does it really matter what program you record in...
- Thread starter BIGCHILL
- Start date
@ D-sane thats the cubase I started out with but I havent made the switch to sx 2 or 3 yet. I purchased my digi 002r for customers because they "need" pro tools. If Paris was still supported I would roll with that instead of pro tools.
Anyway D-sane is your PM box cleared out?
BTW how the hell did my post come before yours now?
Anyway D-sane is your PM box cleared out?
BTW how the hell did my post come before yours now?
I have to agree with YOUNGMOE here. The majority of people attempting to do home recording have no idea what plug-ins to use or even HOW to use them.
And I would like to add that I have been recording in Cubase since 1999.....originally starting out with VST32 and upgrading to Cubase SX 2.2 a while back. I love SX now and wouldn't want to be using anything else. BUT.......because of continued pressure to become "industry standard" I broke down and bought ProTools M-Powered.
All I have to say is......PROTOOLS SUCKS ASS! The GUI is weak. You can't export at 32bit. I'm not feelin' the editor. And we all know it sucks for MIDI. IMO ProTools has maintained a foothold in the industry because it was the first HD recording system available and studios have chosen to stick with it through the upgrades. But realistically.......I think Cubase SX is shittin' on it for numerous reasons.
To each his own though.
ive been using cubase sx for a while so i really know the interface well but i was sequencing with MOTU's Digital Performer and LOGIC a year ago even though i ran into complications id really like to expand to another sequencer so i can be universal with what ever platform is in front of me.
Quick Question for BUMPUS and HERESEY: I was just curious to what softsynths if any do you guys work with? Im asking because I really respect you two on the broad catagory of music production and i am researching different synths because even though I believe its not what you got, but what you do with it, my free ware vsts can only take me so far.
Quick Question for BUMPUS and HERESEY: I was just curious to what softsynths if any do you guys work with? Im asking because I really respect you two on the broad catagory of music production and i am researching different synths because even though I believe its not what you got, but what you do with it, my free ware vsts can only take me so far.
The synths that find their way onto most of my tracks are:
Arturia Minimoog V
Linplug Albino
AAS LoungeLizard
GMedia Oddity
Luxonix Ravity
Truthfully, you really just need a good rompler type synth (like a jv2080) and a virtual analog to make some good music. I like Albino best for virtual analogs because it is so moduler yet easy to program, so it covers any base i need it to, from leads to basses to pads to synth strings.
I've got a whole lot of synths, but most don't get used often because I think it's better to learn one synth very well than to use 10 synths and end up just using presets. So keep your setup streamlined rather than expansive.
For effects, check out the Classic series at http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/
They're all free and sound incredible.
Good luck.
-=bumpus=-
Arturia Minimoog V
Linplug Albino
AAS LoungeLizard
GMedia Oddity
Luxonix Ravity
Truthfully, you really just need a good rompler type synth (like a jv2080) and a virtual analog to make some good music. I like Albino best for virtual analogs because it is so moduler yet easy to program, so it covers any base i need it to, from leads to basses to pads to synth strings.
I've got a whole lot of synths, but most don't get used often because I think it's better to learn one synth very well than to use 10 synths and end up just using presets. So keep your setup streamlined rather than expansive.
For effects, check out the Classic series at http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/
They're all free and sound incredible.
Good luck.
-=bumpus=-
most of mysetup revolves around hardware. Most of my sounds come from hardware but thats goign to change in a couple of weeks. I use cubase sx for midi and recording. I use pro tools for syncing midi and recording. I may use reaktor, sample tank or absynth but most of my synth sounds come from workstation presets that I've tweeked somehow. The ones bumpus mentioned are cool and I would recommend them (along with reaktor).
Another trick I use is recording the track in pro tools or cubase and using waves ENIGMA. Try it sometimes. It will add a new dimension if you want "organic" type sounds.
IMHO if you can master any multi tracker/sequencer you can navigate around the rest of them. If you put me in front of logic I'll be able to get around it but not as good as a tdm system. However I still would be able to get a session completed and thats what it's all about. Learn one til you know it inside and out and you'll be able to accomplish much more.
Another trick I use is recording the track in pro tools or cubase and using waves ENIGMA. Try it sometimes. It will add a new dimension if you want "organic" type sounds.
IMHO if you can master any multi tracker/sequencer you can navigate around the rest of them. If you put me in front of logic I'll be able to get around it but not as good as a tdm system. However I still would be able to get a session completed and thats what it's all about. Learn one til you know it inside and out and you'll be able to accomplish much more.
About the 32 bit export comment.
I don't really see the need to export at 32 FP resolution. There are many plugins that tout something like a 38 bit (i.e.) precission engine. The 38 bits may make a slight difference with dynamics internally but you are still limited by the digital to analog conversion which will most likely be running through a 24 bit converters. Working with high sample rates makes a difference with harmonics but when using a higher bitrate than what your chain supports will in the end just truncate the upper bits anyways. While the higher bitrate will allow for better internal accuracy the end result isn't really justified by the extra disk space used since that accuracy goes to waste for the larger part.
I don't really see the need to export at 32 FP resolution. There are many plugins that tout something like a 38 bit (i.e.) precission engine. The 38 bits may make a slight difference with dynamics internally but you are still limited by the digital to analog conversion which will most likely be running through a 24 bit converters. Working with high sample rates makes a difference with harmonics but when using a higher bitrate than what your chain supports will in the end just truncate the upper bits anyways. While the higher bitrate will allow for better internal accuracy the end result isn't really justified by the extra disk space used since that accuracy goes to waste for the larger part.
^^ Wrong. To put this simply, processing audio at different bitrates does not produce identical results. Your post-processing/pre-dither audio is sonically different. If you take two sonically different pieces of audio at different bitrates, and dither them both down to say 16bit, you get two sonically different 16bit pieces of audio and that's the point.
So no, the additional accuracy isn't wasted.
So no, the additional accuracy isn't wasted.
I just came across this today:
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/585/0
hopefully it can clear some things and answer some questions.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/585/0
hopefully it can clear some things and answer some questions.
Obviously two different files ar differnet bitrates will be sonically different.
Let's put dithering aside, we're not even getting into that at the moment.
Let's say that you have a 2-track and are using a compressor as a master effect or insert. Now your compressor uses 36 bits internally. I believe Yamaha's 02r uses 36 bits internal processing if I remember correctly. The D/A converters of the 02r are 20 bit converters (A/D). So even if you are processing at 36 bits internally, your converters are truncating the processing to 20 bit resolution.
Of course a 24 bit file will sound better than a 16 bit file that was recorded at the same system. The dynamics content is pretty obvious to a point. My point was that once you have that 24 bit content the added accuracy with a processor that uses way higher resolution isn't that crucial once you consider the audio is truncated at one point or another. In this case, the converters are the culprit.
Newer TC hardware uses 48 bit internal precission doesn't it? Intneral precission matter, but how much are you getting out of the accuracy of the mathematics if you can't really make use of it? We can't really listen to digital audio. We listen to analog sound that comes from a digital representation. Our limit is still a 24 bit digital wordlength which is then converted to analog, we're not really hearing the 48 bits but what the converters are outputting only, which is 24 bit audio.
I do understand a bit more headroom for 24 bit files but I am skeptic on whether the benefits of very high bitrate effects.
From the last post on Heresy's link:
We then have to question how efficiently these engines use that extra internal precission and how they represent that precission in the end results.
Let's put dithering aside, we're not even getting into that at the moment.
Let's say that you have a 2-track and are using a compressor as a master effect or insert. Now your compressor uses 36 bits internally. I believe Yamaha's 02r uses 36 bits internal processing if I remember correctly. The D/A converters of the 02r are 20 bit converters (A/D). So even if you are processing at 36 bits internally, your converters are truncating the processing to 20 bit resolution.
Of course a 24 bit file will sound better than a 16 bit file that was recorded at the same system. The dynamics content is pretty obvious to a point. My point was that once you have that 24 bit content the added accuracy with a processor that uses way higher resolution isn't that crucial once you consider the audio is truncated at one point or another. In this case, the converters are the culprit.
Newer TC hardware uses 48 bit internal precission doesn't it? Intneral precission matter, but how much are you getting out of the accuracy of the mathematics if you can't really make use of it? We can't really listen to digital audio. We listen to analog sound that comes from a digital representation. Our limit is still a 24 bit digital wordlength which is then converted to analog, we're not really hearing the 48 bits but what the converters are outputting only, which is 24 bit audio.
I do understand a bit more headroom for 24 bit files but I am skeptic on whether the benefits of very high bitrate effects.
From the last post on Heresy's link:
We then have to question how efficiently these engines use that extra internal precission and how they represent that precission in the end results.