52 Reason and Record Tips by James Bernard Week 1 from James Bernard on Vimeo.

I’m writing this from the wintry wonderland that is Stockholm, Sweden. How geeky is this country? Geeky enough to use their entire nation’s terrain to construct the world’s largest scale model of the solar system. And they’re the home of music software developer Propellerhead, with whom I’m talking a stroll in just a few minutes. In the Props’ honor, here’s a round-up of some handy stuff for Reason and Record users, plus a link to my most recent reviews.

The timing couldn’t be better. Propellerhead product specialist James Bernard has already begun a terrific blog full of tips and tricks for Reason and Record, and just yesterday, he kicked off a 52-episode series of video tutorials. The first installment has a look at how to construct a rhythmic gate using the dynamics section of Record. Of course, you could very easily apply this to another tool (even Props’ own Reason, with a little work), so it’s potentially worth a glimpse even if you’re not a Record user.

James also has a nice example on using iPhone TouchOSC control with Reason on the Mac. I expect the musical style of James’ work may not appeal to everyone, but this is worth a look: he definitely knows his stuff, and it’s great to see him sharing.

Propellerheads Substance: Product Specialist

Propellerhead in general have done a much better job in recent months of getting more how-to content on their site. The whole Substance site has a round-up of materials from learning the basics of recording technique to artist profiles. There is, naturally, a bit of a commercial bent, but I wound up reviewing some of the tutorials while learning Record myself. It’s funny: we spend so much of our time and energy on reviews, but I find users generally use what they like. The area that really has endless potential is talking about how to actually use stuff.

For more video tutorials, check out the PropellerheadSW YouTube account, including micro-tutorials on Record, like the sidechain compression example here.

PropellerheadSW @ YouTube

For a non-Props-produced tutorial, Audiotuts has an in-depth look in one of the most interesting new features in Reason and Record, a grove tool that uses a mixer as the interface metephor:

An Introduction to Propellerhead’s Groove Engine [Audiotuts.com]

It starts with the absolute basics if you’re just starting out, it covers a tool that may not be immediately intuitive in its potential, and it’s (cough) better than the included documentation.

Reason’s user community keeps on plugging; you can find a new free or cheap ReFill of sound content nearly each week, it seems. The best I’ve seen recently is a terrific free ReFill of retro, chip-based drums:
Free ReFill Features “Filthy & Nasty” Chip Drums [Synthtopia]

Sir Sedric’s ChipDrums Reason ReFill/ WAV Pack – Filthy Chip Drum Delight

There’s some creative sound design in there. I’m definitely taking it as inspiration, as I’ve just begun working on some new drums with the deep Plogue Chipsounds collection, trying to produce some sets that push the chip sounds in unexpected directions.

Chipdrums Demo Track by SirSedric

Finally, Macworld recently published my reviews of Record and Reason. They’re equally relevant whether you’re a Mac or Windows user (having finished those reviews, I’m currently using both primarily on my PC).

Record 1.0: Turn your Mac into a fully equipped virtual recording studio

Reason 4.0: Virtual rack of music toys sports new modules, a Nordic God synthesizer, and a grown-up sequencer

The magazine took some flak in comments for running a Reason 4.0 review late, but I think it’s actually more appropriate to consider Reason 4 now in the context of the release of Record. Writing reviews is always a funny thing: I believe you have to judge a tool on its own terms and merits. You may discover a product is really fantastic, and still decide it’s not actually for you in your workflow. But I’m finding myself toying with Reason and Record, returning to Reason a bit in my own work after a long time away. They are marvelous pieces of engineering, and whether it’s common knowledge or not, I know a lot of producers and developers alike who have respect for the tools.

In fact, my biggest complaint about Record remains that it’s not a ReWire host; loading Ableton Live (among other tools) into Record as a mastering/mixing tool, for instance, seems like a no-brainer. If you agree, leave comments, and maybe we’ll see this feature in a future version.

I know one “review” CDM has gotten is not running enough tips and production tutorials, so I’m on it. There are a lot of tools out there, so let us know which are more important to you. (Pro Tools? Csound?) I’ll rest up here in Sweden and come back refreshed and ready to tackle that next week. Enjoy!

Ed.: Make no mistake about it: digital sound tech, from mixing to processing, has evolved to a fidelity on par with its analog predecessors and opening possibilities well beyond what they offered. But the making of that evolution wasn’t easy, and it was more than a technical challenge. You can thank the creative spirit of people like Paul Frindle. As contributor Primus Luta explains to CDM, his work is about more than just engineering or tools – it’s driven by creative, musical energy. -PK

Author’s note: I wanted to bring this piece to the CDM audience because, whether we know it or not, if we Create Digital Music, we are indebted to people like Paul Frindle.  While this piece is on the technical side, one of the things that I hope readers will pull away is his creative spirit. May Paul inspire you to bring that same energy to the work that you produce in the digital realm.  You can read the full interview, with war stories from Virgin Records, Trident Studios, SSL and more at AvantUrb.

In the world of audio, Paul Frindle is a legend.  During his tenure at Solid State Logic, he was responsible for the channel electronics of the SSL G Series Console.  He was also a part of the team that broke the “damnable black art” of digital conversion.  He went on to cofound the (pre-dot=com) startup Oxford Digital Ltd. Their first contract was with Sony (who would eventually take over the company), developing the application design of Sony’s flagship digital mixing console.  The result of this work was the OXF-R3, to this day regarded as the pinnacle of digital mixing consoles, not only in music, but also in film.  Like everything Paul has worked on, as much of a landmark as the OXF-R3 was, it proved to be but merely a stepping stone.  Where it was leading, however, could have been much different.

“I think there was a fantastic opportunity to revive the large studio concept, by integrating non-linear storage and editing into the OXF-R3,” Paul says. “It was already a massively-powerful workstation, wide open [enough] to accept it. This would have been amazingly powerful and creative, and would have knocked underpowered workstations off the map for many years to come, restoring a much-needed differential to the elite studios against the upcoming project studios.”

The OXF-R3 has only continued to blur that line in favor of the project studios.  Strapped for the kind of clients who could appreciate — let alone could afford — high-end studios, the great studios of their time have faded away one by one. If those studios could have stayed on the leading edge of digital tech, would it have been enough to halt those closures? We may never know.  Fortunately for all studio buffs, high-end and project alike, there was another avenue of exploration left for Paul that would give his work the broadest audience to date.

“The design of the OXF-R3 was amazingly ahead of time. It was a great big, highly flexible processor with a whole load of software running on it, which was restricted and presented on a panel just for conformity and convenience. It was already ‘software in a box’. It could even be controlled remotely. All of the design systems and debugging tools I was using on it consisted of on-screen GUIs.”  This was a dramatic, yet understated shift from the way technical engineers had previously worked.  It was a physical product, but the brains of it was moving into the virtual space.

“I was warning that the OXF-R3 product concept was obsolete even before we finished it. The large digital tape recorder was nothing more than a very costly and highly delicate ‘bit bucket’ organised like an analogue machine. With the meteoric rise in performance of digital technology, it was fairly easy to envisage a time when a unit bought for £1000 would be capable of doing a large chuck of what a mixer needed.  In the near future, we would be able to make art without all this paraphernalia, at a miniscule fraction of the cost. I was far more excited about this than doggedly hanging onto established formats and design constraints.”

Not one to let this excitement lay dormant, Paul and a few others started their own pursuit.  “The plug-ins project was initially hatched from humble beginnings, almost by us working in our spare time and at nights. My colleague actually did the first proof of concept EQ plug-in over the Christmas break and it all grew from that.

“What people needed most were high-quality, refined and indispensable applications; the EQ and Dynamics were adapted to provide that. Making them identical to the OXF-R3 applications was a link to our existing reputation. Of course running these in 48bits for TDM or double float in RTAS actually provided better performance than was available in the OXF-R3 32-bit, fixed-point environment. And it has to be said that we ironed out a few bugs along the way too, so these were actually better than the applications in the large format console.”

For users, this resulted in what are still being called the best equalizer and dynamics processing plug-ins on the market.  For Sony, however, the greatest deliverable was the system they built to create both the OXF-R3 and the plugins.  “It was a complete hierarchical graphic design system running on a specially-designed processor, which allowed real-time interaction and analysis of the action for almost every instruction in your processing design!”  If this description sounds familiar, it is because what Paul is describing is a modular environment for signal processing, much like tools like Max/MSP, AudioMulch and Plogue Bidule.

“Not only did it allow engineers without formal programming skills to build highly complex applications, it also very crucially allowed us to experiment freely and actually listen to what was happening in real time! It was this system that enabled me to delve so deeply into what we could hear and why, exploit that knowledge and realise the applications for the OXF-R3 console and subsequently the Sony Oxford plug-ins. Quite simply, I was able to ‘play around’ with all sorts of  wacky processing models to get the behaviour that matched the all-important sounds in my head.”

This freedom of experimentation allowed Paul to move from traditional audio utilities like EQ’s and dynamics processors into more creative arenas.  “The Transmod was something that I have always wanted since the mid-1970s, and over the decades had tried on several occasions to make out of analogue technology. But it was doomed to failure because of the relatively poor accuracy and stability of [analogue] components. During a lunchtime, I knocked up a digital version of my old idea as proof of concept, and it just worked!

“The Inflator came about because I received a late night call from a friend who had been doing high-profile sessions in L.A. with Eric Clapton and BB King. He had slogged away for months doing recordings and mixes, but had been beaten into production by another engineer who managed to make it louder. He wanted to know if there was anything he could possibly do to make it louder without wrecking the sound completely.  I was reminded that I had to make my first transistor power amp design in 1970 twice as powerful as the previous tube amp design to get the same volume and impact. All I had to do was to apply all this old knowledge into a digital process and the same effect would be available. I used a combination of math packages and the OX-R3 design system to experiment and extract the salient details of what made the tube amp louder. This was definitely a walk on the wild side, since for the first time in this employment I was making something whose sole purpose was to generate a heap of distortion!”

After leaving Sony Oxford, Paul set out on his own again to further explore the creative possibilities opening up through digital audio.  The result is his latest venture Pro Audio DSP.  “This initiative was conceived as a way of getting this stuff done without too much interference from marketing executives and sales infrastructures.”

The first product is the Dynamic Spectrum Mapper plugin.  “It was yet another object I had always wanted to have, but the idea was given greater urgency from listening to what people were trying to achieve in their productions using greater amounts of compression, the kinds of character they were trying to produce, and the difficulties they were battling with along the way. This, and a deep personal dislike for the artefacts produced in conventional multi-band designs, gave impetus for the design of the DSM. Digital processing seemed to provide the possibility of actually making it at last.

Dynamic Spectrum Mapper introduction from Paul Frindle on Vimeo.

“I am particularly pleased with the DSM because it’s exactly the sort of thing I want to bring to the marketplace – serious processes that have groundbreaking practical purpose and facility.  They are, at the same time, artistically capable and great fun! Such things excite me because they bring genuinely new capabilities and artistic power to the production process.”

If there is a theme to be found throughout Paul’s career it is a continuous effort to push forward this idea of the technology as art.: “I don’t want to waste the rich experience of the past in some manic push for ‘newness,’” says Paul. “Neither do I want to simply try and blindly copy what was there, in the hope that it does the same ‘kind of thing’. I want to understand it and use that understanding to produce new stuff, which is truly creative and actually advances our art. We should be carrying the past forward with us in a continuous process of advancement, not writing it off to history, or reverting to it in a religious search for past success.”

Speaking with Paul, his mind is so focused on the present or even the future, it’s easy to forget his historical relevance.  Working dilligently to realize the ’sounds in his head’ and put them out into the world, he is not only an inspiration for the work he produces, but for the creative ethic it exemplifies.

]]> http://createdigitalmusic.com/2010/01/29/interview-sound-legend-paul-frindle-and-a-story-behind-the-digital-audio-revolution/feed/ 12 http://createdigitalmusic.com/2009/12/28/sonar-8-5-2-hands-on-tradition-meet-tempting-treats/ http://createdigitalmusic.com/2009/12/28/sonar-8-5-2-hands-on-tradition-meet-tempting-treats/#comments Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:12:44 +0000 Peter Kirn http://createdigitalmusic.com/?p=8819 ]]>

There’s something to be said for the traditional digital audio workstation, its linear arrangement view, and all its editing bells and whistles. When it comes to finishing a track from beginning to end – not doing live PA-DJ hybrid performances or racking up modular synths and effects or programming intricate cellular beats – sometimes the conventional approach can be welcome.

With lots of affordable alternatives – not to mention competition from stable, previous versions – the question with any full-freight, top-of-the-line DAW is whether it can “buy” your loyalties with enough extras? And, for that matter, might it even convince you to enjoy running Windows? SONAR has tempted me before, but 8.5.2 reaches a new level of maturity – and a new level of pack-in goodies to sweeten the deal.

Choosing a DAW is an immensely personal decision. It’s worth saying that we have a lot of exceptionally good choices from which to select tools. Even when they perform tasks in very different ways, any number of tools can achieve the same results. I have had a personal reaction to certain tools, though, and too often in reviews, we don’t get to talk about that subjective experience. I’ve actually started to work SONAR into more of the projects I’m doing, so I speak personally about it.

From the moment you fire it up, SONAR screams DAW tradition, as in, “welcome to the cockpit of my 747 jet plane.” Yes, it’s got rows of squint-worthy icons on its toolbars. And yes, it’s sufficiently utilitarian. Whereas Ableton prides itself on a minimalist approach, and Apple and Digidesign have slapped on layers of slick gloss and shine, Cakewalk remains, behind the occasional pretty icon or knob scattered here and there, a tool that looks like a piece of software.

But don’t necessarily let this surface complexity turn you off. All the way back to the DOS days, Cakewalk has had a history of giving you more of everything, then allowing you to turn on only what you want. You can switch off and customize nearly any element of the interface. Clever tabs introduced in recent versions help keep everything within reach. The UI is still a little harder to look at than I’d like – not aesthetically, but in that the UI can become cluttered, and it’s easy to wind up with a lot of floating windows. But switch off some extraneous toolbars, learn some keyboard shortcuts, and get used to the “packed workbench” set of tools, and SONAR can grow comfortable more quickly than you’d think.

When it comes to editing, production, mixing, and routing, you’ll certainly never say, “I wish I could…” or “if only editing worked like..” More often than not, some tool with just that editing method is nearby.

SONAR is unquestionably the DAW of “more.” But whereas some of its flagship competitors have tacked-on additional tools or bundled items, much of that “more” is also integrated with the host itself. SONAR has also been focusing in the last few releases on the areas about which electronic producers care the most. I recently lamented that Apple’s Mac-only rival to the feature-packed SONAR on Windows, Logic Studio, has neglected some of its bread-and-butter audio effects and MIDI editing features in its most recent release. Apple’s Amp Designer and Pedalboard, MainStage performance rig, and Soundtrack Pro wave editor are nothing if not impressive, but they may not be relevant to everyone. If words like “step sequencer” and “tempo-synced mod filter” appeal more, then read on.

Step and Matrix Editing in a Traditional DAW

Two of the banner editing features introduced in SONAR 8.5 this year likely look a little familiar. The push-button Step Sequencer 2 recalls FL Studio’s step sequencing view, and the new Matrix View seems intentionally modeled on Ableton Live’s signature Session View. If you’re pleased with those tools, they may not make you a convert, either. But there are some reasons to believe that this is a  uniquely SONAR-like take on these kinds of features.

Step Sequencer

The step sequencer is likely to warm the hearts of fans of beat programming, and it could well woo away some users of FL Studio. What’s unique about it is that it’s a step sequencer view of any track you like – not an effect, not an instrument, but a view on the host app itself. Pulling up a step sequencer is now as easy as invoking the time-tested Piano Roll view. Nor is this limited to repetitive, four-on-the-floor patterns: you can determine the number of beats and the number of steps on each beat. (The maximum number of steps is 16, with more beats possible than I could count.) The beats lock to SONAR’s master tempo, as they should, but the pattern itself can even be out of phase with the sequencer time signature if you so desire.

Among other improvements in the new release, you can now add adjustable flam with a double-click, load and save favorite patterns, and populate certain steps automatically.

It’s the way in which the step sequencer integrates with SONAR’s track view that’s especially lovely. You can sketch ideas in the step sequencer, then fine tune them in a conventional Piano Roll view. You can lay out patterns in the arrangement wherever you like. You get all the speed and convenience of the step sequencer, in other words, without having to limit your ideas to accommodate it.

Step sequencing notes is the obvious choice, but you can also set parameters for each step, including velocity, time offset, and (to keep your patterns from getting repetitive) per-step probability. You can also send MIDI messages, including even RPNs and NRPNs for advanced MIDI programming. That makes SONAR an excellent choice for automating external MIDI gear.

There is a skin-deep similarity to FL Studio, but the real lineage here is Cakewalk’s superb instrument Rapture, which used a similar interface to perform step modulation.

Sadly, though, what’s missing in the step sequencer is the ability to automate third-party plug-in effect parameters via the same interface – a major missed opportunity, and something present in tools like Ableton Live’s clip envelopes. You can still do this via automation lanes, but it’d be nice to make use of the elegant control-sketching capabilities of the Step Sequencer. In fairness, the problem here is that many plug-ins don’t respond to common MIDI control change messages, even the few that can be reasonably standardized, such as filter cutoff.

Note that I say “third-party” plug-ins; some of Cakewalk’s own included synths can indeed be automated via the step sequencer, which is good fun. It’s an easy feature to miss, so I’ll cover how to do it in the upcoming SONAR 8.5 tips story. And if your plug-in does implement proper MIDI control, you can manipulate any plug-in with MIDI, too.

Also missing in the Step Sequencer itself is a way to switch amongst multiple pattern buffers. However, this is where the fact that the Step Sequencer is simply a view of a clip becomes powerful. To create multiple patterns, you’d simply create multiple clips. If you need a way to switch between clips, you can drop them into Matrix View and switch between them that way. That’s similar to what’s possible in Ableton Live, again, but for those who prefer the traditional behavior of a step sequencer to a Piano Roll view, SONAR gives you some additional choice.

I do hope that SONAR 9 continues to refine the step sequencer and its integration, as I think this feature has a lot of potential beyond its current, already-useful functionality.

Speaking of steps, it’s not at all a new feature, but it’s worth saying that SONAR has one of the easiest implementations of step recording I’ve ever seen. It’s easy to bang out an idea while cramped in coach with your laptop using just the keyboard. And it’s another reminder that a mature DAW still has its place.

Matrix View

One of the mysteries of music software development over the last few years has been that, for all the success of Ableton Live, it seemed no one tried to copy Live’s biggest features, its clip-launching workflow. (Live didn’t invent the idea of putting chunks of music in an array of triggers – that fundamental idea comes from samplers and drum machines – but that makes the absence of other takes on the idea all the more strange.) Well, the wait is over: Matrix View in SONAR 8.5 certainly seems to respond directly to Live’s Session View.

It’s easiest to talk first about the obvious similarities. As with Live’s Session View, SONAR’s Matrix View arranges audio and MIDI clips into an array. Trigger a clip, and it begins playing. Set the launch quantization, and its playback will begin on a beat or a bar. Trigger the clip again, and it either re-triggers or toggles playback, depending on the mode you’ve set. Trigger a second clip in the same row (SONAR) or column (Live), and the first clip starts playing, replaced by the first. SONAR’s rendition is rotated ninety degrees from Live’s – which in some ways is more intuitive – but the behavior is the same. SONAR even mimics some of the toolbar layout of Live’s Session View.

Because Matrix View is so much like Session View, however, the differences are thrown into relief, too. For the first time, we see what Live might look like if it were redesigned from the ground up. The clip buttons are enlarged in SONAR’s Matrix View, allowing for greater visual feedback on clips. Settings that in Live require a visit to a different pane are exposed in Matrix View, including looping and latching clips.

Matrix View also introduces some features Live users may envy. You can set “Latch Mode” globally, so that clips play back only when an input – like a pad on a drum controller – is held down. That can make your audio clips more playable, encouraging you to use your pads instead of just let them loop endlessly. (It’s possible to do the same thing in Live, but the feature is more exposed in SONAR.) SONAR’s Matrix View also introduces the idea of having two quantization settings instead of just one. Switch clips to bus A or B, and you can set one set of clips to trigger on the bar and another on the quarter-note beat, for instance.

I’ll be honest: I was initially apprehensive about Matrix View. If I wanted Live in SONAR, I’d be inclined simply to use Live, which yo can even easily do inside SONAR via ReWire. Sure enough, if you try to use Matrix View like Live’s Session View, you’re likely to be disappointed. SONAR isn’t built for onstage, real-time live performance in the way Live is, so the sonic results aren’t quite the same. (It certainly operates in real time, but it’s primarily a “studio” program. I did occasionally get brief drop-outs in sound that would make me hesitate to try to play Matrix View onstage. SONAR is a strong choice for onstage use if you’re hosting plug-ins or running backing tracks, but something like Matrix View becomes more interactive.)

Also, while the Matrix View’s array looks like Session View, it lacks the integrated tools for manipulating clips that Live has – to say nothing of Live’s more advanced arrangement options, like Follow Actions. You can warp audio using SONAR’s sophisticated GrooveClips, and unlike Ableton, SONAR has the eminently logical ability to loop clips without warping the audio contained. (Why Live still doesn’t do that after ten years is beyond me.) But Matrix View simply isn’t Live. Nor, says Cakewalk, is it supposed to be; Cakewalk repeatedly told me that, despite appearances, they intend Matrix View as a means of extending SONAR and not even a competitor for Live.

So that’s what Matrix View isn’t. The surprise is, what Matrix View is turns out to be more useful than I expected. Ableton Live is split effectively into two programs, one a linear view as in a conventional DAW and the other Session View. It’s possible to go from one to the other, but you feel like you’re dealing in a way with two separate programs.

SONAR, with or without Matrix View, remains entirely focused on the linear arrangement – and that can be a good thing. Treat Matrix View as a bin of clips, with the focus still very much on SONAR’s linear tracks, and the whole thing starts to make some sense. In fact, SONAR’s means of mediating between the non-linear clips and the linear arrangement seems more intuitive than Live’s to me, even after many years of using Live. Turn on “Capture Matrix Performance,” and you can use Matrix View as an easy way of “writing” patterns and clips into tracks. You can do this without having to turn on and off the transport’s record control, which can result in some messy mistakes in Ableton Live. Toggle “Follow Transport,” and choose whether Matrix View’s behavior is determined by the project transport condition. You can do many of the same things in Live, don’t get me wrong, but SONAR has been able to learn and improve upon Live’s way of doing things, and favor the linear arrangement. Even if you opt to use SONAR alongside another application like Live, that might be useful to have integrated with SONAR itself.

Matrix View’s rows also are not tied to pre-determined tracks as in Live’s mixer-like Session View. You can choose any row of clips and arbitrarily route them to any track you like. Take all of the clips and route them to one audio track. Route some rows to one track and others to another. This makes managing signal routing and recording linear arrangements much easier. It’s possible to do the same thing in Live with busing, but Matrix View is routing to actual tracks, not returns.

Of course, none of this makes SONAR a live performance tool, which for many is the draw and namesake of Ableton’s Live. But if the appeal of SONAR, as mentioned at the outset of this story, is committing to linear tracks, that may not matter.

The net result of all of this is that Matrix View can be a useful way of playing around with clips quickly, while remaining focused on your end-to-end arrangement. It’s also worth mentioning that Matrix View isn’t the only way of dropping audio into tracks. Cakewalk’s excellent, dead-simple Beatscape can do something similar, in a drum machine/MPC-style view. Neither of these tools may convince you to upgrade to SONAR 8.5, let alone switch from another host. But having them available in your arsenal expands your ways of working, which can help prevent you from getting stuck in a creative rut.

As with the Step Sequencer, what’s critical in SONAR’s approach is keeping everything integrated and focusing on the main Track View. I can’t recommend SONAR on the merits of Matrix View – I’d like to see it grow and mature a little bit first, and to see it expand in a Cakewalk way and not just an Ableton way. I’m also not yet confident of its reliability; it’s a new feature, I saw some occasional glitches, and 8.5.2 made a lot of changes under the hood. But it could show promise in the future, and it certainly indicates Cakewalk’s commitment to adding to their host’s workflows.

Arpeggiator

SONAR 8.5 also packs an arpeggiator on each track. It’s a smaller feature than the Matrix View and Step Sequencer, but sometimes little things make a difference in workflow. The tool is very simple, but it’s awfully nice having it always available to use. You get all the basics, and because it’s everywhere, it can spawn new ideas you might not have tried otherwise.

Effect Goodies

If you opt for the full Producer Edition of SONAR, you get a lot of pack-in effects. Previously, the “kitchen sink” approach to effects had been the domain of Logic. SONAR has not only caught up, depending on the applications that matter to you, it could have the most appealing lineup of included effects.

I generally recoil from discussions of how “good” software sounds; a lot of this has to do with the user. But I will say, working with SONAR’s mix engine and bundled tools is an aural pleasure. There’s some really great-sounding stuff in here, and I suppose the “if it sounds good, it is good” maxim holds in music software as much as anything.

There’s a huge collection of new effects. Some aren’t strictly “new,” developed for other Cakewalk products, but no matter – this is a fresh, useful collection of stuff.

The PX-64 Percussion Strip is just fantastic. It combines dynamics (compressor/expander), equalization, delay, tube saturation, and transient shaping. Putting together these modules isn’t just a gimmick, either; the set is complementary, and there’s an elegant drag-and-drop option for changing routing. Seeing everything in one place makes a difference, and it’s nice to any time a software developer includes an expander and not just a compressor. The sound can be really transparent, as well. Combine this with the dedicated Transient Follower introduced in SONAR 8, and SONAR is a terrific environment for tweaking percussion. (Incidentally, it’s just as much fun with synthesized and sampled electronic percussion as recorded acoustic percussion.) 

The VX-64 Vocal Strip, as the name implies, does the same thing for vocalists. It includes a Deesser, compressor/expander, tube EQ, doubler, and delay. As with the PX-64, the VX-64 provides easy-to-use visual feedback and drag-and-drop routing.

The PX-64 and VX-64 are definitely the “headliners” in the new effects. But some of the other plug-ins are gems, too:

Tempo Delay is my favorite in the whole bundle; it’s a tempo-synced delay and modulated EQ/filter that for me, at least, recalls Lexicon classics like the brilliant and inexplicably-discontinued PCM 42.

Mod Filter is a similarly lovely tempo-synced EG/LFO with a rich overdrive.

The Alias Factor decimator is both a bit crusher and a low-pass filter; it’s the rare bit crusher that sound warm and organic no matter how much you stress its settings, and may well have become my new favorite decimator. (In fact, forget I told you about it. So many people are currently overusing the settings on Ableton that it’s become really obvious. So, keep doing that, and I’ll keep Alias Factor for myself. Move along.)

There’s also an included phaser, high-frequency exciter, multivoice chorus/flanger, parametric EQ, stereo compressor/gate, and digital reverb. Not one of these effects is flashy, in sound or appearance. They all have a few knobs. They look like free plug-ins. And I love that – they’re the worst possible option for impressing friends or clients with your pricey, fancy plugs. (They’re clearly modeled on Lexicon’s hardware front panels.) But they sound great, without getting in the way of your mix, and they actually stick to the controls you’ll actually use.

The latest additions sit atop some powerful, beautiful-sounding existing tools, like the Vintage Channel VC64, which incorporates analog-emulating dynamics, gate, De-Esser, and EQ, as created by Kjaerhus Audio. The vintage-styled panel is a gimmick, but make no mistake – the plug-in itself sounds wonderful. Cakewalk also has the well-executed Boost11 compressor.

Not new to SONAR 8.5, but now bundled with SONAR Studio and well worth mentioning, is the Roland V-Vocal editor. The tool incorporates the VariPhrase vocal analysis technology in Roland hardware – at (sorry, Roland) a fraction of the price of buying additional gear. Now, don’t get me started on the many reasons I hate artificial pitch correction and vibrato. But V-Vocal has some interesting creative applications, even if you’re not a singer. You can use it as a harmonizer. You can use it to create special effects with timing, phrasing, and formants. Its pitch to MIDI conversion works really well, too, so you can even sing in unusual synth lines. By “overlook,” incidentally, I do mean overlook – you’ll find V-Vocal as another “view” of your track.

SONAR is not without competition. For instance, I love some of Logic’s oddities, like its Sculpture physical-modeling instrument, or Ableton’s unusually elegant and unique effects. But when it comes to signal processing specifically and what’s in the box, I don’t think there’s a DAW on the planet right now that can match the utility and sound quality of the effects bundled with SONAR. That may not be a big deal if you already have assembled a suite of your favorite plug-ins. But if you want a DAW that ships with a lot of audio-processing goodness, SONAR, particularly in its Producer Edition, is simply unmatched.

Here’s another advantage of SONAR over some of its competitors. Yes, applications like Pro Tools, Logic, and Ableton Live now come with boatloads of plugs. But try to load these tools in another host, and they disable themselves. That’s true of some of SONAR’s V-Vocal, VC-64 channel strip, Lexicon Pantheon Reverb, and True Pianos. But nearly everything else – including the fantastic new Session Drummer – works in any Windows VST host. Want to drop your LinnDrum samples in a Session Drummer instance with the PX-64 effects strip inside the tracker Renoise, without loading SONAR? Go for it. That makes SONAR’s value decidedly greater.

(Notably, Reaper does not have these same limitations, as its fans are likely to be quick to point out. But SONAR, while priced significantly higher, also comes with a broader selection of plug-ins, and it remains a robust host for all of your other plugs.)

Drum Machines and Instruments

The big instrumental addition in 8.5 is the new Session Drummer 3, an expanded drum machine / drum sampler. Like Cakewalk’s other recent instruments, it focuses on the essentials but executes them elegantly: it’s a basic drum kit with open-standard SFZ sample compatibility, MIDI pattern playback and multiple pattern slots, and a friendly graphical view of the kit. The mixer is the really nice part of the instrument: mix via a basic mixing interface and route each audio wherever you like, with separate controls for width and tune. That doesn’t quite add up to a full-blown drum sampler like NI’s Battery, but it still does plenty.

I’m not particularly interested in sampled acoustic kits, so the beauty of this pack to me is the additional vintage drum machines, including Roland’s TR-707, 808, and 909, but also DrumTraks and LinnDrum models – all the things I can’t afford on eBay or store in my apartment. They’re just samples, not full-blown emulations, and it is a little silly hearing an 808 while looking at a picture of an acoustic drum kit. But couple these with SONAR’s step sequencer and transient-following effects arsenal, and you have a combination that should make any fan of electronic beats blissfully happy.

Of course, I’d be even happier if Cakewalk would bundle its modular drum synth, NPulse, from Project5. There seems to be no reason at this point not to bring Cakewalk’s flagship host in line with the rest of the fleet. And Cakewalk is up against various bundles of synths – Reason, Logic Studio, FL Studio, Ableton Live Suite, and even Pro Tools all now come with deep synth bundles. Just remember, you do get a good selection of instruments in Cakewalk’s software, too, including the Dimension Pro sampler and Rapture LE. Unlike the audio effects, I can’t really say the synth and sampler choices in SONAR are a reason to opt for Cakewalk’s tool over other hosts, but they don’t hurt, either.

AudioSnap

Slicing and dicing audio in time is all the rage these days, so it’d be easy enough to miss Cakewalk’s take. But I’d put AudioSnap 2 right up with Logic Studio 9’s new audio mashing features for ease of use. The AudioSnap overlay is brilliantly simple, and best of all for creative production, allows you to copy grooves to MIDI with one click. I could say more about it, but I think the new window says it all. The one thing you can’t see here is that you can now easily tab around from transient to transient.

Cakewalk also employs the high-quality stretching algorithms from the folks at iZotope. Note that Apple has recently developed some in-house audio warping techniques, as has Propellerhead for Record. Seeing how these features stack up, though, would be the domain of another feature.

Usability, Performance, Compatibility, and the Sum of the Parts

There’s quite a lot of additional fit and finish in SONAR 8.5, with additional improvements added in 8.5.2.

The Media Browser is improved, and acts as Windows users would expect; it’s great having a native file browser built into the host, and it fits neatly in a tab at the bottom of the screen.

The “Now Time” marker lets you easily drag around “now” during playback with the cursor so that the transport springs to the right place. It’s a little thing, but a big time-saver; I wish I had it in my video editing software.

Freezing now lets you easily include or exclude effects bins – an obvious, welcome choice.

And if you like buttons, you get even more. There is also a solo button on effects, useful while you’re tweaking. Freeze and archive buttons have been added to save computing resources, especially handy if you’re working on a laptop (or are addicted, as I am, to all those CPU-hungry multi-effects strips). Archiving is really handy when you’re working on a production, in that it allows you not only to freeze but disable a track while you aren’t actively using it.

But I think it’s the compatibility and reliability work that may be most important. Cakewalk has been way out in front with support for the latest-and-greatest version of Windows. They managed to support Windows Vista when, frankly, no one else seemed to work out how to do it or even if it was a worthwhile use of time. They supported 64-bit computing before anyone else, opening up greater memory capacity to their users – and now make it easy, via a technology called BitBridge, to migrate all your 32-bit plug-ins to your 64-bit system. Now, Windows 7 is here and generally doesn’t suck, and SONAR is not only first, but has an exceptional level of support. 8.5.2 in my testing was rock solid.

SONAR in general is one of those hosts that I feel won’t blink when I toss a variety of plug-ins and audio interfaces at it. Running audio interfaces on Windows, in particular, tends not to be as easy as it is on the Mac because of Windows’ multiple audio systems. Yet SONAR can be run reliably, in my testing, under a variety of audio systems from WASAPI to ASIO, with a variety of hardware.

There are subtle but important plug-in improvements here, too, for VST lovers. You can turn on “always suspend on play” to fix plug-ins that have trouble with stuck notes when you stop the transport (been there), and “serialize host access” to fix problems with plug-ins crashing or glitching because of user interface thread sync problems. I’ve definitely seen both of these issues before, though I wasn’t able to locate a misbehaving plug-in to test it. But it shows a level of attention to detail that, on Windows at least, I believe is pretty unique.

It’s tough to talk about reliability. Anecdotally, I know some readers prefer older versions of SONAR to newer versions, and I can’t find a material reason why that might be. But I do say that SONAR is generally a trust I feel I can trust and use reliably, and that to me means a lot.

SONAR Wins Me Over

Is there a place for traditional DAWs in coming years? Small, agile competition is certainly turning up the heat. And SONAR retains the legacy of conventional DAWs. It has an interface that can sometimes be cluttered with options. It requires an investment of money and time. It runs only on Windows, and it certainly looks like a traditional Windows application. By virtue of doing everything, it’s almost guaranteed to do some things you really don’t need.

But for all the beauty of non-linear arrangements, of unusual interfaces and novel music making, sometimes you want to finish a track in the conventional sense. And sometimes that means dealing with an interface with a lot of tools in order to make complex arranging tasks easier.

As for justifying its cost, SONAR can pay you back with reliability, predictability, and an arsenal of effects tools that would be tough to match anywhere else. It provides this set of tools without sacrificing standards support, compatibility with a wide variety of audio and controller hardware, and strong support for the open SFZ sampling format. It is tied to Windows, but it provides an exception level of support for the operating system, not only doing things first, but doing them best.

At the end of the day, we do all of this for fun. SONAR provides, by removing some of the points of pain (driver support and arcane under-the-hood optimizations), while providing plenty of toys for us to relax with. And at some point, with the step sequencer ticking away and an especially-lovely effect licking your drum track, everything else will fade away.

When it comes to stacking up conventional DAWs, I think SONAR deserves mention at the top of the pile. Any of the mature DAWs will likely get the job done. But SONAR covers an extraordinary range of bases that makes it a top pick.

Production software coverage: Watch later this week for some tips on making SONAR 8.5 work as production tool, whether you’re a long-standing user or newcomer. Also, we’d like to continue to offer coverage of a range of production tools / DAWs. If there’s an angle you’d like to see covered, or you’d like to talk about how you use your own tool of choice, we’d love to hear from you. Ultimately, it’s not a matter of talking about the tool itself, isolated from anything else. It’s how we work with these tools in music that matters. -Ed.

Sometimes, the best sounds come not from synthesis, not even from electrified instruments, but from the purity of a mic and acoustic instrumentation. It remains electronic, or even digital sound, but its source is organic. And so, one of the best reasons to see the new Sherlock Holmes movie in theaters is the wonderful noises that bounce around Hans Zimmer’s score.

Behind many great film scores are great soloists as much as great composers, and Sherlock Holmes is no exception. Zimmer worked with Diego Stocco, sound designer, sound artist, inventor, and composer in his own right. To realize the inner workings of the mind of Sherlock Holmes, violin player, the pair turned to Stocco’s own creation, a kind of meta-instrument made of all string instruments, dubbed the Experibass. Looking only at its appearance, the instrument looks like a practical joke, with the bridge and neck of a violin and viola pasted onto a Double Bass. But once you hear the creation, the instrument is sheer genius, combining the Double Bass’ superior resonance with the more delicate sounds of the treble instruments.

Brilliant as this instrument may be, let’s not get entirely distracted from the really important things in life, like how to make great pasta. Watch the video interview above for insight into the sonic and culinary recipes in the duo’s kitchens.

That’s just the beginning of the inspiration to draw from Diego and other artists whose work is heard from behind the silver screen in this blockbuster cinematic month of December.

The above video alone is unlikely to sate your Diego appetite, so fortunately there are some other interviews with the artist – features that are guaranteed to inspire you to attempt inventing your own instruments around the house. (Contact mics, you are truly the world’s greatest invention.) Jacob Resneck talks to Maestro Stocco about his ideas as a player and creator:

Interview with Sound Artist Diego Stocco [Cool Hunting]

On Bandcamp, you can find short albums devoted to their sound sources, including sand, a tree, and broken instruments:

Diego Stocco @ Bandcamp

On Diego’s Vimeo account, you’ll find a series of short films that not only feature and document his inventions, but serve as lovely audiovisual vignettes. Among them is this film “Dissonant Echoes,” featuring dismantled piano, antique zithers, and chimes, as discovered at the blog Synthtopia last month.

Diego Stocco – Dissonant Echoes from Diego Stocco on Vimeo.

Diego is, naturally, not the only talented collaborator on Sherlock Holmes. Tina Guo is the stellar cellist who worked on the film, and speaks about her work on the film and her experience as a cellist; you can see more of her on her YouTube channel. Ann Marie Calhoun provided violin – yes, there is violin in the score, even if Holmes himself may have actually played viola (depending on whose argument you hear).

Ultimately, though, it’s the strange and broken instruments, recorded intimately in place of the usual, overblown and overused “lamplight” symphony orchestras, that forms the sound of the movie. (Believe me, you might hate the film and still love the score.) In addition to the Experibass, Zimmer made heavy use of detuned, abused pianos, one of which was defaced in an underground parking garage. I have no idea why he talks about Kurt Weill, but the results are nonetheless fantastic, and a reminder of how much can be done with real, recorded sound. Hans Zimmer talks himself about his ideas behind the score to The Times:

Hans Zimmer: ‘The sound of Sherlock Holmes? It’s a broken piano’ [The London Times]

Zimmer also speaks to CMusicTV in a video interview:

More Behind the Scenes from Winter’s Movie Releases

For still more inspiration, Migul Isaza’s wonderful blog Designing Sound probes some of the other talented folks who worked on Hollywood’s record-breaking December films at the box office. Whether you were fans of these films or not, there’s still plenty to learn from the soundtracks. (Hey, does this mean lots of movie watching can be a tax write-off?)

"Invictus" Sound for Film Profile from Michael Coleman on Vimeo.

Via that blog, here’s a powerful story of using real sounds for film sound design. The audio team, working with director Clint Eastwood, went to extraordinary lengths to achieve sonic realism in the picture Invictus. Not only did they research the sport of rugby, but they recorded audio in Nelson Mandela’s prison cell. Of course, those sounds might have been recreated nearly as accurately on a California soundstage, but to me, the spiritual journey to the original location is even more important. It’s an attention to detail beyond what even the listener may directly perceive. Perhaps, after all, that’s why we do field recording – not simply for the results, but for the experience and the process of being in the places in which we make the field recording.

At the other end of the spectrum, Designing Sound has an interview with Paul Ottosson, who used sound design on the movie 2012 to create imagined worlds and play directly to the audience’s reactions and emotions.

Exclusive Interview with Paul Ottosson, Sound Designer of “2012? [Designing Sound @ noisepages]

“Destroy the Earth” might seem to be the simple charge of that movie, but in practice, the work goes beyond that. For his part, Ottosson emphasizes storytelling.

But, wait – there’s more. For a sense of what the experience of being a sound designer is like, and – whatever your career – how to manage your professional and creative demands, look to Andrew Lackey, whose work with sound cuts across box office blockbusters (They) and hit games (Dead Space).

Lackey tells Designing Sound blogger Isaza about the sound tools he wishes existed but don’t, and how to survive the economic crunch and stay mentally and physically healthy.

“Heard” a movie lately that inspired you? Seen good behind-the-scenes information from the worlds of movies, television, or games? (These are all bigger-budget releases; there’s plenty happening in the “indie” scenes, too.) Let us know.

And keep recording.

The tricky thing about introducing a new feature is that you almost immediately hear from users about other features that would go well with that feature. (There’s a children’s story that goes this way.) The folks at Cakewalk have done what I think is a pretty amazing job of working through a big feature list, and throwing in additional goodies users get without even asking. They’ve also listened to users and been thorough in fixing issues – some quite particular – in 8.5. The result is that SONAR 8.5.2 brings a mature version of some significantly-changed features, and an unusually significant amount of stuff for a “point” release. If 8.5 was beginning to feel like 9.0, 8.5.2 definitely does.

Flash back for a moment to SONAR 8.5 and updates, which made enough of an impact among die-hard Cakewalk lovers that we started to see bizarre fan videos about it. As previewed back in September, 8.5’s banner features were a step sequencer, an arpeggiator, a Matrix View grid for triggering MIDI and audio clips (yes, reminiscent of a program that rhymes with Sable Bun Drive), a new sampled drum instrument, AudioSnap for tuning the timing of audio, and nice new effects strips.

Matrix View, an ambitious new feature, was admittedly not entirely baked when it shipped, and saw a set of performance and functionality fixes with 8.5.1. But with 8.5.2, nearly all of those banner features get improved, with additional bonuses, to boot. Some of my favorites:

• 70+ new impulses for the lovely Perfect Space convolution reverb
• Swing individual arpeggiators
• Combine Matrix View cells with probabilistic Step Sequencer patterns for some generative music-making
• Drag cells from Matrix View into Track View – a bit like going from Ableton Live’s Session View to Arrange View, but in a more conventional DAW workflow

The full list of enhancements, tweaks, and fixes is utterly enormous. Now, of course, it would have been nice to see 8.5 ship with some of these issues, but I will say Cakewalk has shown some attention to detail and gotten quite a lot right. I’m finishing up a review of 8.5x based on the 8.5.2 version now. So, as I polish that off – any remaining questions you’d like answered?

Rather than just review the tool, as well, I’ve been working in my own material and with the folks at Cakewalk to share some tips, so stay tuned.

SONAR 8.5.2 Update Changelog
SONAR 8.5.1 Matrix View Update
8.5.2 Update on the Cakewalk Blog

Given a choice between boring and crazy, I always choose crazy. After all, craziness is part of the artistic persona. So bring it on.

It’s been a while since we had a celebrity saying things that didn’t really make sense. It’d be unfair to ask Ricardo Villalobos live up to some of the titans – Bob Dylan saying CDs have “no stature” and “have sound all over them,” and Elton’ John’s classic call to “tear down the Internet.” (Not to mention, in the end I think we wound up agreeing with them and turned Elton’s quote into a brand-new verb.) As with Elton John and Bob Dylan, I love and respect Villalobos’ work, no less so as he says things with which I disagree. But Ricardo Villalobos does get special credit for claiming in a recent Resident Advisor interview, among other things, that what has really hurt sound quality today is the lack of cheap drum machines from the 80s, because they were analog. Or they weren’t, but it was as if they were. Or something. (If you think this might earn some ire from Ableton loyalists, you’re right.)

No. I think the development is going in the opposite direction because everyone is making tracks in programs like Ableton, which has an OK sound engine. When I started making music 20 years ago, you had to at least buy a mixer, then some synthesizers, a drum machine—which is the best quality possible of a sampled drum. There was a pureness of the source of the music. It was analog, direct.

Ah, yes, the good old days. Back in the day, digital samples of acoustic instruments played through digital-to-analog-converters were real digital samples of acoustic instruments played through digital -to-analog-converters. It was analog, direct – well, aside from the fact that it was digital and not direct, but it was real … um … analog … digital. Pulse code modulation was real, pure pulse code modulation, not like the pulse code modulation you kids have today. Not like now, when people don’t … own… mixers. It’s not like you kids today, you people who use Ableton, people like… Ricardo Villalobos. (Villalobos is, in fact, a notable Live user.)

I mean, at least it’s a novel argument. Usually, you get the “mixing in the box is bad” and “computers aren’t real” argument from crusty audio engineers with massive outboard analog mixing boards, not electronic musicians. Recently, many experienced engineers I’ve talked to have come to the side of accepting that “in-the-box” recordings in software can be just as good as their analog counterparts. So, we may have reached a real landmark, a world in which electronic musicians claim digital’s no good and turntables are the only way to listen, while engineers experienced with analog claim just the opposite.

Let’s go back in time. For the record, twenty years ago by my calculations would be 1989.

The drum machine you might have bought then could be the Alesis HR-16, or perhaps a Roland TR-707. They’re fantastic, unique-sounding instruments. But “the best quality possible” is not generally a phrase associated with instruments of this era. We love them because they aren’t 192kHz, 64-bit multisamples recorded from 30 microphones and shipped on a 100 GB hard drive, because “quality” isn’t actually everything. And if you bought a new mixer in 1989, I assume you picked up something like Mackie’s just-released LM-1602, rather than an SSL. Of course, you really could go do that now. In fact, Ableton Live recently added 64-bit processing in the signal chain; the software that does more aliasing to account for lower bitrates is actually Pro Tools.

He goes on:

The thing is, you have the limitation of the program, the limitation of the digital mixing which is happening inside the computer, you have the limitation of the sound sources of the synthesizers—the virtual synthesizers. Even the sound engine is playing a very big role in the whole sound of the product. If you have a good turntable and good speakers, you can hear it is made in Ableton. Logic, for example, is very neutral in sound but Ableton…you can hear it in two seconds.

It’s hard to know where to begin. Live does have an overused sound – but that comes from people using effects presets as-is, people not knowing how to mix, people time stretching and warping without adjusting settings or taking care to think about the impact on its sound.

The idea that you have to use a turntable to hear these things, or generally to hear quality issues in a track produced entirely digitally is… well, an interesting theory. (It’d be like testing the fidelity of your inkjet printer by first taking a Polaroid of the output.)

They have all of these virtual instruments that are calculated by a computer, and you have a certain space where you have to put everything. And when you want to leave this space, you have to live with compromises, the compromises of digital mixes and recordings.

Now, perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought that if for some reason you thought you needed to mix on an analog board and record to, say, analog reel-to-reel, you were no less able to do that with the analog outs of your MacBook Pro than with your 606.

And what exactly was in those vintage drum machines, if not a computer making  calculations? Eleven secret herbs and spices? Elves with slide rules?

But this is the beauty of interviews – you can say whatever you want. And it definitely beats boring.

There is also one statement with which I wholeheartedly agree:

People are finding it easy to publish something without any controls. And this is the problem with the internet in general. There is so much information, and no one knows if it’s true or not. It’s just there. It’s an information monster.

It’s almost as though the Internet is a place in which people can make any wild claim they wish, without anyone questioning its basis in reality or fact.

http://www.residentadvisor.net/feature.aspx?1128

My own President Obama is this week off making his pitch for why Chicago should host the Olympic Games. Correction. Oops. I need to read the news. Chicago was eliminated first. But look out – our friends at Antipop (slogan: “antipop music for a pop music”) are using a different tool in their arsenal: music.

Watch the video for some fun gear spotting, plus one vintage arcade cabinet. I could point out stuff I see, but that’d spoil the fun. Shout out in comments.

There’s definitely a commercial gloss on this, but it’s nicely executed, and felt so absurdly Olympic to me that I actually couldn’t help but smile listening. (In fairness, either Chicago or Madrid ought to be able to do better than New York did with 2012; I recall dignitaries in traffic while rowers paced the polluter waters of Flushing Meadows. Yipes.)

Here you go, probably the most commercial music we’ll ever run on CDM:

Makes me want to, like, train or something.

Updated: From comments, I like these alternative suggestions by safd in place of “anti” pop:

superpop, poppypop, hippop, popcore, purelypop, universapop

Popcore is something I need to work on. It was worth posting this for that word alone.

Background: “Antipop is the Antonio Escobar music production personal studio, one of the most awarded Spanish producer and composer.” [sic]

Update: Superpop or antipop, the song alone couldn’t melt the hearts of the Olympic Committee. Congrats to – Rio!

Marrying open source and commercial development, or trying to bridge analog consoles and computers – either task on its own might seem improbable. But yesterday, a newly-announced tool promised to bring together all those dimensions.

Ardour is the free and open source Digital Audio Workstation software for Linux and Mac. It’s widely underrated and has some terrific architecture underneath, with tools that are maturing at a healthy pace. Harrison is not an open-source developer – they’re a commercial manufacturer of analog and digital consoles and do proprietary DSP development. Conventional wisdom says the two shouldn’t be able to work together, but they did. The result is something called Mixbus. It’s got Harrison’s technology for mixing, atop Ardour (on Mac OS X, for now) for recording, editing, and arranging.

The Harrison half of the solution uses Harrison’s own DSP algorithms for sound, which they claim match the EQ, filtering, compression, tape saturation, and summing on their large-format mixers. But aside from sound, this is also about design: the layout only ever has one knob per function and metering is done in a conventional way. The result is not just a set of plug-ins, but a real virtual console inside your Mac. Interestingly, too, while you can use your Mac Audio Unit plug-ins with the solution, Harrison chose the open LADSPA format to implement their channel strip.

I imagined that the pricing would be something like a thousand dollars, given the pro target market, but the whole thing costs just US$79.99 as its introductory price. If it sounds anywhere near as good as the makers promise, it’s probably the best deal in mixing and channel processing anywhere. Here’s the product page:

Mixbus [Harrison Consoles]

Of course, the advantages of free software are more than price; it’s the ability to keep the source available, to be able to customize it, and to be able to run it on a variety of hardware and software platforms. So how does free software coexist here, with Ardour under a GPL license? Creator Paul Davis says that the free code for Ardour remains available in Ardour’s Subversion repository; only the Mixbus components remain closed. As for Linux support and not just Mac OS, which would in turn support more hardware, Paul says they’re looking into the feasibility of binary Linux distributions of Ardour and Mixbus.

For any commercial developers who think that you can’t work with open source projects – or, for that matter, if anyone thinks open source projects can’t benefit from collaboration with commercial developers – I think you’re wrong. And licenses aside, this looks like a nice solution for music making.

Record is now shipping, and the beta closed – and now is a perfect time to talk about learning.

Okay, let me explain something. Propellerhead doesn’t want Record to be called a “DAW,” for Digital Audio Workstation. I personally overcame my own distaste for the strange acronym today because, well, there’s not another good name for a related set of tools.

But I do think Record is different. Workstations are usually defined by being all-in-one environments, for hosting other third-party instruments and effects, and adding in additional features like notation and video scoring. Record is none of those things. You can even treat it like a virtual mixer or rack of processing tools and load it into your existing “DAW” of choice, or take something like Ableton Live and load it into Record for mastering.

But then, Record is the exception that proves the rule, isn’t it? Aggressively geared to be the anti-DAW, to avoid trying to be all things to all people, Record illustrates the variety of ways you can get your music making done.

We’ve had a good, healthy debate on this topic, so no reason to resurrect that. Instead, I have two pieces of news: one, Record is now actually shipping. Two, if you’re interested to learn how to use it, or just to see what they’ve done, the Props have assembled a terrific set of learning resources. For beginners, “Record U” promises to cover the basics of recording tasks as well as the software. (So far, the first episode, “Recording Guitar,” is available.) You can add that to lovely ReWire tutorials from the folks who developed the technology, and mini-tips on how to use the tools. Whatever you think of the software, it’s an exemplary learning site, just the kind of thing you’d hope developers would do.

Basics video
Record U
Tutorials Page
Micro Tutorials and iTunes podcast link

I’ve chosen my favorite so far. Love it or hate it, I think this illustrates some of the vision of Record. It makes moving tracks and devices as easy as racking up instruments and effects in Reason, and makes mixing and matching audio uncommonly easy. That could make Record a nice tool to have around for trying to take your pile of recordings and productions and turn them into finished tracks and albums. (A lot of this “love it or hate it” phenomenon seems to depend on your feelings about Reason, so Reason fans will also want to take a look at the Reason – Record integration video.)

For people looking to get into music recording and production on a computer, for the first time, there’s a bundle that says “Pro Tools” on the box that costs correction: as little as just $99. It really is Pro Tools software; it’s certainly streamlined (some basic track limits, no multitrack recording), but still with a serious complement of recording, mixing, and effects, and even some nice virtual instruments. Beyond that, your choice is which hardware you’d like in your “value meal”:

For vocalists: The Vocal Studio has a cardoid condenser mic – that’s a USB mic you can connect directly – plus a stand and a case.

For “recording:” The Recording Studio gives you a simple 2-in/2-out audio interface so you can connect your own mic/line/instrument input.

For keyboardists: The KeyStudio is a 49-key synth-action keyboard with mod and pitch bend, plus and an audio interface (the 1-in, 1-out M-Audio USB Micro).

Correction: $99 is the price for the keyboard and vocal bundles, $129 for the recording bundle with Fast Track. (I had an early press release that said pricing was $129 for all three.)

The target readership for CDM may not be in the market for this bundle — though it is a ridiculously cheap way to add Pro Tools compatibility to your rig, if you just need to trade session files. But I know we also have a lot of readers who offer expertise to other folks. Do let us know what they think – if they’re turned on, or turned off.

See additional analysis on what the larger implications of Avid’s strategic shift may be.

If you’re a beginning user, I don’t doubt that this software will get you started. You get over 5 GB of instruments and loops, 60 virtual instrument sounds, reverb / chorus / delay / flanger / phaser / compression / EQ effects, reasonable track counts (16 audio, 8 instrument, 8 MIDI), 3 insert slots per track for “up to 3 simultaneous effects,” buses and send/return routing, and 2 simultaneous audio inputs and outputs. So you can’t do simultaneous multitrack input or surround hardware, but you’d need a different audio interface for that, anyway.

Actually, so that you can email this story to your nephew or niece who’s just starting out and considering options, let me translate to English:

This is a well-priced package that gives you the hardware and software you’d need to record podcasts, voice-over, and vocals for music (Vocal Studio), play some synths and instruments (KeyStudio), and input your guitar or instrument (Studio), and in each of them, record, edit, and produce musical arrangements. You get some virtual instruments to play with, some pre-stocked sounds, and all the editing and arrangement you’ll probably need.

It’ll run on Mac and Windows machines with modest specs (see the product page for the full details), though you will need these audio interfaces connected for the software to start. (You can’t simply use the headphone out jack on your MacBook or PC laptop, for instance, which is possible in some competitive software. The interface is effectively used as copy protection for the software.)

-Peter, speaking English

I believe that there are other ways to put together a good studio for this price, of course. There are some terrific “bargain-priced” music apps out there, actually more than I have time to use. It’s time to refresh CDM’s own budget recommendations for a variety of different kinds of users. But I actually think the presence of this option, with the “Pro Tools” name, could raise the visibility of the whole area. And since ultimately comfort with musical tools comes down to preference, the big question is whether a new user likes the Pro Tools interface and the package here.

More photos of the included gear below – nothing glamorous, but certainly not bad for the price, let alone with the software bundle.