Skip to main content
forums, blogs, song critique, support & more...

DAW editing software

i have enjoyed your posts on RAP for years. i am curious, do you regularly use any editing software (not a splicing block and a razor :-) ) if so what do you use ?

Harry

Tags

Comments

Profile picture for user anonymous

anonymous Fri, 03/02/2001 - 03:37

Well the easiest for me is still the razor blade...one of my favorite Ron Saint-Germain quotes is: {points to himself and says} "Pro", {picks up a razor blade and says} "Tools". :D

I don't regularly use any of that as an 'editing software'. On occasion I've worked on 'Digital Performer', but mostly as a 'storage format', I don't really know the "ins and outs" nor all the capabilites of the software.

If you go over to DAW World...Chris Lannon moderates the 'Digital Performer' group...he's my 'D-P' guru...without his guidance (or a couple other people he's trained), I'd be more lost than Hansel and Grettle. :roll:

I've used 'Pro-sTools' on occasion, again, I'm not a 'Pro-sTools' operator. If I need something cut, moved, pasted, fucked with, a 'Pro-sTools' operator is the person who accomplishes that task.

To me, it's just a cheap form of information storage, not a major 'editing and reconstruction' device. I still 'punch' mistakes on it just like an analog deck...preferring performance over manipulation. But I'm old...so don't let it interfere with the way you work. You asked...

I'd be curious how more 'digitally saavy' people handle this stuff, and other than cost, what they find to be the major conveniences/reasons why they find it a superior format to tape.

mrpoole Sat, 03/03/2001 - 12:25

i certainly don't prefer the protools to even an adat and a mackie. i feel like a zombie staring at a screen all day instead of gawking at the hot chic bass player. when i have my way i like to work on analog (studer / api) then depending on the end result either do alot of protools editing or just minor tweaks. have you ever comped a vocal with protools !!! it is outstanding.

i think analog is here to stay for a bit longer..but one day, digital will be better.

just not yet.

Harry

oh yeah, when is the last time you had to wait for 45 minutes to load up a 2" reel ?

Profile picture for user anonymous

anonymous Sat, 03/03/2001 - 14:26

Originally posted by H Evans:
when is the last time you had to wait for 45 minutes to load up a 2" reel ?

About a year and a half ago...blew a main transistor thingy on the the transport of an A-800. It wouldn't pass tape for a couple hours while the tech was found, the part was located, and the replacement made.

I made $80- playing pool with the drummer...it was 'positive downtime' from my perspective.

alphajerk Sat, 03/03/2001 - 19:25

what exactly is the point of this post?

there is just NO comparison editing between the two. i can digitally edit circles around the fastest PRO splicer. i dont wait 45 minutes for digital files to load up either. does it matter?

fuck no. im with fletcher, i will punch mistakes rather than edit if possible. but i just pulled the pitch of ONE quarter note up a semitone on an entire solo that was otherwise great... and trust me i had the guitarist try to punch it

several times before telling him to come into the control room and brought the note up... 15 seconds later the note was in tune without compromising the feel or solo.

for the most part im way too lazy to use it as a "major 'editing and reconstruction' device"... thats a 2x4 upside the head of the one fucking up :D i just use it for tucks and implants, otherwise my DAW runs just like a R2R except you dont have rewind time or roll lag.

John Sayers Sun, 03/04/2001 - 11:36

oh yeah, when is the last time you had to wait for 45 minutes to load up a 2" reel ?

I can make that time up easily in saved rewind time. :roll:

alphajerk Sun, 03/04/2001 - 14:48

technically, once its digital its digital and simply running it out independantly @ unity all the DAWs should sound exactly the same.

ole roger nichols goes as far as to state that the "summing" of the channels should be exactly the same as well which to me says that a $600 DAW on a $2k computer will sound exactly the same as a $1M digital console [sans EQ/DYN/FX]

as to the reason why you think analog board sum the parts together better is because of the inherent distortion the summing creates. distortion of the analog order seems to be pleasing to some peoples ears.

Mixerman Sun, 03/04/2001 - 15:35

Originally posted by alphajerk:
technically, once its digital its digital and simply running it out independantly @ unity all the DAWs should sound exactly the same.

ole roger nichols goes as far as to state that the "summing" of the channels should be exactly the same as well which to me says that a $600 DAW on a $2k computer will sound exactly the same as a $1M digital console [sans EQ/DYN/FX]

as to the reason why you think analog board sum the parts together better is because of the inherent distortion the summing creates. distortion of the analog order seems to be pleasing to some peoples ears.

Not true. Do the A/B yourself. The difference is drastic. Don't you think I'd rather just mix internally in Pro Tools if I could? It's not even close. I'm all for making life easier, even if it costs me some sonics, but not when it dessimates it.

Try the comparison.

Mixerman

alphajerk Sun, 03/04/2001 - 18:28

[sarcasm]yea, next time i use a large frame digital console i'll do that[/sarcasm]

im just trying to get to the bottom of that statement made by mr. digital. not that i agree with it.

personally, at this point in time i would run all my digi out direct into a highend analog console to take advantage of some great analog toys for mixdown if budget werent an issue with some fantastic DA's.

and sonically maybe so but people who actually buy the shit couldnt care less if it was mixed on a Neve or in a DAW, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

its all about the MUSIC

Mixerman Sun, 03/04/2001 - 20:10

Originally posted by alphajerk:
[sarcasm]yea, next time i use a large frame digital console i'll do that[/sarcasm]

im just trying to get to the bottom of that statement made by mr. digital. not that i agree with it.

personally, at this point in time i would run all my digi out direct into a highend analog console to take advantage of some great analog toys for mixdown if budget werent an issue with some fantastic DA's.

and sonically maybe so but people who actually buy the shit couldnt care less if it was mixed on a Neve or in a DAW, you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

its all about the MUSIC

You don't have to convince me it's about the music. But mixing is what makesthe music. And if you're mixing through a system that bogs down, then you're fucked.

Forget about a big console, or even what you think is a pro console. I never said anything about that. Try the conmparison with a Mackie, I don't care, it's going to still be a staggerring difference.

Again, I agree, it's about the music, but the music isn't a recording. And we make recordings. A recording is a medium in which to present music. If you have a great song in a shitty presentation, then you have weakened the song.

If you have a shitty song in a great presentation, it's still a shitty song. The great presentation may have raised the bar, or distracted the listener momentarily from the fact that it's a shitty song, but it still a shitty song.

So our job is to present the great song in a great way. That doesn't mean that great sound is a requirement. However, there is a difference between great sound, and a recording with little to no impact. That can be the result of a bogged down 2-bus from a computer.

You're right, most people don't care whther something sounds great or not. But people will react to the presentation. How many times have you heard a song or a guitar, and turned it up because it got your attention. Well that wasn't the song, that was the recroding of the song that got your attention.

I'm not arguing as an elitist here. Again, if I could mix straight out of Pro Tools without a console, without serious dessimation to the sound, then I would be very happy to.

You obviously think that there's no difference, but you've never even experimented with it. You are taking people at face value. Try taking 8 outputs of lets say drums from your DAW into a Mackie. No rides, and at the same gain that they were recorded at coming out of the computer. Compare that to the stereo output of your computer into the same Mackie.

Let us know your results.

Mixerman

gie Mon, 03/05/2001 - 13:53

Originally posted by Mixerman:
Forget about a big console, or even what you think is a pro console. I never said anything about that. Try the conmparison with a Mackie, I don't care, it's going to still be a staggerring difference.

Again, if I could mix straight out of Pro Tools without a console, without serious dessimation to the sound, then I would be very happy to.

You obviously think that there's no difference, but you've never even experimented with it. You are taking people at face value. Try taking 8 outputs of lets say drums from your DAW into a Mackie. No rides, and at the same gain that they were recorded at coming out of the computer. Compare that to the stereo output of your computer into the same Mackie.
Mixerman

Damn I should try that too....
In two weeks time I promised to mix the demo-cd of a friend's band... It's gonne be at a Pro Tools based budget studio, and the owner does al his mixing in the computer...
But now I'm gonne bring a small Allen & Heath mixer I still have at home and just root every track to a A&H channel...
So if what you said is true (and believe me I don't doubt it).. I can do all mixing automation internally, and just put all the A&H fader at the same level, and get a better mix to DAT (16bit..) than the 24-bit mix in the computer (dithered down to 16?)

Man... i never thought of that... I'm gonna try, and I'm gonne A/B....
Will get back on this subject?!

:)

GRTX
GIE

alphajerk Mon, 03/05/2001 - 14:23

i still think you are wrong. it DEFINATELY sounds better than a mackie. you think the mackie sounds better because of its inherent distortion.

and no they arent hearing the sonics, they are still hearing the guitar. trust me, i listen to plenty of songs i love with piss poor recording technique.

btw: i just released something done entirely on a computer thats catching plenty of peoples attention and not once have i heard "sounds like it was mixed on a computer, you should of used an analog board" but i have heard "that rocks man" dont believe me i can play you back my answering machine after it was on the radio the other day.

Mixerman Tue, 03/06/2001 - 01:16

Originally posted by alphajerk:
i still think you are wrong. it DEFINATELY sounds better than a mackie. you think the mackie sounds better because of its inherent distortion.

I hate Mackies. Fucking try it already, and stop arguing. That's the whole point, if a mackie beats the 2-bus of a computer, then...

and no they arent hearing the sonics, they are still hearing the guitar. trust me, i listen to plenty of songs i love with piss poor recording technique.

I'm not talking about piss poor recording technique. I'm talking about a shitty signal for your entire mix.

btw: i just released something done entirely on a computer thats catching plenty of peoples attention and not once have i heard "sounds like it was mixed on a computer, you should of used an analog board" but i have heard "that rocks man" dont believe me i can play you back my answering machine after it was on the radio the other day.

Oooh...you have something on the radio? I hope one day I get something on the radio.

The first thing anyone says, no matter how shitty it sounds when it's a hit is: "that song sounds great!". What else are they going to sat to you. "I can't believe that song was a hit with the shitty job you did, what did you do, mix that in a computer?" Cut me a break.

Try it. Then argue. If you try it, and you difer in opinion, fair enough. Right now, you're talking out your ass.

Mixerman

Mixerman Tue, 03/06/2001 - 01:41

BTW: The experiment is simple. There can be no rides internally within Pro Tools. The moment you do rides you fuck the sound. You can experiment with that too if you like. But here's the curent proposed experiment:

Run the outputs of drums to individual faders of your Mackie, or whatever board you have available. Run the stereo outputs of the computers 2-bus to 2 channels of the Mackie. Now it's a fair test. Because either way you're going through the Mackie.

Yes, I realize, normally you wouldn't take the stereo ouputs to a Mackie, BUT, if you do, then the Mackie is tainting both sounds equally, and you can properly exaluate the DIFFERENCE between the two. Remember 'control' from science class?

NO internal rides, unity gain, and make sure that as you A/B, the monitoring level is identical. You'll be amazed at how much shittier the stereo output will sound then the individual outputs.

Don't argue, Try.

Mixerman

alphajerk Tue, 03/06/2001 - 07:39

i have tried it, and i know and i think you are wrong... listen to the low mids and lows, if you arent hearing it, then your missing it. its the reason analog only sounds good on high dollar boards like an amek. ill take digital on anything over than a less than GOOD large frame anyday. dont kid yourself.

Dave McNair Tue, 03/06/2001 - 18:58

This is a topic I love to " get my post on".
There is no guestion that Pro Tools ect, can SAVE your ass and an otherwise great performance except for XYZ. Do I want to use it as my primary storage device? Hell no. Am I old fashioned? Maybe. I just think rock and roll, which is what I primarily record/produce, is an art form that has it's traditional boundries firmly entrenched in 24 track analog recording. The essence of rock and roll is not the endless manipulation that all too frequently occurs with ProTools. I guess what I'm saying is, IMNSHI, the amount of manipulation that is afforded in analog, is all I think can happen and still be truly R n R. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. And while your at it, learn to play your instrument and write a decent fucking song.

j.hall Wed, 03/07/2001 - 06:39

Originally posted by John Sayers:
I can make that time up easily in saved rewind time. :roll:

that maybe true
however i work on both pro tools and 2" tape machines

the shuttle time arguement has always been an interesting one to me

what happens when your computer crashes
or you have to wait just a few seconds to load a plug-in
or you tell the band to hang while you edit
or you run out of disk space
or they randomly decide to work on a song they did last year and you have to upload it

i say....in comparison tape machines are faster and more productive.....just my oppinion

if you add up all the time you spen fucking with the computer what do you get
my answer: more time then it takes me to rewind push record and say "rollin"

cheers,
j.hall

Profile picture for user Tom Cram

Tom Cram Wed, 03/07/2001 - 07:14

This is an easy one.

>what happens when your computer crashes

This rarely happens to me, but when it does...you reboot. This takes about 5 minutes. Have them refill their coffee.

>or you have to wait just a few seconds to load a plug-in.

This takes just as long as adjusting pan, or EQ, or any other miniscule operation.

>or you tell the band to hang while you edit

When is the last time you had a band hang around while you cut tape? I never did.

>or you run out of disk space

With the low cost of hard drives, you should NEVER run out of disc space. Are you comparing it to the time it takes to change a reel?

>or they randomly decide to work on a song they did last year and you have to upload it

If it is on the big hard drive you bought for $300, it takes 2 minutes (or less) to upload. If it is on DVD-RAM (like mine) It takes 7 minutes. Again, compare to loading a new reel.

Once I switched over to digital, I was amazed at the reduction in wasted time doing scut-work. You still have to do scut-work, it's just faster.

Profile picture for user Tom Cram

Tom Cram Wed, 03/07/2001 - 11:07

I had a music journalist come into my studio once for an interview. He sneered at all my mics, he sneered at my desk (when I had one), he sneered at my racks of gear. "why do you need all this stuff to record?" he groused. "Just record man!"

I was stunned, kind of like I am now :eek:

alphajerk Wed, 03/07/2001 - 11:50

"an art form that has it's traditional boundries firmly entrenched in 24 track analog recording"

art has no boundries.

and the only people worried about "being cool" are those who arent.

x