What is the best software to record audio with?
For some reason I've been receiving questions about this specific topic from various people over the past couple of weeks, so here is an answer.
On a Macbook, PC or laptop, Audacity is the only thing worth using. It's free and always has been.
Is Audacity easy? No, but neither is any other multitrack audio recording software. When you get into the world of software multitracking, it is difficult by default because there is no way to make it easy...
...which is exactly why I recommend using a separate standalone multitrack recording unit like the ZOOM R8, which is what I use personally. I liked it so much that I wrote two books about it (they're on my books page).
I still do use Audacity sometimes for audio mastering when I bring audio from the R8 to the computer. For things like normalizing, hard limiting and so on, Audacity does all that stuff very nicely once you know how to do it.
I may go ahead and write a book on how to do basic audio mastering with Audacity, given the fact it's not the most user friendly software in the world. Information on how to get stuff done in Audacity quickly is something I'm sure many would appreciate.
An example of why recording with software can suck
One word: Latency.
In the preferences dialog for the Windows version of Audacity in the Recording section is where Latency can be adjusted.
Chances are if you're recording with software, you're using USB. Okay, fine, all well and good - except that there's no such thing as latency-free USB audio recording.
What is Latency? Pausing. There is always a pause when sending an audio signal via USB. It doesn't matter if you're using USB 2.0 or 3.0. It doesn't matter how fast your computer is. It doesn't matter how much RAM you have. There is always that infuriating pause.
How does this pause affect you? When you multitrack, if you don't accommodate for the latency, your layered audio tracks are always "slightly off".
You accommodate for the latency by adjusting latency correction.
No two computers have the same USB latency, and no two USB audio devices have the same amount of latency either. This means if you switch computers and/or switch USB audio devices, you have to reset latency correction to accommodate the device. How much should you set it? That's the "adventure", you never know. You just have to experiment and figure it out manually. Yes, really.
Latency-free digital recording over USB is impossible. Absolutely. Totally. Impossible...
...which is why the glorious analog inputs of the ZOOM R8 (or ZOOM R16 or ZOOM R24 or Tascam DP-008EX) are such a welcome thing. When you want latency-free zero-lag recording, you go analog.
Now that you know you're supposed to set latency correction, this will make your multitrack audio recording experience with Audacity somewhat easier.
Why use Audacity for mastering if there is latency?
When dealing with a single audio file, that being the exported master track, no latency exists. The latency only happens when you start multitracking over USB. Being the master track is literally just one track, no latency is introduced, so you're okay there.
In other words, a single master track is just Track 1. That's all you're dealing with. When there is just Track 1 and no other tracks, no latency is there.
Again, I will entertain the idea of putting a book together on basic audio mastering with Audacity. Using Audacity for mastering is very good use of that software. But where the latency with multitrack audio recording is concerned, well, the software is free, so you can roll the dice with it and see if it works for you. It won't cost you anything but time, but I'm of the opinion that analog inputs on a standalone recorder are 100 times easier to deal with just to get things done.
6 cars I wish America would bring back
There are certain cars America needs to build again.
One of them in my list below is the '94 Chevrolet Caprice. Big ol' car. I used to see this big boat every so often when in the pages of Motor Trend that I used to read in my teens... when I wasn't reading Four Wheeler, that is.
People miss cars like the Caprice (and no, the SS is a gas guzzler and doesn't count, and the PPV version is for police use only so you can't buy it). Not so much for the styling but rather because you could order up one in basic trim.
America presently does not build any basic cars at all. And by "basic" I mean "everything possible deleted except A/C and cruise control".
Nissan and Mitsubishi still do make some basic cars but don't list them on their respective web sites. If you want one, you have to go to AutoTrader, sort by lowest price with keyword "cruise" so you get the cruise control option, and you'll see the Mitsubishi Mirage and Nissan Versa pop up starting at just under $10,000 new.
I do wish America would build basic low-cost cars again.
These 3 compact cars need to be reintroduced in basic versions:
- Chevrolet Chevette
- Ford Escort
- Dodge Omni
These 3 midsize sedans need to be reintroduced in basic versions:
- Chevrolet Celebrity
- Ford Granada
- Dodge Coronet
These 3 full size sedans need to be reintroduced in basic versions:
- Chevrolet Caprice
- Ford LTD
- Dodge Polara
What do I mean by "basic"?
As said above, it means everything except A/C and cruise deleted. Aside from those two options, you get vinyl seats only (no cloth, no leather), plain tilt/telescoping steering wheel with no controls on it and no leather wrap, manual crank windows, no radio (just a plastic plate where the radio would go), no electronic "information windows", no navigation, no touchscreen or any other electronic screens of any kind, manual mirrors only, no remote anything, no keyless anything, plain steel wheels with hubcaps only, sparse gauge cluster (speedometer, odometer, trip odometer, fuel gauge, an array of idiot lights and nothing else), no tire pressure monitoring system, no power locks, no sunroof (hardtop only)...
...you get the idea. Everything that can be deleted is deleted. You get a car in 1 of 3 sizes. Compact, midsize or full size.
Only 3 color options would be available. Off-white body with tan interior, silver body with charcoal interior and sky blue with silver interior (or tan). That's it.
The compact would come with vinyl high-back bucket seats and the sedans would get vinyl benches. Given how fat people are these days, a bench seat would be a welcome thing to fit gigantic posteriors.
All basic models would be built with soft suspensions that take bumps with ease. People these days are totally sick of cars made to feel "sporty" and would much rather have that "feels like your grandma's couch" ride quality, road feel be damned. Nobody cares about a tuned sport suspension when going to get the groceries.
America knows how to build basic cars best
The best cars America ever made were the most basic ones. Sedans, specifically. We've never been that good with compacts, although I will admit we're getting better at it...
...but why bother when we can engineer a genuinely good basic cheap sedan? Why can't we take all we know about crumple zones, safety cage construction and so on and design a basic low-cost car around that - especially considering the thing that screws up a modern GM, Ford or Chrysler car faster than anything else is adding in useless crap that nobody needs?
I'm of the belief America can build a reliable car that doesn't have stupid problems. The way to do it is to build the simplest car possible. Reliability starts with good engineering. GM, Ford and Chrysler engineers need to engineer new cars that have all the crap stripped out so there is far less to screw up when the car is being assembled, resulting in a car that's actually reliable when it gets into the driver's hands.
Just in case any GM engineer happens to read this, tattoo this phrase on your forehead so you never forget it: LESS ELECTRONICS. I don't mean "combine multiple electronics into a module". No, no, no, frickin' no. I mean less. I mean physically get as much electronic crap out of the car as possible. Go back to mechanical. Example: Make all the doors and the trunk manually operated, unlocking by physical key only. That kind of thing.
If you need a word to sell the idea of LESS ELECTRONICS to your superiors so you get the go-ahead to put it to use in a production vehicle, use minimalist. People like simple cars with simple controls that make sense, obviously.
Just imagine...
Just imagine if you could drop by a Chevy dealer and buy a new full size no-frills Caprice sedan for cheap. All you get for options is cruise, A/C and nothing else. No radio, vinyl bench seat in the front (and back), sparse gauge cluster, plain steel wheels with hubcaps, no floor mats, no carpeting - not even in the trunk. You open the trunk and see nothing but steel. Zero tech options in the car. No screens anywhere. No power windows, cranks only. All the unnecessary crap has been deleted.
Even thinking about buying a new Chevy like that gets me excited. What a great auto that would be. The motor would be a modern 4-cyl (the same base engine used in the Impala), and would be a truly good everyman's car. Fantastic family hauler, great interstate cruiser, rides like you're sitting on a cloud, and I bet GM could even eke out 40 highway MPG performance since all the unnecessary crap would be deleted.
Doable? YES!
Can Ford and Chrysler do the same thing? YES!
Would they sell?
I think the more appropriate question is how could they not sell?
You plop a new car with actual size to it for cheap on a dealer lot and watch how fast it sells. Price it under $15K and that car will barely be off the car carrier before someone is signing on the dotted line and driving it home.
Would GM, Ford and Chrysler make any money with basic cars? Yes. A basic car is real cheap to make when all the crap nobody needs is stripped out of it.
Are "stripper" cars actually nice to drive?
Of course they are.
I remember basic trim GM sedans from the '90s. They had few options but rode and drove just fine. GM sold a told of 'em and it baffles me why they along with Ford and Chrysler ever stopped doing it. It's not like they didn't sell.
Did the stripper cars handle like sports cars? Not at all. They rode like American sedans should ride. Soft. Even the cheapest new sedan could handle bumps with no problem at all. And they all had decent ground clearance too.
Hopefully someone at GM, Ford or Chrysler will grow a brain someday and put basic no-frills cars on dealership lots again and stop with the luxury barges. God knows we're all sick of "well appointed" cars that start breaking even before 50,000 miles are on the clock.
Bilt Relevator LS
This is what happens when everything goes right and wrong at the same time with a guitar design.
The BilT Relevator is a combination of multiple guitar designs into one.
Now before continuing, yes I would play this. I actually do like it. But at the same time I hate it.
I'll start with the headstock. It's a design heavily borrowed (or said politely, inspired) by the semi-hollow body Fender Starcaster. I don't have a problem with this, but in my experience there are days when the outline looks really cool and others where it just looks terrible. What's 100% true is that it clashes against the black block inlays because there's a nice curve at the headstock that smashes right into sharp angles after it. The outline should be thinned significantly and go around the entire headstock to match up with the binding (which would work, aesthetically).
The grain of the neck wood looks great. No complaints there.
On the body there's a mish-mash of Fender Jazzmaster, Fender Jaguar, and Gibson Firebird all at the same time.
The Firebird comes from the 3 pickups. Those are mini-humbuckers. Or at least they appear to be.
The Jaguar comes from the split pick guard with the plastic piece in the middle and two metal pieces on the ends.
The Jazzmaster comes from the use of the Mastery bridge (yes, that is a real-deal Mastery you see there), two-circuit layout and the fact the body is offset.
On the body there are forearm and rear "belly cut" contours, so yes the guitar is comfortable to play, presuming it's weighted correctly (I don't know the weight specifications).
Is it good?
I honestly don't know. This guitar confuses me. I love it yet I hate it.
Would I own it? Yes.
Would I buy it? No. Costs too much. End of story. I'll stick with my Squier Vintage Modified Jazzmaster.
3 guitar effect pedals I like right now
As of right now, July 2017, this is what I'm digging where guitar effect pedals are concerned.
This is an analog compressor. One of the coolest looking pedals I've ever seen, but even if it were just a straight color with no flair, it's the sound that makes this thing worth having. Basically put, it will make any Strat sound like a million bucks when played clean - even if it's a super cheap squier bullet Squier Bullet Strat. Would also work fantastic for Telecasters too.
This thing, simply put, will blow your mind. You plug any regular electric guitar into it, like a Stratocaster or a Telecaster, stomp the pedal, and whammo, sounds like an acoustic. Yes, this really works.
It is perfect? No, but using one of these is as close as you can possibly get to the sound of an acoustic without an actual real acoustic guitar.
BOSS DS-1-4A 40th Anniversary Limited Edition
What's the difference between the DS-1-4A and a regular orange DS-1? Function and sound-wise, nothing. The DS-1-4A is just an appearance package, but oh, what an appearance package it is. Blackout pedal with gold accents. This thing just looks cool. And shockingly, it only costs 10 bucks more than the regular DS-1. Why is this shocking? Because BOSS is not known for lower-cost special edition pedals, yet this one is.
I don't need one, but if I did, I would buy this just for the look and use it normally, collector's value be damned. I love the simple look of the DS-1-4A. It has that retro late '70s Smokey and the Bandit Trans Am look to it. I know BOSS didn't intend for a look like that, but that's what it reminds me of. And that's not a bad thing!
Which should you get?
The Tone Corset is actually the most usable of the three. The Acoustic Simulator is cool but you may not use it that often. The DS-1-4A is just like any other DS-1 you've ever used but it looks really, really cool.
So it's up to you. Usable compression, usable acoustic simulator, or a black-and-gold beauty pedal? Your choice.
Danelectro D84
Danelectro's take on the Stratocaster guitar is the D84.
Is this guitar worth getting being it's the same price as the Fender Standard Stratocaster? The answer to that depends on how much the Fender annoys you.
I'll explain.
The first thing to note about the Danelectro is that it has 2 control knobs instead of 3. There are many Fender Strat players that think having 1 master volume and 2 tone controls is just stupid, and that it should be condensed to master volume and master tone. You get that with the '84.
The second thing to note is the 2-point Wilkinson tremolo system, which many believe to be far superior to the 6-screw Strat bridge (which is what you get on the MIM Strat). To get the 2-point with a Fender Strat, you have to buy a USA model which costs double that of the MIM. You get it for the same price as the MIM on the Danelectro.
The third thing to notice is vintage style slotted tuners. You don't get this on the Fender MIM. You do get them on the Squier Vintage Modified Strat, but then you go back to a 3-knob and a 6-screw bridge.
In other words, Danelectro pretty much addresses everything Strat players don't like about Strats with a guitar you can have for less than half the price of a Fender American Professional Stratocaster.
My only nitpick about the guitar is the headstock design. Looks a bit cheap, but then again it has a race car look to it which some people like.
Summed up: If you like Strats but hate the standard wiring and knob layout Fender offers, then you want a Danelectro D84 instead.