Musicians of Equestria, I need your help!

[Spiders Phobic 16]

Hello Everypony. I'll start of with two things here.

Number 1, My favorite part of the brony community is the music.

Number two, I am a musician.

I have written out several pony- themed songs. I started recording one but decided to put it on hiatus. Right now I am working on somethings else I am trying to not put off. I've got a problem with never finishing things.

So my question is; What do you guys use to record/ edit? What programs do use?

Edit: Budget of $0.00 I'm 14, I don't have money.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Spiders Phobic

[Eyb0ss 4]

I'm guessing you do acoustic guitar? You didn't really specify in the post. I have a lot of set-ups in mind, but I need to know what you play in order to help

[An Old Head 4,816]

If you've not got the actual instruments to hook up to Finale/Sibelius, then I'd still go with Finale (specifically Finale PrintMusic). Computer-compatible keyboards to play your pieces sound like an actual piano on Finale, rather than the robotic Sibelius tones; and the transitions between notes flows, rather than jumps. It's what I prefer to use when I do music transcription, which means it should be equally good for music composition.

[Spiders Phobic 16]

I'm guessing you do acoustic guitar? You didn't really specify in the post. I have a lot of set-ups in mind, but I need to know what you play in order to help

For the song in particular; yes it is mainly an acoustic guitar. Also synthesizers (from a keyboard)

[Hansel 1,512]

Audacity is pretty fantastic. It's nothing fancy, but it's easy to use and great if you haven't got any money to spend. I use it for recording instruments, and FL Studio for anything electronic. 

[Thrashy 2,800]

All I heard is "musicians" and "help." And that's all I need to hear.

 

First off, I use Pro Tools to edit my band's music and Adobe Audition for personal stuff, but both can be rather costly on a zero-budget. For free recording software, I would turn to Audacity. For such a simple program, it's actually got quite a bit going for it in terms of effects and such, and really isn't that difficult to use.

 

I must ask, though if you're wanting to record acoustic guitar - do you have a microphone, and if so, what kind?

[Spiders Phobic 16]

All I heard is "musicians" and "help." And that's all I need to hear.

 

First off, I use Pro Tools to edit my band's music and Adobe Audition for personal stuff, but both can be rather costly on a zero-budget. For free recording software, I would turn to Audacity. For such a simple program, it's actually got quite a bit going for it in terms of effects and such, and really isn't that difficult to use.

 

I must ask, though if you're wanting to record acoustic guitar - do you have a microphone, and if so, what kind?

Microphone. *sigh* That's my worst problem. I wouldn't be having as much trouble if I had one. All I have is an Iphone and  Ipod.

[Hansel 1,512]

Microphone. *sigh* That's my worst problem. I wouldn't be having as much trouble if I had one. All I have is an Iphone and  Ipod.

 

I use a Blue Snowball. For usb mic, it's really great quality. It's also got different settings, which is surprisingly useful. If I recall correctly, it was about £50.

[Thrashy 2,800]

Microphone. *sigh* That's my worst problem. I wouldn't be having as much trouble if I had one. All I have is an Iphone and  Ipod.

Yeah, the mic is often the X factor in home recording…oftentimes they come way too expensive to be practical for any musician on a low budget. Unfortunately, phone and iPod mics are often horrid as far as sound quality. If that's all you have to work with, then it can't be helped, but if you find yourself with money (or would like to ask your parents for a mic for your birthday or Christmas/Chanukah/whatever it is you celebrate) there are two major options: The better one being a Shure SM-57 microphone, which is something of an industry standard at a steal of only $99 USD at most retailers. If you can't go for that, a less desirable but cheaper option that gets the job done would be to get an ordinary vocal mic, which usually run $50+ for one of average quality. You would also need an XLR-USB connector to hook the mic up to your computer, which the most decent quality one I've found was about $35.

 

Not to sound like I'm gushing, but the SM-57 is probably one of the best investments I ever made as a musician. It has an all-round balanced frequency response good for just about all uses, whether it be miking vocals, drums, acoustic guitars, and guitar/bass amps. It's slightly better for picking up the mid range, which most instruments/voices fall into, which is probably why it's become such a staple in the industry. If you could possibly find the money somewhere to pick up one of these puppies, it's well worth the $100 investment!

[Eyb0ss 4]

Microphone. *sigh* That's my worst problem. I wouldn't be having as much trouble if I had one. All I have is an Iphone and  Ipod.

This is an idea: when I started doing voice acting, All I had was a $20 Microphone from Wal-Mart. It held up and did it's job, and for the price tag it did really well. I still have it today. Basically what I'm getting at is if you want to start on a no-budget, pick up a basic microphone from a mall or something near you. Record each thing separately  Start with the guitar, then use the keyboard (if applicable) followed by the vocals and mix them together in Audacity. That's how I started. If you have the money to go out and splurge on higher quality equipment (listed lower to higher in price), go for the Blue Snowball, Shure SM-57, or the Blue Yeti (what I use) and continue using Audacity until you get more money to get a program like Pro Tools or Adobe Audition (again, what I use). If that's no where in the near future, don't worry. I recorded my brother's acoustic music for 2 years with that $20 microphone, and some off the recordings STILL sound great.

[Gay Bird 421]

I use a zoom h4n for just about everything. It's about 250 dollars though, and it's more of a field recorder than an audio interface. There are less expensive and more functional options out there. For editing, I use mixcraft pro studio 6. The regular version is 70,and it has all the same features. It's like garage band for pc. I use an mxl mic that cost me about 90 bucks, and I have it on a stand with a cheap shock mount and pop filter. All together, it's about 500, but there are always ways to lessen the cost. I'd say good DAW first, then mic, then mic accessories, then audio if. These are good things to ask for for birthdays and Christmas (that's how I got my stuff ) As for finishing stuff, I have lots of unfinished stuff. I just have a lot and I'm always writing so some songs get finished and others stay wip. Do a lot of stuff, and you will learn and get better. You don't have to publish everything.

[DusK 1,264]

You're going to have a very hard to putting out any music worth lustening to without any cash to drop on hardware or software. In the music world, you generally get what you pay for. Without a full-featured DAW to produce your music in and decent quality recording hardware to record your music with, you're probably not going to get a whole lot worthwhile done.

 

Recording in Audacity with a cheap $20 mic doesn't cut it. Get out there, mow some lawns, save up a few hundred bucks, and between all that, learn about a few DAWs and figure out which you may prefer.

 

Try out a few demos. FL Studio's demo version is exactly like retail except you can't save. Ableton Live's trial is full-featured for 30 days. Pro Tools, eh, you're kinda screwed there; you can't use the trial version without an iLok dongle, which is incredibly stupid completely their choice.

 

For hardware, the SM57's a great all-around "I want to record everything" mic, but you'll want to look into a video card or (if you feel like being more with the times) a USB interface, such as a POD Studio or some similar M-Audio device.

 

The point is; you're probably not going to get anything out there that's good for free. Learn and plan while you save, that's your best bet.

[iLegovideo 152]

Hello Everypony. I'll start of with two things here.

Number 1, My favorite part of the brony community is the music.

Number two, I am a musician.

I have written out several pony- themed songs. I started recording one but decided to put it on hiatus. Right now I am working on somethings else I am trying to not put off. I've got a problem with never finishing things.

So my question is; What do you guys use to record/ edit? What programs do use?

Edit: Budget of $0.00 I'm 14, I don't have money.

Well, I was in your position not too long ago...lol. A few months ago, I was also looking for some type of recording method. The method I use is a microphone. The mic I used was around 70 bucks. I'm assuming you can't get that kind of money, lol. My suggestion is to borrow money from your parents. 

[Thrashy 2,800]

Recording in Audacity with a cheap $20 mic doesn't cut it. Get out there, mow some lawns, save up a few hundred bucks, and between all that, learn about a few DAWs and figure out which you may prefer.

 

Try out a few demos. FL Studio's demo version is exactly like retail except you can't save. Ableton Live's trial is full-featured for 30 days. Pro Tools, eh, you're kinda screwed there; you can't use the trial version without an iLok dongle, which is incredibly stupid completely their choice.

I've got to disagree with you about Audacity not being worth it, it's actually quite intuitive and, although mildly limited compared to its advanced counterparts in terms of effects, it still gives you the recording quality you need (provided you have a good mic) without all the unnecessary bells and whistles that come along with the more advanced stuff. Also I must say I find FL Studio to be highly overrated. The only real use I get out of it is the MIDI sequencing capabilities, and even then, it's still not one of the best I've used.

[Hansel 1,512]

I've got to disagree with you about Audacity not being worth it, it's actually quite intuitive and, although mildly limited compared to its advanced counterparts in terms of effects, it still gives you the recording quality you need (provided you have a good mic) without all the unnecessary bells and whistles that come along with the more advanced stuff. Also I must say I find FL Studio to be highly overrated. The only real use I get out of it is the MIDI sequencing capabilities, and even then, it's still not one of the best I've used.

 

Audacity is a pretty awesome piece of software, especially for something that's free. It's great for recording instruments and vocals, and adding small effects (reverb, echo, etc) . You can also add plug-ins if you wish to jazz it up a bit, some are free, some are costly.

 

FL studio, in my experience, is great if you're creating electronic music. It's a bit of a pain in the backside to try and record something from a mic directly into it, for that I find it easier to record using Audacity, and then importing it. However, for anything electronic, or if you have a midi cable, it's fantastic.

 

But that's just me.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Hansel

[DusK 1,264]

I've got to disagree with you about Audacity not being worth it, it's actually quite intuitive and, although mildly limited compared to its advanced counterparts in terms of effects, it still gives you the recording quality you need (provided you have a good mic) without all the unnecessary bells and whistles that come along with the more advanced stuff. Also I must say I find FL Studio to be highly overrated. The only real use I get out of it is the MIDI sequencing capabilities, and even then, it's still not one of the best I've used.

I doubt you've used any DAW anywhere near its full potential, or you wouldn't be saying that. I'm willing to bet that all of those "unnecessary bells and whistles" you're talking about are what most professional engineers would consider completely necessary for getting a good mix, but we'll see exactly to what extent you're shunning the basics of music production when you put out your band's demos.

 

Audacity is a pretty awesome piece of software, especially for something that's free. It's great for recording instruments and vocals, and adding small effects (reverb, echo, etc) . You can also add plug-ins if you wish to jazz it up a bit, some are free, some are costly.

 

FL studio, in my experience, is great if you're creating electronic music. It's a bit of a pain in the backside to try and record something from a mic directly into it, for that I find it easier to record using Audacity, and then importing it. However, for anything electronic, or if you have a midi cable, it's fantastic.

 

But that's just me.

Either your experience taught you wrong, or you're not all that experienced. There's more than enough capability for recording and editing recorded tracks in FL Studio. If there wasn't, I would be using something else.

[Hansel 1,512]

Either your experience taught you wrong, or you're not all that experienced. There's more than enough capability for recording and editing recorded tracks in FL Studio. If there wasn't, I would be using something else.

 

I'm fully aware of that. I just find far easier recording in Audacity and then importing into FL Studio. It's easier for me to work with it that way for various different reasons.

 

But no, I don't claim to be highly experienced. 

Edited April 16, 2013 by Hansel

[DusK 1,264]

I'm fully aware of that. I just find far easier recording in Audacity and then importing into FL Studio. It's easier for me to work with it that way.

 

But no, I don't claim to be highly experienced.

I don't really see how.

 

Record in Audacity > render > import into FL Studio via drag and drop and time it

 

vs

 

Record in Edison > drag and drop onto the playlist, autotimed with the track

 

I used to do my recording in Audacity too, so I know your approach. There's a reason I switched to keeping it all in FL Studio.

[Thrashy 2,800]

I doubt you've used any DAW anywhere near its full potential, or you wouldn't be saying that. I'm willing to bet that all of those "unnecessary bells and whistles" you're talking about are what most professional engineers would consider completely necessary for getting a good mix, but we'll see exactly to what extent you're shunning the basics of music production when you put out your band's demos.

 

 

Either your experience taught you wrong, or you're not all that experienced. There's more than enough capability for recording and editing recorded tracks in FL Studio. If there wasn't, I would be using something else.

That seems like a rather high and mighty thing to say of somepony whose experience you know nothing about. I'll have you know I have worked quite extensively with both Adobe Audition and Pro Tools, both excellent pieces of software that, admittedly, trump Audacity in every respect. But for freeware, there is literally nothing about it that I can find fault with. And if I recall correctly, OP is running on a zero budget. To say Audacity "isn't even worth bothering with" indicates to me that it may be you, sir, who hasn't had proper experience with the very DAW you are so harshly criticizing.

[Hansel 1,512]

I don't really see how.

 

Record in Audacity > render > import into FL Studio via drag and drop and time it

 

vs

 

Record in Edison > drag and drop onto the playlist, autotimed with the track

 

I used to do my recording in Audacity too, so I know your approach. There's a reason I switched to keeping it all in FL Studio.

 

 

Well, firstly, I've been using it for longer then FL Studio, so... it's just a force of habit for me to do my recording in that. Audacity is much easier to use as well (at least for me), and I kinda prefer doing minor edits to the recording in that before bringing it into FL Studio and playing about it with further if I have to. It's just a pipeline that I feel comfortable with. I'm far from a professional and it's mostly for personal use, so I don't feel the need to change my work method if I feel comfortable with it.

 

Now, if we were talking about animation, I'd have a different attitude. 

 

FL studio also has an annoying habit whenever I record something directly into it. The instrumental I create in the software itself gets drowned out by the recording, which doesn't happen if I import it in separately. This isn't really an issue and it's something I can easily fix, but it's just an annoyance and I'd rather just use Audacity. 

 

 

In other words: it's just a personal preference.

 

 

Mind you, I haven't done a proper finished recording in like, 2 years, so whatever.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Hansel

[DusK 1,264]

That seems like a rather high and mighty thing to say of somepony whose experience you know nothing about. I'll have you know I have worked quite extensively with both Adobe Audition and Pro Tools, both excellent pieces of software that, admittedly, trump Audacity in every respect. But for freeware, there is literally nothing about it that I can find fault with. And if I recall correctly, OP is running on a zero budget. To say Audacity "isn't even worth bothering with" indicates to me that it may be you, sir, who hasn't had proper experience with the very DAW you are so harshly criticizing.

 

Having worked "quite extensively" doesn't denote competence, and that is what I threw into question by criticizing your "unnecessary bells and whistles" statement. That and your "The only real use I get out of it is the MIDI sequencing capabilities, and even then, it's still not one of the best I've used" statement, indicating that you barely scratched the surface of FL Studio's utility, and then decided to give up and say "it's overrated".

 

You are right about one thing; I don't know anything about your experience. And that's because you have nothing to show for it, at least none that I can find easily. So all I have to go off of are your statements, which were objectively incorrect.

 

My original point was that if you're serious about producing music, you're not using Audacity, you're not using cheap mics (or DI without a decent sim VST)... basically, if you're serious about producing listenable music, you're not starting off with a budget of zero. And even if you did have the $100 for a budget mic, the $10-20 for a decent cable, and the $100 for an audio card or USB recording interface, Audacity and "good recording quality" will only take you so far; which is to say, not very far at all. Audacity simply lacks the tools and workflow (the former significantly more lacking than the latter) necessary to mix and master music properly. Is it a great free program? Of course, and that's why I still have it installed. Is it good for music production? Not at all.

 

I never said that Audacity "isn't even worth bothering with". Don't put words in my mouth. I simply said that any person serious about making music that's going to be worth listening to isn't going to do it with Audacity. It's okay for beginners, especially if there's no MIDI tracking, sampling, or soft-synthesis involved in their music or the production process (as these are things that are either absent or nonfunctional in Audacity), but a person can never get a professional-sounding mix out of Audacity, so any decent music producer will eventually move up to a full-featured DAW.

 

 

Well, firstly, I've been using it for longer then FL Studio, so... it's just a force of habit for me to do my recording in that. Audacity is much easier to use as well (at least for me), and I kinda prefer doing minor edits to the recording in that before bringing it into FL Studio and playing about it with further if I have to. It's just a pipeline that I feel comfortable with. I'm far from a professional and it's mostly for personal use, so I don't feel the need to change my work method if I feel comfortable with it.

 

Now, if we were talking about animation, I'd have a different attitude. 

 

FL studio also has an annoying habit whenever I record something directly into it. The instrumental I create in the software itself gets drowned out by the recording, which doesn't happen if I import it in separately. This isn't really an issue and it's something I can easily fix, but it's just an annoyance and I'd rather just use Audacity. 

 

 

In other words: it's just a personal preference.

 

 

Mind you, I haven't done a proper finished recording in like, 2 years, so whatever.

 

That's understandable, I guess. Generally, the people I talk about music production with are more than just "in my free time" guys, so I can see why you decided to stick with the software you know better, despite it being underpowered.

Edited April 17, 2013 by DusK

[K3WRO 79]

First of all, Find a way to make some money, find a job, start a local business etc. Just make sure you have at least $100 as your starting budget, or else your not gonna get any further than where you started (I completely depended on birthday and new years money, so I had a total of $250 to begin with). I only spent it on FL Studio and other soft synths but It was enough for me, Improvement over that LMMS at least.

So, Get a good microphone, even a rockband mic can work well, but not too well, Maybe the blue yeti microphones are good too.

 

Well, For digital composing in music, Start with Reaper, It's a free DAW and you can start publishing your music after you buy a licence (which is $60). And while your at it, get some free synths like synth1, Oatmeal or TAL noisemaker.

Just like how everyone says it, Audacity is a good, free recording software

 

Good luck!

[Spiders Phobic 16]

You're going to have a very hard to putting out any music worth lustening to without any cash to drop on hardware or software. In the music world, you generally get what you pay for. Without a full-featured DAW to produce your music in and decent quality recording hardware to record your music with, you're probably not going to get a whole lot worthwhile done.

 

Recording in Audacity with a cheap $20 mic doesn't cut it. Get out there, mow some lawns, save up a few hundred bucks, and between all that, learn about a few DAWs and figure out which you may prefer.

 

Try out a few demos. FL Studio's demo version is exactly like retail except you can't save. Ableton Live's trial is full-featured for 30 days. Pro Tools, eh, you're kinda screwed there; you can't use the trial version without an iLok dongle, which is incredibly stupid completely their choice.

 

For hardware, the SM57's a great all-around "I want to record everything" mic, but you'll want to look into a video card or (if you feel like being more with the times) a USB interface, such as a POD Studio or some similar M-Audio device.

 

The point is; you're probably not going to get anything out there that's good for free. Learn and plan while you save, that's your best bet.

I'n not trying to get anything good, just trying to get the job done. I know it will cost me some money; but right now I have a grand total of... $11.00 :/

[Thrashy 2,800]

Having worked "quite extensively" doesn't denote competence

Yes...because as everyone knows, talent is inherent, not honed through hours and hours of practice.

 

 

 

That and your "The only real use I get out of it is the MIDI sequencing capabilities, and even then, it's still not one of the best I've used" statement, indicating that you barely scratched the surface of FL Studio's utility, and then decided to give up and say "it's overrated".

And you're not doing the same thing, here? I understand that Audacity is clearly not your cup of tea, but to say that "if you're serious about producing music, you're not using Audacity" makes the heavy (not to mention rather arrogant) implication that "it's not worth bothering with," hence my act of "putting words in your mouth." It makes the quite incorrect claim that Audacity is not inherently capable of producing a decent quality mix, which is vastly unfair to anyone who has ever gotten a good mix out of the program. Myself included, in case you couldn't tell by the fact that I feel the need to debunk your claims.

 

 

 

You are right about one thing; I don't know anything about your experience. And that's because you have nothing to show for it, at least none that I can find easily.

You almost make it seem like one has to present you a certificate of graduation from a recording engineer school in order to have any credibility in your eyes! Never at any point have I claimed to be some kind of mixmaster guru extraordinaire, but suffice it to say I have little obligation to go out of my way to prove my experience to you. Although I suppose if you must hear my work, you can just be patient and wait until the summer when I'm ready to release my EP, at which point I will gladly link you to our work. The quality, I'm sure you'd be forced to admit, goes far beyond amateurish. But again, you'll just have to wait and see, sir.

 

 

 

Audacity and "good recording quality" will only take you so far; which is to say, not very far at all. Audacity simply lacks the tools and workflow (the former significantly more lacking than the latter) necessary to mix and master music properly. Is it a great free program? Of course, and that's why I still have it installed. Is it good for music production? Not at all.

Missing the point entirely. The OP's indication was that he needed something to record fairly simple songs with acoustic guitar, some synth and, I'm guessing, some vocals. I freely admit that Audacity's workflow is lackluster compared to Pro Tools for example. In fact, that's kind of a no-brainer, not something one should have to admit. For the kind of music I make, which often requires working with 20+ tracks, I would never dream of using Audacity; it would crash faster than a copy of Ultima 9.

 

But for a simple acoustic ditty with, I'd say, perhaps less than 8 tracks? You don't exactly need PT for that kind of thing, nor Audition, nor even FLS. In short, he's just getting into recording. At that point, all you need for an acceptable recording is a DAW that can record at a minimum sample rate of 48KHz, a bit depth of at least 24, allows you to make basic edits to sound clips with relative ease, and is powerful enough to run a handful of tracks without crashing...all of which are well within the capabilities of this free software. So yes, anything beyond that is considered "bells and whistles" in my eyes, at least for someone who's just starting out.

 

 

 

but a person can never get a professional-sounding mix out of Audacity

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's one thing to say Audacity is vastly inferior to other DAWs - which it is - but the fact that you believe this tells me you've never even really tried with this program, despite the fact that you seem to be holding onto it for some reason. The only things necessary to get a good mix for a simple song is the ability to adjust each track's volume (check, even if clunky designed)...and if the OP knows anything about mastering - which I doubt - there is also an equalizer (also check, albeit very primitive and barely worth using). There are also a plethora of other tools, such as a limiter/compressor, that can do exactly what they are supposed to in regards to making certain things stand out better in the mix. Again, not as dynamic as their advanced counterparts, but they get the job done as long as utilized properly.

 

Bottom line: It's not the DAW which determines whether one will be able to produce a clean and well-mixed recording. It is the person behind the controls. Saying Audacity can never get you a professional sounding recording is almost like a sucky skateboarder blaming his board for his lack of coordination.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Lowline

[DusK 1,264]

Yes...because as everyone knows, talent is inherent, not honed through hours and hours of practice.

You underestimate just how much over-pretentiousness and the unwillingness to learn can stifle one's own abilities.

 

And you're not doing the same thing, here? I understand that Audacity is clearly not your cup of tea, but to say that "if you're serious about producing music, you're not using Audacity" makes the heavy (not to mention rather arrogant) implication that "it's not worth bothering with," hence my act of "putting words in your mouth." It makes the quite incorrect claim that Audacity is not inherently capable of producing a decent quality mix, which is vastly unfair to anyone who has ever gotten a good mix out of the program.

 

Someone has gotten a good mix out of Audacity? That's news to me. I'd love to hear it.

 

That aside, it lacks so many of the things that any audio engineer -- well, any good audio engineer, anyway -- would consider basic and completely necessary.

 

Its clunky workflow forces the user to either combine waveforms or work with a massively unorganized tracklist. Want a more horizontal workflow? Tough luck. Combine your audio and deal with overlapping, or start scrollin'.

 

All of its effects are forced into the waveform within the project; that is, if you want to apply any effect to a piece of audio, that particular piece of audio is permanently changed unless you skip back however many changes to the project are necessary to undo said effect. This makes it almost entirely impossible to get a professional-sounding mix out of Audacity due to all of the excessive steps one would have to take in order to get the mix to sound right through EQ and utilization of effects.

 

And speaking of effects, that's the entire scope of Audacity's VST support. Adding any sort of programmable soft-synth or pitched sample is impossible. It's impossible to simply compose music using just Audacity. This also makes any effect that would rely on MIDI, such as manual pitch-correction, harmonizers, or vocoders, completely impossible to use inside Audacity.

 

I used Audacity for all of my music production aside from drum programming from 2005 to 2009. I switched for a reason. Audacity simply lacks the tools to make a good mix. It's nothing more than an audio recording/editing app with a few more features.

 

Prove me wrong. Show me a good mix made with Audacity. And I mean a good mix, not a "this is okay for a beginner" mix. I doubt that you can provide a single professional-sounding track that was done in Audacity, but if you can, I'll promptly shut up.

 

You almost make it seem like one has to present you a certificate of graduation from a recording engineer school in order to have any credibility in your eyes!

No, just a well-produced track will be fine.

 

Needless to say, I have no obligation to go out of my way to prove my experience to you, although I suppose if you must hear my work, you can just be patient and wait until summer when I'm ready to release my EP. The quality, I'm sure you'd be forced to admit, goes far beyond amateurish. But again, you'll just have to wait and see, sir.

I've heard similar words before from several bands from my area. Their mixes ended up terrible. You'll understand if I don't hold my breath.

 

Missing the point entirely. The OP's indication was that he needed something to record fairly simple songs with acoustic guitar, some synth and, I'm guessing, some vocals. I freely admit that Audacity's workflow is lackluster compared to Pro Tools for example. In fact, that's kind of a no-brainer, not something one should have to admit. For the kind of music I make, which often requires working with 20+ tracks, I would never dream of using Audacity; it would crash faster than a copy of Ultima 9.

 

But for a simple acoustic ditty with, I'd say, perhaps less than 8 tracks? You don't exactly need PT for that kind of thing, nor Audition, nor even FLS. In short, he's just getting into recording. At that point, all you need for an acceptable recording is a DAW that can record at a minimum sample rate of 48KHz, a bit depth of at least 24, and is powerful enough to allow you to run a handful of tracks without crashing. So yes, anything beyond that is considered "bells and whistles" in my eyes, at least for someone who's just starting out.

So you're implying that even "simple" music such as what he's doing wouldn't involve a decent application of mixing in order to sound good? Because if that's what you're implying, you're wrong.

 

The only things necessary to get a good mix for a simple song is the ability to adjust each track's volume (check, even if clunky designed) and, if OP knows anything about mastering - which I doubt - an equalizer (also check, albeit very primitive). The bottom line here is that for what he needs, Audacity does the job and will produce results that are acceptable to him, as long as he has a good ear for mixing.

Holy crap, where to begin.

 

1. Volume levels are just the tip of the iceberg as far as mixing is concerned.

2. EQing isn't just for mastering. Significantly more EQing happens during mixing; working the frequency field is paramount to getting clarity out of your mix. That's kind of mixing 101 right there, dunno why you'd leave something that important out given your "extensive experience".

3. You omitted the stereo field entirely. Panning and maintaining a good stereo presence is one of the most important parts of mixing, and you simply left it out. Yes, it's important even for "simple" music like the acoustic stuff Spider was planning to make.

4. You omitted processing and utilization of effects entirely as well. Nobody with functional ears likes a dry mix, especially if the music in question is simplistic in nature.

 

Basically, what you're saying is that Audacity has "what he needs" to make a center-panned, muddy, and completely dry mix. That would end up being a really shitty track.

 

Is that how you're recording your music? Center-panned, muddy, dry? Just to, ya know, give me an idea of what to expect.

 

Bottom line: It's not the DAW which determines whether one will be able to produce a clean and well-mixed recording. It is the person behind the controls.

Funny, I actually agree with you here, to an extent larger than you'd think. Also funny, I didn't hear you singing this tune when you were bashing on FL Studio.

 

Saying Audacity can never get you a professional sounding recording is almost like a sucky skateboarder blaming his board for his ineptitude.

 

Considering Audacity is like the $20 flimsy, slow, poorly made WalMart boards of the audio engineering world, your analogy is rather accurate. Oops!

 

Stop beating around the bush, Lowline. Even an amateur like you knows that nobody looking to get a good quality mix would turn to Audacity to do it. It's great for beginners, yeah, but not for anyone above that level. I'm not saying he shouldn't use it at all, we all started somewhere. I'm just saying that if he's serious about music, he'll move up eventually, so it's a good idea to start looking at his options now so he can pick whichever commercial DAW would suit him best when he has the money to do so.