Okay just bought a Focusrite Scarlett Studio 2i2 3rd Gen bundle, plus have JBL 1 Series 104's coming this week.
So for now want advice on the easiest DAW to use. Loaded up the free Abelite 10 which came with the bundle found it quite hard to use with no real quick advice for basic recording etc in the manual and have been advised it can be a bit daunting for novice users. So was going to go with Audacity, as it appears to be the easiest from reviews but has limitations, but speaking with someone from Focusrite support on another issue, he recommended Reaper which he said was reasonably easy to pick up and also had great learning videos step by step from basic recordings with much more to it than Audacity.
I am mainly recording Guitar and vocals to hopefully do some videos and also to record our band when we rehearse round my house just using a couple of mics &/or individually later on when a bit more experienced to put onto CD.
Will mainly be using my Lenovo ideapad 320s with windows 10 but will also use my main computer but with windows 7.
So which would be easier and better for me between Audacity & Reaper to use, also bearing in mind would like to put some onto video, when I have mastered the recording part! As hoping to get the Logic C920 HD Pro Webcam when the silly prices at present come down.
Comments
https://www.studiowear.co.uk/ -
https://twitter.com/spark240
Facebook - m.me/studiowear.co.uk
Reddit r/newmusicreview
Let me know if you have any queries - there is a wealth of info about reaper out there but sometimes it’s more satisfying to work out yourself. I am not an expert.
I’ve heard lots of good things about Reaper. Rico’s comments above are pretty much how you would get Ableton to work as well
Reaper will get you up and running for less outlay. Massive rabbit-hole. Good luck
is it crazy how saying sentences backwards creates backwards sentences saying how crazy it is?
Google "Dan Baker" and take a look at his YouTube channel if you want to be inspired.
I do "band in a room" recordings using Garageband on my phone. The limitation on decent results is not the device, the software or the audio interface. It's where I put the mics and how well the band plays! Both are still a work-in-progress.... :-) The DAW doesn't matter. Just pick one and get started.
Focusrite still seems to have its free stereo recording app on the App Store, too (Tape) and its video recording app (Impact).
But if you're restricted to a Windows computer, then I'd avoid Audacity because the workflow is weird.
I agree that Reaper is a good choice if your AI doesn't already come bundled with a DAW of some kind.
Just a comment re setting the gain. If you are recording at 24 bit (and with modern computers there really isn't any reason to go lower) then you have oodles* of headroom. This means that you don't need to set the gain too high. I'm from a generation that cut its teeth with magnetic tape and then, due to the inherent noise associated with tape, we had to run everything ‘hot’ to get the best possible signal to noise ratio. If we pushed things too far tape was quite forgiving and we got, quite musical, compression and distortion effects.
With digital you do not have these same noise issues and, if you clip, it sounds f***ing horrible. When recording make sure that you are giving yourself enough headroom to avoid clipping. It took me a while to mentally adjust and I still see lots of people, many of whom are too young to have ever used tape, pushing things into the red. I also come across plenty of projects where all the channels are set with no gain trim, strong signals and, as a result, the master fader is at about -15dB (I received a project like that just this week).
*oodles is of course an imperial measure. I believe that the equivalent SI unit is ‘shitloads’
I'm of the opinion that its best to choose a DAW and stick with it.
+1 The limiting factor, especially for the home user, is always going to be the skill of the operator. I've been using Cubase since it was Cubase VST (that's 23 years) and I'm still learning. I also have Reaper on a laptop for location stuff but all that I've learned to do with it is set it up and record multiple tracks. I know from others that it is very capable but it makes no sense for me to learn more than I need (I transfer the tracks to Cubase for processing) and no sense to switch to using Reaper all of the time simply because it would take me so long to become anywhere near as proficient as I am with Cubase.
All DAWs have an initial learning curve to get started but if there's a DAW out there that has more comprehensive documentation, tutorials and support than Reaper then I haven't found it plus it is inexpensive to buy and available with all features on indefinite free trial.
Ive just had a look at the price of this manual and its about 10 times more than what i paid. The cheapest on ebay £50+ . lol Its not that good. Check out the thread anyway.
Update.. Publishers went into administration so book no longer available new. Explains the ridiculous prices for used. The pdf posted above is imo your best bet for now.
https://youtu.be/JwDcTPn2dvc
Re-sample rate, 48k is used to give more headroom when recording and mixing, the CD standard is 44k-16 bit, so that is what most people work towards, in the final mix. Using 48k just gives more high end fidelity to work with plugins, some people can't hear the difference, and we are all used to hearing streaming and mp3 now, most pro studios are using much higher sample rates, but the trade off is higher rates equal larger file sizes, and processing.
The more you use Reaper, the more you will appreciate how good it is, try getting PT to work on any consumer grade stuff and you would see, I have tried Ableton, but think it is more suited to loop and keyboard production, relying on libraries of sounds, at least that's how it seemed to me, Reaper is more set up for working on a per track basis, much more like traditional recording.
good luck anyway.
Headroom is down to bit depth.
Higher sample rate doesn't give you more headroom, it gives you greater resolution.
There is virtual zero difference in terms of sound between 44.1 and 48k though, if all other factors are equal.
Historically, the reason most people tended to record at 48k is because 48k was the sample rate that was compatible with video.
Without going down a rabbit hole I would suggest recording at a sample rate you intend to stick with.
For instance if you have a huge sample library that is brought over from CD (so 44.1) then track at 44.1.
If you have already tracked at 48k then keep doing that.
Tracking at 48k and downsampling to 44.1 is not something I would recommend and I definitely would not want to go up from 44.1 to a higher sample rate.
FWIW I've always tracked at 44.1 until recently- I had zero complaints over the years about this.
There is an argument for tracking at higher sample rates- now I have a beast of a Mac Pro I tend to track at 96k.
My opinion, which is not backed up by any sort of empirical evidence, is plugins sound smoother at a higher sample rate, but most people don't have the sort of resources in their computer that will allow for a huge session.
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
Football is rubbish.
As octagonal has said, pick your sample rate and stick to it.
Use 24 bit to give you plenty of headroom and don’t record too ‘hot’, there’s absolutely no need (recording with the signals just below peak is a legacy of tape).