Arguing about Software

[BrandonSpendlove]

Most people argue a lot about software.

Some saying 'Pro tools is the best', 'Ableton Live is the best because their are loads of videos on you tube' etc.... and finally which made me laugh 'Cubase is the best because Hans Zimmer uses it'.

Firstly,

okay, we all have our personal software that we use the most because we are used to it, we have influences that use it and it is going to be our first idea to show someone if they ask ' What software should I get'.

I would normally tell a composer to get Cubase and Pro-tools because that is what I stick to and started on in school with my teacher who has experience with composing for films.

I then say to others who want to produce electronic music to go for Fruity Loops (FL) studio. (which I personally do not like) I mean hey, we all have software that we do not like.

My point is, if you went out and bought a typewriter that cost £50,000,000 or $50,000,000, and then gave J.K Rowling a pen and pad from the local store does not make you a better writer.

If you gave a fully inspirational, educated and well open minded composer software that cost 30 £or$ and free VST packs online, and gave someone that just started playing piano last night nearly every Software from VSt's to effects to sequencers... How could he be better than the first?

I keep seeing a lot of people like this and it is really annoying!!!?!?!

Anybody agree?

Sorry for the ranting but it really annoys me lol

-Brandon

(this may not be all finished because it is getting a bit late) carry on and add more.... If you wish

 

[Dan.Hall]

I use Cubase to compose, Adobe Premiere to edit, Celtx to write with a bit of Final Cut etc. etc.

But in my opinion, what you use doesn't really matter.
Whether you use a free bit of editing software or AVID, as long as you deliver what is required and it meets your technical requirements, I don't think it matters at all, especially in a low-budget filmmaking environment. And I'm sure filmmakers out there hiring editors and composers will soundly agree with that. Showing them the quality of your work will get you the job, telling them what software you use will not.

And yes, there are a lot of people out there who think that using the 'same software as Hans Zimmer' or the same edit software used to edit their favourite film will make them better artists. It's just a personal preference. It's the final product that actually matters.

Interestingly, I started composing using free software, then paid £400 for an upgrade to Cubase as I thought it would improve the quality of my work. True, I can now take advantage of 64-bit memory sizes and have access to Steinberg's integrated plugins, but the quality of my work has only improved through practice and experience.

Dan

 

[BrandonSpendlove]

I use Cubase to compose, Adobe Premiere to edit, Celtx to write with a bit of Final Cut etc. etc.

But in my opinion, what you use doesn't really matter.
Whether you use a free bit of editing software or AVID, as long as you deliver what is required and it meets your technical requirements, I don't think it matters at all, especially in a low-budget filmmaking environment. And I'm sure filmmakers out there hiring editors and composers will soundly agree with that. Showing them the quality of your work will get you the job, telling them what software you use will not.

And yes, there are a lot of people out there who think that using the 'same software as Hans Zimmer' or the same edit software used to edit their favourite film will make them better artists. It's just a personal preference. It's the final product that actually matters.

Interestingly, I started composing using free software, then paid £400 for an upgrade to Cubase as I thought it would improve the quality of my work. True, I can now take advantage of 64-bit memory sizes and have access to Steinberg's integrated plugins, but the quality of my work has only improved through practice and experience.

Dan

I really agree with the showing the film maker the quality of a work, not the software... I started out on a demo version of Mixcraft 5 and really loved it, then went to studio one and now cubase, and I really love cubase to bits, I have Cubase 5 not 6


I think that I have improved from sitting down everyday, and composing whatever comes to mind....

 

[Alcove Audio]

The "best" at doing what?

There are many music platforms, MIDI based, loop-based, etc., and each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Each user will find one that fits his/her style the best.

When it comes to high end audio post Pro Tools may not be the best, but it is the only choice due the Avid (DigiDesign) hardware that allows for huge track counts and heavy plug-in usage.

Pro Tools was adopted by the music community since it was the first very reliable digital system to record multiple audio tracks. Many have followed suit, and done it well; with the "recent" improvements in processing power and drive speeds "Native" systems are now a very viable option.

I do both music and audio post in my studio. I much prefer Digital Performer for music sessions, but once the arranging, etc. is completed I import everything into Pro Tools, then record vocals and do the mix there.

Nothing is the "best." However, there are "standards" that are difficult to challenge for many reasons.

 

[BrandonSpendlove]

The "best" at doing what?

There are many music platforms, MIDI based, loop-based, etc., and each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Each user will find one that fits his/her style the best.

When it comes to high end audio post Pro Tools may not be the best, but it is the only choice due the Avid (DigiDesign) hardware that allows for huge track counts and heavy plug-in usage.

Pro Tools was adopted by the music community since it was the first very reliable digital system to record multiple audio tracks. Many have followed suit, and done it well; with the "recent" improvements in processing power and drive speeds "Native" systems are now a very viable option.

I do both music and audio post in my studio. I much prefer Digital Performer for music sessions, but once the arranging, etc. is completed I import everything into Pro Tools, then record vocals and do the mix there.

Nothing is the "best." However, there are "standards" that are difficult to challenge for many reasons.

Sorry for not enough information, really tired...

This is just great!

this is what I mean! I love reading paragraphs like this.

some/a lot of people in the generation growing up now are thinking about one specific software. As you mentioned different software has its strengths and weaknesses. People are thinking, oh I only need one software because it is the best etc.... I prefer Pro tools for a mix down and recording not from midi, through audio... But then someone out in the world with a lot of money and their parents are rich could say well I am using Pro-tools for everything I do, which in that case I do not think Pro-tools can do everything a producer/composer/arranger wants to (not to mention any software can)....

I hope you did not take in what I said was to quote those who think specific software is 'the best'. I believe their is no best software, only the best for yourself... If that makes sense..

 

[JoshL]

screwdrivers make lousy hammers, but can be used in a pinch. Different tools for different jobs, different workflows, etc. And we all compose in different ways, so what works for me might not work for you. I think we're all on the same page here!

 

[Alcove Audio]

It's the same with microphones - there are several types of mics (dynamics and condensers for example) of varying polar patterns (omni and three types of cardioids for instance), specifically purposed mics within those categories, and each of those mics has its own personality. Great music recording studios have large mic closets. I have ten (10) mics in my collection and would like quite a few more.

 

[BrandonSpendlove]

Like the frequency response is different with many mics and when people say well, this mic is better than that one because the guitar sounds better....

I really annoys me and I feel like physically hitting them, but then some people do not understand, just because a certain mic might pick up a guitar sound that sounds nice, what if you put it against a bass guitar amp or shoved it into a kick drum and see how nice the sound is then..... (not to mention, not eq'ing, just the sound through the mic)

Many people do understand this but then we still have those around our local area, or even online that are just really, really thick about this kind of stuff. lol

 

[Alcove Audio]

I learned audio engineering really old school - it was a revelation when the studio I recorded at went from eight to 16 tracks in 1978 (aaahhhh.... the smell of a fresh Ampex 2" tape!). The engineer was a firm believer in getting the sound as close to perfect as possible before starting takes. If you had to try six different mics in ten different positions to get it right you took the time. It could take half a day to get the drum kit right.

Oh, yeah... no comping tracks, you had to play/sing it right all the way through. If you did another take the old one was gone forever. I can remember how nervous I was the first few times I did a punch-in/punch-out; if you f-ed up you could ruin the entire ending of the part before or the beginning of the part after.

I love editing on digital and all of the options we now have available, but I miss tape speed tricks (digital just isn't the same) and natural tape compression.