Why's PC demo recording still so problematic?

[lanark]

I mean - decent recordings on a home pc could be done 7 or 8 years ago. What was top of the range then, could now fit in a £100 netbook, so how come you STILL need a top of the range (or at least completely dedicated) pc to make a decent home recording?

Surely even the most basic laptop should now be able to do the job.

What do people recommend as the most basic home recording setup to get a demo-ish job done?

[ShergoldSnickers]

In part it's due to the circle of expanding possibilities. Computers become more powerful and then programmers take advantage, so computers have to become more powerful again. And so on. The increase in recording bit rate seen over the years puts more stress on hard disk and processor performance, the demands of ever more realistic or powerful plug-ins and effects all take their toll, and it adds up.

Oh bugger I think 51m0n is about to answer and show me up.

Edited June 9, 2011 by ShergoldSnickers

[51m0n]

Nah mate, the games changed completely in that time.

Back then you would be lucky to record more than 4 tracks at a time (really not demo kit to do 8 tracks)

A dedicated machine means you can tailor it to get latency right the way down to under 3 or 4 ms, which is nice, and keep it there.

What you could do on mix down was incredibly limited, CPU's could only handle a couple of plugins etc etc, hard drives were smaller and slower, and 32bit OS meant you could only address <3GB of RAM in your wildest dreams.

Now a decent laptop can certainly handle a complex mixdown. The issue is still the tracking. You need a FAST harddrive (or RAID array), which you wont find IN a laptop (speeds over 5400rpm are unheard of in laptops, since they use up the battery so fast). USB cant handle the throughput required either (1.0, 2.0 or 3.0) you therefore need an eSATA port. That limits your choice significantly for a start. I'm seriously considering something [url="http://www.dabs.com/products/hp-probook-4520s-i5-480m-320-4-pr-7CWM.html?refs=466480000-51340000-22"]like[/url] this myself...

If you want to multitrack you need a full feature fullspec interface (try looking on the [url="http://www.rme-audio.de/en_index.php"]RME site[/url]).

If you can get away with piecemeal tracking (ie not more than 4 tracks at a time) you can easily produce release quality (never mind demo quality) tracks given the time and knowledge.

The first two tracks on [url="http://www.invisiblelandscapes.co.uk/lh_music.html"]this page[/url] were tracked on a zoom H4n (for the drums) and indivual pieced together after the fact with a simple 2 channel m-audio interface into a mac book. Mix down was on a 4 year old bog standard bottom of the range Dell office PC.

Edited June 9, 2011 by 51m0n

[51m0n]

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' post='1263105' date='Jun 9 2011, 07:18 PM']In part it's due to the circle of expanding possibilities. Computers become more powerful and then programmers take advantage, so computers have to become more powerful again. And so on. The increase in recording bit rate seen over the years puts more stress on hard disk and processor performance, the demands of ever more realistic or powerful plug-ins and effects all take their toll, and it adds up.

Oh bugger I think 51m0n is about to answer and show me up. [/quote]


Not at all mate!

[paul_5]

ditto, software always develops in relationship with 'benchmark' machines. My macbook is doing a sterling job at the moment, but it has its limitations - my os is about 2 years out of date and this means viat i can,t upgrade to latest software etc. That said, i'm a musician and composer first, so the hear should be there to serve me and not the other way round. Yes, it's nice to have shiny new toys and plugins but at some point yot have to put 'pen to paper' so to speak. I don't mine running outdated kit to get my stuff together, i know it inside out and i know that if i upgraded then my productivity would suffer.

[Bilbo]

The technology is there. Its the other stuff; microphones, microphone placement, rooms, isolation booths, live room, multi tracking with several players without spillage and, most of all, the skills of the engineers and producers. The gear is only the half of it. Here is something I recorded a couple of years ago (Xote De Alegria) followed by something more recent (Clandestino). The difference is not the gear, (its the same), its my experience in recording. The difference, to me, is massive.

[51m0n]

I disagree about the software always reaching up to the power of the machines. Some software is incredibly lightweight, I know I bang on about Reaper, but one of the main reasons it is so good is that it is ridiculously lightweight compared to the likes of protools and logic.

I agree with Bilbo completely, these days the limitations are more than ever the knowledge of the engineer involved.

really, not a lot has actually changed in mic design, Heil implemented some neat designs using neodymium magnets which are fantastic, but I cant think of a huge amount else. The old Neuman mics are still the benchmark for a lot of uses, Cole ribbons are pretty unbeatable etc etc

Mic placement and understanding gain staging are key, as is a thoroughly in depth understanding of how any effects can be used to get certain results.

We are left with a situation where anyone can own the kit (decent PC and £25 worth of software, an interface and [url="http://www.red5audio.com/"]some really good cheap mics[/url] ) to capture sound, if the only knew how and what to do with it.

What you don't have readily available is a great sounding properly treated room to do it in, and the knowledge of how to do it. That is really what separates the good studios from the amateurs IMO.

Edited June 9, 2011 by 51m0n