on what I wrote.

Again, I didn't write it just to bash and lash those other DAW's out there. If you're comfortable in working with one, then just continue using it. Sound engineering is not about the software or equipment rig that you use, it's more of being able to sculp the sound into a more pleasant stream of vibrations to your ear.

By the way, those who are asking about Pro Tools' MIDI functionality, I could say that it has greatly improved in version 7. No more need to create auxes for midi tracks, you can use the sound modules just like the way you use plug-ins, very tight integration with Re-Wire so there's no problem synching Reason, Ableton, Waves Vocal Tool, etc. Also, there are some great sound generation plug-ins that were developed by Digidesign as well, like Xpand, Hybrid, and the latest is Strike, which is a virtual drummer module.

Again, if you want to ask me anything that relates to this profession and this field, fell free to email me or sms me.
mcabujr@yahoo.com
09178048527

[abyssinianson]

sounds like i shouldnt have a problem with Pro Tools 7 when I upgrade to it. however, a lot needs to be done with Cubase 4...that has been a thorn in my side lately.

[Sound Weavers]

hi abusound. yeah PT 7 is great! Nice to see people extoll the values of PT here. I'll probably call you re: to HD or not to HD.

Gerry

[abyssinianson]

imo, to HD - the benefits are pretty solid especially the use of the accel cards to build a system that has a lot of potential. digidesign is a great company and I've been using their stuff for years. they are always on top of their products and calling them is never a problem if you have a question.

however the same goes for a lot of the other DAW sequencers. though PT has the benefit of being hardware driven, the other companies like Sonar, Logic, and Cubase, have the freedom to mix and match with whatever is currently out there. when I was shopping to replace my M-Audio 1010, I had to decide between a few companies because the choices were so vast - literally. the combinations of DAW + hardware audio interface are endless! whatever method you pursue as the heart of your DAW - PT or not - the current lot of products makes us customers on the winning end of the deal.