Re: [Harp-L] Home recording

[Robert Ross <robertaross@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Gary,

I use both Macs and PCs, but prefer my Mac. I think Macs have a lot of advantages, especially for audio, and are definitely more stable. I also find that they are a lot more fun to use. When I use a Mac I totally enjoy the experience. When I use my PCs, especially with Vista, it is work, and usually frustrating or annoying in some way at least once during every  session. Also, on a Mac I feel safe in every respect. When I use my PC I am always worried and nervous that it is going to crash, causing me to have a nervous twitch in my left hand as I type, uncontrollably doing a CTRL-S to save everything constantly so I don't loose all my work at the next crash. I also sick of worrying about viruses, malware, adware, trojans and you name it every time I turn on the PC, and I resent all the time I have to devote to running anti virus, anti adware, etc. to protect me from something that is virtually nonexistant on a Mac.

For starting out simple, just go with the software that comes with whatever interface or mixer you end up buying. For me that was Cubase, but I also like Audacity for the Mac which is FREE open source software (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/). 

For simplicity, like I have said already, nothing beats a mixer in my opinion. It is a lot more intuitive I believe to reach over and fiddle with a real knob during the process of playing while recording yourself than it is to coordinate a mouse and cursor on a screen. It is also something that just feels more familiar. By the way, once you record the tracks, even using the mixer, you can still go in the software and work with them just as you would have while recording on an interface directly, so you only gain and don't loose whatever the software gives you, at least at this level. 

Here is a good page about mixers for home recording, and the site also has pages on going mixerless and also using what they call control surfaces to mix on the software but with a physical board that controls the software (makes it work like you have an external mixer more or less):
http://www.tweakheadz.com/choosing_a_mixer_for_your_studio.html

One of the best sources of information for me was my local Guitar Center. I didn't even buy everything from them, since I got much of my setup on eBay, but they are more than willing to help. I got very lucky since the manager of that aection of the store was a recording engineer at a local studio as well, so knew everything. He was also a nice guy, so helped me quite a bit. If you are lucky, you may find someone like that at your local music store.

- Robert
www.rawfoodlife.com


--- On Wed, 4/16/08, G. E. Popenoe <gpopenoe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: G. E. Popenoe <gpopenoe@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Home recording
> To: "Robert Ross" <robertaross@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 6:15 PM
> Excellent perspective!
> 
>   I have good day gig so I can go a little up market.
> 
> My experience has been to get the best computer I can only
> because I  
> can use it longer before it is obsolete.
> 
> Top quality sound is critcal for me so having the best
> tools (read not  
> necessarily most expensive) is important.
> 
> I've used both Macs and PC's for years. They can
> both do awsome  
> things. However, Mac does it with more style and maybe a
> bit more  
> stability.
> 
> I'll start out simple so I can get my legs with the
> software and then  
> expand as required.
> 
> Gary Popenoe
> 
> On Apr 16, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Robert Ross
> <robertaross@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > RICHARD HUNTER WROTE:
> > This I really don't get.  One of the great things
> about having a
> > good
> > recording program is that you can mix "in the
> box," i.e. inside the
> > computer--you don't need to bother with the
> external hardware.  You
> > don't
> > need the control you get from the mixer if all you
> need is a couple
> > of
> > inputs--you only need the mixer if you're making
> recordings that
> > require
> > 8-16 inputs, and even then you can put the inputs on
> the audio
> > interface and mix in the box.
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Since Gary is a top player, I looked at my thoughts in
> the light that
> > he probably wants to lean in the direction of better
> quality and a
> > clear upgrade path to more tracks and more serious
> recording.
> > Firewire ports and mixers give him that choice in my
> opinion for just
> > a slight increase in cost these days. Although USB 2.0
> is adequate,
> > the reason so many music pros use Mac is Firewire I
> believe. Of
> > course, I am not such a pro, though I did a lot of
> research and
> > asking around when I bought my setup 2 years ago - a
> long time in the
> > digital world - which is why I ended up recommending
> > HomeRecording.com for more input.
> >
> > I guess you are right about most people not being able
> to actually
> > hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz. Higher
> track count as
> > you mentioned, is just one factor in that, which I do
> think is
> > important because you may start out wanted to record
> just two
> > musicians, but later as you get into it may want to be
> able to do
> > much more than that with your setup. But as for the
> 24/96, why do so
> > many professional studios record and master in 24/96?
> >
> > As a pro, limiting Gary to MP3 quality doesn't
> make sense. Secondly,
> > think like a photographer. You buy a 10 Megapixel
> digital camera even
> > if you are printing only 3 Megapixel files. You
> can't distinguish
> > between 10MP and 3MP output on a 4x6 print, just like
> you can't hear
> > the difference bettwen 44.1 and 96 kHz. However
> applying color
> > correction on 10MP images and then downsampling to 3MP
> for printing
> > produces a much higher quality result than doing the
> editing directly
> > in the 3MP files.
> >
> > Recording studios do the same thing by recording and
> processing audio
> > files at 96kHz, then downsampling, which in theory,
> produces higher
> > fidelity files than doing processing in 16bit /
> 44.1kHz. Who knows
> > where Gary is going to go with this. The cost
> difference between
> > slightly better, more capable equipment and the low
> end is not that
> > much these days at all. I wasn't talking high end
> stuff here. My $300
> > Alesis mixer can do 24/96 - even my hand held
> Multitrack field
> > recorder can do it. Of course, if you have to be on a
> tight budget,
> > then a simple audio interface and a couple of decent
> vocal mics will
> > start you out for under $300. Not knowing Gary's
> budget, I suggested
> > a range of options. But for myself, even on a budget
> I'd want a setup
> > I could grow into and that could grow with me.
> >
> > As for the mixer on the front end, that is my personal
> preference as
> > I said. Of course I was recording myself with
> Garageband long before
> > getting a mixer. For me it was a pain to mix in the
> computer while I
> > am actually playing and recording myself at the same
> time. It is much
> > more intuitive to reach over, in the flow, grab a knob
> I can see in
> > the real world to adjust the mixer than it is to go to
> the PC, grab
> > the mouse, move the cursor to the right spot and make
> and make my
> > adjustments. I am very digital, having bought my first
> portable
> > computer in 1981, my first cell phone in 1989, and
> built my first web
> > site in 1995. I live in a very digital world - yet
> even for me some
> > things are just more comfortable and natural in their
> analog form.
> >
> > - Robert
> > www.rawfoodlife.com
> >
> >
> >       
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>  
> 
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > _______________________________________________
> > Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> > Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ