ISO: Good, Simple, Inexpensive Sequencer

[FirstBassman]

I know this has been covered a zillion times before (slightly less than “a good bedroom amp”). But if I list some specifics maybe someone can provide the perfect answer for me.

I have already purchased and tried the following sequencers and don’t care for them:

• Ableton Live
• M-Audio Session
• PG Power Tracks
• Reaper

I also own (and use) Magix Music Studio.

It is the closest thing to what I’d want but whenever I do have a question, Magix’s support is useless. And I suspect there is a language problem there.
It is unbearably frustrating to expect an application to behave in a certain (logical) way and it doesn’t.

Here are my list of desired attributes:

• Price: Less than $150.
• Demo version: Must be able to try before purchasing.
• Country of origin (and support): Must be native English speaking.
• Layout and design: Basic. Simple. Little or no bells and whistles.
• Operation: Straightforward. Direct. Visual representation of tracks. No “automation” or “wizards.” No cutesy “Apple-like virtualness.”
• Windows-like WYSIWYG: I expect highlight-select-copy-paste to work like any other PC program.
• Dongle: None.

If you can recommend any, please let me know.

Thanks!

[GhostofJohnToad]

When you say sequencer are do you mean you need more midi functionality over audio or am I mis-reading?

-I use Sony Acid a lot. They have a free version for reviewing. They have a cheap version and then they have a $300 version(out of you price range I know).

-These have versions in your price range but may be a bit more complicated.
Cubase
Cakewalk

-Then there is the Propellerheads product which is new called "Record", I tried the demo and kind of liked it. Seemed pretty simple to use. again though out of your price range at $300

-Others to look at might be Riff Works or Mixcraft pretty cheap and quite a few people like it.

Also here's a nice comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...rding_software

[FirstBassman]

Thanks! Will check them out.

As of now, no interest in Midi. (Though Magix Studio comes with Midi functionality.)

Only interested in recording audio in separate tracks and doing minimal afterward effects.

[GhostofJohnToad]

Given you have no interest in midi, Riff Works might be worth a strong look for ya.

Hopefully you find what you are looking for. Sometimes there are so many choices the right one for you gets harder to find.

Luckily most of these softwares come with demo versions to help.

[FirstBassman]

So far, Mixcraft is looking mighty good.

Thanks again!

[Larry F]

It probably doesn't affect your search much, but it might b useful to consider that the word "sequencer" has several meanings at different times. Here is a little history:

1966:
It started with Moog and Buchla synthesizers as a band of 16 x 4 knobs. On Step 1, the first knob sent a control voltage to an oscillator, usually to produce a specific pitch, say, the note C. On Step 2, the second knob sent a CV to the oscillator to play pitch 2, say, C#. On Step 3, the third knob was tuned to another note, say, D. And so on. The sequencer could be set to play all the steps in equal durations, or with individual durations. The control voltages could control things other than pitch, such as envelope, timbre, and so on.

1987:
When MIDI was incorporated into software, the term sequencer was used in a similar way. Each step would send a different MIDI note to a hardware synthesizer plugged into the computer. Like with analog synths, the MIDI output could be used for things other than pitch. While the analog synth had maybe 16 steps, the software sequencer had thousands (I think) possible steps. Maybe 128.

1995
Software sequencers began to have a few audio tracks. This let you use the sequencer to play a synth in sync with audio sounds.

2000
Software recorders and mixers focused on audio, some not having any MIDI at all.

2009
Digidesign and Sibelius have worked together in Pro Tools to allow music notation to control a software sampler which could be played in sync with audio. Opcode's Studio Vision did that in the late 90s, but it took a long time for this feature to emerge in Pro Tools.

My students and I compose music for instruments and computer-realized sounds. We do this in Pro Tools by using audio recordings that are cut up, mixed, processed to produce non-instrument musical sounds. Along with these sounds, an instrument (or orchestra) plays in sync with the electronic sounds. Using MIDI and audio together in Pro Tools, we are able to hear a MIDI realization of the instrument part at the same time we are composing the electronics part. And, of course, we can compose the instrument part while hearing the electronics part. We also use an auto-tune plug-in to transcribe the audio part into MIDI, which we then import into a notation program like Sibelius or Finale. This allows us to have a score that shows both the instrument and the electronic sounds. Some examples of this music, and some scores, can be found at: http://www.lawrencefritts.com/Monsterology.html and http://www.lawrencefritts.com/MusicometryI.html.

Now, circling back to your question, it might help your search to use the terms audio, mixer, and multi-track. This will show you software that has multiple tracks and no MIDI. Audacity is one kind of software that is free and has no sequencing, which I don't think you need. A lot of people like Audacity.

[Ben Harmless]

+1 to Larry's thoughts, (and I want to take his class) and a question:

What is it that you don't like about the listed programs? I'm a die-hard fan of Reaper, and I found it to be one of the most intuitive, yet powerful programs out there. It can do things with signal routing that cripple ProTools. While it does have a large number of features, there's no reason why you absolutely have to use them. Automation is a great thing to have, but Reaper doesn't force it on you.

I build drum tracks all the time by dragging and dropping samples into the tracks on screen. I'm terrible at it, because I just don't have a feel for drums, but if I were any good, there would be nothing standing in my way. There's a great grid that you can set up however you like. It's as dead simple as it gets without being crippled by "user-friendliness."

[ibobunot]

Audacity - Free

RiffWorks T4 - Free

Tracktion - Mackie

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by Ben Harmless

What is it that you don't like about the listed programs?

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I was just taking a trip down memory lane. I don't know the programs listed, but I am very pleased that so much is out there now. What a great time to be a composer and sound person.

[Tim Armstrong]

Larry, I think Ben was referring to the OP.

FirstBassman, Larry's right, "sequencer" commonly refers to MIDI sequencing. The common term for digital recording software is DAW (for Digital Audio Workstation).

I've found Audacity to be the simplest (and it's free).

Tim

[DocG]

I'm a big fan of Audacity as a DAW. A great piece of freeware. I just wish it had an audio scrub tool, but that's coming in the next release. There are dozens of free plugins available as well.

[songofthewind]

I've tried Logic 5.5 (the last one for PC), Ableton, Energy XT, Cubase, Tracktion, and Reaper. Energy XT is simple but buggy. I can get more done in Reaper more quickly than in any over the others. The current version is really good, and the demo is not crippled. The forum is very good, lots of ready and willing expert help. I only really record guitars and use the MIDI editor to make drum tracks. It's a winner, go look again!

[StuH]

I think the workflow and the layout of Cubase (Steinberg), Sonar (Cakewalk), Reaper (Cookos), and Protools (Digidesign) are all very similar. I would think if you didn't like the feel of Cubase, you would not like the feel of the others I mentioned.

I would be trying Live (Ableton), Tracktion (Mackie), and Record (Propellerheads). I think they offer a different style of workflow and layout.

[Ben Harmless]

Tim's right, Larry. Communication fail.

[ibobunot]

Originally Posted by FirstBassman

So far, Mixcraft is looking mighty good.

Yeah.. it looks just like GarageBand...

[FirstBassman]

I truly appreciate everyone’s input and advice. As we all know, that is one of the great benefits of this forum. But let me briefly address the “DAW” versus “”Sequencer” terminology issue.

I understand that DAW is a more modern term and in some respects has come to be used in an overall computer-music production sense. But that’s not what it really means.

By the very use of the “W” (for “workstation”) a DAW actually describes an overall hardware (and software) system:

“While almost any home computer with multitrack and editing software can function somewhat as a DAW, the term generally refers to computer systems which have high-quality external ADC-DAC hardware, and some form of audio software; some of which is commercial proprietary software.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_workstation


And that is not what I am after.

What I’m looking for, only, is cheap and easy software to record and edit tracks.

The best term to use for that is “sequencer.”

And a sequencer, btw, does not refer to MIDI only.

Here is text from a Behringer catalogue I just received for a product called “energyXT2.5:”

“Smart and innovative audio and MIDI sequencing for Windows.”


Side note about Audacity – I have it and love it. But I’ve only used it so far however as a WAV and MP3 editing tool. Never thought of it as more than that. But now that you guys have mentioned it I see that it does a lot more. Very cool. Thanks again.

[StuH]

Originally Posted by FirstBassman

Side note about Audacity – I have it and love it. But I’ve only used it so far however as a WAV and MP3 editing tool. Never thought of it as more than that. But now that you guys have mentioned it I see that it does a lot more. Very cool. Thanks again.

Audacity is pretty cool. Ya definitely more powerfull than just an audio editor.

PS... looking at the definition you supplied for DAW. The only thing seperating the majority of the people here from adhering to that definition is the use of "high quality" external converters and I have often heard the term sequencing to apply to audio aswell as midi. It is really just a matter of symantics.

From Wikipedia (maybe not the best source)
A music sequencer (also MIDI sequencer or just sequencer) is software or hardware designed to create and manage computer-generated music.

Originally, music sequencers did not include the ability to record audio. Instead, they managed control information (such as control voltage or note on/off commands) to be sent to electronic musical instruments to produce audio output. Most modern sequencers now feature audio editing and processing capabilities as well. Consequently, the terms "music sequencer" and "digital audio workstation" are often used interchangeably.

[Tim Armstrong]

I stand behind my definitions, because they're the ones in common usage!



Seriously, if you want folks to recommend audio recording software, they'll understand what you want a lot quicker if you call it something other than a sequencer, even though it is true that sequencers can sometimes function as an audio recording device.

DAW is what most folks (and ALL the pro recordists I know) call programs ranging from the simple (like Audacity) to the complicated (like ProTools). You sure don't have to call them that, but that's the common usage...



Tim

[ravindave_3600]

Hope this isn't a hijack but

Originally Posted by Ben Harmless

I'm a die-hard fan of Reaper, and I found it to be one of the most intuitive, yet powerful programs out there. It can do things with signal routing that cripple ProTools. While it does have a large number of features, there's no reason why you absolutely have to use them. Automation is a great thing to have, but Reaper doesn't force it on you.

I'm pro-Reaper, too. It's easy to use and I can finish a full demo for the band in three hours. I'm sure if my equipment were better I could do better-than-demo quality, too. The only thing I've found I don't like is that in editing I can't subdivide beats far enough to pick out individual note/problems. Or maybe I just don't know how.

I build drum tracks all the time by dragging and dropping samples into the tracks on screen. I'm terrible at it, because I just don't have a feel for drums...

I'm still trying to figure that out, too, and am thinking of buying a stand-alone drum machine!

[PennyCentury]

I always like the monthly double data DVDs issued by Computer Music magazine (UK) which supply an impressive array of computer music tools at no cost save the cost of the magazine. Also included are demos of new software, and free music samples. Stateside, the mag is available at Borders and Barnes + Noble, and possibly elsewhere.

[ibobunot]

Q: What is DAW Software?
A: Over the last ten years, DAW software has usurped both the multi-track tape recorder and integrated DAWs to become the central part of most modern recording studios.

A modern digital audio workstation typically consists of a Mac or PC computer, an audio interface, and digital audio software supporting multi-track recording and monitoring.

The audio interface is required to convert analog audio into the digital audio that can be visually edited by the audio engineer on a computer display.

The audio interface is also responsible for converting the edited digital audio signals back into the analog audio waves that are pumped out of loudspeakers or headphones. The DAW software makes it possible to seamlessly (and non-destructively) edit and manipulate the digitized audio captured on the computer's hard drive.

Q: What is a Integrated Digital Audio Workstation?
A: Besides the computer-based digital audio workstation, there is another type of DAW worth mentioning – the integrated digital audio workstation. This type of DAW is a stand-alone device containing all of the necessary components such as an audio interface, an on-board computer with dedicated software as well as a control surface and graphical user interface. In other words, a separate computer system is not required but may be used for archiving or deeper editing.

These integrated DAWs were more popular in the 1980s and early 1990s when personal computers were significantly less powerful and very expensive in relation to today’s PCs. However, some manufacturers (such as Roland and Open Labs) still produce high-quality integrated DAWs for a small but dedicated portion of audio engineers and music producers.

--Clayton Worbeck--

[FirstBassman]

I build drum tracks all the time by dragging and dropping samples into the tracks on screen. I'm terrible at it, because I just don't have a feel for drums...

Originally Posted by ravindave_3600

I'm still trying to figure that out, too, and am thinking of buying a stand-alone drum machine!

Yup, me too. Drumming is the last thing I know about.
Most of the software I've seen - ya hafta add the fills yourself, and the cymbal crashes, etc. That is a pain to do it for a whole song.

I wish there was a way (maybe there is) that an e-drum system could figure all that out for itself.

[FirstBassman]

Hhhmmm...

[ibobunot]

I'm looking at drum software and I have a low-to-no budget...

Cakewalk Studio Instruments - 49.00


KORG nanoPAD: Toontrack EZDrummer Lite - 59.99


Sessions RiffWorks InstantDrummer - 9.99 each session

Sonoma Riffworks T4 - Free


InstantDrummer iPhone App - 2.99


Sonoma Wire Works has acquired Discrete Drums, DrumCore and KitCore. Drums on Demand, Drummerheads, Sonic Reality, all make loops in the InstantDrummer format.

[FirstBassman]

Thanks!!! I'm gonna check them out.