audio production question

GoldWave general discussions and community help
Post Reply
ck010898
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:17 pm

audio production question

Post by ck010898 »

I run a (small-time) commercial studio, and the only software I'm using (and have ever used) is Goldwave and Multiquence.

My question is:

if I were to consider switching to a cakewalk or pro-tools type software, what product do you think would be the most practical and intuative to switch to... asumming I'm quite handy with goldwave and I really want to shorten the learning curve with whatever new software I choose?

is there any software that people have found to be particularly easy to use, just based on what you'd been doing with goldwave/multiquence?

audibell
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:27 am
Location: New Orleans

Post by audibell »

Try Pyramix, it's just as easy and you can even make it look like GW or vice-versa
Good luck

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Re: audio production question

Post by OKCBoy »

ck010898 wrote:is there any software that people have found to be particularly easy to use, just based on what you'd been doing with goldwave/multiquence?
Because ProTools and Cakewalk's Sonar 5 are trying to do so much more than Multiquence, the interfaces are, of course, going to be a little more complicated than Multiquence's. Familiarity with Multiquence will help you somewhat in using both systems, regardless of which you choose. Nonetheless, there is a bit of a learning curve -- nothing too steep for you, but you'll need to walk through a few tutorials.

I would suggest you make your selection based on the features you want. One key among several for me was Sonar 5 has unlimited tracks. The comparably-priced version of ProTools had only 32, and moving to unlimited was a bit more expensive with ProTools. Therefore, I chose the Producer Edition of Sonar 5. I find that I continue using Multiquence for quick and easy recordings, though.

You'll not do bad going with either Sonar or ProTools.

donrandall
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:06 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Post by donrandall »

CK - I use Goldwave for everything, from simple voiceovers to produced commercials with music and sfx. In some cases, I may have two or three music elements and two or three sfx in one 30 or 60 sec production. I have never found Goldwave to be lacking in any way.

Based on my own use and my own satisfaction with Goldwave, I just have to ask: What are you doing that is so complex that Goldwave is not able to get the job done?

ck010898
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:17 pm

Post by ck010898 »

donrandall wrote:Based on my own use and my own satisfaction with Goldwave, I just have to ask: What are you doing that is so complex that Goldwave is not able to get the job done?
it's funny you should ask... because I love this software and there's really nothing I'd rather use.

Having said that, when it come to simultaneous muli-tracking, I've had to get very creative with my gear to work around the limitations presented by Goldwave and multiquence. I forsee a future where I switch software to allow for an audio interface unit with up to 16 inputs capturing audio in a simultaneous sequence.

OKCBoy
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oklahoma, USA

Post by OKCBoy »

ck010898 wrote:I foresee a future where I switch software to allow for an audio interface unit with up to 16 inputs capturing audio in a simultaneous sequence.
I understand. One thing I did discover when I upgraded from my original audio card to two M-Audio Delta 1010s: Multiquence handles it just fine. It sees each stereo input pair as a device. I can set each section to a different input and let 'er rip.

But one of the reasons I use Sonar for more serious projects is because of the on-the-fly control it gives me of effects. With Multiquence, I have to run through the plug-in menu and guess at which settings are correct, then go back and play the section to find out if it sounds right.

Also, Sonar combined with the Delta 1010's gives me the ability to deliver many different monitor mixes so I can give each musician their own headphone mix.

There are plenty of other reasons (5.1 capability, etc.) that I use Sonar for "finished" products, but don't think I'm not in favor of using Multiquence as much as possible. It's really an incredible bit of software, and amazingly short on bugs. Like I said earlier, I use it for quick sketches and the like. It's fantastic.

Bottom line: get the features you need. Regardless of what you choose as a multitracking platform, I'll bet that Multiquence, and certainly Goldwave will remain in your audio tool set.

Post Reply