Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

software for recording through the sound card

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 12:14:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I want software to record my voice & Roland keyboard through the sound card
on my Windows XP PC.



1) Please give me the name of recording software with features like those on
tape decks

-i.e. a meter to measure sound levels (like a vu meter on tape decks)

-i.e. Equalizer settings



2) Please give me the name of a program that can add some basic effects.
such as echo when recording voice (even better if it's part of the software
in #1).



3) What kind of microphone does a decent job recording voice (either a
microphone plugged into the sound card or into the input on my keyboard)?



Thanks.

Rob.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 12:14:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

there are probably 50 software programs that do what you want, 250
microphones to do what you want.

you probably would be happy with this setup:
1) Mackie Tracktion software
2) Audiophile 2496 soundcard
3) Smallest Mackie Vlz-pro mixer
4) Shure SM-58 microphone
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:45:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Rob Summerby" <summerby@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:JhqTe.11378$I02.585657@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> 1) Please give me the name of recording software with features like those
> on tape decks
> -i.e. a meter to measure sound levels (like a vu meter on tape decks)
> -i.e. Equalizer settings

http://www.cakewalk.com/Products/HomeStudio/default.asp

> 2) Please give me the name of a program that can add some basic effects.
> such as echo when recording voice (even better if it's part of the
> software in #1).

See above.

> 3) What kind of microphone does a decent job recording voice (either a
> microphone plugged into the sound card or into the input on my keyboard)?

You won't get any decent quality vocal recording with a mic plugged into
your standard computer soundcard. What model Roland is it? Is there a mic
preamp in it? If not, a small outboard preamp and mic would be your best
best. Your voice and how much you want to spend will determine what is the
best choice of mic/preamp.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:19:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

for a really basic program with the features you looking for I would
reccomend audacity . It is a freebie and very good program forreocrding from
your soundcard . altho not as many features but a darn good program thats
also free look for silent bob .

--
http://www.geocities.com/rmathies99/index.html

to hear free mp3's by this artist goto
http://music.download.com/jazzartistrobertmathies
"Rob Summerby" <summerby@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:JhqTe.11378$I02.585657@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I want software to record my voice & Roland keyboard through the sound
card
> on my Windows XP PC.
>
>
>
> 1) Please give me the name of recording software with features like those
on
> tape decks
>
> -i.e. a meter to measure sound levels (like a vu meter on tape decks)
>
> -i.e. Equalizer settings
>
>
>
> 2) Please give me the name of a program that can add some basic effects.
> such as echo when recording voice (even better if it's part of the
software
> in #1).
>
>
>
> 3) What kind of microphone does a decent job recording voice (either a
> microphone plugged into the sound card or into the input on my keyboard)?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Rob.
>
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 2:31:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Rob Summerby" <summerby@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:JhqTe.11378$I02.585657@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I want software to record my voice & Roland keyboard through the sound
card
> on my Windows XP PC.

I think you only need one piece of software.

You might find it convenient to record some tracks from the Roland as MIDI.
Then you can use the sound synthesiser capabilities of your sound card. You
can also use the MIDI tracks as backing tracks while you are recording other
tracks.

Cubasis VST is one low-cost program that can do that (there are many, but
that's the one I have.) You can define "virtual instruments" on your
computer and adjust them while replaying the MIDI recording till you get the
sound you want.

You can also record audio signals from the Roland, so each song can have
some tracks MIDI, some tracks Roland audio output, some tracks microphone,
and so on.

Cubasis has built-in metering, EQ, etc., and (like most computer recording
software, i think) can be extended via "plug-ins"; if you search Google,
you will find plug-in effects such as echo, reverb, and so on. Many of
these are DirectX, so will work with any software that supports it.

As for voice; you need somewhere quiet with good acoustics to record
good-sounding voice. The artist "Bady Drawn Boy" topped the UK charts with
an album he'd recorded at home. He said he made a small sound booth,
stuffed it with duvets and so on, but the key was to have a very good
microphone.

Lots of people think that condenser or electret microphones sound better
(they're said to be fragile, so aren't necessarily a good choice for live
work unless you're rich and can afford to keep replacing them.)

You will need a mike stand, headphones, and a mixing desk or microphone
preamplifier (unless you have a sound card specifically designed to handle
high-quality balanced microphone signals.) Pick one that provides phantom
power so you can use condenser/electret mikes if you decide to get one.

Tim
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:48:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126056133.583687.169890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> 3) Smallest Mackie Vlz-pro mixer
> 4) Shure SM-58 microphone

Danger, Will Robinson! Either one of those is fine on it's own. Just don't
use them together.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:50:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"rmathies99" <rmathies99@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Z_sTe.870$su7.68@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> for a really basic program with the features you looking for I would
> reccomend audacity . It is a freebie and very good program forreocrding
> from
> your soundcard . altho not as many features but a darn good program thats
> also free look for silent bob .

According their homepage though it's not multitrack (which may be fine if he
records everything at once).
September 13, 2005 12:35:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ricky Hunt wrote:
> "rmathies99" <rmathies99@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Z_sTe.870$su7.68@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...

%><

> According their homepage though it's not multitrack (which may be fine if he
> records everything at once).

But yes it does !

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about/features

look under "edit"

Andre
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 12:35:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Andre" <ten0fingers@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4325ca7a$0$27038$e4fe514c@dreader26.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> But yes it does !
>
> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about/features
>
> look under "edit"
>

I had misread an early part to mean it only did a "sound on sound" type
recording and not true multitrack. Good to know.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 3:15:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ricky Hunt wrote:

> "rmathies99" <rmathies99@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Z_sTe.870$su7.68@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net...
> > for a really basic program with the features you looking for I would
> > reccomend audacity . It is a freebie and very good program forreocrding
> > from
> > your soundcard . altho not as many features but a darn good program thats
> > also free look for silent bob .
>
> According their homepage though it's not multitrack (which may be fine if he
> records everything at once).

The drawback with Audacity is not that it lacks
multi-track ability because it works just fine
in that respect. (with both mono and stereo tracks)
It's that funky proprietary file system that
irks me. If you're working on your own it's not
a big deal, but in my world (Nashville) where
there's an overbearing need for file compatibilty
with other systems (ProTools, etc) the unique
file format just doesn't get it.
I will say that for the price it's an amazing deal.

rd
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 1:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

RD Jones wrote:
> Ricky Hunt wrote:
>
> The drawback with Audacity is not that it lacks
> multi-track ability because it works just fine
> in that respect. (with both mono and stereo tracks)
> It's that funky proprietary file system that
> irks me. If you're working on your own it's not
> a big deal, but in my world (Nashville) where
> there's an overbearing need for file compatibilty
> with other systems (ProTools, etc) the unique
> file format just doesn't get it.
> I will say that for the price it's an amazing deal.

My biggest problem with Audacity is its obsession with aliasing local files
rather than storing the entire project in one file (or even directory).
This makes it difficult to back up projects or interchange them with others.

You can however export the whole project as a bunch of WAV files, one each track
(and stereo WAVs for stereo tracks) but you may need to line them up again if
you've used the slider tool.

>
> rd
>


--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Developing a U6/U7 clone http://ire.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KA u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:27:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

En/na RD Jones ha escrit:
> Ricky Hunt wrote:
>
> The drawback with Audacity is not that it lacks
> multi-track ability because it works just fine
> in that respect. (with both mono and stereo tracks)
> It's that funky proprietary file system that
> irks me.

proprietary? check your terms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary

an this is quoted from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about/

"Audacity is free software, developed by a group of volunteers and
distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

Free software is not just free of cost (like “free beer”). It is free as
in freedom (like “free speech”). Free software gives you the freedom to
use a program, study how it works, improve it, and share it with others.
For more information, visit the Free Software Foundation.

Programs like Audacity are also called open source software, because
their source code is available for anyone to study or use. There are
thousands of other free and open source programs, including the Mozilla
web browser, the OpenOffice.org office suite, and entire Linux-based
operating systems."

> If you're working on your own it's not
> a big deal, but in my world (Nashville) where
> there's an overbearing need for file compatibilty
> with other systems (ProTools, etc) the unique
> file format just doesn't get it.
> I will say that for the price it's an amazing deal.
>

Protools is the one which uses a true a proprietary format. Not audacity.
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 2:27:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

alex bazan wrote:
>En/na RD Jones ha escrit:
> Ricky Hunt wrote:
[re audacity]
>> It's that funky proprietary file system that
>> irks me.
>
> proprietary? check your terms...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary
> an this is quoted from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about/
>
> "Audacity is free software"...
[snipped]

Yes, the audacity file format is open. Audacity does have a native file
format of its own, but can import and export many standard file formats
too - I routinely use it with WAV, and with the right libraries
installed it will do MP3 and others.

Audacity's native format enables all the editing info to be saved so an
undo operation can be applied to changes made during an earlier editing
session.

>> where
>> there's an overbearing need for file compatibilty
>> with other systems (ProTools, etc) the unique
>> file format just doesn't get it.

If the Pro Tools format spec. is not freely available, Audacity
obviously can't use it. Even MP3 is suffiently proprietary that Audacity
doesn't support it with built-in code but via external libraries.

Anahata
Anonymous
September 13, 2005 8:26:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:21:57 +0100, Anahata <anahata@treewind.co.uk>
wrote:

>alex bazan wrote:
> >En/na RD Jones ha escrit:
> > Ricky Hunt wrote:
>[re audacity]
>>> It's that funky proprietary file system that
>>> irks me.
>>
>> proprietary? check your terms...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary
>> an this is quoted from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/about/
>>
>> "Audacity is free software"...
>[snipped]
>
>Yes, the audacity file format is open. Audacity does have a native file
>format of its own, but can import and export many standard file formats
>too - I routinely use it with WAV, and with the right libraries
>installed it will do MP3 and others.
>
>Audacity's native format enables all the editing info to be saved so an
>undo operation can be applied to changes made during an earlier editing
>session.

I saw all those small files Audacity generates (I'm not even sure
what they are), one thought that came to mind was that by using
multiple files it gets by the 2-gig/4-gig filesize problem (whereas
the standard .wav file header uses a 32-bit word for number of bytes
and/or number of samples and is thus filesize limited).
Are the Audacity developers following this thread?

>>> where
>>> there's an overbearing need for file compatibilty
>>> with other systems (ProTools, etc) the unique
>>> file format just doesn't get it.
>
>If the Pro Tools format spec. is not freely available, Audacity
>obviously can't use it.

I spposed they could decode it and use it, but I see the point that
its an unpublished format, and to use it would go against the open
source idea, as well as perhaps getting them sued. OTOH, doesn't
openofffice use some of the proprietary Microsoft formats?

>Even MP3 is suffiently proprietary that Audacity
>doesn't support it with built-in code but via external libraries.

I got and installed the separate MP3 encoder download, and .mp3
export works from the file menu just as does the .wave export. I can
imagine legal reasons why this is done, but I guess I see it as rather
arbitrary and, uh, lame...

>Anahata
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:46:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anahata wrote:

> If the Pro Tools format spec. is not freely available, Audacity
> obviously can't use it. Even MP3 is suffiently proprietary that Audacity
> doesn't support it with built-in code but via external libraries.

ProTools and many other audio apps write industry
standard (AES spec) 24bit wave files on Win platforms
(and .aif files on Mac)
I can't imagine that AES would specify a file format
that was "not freely available" ...

rd
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:06:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:
> [re Pro Tools file format]
> I spposed they could decode it and use it, but I see the point that
> its an unpublished format, and to use it would go against the open
> source idea, as well as perhaps getting them sued. OTOH, doesn't
> openofffice use some of the proprietary Microsoft formats?

I don't think it's illegal to attempt to reverse engineer the file
format; OO isn't the only software to have done that with MS Office data.

There's much more need for that than there is for Audacity to be
compatible with PT. Nearly every Windows user has MS Office, everybody
gets word doucments as email attachments, but far fewer Audacity users
are likely to need PT compatibility and it's probably a lot of work to do.

Still, it's an open source project, so if anybody feels like trying
it.... :-)

Anahata
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 1:06:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Anahata" <anahata@treewind.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4327d9f8$0$17462$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net
> Ben Bradley wrote:
>> [re Pro Tools file format]
>> I spposed they could decode it and use it, but I see
>> the point that its an unpublished format, and to use it
>> would go against the open source idea, as well as
>> perhaps getting them sued. OTOH, doesn't openofffice use
>> some of the proprietary Microsoft formats?
>
> I don't think it's illegal to attempt to reverse engineer
> the file format; OO isn't the only software to have done
> that with MS Office data.
> There's much more need for that than there is for
> Audacity to be compatible with PT. Nearly every Windows
> user has MS Office, everybody gets word doucments as
> email attachments, but far fewer Audacity users are
> likely to need PT compatibility and it's probably a lot
> of work to do.
> Still, it's an open source project, so if anybody feels
> like trying it.... :-)

The problem is that PT and all other Non destructive editors
have an edit list format that reflects the internals of the
product. The format of this file is likely to be a moving
target. Therefore, the file conversion can be a lot more
than just reading in "slice peeled apples" and spewing out
"peel and subdivide apples into slices with a sharp knife".

AFAIK just about any editor can save a wave or an AIF file,
but then you lose the edit history. Getting back the
individual tracks may be a lot of work.

People are begginning to get pickey - they want their file
conversions to be complete and easy. IOW, export from one
product with one command and import to another product with
one command, and then pick up where you left off including
undo and redo.
!