Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music to Your Ears' started by Buell, Aug 4, 2020.
Logic (or Garageband) for laying down tracks. Then Reaper for fine editing and mixing.
Normally Logig Pro X ...
Reaper. $60. Very happy.
I've been using FL Studio and I have gotten pretty comfortable with it. I think with any full featured daw there is going to be a learning curve. With FL studio there is a guy on YouTube "In The Mix" and he does a bunch of fl studio tutorials.
Reaper exclusively for over 10 years.
Logic Pro X
I would not call Reaper intuitive, but I absolutely love it. Cannot imagine ever using anything else.
That's a very polite way to put it. Especially on a Mac - it's a Windows app that was ported with zero understanding of common Mac conventions.
I use Reaper on a Mac and don't consider it particularly non-intuitive....but like any big software program there's a lot to learn. I know how to kick butt with Office programs like Excel, Word, PowerPoint--- and they seem sort of intuitive....but that's only because I got past the learning curve decades ago. I don't think any big software is intuitive. Even computer games often have a pretty steep learning curve.
I am a bit confused with people here talking about two different types of software as they were the same thing. Reaper, GarageBand, Cubase and others are DAWs, but Audacity and SoundForge are not DAWs, those are audio editing software. Use case for those is different, it is based on a single audio track editing. DAWs are about multiple channels (tracks) and track recording and arranging.
If you are recording using audio editing apps - give DAWs a chance, it might serve your use case better.
Cubase for me - it's the only one that doesn't crash, stutter or crackle when recording on my tiny laptop.
I also can't believe the quality of Garageband - even on the iPhone it is simply remarkable what they guys and gals at Apple have been able to pull off.
Used em all.
I use Studio One Artist 4 with the VST support add on. It's nice to see that is now standard with Artist in Version 5.
I could never justify the extras included with the Pro version. The project page would be the most enticing... but I would never master my own projects, and I don't layout my own CD's so there goes the need for that .
That's a whole new can of worms for a new discussion. There are definitely differences in how intuitive software is. There has been a huge amount of research into that. And it has been there for a long time. One document with many examples of how to make software more intuitive is Apple's 'Human Interface Guidelines', which has been around for decades.
Some examples: if you have a convention in the OS to have the name of the currently open app on the far left in the menu bar, right next to the Apple menu, and a convention to have 'Preferences' as the second item in that menu, you learn how to open 'Preferences' once, and the use the exact same thing you've learned in all other apps. Because it's consistent. It's where you expect it, and only where you expect it to be. In Reaper, you find a duplicate of 'Preferences' in the Options menu. Which breaks conventions, wastes menu space, and is completely nonsensical.
If you look around, you will find countless examples like that. Subtle things that slow down the workflow.
'Intuitive' also means that you can do things without reading the manual, and that things behave as you would expect them. Like, when you're in the Mixer, and you want to change track order, you grab a channel strip with the mouse, and drag it to where you want it to be. Works in most DAWs as expected (>intuitive), but not in Logic, where you have to go the the Arrange window and change the track order there (more steps, learning required > unintuitive) - and you cannot even disconnect the track order in the Arrange window from the track order in the Mixer.
Consistency and discoverability are key factors to make a user interface 'intuitive'. We have all seen how very small children discover how to use iOS even before they learn how to read - because it's well designed for intuitive use.
I went and got Mixbus on a 'weekend special' with a bundle of plugins for a pretty good price last night. I imported files for a song I recorded in Acid and did a quick mix, and it does seem to sound a bit more polished than Acid.
Once I get a few more functions knocked (like recording directly into Mixbus, and figuring out riding levels within an individual track) I'll do a track from start to finish. Sounds promising, though.
Ableton Live for writing and tracking, Harrison Mixbus 32c for mixing.
Mixbus gets its sound from emulating summing non-linearities that you find in Harrison's hardware consoles.
You can do the same in other DAWs, by using plug-ins like Waves NLS (you can emulate EMI, Neve and SSL console summing with that, even mix and match between them), or with some channel strip plug-ins, like Brainworx Focusrite or SSL channel strip emulations.
I found that non-linear summing sounds good on some, but not all, projects and tracks. So rather than having a 'one console, always on' preset like in Harrison Mixbus, I find it preferable to have more control, and the option to switch non-linear summing off altogether, which you get from using plug-ins.
That's because Audacity does allow for multiple tracks that can be individually armed for recording or monitored, very much like a DAW. That's about where it ends, but that also makes it easy enough for people to make passable "scratch" tracks with a minimal learning curve, kinda like the old analog cassette 4-tracks back in the day. Not for serious mixing, but passable for demos.
I would agree that it really shines as a single-track audio editor.
Recording software? What's that?
I've noticed that a lot of people track on other software but mix on Mixbus.
Mind if I ask you why you do that? I'm a Mixbus n00b (bought it yesterday), and while talking to a friend today he mentioned that he saw a lot of people saying that in tutorial videos, too.