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

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:06 am

Hi, I'm new here and this is my first post!

I have been using a Roland VS1680 but now I want to buy a delicated Computer for recording and get serious about it.

All the information about Computer recording can be mind blowing and I figure the first step even before I start to put together a computer system is to get a handle on which Software would work for me...

There are many different recording software programs out there and for a newbie, it is very hard to determine which package is the right way to go.

So I was wondering if the Pro’s here could chime in and give an overview of what recording Software you use and more importantly:
Why You Use It?

Thanks

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:02 am

Ken,

> now I want to buy a delicated Computer <

Smart move.

> give an overview of what recording Software you use and more importantly: Why You Use It? <

For me it's a no-brainer. I refuse to buy any software that is copy protected, which rules out Cubase, Logic, and most of the other DAW programs. Fortunately, the one program that's not copy protected is also the one I prefer for all other reasons.

I use Sonar 3 Producer, and it's simply fabulous. It does everything you could possibly want, and does so easily. Not that there isn't a learning curve! But it's laid out logically, and the Sonar support forum at the Cakewalk web site is an excellent resource when you have questions. For me, Sonar is easier to use and more intuitive than any of the others. It also hosts software synths and samplers elegantly.

I'm sure others will chime in explaining why they prefer whatever other program they use, and that's fine. But for me and the way I like to work, Sonar is as good as it gets.

--Ethan

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:10 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethan Winer:
For me it's a no-brainer. I refuse to buy any software that is copy protected, which rules out Cubase, Logic, and most of the other DAW programs.

Ethan, is this simply due to the pain-in-the-ass factor associated with copy protection keys,locks,dongles etc.?

I hope i am not hijacking this thread i was just curious...

greg

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 12:23 pm

Greg,

> is this simply due to the pain-in-the-ass factor associated with copy protection keys, locks, dongles etc.? <

Yes, copy protection is a pain in the ass, but it's much worse than that. For the complete story see "Copy Protection: The Audio Industry's Dirty Little Secret" near the end of the list on my Articles page:

www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html

> I hope i am not hijacking this thread <

Not at all! Copy protection is a huge problem that many more people need to be aware of. Companies that copy protect their software should be shunned, not rewarded with sales.

--Ethan

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:20 pm

I use Digital Performer. I've been a Performer user since version 1.2 - 1985. Don't want to jump ship from sometihng that is so intuitive for me. It's easy to use and sounds great.

I certainly don't want to start a debate here. What you do is your business and more power to you. But I will not shun people who copy protect their software until the users become honest enough to buy what they use. It's a two way street. And we're not even close to the honesty quotient on this one. Developers need to protect their investments. The Powered plug-ins are a brilliant solution. Short of that I don't know what else is.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:37 pm

I currently use Sonar XL 2.2

Mainly because I have been using Cakewalk products since their DOS version. I just stuck with them through all the years. I cannot comment on whats best for all I know are cakewalk products. If I wasn't using midi I would probably use something else. But I think that Cakewalk products have gotten just that good whereas if all you recorded was audio it would be all you need.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:50 pm

I'm a Logic User. Very deep program, GUI takes some getting used to (screensets help tremendously) abd there's a steep learning curve, but, like the rest of the sequencers, it'll basically be able to do whatever you need.

What'll happen for you is that you'll arbitrarily pick one, and fall in love. Logic is Mac only, though.

And the Logic Copy protection dongle doesn't really bother me. What I hate is when, in the normal course of using and maintaining my mac, I lose a hard disk authorization for a plug in.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:49 pm

I use DP 3.11 which is for Mac only. I started using it because I wanted the stability of a Mac, it wasn't too expensive and I bought their 896 interface. I really like it with a few exceptions. The GUI is very easy to get used to. I would highly recommend using a Mac but if that isn't in the stars for you I like Nuendo for PC. That's just my opinion though.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:10 pm

Hey Ken, I also have a 1680 and I "switched" to Sonar (2 at the time, but I've upgraded to 3 not that I've really gotten used to 3 yet). One of the reasons I chose Sonar was that I wanted to work on a PC, I felt that buying a properly tweaked out dedicated PC for audio would be significantly cheaper than buying a mac, plus I'm used to PC's and not macs-- though from what I understand that should not be a major factor for most people. I can't say for certain which route is cheaper-- mac or custom built PC, but when I was researching it, the PC seemed more easily attainable.

I was strongly considering Logic, but then Apple bought them out. It seemed like Cubase had more bugs than Sonar; there is way to much self-defensivness in the Sonar vs Cubase arguments you see all over the net-- people wishing to justify their purchase than honestly weigh the pros and cons of each product-- but it does look like people get up and running with Sonar much faster and with less problems than Cubase. Or, at least it seemed to me at the time I was considering one verses the other.

I've had no real problems with sonar or my DAW-- which I talk about in other posts on this site.

Which ever way you go, you really should consider the computer, the soundcard and the software as a team and if you see many people using a similar team and having no complaints and "success" then go with it. If you want a particular software then see which sound card people are using with that software, for me when I decided on sonar it didn't very much matter what sound card made logic users or cubase users happy. When it comes to the quality of your PC recording experience, sound card and PC will matter more than software in that while each software product is different it would be wrong to assume one will produce a better CD than the other-- it is not the tools but the mechanic provided he has tools he can use.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:39 pm

I use Sonar 2.2 XL because it was an easy upgrade from the Pro Audio 9 that came with my Aardvark Q10 box. I figure I won't go wrong with Sonar, as it is widely used.

Ditto the copy protection boycott... too bad it is mandatory with commercial Windows XP. Those in large corporate IT shops can get the site-license version which requires a serial number, but does not hook to the internet and puke if you change a card or hard drive.

I had no idea so many DAW products were copyrighted... as W.C. Fields would say, "I was going to make a donation, but on second thought, f*ck 'em."

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:54 pm

Ethan, you are just down the road from me! How do you like this cold weather Surprised

And Thank you all for your feedback.

One thing, I have noticed is that no one here has mentioned Pro tools LE with the Digi 001 or 002.

Through my reading, I see that many refer to Pro Tools as the "Industry Standard" and as I look around the internet I see many Pro Studio's using Pro Tools.

Is there a reason not to go for a Pro Tools system like the Digi 002?

Thanks Once again and after reading what I could so far today, this Forum strikes me as the best Recording information Forum on the NET!

Thanks for all your time and consideration.

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:39 pm

Anyone have experience with Nuendo or Sequoia? From what I've read, it seems like these are the real big hitters. Likes, dislikes? Intuitive or not?

ILS

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:48 pm

Pro Tools is indeed an industry standard, however, LE stands for 'Limited Edition' which is definitely not an industry standard, rather a product designed (IMO) to prime you to the PT world and pre-preference you to their products.

But... it gets the job done, in some ways better than its competition, in some ways not quite as good. One common complaint is the lack of in depth MIDI features. One bonus is advanced and intuitive audio editing.

Pro Tools is expensive with a capital expensive, because its based on proprietary DSP hardware. you're talking $25k just to get a basic system going. But PT LE is native based, just like the rest of its competition. And in that arena PT LE doesn't compete as well because it still carries what I like to call 'the cost of the Nike swoosh". In other words you pay for the name.

mitz

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 10:53 pm

Pro Tools is indeed an industry standard, however, LE stands for 'Limited Edition' which is definitely not an industry standard, rather a product designed (IMO) to prime you to the PT world and pre-preference you to their products.

But... it gets the job done, in some ways better than its competition, in some ways not quite as good. One common complaint is the lack of in depth MIDI features. One bonus is advanced and intuitive audio editing.

Pro Tools is expensive with a capital expensive, because its based on proprietary DSP hardware. you're talking $25k just to get a basic system going. But PT LE is native based, just like the rest of its competition. And in that arena PT LE doesn't compete as well because it still carries what I like to call 'the cost of the Nike swoosh". In other words you pay for the name.

mitz

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 6:44 am

IMHO, SONAR gives a huge bang for the buck. I haven't found anything I wanted to do that I couldn't with SONAR. Not to say that other programs aren't as capable, but yeah - SONAR's been really working out for me.

It's (SONAR 3) also got the most intuitive effects sends/returns/inserts/bussing setup of the software I've used. The grouping and routing features are just... pretty logical.

The default plugin package has really gotten heavy-duty with the release of SONAR 3. SONAR 2 had a bad rep for pretty harsh-sounding plugins bundled with it, but I don't have any complaints with the new Sonitus set.

This topic sponsored by: