Why mono is better than stereo for recording vocals and dialogue
Three types of musician you'll prefer to work with in the studio, and one type that you won't
How to double track easily and efficiently
What exactly does the phrase 'leave headroom for mastering' mean?
New vs. old guitar strings: Part 1 - The case for new guitar strings
How to become a better singer
Two microphone preamplifiers compared at Abbey Road Studio 2 - tube and transistor
"There is background noise in my studio. Should I use a noise-reduction plug-in?"
This one simple mistake will lose you a third of your songwriting royalties - with video
What should you fix before you mix?
Subscribe to access our latest, up-to-the-minute articles with hints, tips and adventures in audio in the weekly Audio Masterclass Newsletter.
The marriage of the computer with audio recording was definitely not made in heaven. We use computers for recording because a) they are cheap, and b) ...oh, there is no 'b'.
Granted, you can buy a digital audio workstation (DAW) such as the Yamaha AW1600 for less than the price of a computer plus software. But workstations have traditionally been restricted in the flexibility and detail with which sound can be edited. Also, although a few workstations have had third-party plug-ins available, this is not at all common.
But computers are complex. Windows XP is complex (Vista more complex still), OS X is complex. Recording on the other hand is a simple task for a computer. It's like having the entire United Nations running a town council. What could possibly go wrong?
Because computers are so complex, problems are common, random, and often have solutions that are only stumbled upon by chance - if solutions are found at all.
But here is a list of things that computer recording systems often do that they certainly should not ever do...
If you haven't had all of these things happen to you at some time, either you haven't been recording very long, or you are lucky enough to have bought a system that just works. Yes there are some - my antique Pro Tools MixPlus system works perfectly, with Pro Tools version 5.1 software running on a 400 MHz Macintosh laptop with OS 9!
But I dread the time when I have to replace this system. I guess it might be somewhere in the time window when Apple is changing over to Intel processors and merry hell will be breaking loose.
I would not however blame software developers. They have a very difficult task to get their products to run reliably on the flaky foundations provided by computers and operating systems. However they clearly need to redouble their efforts and address the problems outlined above.
That is probably why the top end systems are so expensive. A Pro Tools HD system or a Pyramix does not come cheap, but pro users get pro value. Digidesign ensure pro standards of operation by listing 'qualified' computers. Most of the Macintosh range will be qualified - Digidesign know their core market - and Windows XP computers such as those from Terra Digital Audio Systems also get the Digi seal of approval. Merging Technologies - manufacturers of Pyramix, recommend certain motherboard/processor configurations.
One thing is for sure - if you can't afford a pro system, then you will have to work with what lies within your budget. But don't settle for poor performance, and don't let anyone hoodwink you that it's your fault for not understanding the intricacies of computers sufficiently. If we all pester software developers enough, they will have to burn midnight oil building extra robustness into their systems.
Imagine though - a computer-based DAW that works. Heaven!