hey guys-
i started computer recording on a commodore 64 w/ a piano keys
overlay from Toys-R-Us, so don't feel bad.
seeing cakewalk as merely a substitute for a recorder is the
wrong view. it
is that, but as sharc mentioned, it's abilities as
an editor is where it shines.
in the umm...olden days, engineers could always be spotted
due to the band-aids covering their hands. edits had to be done
w/ razor blades, scotch taped back together.
i read an interview w/ zappa once, where he mentioned "Apostrophy"
had over
700 splices, tape laid across office chairs.
that lead to the purchase of a very expensive synclavier,
an early sequencer.
the main reason to go to tape, is the "warmth factor" some perceive
as being better from tape saturation. some claim that digital sounds cold
(mainly the guys w/ huge studio equipment investment).
it's roughly the equivolent of vinyl vs. cds.
otherwise, there's no advantage of tape over digital.
both can be played into live, left as raw as desired.
i personally use pres and amps that contain Ax7 tubes to warm
the sound, a common trick these days.
i also have a roland vs-1680 hard disk recorder, should i feel the urge
to try for that "play it live" sound. that's the back of it in the .jpg foreground.
even when starting w/tape (usually 2in.,such as an Otari) almost
all studios port the music to Pro Tools (a high end sequencer)
for editing.
btw TIA- engineers always say that kind of stuff.
you are after all, clients. we want you to return.
if anyone says "i'll fix it in the mix", break into a gallop.
sharc- i'm starting to do 5.1 mixes...i'm going to need a test subject!
kirk