User Friendly Recording Software
While I’ve touched on this topic, I want to hit it head on in this brief article. I see a ton of newbies in the recording world asking about “user friendly software”. If you are looking for user friendly software, this article is for you.
What recording software is user friendly? Easy! All of them! Okay, maybe not ALL of them, but all of them that are successful. Recording software must be easy to use. Why? Because in the heat of battle when creative juices are flowing, you can not be fighting your recording setup. No songs will ever get finished if this is the case. So take a look around and see what people are using. You’ll find that Pro Tools, Cubase (the most popular here at Recording Review), Logic, Sonar, Digital Performer, etc are all popular and are all being used on home recordings.
This is kind of like saying “Which car is easy to drive?”. While driving a semi might be difficult, there really isn’t that much difference between a F-150, a Honda Civic, and a Porsche. You would have to get used to all of them and every person has their preferences, but the actual “easy to use” thing is about the same. The gas makes you go. The break makes you stop.
Let’s take a different slant on this.
What recording software is user friendly? Easy! The one you know how to work! This may sound like smart ass statement, but I think it leads to a much bigger issue that we’ll discuss here in a moment. If you were to ask me what language is easiest to speak, I’d have to say English because it’s the only language I know. I hear that Spanish is one of the simpler languages and that German and Russian are supposed to be quite a bit more difficult to master. Of course, Russia, Germany, and English speaking countries have been first world countries while simpler languages have had less economic success. What does that mean? Nothing really. The point is that I doubt if any country would improve their economic success if they all just switched to Russian or Spanish and I don’t think better recordings would be achieved by simply switching from whatever you use now.
Is “Easy” The Most Important Criteria For You?
Let’s assume you can’t speak a language. Which one do you speak? I would speak whatever language is going to give me the most success. Here in Missouri, I wouldn’t get too far with Pig Latin. English was a good choice even if it took a few more classes to learn in school and even if this blog is full of grammatical errors.
If you are new to home recording, don’t get overwhelmed by the learning curve. It isn’t that bad! Tons of idiots make great recordings. Trust me! Instead, focus on what is going to allow you to be most “successful” at your musical recording endeavor. This brings up a bunch of other questions about your needs and all of that jive. That’s beyond the scope of this little blog. I just wanted to get you think.
The Casual User
I’ve edited like 2 hours of video in my life. I don’t have time to be a real video guy even though I wish I did. If I needed to edit a video tomorrow, I guess I wouldn’t have the time to master a full blown mega video editing software program. I would want something fairly easily to grasp simply because I’m a casual user and not looking to make a life long commitment to video editing.
If this is similar to your experience with audio, I really don’t know what to tell you. While RecordingReview.com does cater to the beginner in music and audio recording, the people that stick around are music people. They are not the casual user. The typical RecoridingReview.com member isn’t going to be purchasing recording software from Best Buy. Good luck in your quest.
Conclusion
All recording software has a learning curve. If you really want to record music, buck up and start looking for recording software that will allow you to be as musically successful as possible. Start looking for the right recording software for you instead of focusing on the fact that software A takes 8 hours to be proficient, but software B takes 7.5 hours to be proficient. If music is your “thing”, put the time in to learn the well thought out tools. Easy has nothing to do with it.
…and if you are not a music guy, good luck. I wish I could help out.
July 8th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I guess it depends on how much power you want out of your DAW. Garageband is real easy to use, but it also doesn’t give you many options. If you are looking for a pro application thats easy to pick up, I suggest Cubase or Logic 8 (NOT Logic 7 or below).
September 5th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I’d like to add to Barry’s “Conclusion” statement.
Everyone here is most likely some type of musician, plays some musical instrument. So I ask, when you decided to play an instrument or started getting into music, did you ask yourself, “Which instrument is the easiest to play and most user friendly?” No, you chose the one that spoke to you or suited you. You took the time and made the effort to learn that instrument. Like Barry says, take the same approach with the software. Pick the one that suits you and learn it.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Yeah…all those clever analogies to “Learning a language” don’t mean squat!~ Sure, whatever instrument you choose takes time to learn…I get it. The problem is that ALL of the musical software programs that I’ve seen feel like they were designed by technically proficient computer geeks NOT by musicians who simply want to manifest there conceptual ideas quicky, before the spark of inspiration is passed. Wow, they make the computer screen look like a mixing console…gee that makes it soooooo easy. Pro Tools, the industry standard has a manual the size of a phonebook and I know some very intelligent musicians that have worked with the program for over a year and are just starting to feel like they’re over the hump (still learning ofcourse).
Bottom line…somebody should strive to design a program that is so easy to figure out that when you look at it, it’s self explanatory…you don’t feel the need to stop and search for the tutorial…or feel overwhelmed and intimidated. It should invite and facilitate the musical process instead of boasting bells & whistles in a format that is cluttered & chaotic.
Here’s another meaningless analogy…if every car had 21 speeds like a mountain bike, should we pick whichever vehicle we happen to fancy and learn to shift gears until we feel like we’re getting post traumatic stress disorder OR should somebody perhaps innovate the industry and come up with with something completely radical…like the “Automatic Transmission”?? Me, I hired an engineer and a producer. LOL
December 16th, 2008 at 5:13 am
I can come up with a melody in my head right now, walk into my control, and have the idea down with rough drums, bass, and piano in 5 minutes. That’s not a big deal at all with Cubase SX3.
So what do you suggest? I realize that not everyone has a degree in physics, but the mixing console has been the tool of choice for audio mixers for decades. The people who really want control of their audio simply take the time to learn these. The people who don’t want to mess with it either pay the nerds who did take the time to learn it or they do without.
I know VERY unintelligent people who can work a mixing console. Minus a few hiccups, a mixing console is a very simple device when you take it a channel at a time.
Pro Tools, the industry standard has a manual the size of a phonebook
True. I don’t know about Pro Tools, but Cubase SX3 has a huge manual. Then they have a Getting Started guide/tutorial that can be easily covered in an after noon. The manual wasn’t designed to be read straight through. It’s there in case you need to use the more detailed features.
I’m not a Pro Tools user, but I find this shocking. I went through the getting started guide for Cubase SX3 and booked a session the next day. It wasn’t the most efficient session in the world, but we got through it.
This is a nice goal. You are looking for something fairly “automatic”. I don’t blame you. The problem with anything automatic is it isn’t flexible. With Windows Sound Recorder, you can definitely jump right in and just press record. It’s supposed to work right out of the gate and I think it does with your stock soundcard.
However, Cubase allows for multiple tracks, so we need to create an audio track. Cubase allows you to use from any of your available inputs. For some guys it’s 2. For other guys it’s 8. I’ve got 18 inputs. I can’t see any way around this one if you want to record more than one track at a time.
Once you’ve selected the right input, you can simply record in Cubase without a hitch. It couldn’t be simpler, once you understand your own needs. For most people just getting started it takes a couple of hours of tinkering to get their system setup so they can go in and record an acoustic guitar part instantly.
OR should somebody perhaps innovate the industry and come up with with something completely radical…like the “Automatic Transmission”?
The Automatic Transmission works because in car there are very specific criteria that are met all the time. You always start with Gear #1. You always end up in the top gear on the interstate.
If “always” ever worked in recording land, a person would find a way to automate it.
I think you made the right choice for you.
You may not like my “meaningless” analogies. I can live with that. If you are looking for the magical piece of software that requires no effort on your part that will still be all things to all people, the only thing I can tell you is that it doesn’t exist. Unless there are radical changes that reduce the flexibility (and therefor creative musical potential) or signficant improvements in the way hardware and software interact, it won’t happen any time soon.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I got Sony Acid a few years back and hated it because it seemed like you could only do loop stuff with it. But from what I’ve read about Acid 7 it’s more of a real recorder/mixer. It’s got everything I think I want: Rewire, Unlimited Tracks, high sampling rates, etc… I’m trying to figure out why it’s so much cheaper than the others when I don’t see any abilities that the others have that Acid 7 doesn’t? Is there a difference in audio quality for some reason?
May 24th, 2009 at 3:26 am
I respect your attempt at helping people but this article is false because some software is wayyy easier for a specific style of music making then others.
and there’s no way you can argue something like samplitude or cubase is just as user friendly as garageband (who’s limitations suck big time)
but it is much more user friendly then alot of software.
Thing is, software can definetly get in the way, even if you know it well, if it’s not intuitive to your way of thinking.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:59 am
I think this is my point. If Garageband’s limitations “suck big time” than any CAPABLE recording software (which I’ll loosely define as programs that don’t suck big time) are going to have a learning curve. There is absolutely no way around it.
If a person really wanted to fully learn 12 different recording programs, I’m sure there would be 1 or 2 that stood out as easier. The only problem with this is it means giving up a year of your live and doing nothing but learning recording software to find it. No thanks. With a little effort Cubase is piece of cake. I’ll stick with it. It doesn’t ever bother me that maybe out there something is easier. What do I care?
I don’t disagree. However, I consider the entire recording process to be one big hurdle in the way. Everything from scheduling the bands, getting them to show up on time, setting up mics, audio engineering, getting headphone mixes, bla bla bla is all a big hinderance to the creative process. It’s all a big annoyance that keeps us from focusing on what matters. That’s okay. Progress will work it out. In the mean time we could all be focusing on something more productive than a lack of usability in 2009. The truth is EVERY recording made up to this point has dealt with this lack of user friendliness.