Recording technology baffles me

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Tyeetime

KevWind - when I said it didn’t stick, I meant the instruction into my memory. Seems I watch the tutorial and by the time it’s time for me to apply……it’s gone.

This is where the "old school" approach to instructions really pays off. The DAW I use the most is still offered with a paper and ink instruction manual. After using it for twenty years I still pull out the manual, put it up in front of the keyboard, search up the instructions for a particular operation in the index, and perform it. If your DAW has a printable manual and tutorial, invest in paper and ink and put them in some sort of binder like a three-ring binder. Set it by your work area. Use the index.

Nothing really drills it into me like having a particular need, searching for and finding the remedy, and immediately applying it. Some of these DAWs are so comprehensive that no-one but the designer knows all their functions, and even he may need to refer to his own manual.

Bob

[ailevin]

Originally Posted by Tyeetime

I’m really feeling my age. Trying to record some simple backing tracks and so far I’ve spent hours trying to figure out my RC-3 and also my iRig into GarageBand. For some reason it just doesn’t stick.

I’ll follow a YouTube tutorial but there is so much info I tend to forget what I learned 5 minutes ago.

In the end I spend more time trying to figure things out than actually playing.

Question - Has anyone experienced this. And did you find a simple solution. These technologies have so many features that I don’t really need and the instruction gets so deep into them I think I get lost.

I am new at this and had the same experience trying out several different DAWs. It's called Feature Shock--there are so many settings and features that it's difficult to find the few features and settings to accomplish what you want to do. And when something isn't working it seems like an aimless search through a sea of possible problems.

I'm lucky enough to have a son who is a professional musician and understands how these things work in both a practical and technical sense. He was able to take me through the setup, explain how things worked, and give me some guidance on what to pay attention to. We did it via Zoom where I shared my screen and he walked me through it as I made the adjustments. This method is far superior to watching someone else do it, and of course it was tailored to what I wanted to do.

I still stumbled around with it quite a bit for a few days, but what this initial session did was get me up and running enough that I could begin to get a model in my head of what the DAW was doing. The model in my head when I started was an old analog Ampex stereo reel to reel but with many more tracks. The DAW model was based around song structure and clips based on measures, time signatures, tempo, using virtual instruments or recorded tracks synched to clips. Until I understood the model the DAW was based on, I was lost.

There is a saying that goes something like this: "Experience is how we avoid mistakes, but making mistakes is how we gain experience."

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by ailevin

but what this initial session did was get me up and running enough that I could begin to get a model in my head of what the DAW was doing. The model in my head when I started was an old analog Ampex stereo reel to reel but with many more tracks. The DAW model was based around song structure and clips based on measures, time signatures, tempo, using virtual instruments or recorded tracks synched to clips.

You can use a DAW just like an old tape recorder. You can ignore the measures and clips and just play. You can even set most DAWs to destructively overwrite your last take when you punch in, if you want. But that's not necessarily the best (or even easiest) way to do things in the digital world.

I agree that having a conceptual model of what's going on is helpful. As a teacher, I try to impart that to students, rather than just a checklist of "Do X, do Y, do Z". That way, if something goes wrong or they come upon a situation we didn't cover, they can better suss things out themselves.

[DCCougar]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I am possibly no help to anyone on this thread because I've been recording since I was eight, fifty-eight years ago. However... I can help you understand the interface.

Ha! I didn't start quite that long ago, and I've still got nowhere near your expertise, but when a low cost program came out that would turn your computer into a recording studio, I jumped on it. This must have been back in the 1990s. The first "DAW" I used was "Deck" (or maybe it was Deck II). And I chose this because of the interface, which looked the most like the hardware in a recording studio.

I use Cubase Elements now, but yeah, it just takes some time and trial and error and.... reading the manual always helps! I've always loved recording from back in the days when my folks had a wire recorder!

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by ailevin

The model in my head when I started was an old analog Ampex stereo reel to reel but with many more tracks. The DAW model was based around song structure and clips based on measures, time signatures, tempo, using virtual instruments or recorded tracks synched to clips. Until I understood the model the DAW was based on, I was lost.

There is a saying that goes something like this: "Experience is how we avoid mistakes, but making mistakes is how we gain experience."

No question that some knowledge of the specific GUI and workflow of the specific particular DAW you are using goes a long way to better understanding it's feature set. BUT the basic theory and process is more or less the same weather recording to old analog tape or DAW

Because to be clear, since western analog music itself is based around "song structure, measures, time signatures , and tempo" ----so recording it weather on old analog tape or DAW reflects those aspects , but in the DAW it is in a more visual and graphic way, then say trying to splice analog tape together on the beat and in tempo

Now there are some particular DAW specific GUI and nomenclature differences But most DAWs GUI's reflect both a large multi track mixing console (mixer window ) and a multi track tape machine (Edit window)

But as Chipotle pointed you can use a DAW as merely a digital tape machine

And thus I am also unclear what you mean by "The DAW model was based around" "using virtual instruments or recorded tracks synched to clips."

You can, at least in the 4 DAWs I have used, record both audio and midi in real time in a single pass and it is neither "based on" nor "synced to clips" ???

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by KevWind

You can, at least in the 4 DAWs I have used, record both audio and midi in real time in a single pass and it is neither "based on" nor "synced to clips" ???

If you are going to edit, it certainly is easier to set up a project with a tempo grid. Then you can slice and dice snapped to the grid and everything will line up. You can still do the same without a grid, it's just more difficult.

I think they're referring to the fact that you can see clips more clearly in a DAW than on tape. I suppose it can be a shift from thinking in terms of one linear track to having multiple clips you can cut, copy, paste and move.

Maybe a comparison is Reaper's old "takes" system, or having separate takes on separate tracks, to a full-blown swipe-comping system. They don't do anything different in the end, but once you get figure out and get used to swipe comping it makes the world so much easier. Think of it in terms of workflow differences, rather than underlying functionality differences.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

N
And thus I am also unclear what you mean by "The DAW model was based around" "using virtual instruments or recorded tracks synched to clips."

My guess is that this comes from the way I see so much instruction these days focus on virtual instruments and loops. Those of us who grew up before DAWs and watched them evolve think of them as being audio recorders that roughly emulate hardware recorders, and we've watched as all kinds of new features have been grafted on -and we think of those as added features, which they are. But read a current tutorial on Logic or GarageBand, for example, and they usually start with loops and samples, and virtual instruments. I've seen books that never even mentioned creating an actual audio track and recording a real instrument until like chapter 15!

I took a college class on Logic a year or 2 ago on a lark, and found it quite amusing. I learned a lot of things I didn't even know existed in Logic, like the whole Ableton-like live looping feature. I also learned that I was the only person in the class that actually played and recorded an instrument! Everyone else was just cutting and pasting loops.

To the OP, I think you can simplify things by focusing on what you are trying to do, and ignore the other 99 percent of features in these tools that aren't meant for you. I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to record. But on the assumption that you're just playing guitar and trying to record it, you can break it down into a few steps:

1) Setup your hardware and configure it. This can be tricky, since everyone's gear is different, but it usually "just works" on a Mac. Connect some interface via USB, and set it as your interface in your DAW. Sounds like you're trying to use a looper and iRig, which is itself a thing to untangle and have working before you even worry about recording. Hopefully, once you get this setup, it's done and you never have to think about it again.

2) Record. This should be really simple. I'm not sure why, but people do run into trouble with this. In most DAWs, create a track, "arm" it, and hit the record button. Start playing. That's all there is to it! if you want to overdub, create a 2nd track and do the same thing, while listening to track 1.

3) Edit/Mix/Master. This is where it's easy to go down a rabbit-hole. There are hundreds of plugins that you *could* explore. But you don't need to, and definitely don't need to all at once. Learn to add a little reverb, and you're 99% of the way there.

There is a learning curve to all of this, and no matter what, you'll probably never learn all of it, but you don't need to learn much to make some good sounds.

I heard a thing on a Fretboard Journal Podcast the other day I really liked. The guy said whenever he found himself frustrated by something, he'd stop and ask himself "what would this be like if I was having fun?". So just take your time, do simple things that work, and incrementally add some new stuff "for fun" once in a while.

If you have specific issues that are hanging you up, someone here can probably answer the question.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

If you are going to edit, it certainly is easier to set up a project with a tempo grid. Then you can slice and dice snapped to the grid and everything will line up. You can still do the same without a grid, it's just more difficult.

I do understand a tempo grid, mapping a tempo, and snapping to a grid etc . But those are simply editing features of most DAW's and again not what DAW recording is "based on" (as per the the post I replied to seemed indicate)

I was simply attempting to dispel the notion that using a DAW somehow requires knowing all the features and how to use them

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

My guess is that this comes from the way I see so much instruction these days focus on virtual instruments and loops. Those of us who grew up before DAWs and watched them evolve think of them as being audio recorders that roughly emulate hardware recorders, and we've watched as all kinds of new features have been grafted on -and we think of those as added features, which they are. But read a current tutorial on Logic or GarageBand, for example, and they usually start with loops and samples, and virtual instruments. I've seen books that never even mentioned creating an actual audio track and recording a real instrument until like chapter 15!

Indeed good point

I took a college class on Logic a year or 2 ago on a lark, and found it quite amusing. I learned a lot of things I didn't even know existed in Logic, like the whole Ableton-like live looping feature. I also learned that I was the only person in the class that actually played and recorded an instrument! Everyone else was just cutting and pasting loops.

Interesting I did more or less the same thing but it was in 2012, and was a full three semesters of 12 weeks each and If I remember 8 required courses and 4 elective It was Berklee Collage of Music ---Online Masters Certificate program --Advanced Music Production in Pro Tools .
Now I started with Pro Tools in 2003 But holy guacamole did I learn what I did not know. In that year I learned far more about Pro Tools than I had learned in 9 years of my own

Also interestingly (and maybe because it was Pro Tools and 12 years ago) the focus was primarily audio recording with only one 12 week class on the Midi instruments available in Pro Tools

[b1j]

Acoustic guitar players are not the majority of those producing music these days. We are the troglodytes.

Studio One has figured this out. They have one spokesman, Joe Gilder, for the guitar players, and another, Gregor, for people making EDM and synth beats. Studio One seems to excel in both.

[ailevin]

Originally Posted by KevWind

No question that some knowledge of the specific GUI and workflow of the specific particular DAW you are using goes a long way to better understanding it's feature set. BUT the basic theory and process is more or less the same weather recording to old analog tape or DAW

Because to be clear, since western analog music itself is based around "song structure, measures, time signatures , and tempo" ----so recording it weather on old analog tape or DAW reflects those aspects , but in the DAW it is in a more visual and graphic way, then say trying to splice analog tape together on the beat and in tempo

Now there are some particular DAW specific GUI and nomenclature differences But most DAWs GUI's reflect both a large multi track mixing console (mixer window ) and a multi track tape machine (Edit window)

But as Chipotle pointed you can use a DAW as merely a digital tape machine

And thus I am also unclear what you mean by "The DAW model was based around" "using virtual instruments or recorded tracks synched to clips."

You can, at least in the 4 DAWs I have used, record both audio and midi in real time in a single pass and it is neither "based on" nor "synced to clips" ???

Like I said, I am new at this and didn't know what the acronym DAW meant a few weeks ago. I apologise if my statements were unclear or confusing. I may not be using the proper terms since the jargon is somewhat new to me as well.

I should have prefaced any statement with something like "it seemed to me." In particular, my statement about the DAW model (I started with Bitwig, which I gather has similarities to Ableton), more properly should have described my difficulties understanding why the controls and menus were organized and presented the way that they were. My comment about syncing was based on how I saw my microphone input indexed against a timing grid above the tracks and the fact that it asked me whether I wanted to sync the track after I recorded it.

My only experience with recording was years ago setting up a reel to reel tape for an entire rehearsal or performance. The only editing I did in addition to putting leaders on the tapes was on the boundaries of entire pieces and/or movements (I was a classical violinist in my youth.) As I recall there was a counter on that old Ampex machine, but nothing having to do with tempo, time signature or the structure of Western music.

Prior to retiring, I spent 29 years in aerospace developing large HW/SW systems, and in my experience, an effective system design is most often done around some set of use cases or work flows. In general, there are design choices that will make some things easier or more intuitive to the user, and other things a little less so. Without making value judgements, I expect that is why different people prefer different SW tools (or different DAWs) depending on what they are doing and how they go about it.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by ailevin

Without making value judgements, I expect that is why different people prefer different SW tools (or different DAWs) depending on what they are doing and how they go about it.

I think most non-professional people use a particular DAW because it's what they have, or started with. (Pros use whatever their working environment requires) Not many want to go thru the pain of learning multiple systems.

As best I can tell, from the few DAWs I have spent much time with over the years, they're not *that* different. Some may steer you a bit toward a different workflow at some basic level, but most are flexible enough to support lots of different workflows and that comes down to personal choice and what you're trying to do. With the DAWs I have looked at, there's almost always essentially the same features, and the learning curve mostly comes down to "what do they call X in this DAW? and where did they hide the button/menu item for it?".

For what it's worth, I find GarageBand confusing. It's basically Logic "dumbed down" with the idea of making it simpler, but the way they've done that is to hide, and in some cases, remove entirely, very useful features that you need to do anything more than basics. I'd say GarageBand does try to force you into a workflow, and when I have to use it occasionally, I feel like I have to tell it "get it out of the way...". With Logic, ProTools, etc, etc, it's more like you have all the tools, so you get to pick the workflow you want to use.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by ailevin

Like I said, I am new at this and didn't know what the acronym DAW meant a few weeks ago. I apologise if my statements were unclear or confusing. I may not be using the proper terms since the jargon is somewhat new to me as well.

I should have prefaced any statement with something like "it seemed to me." In particular, my statement about the DAW model (I started with Bitwig, which I gather has similarities to Ableton), more properly should have described my difficulties understanding why the controls and menus were organized and presented the way that they were. My comment about syncing was based on how I saw my microphone input indexed against a timing grid above the tracks and the fact that it asked me whether I wanted to sync the track after I recorded it.

My only experience with recording was years ago setting up a reel to reel tape for an entire rehearsal or performance. The only editing I did in addition to putting leaders on the tapes was on the boundaries of entire pieces and/or movements (I was a classical violinist in my youth.) As I recall there was a counter on that old Ampex machine, but nothing having to do with tempo, time signature or the structure of Western music.

Prior to retiring, I spent 29 years in aerospace developing large HW/SW systems, and in my experience, an effective system design is most often done around some set of use cases or work flows. In general, there are design choices that will make some things easier or more intuitive to the user, and other things a little less so. Without making value judgements, I expect that is why different people prefer different SW tools (or different DAWs) depending on what they are doing and how they go about it.

No need to apologize some of the jargon/nomenclature can be fairly problematic
Especially when trying to communicate issues and suggestions in a forum like this. Because like Doug pointed out while the basic design functions and basic workflow are fairly universal among DAW's, the specific terminology of features and implementation of menus etc. can be different as you likely know better than me with your background

Now the early origins of DAWs took two different foundational approaches

But the Acronym DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) came into use with the one focused on digital recording and editing audio with what was termed at the time a "Digital audio tape machine"

#1 Approach was implementing digital advantages of mixing and editing for Audio recording And so the workflow and GUI (what you are looking at) of Digidesigns Pro Tools (which was the first one to be adopted by professional audio recording studios) and was specifically based emulating what was going on in Professional Recording studio.--- i.e Multi channel Large format mixing console into multi track tape machine. which is one reason for it's fairly quick success in professional audio studios

#2 Approach was starting with Midi recording software and then incorporating audio into it

[Charlie Bernstein]

I've been having a terrible time figuring out my DAW.

My only advice comes from the years when I used graphic design programs almost every day — InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, PageMaker, Quark. One thing I learned was that if you don't use them all the time, you forget how.

Which means one key is to just be sure to keep at it and not turn your back on it for too long. (Which is exactly what I've done, because it's so frustrating. So do as I say, not as I do!)

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

You can use a DAW just like an old tape recorder. You can ignore the measures and clips and just play. . . .

I haven't found that. Far from it, in fact. I should probaby just sell my interface and use the money to pay someone else to record me.