Need some newbie advice with DAWs?

[James Melody]

Thanks EnGee

But first, what hardware you have? Is your audio setup correct? Windows or Mac? Do you have audio interface and monitors (speakers)? Do you use ASIO driver?

Uhhh… Windows 7 64bit. No soundcard. I don't use monitors, I have a pair of cheap earphones, cost me a couple of dollars. They're good enough for my purposes since I'm really making music for myself, not for the general public.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

My 7 basic problems with VSTs
(Based on my limited knowledge and possibly misunderstanding about how VSTs work.)

1. First of all, the fact is that I do have a lot of samples I've collected over the years (which didn't come with a VST) including many sounds I have recorded myself, many old sample packs, a few free samples I've found online, and then I'd also like to record the samples from all my keyboards too so I can perfectly recreate some of my keyboard songs. Put simply, I would like to use my own samples in my music! I had thought that this was impossible in DAWs because every instrument had to be a VST. I now know that you can do it with "samplers". But still, the whole VST way of working is not geared towards people using their own samples.

2. Another concern I've had about VSTs is that they slow you down, since you can't simply "cycle" through all your instruments like with a tracker, instead each instrument must be loaded and accessed through its own interface.

3. Another concern is that I presume each VST uses CPU/memory. Just a personal thing but I hate big software. I like programs to be as lightweight and simple as possible. (My favorite program is Foobar2k - it is incredibly powerful software, vast in scope, yet just over a megabyte in size.)

4. Another personal thing, but I also hate interfaces that are cluttered or use multiple windows, especially anything with floating windows that aren't docked. I've watched videos of people using certain DAWs and noticed that a lot of them require all kinds of large interfaces to be opened/closed/dragged around, including having separate windows for the mixer and the main project, so you can't mix while looking at your composition. As a lover of elegant interfaces, that kind of thing irritates me.

5. Then there's the inconsistency of each VST having a different interface. For many VSTs I'm sure that is necessary, for example soft synths. But if I simply want to play raw samples without changing anything, then it seems kind of disorganized having to use various different interfaces depending on whose samples I'm using.

6. Another thing about me is that I am BIG on organization and like to manage and organize all my files as one big library. However, that is impossible with VSTs. The need to use multiple VST to access all your instruments puts a great big division line between all your instruments and separates them into different partitions. It means you can't manage all your instruments as one big pool. To use an analogy, it's like if I went in my closet and I wasn't allowed to organize all the socks together, or all the sweaters together, but instead I had to keep all the different LABELS together. That kind of thing really irritates me personally.

7. Finally, I really don't like the whole principle of there being some kind of "middle man" program between the DAW and the samples. To me it seems logical for the DAW itself to load the samples directly in memory without the need for an "intercessor". Though I am aware that Steinberg is pretty strongly against piracy, so I can fully imagine why they invented VSTs and why others readily adopted the system. It makes good commercial sense, just not sense to the user (IMHO).

Once again, I don't mean any offence to you VST lovers, just humbly expressing my (probably naive) views based on the little I know about DAWs at this stage. My hope is that my preconceptions can be challenged and corrected, so that I no longer have these problems.

Vst is to instruments as cutlery is to forks i.e it's just a collective term for that which makes up your (V)irtual (S)tudio, which includes the sampler that you evidently are looking for.

- 1) The sampler you need will be a vst. Doesn't mean you won't be able to load your own samples

- 2) Not true. As I mentioned before, you are looking for a multi-timbral sampler (vst). What tis allows you to do is have one instance of the sampler as a shell to contain all your instruments, output to different midi channels. You can have a piano on midi channel 1, bass on 2 etc., and all these instruments will be able to be controlled (to include preset changes within instruent 'tyes'), within the same interface.

- 3) The issue won't be the memory footprint of the sampler, itself, but with each sample you load into memory. How much of a problem this is depends on the size of your samples, the amount of memory you have at your disposal, and whether the sampler allows you to offset some of those memory issues by allowing you to stream the samples directly from disk, a la Kontakt. In such a case, a dedicated, preferably ssd drive, will make a huge amount of difference. Again, his is nothing to do with it being a vst, and everything to do with your wish to have everything accessible at a moment's notice.

- 4) One interface only.

- 5) One interface only.

- 6) ONE INTERFACE ONLY. ONE VST ONLY!!! A decent sampler, such as the (industry standard) Kontakt, can handle sample libraries in the hundred's of gigabytes. I doubt you'd come close to hitting any walls in terms of organisation in such an VST.

- 7) Were would I even start

Though this particular solution of having a 'template' doesn't really address my basic need, which is to have fast access to my entire collection of samples.

For example, if I'm playing a piano piece, I would like to be able to:

1. Cycle through all the pianos (like, by hitting 1 key), and instantly hear the sound changing, so I can pick the piano which fits best for that particular part without having to load anything. What I want is power to quickly change instruments.

2. I'd also like to be able to see a list of all my samples and filter it based on various tags/properties. For example, first I might want to bring up a list of all the samples I've tagged as "Keyboard", then I might want to filter by "Grand Piano" to show just the grand pianos. Perhaps then I only want to see ones I've tagged as "favorites", or I narrow my results by factors like bit depth, sample rate, stereo/mono, source, manufacturer, license etc.

This is how I would (ideally) like to select my instruments, by having instant, powerful access to my entire collection of samples, without the need to load anything, or have to use various different interfaces. I mean, to use a comparison, I have hundreds of thousands of pop songs on my computer, and I can quickly search through my entire library and start playing any one of them instantly, so I don't see why I can't do the same with sample sets.

Though from the responses I am getting, it doesn't seem like the way I want to work is realistic.

Everything you want can be achieved in a decent sampler e.g Kontakt.

Once you have your samples organised, imported etc., you set up a multi-timbral instrument, with a midi channel per instrument. All of this is controllable from one interface. If you ant to change the piano to a different sound, you cycle through the presets on the midi channel that contains the pianos. Of course, there is the issue that you might have to double-click, and that might be a bit too distracting for you

Anyway, I'm out. I don't believe you to be a troll, but I'm very busy at the moment. Besides, despite the answers you have been given, you keep retreading the same ground, with the same misconceptions.

All the best!

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Thanks EnGee

But first, what hardware you have? Is your audio setup correct? Windows or Mac? Do you have audio interface and monitors (speakers)? Do you use ASIO driver?

Uhhh… Windows 7 64bit. No soundcard. I don't use monitors, I have a pair of cheap earphones, cost me a couple of dollars. They're good enough for my purposes since I'm really making music for myself, not for the general public.

I'm struggling why someone who is happy making music for themselves with $2 earphones (Nothing inherently wrong with either) needs to break the mould with such a bleeding-edge workflow

I think you need to just start off small (Free sampler, free daw), until you work out whether this is something that will even work out for you

[EnGee]

Ok great! Then start downloading any DAW demo and install it. See what will you need then. I say this, because it is better to take it step by step without assuming or expecting something wrong from now.

The DAW might have a driver that Windows can use (Wasapi or whatever). Some of them install Asio4All (free driver), if not, then you need to install it by yourself (easy to find and install). Then see your DAW manual (or a video about Midi and Audio setup). This is a repeated process you are doing with all DAWs (just for once of course).

After the setup stage, you can go to make some noises When you reach this stage, you can post other questions, like "how do I make DAW X play my samples?" and at that time, you would find good souls here answer you (KVR needs some thick skin, so don't worry, you will learn your way here as most of us are doing )

[lobanov]

Sequencers (praticularly trackers) is something I am familiar with. Back in the 90s I used to use Protracker and Octamed on the Amiga, as well as a few other trackers. Those programs just let you load up a big batch of samples directly into the program and they were all there ready to use - there was no need for each one to be running a VST.

So the "tracker" experience is precisely the kind of experience I am really looking for, which is one of the main reasons I chose to ask here, when I saw references to sequencers.

Try Renoise http://renoise.com/products/renoise, it's a tracker. But modern one. With VSTs.
Or OpenMPT https://openmpt.org/features, this one is free. And with VSTs too.

[fedexnman]

Yep, +1 for Renoise they have alot of tutorials(YouTube) and the demo software is great I think it's fully functional but with NO rendering ... PC/Mac/Linux too ... It's very inexpensive , they also have there own forum and community where they share patches , projects , and samples .... I suck horribly at Renoise ... But it amazes me what awesome music people program with it.

[lobanov]

Yep, +1 for Renoise they have alot of tutorials(YouTube) and the demo software is great I think it's fully functional but with NO rendering ... PC/Mac/Linux too ... It's very inexpensive , they also have there own forum and community where they share patches , projects , and samples .... I suck horribly at Renoise ... But it amazes me what awesome music people program with it.

NO rendering in demo mode. For clarity only.

And also there is REDUX. A tracker in form of a VST.
https://www.renoise.com/products/redux/screenshots

[EnGee]

Another option that you might be interested in is Reason. It is a kind of DAW/Workstation everything in one solution that is expandable by its own plugs (Rack Extensions). It is without VST/i support, however. It has a nice sampler (actually it has two) and it comes also with many samples. I believe this one fits your requirements the most. Now, the full version is not cheap ($399 in their website), but you can find it at about 45% to 50% cheaper in the Sell & Buy market here in KVR.

There is a cut down version of the full which is called Reason Essentials ($69 in their website), but it lacks many things from the full version. Anyway, check the comparison chart, it might be all you need (scroll down till you find the Comparison Chart):
https://shop.propellerheads.se/product/reason-9/

It is a very stable solution and might suit your way of thinking, so give the demo a try (which is the same as full version for 30 days).

[James Melody]

Thanks again, everyone. Thanks EnGee.

Lobanov & Fedexenman > Yes, RENOISE was already mentioned yesterday by CTStump and since then I have been thoroughly investigating it, watching videos and on their forums...

Well folks, please don't hate me, but I am starting to seriously lean towards thinking I am going to use Renoise! At first I dismissed it as being a little too "retro" and clunky. But then I actually started reading about what you can do with it, and started to think it actually offers everything I'm looking for, and the interface is actually quite nice (and can be modified). And the price is great! Not to mention that I just really love trackers, having grown up using them.

But even if I opt for Renoise, I will try a DAW at a later date and see how it compares. I am taking this decision very slow and still keeping an open mind, and that's why I'm asking all these questions in the first place. I don't want to shut myself off to any possibility too quickly. I want to find the right tool(s) for me. And all musicians are different. No doubt, my way of making music is totally different to most people's. I'm an unconventional guy, and I may need unconventional software!


El-bo > That was really helpful information. It seems you've cleared up many of my misconceptions about VSTs!

I'm struggling why someone who is happy making music for themselves with $2 earphones (Nothing inherently wrong with either) needs to break the mould with such a bleeding-edge workflow

Well how can I explain it? Let me put it this way. Some musicians consider their music equipment like a car - the more expensive the gear, the further and faster they can drive. In my case, I consider myself the car, and my music equipment is more like the road which helps me to move forwards and go where I want to go. That may make no sense, or it may explain things perfectly.

[EnGee]

You made a good choice The most important what's best for you and that you feel comfortable with and inspired by

[CTStump]

Glad I could help. I was getting the impression reading your replies that you may be one of those "Old Dogs" that has a hard time learning new tricks. No offence but if your not I can say that I suffer from that affliction myself but, and that's a big but, I did take the time to learn standard up to date DAW sequencers. Maybe you will be as capable a little later when your feet get wet in that platform and you choose to go to a DAW.

They are so much better than 4 track tape machines(that in my time were state of the art recording solutions) so good luck with whatever solution satisfies your needs with as little hassle as necessary.

[lobanov]

It seems to me you can find in Renoise all you need and a big part of things that a modern DAW offer to users. But typical DAWs (Renoise isn't typical) have piano roll and linear workflow so you can place audio and midi clips one after another.
And your willing to investigate other possible instrument deserves a respect.
Think about DAW as if it's an environment. A place when you use other instruments: your midi-controller, plugins (synthesizers and effects), midi and audio files etc. You can't gather all of them in one place in a different way.
Good luck with your studies!

[lobanov]

I'd advise you to give a look to FL Studio too.
FLS has a decent sampler (as you see it, you want to deal with individual samples, or am I wrong?). This sampler is loaded on the channels by default and you can drag your samples right in it from an internal browser. FLS has very-very good piano roll (one of the best). And FLS is oriented for working in-the-box (not good to record live bands but very good to compose from scratch).
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... ampler.htm
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... gs_ins.htm
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... s_misc.htm
https://www.image-line.com/support/FLHe ... serContent

[jancivil]

I'm struggling why someone who is happy making music for themselves with $2 earphones (Nothing inherently wrong with either) needs to break the mould with such a bleeding-edge workflow

Well how can I explain it? Let me put it this way. Some musicians consider their music equipment like a car - the more expensive the gear, the further and faster they can drive. In my case, I consider myself the car, and my music equipment is more like the road which helps me to move forwards and go where I want to go. That may make no sense, or it may explain things perfectly.

Well, people with elaborate palettes have desires or even needs that you have yet to imagine. We want to go places you don't? But you argue for standing still and moving forward simultaneously.

Samples but no ASIO soundcard will soon mean a long lag {latency} between hitting a key and hearing the note (more or less abated by adopting the proper drivers). You're stuck in the mud, through your choice.

There's too much that doesn't add up here, is why people say 'troll'.

[James Melody]

Samples but no ASIO soundcard will soon mean a long lag {latency} between hitting a key and hearing the note (more or less abated by adopting the proper drivers). You're stuck in the mud, through your choice.

There's too much that doesn't add up here, is why people say 'troll'.

I don't know why me not having a sound card would make anyone think I was a troll. You know I've never used a DAW before, so why would I have needed to buy a soundcard? Audacity works just fine without one, as do all my audio and video software (I use a lot of video apps). Sure, if I'm using a DAW/tracker, and find I have a latency problem, then I'll probably get a soundcard. But it makes sense to see how I get on first

I'd advise you to give a look to FL Studio too.
FLS has a decent sampler (as you see it, you want to deal with individual samples, or am I wrong?). This sampler is loaded on the channels by default and you can drag your samples right in it from an internal browser.

Thanks. It looks very attractive, and what you said about it having a default sampler sounds very promising. I will keep Fruity Loops in mind

I was getting the impression reading your replies that you may be one of those "Old Dogs" that has a hard time learning new tricks.

Actually, no, I'm not like that at all. I am constantly learning new software and enjoy a steep learning curve. I also happen to be a very fast learner and pick things up quickly. I have never been much good at foreign languages but recently decided to expand my skills and I am currently learning 3 brand new languages. That's typical of me

Likewise, I don't like to be stuck in the past and don't want to be a dinosaur. I was really hoping to "move into the 21st century" by using a DAW, which is why I'm here - I wanted to take advantage of the newest and best ways of making music. I was quite excited about that.

Nevertheless, I will always use whatever tool works best for me, even if it happens to be old-fashioned. And while modern DAWs are certainly more advanced in some ways, there are some ways that I still prefer trackers, namely:

1. I like to see all the properties of every note. Trackers show everything numerically, which is perfect. DAWs hide all this data and replace each note with just a "line" containing the note name. For me, that's too simplistic.

2. I also find it much easier to set up my notes in a tracker, you can just use the keyboard to move the cursor onto the note and type how you want it to sound. This, to me, seems much more powerful. From what I can tell, when you set up your notes in DAWs, you have to use the mouse, start clicking on notes, and selecting options and menus. Not to mention that each note in a DAW seems to occupy way less space on the screen, making it even harder to locate with the mouse. To me, this seems nowhere near as simple as just "typing" how you want the notes to sound. It's like the difference between me typing the word "table" in a text editor, and me trying to create the word "table" by clicking on menus and piecing the word together.

3. I am quite obsessive about precise timing. For most of my song parts, I want everything to quantized precisely to the beat by default. This is the natural way that trackers work.

4. Similarly, I like to input notes at my own pace, not be forced to "perform" at a fixed tempo, so I generally prefer step sequencing (inputting tunes note-by-note). Again, this is the natural way that trackers work.

5. This isn't a huge deal, but I personally prefer small, elegant, simple programs and hate the bloated size of most DAWs, and most modern programs in general.

The above isn't my argument for "why trackers are better than DAWs", it's just a few personal preferences based on the way I work, which explain why I am drawn to what is ostensibly "outdated" technology.

Saying this, I would be happy to hear reasons why people think DAWs are inherently better than Trackers. There could be a ton of stuff I'm overlooking.