Using Acid...want to uprgade...what program should I choose?

Discussion in 'Digital Audio & Recording' started by tobytob, Sep 20, 2004.

  1. tobytob

    tobytob New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ive been using Acid 4.0 and I want a more professional sound. I was told that ProTools is the standard for hip-hop producers but could use a more affordable program like Cubase. I want to be able to make music that is as close to what's out as possible. Any suggestions?
  2. Graeme

    Graeme New Member

    Messages:
    980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By and large, it's not the specific programs which make the difference, but the way in which they are used.

    Simply purchasing ProTools does not make you a better musician/engineer/producer (take your choice) and you will have one steep learning curve as well.

    I think the real question has to be, what do you find is wrong with the material you are producing with FL? The answer is very likely to be the way you are using it, rather than the program itself (which, being loop-based, is actually quite good for that genre).
  3. tobytob

    tobytob New Member

    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I haven't learned how to use Acid fully and I'd rather upgrade my system and learn a new program than what I have now. I need to be able to create a high quality, detailed sound as close to a final production (record album) as possible. If I upgrade now, needing a program for hip-hop production and vocals, what might be a good choice?
  4. Graeme

    Graeme New Member

    Messages:
    980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In all honesty, that sounds like somebody who wants to run before he has learned to walk.

    I'm not an Acid user, but I've heard some very good stuff which has been done using it. The capabilities of the application are not really in doubt, those of the user might be.

    If I was in your shoes, I'd continue with what I had and really learn how to use it to its full potential, rather than spend a lot of money on something new and be faced with an even steeper learning curve. Once you have reached the true limits of the application, you will understand more about what you are doing - and also a lot more about what you need to progress further.

    Just buying another application, because someone tells you it's 'good', is not the right route to take at all. The simple truth is that most of these programs are 'good', it's how they work for you (for example, CuBase and Sonar are very similar in features, but I hate the former's interface) and how you work with them.

    What else do you have to help you achieve this state of Nirvana? A superior soundcard? A credible recording room (for the vocals)? A high quality monitoring system? A quiet mixer/pre-amp? A good listening environment? A decent microphone? ......

    I could go on, but I think you get the point - "to be able to create a high quality, detailed sound as close to a final production (record album) as possible", you need the same sort of facilities which are available to professional studios. You also need a great deal of experience and practical knowledge of the overall process - not the current whizz-bang tools.

    In truth - most of them - you pay your money and take your choice. Download some trial versions - it won't cost you anything - and see which one/s you get along with.

    However, remember this, the actual recording program has little to do with the final result, they're all capable of making good recordings. If you start with garbage in, that's what you'll get out, no matter how much you spend on the recording application itself - it's all the other stuff, plus a good pair of ears and a lot of experience, which make the real difference.

    Twenty years ago, recording studios were turning out hit records which were made on equipment which, although state of the art at the time, couldn't hold a candle to what an impoverished body can buy today. However, a quick listen to much of the material which is now pervading all the music sites on the 'net, will reveal that all this modern, sophisticated, equipment and software is still capable of producing a total crock of crap.

    It ain't what you got, it's the way that you use it - applies to recording, in the same way as it applies to virtually everything else in this world
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2004
  5. CyberCat

    CyberCat Active Member

    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I would highly recommend Cakewalk Pro Audio 9, this is a *very* powerful MIDI/Audio sequncing program which I have used for years, and I love it.

    The only problem is that you can only buy it on places like ebay as Cakewalk doesn't sell Pro Auio 9 any more. :(
  6. CyberCat

    CyberCat Active Member

    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
  7. bigbaddave81

    bigbaddave81 New Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    acid is definitely one of the most basic software that is available, although its not directly used for multitrack recording, i know a few people who use it. I started working at a studio this summer though and they use logic 5.5, although version upgrades are no longer available for pc, take a look into it. It will give more of the basic hands on necessities before you delve into the world of protools. I would also choose sonar 3 over cubase just because the interface is a little more easy to learn in my opinion.
  8. Graeme

    Graeme New Member

    Messages:
    980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's all a matter of personal preference, of course, but I find Logic to be anything but logical and I would say it was not a good choice as an upgrade path (particularly since, as you have mentioned, no further developement is going to take place on the Windows/PC platform - why start using something which is obsolescent?).

    However, I still think we are missing the point here. The statement was;

    "I need to be able to create a high quality, detailed sound as close to a final production (record album) as possible."

    Merely changing to another software is not going to automatically lead to this Utopian dream - there's so much more to recording than the equipment/software used, as I outlined in my last post.

    I agree, Acid (inasmuch as I know little about it) is not the most sophisticated software around - but we're not really talking about a sophisticated music either. Even more to the point, tonytob - on his own admission - has still not fully explored its capabilities.

Share This Page