PC recording software

[metafaza]

Hello everyone! [img]graemlins/toast.gif[/img]
It's my first post on the board. I've been reading it for quite a while and I find it very useful. Anyway, down to the business.
I want to record my 'music' on PC. What do you guys use and/or what you recommend? My current setup is not very top notch, but this can be changed [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] (in the future).

[RacerX]

Re: PC recording software

Let me the first to welcome you!

WELCOME, NEWBIE!

[RR_1525]

Re: PC recording software

Let me also welcome you.

As far as recording, I use cakewalk guitar studio for the small stuff and Cakewalk Pro for everything else. I have a desktop midi mixer and just mic everything to it and away it goes. Youll definately need a lot of HDD space and a fairly fast machine.

Hope this helps.

[metafaza]

Re: PC recording software

Thanks for a warm welcome guys!
I'm actually thinking about Guitar Tracks 2. I played for a while with the demo and it seems to be ok. I'm not really sure if I would utilise all the capability of Guitar Tracks Pro. Anybody tried N-Track?

[Mordor]

Re: PC recording software

Yes,I use it on my home pc.Pretty simple and good software.VST and DX plugins and no latency problems also with a shitty SB.Cheap too.

[Inazone]

Re: PC recording software

I started out recording through a SoundBlaster Live with Cakewalk Guitar Tracks, which came with my Johnson J-Station, and then moved up to Cakewalk Pro Audio 9. Currently, I record using a couple of Audio-Technica instrument mics, through a Behringer MX602A mixer, into an Echo Mia recording card. I still have a lot to learn as far as getting the perfect recorded sound, but I've found the Cakewalk interface to be the best, whatever version you may have.

[pro-fusion]

Re: PC recording software

I use N-Track for my mixdowns. I track on an Akai DPS-12, but usually dump the tracks into the PC so I can do mixdowns with more than 12 tracks. I have found N-Track to be a good program, if not especially user-friendly. I believe it will do almost anything that the big-name audio programs will do at a fraction of the price. However, it's not particularly easy to figure out, and you have to have a lot of memory to use many tracks, since N-Track works by recording/playing multiple .wav files simultaneously--which eats up tons of memory. Still, on my P2-450, I have managed to do 20-track mixdowns with some reverb thrown in. No way I would have enough memory to add other effects, though. But my PC is ancient. Even a lower end PC of today would kick-ass with N-Track. A moderately-priced PC of today should be able to do at least 24-track recordings on N-track with a decent amount of effects processing. But make sure you get a computer with at least a 7200 RPM hard drive, which I think is pretty much industry standard now. Older PCs usually have 5400 RPM drives, that aren't really fast enough to do real-time audio. The pros use fancy stuff like separate RAID drives for data, that go over 10000 RPM and move data very quickly, but unless you are looking to blow $$$$ on a system, don't even bother with that stuff.

As far as soundcards and hardware go, you can spend a zillion dollars, but if you are just looking to mess around with demos and such, you can get stuff that's not so expensive and still have good sound. And remember, the quality of your monitor speakers will have more impact on the sound quality of your final product than buying a really really expensive sound card.

[jgcable]

Re: PC recording software

I use Acid Pro 4.0. I am a fan of Cakewalk too.

[hammer84]

Re: PC recording software

To be a little different than pro fusion, I found N-track to be very easy to use COMPARED to sonar or Logic. It still has a pretty good learning curve.

N-track lacks in it MIDI stuff but if your keeping it simple on the MIDI side it is by far the best bang for the buck out there.

[Bringer of Chaos]

Re: PC recording software

I use a SeaSound Solo interface with Cubase VST32. Cubase isn’t very intuitive, but once you get the basics down you can record easily and quickly. If I had to do it over again I am not sure if I would use Cubase. But to be fair I haven’t used any other recording software like Cakewalk or anything, so I really have nothing to compare it with recording wise. I m comparing the intuitiveness to other software apps. My PC is a 1.2 ghz, with 7,200 RPM drives and 128MB or Ram. It seems to handle things fine.

Good luck and welcome to the board!

[pro-fusion]

Re: PC recording software

Rather than getting a soundcard for your PC, you might consider going with a USB recording interface, such as the Tascam 428(?). These devices act as soundcards, control surfaces, and preamps/patchbays for your studio, and they are connected to your PC through the USB port. The great thing about these is that you don't have to worry about changing any internal hardware in your computer at all, everything--from instruments to speakers--hooks into the interface, which is designed to look like a smaller version of a tabletop recording box (such as my Akai, or the Roland VS series).

The Tascam was designed to work especially well with Cubase, so that you have real fader, pan and other controls to play with, rather than having to manipulate them via mouse/keyboard. I know it will work this way with other audio software, although maybe not as well--except for Sonar, which has a reputation of being very imcompatible with just about everything. Basically, you choose a channel (or block of channels) on the audio software to manipulate, but you do the work on the interface device.

If I convert over to PC recording (which I may do next year, finances willing), I will probably go this route rather than installing a soundcard.

The Tascam is not the only one of these devices, but it was the first and most well-known.

[pro-fusion]

Re: PC recording software

P.S.: the Tascam is not very expensive, and can be bought pretty cheap on eBay. The original version was the US-428, which has four channel strips, then came the less expensive US-224, which has two channels, and now they have the little US-122, which is strictly more of an audio interface, without the software control capability. By the way, they all have MIDI capability, as well.

[ApeDosMil]

Re: PC recording software

is their a recorder thats cheaper then the Tascam 428, but still decent?

[pro-fusion]

Re: PC recording software

Well, the 428 is not a 'recorder', per se, just an audio interface for the PC. But you might want to check out Tascam's new US-122. It is a less 'feature-laden' version that does nothing but get audio in and out of your computer over a USB connection--meaning, you plug the 122 into the computer with a USB cable, and you plug instruments and speakers into the 122, not the computer. But the actual recording occurs over the computer, and you would control the audio software on the computer itself, just as if you were connecting your instruments directly to the computer's soundcard. New US-122's are going on eBay for about $160.

An interesting note--USB has its limitations for recording--you can't record lots of instruments simultaneously or do lots of audio and MIDI at the same time, because the USB connection doesn't have enough bandwidth for that. People who don't want to deal with soundcards seem to be migrating over to the 'firewire' interface, which is a much bigger data pipeline than USB--and most new PC's have both firewire and USB ports--but firewire audio interfaces are still pretty expensive. The cheapest reasonable one I saw was M-Audio's FireWire 410 box, which sells for $400. Not much by recording standards, I guess (others sell for over $1000), but a lot for a home studio beginner.

[metafaza]

Re: PC recording software

It's interesting to read different approaches from different people.
I guess, the sound quality is an important issue here. I would see it in two categories:
1) how good has it to be for a sound freak (I'd like to think I'm one)
2) how good has it to be for a 'so called average' listener to sound good.
As for myself I'd prefer everything to be analog (probably just a wish nowadays), but how high would you say (talking about the sample rate) for an average listener? It is a question about doing it for yourself or for other people. From what you guys have said (and what I think) it is much more expensive to satisfy yourself than to get a 'hurray' from a street passer. What do you think, is it worth the money to pursue the 'perfect' sound or just go with what sounds good to the public audience? I guess, it's a bit philosophical, but I think it is a major issue: satisfy yourself or get the crowd happy?