Goldwave & Audacity. . .what next?

[jlovejoy]

Hi everybody!

This is a bit long, as I'm including some pertinent background with the question. . .

I do all of my recording to my laptop. My recording philosophy is to work with the tools I can afford, and not wait for "the perfect setup" or a particular piece of gear or software before I do any recording. Currently that means I am recording and doing individual track editing in Goldwave, and mixing/mastering in Audacity. So yes - the free options (edit: oh yeah, Goldwave isn't "free" software, whoops), although I have purchased the license for Goldwave since I have gotten so much usage out of it. And I imagine my concepts of mixing and mastering are stunted, but I do my best. I use a rather modest (and perhaps inappropriate) Samson Go Mic to capture the audio, and recently, I've added an 8-channel mixer to my tools that I use while actually performing/recording.

This set-up seems to work for me and provides all the options I think I need and what I've seemed to learn about recording, especially from TapeOp, is "There are few, if any, rules. Do what works best for you." There are features of GW & Audacity I don't even use. But when I read about recording, it seems a much more complicated beast than I understand it to be. And I read or hear about DAWs like Cubase and ProTools, and I wonder what I am missing out on.

When I consider it, I feel like the best way to improve my recording is through better microphones and other gear going into the laptop, not through switching from Goldwave & Audacity to things like Cubase or ProTools. Am I misunderstanding? What do I do next, when I have the opportunity to upgrade? Is there something about those programs that are actually better than the ones I am using?

Thank you for reading and for any input you may have. I've been casually reading TapeOp, off and on, for about 7 years and I thought this would be the perfect community to converse with about this.

[Snarl 12/8]

One thing to consider is workflow, not just sonics. One thing to be said for "real" DAW's is that when you find one that works the way your brain works it can really speed things up. I think this can be important if creativity is important to you. If setting up to record always takes 10 different actions to get ready, that can be a real buzzkill. One that templates, keyboard shortcuts, etc., etc. can eliminate. For some people that's Audacity, for some ProTools. Sometimes I think about going back to ProTools (haven't used it for 10 years) because some repetitive shit was dirt simple in that program. Try Reaper. Free to try, $50 to buy. And no, I don't work for them. But it's a huge step up, IMO from Audacity.

Also, it kinda sounds to me that you're more towards the beginning of the learning curve of recording. There's something to be said for learning how to work with real tools, so you can really learn all there is, vs. fighting to accomplish simple things, being limited, and then having to learn all over again if you choose to graduate to the big leagues. If you've been bitten by the bug, invest in yourself.

If I'm wrong about that, I'm sorry. I don't mean to offend.

[jlovejoy]

You're not wrong, and no offense taken. I'm definitely in the beginner end of the spectrum. Thank you for the reasonable words & advice! Indeed I've been bitten by the bug and want to be able to make the best recordings I can with the least amount of frustration.

That's a good insight about workflow and being able to accomplish what you need to happen easily, minimal interruption, the shortest quality path to getting the idea recorded/realized. I will certainly try Reaper! Checking out their site now . . . It's very awesome of them to differentiate pricing for those who are not making loads of money with their product.

Indeed, as soon as I've got the means, I will invest in more real, high-quality/professional tools, and as you put it, invest in myself. Until then, I'll keep reading and investigating. Thanks a lot for the input! You were very helpful.

[RodC]

Give Reaper a try, if I didnt have tons of stuff in Sonar alread I would seriously consider it. (Especially if money was an issue, and it usually is)

[analogcabin]

Whew, that Goldwave interface is pretty bad.
If you can work with that you've already paid you dues.

[EasyGo]

If you have a mixer with mic preamps already, most likely with XLR input jacks, consider getting a Shure SM57 instrument and/or an SM58 vocal mic. You can get a lot of mileage out of these relatively inexpensive dynamic mics, and they should be a step up from the podcaster mic. The SM57, for example, is a standard mic for recording snare drums and guitar amps and can be used on just about anything. The 58 has the same capsule but has a filter to minimize breath pops on vocals. The round ball thingy can be removed and the mic will act much like a 57 on guitar amps, etc. Since they tend to 'reject' room sound, the 57 and 58 work well in bad-sounding rooms, which to me is a clear advantage over condenser mics.

As for the applications, I would stick with the programs you are using until you are feeling limited by the capabilities. I think you have the right idea about focusing on the sound being recorded rather than the DAW. I think you'll get better sounds through practice and experimentation with the source and mic placement than by switching programs.

[darjama]

Another recommendation for Reaper here. I recently had to import tracks from an Audacity project recently and couldn't believe how difficult the program made it. Reaper is worlds beyond it in terms of capabilities and ease of use.

[Bill @ Irie Lab]

Psssss, get a real DAW.

Reaper as mentioned above is a great deal and you won't outgrow it anytime soon.

Also give Wavosaur a spin as an editor.

You can use the same VST plug-ins you use for tracking and mixing in Reaper (the Reaper built-in ones are awesome and there are some really good low cost and free ones around),

I like the interface.

and it's free.

Big bang for small bucks.

[EasyGo]

I do agree that Reaper is a great DAW, and I have been enjoying it immensely. It is very powerful and could be a touch intimidating coming from Audacity, etc., but can be used as a simple multitrack recorder without delving deeply into the features. They do have a great pdf manual on the site and an excellent user forum.

[;ivlunsdystf]

reaper. yep.

[ott0bot]

yep...until you want to invest the money in a studio standard DAW like Pro Tools or Logic, reaper is great. Even then, if you don't care about transfering session files or plan on working in a studio, and you are just recording for your own purposed, then reaper is the way to go.

get your learn on, and read up on the forums and you'll be sitting pretty.

[Ken96]

FWIW, I STILL use Cool Edit Pro 2.1 (aka Audition) for basic editing/scrubbing etc, and Reaper to mix. Reaper allows you to designate Audition as your default single-track editing software and as you edit tracks, the changes are made in Reaper in real time. It made it A LOT easier to jump into Reaper.

While Reaper DOES have a pretty steep learning curve for your first few mixes you do, I have found that I caught on pretty quickly, as compared to trying to learn PT for example.

I'm old dog trying to learn new tricks and am impatient, but Reaper has totally been worth learning, and it doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon.