Thanks
Where I Get Free Or Cheap Recording Software?
# 1
Garageband... used it for this... Don't Click This : ) It's really not gonna make recordings sound good, meaning your gear is the key part, but it has all of the essentials, like EQ (Tons of presets and manual 10 or 30 band too) also built in compressor, gate, and reverb as well as many other effect. Should be everything you would need. I've had it for a couple years now, and it seems to hold up with the rest.
"Gypsy flies from coast to coast, knowing many loving none." -Allmans
SoundClick Page
Myspace Page (Add Me) (I'm better than you... Or am I :eek: )
SoundClick Page
Myspace Page (Add Me) (I'm better than you... Or am I :eek: )
# 2
# 3
Hands downs THE BEST free recording software is Reaper - it does pretty much everything that Protools and Cubase SX3 can do including midi. It also comes with a load of cool plug-ins (compressors, delays, reverbs, EQ) - best of all you can download it for free (no annoying popups or crippled features) - if you like it you are encouraged to make a donation to the developers.
Use this software for recording, editing, sequencing and producing.
http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
Use this software for recording, editing, sequencing and producing.
http://www.cockos.com/reaper/download.php
# 4
# 5
My personal opinion is to avoid free software and go for something in the 'lite' version of established applications such as Cubase etc.
You'll be appreciative of the ability to use VST plug-ins as well as the option to upgrade at later time if you start to progress.
The trouble with free software is that it's usually very limited and not very reliable. Especially when it comes to syncing up tracks.
I'd also avoid GarageBand etc... because they're aimed at amateur musicians who just want to use generic loops to produce music.
Anybody in the know will be able to recognize that your songs are nothing but
pre-purchased riffs rather than something original.
(think..Band-in-a-Box... nothing but a set of generic and slightly cheezy background music meant for the mass consumer who have no real talent for music.)
You'll be appreciative of the ability to use VST plug-ins as well as the option to upgrade at later time if you start to progress.
The trouble with free software is that it's usually very limited and not very reliable. Especially when it comes to syncing up tracks.
I'd also avoid GarageBand etc... because they're aimed at amateur musicians who just want to use generic loops to produce music.
Anybody in the know will be able to recognize that your songs are nothing but
pre-purchased riffs rather than something original.
(think..Band-in-a-Box... nothing but a set of generic and slightly cheezy background music meant for the mass consumer who have no real talent for music.)
# 6
Kevin: Band in a Box is actually a fantastic program. I use it all the time to play and practice over jazz progressions. It does a whole lot more that no other programs can do. I agree though, that you wouldn't use it to produce your own music recordings, it's more of a practice and learning tool.
Miracle Blade 4: Gibs on touch.
# 7
I agree. I've used Band-in-a-Box for years but strictly as a practice tool.
It's great for training you to switch keys and work on scales and such.
Like you say though...to anyone who has used the program before, the music styles are instantly recognizable to anyone who's ever used it before.
So I wouldn't use it in any publicly released song.
Same thing with GarageBand. There are too many amateurs using the generic loops and after awhile they become recognizable to people.
Even using royalty free loops is a risk in releasing your own tunes.
When I first started doing songs I was using a lot of factory loops included with software such as Halion etc.
On one of my songs "Rocksplosion", I was freaked out to actually hear one of the loops I'd used in a Mop commercial on TV once.
Since then I've heard several of my early generic loops used in TV commercials so I've made it a point now to create my own instead.
It's great for training you to switch keys and work on scales and such.
Like you say though...to anyone who has used the program before, the music styles are instantly recognizable to anyone who's ever used it before.
So I wouldn't use it in any publicly released song.
Same thing with GarageBand. There are too many amateurs using the generic loops and after awhile they become recognizable to people.
Even using royalty free loops is a risk in releasing your own tunes.
When I first started doing songs I was using a lot of factory loops included with software such as Halion etc.
On one of my songs "Rocksplosion", I was freaked out to actually hear one of the loops I'd used in a Mop commercial on TV once.
Since then I've heard several of my early generic loops used in TV commercials so I've made it a point now to create my own instead.
# 8
[QUOTE=Kevin Taylor]
The trouble with free software is that it's usually very limited and not very reliable. Especially when it comes to syncing up tracks.
QUOTE]
Hey Kevin, just regarding Reaper, check it out if you havent already. It does more than ProTools (discounting dsp processing) and is sleeker than Cubase (I personally use Cubase SX3 because I am used to the interface). Also bear in mind it is created by the developers of Winamp - no adware, crippled functions or spyware. If I was starting again I would just go straight for Reaper and save myself the 700 quid on Cubase. It's also VST friendly - check it out, I think you'll be very impressed.
The trouble with free software is that it's usually very limited and not very reliable. Especially when it comes to syncing up tracks.
QUOTE]
Hey Kevin, just regarding Reaper, check it out if you havent already. It does more than ProTools (discounting dsp processing) and is sleeker than Cubase (I personally use Cubase SX3 because I am used to the interface). Also bear in mind it is created by the developers of Winamp - no adware, crippled functions or spyware. If I was starting again I would just go straight for Reaper and save myself the 700 quid on Cubase. It's also VST friendly - check it out, I think you'll be very impressed.
# 9
Yeah, there may be some improved software out there that I haven't had a chance to check out yet.
My opinion is based on software from about 5 years ago. Some of the software i used ended up getting out of sync halfway through the song.
The one thing I'd find to be a necessity right now is to have unlimited tracks to record with (or at least 128 or more).
I've rarely done a song that hasn't required using over 100 tracks to space out the instruments. Not necessarily having 100 tracks going at once, but the ability to assign separate, stereo tracks to each instrument so that you can easily keep track of what instrument is on each track.
Some lower end software limits you to 24 tracks of audio so you end up re-using several tracks for multiple instruments.
I tend to record every instrument in stereo so that I have the later option of spreading the stereo spectrum. The other necessity for multiple extra tracks is so that you have spare tracks for things like room acoustics or printing CPU intensive things like reverb permanently to their own tracks instead of having multiple plug-ins running at once.
Nothing wrong with starting small though. I began recording on a Fostex 250 4 track analogue recorder for the first 5 years and it was invaluable to learning how to bounce tracks down and make the most out of what you had to work with.
My opinion is based on software from about 5 years ago. Some of the software i used ended up getting out of sync halfway through the song.
The one thing I'd find to be a necessity right now is to have unlimited tracks to record with (or at least 128 or more).
I've rarely done a song that hasn't required using over 100 tracks to space out the instruments. Not necessarily having 100 tracks going at once, but the ability to assign separate, stereo tracks to each instrument so that you can easily keep track of what instrument is on each track.
Some lower end software limits you to 24 tracks of audio so you end up re-using several tracks for multiple instruments.
I tend to record every instrument in stereo so that I have the later option of spreading the stereo spectrum. The other necessity for multiple extra tracks is so that you have spare tracks for things like room acoustics or printing CPU intensive things like reverb permanently to their own tracks instead of having multiple plug-ins running at once.
Nothing wrong with starting small though. I began recording on a Fostex 250 4 track analogue recorder for the first 5 years and it was invaluable to learning how to bounce tracks down and make the most out of what you had to work with.
# 10
# 11
