The DAW Divide

[nat whilk II]

 

Damn, that sounds like the most annoying interface ever. Robo-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?

 

Ha, yes, you are right that a voice interface could be very annoying.

 

Actually I did not mean a literal audio voice interface - but I failed to make it clear I was only using the words "the computer 'says'" as a metaphorical stand-in for "the computer somehow presents you with a set of simple choices" - however accomplished - menus or a clickable flow-chart or, ok, I suppose an actual audible "guide" (geared to the newbiest of newbies I would think) - I'd go for a flowchart presentation, myself.

 

The more I think about it, a clickable flowchart that you could notate would help someone like me tremendously, as I always have about two dozen incomplete projects going and I totally lose track of where I'm at if I haven't had my nose in the project in the very near-term.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

 

[MikeRivers]

 

 

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.

 

Ack! Not another video tutorial! Why don't you just write a book? Or even a lesson plan with references to the manual? A book can be interactive. A video, not so much so unless you have a really fast computer and a fast finger on the mouse.

 

[papaschtroumpf]

I work with computers, I build my own, I run a mix of Linux and PCs at home. I recently got back into playing guitar so I would have a non-computer related hobby (I played a lot of video games a few years back). The last thing I want is slave over a computer to make music. My amp (fendet mustang) came with Abelton Live so I gave it a try. It turns out the ASIO driver prevents me from playing music out of the computer (for example if I want to record while playing along with a backing track without recording that track). Maybe I can import it into the DAW and maybe I can't but as far as I'm concern it's a big fail for the DAW. I was told others have the same problem. Whoever fixes those basic issues with usability will win. Forget about all those fancy features, because I didn't pass step one. After spending 2 hours trying to record my 1st track (and succeeding) I decided I'd rather play guitar. I'm sure I can figure it out, but I shouldn't have to.

[Anderton]

 

Ack! Not another video tutorial! Why don't you just write a book? Or even a lesson plan with references to the manual? A book can be interactive. A video, not so much so unless you have a really fast computer and a fast finger on the mouse.

 

It's not a video tutorial. It's a downloadable PDF with a downloadable project and trial version of Sonar.

[WRGKMC]

It turns out the ASIO driver prevents me from playing music out of the computer (for example if I want to record while playing along with a backing track without recording that track). Maybe I can import it into the DAW and maybe I can't but as far as I'm concern it's a big fail for the DAW. I was told others have the same problem. Whoever fixes those basic issues with usability will win. Forget about all those fancy features' date=' because I didn't pass step one. After spending 2 hours trying to record my 1st track (and succeeding) I decided I'd rather play guitar. I'm sure I can figure it out, but I shouldn't have to.[/quote']

 

I think you summed up the entire topic in a nutshell with your statement. If you cant get past the basics in setting up a DAW, then the challenges you meet Tracking, Mixing and Mastering properly will likely be unobtainable as well. Setting a PC can have its challenges but its small potatoes in comparison to actually making worthwhile recordings.

 

This brings me down to the fact that you can be really good at something like playing an instrument, but that doesn't mean its knowledge that's transferrable to another trade. Its would be like a Carpenter spending a good deal of time around an electrician or Plumber. He may pick up some basics and having watched them at work think the job is very simple. That is until he is actually asked to do the work. Then the reality kicks in that he really doesn't know squat about that trade. An electrician at work may have hundreds of things going on inside his mind where he's thinking ahead or relating the current job to others he's done and much of the job is all in the planning and looking at the big picture. The actual physical aspect may very well be the simplest part of the job.

 

Musicians for sure have large egos and oversimplify things without even realizing it. In The case of Papa here, he says he gave up after two hours. He may not realize, recording is an entire trade built upon a hundred years of technology. He may have spend 5 years 5 hours a day learning his instrument, and gave up recording with a computer after 2 hours.

 

There's nothing wrong with that of course. Most people are lucky to be great at one trade. Stretching that to two is extremely rare and one usually takes back seat to the other. There is nothing wrong with focusing on being a musician first then just paying to have someone record you when the need arises. I'd say a good 95% of the musicians I've worked with over my lifetime are not only technically challenged with computers but they are also technically challenged having anything to do with recording.

 

DAW's are relatively new. Most do require a good deal of technical skill to install and run. Nothing is going to change that very quickly. I don't think the DAW program and Interface driver installation is nearly as complex as using what's inside the DAW program. Scaling the programs to different musicians needs is a big part of this. Realistically, you could strip 90% of what's in a DAW and leave a basic record and playback button with some volume controls is about all many can handle. The problem is it would be unlikely the recordings would surpass lower end demo quality without those additional functions.

 

It all comes down to this though. Those who have a passion to be the best they can be will find a way to succeed. Its no different then being a good musician or any other trade. If you have an average IQ there should be no problem learning to use the programs and succeeding at making good recordings. I just don't think many people have the desire to be really great at anything. I been in what 50 bands over a lifetime and most failed because people got discouraged and gave up. They may not have realized how much work was involved in being a success or felt it was beyond them when they did and just gave up.

 

Like I said, I don't blame them. I realize what may be fun for one person is pure torture to another. You don't have to be technically skilled in computers or recording to be a great musician and those who do become great can usually enlist others to do the work they don't do well just like they'd hire a guitar tech, sound man, roadie etc. Its good that they do because the guys who are deep into recording will be able to profit by them not knowing.

[blue2blue]

 

Ha, yes, you are right that a voice interface could be very annoying.

 

Actually I did not mean a literal audio voice interface - but I failed to make it clear I was only using the words "the computer 'says'" as a metaphorical stand-in for "the computer somehow presents you with a set of simple choices" - however accomplished - menus or a clickable flow-chart or, ok, I suppose an actual audible "guide" (geared to the newbiest of newbies I would think) - I'd go for a flowchart presentation, myself.

 

The more I think about it, a clickable flowchart that you could notate would help someone like me tremendously, as I always have about two dozen incomplete projects going and I totally lose track of where I'm at if I haven't had my nose in the project in the very near-term.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

Ah... I admit, using a tablet for some of my media consumption has produced a huge amount of cynicism in me with regard to the next wave of user interface design...

 

That said, it looks like the brainiacs in Redmond have finally figured out what a nightmare they foisted on people with the fish-cum-fowl-come-horrible-mutant of Windows 8, changing tack with a rush to bring out a Windows 9 which will reportedly feature a 'real' start menu button on the desktop and much better presentation of 'old-fashioned' mouse and keyboard-centric applications.* (And they tell us that even Win 8.1 is much better, though most folks won't seem to upgrade http://www.informationweek.com/softw...d/d-id/1278961 )

 

*And, let me tell you, as far as doing any real work (other than checking boxes and the like on tablet-oriented data entry forms for warehouse and delivery work), I can't see many people leaving the keyboard and mouse behind. I suppose for those who never learned to type, voice recognition might actually be a worthwhile tradeoff -- if those same folks actually have the ability to proofread what the robot thinks they said. But that is clearly not always the case, maybe not even often.

[monstermaker]

Ah... I admit, using a tablet for some of my media consumption has produced a huge amount of cynicism in me with regard to the next wave of user interface design...

 

That said, it looks like the brainiacs in Redmond have finally figured out what a nightmare they foisted on people with the fish-cum-fowl-come-horrible-mutant of Windows 8, changing tack with a rush to bring out a Windows 9 which will reportedly feature a 'real' start menu button on the desktop and much better presentation of 'old-fashioned' mouse and keyboard-centric applications.* (And they tell us that even Win 8.1 is much better, though most folks won't seem to upgrade http://www.informationweek.com/softw...d/d-id/1278961 )

 

*And, let me tell you, as far as doing any real work (other than checking boxes and the like on tablet-oriented data entry forms for warehouse and delivery work), I can't see many people leaving the keyboard and mouse behind. I suppose for those who never learned to type, voice recognition might actually be a worthwhile tradeoff -- if those same folks actually have the ability to proofread what the robot thinks they said. But that is clearly not always the case, maybe not even often.

 

 

The more things get better, the more things stay the same.

[blue2blue]

 

 

The more things get better, the more things stay the same.

That's why I rushed out and bought a Win 7 machine when I saw a Dell add stating something like, We still have a few Windows 7 machines left!

 

The price was really right and, even if my sense that there would never be a major desktop OS as lean and mean as Win XP was confirmed by the huge memory footprint of W7 vis a vis XP, and many UI operations are no faster on a machine with four times the cores and four times the memory as my XP machine, the raw number-crunching comes through fine. So, overall experience is similar, but for raw processing, it does come through.

 

(But some things -- like file searchers are slower, even with all indexing turned on, that I can't figure out to save my life. Ludicrously slow searches even over a relatively small number and size of folders, file count an size-wise. Definitely disappointing performance on that front!)

[WRGKMC]

That's why I rushed out and bought a Win 7 machine when I saw a Dell add stating something like, We still have a few Windows 7 machines left!

 

The price was really right and, even if my sense that there would never be a major desktop OS as lean and mean as Win XP was confirmed by the huge memory footprint of W7 vis a vis XP, and many UI operations are no faster on a machine with four times the cores and four times the memory as my XP machine, the raw number-crunching comes through fine. So, overall experience is similar, but for raw processing, it does come through.

 

(But some things -- like file searchers are slower, even with all indexing turned on, that I can't figure out to save my life. Ludicrously slow searches even over a relatively small number and size of folders, file count an size-wise. Definitely disappointing performance on that front!)

 

How long have you had the win 7 box Blue? One thing I did notice when I switched over to win 7 is that it improved with time. I6t took me a little digging to find it again but here's something called prefetch that can be tweaked.

 

~Configuring the Prefetcher

Prefetching is a Windows 7 performance feature that analyzes disk usage and then reads

into memory the data that you or your system accesses most frequently. The prefetcher

can speed up booting, application launching, or both. You configure the prefetcher using

the following Registry setting (open the Registry Editor by selecting Start, typing regedit,

and then pressing Enter; see Chapter 12, “Tweaking the Windows 7 Registry,” for more

information):

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\Memory Management\

➥PrefetchParameters\EnablePrefetcher

There’s also a SuperFetch setting:

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\Memory Management\

➥PrefetchParameters\EnableSuperfetch

In both cases, set the value to 1 for application-only fetching, 2 for boot-only fetching, or

3 for both application and boot fetching (this is the default for both settings). You can try

experimenting with boot-only fetching to see whether it improves your startup times.

 

The more programs you run at startup, the more your startup performance should improve with boot-only fetching.

 

Theres more here. http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/searchSystemsChannel/downloads/Tuning_Windows_7s_performance_CH06.pdf

[dboomer]

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

 

DAW says "what do you want to do?"

 

 

So it sounds like what you are really expecting to get is a producer and an engineer, not a DAW

 

i don't know why I always come back to car analogies (but I do).

So should the owner's manual of a car show you how to shift the gears and when to change the oil or should it also be responsible for teaching you to drive?

 

[MikeRivers]

 

i don't know why I always come back to car analogies (but I do).

So should the owner's manual of a car show you how to shift the gears and when to change the oil or should it also be responsible for teaching you to drive?

 

Manufacturers of audio equipment, including your own company, I'm sure, have agonized over this for at least the last 20 years. You're in essence putting someone in the driver's seat who doesn't know how to shift gears or make a turn safely. Mackie went a pretty long way toward providing their customers with documentation that at least got them going in the right direction.

 

I wouldn't expect the manual for an effect pedal to tell you how to finger an E chord, but a meaningful explanation of what the effects sound like and how the knobs affect the sound would be helpful. But like driving a car, you best learn how to track and mix by having someone show you what to do and then doing it yourself.

 

One of the problems with DAWs is that in any given program, there are many things that can be accomplished in more than one way. Someone might be suggesting that you try something and you have no idea what they're talking about because you learned to do it differently. This is, apparently a feature so you can make it work the way you want it to work.But it's only a feature for experienced users.

[nat whilk II]

I just don't think many people have the desire to be really great at anything. I been in what 50 bands over a lifetime and most failed because people got discouraged and gave up. They may not have realized how much work was involved in being a success or felt it was beyond them when they did and just gave up.

 

I agree with this. But I have to say, you don't have to be great at anything to create decent popular music. You just have to be good enough for what's being attempted.

 

Most DAW users have to be hobbyists cause the user base would not be big enough to support the industry if DAWs were only for experts. But the software is truly written to facilitate expertise (not create expertise.) At the same time, the software is by necessity marketed to amateurs. So yes, this situation is programmed to fail a lot of the time, except for the most determined users who are willing to suffer the stress of lumbering and muddling up the learning curve.

 

All this boils down to is that there is a need for entry-level music production software that smooths the experience for newbies. But most people fall for the old "I want the BEST software, nothing else!" attitude. How many times have I heard people who know next to nothing about DAWs say, "I want our stuff to be recorded on Pro Tools 'cause I hear it's the best software." I do it too - I cringe at the LE version of just about anything by reflex. And all the articles and talking heads spread the gospel of contempt for anything but what they think is the "best".

 

It's a puzzle for the DAW companies. The newbies who balk at all the technicalities have a point, but all they can really ask is for a few less technicalities to deal with in the process of getting started. From there on, it's no use griping about technicalities, 'cause that's what expertise means, being thoroughly schooled and experienced in dealing with some defined universe of technicalities.

 

nat whilk ii

[MikeRivers]

 

I agree with this. But I have to say, you don't have to be great at anything to create decent popular music. You just have to be good enough for what's being attempted.

 

That's fine as long as you have reasonable expectations and don't get bitter because you aren't making money or getting (and staying) famous. In order to make a living with music, you have to be great at more things than creating music, or you you need to be able to hire "people" to do those other things for you so you can devote your time and talent to creating music. One of those things could be "professional" recording. You can develop your ideas on a simple hardware recorder/mixer that's designed for easy use.

 

All this boils down to is that there is a need for entry-level music production software that smooths the experience for newbies. But most people fall for the old "I want the BEST software, nothing else!" attitude. How many times have I heard people who know next to nothing about DAWs say, "I want our stuff to be recorded on Pro Tools 'cause I hear it's the best software."

 

There have been quite a number of entry-level music programs introduced over the years and the usual cycle is that either nobody buys it and the company goes out of business, or the program has some moderate success, so they pile on more features and continue to sell it for the same price (or cheaper). Does anyone use Garage Band or Band In A Box any more? Maybe for starting a project, but rarely for finishing one.

 

It's a puzzle for the DAW companies. The newbies who balk at all the technicalities have a point, but all they can really ask is for a few less technicalities to deal with in the process of getting started.

 

The thing is that once the big bells and whistles have been developed, it doesn't save the software seller any money to leave out features, so they don't. This is why I think that the user interface should be easily configurable and not demeaning. Nobody wants to admit that they're a beginner so they need the version with training wheels, even if they do. Many programs allow you to hide features and functions so the menus will show only what you use all the time, but they always start with the full menus. You, the novice user who doesn't have a clue as to what "export" or "instance" or "auxiliary bus" means, has to ask "Do I need this? What the heck is it anyway? How am I supposed to know? I'd better leave it there."

 

 

 

[WRGKMC]

In a way, a DAW program is nothing but an empty room full of gear. A studio with no players, no music and no engineers. It remains padlocked until its installed on a computer. Opening that padlock (which many have a problem wit) opens door so you can look around. From there you have to know not only know what the gear is but why and how its used in a studio. A typical musician should know some basics from his own musical experience. Learning to track an instrument and get it to play back may not be too hard, but what about all this other gear that fills the studio?

 

For some learning how all that other stuff can be fun as hell. To others it can be like learning to speak a foreign language or communicate with Einstein on one of his theories. They have no desire to spend years learning how to use what's within that studio. They just desire the action and the recognition of having a recording they can impress others with. They have no concept other then what they've seen in Hollywood on what goes on inside that studio to get a good recording. They only know this is the stepping stone that gets them from point A to point B.

 

DAW manufacturers have no problem selling their products to pros. They also know their products aren't toys for beginners yet you see them being sold everyplace. The big kicker here is the profession has always kept a closed door to the general public. Some of that is necessity and some of it is the people in back of those doors may be great at making recorded music sound good but lack the skills for tutoring others. You have some exceptions of course. The owner of the studio will obviously want to maintain the Hollywood illusion to protect their business and maintain prices. It may also be to protect the secrets of how they make successful recordings. It wouldn't be wise to reveal how a recording company hires mostly minimum wage workers that have their talent and hard work used to make the company huge profits.

 

Today, the cost of software has never been lower but that's not the issue. Neither has the gear you may use because it too has become very inexpensive and easily obtainable. The thing that cant be marketed is the experience of the engineer that uses the software and gear any more then you can market the talent of a musician. About the best you can do is produce self paced training videos that walk the beginners through the steps and train them to use the gear and software creatively and efficiently.

 

From there the individual needs to be inspired to take the skills he develops to the next level. The problem is that next level isn't very inspiring once they get to see what is really behind that closed door. You can have the best recording even made in your hand and it goes no place without the ability to market it. That's the real problem with the industry. Why should some beginner spend years learning to record his music well if there's no market to sell it? He's better off playing live for a living and having a CD made which he can sell himself to his fans.

[blue2blue]

 

How long have you had the win 7 box Blue? One thing I did notice when I switched over to win 7 is that it improved with time. I6t took me a little digging to find it again but here's something called prefetch that can be tweaked.

 

~Configuring the Prefetcher

Prefetching is a Windows 7 performance feature that analyzes disk usage and then reads

into memory the data that you or your system accesses most frequently. The prefetcher

can speed up booting, application launching, or both. You configure the prefetcher using

the following Registry setting (open the Registry Editor by selecting Start, typing regedit,

and then pressing Enter; see Chapter 12, “Tweaking the Windows 7 Registry,” for more

information):

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManag er\Memory Management\

➥PrefetchParameters\EnablePrefetcher

There’s also a SuperFetch setting:

HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManag er\Memory Management\

➥PrefetchParameters\EnableSuperfetch

In both cases, set the value to 1 for application-only fetching, 2 for boot-only fetching, or

3 for both application and boot fetching (this is the default for both settings). You can try

experimenting with boot-only fetching to see whether it improves your startup times.

 

The more programs you run at startup, the more your startup performance should improve with boot-only fetching.

 

Theres more here. http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/searchSyste...mance_CH06.pdf

That's interesting -- and my (presumed) default settings may account for the (much larger than XP) boot footprint in Win 7.

 

I mean, Win 7 takes more memory on load than most of my XP sessions used even with Vegas or Sonar open and chugging along.

 

That said, I've been taking a wait-and-see attitude on the memory thing. But the slow processing on well-bounded searches (I mean, my lyrics folder -- why should it take the better part of a minute to search a couple hundred MB for a file name? That freaks me out. (And is really annoying.)

[blue2blue]

With regard to dark side/light side issues* -- I think a lot of times this is grass-is-greener stuff (as I may have noted earlier). I see a fair number of threads like this in my peregrinations around the web. (And yes, that is a 2048 sample buffer on his $5K MP he says he has to use to avoid problems!)

 

* Point of clarification to those unclear on terminology, 'dark side' is old Mac user talk for the 'dark' (low-gamma) screens of standard Windows setups. It's kind of a term of art.

[MikeRivers]

A typical musician should know some basics from his own musical experience. Learning to track an instrument and get it to play back may not be too hard' date=' but what about all this other gear that fills the studio?[/quote']

 

I dunno about how much a "typical musician" can do with this stuff. I think I'm a little more knowledgeable about the basics of recording gear and software than the typical musician, but I just got a Prism Sound Lyra to play with, and spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why I could hear the DAW playback from the line outputs but not from the headphones. There's a button on there that isn't obvious, nor is it intuitive so if I, for some reason, change that setting, I'll probably have to spend another 20 minutes finding it again. The manual hints at it, but doesn't have a big arrow pointing to it that says "CLICK HERE IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE DAW PLAYBACK IN THE PHONES" (and why wouldn't you?)

 

For some learning how all that other stuff can be fun as hell. To others it can be like learning to speak a foreign language or communicate with Einstein on one of his theories. They have no desire to spend years learning how to use what's within that studio.

 

Isn't that the real point of this whole discussion? How can we make it easier for the musician who finds that he must be a recording engineer, too. Rather than learning a foreign language, it's more like "Hey? Which language do I have to learn first before I can figure this thing out?"

 

Anybody who wants to come over and pay me to tutor them (I'll make house calls, too) is welcome to do that, but, no, they'd rather learn it from a video or ask questions on a forum. $500 for a recording setup is all they have. They don't have (or don't want to spend) another $500 to learn how to get their $500 worth out of it. The usual answer I get when I make an offer to someone is along the line of "Well, for that I can buy another mic/program/preamp/plug-in."

 

Kind of like: "What? Spend money on a CD when I can find any song I want to listen to on YouTube?"

 

The owner of the studio will obviously want to maintain the Hollywood illusion to protect their business and maintain prices. It may also be to protect the secrets of how they make successful recordings. It wouldn't be wise to reveal how a recording company hires mostly minimum wage workers that have their talent and hard work used to make the company huge profits.

 

Some studios would be happy to take on an intern, but there aren't many, given that most "studios" today are individual musicians with one client, himself, who works on his own projects when he has time. That isn't a very good learning environment.

[Etienne Rambert]

Being so involved with Cakewalk these days' date=' I track the forum pretty closely. Not to blow our horn too much here, but the bottom line is Sonar is picking up a [i']lot [/i]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?

 

 

Probably everything will be processed in the cloud.

 

Anyway, I use a version of SONAR for MIDI now. The use of the name "Cakewalk" has always aggravated me. A product named

"Cakewalk" should be easy-to-use. That is implicit in the name.

 

I wonder if of the managers of the company ever thought about that.

cake·walk

ˈkākˌwôk/

noun

• 1.
  informal
  an absurdly or surprisingly easy task.
  "winning the game won't be a cakewalk"
  
• 2.
  a strutting dance popular at the end of the 19th century, developed from a black-American contest in graceful walking that had a cake as a prize.
  

verb

• 1.
  informal
  achieve or win something easily.
  "he cakewalked to a 5-1 triumph"
  
• 2.
  walk or dance in the manner of a cakewalk.
  "a troupe of clowns cakewalked by"
  

 

[Etienne Rambert]

Being so involved with Cakewalk these days' date=' I track the forum pretty closely. Not to blow our horn too much here, but the bottom line is Sonar is picking up a [i']lot [/i]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?

 

Probably everything will be processed in the cloud. Very crude consumer DAW's here on earth. More sophisticated processing in the cloud.

 

I use a version of SONAR. But I only use it for MIDI. Since you have a connection to them,

I wonder if they remember what the word "cakewalk" means.

-----

 

cake·walk

ˈkākˌwôk/ noun

1. Something easily accomplished: Winning the race was a cakewalk for her.

2. A 19th-century public entertainment among African Americans in which walkers performing the most accomplished or amusing stepswon cakes as prizes.

3. a. A strutting dance, often performed in minstrel shows.

b. The music for this dance.

 

 

intr.v. cake·walked, cake·walk·ing, cake·walks To perform a strutting dance.

 

[MikeRivers]

 

 

I use a version of SONAR for MIDI now. The use of the name "Cakewalk" has always aggravated me. A product named

"Cakewalk" should be easy-to-use. That is implicit in the name.

 

It used to be easy to use, back when it was a MIDI-only program and recording audio on a computer was about squawking parrots and ding-dings to call your attention to something happening on your computer.

 

 

[WRGKMC]

There are products that do give some well designed tutorials on using their products. Har Bal is one that comes to mind. Its a mastering Tool but its tutorial on how to use their product is well thought out and it does give you some excellent instruction in how to use the program. They provide both PDF files with screen shots and video instruction, and you can download the same samples they use in the tutorial and follow along step by step.

 

Of course it doesn't cover all possibilities but it at least gets you familiar with what the tool can do. Even with the tutorial its not a simple program to learn. If you don't have some technical background in the art of Recording/Mixing/Mastering, the tutorial alone aren't going to enable you to use the product very well. I've used it for at least 7 years now and still recognize it as a tool the requires allot of surgical skill to use well.

 

So many look for a simple solution, a formula or a preset that will do everything for them. It just doesn't exist. Things are getting closer to having that ability. I can see some DAW in the future that has some kind of artificial intelligence that acts as an autopilot in getting many simple things done, or at lest getting them close enough where only mild tweaking is necessary to get a good mix, but who really wants to have some programmer dictating how a mix should sound.

 

It may increase productivity but homogenize any real artistic value to the mix. I could see having presets based on music genre where certain plugins get added, pan settings, volume levels, EQing etc. but like any preset, even if you use it as a starting point, the final tweaked settings are rarely anywhere near the presets. There are just too many variations to music, musical performance and the gear to make any DAW simple. When you over simplify you rob the tool of its ability to do things well and meet all those possible variations.

 

There may be some DAW design possibilities that could help however. I got this idea from video games long ago and it might apply to a DAW.

Many video games start off with a very simple challenge with simplified scoring methods. If you win on that level you get taken to a more complex level where you meet new challenges and have more tools to meet those challenges. My kids were great at playing video games and they loved reaching higher levels in the game as they learned them inside out. They learned from friends all the short cuts and how to obtain the highest scores.

 

I always thought this "level" thing could be used with a DAW. When someone installs the program they could have the choice of "Beginner, Average and Advanced user. With the beginner level you're remove all buttons except the very basic needs to record. Just having the radio buttons to record, play back, and tweak gains maybe. With fewer buttons there's more space to add popups or descriptions that give the basic instructions. A popup may say, "Hey stupid, your input gain is too high, decrease your preamp level if you want a clean track". Another may be, "Hey, your bass track sounds like mud, Don't you think it could use a little treble"? Of course I'm being sarcastic here, but you get the idea of how the tutorial is built into the beginner level.

 

The average level may dump some of the popups and only use them when something is really screwy. You'd have more buttons there to access the most common tools you'd need. The advanced level would allow full access to everything and only having popups as needed. Maybe when you choose things that aren't the best option for the tasks you're trying to perform.

 

Once you're efficient in using the next level, maybe the popups in the lower levels disappear. This lest you use those simpler levels for some quick and dirty recording without all the distractions. I know a simple GUI for tracking would be a welcome thing for me. I use a wireless mouse and keyboard tracking. Having a record button that's maybe 4 or 5 inches in size so I could see and click on it from across the room would surely help my eyes. Having it auto save with a new name like Recording 1, Recording 2, etc. would save me from having to use a keyboard when I'm recording many takes with a band.

 

I can think of dozens of other items that could simplify the learning curve. DAW manufacturers do have to get past trying to out do each other and focus on real world use however. They don't have to stop refining the DAW's maximum potential. Programs like Sonar already has the potential for this kind of customization built in. They have color scheme and menu customization built into the program that could easily be expanded. They could design maybe a half dozen GUI presets that will set the GUI up for different skill levels and all the user has to do is click on the one he needs to use. Beginner, Intermediate, Pro, Solo, Live, Shared, Multitrack, Dub, etc can set the GUI up for the most common needs from an work environment best suited to the users needs.

 

Yes much of this can be done once you know the program well, but from the perspective of a beginner, this approach might be exactly what a DAW manufacturer needs. An interactive tutorial and customization built into the program as its being used that makes wise suggestions as the beginner progresses. It can also include messages to setup the hardware and operating system to streamline its functionality. They could in fact make a program that analyzes your computer and make suggestions that would maximize the computers performance as a DAW. That alone could make someone a mint. Right now you have to go out and dig for all that info. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a program that works like PC Cleaner that goes through and analyzes things and then you can just click on a few buttons and everything is optimized for recording? Background programs and services unneeded turned off, Memory allocation and dozens of other things. Then of course you'd have an undo button.

[MikeRivers]

 

So many look for a simple solution, a formula or a preset that will do everything for them. It just doesn't exist. Things are getting closer to having that ability. I can see some DAW in the future that has some kind of artificial intelligence that acts as an autopilot in getting many simple things done, or at lest getting them close enough where only mild tweaking is necessary to get a good mix, but who really wants to have some programmer dictating how a mix should sound.

 

There's a lot to a DAW that's intuitive, or at least could be intuitive if there was a common language, and if that language was the same as, or derived from that of the physical device that it emulates. I think that most people who get into a DAW are at least somewhat familiar with another recording device, and quite likely a mixer (from PA, if not recording). But you have to find the buttons, and so often they're not labeled (not enough room on the screen). though some programs offer "tool tips" giving you a clue if you hover over a button with the mouse. But often the user interface is scattered about or is in different windows that you need to know how to open.

 

I believe that once a user gets started working, he'll eventually figure out how to do things as he needs them, but a few useful templates with clear graphics can get a novice going quicker. For example you could select "8-track recording with overdubs, one or two tracks at a time" That would open 8 tracks and an 8 channel mixer with a couple of effects. Studio One from PreSonus does a pretty good job of that, and one of the best features of that program is that people new to DAWs seem to catch on to it pretty quickly.

 

It doesn't have to think for you, or mix for you. It needs to assist you in getting the tracks recorded and have them show up in the monitors when you push up the faders. That's the first 90 percent.

 

Most programs install themselves pretty nicely, or at least tell you why they can't (non-supported OS, insufficient memory, insufficient disk space, etc.). Those are the sort of things that the "I'm an IT consultant" musician can usually deal with, or get a solution by Googling the error message.

[Beck]

... 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.

 

Yep, and those of us that do are about the only ones that have any idea what's going on anymore. Mostly I just watch in stunned silence as everyone tries to figure it out. I used to be more involved in answering questions on forums, but when you're trying to teach someone how to drive a car and their first question is, "Ok, so how do you actually get in the car?" That's too damn much work. Music gets harder to listen to for me all the time. Very brilliant musicians still come along, but the quality of the recordings continue to nose dive; worse now than ten years ago. And I'm talking about major labels, not home recordists.

[Beck]

I don't use my DAW any more. It's too complicated

 

I've gone back to my standalone multi-track

 

That may be the answer.

[blue2blue]

 

Probably everything will be processed in the cloud. Very crude consumer DAW's here on earth. More sophisticated processing in the cloud.

 

I use a version of SONAR. But I only use it for MIDI. Since you have a connection to them,

I wonder if they remember what the word "cakewalk" means.

-----

 

cake·walk

ˈkākˌwôk/ noun

1. Something easily accomplished: Winning the race was a cakewalk for her.

2. A 19th-century public entertainment among African Americans in which walkers performing the most accomplished or amusing stepswon cakes as prizes.

3. a. A strutting dance, often performed in minstrel shows.

b. The music for this dance.

 

 

intr.v. cake·walked, cake·walk·ing, cake·walks To perform a strutting dance.

Might take a while on that.

 

The cloud goes where the numbers are. And the numbers are where the dummies are.

 

Check out http://www.Landr.com, which offers drag-and-drop cloud mastering. (And, yes, there's a free tier.)

 

 

I expect cloud-based 'vintage compression' is right around the corner. All those knobs and switches on full-featured compressors! Threshold, attack, release... all those concepts to learn! Ah... but look at how the gotta-be-analog 'engineers' sucked up the 'vintage' 2 knob jobs!

 

Just give the poor darlings much fewer of these confusing options and everyone will be much happier.