Recording and processing software

[AnthonyMA]

I have Sound Forge Audio Studio, Reaper and Cubase LE 6. I don't know how to use any of these. For *simple* tasks (eg recording, splitting merging), which program should I make an effort to learn? I appreciate that, in time, simple things may progress to more complex things.

[Gordon Steadman]

I use Audacity. Extremely simple to use and does everything that I need. I don't suppose the pros would think its much good but hey....its only digits init!!

Audacity is FREE which makes it about the best I reckon:cool:

[mr sneff]

Audacity is fine for simple tasks, I think Sound Forge will do the same but is a more sophisticated program. Cubase is aimed at sophisticated studio use, multitracking, sequencing and all the other processes of recording in a modern studio and is quite a steep learning curve. What are you wanting to do?

[AnthonyMA]

What are you wanting to do?

Just simple stuff to begin with: recording from a single mic and then adding some background. But it may become more complex...

[mr sneff]

Just simple stuff to begin with: recording from a single mic and then adding some background. But it may become more complex...

So, presumably, you'd require some means of mixing the tracks together and adjusting levels, possibly adding some effects? AFAIK Audacity isn't that versatile when it comes to mixing several tracks together, though it's good for editing files.
There are plenty of programs that allow you to download them and have a trial, Reaper http://www.reaper.fm/index.php allows you 60 days to evaluate it. I've not used it personally, though I've heard some good reports. I use a program called FL Studio http://www.image-line.com/flstudio/ which is a fairly sophisticated studio software program (used by Mike Oldfield, amongst others), again with a free trial. Once you've paid for the program you get free lifetime upgrades.

[nat8808]

Out of the ones you have, I'd learn Sound Forge to start with. Reaper and Cubase LE are geared towards lots of tracks, controling midi instruments, running software synths and all the like.

[Rothchild]

There's lots of good video introductions for Reaper which will take you through the basics of how to set up a track, select an input, arm it to record and how to do the basics of editing. In terms of the art and craft of recording again there are a number of good tutorials but unfortunately nothing beats hard won experience.

Even if you only have one mic if you want to have 'things in the background' then you're talking about multitrack recording and mixing in which case you need to take your pick between cubase and reaper. With any of these softwares the principles are generally the same, although the terminology might be different between them, so once you have a sense of what the various aspects are and can get your head around different interfaces to achieve the same thing then it. There are actually dozens of DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) so it might also be worth getting the demos of a couple of the key ones (Cubase, Sonar, Reaper, Studio 1 etc) and seeing which one fits best with your expectation. Generally with all of them the only limitation tends to be in one's imagination and understanding of the art of recording.

[nat8808]

And then there is completely free Ubuntu Studio (a Version of Linux) which includes the very capable, free and opensource multitrack/DAW software Ardour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardour_(audio_processor)

Ubuntu is very easy to install (can make a USB stick fairly easily for which you can then install it).

[Rothchild]

And then there is completely free Ubuntu Studio (a Version of Linux) which includes the very capable, free and opensource multitrack/DAW software Ardour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardour_(audio_processor)

Ubuntu is very easy to install (can make a USB stick fairly easily for which you can then install it).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge advocate for people switching to linux but this is one area that I would counsel caution around. Linux audio is (IMO) an 'esoteric' pursuit at the best of times given that OP appears to be a relative newbie to this recording lark I think they'd do well to stick with something that has a large active user base and concentrate on learning the software to record with rather than learning a whole new OS and a DAW with a smaller (potentially more computer oriented) user base.

[AnthonyMA]

take your pick between cubase and reaper

I think I'll plump for Reaper. There's a beginners' book (Home Recording for Beginners) which uses Reaper for illustration (recommended on the Reaper website) but it was written five years ago. I've asked in the Cockos forum for recommendations.

[Rothchild]

Good choice ;-)

The Reaper forums a pretty friendly and helpful, so between that, video tutorials and your book you should be ok. If you're looking for additional reading I'd recommend this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mixing-Secrets-Small-Studio-Senior/dp/0240815807 although I don't own it myself I have a lot of time for Mike Senior, he knows his chops recording wise and is quite a Reaper expert too (he also frequents the forums every now and again). He also writes the Reaper tips column for Sound on Sound - http://www.soundonsound.com/articles/Reaper.php

[AnthonyMA]

I'm getting on famously with my (now paid for) version of Reaper, so thank you very much for that, Marc! It's interesting how Google has become the destination of choice for help. In a three minute youtube video, some kind chap told me more about Reaper than all my struggling with the help files!

[Rothchild]

Good stuff, glad to hear you're enjoying it.

Yup, even as a seasoned DAW user I'm still a regular on the search engine with 'reaper *technique*' or 'reaper *new-feature*' to stay up to date on what's going on and to learn more of the numerous ways that exist to skin the recording cat!

Coupla things I'd recommend throwing in to the mix early is the SWS extensions and MikeStopContinue's 'ReaMenus'. The former adds in a lot of power and useful stuff and the latter helps to make it all a bit more manageable.