Recording software
 

I was curious to see what everyone uses for recording software in the forum.

I mainly use Reaper and did download recently the freebee version of Presonus's Studio One 3 just to check it out.

Haven't done any recording recently but I was using Real Band which is packaged with Band In A Box.

I use Audacity. It's free, easy to use, and does everything I need it to do.

Apple Logic Pro X

Reaper all the way!

Long time ago, I tried Cakewalk and it's GUI was almost incomprehensible to me. Tried Audacity when I didn't have an audio interface, so the latency was too bad to be able to multitrack.

I did try Cakewalk (Sonar) software and it was nice but it is high learning curve for sure. Nice software though.

Another Apple Logic Pro X user.

I used to use Sonar X1 on a pc but much prefer this.

Ardour. I tried the Harrison Mixbus on a Windows OS, and although it was set up very nicely, for some reason I was getting an increase in floor noise.

Logic Pro X. I've used each of the last three releases; 10, 10.1 and now 10.2. Despite the relatively steep learning curve (true for any full featured DAW, IMHO) I think it's great.
As a creature of habit I'm now an exclusive Mac guy so Logic fits the bill in that regard too. That said, I spent several months last year helping a buddy who is a PC guy come to terms with the Producer version of Sonar X. Once I got past the cluttered interface (to MikeBmusic's point) I must confess to being duly impressed with that DAW's in the box features i.e. Melodyne.

I'm a bit unconventional I guess.

I used to record through a Mackie Onyx Blackjack interface to Audacity or Tracktion which was packaged with the Mackie when I bought it.

I now record into a Zoom H5 then use Tracktion just for very basic operations. I then export as a stereo file and use AVS Audio editor to normalise, roll-off some bass, etc. For simple recording like a solo acoustic guitar I find this much easier than doing it all in a DAW.

Cubase Elements. It came with a Scarlett multi-input mic interface. Like it a lot. Capable of professional mixing while not very hard to use for simple recording. The printed instructions weren't great but, there's a whole series of YouTube videos published by Cubase which are pretty good.


Ray

Reaper here. I've been expanding the already extensive plug-in library, and have started getting some really good tracks lately.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Steinberg Nuendo. We have several professional mixing and editing rooms running this excellent DAW software.

Bob

Pro Tools LE since 2003 PTHD Native since 2011
And Reason
Tried Reaper used it for the 60 trial really wanted to like it, but ultimately it didn't really not suit my workflow .

The responses here are very surprising. I thought for sure there would be one or two common software platforms used by most folks, along with a handful of packages trailing in second and third place.


Ray

ProTools since 1999, on a Mac.

i use logic, reason and live depending upon my mood. ha!

play music!

This is all very interesting to me...

With the number of recording programs out today there it's good to
see what people are using and why.

It's come a long way since the days of tape recording.

I used to record myself on an old stereo cassette tape recorder
that really didn't sound too bad and still have.

I'm dating myself a bit, LOL!!

So far we have 4 respondents listing Logic (full disclosure, it's my DAW of choice) either exclusively or as their primary DAW, 3 for Reaper and 2 for Pro Tools along with several individual options.
While I agree with RayCJ that there are more software platforms cited than I would have expected, the big surprise is that Reaper is used by more respondents than Pro Tools, which to the best of my knowledge (admittedly limited) is still the industry standard. I think this informal survey illustrates how similar many DAWs are and that there is a recording software out there to suit just about any personal preference in terms of work flow and/or specific need.

I didn't throw my hat in the ring originally, but if you're going for numbers I use Reaper.

Why?

It's the closest thing to Protools without being Protools, and at a very reasonable price. I love their business model and appreciate them placing trust in the user.

It's fairly easy to master the basics of editing and has a very extensive complement of plug ins that are well-designed and easy to use. It uses system resources frugally and doesn't crash. It keeps getting better and I'm now using the latest version for simple video editing. I suspect the developers will expand the video editing capabilities as they progress with refinements.

I always liked the idea of Protools, but didn't adopt as an early user because it was tied to hardware that was beyond my means to purchase.

I suspect the choice of software by respondents is heavily influenced by which platform they compute on. Reaper is more likely to be a strong candidate for PC users.

Reaper, though I'm not very adept at it, nor do much recording.

Used free Audacity for while which is more straightforward for very simple editing (trim, normalize, fade out, convert to mp3). I used to record my daughter's HS jazz and band concerts with my H4n and have the files on-line before the night was over. The other parents loved it!

My story is pretty much the same.

Using Reaper is going fine, and I'm never wanting for more capabilities. However, I don't do enough editing to get deep into those features and I don't use it often enough to remember what I had previously learned.

Interesting, but to me the numbers of people who use of Reaper on this forum is not really a surprise at all, and what I would have expected.
While there certainly some on AGF who's professional careers are specifically tied to recording and or mixing. By far the largest numbers here are home recording enthusiasts , or record in conjunction with or support of various pro and or semi pro careers in music.

Given that Reaper is arguably far and away the most full featured DAW for less than several hundred dollars , @ $60 it is in fact a real bargain and represents a real value. And while I said I tried Reaper but opted not to use it, that is as much a reflection of my being so well versed and comfortable with PT's specific work flow ( and language), as it is there being anything particularly wrong with Reaper.

Plus I see three more possible factors at play.
As Rudy 4 noted, if the number ratio here of PC users vs Mac users is anything like the national numbers then there are quite a few more PC users, which would automatically reflect lower numbers for Logic use.
Also because Pro Tools vanilla is still at the upper tier price point for a basic full featured DAW and the fact that Pro Tools has now more or less gone to subscription model, which many object to.
And I would guess the the larger numbers of users on AGF have started recording using a DAW in maybe 5 years or less which puts them in time frame with may more viable options including Reaper then say 10 years ago when Pro Tools and Logic were definitely the big dogs.

But IMO Rudy 4's statement about Reaper being closest to PT is pretty questionable. While most full featured DAWs offer the same basic features and in terms of just recording a music file into the DAW in this respect, almost all DAW's are very similar. But once the file is in the DAW is where there are numerous differences in the the actual implementation of handling, setting up the session , routing, editing, etc. and the DAW specific terminology 9language), and those respects IMO there are significant differences between PT and Reaper and they could hardly be further apart, as say for example comparing PT to Studio One, or Logic.

And yes Pro Tools is still the most used in Professional recording studios but that is slowly changing as for example in Bob Womack's situation.

My understanding, at least from a discussion I had with a former employee of Daddy's Junkie Music who
worked part time as a recording engineer) explained that the biggest difference between Pro Tools and
other DAW applications was in the plugins.

He felt that any DAW basically does the same thing, records sounds and route the sounds
to suite your particular needs and/or situation.

Now workflow and other considerations obviously is a personal choice with each DAW people use/prefer.

Reaper is hard to beat without having to spend big $$$ to get a flexible and functional working
DAW that can produce excellent results.

The Stillwell plugins that come with Reaper are really quite good and are basically the same as the plugins he sells,
just without the fancy graphics.

A lot of the proliferation of basic DAWs can be attributed to the basic recording function being taken over by API's (operating system calls) rather than application specific custom software. All the "heavy lifting" is done by the operating system and only needs a GUI built around it.

This also results in the quality of the recorded audio (less plug-ins) being about the same as it is mainly a function of the operating system.

YES! I think I've "learned" the basics about 5 times!

Ableton Live

PT became the 'industry standard' at the dawning of the recording digital age. Avid got it into all the pro studios (along with PT-dependent equipment).
It became the standard because professionals could take a PT project, and load it into any other PT-equipped system anywhere and not have to monkey around. So the Mixing engineer could send the finished mix project to the mastering engineer, who would still have the ability to go into the base
tracks and pull out any details he might want, etc.
We've come a long way since that era. Same thing with plug ins - the sheer volume of plug ins available - free and $$ - is staggering.

Your not kidding, and the improvement in plugins is quite amazing.

I've recently found a folder on one of my backup drives of old plugins
I used 8-9 years ago when I was using Cakewalk. Now I can't count
how many I've "collected" over the years.

It's worse than collecting guitars!!