What Recording Software Do You Use and Why Do You Use It

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:39 am

What's the difference between the producer and studio edition of Sonar 3?

And, any opinions about Nuendo or Sequoia?

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:54 am

You guys are great! I'm getting so much useful information here!!

I went to the website and checked out Sonar. The interface Looks very Intuitive.

Thanks again, as I'm starting to get a better feel of this Software maze Surprised

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:23 am

I use Sonar3 studio edition, main difference from producer edition is that if you want EQ on a channel, you have to call it up, whereas on producer, it's automatically displayed on each channel in the console view from the outset. There might be a couple of others, Ethan? BTW, I'm still learning how to use it, but so far it's not painful. I had a friend with a few years experience bring some tracks over on CD so I could do some training flights, I haven't crashed yet!

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:16 am

Quote:

Originally posted by ILOVESOUND:
And, any opinions about Nuendo or Sequoia?

I have not used Sequoia but i have used Samplitude (Sequoia is basically a beefed up version of Samp). Generally recordists use Samplitude as it is significantly cheaper and few require the more intense editing features in Sequoia. I am currently a Logic user but since they discontinued the PC line i've been looking where to jump to.

I have to say that Samplitude is an amazing program. You can go right from recording to mastering to burning a CD without switching apps. What i appreciate the most (especially coming from Logic) is the extremely well thought out interface. It is really easy to get up and running despite the fact that it has a deep set of features.

Samplitude started as an audio program (as opposed to cakewalk, logic and cubase which started out as midi sequencers) so it has a less developed midi side of things. It runs VSTinstruments and such but it is no Logic in this regard... which is fine for me. Certainly worth checking out.

greg

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:13 pm

Hello,
I was using Cubase for 3 years and recently upgraded (note that I said upgraded!) to the Digi002 Rack. Simply put, I love it. While there are certainly those that feel that the LE isn't "industry standard" I would disagree. That is because I have done many projects on Cubase and been very happy with the results, just to find that there are very few other studios using that software. If your client wants to make any changes they will have many more hurdles in finding a studio with that platform than with Pro Tools. LE is COMPLETELY compatable with the more expensive PT systems. That also makes the cross platform very beneficial to you by allowing a client who has recorded on PT at another studio to come to your studio and say just do some punchins, etc. Well worth the price IMHO. Yes, there are limitations to LE (32 track limit, can't use direct-x) but the pros outweigh the cons. And really if you think about it, if you are actually paying for the software you're using, you are getting a better deal with the digi002 because you get a hardware interface as well (though I still prefer my outboard pre's. Just my 2c.
Joel
Mhumhi Studios

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:30 pm

Thanks for the observations. I definitely am looking for something intuitive and fairly straight forward as far as the basics of the program go. I do mostly audio, but like using virtual instruments (sample tank, battery) to set up drum beats for tracking or try out instrumentation. So basic midi is fine for me.

As far as PTLE is concerned. I agree, it's easy if you want to take it to a studio for overdubs and mixing etc. However, and correct me if I'm wrong because I've never done it before, it isn't that difficult to take the wav files from other apps and import them into the real Protools is it? Granted, you lose plug-ins, but you'd probably be using the higher end plug ins or hardware effects the studio owns anyway.

The most frustrating thing about PTLE and PT for that matter is the incompatibility of it's software with other hardware. Either you get a 001 or 002 and have to add external converters and better pres, or you get an HD system and have to spend $10,000 which will only get you the card and an interface - no midi and no pres!

Thanks but not thanks on digidesign. Just my opinion.

ILS

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:58 pm

It's an interesting argument. I look at it like this. The compatability issue is complex because I also feel like many of the software based things aren't very compatable with eachother either. I had to fight hard to get my sound card to work with my cubase to work with my band in a box to work with my dirx to w...etc. Just because these programs don't have dedicated hardware doesn't make them all compatable. That said, when I got my 002 my computer WASN'T compatable with PT and I had to build a new computer. It was a $800 investment but now I have a much faster and much more stable system than I ever had with cubase. As far as importing wav files, sure you can do that-you can do that with any of them, but wav files don't contain timecode info, so say you have 8 tracks and 3 of them were punchins, if you import them ,you'll have top manually nudge them into the right place. Also I just had a bad experience where we did some recording at another studio that doesn't have protools and we want to get the files into PT and the only way we can do it is to go there with my computer set it up and dump the files in realtime via ADAT-at $75 an hour this doesn't make me happy. If he had PT, he could just burn it onto CD's or better DVD's and that would take 20 minutes.
I look at it like this. If you want to do things in your home only and don't care about compatability with other studios, then go with whatever program you want-if you want the highest % of compatability with other studios, go with PT. I don't know about Sonar but I do know well the support of Cubase and PT and PT wins hands down. Check out the forums of Cubase and then check out the PT users forum and you'll see what I mean.

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:32 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mbira:
Also I just had a bad experience where we did some recording at another studio that doesn't have protools and we want to get the files into PT and the only way we can do it is to go there with my computer set it up and dump the files in realtime via ADAT-at $75 an hour this doesn't make me happy.

Mbira, i am wondering why you couldn't just time align the audio files in the program that the studio uses (adding digital silence to fill in blank areas... merging snippets of audio into single seamless tracks) burn the separate tracks to CD and then bring them into protools at home?

As i stated earlier, i am currently using Logic and i am able to swap projects back and forth with protools users this way. It has worked without a hitch.

greg

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:37 pm

I track on a Mackie SDR hard disk 24track, then fly into Sonar via Firewire. The format is broadcast wave file, which is timestamped. When Sonar is installed, you simply tell it to accept .bwv files. That being said, there is a little nudging to do ie: a punch will appear in Sonar as a seperate track, but it is time aligned with the original track it's part of. The only trick is to be sure to press and hold the shift key while you drag & drop the punch clip, this keeps proper time alignment.

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:49 pm

Sonar 3 Producer works for me. I was with Logic, and loved it, until they went Apple. Works flawlessly with my soft synths and GigaStudio. I'm hooked now.

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:51 pm

Ken,

> you are just down the road from me! How do you like this cold weather Very Happy

Again, I'm serious about the invite. Since you're so close, if you'd like to come by some evening to see Sonar in person, I'd be glad to have you over.

--Ethan

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:28 pm

I've been using first Performer, the Digital Performer for about 12 years and I'm very happy with it. I currently have the latest version, 4.12 on a dual 867 mac and it runs very smooth. I get about 24+ tracks with effects before the computer starts to get a little jerky and if I need more tracks, I just open a new mix and print some of the tracks with the effects to disk. I also have Mach Five, the soft sampler from motu, that comes with about 2GB of samples plus it lets you convert from other formats, such as giga sampler. Mach Five and Digital performer run beautiful together, and if you need an audio/midi program and great sampling, this is the ticket-

I also have soundtrack, a loop program from apple that is a lot like acid. I am not much of a loop guy but neither am a drummer and this lets me build drum tracks for demos that later I export to DP- later, when I'm ready to record for keeps I call a drummer-

I used to have a vs880 several years back when I had a wimpy mac and I used to used for some of the audio tracks alongside DP- then in '98 I got a decent mac and I tell you, the vs880 was used nomore! THERE IS A BIG DIFFERNCE IN AUDIO QUALITY BETWEEN THAT BOX AND DP!! I do hear it loud and clear!

Good luck to you and happy traxs!!

Xavier Very Happy

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:41 pm

Ken in Connecticut. Hmm... Please tell me your last name isn't Keniff. Wink

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 3:25 pm

This is an interesting thread, I'd like to chime in. After looking at a number of audio programs--I was starting from scratch, so I really wasn't limited--I decided to go with a Macintosh and DP4. Choosing Mac really helped narrow the field. After looking at several programs, DP looked like the most reliable, flexible and compatible, without going to a ProTools rig.

Do I presume correctly that most Mac users are in the PT world and DP users are a minority?

I've used PT in the past, and nothing wrong with it, but I have a real problem with locking into proprietary systems with high $$ box seats just to pretend I'm one of the big boys. I'll let my DP-based system pay for itself several times over, then when a gig comes along that will justify a PT system, maybe I'll change then... or maybe not. Smile

Tim

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 4:18 pm

"Mbira, i am wondering why you couldn't just time align the audio files in the program that the studio uses (adding digital silence to fill in blank areas... merging snippets of audio into single seamless tracks) burn the separate tracks to CD and then bring them into protools at home?"

I can-at his studio for $75 pr hr. Mad

But seriously, I think everyone should just use whatever they like to use. I don't want to get into a "mine is better than yours" thing. Simply put. I used to use Cubase SX. I really liked it, though I wouldn't say my system was the most stable in the world. I enjoy some direct-x effects that I sadly can't use in PT. They just came out with a VST to RTAS wrapper that allows vst plugs to be used in PT therefore giving us more options, though.

I stick by what I said earlier.

If you want to make music in your home or studio where compatability of your files with others isn't important-go with what you like. Yes you can swap files with other progs using various workarounds-it just takes longer.

If you want to have a system that you know is compatable with the majority of digital studios out there, go with PT.

And it's true that for better or worse (worse I think), PT does have "name recognition" I have gotten more work now that I advertise that I have PT. It's the same as if you say you have a Neumann in your studio. You don't even need to bust it out, but people will come just cause it's there.

PS I personally have never felt limited by PTLE. I for one have no intention of someday getting a "real" PT system. I get everything I need from LE.
Just my 2c.Joel

This topic sponsored by: