Stop for a moment and honestly ask yourself what you NEED to do, and what you WANT to do. Frenchy...if all you really NEED to do is get your sounds down on tape, buy a simple tape machine and be done with it. They are still available. The more you expect to be able to do, the more you can expect to be required to learn. WANT 4 tracks? Then you need a 4 track recorder which is more complicated and requires you to put EFFORT into learning how to use it. WANT 8,12,16 or more tracks? Now you have to LEARN how to bounce tracks. Analog or Digital, it's the same thing. The more you expect something to do, the more control you expect to have over it and that means options and a learning curve. You gave the perfect example yourself. Adobe Photo Deluxe is alot like the Windows Wave Recorder built into every version of Windows since 3.1. It's pretty basic and doesn't let you do much but "get your sounds down". That said it's pretty easy for anyone to use, because it doesn't do much! Photoshop Elements is the same as any current DAW's lite, or LE version. They let you do all the amazing things you see the pro's do, along with the basics. Because they are so powerful and able to do so much, they have a learning curve. You hated Photoshop because you didn't need or want those options. Because both areas, music and graphic art, are expressive and all about variables and nuance, there is no "easy button".

Blablabla...creating music in software is nothing like driving a car and never will be thank God! A car has 6 tasks. Stop and Go, Left and Right, and Forward and Back. That's it. Intuitive has nothing to do with it. If you expect anything close to that kind of simplicity you simply won't be able to do much musically and you probably won't be satisfied. You can't write, edit and mix a symphony (or even a 4 man band) with a Speak and Spell. You've got to crack a manual and read it.

Miles77...you have answered your own question with your complaint. "this perspective is from the user who spends 50- 200 dollars on an audio product only to find themselves only able to turn it on...and everything else requires you study...actually study and research through google! to figure it out." Sorry to be harsh, but...No shit?! You bought an expensive piece of complex electronic equipment cable of doing all the groovy things you heard it could do and you're shocked that you would actually have to LEARN how to operate it properly? Did you expect a "Nickelback" button on that custom amp? A "pretty" button on that reverb? Hardware or software, these are tools that allow you to do complex tasks a myriad of ways. To be creative with them you have to learn how to use them or your options will be limited. You say you don't even know how to operate a mixer. Ok, that's fine, but you must understand that before you can start recording. Your mixer is now in your software and operating it properly is necessary to record. You can't put the cart before the horse. There is a basic level of understanding needed to use DAW's and if you haven't learned it yet, then no software, no matter how rudimentary it could be, would be usable. Go to Guitar Center or MF and pick up a book on the basics of sound and mixing and learn how the equipment and techniques you are going to use (even if it's a digital representation)actually work. You used the example of MS Office, but you actually prove my point. You already got over the basic learning curve by learning how to use a computer. Finding your way through the very basics of Office is obvious to anyone who can use a computer because the tasks and actions are already in use in so many other programs we've already learned. Nothing in audio recording, aside from a few simple file actions ie: save, cut, paste..., is similiar to basic computer programs we use every day. It would be more like you having never used a computer before and expecting to understand Office basic. You learned to play your instrument in stages, starting with the basics and building up from there. It's no different here. Now you want to record, so you must learn how the equipment and software works, what it does, and how you can adjust it to get the desired action from it. If you want to play Zepp you first have to know how to hold the pick, strum in time, finger technique, bar chords... you have to build a knowledge-base.

Sorry if I was harsh guys, but we all as a society are guilty of this. We have so much of our life's tasks simplified to the point of idiocy that we sometimes forget that some things just take learning. Music is creativity, and creativity demands flexibility, and that requires a level of complexity. If all you want to do is record a couple of tracks and not much else, a simple hardware recorder will give you all the simplicity you desire. Any more than that, either hardware or software, you simply have to take the time to learn how to do it. No other way.

Brandon

The problem with asking a person who already knows their software in and out what their to list their favorite is it insinuates they haven't already found it. It's my belief that the various DAWs out there (Pro Tools, Logic, Cubase, Sonar, etc) are so damn close in their abilities that few people ever switch once unless they have reliability problems.

I can relate to wanting a simple answer. I've been dabbling in web security lately for the RecordingReview.com server. Unfortunately, it took the guys who really know this stuff a college degree and years in the field to master it. It's hard for them to relate to a guy who just wants to push four buttons and come out with a truly secure server. This really doesn't exist because web security is actually an art and not an automated process.

If all a person wants to do is record sound, those little handheld digital gadgets do it just fine. The second a person qualifies it, things get ugly. If you want to use an XLR microphone, it has to be accounted for. If you want to record 2 tracks at the same time, it has to be accounted for. If you want the ability to reverse a portion of a track, toss reverb on it, flip it back over, and then move it where you want to, it has to be accounted for.

I think the typical beginner simply assumes that recording is a process like can smashing. In other words, put the can in, pull down on the lever, and bam. You have a smashed can. The task is over. This is not even close to what my style of recording is like. I need the ability to convert a transient track into MIDI data which can trigger a sample. I need quite a bit of fancy editing, including pitch correction and even timing correction. Basically, all those things I hadn't bothered with when I started I use every day to make the clients happy. I guess a person could say that the second they actually care what the recording sounds like, they will need something more advanced.

What I don't get is this. When I'm recording a good ol' live band, I don't need ANY fancy features. I arm a track in Cubase and hit the red button. It really is very close to being that simple.

Brandon

This is coming from the perspective of someone who has never used a mixer board, never recorded anything before but is simply a musician...and wants to know the software that they could purchase that would allow them to record, use stored tracks to record over, transpose sound into note music and such without having to study the product as if for a law exam or a med exam.

Just like a micro-soft office product is so user friendly that even if you don't know much you can still use the basic parts of it and feel like you're getting your money's worth...but if you wished to do more you'd THEN have to learn more it would be nice to know of a product list that at least has an level playing field.

If your learning curve is that you've used several other products before and therefore everything...seems kind of easy...then your perspective is not going to help out unless you can understand our perspective...and this perspective is from the user who spends 50- 200 dollars on an audio product only to find themselves only able to turn it on...and everything else requires you study...actually study and research through google! to figure it out.

So once again, can someone with knowledge rank the most user friendly audio software available? From the easiest to the most difficult? Also, if this could include some sort of description of what limitations would come with each and subsequent benefits...

I 100% hear your concerns. I, too, don't want to fix lawnmowers. I get exactly what you are saying.

Frankly, as a Cubase user, I get all kinds of people telling me that it's "too complicated". I have no idea what they are talking about. I started on it on a Saturday and ran a session on Sunday. Cubase has been AWESOME for me. I wouldn't say I've had zero problems, but few home recorders who've done this for more than 10 minutes can say that. I think this "too complicated" thing is invented by people who refuse to accept a learning curve at all. Maybe this is the lawnmower example all over again, but I'm not aware of any software a person can use without learning how to use the software. The lawnmower example required you to do learn deep-level stuff, but no software I've ever seen ever required a person to re-write the code.

I can't comment about Pro Tools and Garageband because my experience with them has been limited. I can tell you about switching from Vegas to Cubase several years ago.

1) Editing: Vegas could only allow me to slice a relatively HUGE chunk of audio. Many times this was not the ideal spot to cut the audio. Cubase lets me slice down to one sample.
2) Overdubs/Punch Ins: Vegas didn't have the ability to punch in and out during a performance. I simply had to record all the audio I needed and go back and edit it. In Cubase I don't have to do anything other than punch in and then punch out if I don't want to.
3) Lanes: Cubase has a SUPER SMART feature that allows me to loop a guitar solo section so I can play my guitar solo 50 times if I want to. When I hit stop, each track is stacked on the screen in a way that makes it extremely easy for me to pick my favorite one. To do this in Vegas would have required me to hit stop after every take. Move the cursor back. Then start again. The workflow is outstanding in Cubase compared to Vegas.
4) Editing multiple parts simultaneously: In Cubase, if I have 12 drum tracks and I need to cut some space out from a breakdown, I can use a folder track and just make one cut. It will remove the space from all 12 drum tracks. In Vegas, I had to do each track individually. Vegas was unacceptably inefficient in this regard.
5) At that time, Vegas didn't even have a sequencer for MIDI work.
6) I hit the wrong button on my converter and ended up recording at a 48k sample rate even though Vegas was set to 44.1k. The end result was the audio playing back either in slow motion or chipmunk mode. Neither were acceptable. Vegas never made any concessions to fix this. It turned out that I had to reopen each file with a utility and change the "header" to 48k so Vegas could handle it properly. It took me about 15 hours of tedious labor. I goofed up and did the same thing again after I switched to Cubase. It turned out that Cubase recognized the flaw immediately and fixed the problem in like 30 seconds. I was BLOWN AWAY!
7) Automation - In Cubase, I'm not sure if there is anything I can't automate. In Vegas, there were tons of things I couldn't automate. Cubase dramatically changed the way I work!

The list goes on and on.

BTW, none of these features added any complexity.....no different than driving a car is any more complex than riding a horse or walking. They just made my life WAY better. The time it takes to get used to driving (using Cubase) makes up the time it takes to learn Cubase or equivalent almost instantly.

That's my take. I hope that shed some light on the situation.

Brandon