Mulit-track Recording Software

[Tony C]

Greg,
I agree with you 110% that Cubase is not the way to go for mixing, it is the weakest thing about Cubase and yes in that aspect "semi-pro". From what I understand Stienberg's Nuendo has addressed this issue and a lot of PT users are turning their heads to check it out. I'm not looking at Nuendo cause my primary concern is audio quality. Nuendo uses the same audio engine as Cubase.
Also, I absolutely agree that dedicated DSP systems are more solid and therefore the most cost effective for production situations, in that way it's the professional way to go.

However, If one were just concerned with creating personal projects one by one on a "professional" SOUNDING" level. My opinion is that Cubase + hi end hardware + skill + perhaps more time than it would take on a PT TDM set up; it is then feasible the end result can be as good as (if not better) ProTools!
Actually, I don't know why I'm defending Cubase so much, I've recently discovered the audio resolution I get from AudioDesk (Digital Performer) is superior on my 1224 audio system (dedicated host based audio system anyone?). Though it is not a "fixed point" dedicated system I really have to say it's pretty solid and sounds killer...... 116db S/N
A/D converters, and it sounds it!
For me, as you probably have figured by now, it’s worth jumping through hoops to get the best “sounding” recordings I can get (now here’s the clincher) FOR THE MONEY I can afford. Maybe I’m a dreamer but my ears (with a little brain work) are the only thing I need to find my way.
My ears have been in some of the best studios in the world so I know I will not lie to myself.
But, with some creativity and a little time put into it, this DAW thing can be pretty “PRO” sounding.
Greg, also, just thought I should mention, I've read and learned a few things from different posts you have made in this forum - thanks for the insights and info!

 

[Tony C]

I do agree....
But if you can't afford the best stuff, the rest is up to skill and artistry.
Look at what Jimi Hendrix did with a simple strat!.... peace

[This message has been edited by Tony C (edited January 24, 2001).]

 

[Ang1970]

Originally posted by Tony C:
Look at what Jimi Hendrix did with a simple strat!

And a 1/2" 4 track.
Not the best sounding one in the world, I might add. But the results... Magical

 

[Bear's Gone Fission]

I know you aren't intentionally contributing to this revisionist view of recording technology in that golden age of rock, Angelo. Fact is, a Studer J-37 is still a kick ass deck, and two (or more) are better still. I doubt that anyone will seriously disagree that those original Neve and EMI boards, along with other cohorts, still stand up as amazing and professional gear 35 years later. Yeah, Sgt. Peppers was done on four track decks, but do you think a portastudio's four tracks are equal to those? Probably only if the involved parties are Geoff Emerick, Sir George Martin, and a bunch of hooligans from Liverpool. I'd take a great 4 track deck over a crappy 24 track deck any day of the week.

da Bear

 

[Tony C]

Bear,
I hear what your sayin, but, do you think that it's possible that someone who is familiar with those wonderful machines from a hands on perspective might now be coming close to duplicating a hybrid of 60/70's deck/consoles sound on DAW's? And, with a multitude of options to add.
My brother in law is a printer. He is from the old school and runs his own shop, complete with old and new machines, but, not one computer! Loves what he does and is great at it.
However, for the first time in his 30 year career he said just the other day that he felt computers were closer than ever in replacing every technique he uses on his good old (and some new) ink machines...
You've got to admit, out of all the millions of dollars being spent in R&D by so many manufactures to create DAW's, there must be at least one or two companies out there who just might be on to something.
Better yet, what if their goal was to reach people who really did know the difference between digital and the best analog stuff around ..

 

[Bear's Gone Fission]

Tony, sorry if my rant wasn't clear, it wasn't about DAW's being inferior to golden age analog, it was about this false consiousness that the tools used on those records were primitive and were cool only because their primitive quality gave them whatever magic sound. The Beatles were recorded on the state-of-the-art equipment of their day, in a top flight commercial studio with many resources which are still out of reach for 99% of professional studios of the present. In real inflation adjusted dollars, the EMI console they were recorded on probably cost more than a loaded top of the line SSL and an API Legacy Plus combined would today. The gear wasn't primitive or funky. I understand the EMI had pretty flat bandwidth well past 60 kHz, which you will not find in any digital recording equipment I am aware of. A new box marketed for the home studio isn't gonna get you there, even if it has toobs or toob emulation or whatever other buzzword crap. This is not meant to demean quality gear of low price (RNC compressor is god's gift to audio cheapskates), this is meant to point to a point of truth that frequently escapes the view of a lot of recordists who take offhanded remarks in glossy recording magazines too seriously.

da Bear

 

[Tony C]

Thanks Bear,
I must say, what you are saying here does make a great deal of sense!

[This message has been edited by Tony C (edited January 26, 2001).]

 

[Ang1970]

Bear,

My post wasn't intended to imply that Jimi et al recorded on "primitive" gear. It was meant to endorse the idea that no matter how many new bells and whistles we modern guys get, they don't replace musicianship. The only "magic" in the signal chain originated from Jimi's fingers.

If you have a problem with that, let's take it to another thread. But don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Tony C]

Ang.., no dought, Jimmy H. could have made magic happen on a portastudio.
I knew what you ment.
Actually, my original point was really more about his guitar being not such a "hi end" instrument, especially at that time.... the rest is history.

 

[Bear's Gone Fission]

Sorry, I misunderstood the point. There is the quite valid point to be made that they did a lot with relatively low capacity in those days, such as low track count. However, I just jumped to conclusions and lumped the posts in with the folks who want to make a portastudio equal to Abbey Road, which is only possible with talented folks. There was a limited release CD of Jimi's home recordings that I heard, direct to some home reel to reel, maybe not even stereo, and yeah, there's magic there. True talent will make limitations into strengths.

So, okay, I agree with what I know you're saying, and I sorry I misread your post as one that I disagreed with, but I still disagree with the point of view I railed at which isn't your own. The topic is a great one, though, about talent and creativity trumping gear. Better a new thread in a different forum to discuss it, though.

BTW, cause it's so easy to read tone into this stuff, I'm not trying to be defensive or aggressive or critical or anything, just shooting for clarity, though the gun's probably aimed at my foot.

da Bear

 

[Tony C]

You should see the holes in my feet !
However, I think as long as we can all pick up a few new tid bits of knowledge, it’s a good thing.
I've picked up a few cool things in this forum, I hope it continues to attract more serious minded music makers.

 

[Ang1970]

Accepted and understood.

I agree that there are far too many people, worldwide, posting questions about getting Studer quality out of a portastudio (eg - every 3 hours on rec.audio.pro). But as far as I've seen here on RO, not nearly as many are quite so deluded as in the general public.

Most of the ones here have qualified their questions with statements such as "best bang for the buck" and "I'm not rich". They know they could get better quality with the best equipment (and some experience), but they aren't wearing golden underwear.

Many are frustrated with the brick walls they encounter, and perhaps don't even know whether it's a result of their inexperience or poor equipment. Getting mad at that doesn't help them discern between the two. If you want to help them on that level, ask some questions first. Then shoot yourself in the foot. Um, I mean... you know. hehe

Ok, I think we've shot right out of the solar system as far this topic is concerned. LOL

Your idea for a "talent trumping equipment" thread sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to reading it.

(Note: it would not be considered inappropriate to use a quote from a different thread to start a new thread. Just be sure to state the context it came from, as well as a link to the old thread. If you need help formatting the link, shoot me an email.)


p.s. - That was the very Jimi CD I was referring to! As a technical piece, well, let's just say it's a good thing Jimi never quit his day job to become an engineer, hehe. Yet the magic comes thru, in some ways even better than his "professionally" recorded material. Ok, I'll save it for the next thread.

 

[spratz]

To change the topic a bit, do you prefer to mix within your DAW?

I have found that I prefer to use my DAW to record and edit but when it comes time to mix I usually export the content (maybe with some subgroup mixes) to an analog board and do the mixing, add FX and EQ. I will use some internal FX and EQ but not very often.

Granted I don't have all the resources that I would like. The more functions I add, the more it takes away from the total number of track I can use at the same time.

FYI: I use 333Mhz PC a first generation Layla card, Cool Edit Pro, Sound Forge, and Acid. I don't do very much Midi applications.

 

[Benoit]

"To change the topic a bit, do you prefer to mix within your DAW?"

Yes...no... Just kind of frustrated: just listened older stuff I did some years ago on a Neve Legend and a G4000+; kind of a shock after a longer time mixing exclusively with DAW's, even with high-end pre's and converters in front...
Thinking of getting an old Studer 900 or something similar for summing...unless the new uaudio-card simulates the beast the right way!

Cheers
Benoit