Jump to content

The DAW Divide


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Being so involved with Cakewalk these days, I track the forum pretty closely. Not to blow our horn too much here, but the bottom line is Sonar is picking up a lot of new users, usually because they download the trial version and feel more comfortable with the workflow than with other programs.

 

However...

 

So many of them are really, really behind the curve on basics. They can't understand why using a computer's onboard sound chip doesn't give the best results ("But it says 'by Beats,' that must mean it's good, right?"), or why graphics cards have anything to do with audio performance. I'm sure a lot of this is due to Windows and the near-infinite number of configurations, but it's becoming clear to me that some smart and highly capable musicians are being stymied by the computer itself, and things like understanding what a "low latency driver" is.

 

Most of us here have grown up with computers, so the additional overlay needed for a computer to make the jump from, say, word processing to music isn't that huge a deal. But for a lot of folks, it seems to be a huge deal indeed. Even the pre-configured PCs from hardware companies like PC Audio Labs and ADK can't get past the fact that the person has to run Windows.

 

What I'm really starting to wonder is whether computer operating systems are just going to keep getting more complex, or whether something like Windows 9 will actually accomplish the goal Windows 8 was supposed to accomplish - provide an easy-to-understand interface that's scalable across mobile and desktop platforms. I've joked with Cakewalk about making people fill out a questionnaire the first time they run Sonar ("Do you know what ASIO is?") and if they don't know the answer, it links to someplace that has the answer. But now I'm starting to think maybe that's such a crazy idea...

 

This reminds me of when I did a job for Sony where they wanted a document on how to transfer files from Acid to their little MP3 player. "You'll be able to knock it out in an hour or two, it only takes a few steps." I handed them a document with 23 steps, and they were upset. "We told you to keep it simple!" and my response was "tell me which step I can take out." There weren't any.

 

What would make it possible for someone to just download a trial version of a program and get up and running in minutes if the didn't have prior experience with DAWs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Turnkey systems. But even then...

 

I've been looking over the posts about DAW use across DAWs and OS platforms for many years now and, while both major OS platforms have their quirks, we seem to be more or less at a point where hardware typically exceeds the 'reasonable' needs of anyone who knows how to organize a big project in order to prevent unnecessary load-carrying burdens. But, of course, if the guy down the street has 160 tracks in his latest opus, there are those who will just have to invent a reason to have 180...

 

But what I see the big issue to be is the often stunning lack of common sense and basic science understanding -- an understanding that used to be considered something of a necessary preparation for those involved in the technical side of recording.

 

Many of these people simply do not have the intellectual equipment to make sense of the underlying science. They do not manifest the basic logical abilities required to solve simple procedural problems -- they go whining to the forums to ask the stupidest things (yeah, no such thing as 'stupid questions' -- that's what I used to think, too) and then get their undergarments in a nasty bunch when people use basic scientific terms and concepts they don't understand -- which is most of them -- or when they simply don't like the answers.

 

And then -- when they've been doing it a while -- they get to what I call the 'sweeping manifesto' stage where they now start threads detailing their often utterly bizarre and fabulistic 'explanations' of how everything works. They're often a load of laughs -- until you realize there are usually at least four or five even newbier newbs who are lapping up the nonsense and accusing those with a grounding in science and basic technology of trying to 'hold them back' or 'suppressing important information' or -- one of the longtime favorites -- being 'deaf' -- as in, "You must be deaf if you can't hear the clear differences between these two files" -- which have just been shown by null testing to be bit-for-bit the same (for instance).

 

Honestly, in the last decade, the technical ignorance and lack of native ability to grasp simple logic has come to dominate online discussions of audio and recording.

 

It's not getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Cakewalk could include a "Quick Start Walk Thru" for the novice where he or she is fed direction then has to follow direction step after step from start to finish of a simple project. Something that leads and requires the customer to participate. To Cakewalks credit their programs are easy once you have a basic framework going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ha... as soon as I left this page, what did I see?

 

An article on how the BBC has had to issue a crackdown on crackpot commentators because their journos don't have the scientific/critical thinking ability to sort out the nuts.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've joked with Cakewalk about making people fill out a questionnaire the first time they run Sonar ("Do you know what ASIO is?") and if they don't know the answer, it links to someplace that has the answer. But now I'm starting to think maybe that's such a crazy idea...

 

A DAW Driver's License... :lol:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would make it possible for someone to just download a trial version of a program and get up and running in minutes if the didn't have prior experience with DAWs?

 

Now THAT'S an excellent question!

 

As far as the answer, I don't have a short, pat one for you... I sure wish I did... but the fact that someone associated with a DAW company is thinking along those lines is extremely encouraging.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm in Reaper, one of the most newbie-unfriendly DAWs out there.

Yet, because of the price-point and acessabillity, it attracks many new to DAWs/PC/audio-production.

 

It's important for us seasoned users to be aware that modern audio-production draws on a big field of skills needed, general pc-knowledge being one of them.

 

To the question raised: Will the OS-part grow up, be really user-friendly and easy understandable, even for young/old/newbies?

 

Well, for one thing, time has come when you don't longer need to be a tweak-guru to get the OS working for DAW. Many things are plug-and-play, and settings left to default.

Load up vstis and samples in a modern PC, and it handles it pretty well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true G-Sun, but the user still has to understand latency and buffers and a bunch of other computer-related subjects...

 

What would be fantastic is if Microsoft had a single button you could click on in Windows that automatically configured the OS with all the standard DAW tweaks, and if interface manufacturers made their devices more n00b friendly and easier to configure. Some are starting to do so... but IMO, there's still room for improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
What would make it possible for someone to just download a trial version of a program and get up and running in minutes if the didn't have prior experience with DAWs?

Well, not really. But, if you had a good concept of analog mixing and good pc-skills, then you could grasp it quite quick.

 

There are many different concepts needed to be understood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As G-Sun suggests, there are a LOT of other difficult to understand and master aspects to recording than using a computer.

 

FWIW, I have one of the most tweaked-down, tightened-up XP systems I've run across -- a single core refurbed $400+ P4 (with the Hyperthread feature that simulates a second core under some circumstances but adds only a marginal amount of processing power and only for apps that know how to make use of it) -- but it had to be to keep up with the processing demands of modern DAWs -- and what we expect of them.

 

That said, with my new ($500) i5 with 8GB of RAM, I've yet to see it breathe hard. But, then, I'm not running 100+ track projects with a bazillion VI's and plugs.

 

Since it's clear that so very many in this field manifestly have more money than brains, the solution to the 'problem' seems relatively straightforward: just throw money at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
What would be fantastic is if Microsoft had a single button you could click on in Windows that automatically configured the OS with all the standard DAW tweaks' date=' and if interface manufacturers made their devices more n00b friendly and easier to configure. Some are starting to do so... but IMO, there's still room for improvements.[/quote']

:) My point was, those tweak-days are over.

 

Of course, latency, choice of driver and routing of audio-interface, still has to be understood.

Yet, it shouldn't be impossible to make some auto-config here, giving the user two buttons

#1 Real time monitoring (low latency)

#2 Full cpu power (high latency)

That could be easy accessible in the DAW-GUI

 

On a bigger level, it's the number of interfaces, manufacturers, driver-choices that makes auto-config it hard, especially in the pc-world. Mac having better chance, as they focus on keeping things limited and streamlined.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

This really IS rocket science. There's nothing simple about a DAW, the studio recording process, or setting up a computer to do more than what you can do with the pre-installed applications. Even someone who "knows about computers" will find himself at a loss when it comes to audio applications and peripheral hardware, much less the actual process of recording and mixing. They don't teach latency and buses and plug-ins in Be A Famous IT Consultant In Six Weeks school.

 

I could rant and rave for pages about this, but why not start the Cakewalk Academy where people can learn to use Cakewalk, but most important, learn to record. Given the vast number of people trying to record their music at home with inexpensive DAW programs and inexpensive hardware, I'll bet that while most of them understand that it starts at the microphone (and for many, ends with the ear buds) they don't have any idea of what goes in between - the signal flow, the hardware, the software, and the craft. You can't get a job cleaning toilets in a studio any more so there's little learning by observation.

 

You can write a quick start for a particular program. You can write a DAWs for Dummies book (I believe someone already has). But with little common language among DAWs and users starting out with no knowledge of the hardware that a DAW emulates, it's really hard to relate what you see on your computer screen to finished music.

 

My advice to everybody is to first start a band, then get a stereo recorder, and don't try to make your magnum opus for at least ten years. That's plenty of time to learn the fundamentals.

 

Read the quote from a very wise man that's in my signature:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

What I'm really starting to wonder is whether computer operating systems are just going to keep getting more complex, or whether something like Windows 9 will actually accomplish the goal Windows 8 was supposed to accomplish - provide an easy-to-understand interface that's scalable across mobile and desktop platforms.

 

I don't see how this will solve the real fundamental problem of knowing how to record and produce music. One thing that a better Windows could do for the recording musician is to incorporate something like the Apple Core Audio system. As a Windows-only user, I don't know all that this does, but I know one thing - that practically every audio interface that lays claim to Mac support can simply be plugged in and recognized by the operating system. This in turn allows it to be recognized by any software running under that operating system.

 

If Windows worked the same way, and (this is likely impossible both from a coding and a business standpoint) used the same software interface to audio devices as the Mac, there's be no more "Did you download the latest driver from our web site?" issues. The DAW would be aware of the hardware connected and would just use it.

 

I've joked with Cakewalk about making people fill out a questionnaire the first time they run Sonar ("Do you know what ASIO is?") and if they don't know the answer, it links to someplace that has the answer. But now I'm starting to think maybe that's such a crazy idea...

 

Did you leave out a "not" in that last sentence?

 

I don't think that a link explaining what ASIO is will help the novice user. What might help, though, is to go back a step and have the installer (the program that instals the program) guide the user through the process including the hardware installation, allowing him to skip steps that it can detect have already been completed, or that he says he knows about. For instance, if it sees only the built-in audio hardware, it could say something like: "I see from your credit card records that you purchased a Roland Octa-Capture from Musician's Friend last week. Would you like to use that, or will you be sticking with your computer's crummy sound card for now?" If the program detects that an ASIO driver has already been installed, it could guide the user to selecting that as the interface that Cakewalk uses.

 

Studio One has taken some steps in the right direction with initial setup and does something kind of like that. It's aware of PreSonus hardware and if it finds any, will set up the program for it. If it doesn't, when you first run the program it presents you with the audio hardware setup part of the menu without you having to know that it's there and find it. It also suggests some song templates that are simple enough so that the novice can recognize what will be helpful.

 

What would make it possible for someone to just download a trial version of a program and get up and running in minutes if the didn't have prior experience with DAWs?

 

You know, 25 years ago we used to be able to do that, and with Cakewalk, even.

 

It depends on what the user wanted to "try." There are two things that I want to find out when I try a piece of software. First, I want to make sure that it will run on my computer. Do I have the right operating system, a suitable CPU, enough memory? There used to be programs you could download and run before downloading the trial version (which might take you all night through your 2400 baud modem) that would survey your computer and tell you if it would run the program and what sort of performance you could expect with it running on your system. I guess people are afraid of things like that these days for fear that it might contain (or be) a virus that would destroy the computer or Tweet all your friends that you're trying Cakewalk.

 

Once I get past the knowledge that I can run the program with confidence on my system (or know what upgrades I'll need before it's worth fooling with), I want to see how it looks - whether I can relate to the user interface or does it look like a bunch of graphics I can't figure out. Are the knobs and buttons that I'll be using all the time - like RECORD, REWIND, and PLAY - easy to find? After I've recorded one track, how easy is it to add more tracks (one at a time, of course, since I'm all along with just my computer). Does the mixer look like the one we have in our church (I know how to use that)?

 

For the novice, there's no reason why a trial version couldn't restrict itself to just running with the computer's sound card, allow maybe a maximum of 8 tracks, and had just one or two effects so you could add reverb to your mix, and maybe a small library of virtual instruments. Show the full set of menus so the user could see what's available, but limit the choices to "novice level" functions.

 

Give the beginner something that ill reward him with just a little effort. If the program sets itself up to work with the available hardware and presents an 8-track song template with inputs and outputs configured to work with the sound card, that's when the real test begins. If he can record and overdub a few tracks in a few minutes, then it passes. Many people will be able to use just that capability for many months before they're ready to advance, and by then, they should have a clue.

 

Give 'em the "learner's permit" version, but make them take a "driver's test" before they can buy the full version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Mr. Anderton, I`m not sure if any manufacturer can write such an easy installation process because everyones system is so different. It`s a nice idea though… Granted there are certain basic assumptions we can for any DAW user but they are very general.

 

My only advice and this is coming from thinking about it for years now is to have a slew of brief video tutorials from manufacturer slowly walking users through the process. For example, Waves would have a video for DP users, another for PT users, etc…

 

I guess the biggest fault I find is that most manufacturers are writing too general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have to disagree a bit with the idea that we've grown up with computers and have a pretty good idea how to use them. My kids are both in college, and grew up with computers from day one; I'm 62 so didn't see a computer until well into adulthood. But my kids, and all over their friends except one gamer, know NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT COMPUTERS. They are taught NOTHING in school about the computer iteself, just how to use software. They haven't the slightest idea how to add a computer, set up a network connection or debug the simplest of problems. Since both my wife and I are (were) IT professionals, we're the default 'help desk'; despite that fact that we both work on mainframes or large scale unix systems, using PCs only as terminals or word processors, we still know far more than our kids. Which I find most distressing. They would have no idea what a low latency driver means, nor anything about ASIO. Nor do they want to. They've grown up with the computer being essentially a black box or appliance. Which unfortunately, it is not. Personally, I think it's distressing that in the year 2014 a home computer is not an appliance, it certainly should be by now. But it's not. I believe this to be a shortcoming of the education kids are given, not their ability to understand. But until PCs and by extention DAWS can become an appliance, the learning curve and frustrations will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Totally agreed, sailorman!

 

I've been remarking on this phenom since the late 90s. It usually takes the form of someone who is my age or (now) somewhat younger who is, himself, a basic computer user (he can turn it on, find his word processor and email, use the software are work) going on about his child or nephew/niece/next door neighbor kid who is 'a computer genius' -- but on the occasions I end up talking to these baby geniuses, it almost always turns out they have a profoundly deep knowledge of the latest computer games and social media buzz but, though unafraid to poke around the upper layers of things, are themselves nearly as clueless as the old-folks when it comes to know what's actually going on behind the pretty, pretty GUI.

 

__________________

 

 

But, of course, looping back around, even if these devices were even more appliance-like than they are -- and they are many, many quanta better at being appliances capable of audio work than when I put together my first 8 channel DAW at the end of '96 -- there is, nonetheless, still all that recording and audio science stuff for the little darlings to master. Or not.

 

When I was studying recording in the early 80s, I think we did a week on digital. It was all pretty abstract, the first commercial CD's came out when I was wrapping up the main part of my studies at one school.

 

The rest of the two year program was all the OTHER stuff that's not digital -- all stuff that is STILL entirely pertinent -- perhaps with the arguable exception of analog tape recording, but there, again, with the resurgence in interest in 'traditional methods' -- as long as they don't interfere too much with drum replacement and vocal tuning, of course -- we've seen an enormous increase in interest in analog tape.

 

Of course, experienced observers probably understand that the GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and gear lust we often see seems frequently driven by people who find it easier to spend money searching for some 'holy grail' that will suddenly make all their recordings finally sound just as they knew they could all along than to buckle down and improve their studio craft (and perhaps the talent of those they record).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One thing I saw earlier, a little seeming grass-is-greener envy directed by a Win-user toward the other side of the OS fence...

 

... from my not inextensive reading at a certain recording oriented site with a heavy concentration of Mac users I can assure him that it is trading one set of problems for a quite different set.

 

Macs may be more uniform and tightly controlled -- but that is a) no panacea for hardware and software issues and b) forces one to deal with a tightly 'enforced' planned obsolescence regimen that tends to force a new base machine on professional users every 3-4 years unless they 'lock down' their machine and refuse to upgrade the OS, as well as being extremely cautious with regard to committing to new software and hardware (which often require one of the latest versions of OS X). I see this over and over in the computer forums at that site -- and it has definitely generated a lot of antipathy toward the parent company -- as well as to vendors which find it economically unfeasible to give backward support to products otherwise orphaned by OS updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I have to disagree a bit with the idea that we've grown up with computers and have a pretty good idea how to use them. My kids are both in college' date=' and grew up with computers from day one; I'm 62 so didn't see a computer until well into adulthood. But my kids, and all over their friends except one gamer, know NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT COMPUTERS. They are taught NOTHING in school about the computer iteself, just how to use software. They haven't the slightest idea how to add a computer, set up a network connection or debug the simplest of problems. Since both my wife and I are (were) IT professionals, we're the default 'help desk'; despite that fact that we both work on mainframes or large scale unix systems, using PCs only as terminals or word processors, we still know far more than our kids. Which I find most distressing. They would have no idea what a low latency driver means, nor anything about ASIO. Nor do they want to. They've grown up with the computer being essentially a black box or appliance. Which unfortunately, it is not. Personally, I think it's distressing that in the year 2014 a home computer is not an appliance, it certainly should be by now. But it's not. I believe this to be a shortcoming of the education kids are given, not their ability to understand. But until PCs and by extention DAWS can become an appliance, the learning curve and frustrations will continue.[/quote']

 

I completely agree with you. I think Craig lives in a bubble like all of us but his is much more technology centric so he assumes most users have basic computer skills. I was going to mention in the previous post how I have used computer for music production since 1992 and guess what, I know next to nothing about them still. Granted, I can set up a printer, get myself online, download/upload, etc… but when it comes to installing software and cards, thats starting to get a little uncomfortable for me. I`m not a complete idiot, for the most part I can download software/drivers and start working with it soon enough but there are those times (i.e. when I`m updating my Waves plugs) that I have to call Waves and literally have them walk me through the entire process. I think the last time I downloaded a new plug I actually got lucky and was able to do it without making the call but I bet you that Waves did something on their end to lower phone calls from users such as myself.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm imagining a bit of software that works like this:

 

1 - you install, the first screen is a flowchart, showing you the steps you need to go through to get from a raw software install to full hookup with your particular system. The flowchart shows you what you've done, what you haven't - kind of like Khan Academy if you've seen that. Wizards could do a ton of this, with options to contact Support when stuck.

 

I recall, I think it was Logic (one version I used eons ago) that gave you a diagrammatic picture of all the devices connected at startup. That was nice - if for some reason my MIDI keyboard went dark, I'd know to solve that before getting any further.

 

2 - once the basic install is done, the software loads up with a query "what do you want to do today?" sort of Wizard. Choices could be "Record", "Mix", "Master", "Install VST", and so on. Once you pick the basic task, it further breaks down. So, imagining I've picked "Record":

 

the Wizard "remembers" what I've recorded before, and shows me a list:

 

electric guitar

VST electric piano

acoustic drums

choir

solo voice

shakers

 

 

I pick one, and either duplicate a prior setup to record, tweak a prior setup, or start a new source/instrument.

 

This is just a basic idea, but you see where I'm going. The screenshots are customized to the very specific task at hand. Yeah, with Sonar you can of course do all this yourself with templates and the Wizards that already exist, but most modern DAWs are so wide open and endlessly and distractingly tweakable, the software accommodates time-wasting, unfocused tinkering/meandering, and positively hinder focused, step-by-step progress towards defined goals.

 

Of course there's a mode of music-making where random messing in screens where anything and everything is available results in new ideas and sounds and so on. So make that mode available, too.

 

But I think most people would be very well-served by having the software help with flowcharting the setup, and also the recording, mixing, and mastering processes - with a ton of Wizards. For example, the Sonar "create a new bus" Wizard is a great example of a Wizard that really works and cuts through the complexities and endless possibilities and helps a newbie just create a bus and route stuff to it in very short order.

 

3 - a quick example for clarity

 

DAW says "what do you want to do?"

I say Record electric guitar

DAW gives me a list of prior setups I've used to pick one or create a new one from scratch.

I pick one - Strat mono recorded with SM57 input into QuadCapture 1L input.

DAW says "record into a new song, or into a song in progress?"

I say "one in progress"

DAW gives me a list, I pick one.

DAW opens the song, gives me a list of existing guitar tracks.

DAW asks "work in existing track or new track?"

I say "new track"

DAW shows the track, any FX that is already part of this Strat setup, and a diagram of my entire electric guitar signal path, with meters at input and output.

DAW asks "what measure to start playback?" "what measure to start recording?" "what measure to stop recording?" "what measure to stop playback?"

DAW counts down, I play, I stop.

 

DAW at this point could ask "keep?" "redo?" "overdub?" and so on. Key commands could quickly get me through all the step by step once I have it down to an unconscious drill.

 

Cause the process of recording electric guitar is 90% the same for everyone. The DAW can anticipate that. And also help newbies develop good basic habits, fully realized setups, and so on.

 

DAWs could also incorporate any number of backing tracks for just booting up, plugging in, picking a backing track from a list and jamming along zip zap. Shoot - DAWs could incorporate guitar lessons too, and record the student's playing and analyze it for timing and tuning and so on.....

 

People tend to work in pretty standard ways - adjust the software to the natural ways people work instead of adjusting the people so they have to personally customize the software. Then the software can change and be updated, but the way people work can stay basically the same. Of course, all the personal customization is available on demand, but the "smart flowchart", the workflow, is the spine of the whole thing.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

Well, not really. But, if you had a good concept of analog mixing and good pc-skills, then you could grasp it quite quick.

 

This is the biggest part of the problem. Too many people to fumble their way through a really advanced technology without knowing the fundamentals. There are recording technology programs that have figured that out and start out the students with an analog console. Although a "signal" is something different inside a computer than it is when flowing through wires, faders, and amplifiers, understanding the latter makes the former come naturally. Starting with a computer offers nothing physical to look at and think through when it isn't doing what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I'm imagining a bit of software that works like this:

 

1 - you install, the first screen is a flowchart, showing you the steps you need to go through to get from a raw software install to full hookup with your particular system. The flowchart shows you what you've done, what you haven't - kind of like Khan Academy if you've seen that. Wizards could do a ton of this, with options to contact Support when stuck.

 

I recall, I think it was Logic (one version I used eons ago) that gave you a diagrammatic picture of all the devices connected at startup. That was nice - if for some reason my MIDI keyboard went dark, I'd know to solve that before getting any further.

 

2 - once the basic install is done, the software loads up with a query "what do you want to do today?" sort of Wizard. Choices could be "Record", "Mix", "Master", "Install VST", and so on. Once you pick the basic task, it further breaks down. So, imagining I've picked "Record":

 

the Wizard "remembers" what I've recorded before, and shows me a list:

 

electric guitar

VST electric piano

acoustic drums

choir

solo voice

shakers

 

I pick one, and either duplicate a prior setup to record, tweak a prior setup, or start a new source/instrument.

 

This is just a basic idea, but you see where I'm going. The screenshots are customized to the very specific task at hand. Yeah, with Sonar you can of course do all this yourself with templates and the Wizards that already exist, but most modern DAWs are so wide open and endlessly and distractingly tweakable, the software accommodates time-wasting, unfocused tinkering/meandering, and positively hinder focused, step-by-step progress towards defined goals.

 

Of course there's a mode of music-making where random messing in screens where anything and everything is available results in new ideas and sounds and so on. So make that mode available, too.

 

But I think most people would be very well-served by having the software help with flowcharting the setup, and also the recording, mixing, and mastering processes - with a ton of Wizards. For example, the Sonar "create a new bus" Wizard is a great example of a Wizard that really works and cuts through the complexities and endless possibilities and helps a newbie just create a bus and route stuff to it in very short order.

 

3 - a quick example for clarity

 

DAW says "what do you want to do?"

I say Record electric guitar

DAW gives me a list of prior setups I've used to pick one or create a new one from scratch.

I pick one - Strat mono recorded with SM57 input into QuadCapture 1L input.

DAW says "record into a new song, or into a song in progress?"

I say "one in progress"

DAW gives me a list, I pick one.

DAW opens the song, gives me a list of existing guitar tracks.

DAW asks "work in existing track or new track?"

I say "new track"

DAW shows the track, any FX that is already part of this Strat setup, and a diagram of my entire electric guitar signal path, with meters at input and output.

DAW asks "what measure to start playback?" "what measure to start recording?" "what measure to stop recording?" "what measure to stop playback?"

DAW counts down, I play, I stop.

 

DAW at this point could ask "keep?" "redo?" "overdub?" and so on. Key commands could quickly get me through all the step by step once I have it down to an unconscious drill.

 

Cause the process of recording electric guitar is 90% the same for everyone. The DAW can anticipate that. And also help newbies develop good basic habits, fully realized setups, and so on.

 

DAWs could also incorporate any number of backing tracks for just booting up, plugging in, picking a backing track from a list and jamming along zip zap. Shoot - DAWs could incorporate guitar lessons too, and record the student's playing and analyze it for timing and tuning and so on.....

 

People tend to work in pretty standard ways - adjust the software to the natural ways people work instead of adjusting the people so they have to personally customize the software. Then the software can change and be updated, but the way people work can stay basically the same. Of course, all the personal customization is available on demand, but the "smart flowchart", the workflow, is the spine of the whole thing.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

Damn, that sounds like the most annoying interface ever. biggrin.gifRobo-concierge.

 

It reads like voice menu script prompts... LOL

 

 

HOWEVER... a voice menu/VR system would be a help to the less-than-literate masses out there. That said, that's why God invented video, right? Ever notice how very many video 'tutorials' there are on YT for stuff that would be much faster and easier to just communicate by written word -- if, of course, the audience could read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
Since both my wife and I are (were) IT professionals' date=' we're the default 'help desk'; despite that fact that we both work on mainframes or large scale unix systems, using PCs only as terminals or word processors, we still know far more than our kids. Which I find most distressing. They would have no idea what a low latency driver means, nor anything about ASIO. Nor do they want to. They've grown up with the computer being essentially a black box or appliance. [/quote']

The engineer in me agrees with you, but there's another side to the story. Computers aren't designed for musical applications and hardware. The manufacturers have to beat them into submission. I didn't know anything about setting up a network when I got a second computer, but I managed to fumble my way through the Windows network setup procedure without reading a manual - which was a good thing because there really isn't one. And I still don't know how to troubleshoot some network problems - like occasionally when I try to send a file from Computer #1 to Computer #2 it won't let me, but I can go to Computer #2 and get the same file from Computer #1. Once I had an IT Professional friend come over and try to figure it out and he couldn't. I live with it.

 

But on the other hand, you shouldn't have to know about ASIO drivers, and for the most part, you don't. The hardware manufacturer gives you a disk or a URL from which to download the driver, you install it, and then you have an ASIO driver available to programs that can use it, as well as a Windows WDM driver for programs that don't use ASIO. The only trick is to get your DAW to use the ASIO driver, but most of them are now smart enough to recognize that one is installed and suggest it. The people who have problems with that are those who don't read the manual for their new interface and just plug it in without installing the driver. Windows will go through the motions, usually asking if you have a disk with a driver. If you ignore that, though, you have a mess. Perhaps that's what kids these days don't understand.

.

But the stuff that "normal people" do like connect a printer or connect to the Internet pretty much just works. It's because Microsoft made it clear to the manufacturers of those peripherals what they could, and would support, and the manufacturers were willing and able to make something that plugs into the slot that Microsoft provided. But when it comes to audio hardware, Microsoft never went beyond WDM and class-compliant USB with no regard to latency and certain limits to the number of I/O streams, sample rates, and word length.

 

This is something that Apple seems to have been able to accomplish with Core Audio. It's the rare audio hardware manufacturer who think they can write a better driver than Apples, and do so. But that tends to be hardware that's aimed toward the professional user who either has the experience to use it properly or has an expert on call who does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author
One thing I saw earlier, a little seeming grass-is-greener envy directed by a Win-user toward the other side of the OS fence...

 

Macs may be more uniform and tightly controlled -- but that is a) no panacea for hardware and software issues and b) forces one to deal with a tightly 'enforced' planned obsolescence regimen that tends to force a new base machine on professional users every 3-4 years unless they 'lock down' their machine and refuse to upgrade the OS, as well as being extremely cautious with regard to committing to new software and hardware (which often require one of the latest versions of OS X).

 

Obsolescence is a problem with any system where hardware and software must coexist. It's a matter of economy. Manufacturers make what they can sell, and are reluctant to support customers who spent money with them ten years ago and now want a free update. I'd pay $100 for a Windows 7 driver update for my Mackie 1200F but that's not enough. I'd have to pay about $10,000, because Mackie just didn't sell enough of them to warrant the cost to write a new driver. So I have to keep an XP computer around to run it, but then that precludes me using it with Pro Tools 10.

 

On the other side, I hear from Mac users that their computer won't support the next MacOS version, so either they need to give up some software that they're running now or keep that computer running, with no more OS updates.

 

I didn't have problems like that when I was using my Soundcraft 600 console (I still am) with an Ampex MM-1100 recorder (which I unloaded at the right time to the right customer). But when my Mackie HDR24/96 dies, I'll probably have to take a big step backward and move to a DAW as my primary recording system rather than one that I just mess around with now and then when I have an opportunity to try new stuff.

 

I don't like it, you don't like it, a lot of people don't like it. But lots of people are ready to shell out for a new computer and are perfectly happy if they can transfer their e-mail lists and web site bookmarks to the new one. It's got a sound card pre-installed so they can still listen to music, and when they plug in their printer, after answering a few questions like "what make and model is it?" it'll get installed and work properly.

 

We're just a little thorn in the side and we don't want to spend enough money to really have a well supported system from a set of manufacturers who have to keep selling new stuff in order to stay afloat, and they have to sell it cheaply enough to sell enough to make money, and there isn't enough money left to support it a few years out.

 

If it cost $25,000 to set up a recording workstation, we might not have this problem. But think of all the fabulous music we wouldn't get to hear (along with all the crummy music that we wouldn't get to hear).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Cakewalk could include a "Quick Start Walk Thru" for the novice where he or she is fed direction then has to follow direction step after step from start to finish of a simple project. Something that leads and requires the customer to participate. To Cakewalks credit their programs are easy once you have a basic framework going.

 

 

You'll be pleased to know that Cakewalk has collaborated with Discmakers to put a tutorial online about mixing with the ProChannel, accompanied by a downloadable trial version of Sonar AND a project you can mix. I wrote the tutorial, and the project is Mark's "Black Market Daydreams" but with the tracks simplified somewhat (e.g., bounced so there aren't lots of little fragments) to make for a smoother experience. If this goes over well, there will be more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...