What Is The Best Recording Software? Opinions/comparisons

[Danidog]

I'm about 'due' for a new computer. Thinking about something dedicated to just music. ??

[zzeb]

 

zzeb- Cubase is a great program in my experience. Has a rather steep learning curve but once you get into it the sky is the limit in terms of capability.

 

 

Yes I also Believe Cubase is a great program and that it has great capabilitys. I didn't take the time to learn enough about it.

Ableton Live has a non-linear workflow that appeals to me.

[Space]

honestly I have used extensively many many of them.. and they all work well and can all produce the same quality work. It really just depends on how you prefer to do things. Any of them can make great music. I started in Fruity Loops, then Cakewalk Midi, then Cakewalk Sonor, Cubase for awhile, ProTools and Logic on my friends machines, Ableton and another one that you paint the loops that the name escapes me.

 

I was comfortable and settled into Cubase for a few years until I tried Reaper v2. For me the workflow was the most intuitive for how I like to do things. It was hard giving up Cubase because of how pretty it was and how used to the built in plug-ins I had become. Ease of use won though and I stuck with Reaper. Since then he's (the developer) been continuing improvements and is now up to v4.76 and it runs like a beast. Its by far the lightest running software.. it feels clean and fast.

 

I will say though, the learning curve trying to pick up Reaper as a first DAW would be pretty steep. Its up there with ProTools and Logic and the rest of that sort of DAW as compared to like Garage Band or FL Studio which are more limited and self guiding... all just my opinion though

[starise]

I'm about 'due' for a new computer. Thinking about something dedicated to just music. ??

 

 

This is an important consideration for sure. I think you're already off to a good start in thinking about a recording computer as a dedicated tool for recording only.

Some people are even so strict as  to avoid hooking the computer up to the internet. In many cases this is no longer feasible because much software is download only and registering software almost always involves the internet. So I opt for a dedicated recording computer but I also have an internet connection and a browser. 

At almost any computer store you can probably find one of their higher end computers that would only be a good starting place for a serious studio, but you would need to mod it. They don't usually come with two or three hard drives and they generally don't have as much memory as would be required for a serious recording platform.Not to mention the OS won't be streamlined for audio use.

 

Much of it comes down to what you plan to do. If making a simple arrangement with say less than 20 audio tracks and using no serious sound libraries, you could make it ok with one of those bargain basement computers and no mods. A laptop would probably even work ok if it plays well with the sound card drivers. I wouldn't go with less than an i5 cpu and 8gb of memory though. And if  you think your needs might grow substantially in the future, then you might want to consider a builder who makes audio computers.

 

There is no advertising allowed on this site, but if you're seriously interested to get into a dedicated recording computer and have more questions you can contact me at tstarise@gmail.com

Edited January 23, 2015 by starise

[Space]

re: the new computer..  just make sure to spend the money on good converters!

 

Don't just plug a cheap USB mic in or send a nice outboard preamp to the STOCK soundcard jack. In my opinion that is the only thing that matters really assuming you get a decent enough computer for usual tasks. I still prefer the internal soundcards  over the USB boxes myself but they can both sound good)

 

I still have a PC in my basement from like 1998 running Windows ME that can still run Reaper with zero issues. Granted.. it gets choppy when I get over 12-15 tracks but that thing is like a single core 1.2ghz 

[starise]

Don't just plug a cheap USB mic in or send a nice outboard preamp to the STOCK soundcard jack. In my opinion that is the only thing that matters really assuming you get a decent enough computer for usual tasks. I still prefer the internal soundcards  over the USB boxes myself but they can both sound good)

 

 

Great point Space! Usually nothing good ever comes from using the onboard sound in most computers.  Some of the older internal aftermarket soundcards had issues with more noise because the card was in close proximity to the other components in the computer. I have never used anything usb other than my Line 6 HD500 which is also an audio interface. The bandwidth of usb is very acceptable for tracking two channels at 16/44.1 and there are usb audio interfaces that will track a lot more than that. I guess it comes down to experience and preference. I'm guessing most small studio users don't need more than 2/4 tracks for recording at a time. I seldom need more than 2 tracks at a time.

 

I'm now using firewire and have never had any issues with it. Usb 3.0 and thunderbolt have been around for awhile now. I think thunderbolt is more Apple centric. These technologies are being used more and more for audio I/O. When I look around for another interface in the future I'll probably be looking at those two instead of firewire, mainly because firewire seems to be used less and less.

 

Some good ones to look at IMO are: Focusrite (excellent preamps) RME (well built with solid drivers and good sound) Presonus(great company support. Good preamps that use jitter reduction technology). There are many others of course. If you use Cubase, there's a strong chance you might be using a Yamaha sound card since they are jointly owned companies and this is how the marketing is directed.

 

You don't need to use a given companies audio interface with only their software. My Presonus plays well with my Sonar, but there are usually advantages....for instance My Studio One software immediately sees and configures my Presonus interface. My Sonar does not pre configure, but it isn't difficult to set it up. This might be a consideration if you have say, a keyboard controller from a certain maker, you might be more inclined to buy the software made by the same company, since almost always, the software will see it and immediately recognize it making it easier for you to use it in your work. M-audio hardware plays best with PT. 

 

I'm guessing that Reaper probably allows a way to configure any hardware. Most recording software allows for configuring midi control to harware knobs. Depending on how this is written into the software, it can be either easy of difficult to set everything up. Midi learn is a nice feature to have.So you're not exactly up the creek with no paddle but setup and configuring to hardware is a consideration when buying recording software.

Edited January 26, 2015 by starise

[Danidog]

This is an important consideration for sure. I think you're already off to a good start in thinking about a recording computer as a dedicated tool for recording only.

Some people are even so strict as  to avoid hooking the computer up to the internet. In many cases this is no longer feasible because much software is download only and registering software almost always involves the internet. So I opt for a dedicated recording computer but I also have an internet connection and a browser. 

At almost any computer store you can probably find one of their higher end computers that would only be a good starting place for a serious studio, but you would need to mod it. They don't usually come with two or three hard drives and they generally don't have as much memory as would be required for a serious recording platform.Not to mention the OS won't be streamlined for audio use.

 

Much of it comes down to what you plan to do. If making a simple arrangement with say less than 20 audio tracks and using no serious sound libraries, you could make it ok with one of those bargain basement computers and no mods. A laptop would probably even work ok if it plays well with the sound card drivers. I wouldn't go with less than an i5 cpu and 8gb of memory though. And if  you think your needs might grow substantially in the future, then you might want to consider a builder who makes audio computers.

 

There is no advertising allowed on this site, but if you're seriously interested to get into a dedicated recording computer and have more questions you can contact me at tstarise@gmail.com

 

Hey, I appreciate the offer. My 'needs' are minimal at best. If I use my fingers and toes, I hardly ever need more than ten tracks (and that's theoretical since i've not gone beyond eight so far. My old Boss 900 digital portable studio w/ CD burner was all I needed until the advent of mp3, souncloud and such. Libraries for me (with the exception of the 12 bar blues riff I just 'tested' is really unnecessary as we all play real world instruments. Alll that geing said, I still want to get the best sound recording I can for reasonable $$. Learning a lot from you guys and appreciate it. I feel the the  old school old fool learning the new stuff.

[TapperMike]

The Boss is a computer albeit a very dedicated one with limited functionality.One of the things that it doesn't have is a big monitor which can negatively affect the signal path. that is also part of the issue with computer soundcards.  You don't have to get the most expensive computer on the market to get quality sound however.... You are always better off with an isolated soundcard.  

 

Re Reaper. Honestly that was quirky as heck for me to work with. It was like working with every piece of freeware developed for linux. One had to get this and do that and do hundreds of other things before one could get a feasible daw up and running.  Years on years ago I used to code for various sourceforge projects including audacity. I through up my hands at the lack of commitment by those around me. I also through in the towel when it came to the whole freeware movement and my personal use of freeware products for a myriad of reason.

[Danidog]

I see the Boss as an obsolete tool now. It was great for portability prior to laptops and a lack of what today is sophisticated software vs. the old Boss Portable Recording studio, and trying to mix down a simple 4 to 8 track "live" gig was a PITA, to say the least.

I have a lot to learn about the mixcraft pro 6, but it is so intuitive, there's no comparison with the old Boss.

BUT, what I don't like about the mixcraft at this point in time (and it is probably due to my ignorance with the system) is the lack of existing library selection. As an example, last night I was looking for a country acoustic guitar, found one, it was only in C (maj or min, can't remember for sure) with 16 bars, tempo of 123. I would like MORE available in different keys, tempos, etc. (maybe it is and I don't know it?). Seems to be a LOT of 'sounds" in the library, but nothing I wanna put into a song (construction sounds, kitchen sounds, etc. Still going through various acoustica sites to learn as much as I can about this software, just too dumb to do much with it at the moment. Oh, and I did go to the site you mentioned yesterday, will be hanging out there some to learn.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Danidog

[TapperMike]

This is where I start reading like a broken record.....

Band In A Box/RealBand with or even without RealStyles from PG music.

 

Loops are fine for hip hop/techno/dubstep.  They aren't fine for more traditional styles of music like folk/jazz/blues/country/rock.  Loops are usually four measures long and while some offer a/b sets usually the b is just a fill and they sound extremely ingratiating as time goes by.  A real drummer knows how to build his part interacting with others over the course of a song.

 

 

 

 

I almost always start the writing/recording process in BIAB or RealBand and have done so for the last ten years.

Edited January 25, 2015 by TapperMike

[Danidog]

Thanks to all for all the advise I've received (and enlightenment). Pays to read ( Heck, I've had this thing OVER a year and just found a 250+ page manual for its use.

And at 2:00 a.m. I had an epiphany. This software (for me) is for recording MY instruments, our live vocals and putting all of that together either as a CD, MP3 , or, whatever else is there I haven't 'found' yet.

Again, thanks for dealing with the village idiot for a day or two, I think I've got it now...

[TapperMike]

It doesn't hurt to have a timekeeper if you are used to writing as you record.  These days I'm most interested in arranging for guitar.ala chord melody like this guy -

 

 

I still use biab as I have a huge assortment of legal biab/midi songs.  Figure out the melody and try to wrap convincing and interesting harmony/bass lines around it.  No matter what I do it always sounds better and I learn the tune faster with biab drums running in the background..

[starise]

I have heard many good things about BIAB...admittedly it can sound mechanical as an end all but I hear Mike saying that he uses it as a "tool"..and honestly those who aren't listening for BIAB might not notice what it is, even as a way to complete music. It sounds rather good. 

 

For those who might not know Band-In-A-Box is a chord generator that also can play loops all synced up in perfect time. You can either tell it which chords to play or it can decide that for you. You simply pick a style and it does a lot of the hard work for you. This is a PC only product and it comes in several versions. The top version will ship a hard drive with loads of styles on it. If you've ever played with a Yamaha PSR and used music "styles" in it, then this is what BIAB does. It can be a whole band. It always felt like cheating to me but I can see where it would come in very helpful and even be educational in learning arrangements. I have been tempted a few times to get it but so far I still do it all the other way....playing,writing and arranging all inside a typical DAW.

[starise]

I'm a little unsettled about the comments that say " they all do the same thing" while this is true in one sense. I don't believe it's true in another sense. I think they are all more different than alike in some cases and this applies to what they do in more detail and this affects your music...let me explain.

 

An over view comparison of software DAWs would seem to look like they all do the same thing....but this is only if you're looking at the big picture.

 

Let's start with the recording "engine". Some sound engines were simply written better. What do I mean by this?  There is such a thing as a "gapless" audio engine" . In a gapless engine you can add loops and effects and play with audio all while the song is still playing. In a non gapless engine this isn't possible as you will stall your computer and probably lock it up. Studio One uses a gapless engine, others do not...this also affects the smoothness of the process, so even if you're not keen to add effects or edit during a song..the engine itself is improved and this means a better overall experience in using it...it simply means the code in it is better than others.Better resolution, better code= less computer glitches more efficient operation.

 

Lets look at another really big difference- metering. Some software has really bad metering. The meters that tell you if you're too high or too low in signal level. These are the little meters on each channel that we look at to determine if we are peaking our input signals. Some of those meters are WAY off and pretty much worthless, not to mention they don't always respond fast enough...once again the code is less efficient and the results are inaccurate meters.This can be a deal breaker when you're trying to dial in a signal without it getting too "hot".

 

Lets look at anotyher subtle difference- Plug ins- They all usually have a compressor and an equalizer, but the better ones have better plug ins. There are great compressors and sucky compressors. Bad inferior code results in a less responsive compressor. The compressor that came with your DAW might be great or it might not be so good..and the GUI can still look wonderful. If a compressor doesn't have a fast response or a response that you can custom taylor to your input signal in a musical way then it needs to be trash canned simple as that. They all do a similar thing but some run rings around others..same is true of equalizers. You can get very undesireable harmonics and ringing effects from cheaply designed equalizers. The better EQs will allow for a more surgical and musical sounding cut. The cheap one will get the basic job done but they aren't nearly as deep and it shows once again in your music.

 

I have only covered a few plug-ins. The better software will have more specialized plug-ins like multi band compression and mastering tools. This is a real plus...to have mastering tools right inside your software. These are plug ins dedicated to helping get a song sounding radio ready. They don't all include these things and so they aren't all basically the same as you can see. Do you want people to hear your music clearly or strain to hear it because it wasn't given any kind of mastering treatment?

 

Routing- Some software only allows for a certain number of routing possibilities and others offer unlimited routing. This is very important if you like to set up sends to a lot of effects or make stems of mixes.

 

Importing/exporting- The software I use will import and export just about any file known to man in terms of audio...they don't all do this, so if you intend to export to something other than .wav I suggest looking at the capability of the product you're considering.

 

Sometimes it's the little things that make something you do easier, I'll share an example. I loaded up a copy of Zt3a+2 as an instrument track last evening and decided to replace it. In Studio One you need to reload an entire track to get another synth. In Sonar X3 there is a "replace synth" feature. This will allow you to keep all of the midi and all setting but replace the soft synth...so I can drop in say, an instance of Kontakt and play another syth with that midi. Little things like the ability to add pictures to tracks for identification or make the tracks different colors can really be helpful when doing large confusing mixes.The ability to save different mixes. The ability to simply drag and drop effects and synths is nice. They don't all do this. The ability to undock and float or resize windows is a nice addition. Makes working on two monitors really nice. Touch screen capability. Nice to simply touch a track on the monitor to do something with it...and few do this.

 

I could go on and on. No they don't all do exactly the same thing and some do it much much better. Some make it easy to set audio and loops into time and they will be locked together and even shifted to the key being played.They don't all do this well.

[Space]

While I agree with the summary of your post Starise, I want to reiterate something I said earlier.

 

Any of the programs can make quality music.

 

Its easy to get caught up with "this program is better so it will make better music" much like Mac vrs PC. Its like saying you'll be a better painter if you get the nicer paint set. They are all just different "tools" to create music using similar but different approaches. Which is why its important to try a few different programs to see if their "approach" is more inline with how you instinctively like to do things.

 

that is all.. nice post Starise

[starise]

I hear you Space. Great quote.

 

I want to diffrentiate the process of making  music from the process of mixing and production. If a person makes good music will it sound better on better software? The answer is that the quality of the mix itself will  sound  better. If the mixer took advantage of better capabilities that weren't offered in the lesser program, a better result , sonic wise will follow, all other things being equal. And bad mixing and music are going to sound bad no matter what.

 

Sometimes the lines get crossed and a producer uses his or her software as a part of the artistic process. In this case the better written code or the more human friendly instruments and plug ins will result in a better production. A crude analogy would be like trying to whittle with a dull knife...the result is an inferior product that took more time and trouble to make. 

[Space]

I suppose I agree with your analogy..  I just have not experienced a dull knife when it comes to a daw. Except for maybe my Tascam 4-track from 1991.. it produced pretty dull recordings LMAO. If I were being very specific, I would akin a dull knife to inferior plug-ins. So.. if you are grouping "bundled plugs" into your thought process I would probably fully agree. Just my own personal thoughts.. on my own personal experiences.

 

Personally, I would not give a sonic advantage to ANY DAW that I have tried. I feel some are better for loops, some midi, some audio, but its just subjective to my workflow. I HAVE noticed big differences when I started using better converters.. just not any DAW specifically.

 

That said.. I'm not too old of a dog to learn new things so if you have a daw that you feel is sonically superior I will certainly enjoy checking it out.

 

ps- I hope I am not coming off combative with my responses.. I am just enjoying getting specific about my experiences and enjoy learning new things. 

[starise]

I think friction can be a good thing Space...I don't see anything as combative, I see it as constructive  If I'm wrong I would hope someone would say something because my goal is to help and not hinder a better understanding of the subject.

 

There are a lot of arguments elsewhere over which audio engine is better. I don't think I said anything about sonic superiority but I think that could have been inferred by what I said. If we looked at the audio engines of all software we would find some minor differences in the algorithms and coding between different makes. Can a different approach to coding achieve an identical result? I think the answer to that question is that a different anything  leads to something different. There have been tests to determine audio quality between different daws and in blindfold tests people can't usually tell a difference, but if you look at the audio on a scope you can see that it is different. Some daw software makers have intentionally added coding to give the engine a character in the sound engine and most can hear the difference  in those, but this is only one or two. The rest all use a similar approach and it usually gives a result that most don't hear if we only look at the audio engines. A gapless audio engine is a different kind of thing that has more to do with the ability to play with no glitches while adding loops, changing plug-ins..even editing. To some users, especially DJs this makes the engine better. Logic has an engine that allows for this, as I mentioned before S1 has it, and i'm pretty sure Ableton does.

 

Probably a larger factor in the outcome of recording quality concerning audio engines is bit rate. A recording in 24/44.1 has more headroom than a recording done in 16/44/1. I find 16 bit much easier to mix in terms of keeping levels and run away peaks under control. The extra headroom in 24 bit can sometimes work against you  if you're mixing cymbals with sudden hits that go from zero to CRASH really fast.  if done well 24 bit can add  realism and slightly more sheen than 16 bit. 24 bit files take a lot more of your hard drive real estate though, and weighing the benefits against the liabilities is something you might need to personally decide if it's right for you. Clocking and digital jitter are other factors. Most will tell you that adding an external clock helps the overall sound and that they can tell the difference. I don't think the difference is night and day but I think there is a marked improvement depending on how good the clock is. For the record though, I doubt you'll see many smaller studios using  time clocks. They can be expensive.

 

Another factor in determining how good an audio engine is would be to include and consider it's audio stretching ability. Some algorithms are just better than others.

 

IMHO it's the small cumulative things that make the whole better or worse. The audio engine, the plug ins, the workflow all contribute in big and small ways to the final result. Maybe one thing in itself is insignificant, but add several liabilities together and you have a less capable product. 

 

Personally, I would not give a sonic advantage to ANY DAW that I have tried. I feel some are better for loops, some midi, some audio, but its just subjective to my workflow. I HAVE noticed big differences when I started using better converters.. just not any DAW specifically.

 

 

 

 

What kind of converters are you using now? For lack of time I can't go there tonight. Maybe another time  I think we might be talking about the same thing here but seeing the picture a bit differently. When I say "sonic advantage". I'm thinkng about the whole package including the plug ins, workflow and final mixing. To me this translates to a better produced song if the user knows what he/she is doing...a more effective, more "professional" mix. The basic programs out there ( and I'm not slamming any one) are usually less capable and I'm not referring to price as the only way to gauge that.

 

Like anything else there's good, better and best. I guess we could debate the part about it's good for me but not for you and visa versa. I'm not really a looper but I occasionally use them and my software will accept both rex and acid loops or I can roll my own, but if I were really a serious looper...yeah I'd be buying the latest version of Ableton or Bitwig...for midi work it would be Cubase or Sonar X3. For straight up audio recording anything would probably do in a pinch, but I would be going for one of the heavyweights for editing and producing audio, like Logic or any of the other more powerful programs already mentioned...the all in  ones that are very adapted to it andf have good plug ins included. Serious detailed audio editing would have me looking at Adobe or Sony.

Edited January 27, 2015 by starise

[Space]

Thanks for your explaination Starise.. it is much appreciated. Personally I would not consider workflow and plug-ins etc as part of the sonic quality argument.. but I can also see how it WOULD impact it on application considering how one would use it. I guess because I don't use some of the features you mentioned I wouldn't experience everything. I mostly use "straight up audio recording" with a side of midi.

 

What kind of converters are you using now? For lack of time I can't go there tonight. Maybe another time

 

Nothing too fancy, I run a M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 and the 192. One has two stereo RCA in's and outs (and SPDIF) and the latter 8 ins and outs. For me this made a huge impact compared to the on-board Sound Blaster /Realtek type cards as well as a few USB mics. (I won't even use USB headphones anymore as my headphone amp sounds SOO much better coming out of my 24/96). I am also a fan of the outboard presonus strips. I don't really care for the small USB boxes as I have found them to slow and really quiet. (higher latency also)

[starise]

I know I'm a little long winded..or a long writer. I start typing and don't know when to stop...I see your point and I think it was well made. 

 

I have thought the same thing about features. It's a funny thing....I'm using things now that I thought I would never need. It starts out as a curiosity (using a new feature) which I may or may not like or see a use for in my application. I'll use effects chains as an example. I had always built my effects up from scratch. I started to use some effects chains and now I find myself using them more and more. I might not use it as it is, but effects chains can be saved into custom slots...so for example, If I'm recording an acoustic guitar and I want to set my channel up for it I can go to a bin and select acoustic guitar ecffects chains which are made especially for that instrument. I might tweak the eq slightly but it's usually close enough to save me  time. 

 

 I was  feeling around to see if you were using high ended botique pre amps. There have been shootouts and blind listening tests done on the quality of  soundcard preamps and they are all surprisingly close in sound. Something like an apogee might give a little more high end sheen and things might seem a bit tighter, but many people can't tell depending on the material. For most rock/pop mixes I doubt it makes a huge difference...but maybe a weak link in the chain.I have even had some people swear they can get a good mix out of one of those factory cards you mentioned, but it was using ASIO4ALL drivers. I personally would do the same thing as you and move up to something else.

 

Where I think an even larger difference is made is in the outboard hardware preamps...the Manleys, Avalons and the Neve channels...even something like a Warm 76. Boosting a signal though a good pre amp can work wonders but these things are not inexpensive.  Basically the signal gets a clean or slightly colored boost through good components and transformers and "jacks up" the signal in a great way. I have one of those ART MPA preamps. I never modded the tubes yet and it sound pretty good once I get it set up for the source. These are the poor mans pre amps but still better than some of the preamps in interfaces.

Edited January 28, 2015 by starise