Totallty New To Recording Daw Need some guidance

Started by atonal, September 16, 2011, 01:56:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

atonal

Hi I really could use some help,have been using mostly analog equipment  to record for years and want to start using daw..Hardware and software wise i don't have a clue.As far as what i currently own a zoom h4n and an old teac portastudio.hardware wise I have an acer 5532 with amd64 processor with a t-20 1.6ghz single core or a dell optiplex gx150 which is dual core..Would appreciate advice on software and if these computers are going to be able to handle recording..all of you forum members that have posted some of your recordings I'm amazed at how good they sound..also on software if you could recommend something that easy to learn, some seem very intense not highly competent with my computer skills but am looking for some thing i could use live with samples and tracks running..I'm sure I forgot something,I'm sure I''ll remember after I hit post!!!hahaha.........I'm not kidding ...In advance thank you for all the help!!

Paresh

I'll just say that ease of work flow is way more important to me than lots of features... the learning curve can be steep for some software.
paresh

Elantric

#2
With your existing hardware, be sure to use ASIO drivers for best results.

Zoom H4N Downloads:
http://www.zoom.co.jp/downloads/h4n/software/



for a DAW

Try  either:

Audacity
http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
or

n-Track Studio
http://ntrack.com/

or

Reaper
www.reaper.fm


Find DAW advice here:

www.tweakheadz.com

Naphthol

i'll second that ease of workflow comment.

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
free multitrack recording software, basic in many ways, but has some surprisingly advanced features as well.  (I use it mainly for compression, EQ and fiddling around with sampling rates/bit rates).  It's purely audio, no midi functionality.

Mrchevy

     If I may, I have made the transition from analog to computer based. The recording principles are the same but, learning the "lingo" and how things work in the computer world can be a VERY deep learning curve. I started with Sonar Home studio 6 on a windows XP pro operating system. I haven't looked back and although it is a home studio program rather then the all out pro studio version ( which can be up to $400-$600+ ) it is more than capable of producing very good recordings. Ive done 24 track recordings with it, no sweat.
      There are a lot of freeware recording programs as are LE versions that come with hardware you will likely end up buying anyway. A good audio interface (important) will likely have an LE version of something that would serve as a good learning tool and may very well be all you will need depending on you abilities and needs. Sonar is a Cakewalk product and is in kahhoots with Roland. I wont say its better or worse than any other products out there, I'm not here to endorse, but I will suggest to google for the CAKEWALK FORUMS. You will find a wealth of knowledge there regarding DAW's. I suggest this forum only because it is the only one I have read on and dealt with as it pertained to my specific recording software and in spite of previous analog recording experience, I would have been lost without there input and advice.
       My best general advice is...
  1. determine what you want to do with your recordings.
  2. When it comes to the computer, more processing power than you think you will need is key.
  3. Read,read,read all you can till you feel you have enough info to make an educated decision on software and hardware and how they work together. This will save you tons of money on Tylenol and aggravation in the end.
  4. Newer is not always better. Stick with tried and true. 1 or 2 versions out of date can save you money and the bugs have usually been worked out.
       
   Hope this helps you in your new journey into the digital world of recording.
Gibson Les Paul Custom
Epi Les Paul Standard
Gibson SG 50's prototype
Squire classic vibe 60's
Epi LP Modern
Epi SG Custom
Martin acoustic

Princeton chorus 210

GT100
GR-55
Helix LT
Waza Air Headphones
Boomerang III

And, a lot of stuff I DON'T need

atonal

Thank you everyone for your advice!!!My head is about to explode with all the research reading I've been doing.Right now I'm thinking of the m audio fast track ultra  as an Interface It comes with Ablelton live lite,but seriously considering reaper,just have to dig into it some more.I'm hoping that having everything in front of me will help with the lingo learning curve,feel like I'm having an A.D.D episode!!! No Ritalin just coffee!!

atonal

#6
Well now my first chapter is starting!My son just bought a macbook pro because he was having a problems with his macbook  and the apple store couldn't figure it out!So he gave it to me ,with a little research i found the battery was warped and was causing the cursor to not click,problem one fixed !My good friend Johhny Z at same store ..we got our  great group buy from on the gr55 told me to bring it in and let him take a look...well he got me alot more memory deleting stuff and hooked me up with the m-audio fast track ultra and a gift of logic pro 8 so now i have all the tools i need for now and the real learning curve begins!So much info and not alot left on my hard head disc,wish i could get a little more memory in my noggin!!!Hope to share something soon with everyone,wishing everyone bountiful creative experiences!!!

shawnb

#7
If I were to offer ONE piece of advice summing up the difference in recording technique when moving from analog to digital, it is this: Record in 24 bit depth, and, when recording in 24 bit depth, leave plenty of headroom.   It is NOT as important to maximize signal strength when recording digtal/24-bit as it is when recording analog.   

In the analog world, you want to maximize signal-to-noise, and record as fat & saturated a signal as possible on the tape.   In the digital world, a 'fat caterpillar' is ideal, however, you don't want to risk ANY clipping, which produces digital noise in your signal. 

I'd rather have a 'thin caterpillar' than encounter digital clipping any day.   And at 24-bit depth, a 'thin caterpillar' is sufficient.  In the analog world, tapes saturated when the signal got too loud, & assuming you didn't overdo it, often added character.  In fact, many tools exist in the digital realm to re-introduce this character into digital recordings.  But never forget - in the digital world, clipping is horribly bad.  You do not want to risk it.  Record at a safe, low level, with plenty of headroom to account for your maximum possible signal. 

Below, figure 1 shows a signal that is too hot.   A 'fat caterpillar'.  In terms of signal to noise, probably ideal.   But the risk of clipping & wasting your whole take is too high.   

Figure 2 shows a better signal...   Figure 3 explains why.   Figure 3 is the exact same recording track, later in the SAME track, when the drummer hit the snare a bit harder.  If this had been recorded hotter (like in figure 1), clipping would have resulted.   

Hence what you see in figure 2 (thin caterpillar) is better than what you see in figure 1 (fat caterpillar).  I'd rather boost a signal than throw out an entire session due to digital clipping. 

Hope this makes sense & helps! 

Shawn
Address the process rather than the outcome.  Then, the outcome becomes more likely.   - Fripp

atonal

Shawn thank you so much for your input,as far as signal strenghth I've picked up on the fact that most of the digital recordings are recorded at much lower levels than we would have done analog where we would strive to get the hottest signal with minimal distortion,here it seems less is more....Once I get a little more aquainted with the recording software I'll do a comparison just for reference  to hear clipping in the digital format .Huge amounts of options on these daw software programs so learning curve is going to be something to tackle but I'm reading and takin everyones advice all real good so far, just gotta put the time in...Thanks again for your input.....

3Play

QuoteIF I were to offer ONE piece of advice summing up the difference in recording technique when moving from analog to digital, it is this: Record in 24 bit depth, and, when recording in 24 bit depth, leave plenty of headroom.   It is NOT as important to maximize signal strength when recording digtal/24-bit as it is when recording analog.

I'll second that. I also find that modern low-cost input devices' ANALOG sections are really the weak link. So even though the have XXX dynamic range, the top half of that dynamic range sounds terrible, even though there's no "distortion" (Yes, there's very low measurable Harmonic distortion, but there's all kinds of other stuff that they don't list in the specs that just sounds awful).

When I reduced my input levels by about half, my recordings started sounding MUCH better.