What recording software do you prefer?

[avanutria]

I just got a new computer! (yay!)

It's because my last one unexpectedly died Thursday. (boo!)

Anyway, I'm starting to get back into playing properly and am thinking about recording software. I've tried Goldwav and Audacity in the past but they seemed a bit too detailed - I was using maybe 5% of their capacity, and struggling to do the fairly simple things that I wanted to do - mostly trimming, cutting out mistakes and sometimes adjusting volume.

I'm willing to pay for software, within reason. What would you recommend? I am running Windows 7 64x.

[Jeff Cullen]

I'm using Pro Tools, but it's more full featured and complex than Audacity....but there is very little you can't do with it and the file formats have become one of the industry standards. It gives you complete flexibility for mixing, punching and has a lot of nice plug-ins for tools and effects (some essential like reverb, and metronomes, some a little less essential).

[fearfaoin]

I bought a low cost version of Cakewalk's software
and found it pretty easy to use and powerful enough
despite its low price. It's pretty similar to GarageBand
on the Mac, but with better crossfading options. I think
the current name for the product is "Music Creator 5".
It can handle MIDI and has a staff editor for MIDI which
is handy for entering music on a staff to see how it will
sound. A mere $35.

http://www.cakewalk.com/products/beginner.asp

The only tricky bit I found was making sure the track
was properly armed for recording before pressing the
record button, but that's a common problem for me
on all the multitrack software I've ever used.

[Bill Reeder]

I use the old Cool Edit program which eventually became Adobe Audition, I believe.

[dsmootz]

Any recording software is going to have a bit of a learning curve, and there's nothing wrong with not needing most of the available features. I think the most important factor in deciding what to use should be what you ultimately want to do with it. Are you trying to record yourself alone, for the purpose of self-critique? Do you want to sell recording on iTunes? Do you want to record a group, and if so, one at a time or simultaneously? The smaller the task, the less important your decision of what recording software to use. If you've got larger aspirations in the long run, it would probably behoove you to get a introductory-level package from one of the main DAW software companies. That way, you can become familiar with how their software works, and reduce the learning curve if you need to upgrade eventually.

I'd also note that there shouldn't be any noticeable difference in sound quality between any reputable programs. If you're getting noisy or low-resolution recordings, you're culprit will likely be your microphone, preamp (if you have one - its likely you don't), and audio interface (if its cheap, consumer-grade, its a "sound card" - if its designed for serious audio work, its called an "audio interface").

If you want to really go down this particular rabbit hole, start here - it'll keep you busy for hours:
http://www.tweakheadz.com/guide.htm

[avanutria]

Thanks for the thoughts - I'll look into some of these names.

I'm recording for myself alone but I will want to put some recordings on the internet to share (not selling) and may wish to burn some audio CDs of live session recordings etc like I did in the past. I don't expect to need multitrack capability but it wouldn't hurt to have it, probably. I am involved with a group of people who sometimes do "internet sessions" requiring people to add their recording to other tracks of people playing the same tune. I've only done it once, long ago, but that's partly due to the fact that I found it very difficult to put together in Goldwav.

[highland-piper]

I think for most hobby type uses Audacity will do the trick. It's easy enough to use for basic operations (not really harder than any of the other packages) and it's got enough power that you can do some actual editing if you have a need later, without having to learn an entirely new "way."

It will also slow things down which is a handy feature for learning tunes off recordings.

It's not as easy to use for things like EQ or dynamics, on account of not having preview -- or at least it didn't last time I looked.

I use Audacity because it's an Adobe program and I use a lot of other Adobe programs. Good stuff, but not cheap.

[MTGuru]

I use Audacity because it's an Adobe program

I guess you mean Audition / CoolEdit.

[technowhistle]

http://www.reaper.fm

Oh, I love this software so much!

Edit: Though Reaper has a fantastic online community it is more a place for people finding the likes of pro-tools and sonar too bloated or slow than for the first steps into recording. Having said that I was lucky to find it as a total newbie having just about learnt how to work audacity.

[highland-piper]

I use Audacity because it's an Adobe program

I guess you mean Audition / CoolEdit.

Ooops, yes. Thanks for the clarification!

FWIW, there's a mountain of difference between the current version of Audition and the old CoolEdit Pro, at least on the surface (the interface). It's a lot easier to do a lot of things, and a lot of stuff works better. Kind of like comparing a 2010 Ford with a 1950 Ford. They'll both get you where you want to go but most people will like the newer one better.

[fearfaoin]

I keep forgetting about the Myna, the online
audio editor. Go to aviary.com and click on
the Audio Editor button.

http://aviary.com/

You probably need broadband and all that rot.

[oakuss]

Audicity for just capturing stuff playing on my computer. CoolEdit for its waveform editor. Cubase for multitracking. Audition because I just got it, and it derives from CoolEdit, having its nice wave editor, and it's more stable.

[avanutria]

Has anyone used anything from http://www.acoustic-labs.com ?

[highland-piper]

I haven't used it, but this looks nice. It's free too:

http://www.kreatives.org/kristal/

[hpinson]

Reaper! What's not to like?

http://www.reaper.fm