shredd
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2020
- Messages
- 766
- Karma
- 586
- Website
- www.soundclick.com
- Gear owned
- 2488's, DP-32 & -008(ex)
DP-24/32 Using Track Sheets for Recording Projects
- Thread starter Mark Richards
- Start date
Arjan P
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,699
- Karma
- 1,236
- From
- Netherlands
- Website
- www.soundbyte.nl
- Gear owned
- DM3200 IFFW
I have a very limited use for track sheets, since almost everything is saved as scenes (mixer) or inherently part of a DAW project file (Cubase), including notes made inside these projects.
The only tracksheet I need these days is with bigger projects where - during the recording stage - I need to pen down which mic goes to what channel, using which HW compressor (and its settings). And then only for preparation and actual setting up and recording. When its recorded I have no need to store the track sheet (it's more of a channel sheet), but I do keep them anyway for a next similar project..
However, when I used the Akai DPS-16, there was a lot more administration going on and I did use and need an Excel sheet with printouts to keep track of the tracks
The only tracksheet I need these days is with bigger projects where - during the recording stage - I need to pen down which mic goes to what channel, using which HW compressor (and its settings). And then only for preparation and actual setting up and recording. When its recorded I have no need to store the track sheet (it's more of a channel sheet), but I do keep them anyway for a next similar project..
However, when I used the Akai DPS-16, there was a lot more administration going on and I did use and need an Excel sheet with printouts to keep track of the tracks
@Arjan P For sure, many professionals get buy just fine with DAW project notes and what's saved with the DAW. However, I do find some advantage when I need to communicate and share project notes with other musicians, producers, engineers, etc in using multimedia tracksheets, and other electronic compound documents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_document
Not every one uses the same DAW, and sharing DAW project files as a means of communication with folks who may be on different versions of the same DAW (e.g. my buddy has Cubase 11, I have cubase 5) or (my buddy has FL-Studio and I have Cubase etc.) However most office software can read Microsoft Office, or Open Office or Libre Office compound spreadsheets practically regardless of version or platform.
In my Track Sheets I can embed jpgs of Stage Layouts, Seating Charts, Microphone Positions, Wav files for and associated mpeg files for tracks. Photos of the Artists that performed on the track,, MP3 mixes,etc.
Paper Track Sheets are fine in many instances(and worked for many years). PDF Tracksheets are fine in many instances also. But using Compound Spread Sheets or Multimedia Spread Sheets, and other compound documents are even more flexible and more portable.
If you're working alone, or if every body you have to communicate music production information with all have a DAW with a compatible version of the project file to yours then you can use your DAW project file to communicate and share Music Production meta data. On the other hand if you have a diverse set of people that you have to communicate with who don't use the same DAW version as you or the who don't use the same kind of DAW as you do, or who don't use DAWs at all, then the notes stored within the DAW are not very portable or shareable.
And .xls, .xlsx, .doc, .docx, .ods .jpg, .png, .pdf are very portable formats and most people with any kind of computer, Mac, Windows, Linux, Solaris, OS/2, etc can read/write those formats.
In many instances the DAW is trying to do too much. Its becoming more complicated than it needs to be. Trying to handle word processing, text editing, diagramming, spreadsheeting, is really beyond the practical functionality of a DAW and causes the DAW's reach to exceed its grasp.
Many of the documentation requirements for a recording session, or music production effort are simply beyond the functionality of a DAW and are best left to tools that are designed to do such things.
Yes DAWs are excellent for recall. But so are spreadsheets, word processor documents, text documents, PDFs electronic diagrams etc
Although many of my recording projects are relatively small I still have to deal with:
In various instances I've embedded all of these in my Track Sheets where it was needed. And was able to share these track sheets (or parts of the track sheets) with the appropriate folks in a timely and efficient fashion.
DAW notes are fine as simple reminders. But DAW notes can only barely begin to track and document all of the necessary information involved to truly recall a recording studio session, or recorded live performance session. And I for the most part only do small sessions. I can't even imagine what the professionals need to document in order to do true recall on a large sessions with many professional recording artists, engineers, performers, and producers
If you are truly talking about the total recall that's necessary to re instantiate a recording session, the DAW project file, and DAW notes a'int gonna cut it and quite frankly that kind of recall is beyond the capability or responsibility of a DAW.
It can be argued that a DAW in some respects is an improvement over Digital MTRs. But it can also be argued that Office software is an improvement over the DAW notes feature
There are three basic tools that can be used at the core of a recording session (beit live or in the studio)
Obviously these can be combined mixed or matched. But in all cases no matter which one (or combination) you use whether we're talking about a small recording session or large recording session, a Track Sheet (Especially an Compound Document Tracksheet) is a smart thing to use, and is your friend. If you are managing multiple recording sessions concurrently on the same equipment and in the same venue then a Track Sheet is a necessity and even the masking tape thing buckles
@Arjan P The DAW notes feature and a DAW project file are for sure useful. But they are insufficient to truly document a live or studio recording session. And to really put things in perspective, Once, way back when I use to use Cubase reguarly, I embedded a link to my Cubase 5 project file within a Track Sheet for a project. I could bring up my Track Sheet, and among all of the diagrams, pictures, and notes, I could click on the Cubase link in my Track Sheet, and bring up the the client's project
Office Software whether Microsoft Office, Mac Office, Open Office, or Libre Office is far more useful for documenting a recording session that a DAW notes feature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_document
Not every one uses the same DAW, and sharing DAW project files as a means of communication with folks who may be on different versions of the same DAW (e.g. my buddy has Cubase 11, I have cubase 5) or (my buddy has FL-Studio and I have Cubase etc.) However most office software can read Microsoft Office, or Open Office or Libre Office compound spreadsheets practically regardless of version or platform.
In my Track Sheets I can embed jpgs of Stage Layouts, Seating Charts, Microphone Positions, Wav files for and associated mpeg files for tracks. Photos of the Artists that performed on the track,, MP3 mixes,etc.
Paper Track Sheets are fine in many instances(and worked for many years
). PDF Tracksheets are fine in many instances also. But using Compound Spread Sheets or Multimedia Spread Sheets, and other compound documents are even more flexible and more portable.If you're working alone, or if every body you have to communicate music production information with all have a DAW with a compatible version of the project file to yours then you can use your DAW project file to communicate and share Music Production meta data. On the other hand if you have a diverse set of people that you have to communicate with who don't use the same DAW version as you or the who don't use the same kind of DAW as you do, or who don't use DAWs at all, then the notes stored within the DAW are not very portable or shareable.
And .xls, .xlsx, .doc, .docx, .ods .jpg, .png, .pdf are very portable formats and most people with any kind of computer, Mac, Windows, Linux, Solaris, OS/2, etc can read/write those formats.
In many instances the DAW is trying to do too much. Its becoming more complicated than it needs to be. Trying to handle word processing, text editing, diagramming, spreadsheeting, is really beyond the practical functionality of a DAW and causes the DAW's reach to exceed its grasp.
Many of the documentation requirements for a recording session, or music production effort are simply beyond the functionality of a DAW and are best left to tools that are designed to do such things.
Yes DAWs are excellent for recall. But so are spreadsheets, word processor documents, text documents, PDFs electronic diagrams etc
Although many of my recording projects are relatively small I still have to deal with:
- Venue audio wiring diagrams
- Venue lighting and effects diagrams
- Performer Seating Charts
- Stage Layouts (including cabling, wireless, ethernet setups, in-ear, etc)
- Studio Mic Position
- Studio Mic Designations/Choices
- Mic Popper Choices e.g (Metal or Mesh)
- Who Recorded (on What Days and Times (with remote recording I run into GMT, EDT, PDT etc)
- What Keys the vocalists preferred to sing in, what keys they struggled with
- Who preferred wine, and who preferred juice and who preferred beer
- Rehearsal Dates, Future planned Recording Dates (other calendar information)
- website cloud music resources
- The venue I last recorded at had 3 Steinway D's (that sounded different) which one did I use???
- Photos of the Audience
- Photos of the Venue
- And any other electronic artifacts related to the studio or live recording session.
In various instances I've embedded all of these in my Track Sheets where it was needed. And was able to share these track sheets (or parts of the track sheets) with the appropriate folks in a timely and efficient fashion.
DAW notes are fine as simple reminders. But DAW notes can only barely begin to track and document all of the necessary information involved to truly recall a recording studio session, or recorded live performance session. And I for the most part only do small sessions. I can't even imagine what the professionals need to document in order to do true recall on a large sessions with many professional recording artists, engineers, performers, and producers
If you are truly talking about the total recall that's necessary to re instantiate a recording session, the DAW project file, and DAW notes a'int gonna cut it and quite frankly that kind of recall is beyond the capability or responsibility of a DAW.
It can be argued that a DAW in some respects is an improvement over Digital MTRs. But it can also be argued that Office software is an improvement over the DAW notes feature
There are three basic tools that can be used at the core of a recording session (beit live or in the studio)
- DAW
- Digital MTR
- MPC (or one of its variants Maschine, SP404,etc)
Obviously these can be combined mixed or matched. But in all cases no matter which one (or combination) you use whether we're talking about a small recording session or large recording session, a Track Sheet (Especially an Compound Document Tracksheet) is a smart thing to use, and is your friend. If you are managing multiple recording sessions concurrently on the same equipment and in the same venue then a Track Sheet is a necessity and even the masking tape thing buckles
@Arjan P The DAW notes feature and a DAW project file are for sure useful. But they are insufficient to truly document a live or studio recording session. And to really put things in perspective, Once, way back when I use to use Cubase reguarly, I embedded a link to my Cubase 5 project file within a Track Sheet for a project. I could bring up my Track Sheet, and among all of the diagrams, pictures, and notes, I could click on the Cubase link in my Track Sheet, and bring up the the client's project
Office Software whether Microsoft Office, Mac Office, Open Office, or Libre Office is far more useful for documenting a recording session that a DAW notes feature
Arjan P
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,699
- Karma
- 1,236
- From
- Netherlands
- Website
- www.soundbyte.nl
- Gear owned
- DM3200 IFFW
Yes, sharing recording or mixinig sessions, or recalling how a live recording was setup is better done with separate track sheets (in whichever form). But I dont have to deal wth that.
1. I dont do live location recording, and like I said I do use sheets for studio recording sessions.
2. I don't share DAW projects, only full length wav files if a collaboration project arises.
3. So why create a lot of administration I don't need? More than enough of that in my day job..
BTW, who drinks beer and who drinks wine, and what the name of that singer was or the phone number of the bass player is all stuff I record in a separate file. IMO that kind of info has nothing to do with a certain recording by that band - or I would have to repeat it in all their song's 'track sheets'.
1. I dont do live location recording, and like I said I do use sheets for studio recording sessions.
2. I don't share DAW projects, only full length wav files if a collaboration project arises.
3. So why create a lot of administration I don't need? More than enough of that in my day job..
BTW, who drinks beer and who drinks wine, and what the name of that singer was or the phone number of the bass player is all stuff I record in a separate file. IMO that kind of info has nothing to do with a certain recording by that band - or I would have to repeat it in all their song's 'track sheets'.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,781
- Karma
- 2,626
- Website
- phoenixmediaforge.com
- Gear owned
- DP-32, | 2A Mixer, A3440
then the notes stored within the DAW are not very portable or shareable.
In many instances the DAW is trying to do too much. Its becoming more complicated than it needs to be. Trying to handle word processing, text editing, diagramming, spreadsheeting, is really beyond the practical functionality of a DAW and causes the DAW's reach to exceed its grasp.
Quite a few assumptions going on here.
The stuff that I store in Reaper are things that clients send me, like PDF or JPG files. Of course, I make notes of things in addition to those other pieces of information. When I happen to be singing a vocal track, I can have Reaper display the lyrics in the video window while I'm recording. I can have notes in individual clips of audio (called "items" in Reaper). All of it can be easily shared. Reaper was designed to do this so one of the above is exceeding its grasp of anything. Whether or not my DAW is "trying to do too much" would be for me to decide. "word processing, text editing, diagramming, spreadsheeting," to the extent that the DAW is designed for, works flawlessly. I also have a purpose-built Windows 10 PC that runs like a scalded dog.
We're becoming too dogmatic about this stuff (pun intended).
@Arjan P Ahh.. I understand. no need to make unnecessary work or keep unnecessary records
There is an old school interpretation of Tracksheets (i.e. their usage prior to 2003) and a lot (though not all) of that interpretation had to with being able to recreate (recall) a mix or the track recording. in fact some folks equivocate the term mix sheet with track sheet. In the small circles I run in , a track sheet (the electronic version) is more about total recall of the entire recording session than recalling a particular mix, track, or song.
Questions like what made the session successful, or what caused it to fail can be answered by a complete track sheet. (Here is where the beer and wine comes in) All of the things that can practically be captured about what influenced (directly or indirectly) the recording session are reflected in the Track Sheet. And in this usage the 'Track' is the smallest unit of the recording session that can be resolved. So we end up with the electronic Track Sheet: a compound document that can be used to recall any relevant component of a recording session from the venue all the way down to the track and everything in between. Now of course the scope of the Track Sheet will reflect the size of the project, the quantity/quality of the folks involved, the money being spent and made, and the importance or eccentricity of the client(s).
I'm just saying that a DAW notes feature might be necessary for DAW users to totally recall a project, but it is far from sufficient for the purposes of session recall. As you said, if you don't have to share, or the folks you work with only need full length wav files, then the kind of Track Sheet I'm talking about is simply unnecessary
@Arjan P but sometimes the person you have to share information with is your future self. You might finish a project and then two years later after you've moved things in your studio around, updated your DAW, or plugins, or processes you might have to revisit that project again for some reason. If the DAW project file and DAW note feature provide all the information you need to reinstate and make revisions to that project then you're covered
But even for my small projects, they are sufficiently diverse that even after a few months, I need as close to a time machine as I can get to do a total recall of a recording session (whether studio or live) A fully populated Track Sheet does it for me. I do understand you have a different Use Case.
I guess there is a dead horse here that I want to beat. The modern rendition of a Track Sheet is extremely useful even for those who use MPCs, and DAWs (notwithstanding their NotePad features). Rather than think of the first generation (paper oriented) Track Sheet, or second generation (PDF oriented) Track Sheet, the Compound Spread Sheet, or Compound Document implementation of a Track Sheet can serve as an extraordinarily flexible and comprehensive method of Total Recall of the Entire Recording Session from Venue down to track and everything in between.
There is an old school interpretation of Tracksheets (i.e. their usage prior to 2003) and a lot (though not all) of that interpretation had to with being able to recreate (recall) a mix or the track recording. in fact some folks equivocate the term mix sheet with track sheet. In the small circles I run in , a track sheet (the electronic version) is more about total recall of the entire recording session than recalling a particular mix, track, or song.
Questions like what made the session successful, or what caused it to fail can be answered by a complete track sheet. (Here is where the beer and wine comes in
) All of the things that can practically be captured about what influenced (directly or indirectly) the recording session are reflected in the Track Sheet. And in this usage the 'Track' is the smallest unit of the recording session that can be resolved. So we end up with the electronic Track Sheet: a compound document that can be used to recall any relevant component of a recording session from the venue all the way down to the track and everything in between. Now of course the scope of the Track Sheet will reflect the size of the project, the quantity/quality of the folks involved, the money being spent and made, and the importance or eccentricity of the client(s).I'm just saying that a DAW notes feature might be necessary for DAW users to totally recall a project, but it is far from sufficient for the purposes of session recall. As you said, if you don't have to share, or the folks you work with only need full length wav files, then the kind of Track Sheet I'm talking about is simply unnecessary
@Arjan P but sometimes the person you have to share information with is your future self
. You might finish a project and then two years later after you've moved things in your studio around, updated your DAW, or plugins, or processes you might have to revisit that project again for some reason. If the DAW project file and DAW note feature provide all the information you need to reinstate and make revisions to that project then you're coveredBut even for my small projects, they are sufficiently diverse that even after a few months, I need as close to a time machine as I can get to do a total recall of a recording session (whether studio or live) A fully populated Track Sheet does it for me. I do understand you have a different Use Case.
I guess there is a dead horse here that I want to beat. The modern rendition of a Track Sheet is extremely useful even for those who use MPCs, and DAWs (notwithstanding their NotePad features
). Rather than think of the first generation (paper oriented) Track Sheet, or second generation (PDF oriented) Track Sheet, the Compound Spread Sheet, or Compound Document implementation of a Track Sheet can serve as an extraordinarily flexible and comprehensive method of Total Recall of the Entire Recording Session from Venue down to track and everything in between. Of course there is a class of users that have no limit to the features that they would accept to be added to a DAW. Venue Lighting Plugins, Musician/Songwriter/Engineer Payroll Plugins, Calendar Plugins, TimeSheet/Time Clock Plugins, Gig-Instrument-VehiclePlugins, Instrument-component-construction Plugins, etc. That's kewl too. But when I refer to a DAW trying to do too much I'm referring to the DAW as a piece of software and the User Interface Design and User Experience (UI/UX) standards and guidelines for User Interface Design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience_design
To illustrate my point all you would need to do is sit a person new to DAWs down in front of the latest but (uninstalled, un-setup) version of FL Studio, Pro Tools, Cubase, Reaper, Studio One, etc Ask them to accomplish a simple Task like recording themselves singing Happy birthday and playing that recording back in a loop. And then have that individual take a survey with respect to their user experience and their perception of ease-of-use
Of course if you've grown up with a DAW or the concept of one and have gone through the upgrade initiation process over years then you can decide whats too complex
But all of the DAW vendors realize their products are becoming too complex to use for beginners and they are all trying various ways to mitigate that complexity
@-mjk- Compare the original feature set (Version 1), UI/UX of Cubase.Protools.Logic, Reaper etc to their latest versions. Experienced Users perceive that the software has gotten easier to use and more effective over time. On the other hand, brand new users to the latest versions prefer previous(easier) versions (when given the option).
Try comprehending this interface/feature set change as a person new to DAWs compare the 1989 version (with respect to complexity and feature bloat) to the 2022 version
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,781
- Karma
- 2,626
- Website
- phoenixmediaforge.com
- Gear owned
- DP-32, | 2A Mixer, A3440
I'm sorry I said anything in the first place.... @lastmonk you have outdone even yourself this time.
DAW notes might be "necessary" to "totally recall a project" but "far from sufficient for the purposes of session recall." What is the difference between a "project" and a "session?" And why can't the documentation method for the project be sufficient for the session? (Something tells me I'm going to regret having asked this, later)
And then there is this:
And you know this how, exactly? What is sufficient for "session recall" is not for you to decide, is it? I have perhaps the most recallable system in existence, able to instantly recall more than 10,000 parameters in 1 second. But I'm not going to berate someone else for using spreadsheet or even a pen and paper. In the old days you turned a knob on the console until you heard Rupert Neve say "Stop!" in the studio monitors. Needs and methods evolve.
Reaper can store text notes and images in Notes, either for tracks or individual snippets of audio. I can have a photo of how the singer was positioned in front of the mic as well as photos of hardware front panel control settings, right there in the Notes. So when you make sweeping generalizations about "notes" being "simple reminders" and "barely begin to track and document all of the necessary information involved to truly recall a recording studio session" you are displaying a lack of personal experience. I think its better (and safter) to simply talk about what you do with what you work with and not speculate on the suitability of some methods for a hypothetical person/session especially when you have no personal experience with the methods you are defining.
Well, there you go. If you don't know, please stop making so many presumptions and stating them as hard facts. I do know. I've been documented recording sessions for parts of 4 decades. The methods used for documentation have evolved as much as the recording equipment itself. If I'm documenting a rock session with the band Prowler I take a different approach from a 55 piece orchestra (both actual sessions I have done).
FWIW, I was a staff senior manufacturing engineer at Cybex International (the exercise equipment company) and I designed and built assembly lines for their products, including all formal manufacturing procedure documentation. This documentation contained digital photographs and in their final form as PDFs were also capable of hypertext linking to video and other content on the network. This was the year 2000. Documentation is, in itself, a specialized field and is constantly evolving. There are many ways to document something and there is no "right" or "wrong" way.
No thanks. I make money with my studio. I have no time or use for philosophical discussions on the topic, frankly. I'm really happy you have found a workflow that works for you. Make a YouTube video about it if you like. I couldn't be bothered doing what you just suggested above. What would be the point and how would I benefit? (I hope you don't literally answer that because there is no benefit)
I started using Reaper in 2019, after being out of the game since 1997. I had no previous DAW experience and before that time I had never recorded or mixed a record in a DAW. I read the documentation and studied focused tutorials and never had a moment's trouble, really. Its not that big of a deal.
Please link to the study you based this incredulous statement upon. Sorry, that is just stupid. You are suggesting that someone has decided that they want to use a new piece of software, so they go to the website and download the oldest version on the site because its less complex? No one does that. Everyone wants the latest, most capable, bug-free and stable version they can get (with the understandable exception of special circumstances such as those who use the DM series consoles that have been discontinued). People only downgrade because of some issue that became know to them by experience. Your arguments are getting more ridiculous by the paragraph.
References please?
At this point, I have to quote my own words:
The International Alliance of DAW Manufactures has met and decided that all member companies have to tackle this issue together?
What do you mean, trying? Many DAWs have light versions (i.e. "LE"). You act like this is a new thing. One size does not fit all.
Reaper updates sometimes twice a month. Each new iteration brings new capabilities. They are moving forward, not backward.
Seriously, I regret having responded to this thread. I'm still waiting for your "system on a chip" prophesy to come true and replace all this ever-increasingly complex software. In the meantime, software is replacing hardware at an astonishing rate.
No one really likes you defining their needs for them, or telling them that what they are doing is not sufficient enough. You know that, right? Thank you for your opinions. We have a saying in Chinese that roughly translates into English as "nobody asked you." By all means, tell us what you do and why and please leave it at that. Use of terms like "everyone" "no one" "all" "none" "always" and "never" usually accompany weak or imagined arguments.
@lastmonk You are incredibly sure of your opinions, often stating them as hard facts. Too bad because you are a smart guy and appear to have a measure of professional experience. But you come off as preachy. Its the relentless approach of trying to convince others that you are right that tends to fatigue readers. If @Arjan P wants to use a paper notebook to jot down the type of rum that the singer likes, is that a character flaw on his part? If @Mark Richards wants to use a spreadsheet to document the knobs and faders on his DP-24, is he guilty of a moral failing? Certainly not. These people don't need a preacher to put them on the Road To Life.
This topic is: DP-24/32 Using Track Sheets for Recording Projects
Further discussion about the topic of recording session documentation will be moved to a new separate discussion in the Recording 101 forum.
I'm just saying that a DAW notes feature might be necessary for DAW users to totally recall a project, but it is far from sufficient for the purposes of session recall. As you said, if you don't have to share, or the folks you work with only need full length wav files, then the kind of Track Sheet I'm talking about is simply unnecessary
DAW notes might be "necessary" to "totally recall a project" but "far from sufficient for the purposes of session recall." What is the difference between a "project" and a "session?" And why can't the documentation method for the project be sufficient for the session? (Something tells me I'm going to regret having asked this, later)
And then there is this:
And you know this how, exactly? What is sufficient for "session recall" is not for you to decide, is it? I have perhaps the most recallable system in existence, able to instantly recall more than 10,000 parameters in 1 second. But I'm not going to berate someone else for using spreadsheet or even a pen and paper. In the old days you turned a knob on the console until you heard Rupert Neve say "Stop!" in the studio monitors. Needs and methods evolve.
Reaper can store text notes and images in Notes, either for tracks or individual snippets of audio. I can have a photo of how the singer was positioned in front of the mic as well as photos of hardware front panel control settings, right there in the Notes. So when you make sweeping generalizations about "notes" being "simple reminders" and "barely begin to track and document all of the necessary information involved to truly recall a recording studio session" you are displaying a lack of personal experience. I think its better (and safter) to simply talk about what you do with what you work with and not speculate on the suitability of some methods for a hypothetical person/session especially when you have no personal experience with the methods you are defining.
And I for the most part only do small sessions. I can't even imagine what the professionals need to document in order to do true recall on a large sessions with many professional recording artists, engineers, performers, and producers
Well, there you go. If you don't know, please stop making so many presumptions and stating them as hard facts. I do know. I've been documented recording sessions for parts of 4 decades. The methods used for documentation have evolved as much as the recording equipment itself. If I'm documenting a rock session with the band Prowler I take a different approach from a 55 piece orchestra (both actual sessions I have done).
FWIW, I was a staff senior manufacturing engineer at Cybex International (the exercise equipment company) and I designed and built assembly lines for their products, including all formal manufacturing procedure documentation. This documentation contained digital photographs and in their final form as PDFs were also capable of hypertext linking to video and other content on the network. This was the year 2000. Documentation is, in itself, a specialized field and is constantly evolving. There are many ways to document something and there is no "right" or "wrong" way.
No thanks. I make money with my studio. I have no time or use for philosophical discussions on the topic, frankly. I'm really happy you have found a workflow that works for you. Make a YouTube video about it if you like. I couldn't be bothered doing what you just suggested above. What would be the point and how would I benefit? (I hope you don't literally answer that because there is no benefit)
I started using Reaper in 2019, after being out of the game since 1997. I had no previous DAW experience and before that time I had never recorded or mixed a record in a DAW. I read the documentation and studied focused tutorials and never had a moment's trouble, really. Its not that big of a deal.
On the other hand, brand new users to the latest versions prefer previous(easier) versions (when given the option).
Please link to the study you based this incredulous statement upon. Sorry, that is just stupid. You are suggesting that someone has decided that they want to use a new piece of software, so they go to the website and download the oldest version on the site because its less complex? No one does that. Everyone wants the latest, most capable, bug-free and stable version they can get (with the understandable exception of special circumstances such as those who use the DM series consoles that have been discontinued). People only downgrade because of some issue that became know to them by experience. Your arguments are getting more ridiculous by the paragraph.
But all of the DAW vendors realize their products are becoming too complex to use for beginners and they are all trying various ways to mitigate that complexity
References please?
At this point, I have to quote my own words:
The International Alliance of DAW Manufactures has met and decided that all member companies have to tackle this issue together?
What do you mean, trying? Many DAWs have light versions (i.e. "LE"). You act like this is a new thing. One size does not fit all.
Reaper updates sometimes twice a month. Each new iteration brings new capabilities. They are moving forward, not backward.
Seriously, I regret having responded to this thread. I'm still waiting for your "system on a chip" prophesy to come true and replace all this ever-increasingly complex software. In the meantime, software is replacing hardware at an astonishing rate.
No one really likes you defining their needs for them, or telling them that what they are doing is not sufficient enough. You know that, right? Thank you for your opinions. We have a saying in Chinese that roughly translates into English as "nobody asked you." By all means, tell us what you do and why and please leave it at that. Use of terms like "everyone" "no one" "all" "none" "always" and "never" usually accompany weak or imagined arguments.
@lastmonk You are incredibly sure of your opinions, often stating them as hard facts. Too bad because you are a smart guy and appear to have a measure of professional experience. But you come off as preachy. Its the relentless approach of trying to convince others that you are right that tends to fatigue readers. If @Arjan P wants to use a paper notebook to jot down the type of rum that the singer likes, is that a character flaw on his part? If @Mark Richards wants to use a spreadsheet to document the knobs and faders on his DP-24, is he guilty of a moral failing? Certainly not. These people don't need a preacher to put them on the Road To Life.
This topic is: DP-24/32 Using Track Sheets for Recording Projects
Further discussion about the topic of recording session documentation will be moved to a new separate discussion in the Recording 101 forum.
@-mjk-
I can't respond to your entire post atm (I'm traveling)
But I can quickly address a few of the points.
Of course all I can do is take notes on your 4 decades of experience and learn and I truly hope you continue to share your knowledge and wisdom on tascamforums with upstarts like myself
Clearly I have more to learn from you than you have to learn from me BTW I do stream on Youtube
@-mjk- Cheers!
I can't respond to your entire post atm (I'm traveling)
But I can quickly address a few of the points.
- It's not my intention to berate anyone's method of documentation. From paper track sheets, to DAW notes. Whatever works for you and your project is good.
- It is my intention to defend the idea of Tracksheets. Especially Tracksheets that are implemented by electronic compound documents. (See my Wiki reference) If a Reaper note can imbed text and graphics then by definition it is a compound document. I am sharing the fact (for those that don't know) that, images, animations, mpegs, mp3s, URLs, word processing docs, other spreadsheets, and links to DAW project files can be embedded in a Track Sheet that has been implemented by a Spreadsheet or any other kind of compound document. So if a Reaper Note allows the user to embed all of these types of electronic artifacts then Reaper can certainly be used in the fashion that I'm referring to.
- I appreciate your experience and I typically learn a lot from your posts. I got good information from this one.
- It is my intention to contrast simple DAW notes (The Text Only) variety with compound documents that can store more than text.
- It is my intention to suggest that regardless to whether you are using a MTR, MPC, DAW or some combination of the three that a multimedia Tracksheet can be a flexible and comprehensive method of Documentation for the entire Recording Session in contrast to documenting a mix, or song within the Recording Session using a DAW text based note feature.
- It was my intention to convey that fully documenting even a small recording session (FWIW) requires more than text notes inside of a DAW. I recognize for many folks saving the DAW project, and some basic (text based notes) is all they need for total recall. And if that worx in their scenarios then cheerio
- I will save a full response to your query about the UI/UX study for its own post. This is a matter that should have a thorough discussion and vetting. And I should post the papers, research and case studies that support that new users typically prefer the simpler previous version of any software when given the option. With respect to the UI/UX study I was referring to: Keep in mind that the user is given a task that they don't know how to perform and they are given two pieces of software (they have never used before) one is a current version and the other is a previous version. The user does not know which is the current version and which is the previous version. In the set of UI/UX studies that I'm referring to most users (more than 50%) choose the previous (usually simpler) version. But this needs a separate post, so that we can dive deeper into why new users prefer simpler , less featured versions of software and what the concept of diminishing returns means in the context of software user interface design.
Of course all I can do is take notes on your 4 decades of experience and learn and I truly hope you continue to share your knowledge and wisdom on tascamforums with upstarts like myself
Clearly I have more to learn from you than you have to learn from me
BTW I do stream on Youtube@-mjk- Cheers!
Last edited:
Good lord, give. it. a. rest.
I started this four year old thread for the purpose (stated in my Post #1) of giving people using the stand-a-lone DP-24/32/SD portastudio some ideas for memorializing their audio creation of a song, for whatever use they may choose or not choose to make or not make of those ideas, and with whatever tools they might choose - paper, pencil, ink, crayon, computers - who cares?
This is the most long-winded hijack of a thread I've ever seen.
Perhaps even a world record.
And with what relevance to stand-a-lone portastudios and the original purpose of this thread? Practically None!
I started this four year old thread for the purpose (stated in my Post #1) of giving people using the stand-a-lone DP-24/32/SD portastudio some ideas for memorializing their audio creation of a song, for whatever use they may choose or not choose to make or not make of those ideas, and with whatever tools they might choose - paper, pencil, ink, crayon, computers - who cares?
This is the most long-winded hijack of a thread I've ever seen.
Perhaps even a world record.
And with what relevance to stand-a-lone portastudios and the original purpose of this thread? Practically None!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2016
- Messages
- 950
- Karma
- 968
- From
- West Wales, UK
- Website
- www.philizound.co.uk
- Gear owned
- dp-32sd
It's ok guys...
I've amended the tutorial.
I've amended the tutorial.
mj/phil, since I started this thread specifically with users of the stand-a-lone DP-24/32/SD portastudios in mind, perhaps this thread can be cleaned up by taking everything after shredd's post #21 or maybe Arjan's post #22 and moving the highjack stuff to Recording 101? Or perhaps Arjan's post #22 can provide a nice, clean break/start point for the new direction taken.
EDIT:
Never mind. See my post #35 below.
Last edited:
Arjan P
Soundaholic
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2012
- Messages
- 1,699
- Karma
- 1,236
- From
- Netherlands
- Website
- www.soundbyte.nl
- Gear owned
- DM3200 IFFW
OK one last thing then. Until time travel becomes a reality I have no need to recreate a recording session. It's water under the bridge and the recorded tracks are what's left...
Questions/comments specific to this thread's topic in regard to portastudios should continue to be made in this thread.
This thread in Recording 101 is the appropriate place for further general discussion about the merits/nature of track sheets.
This thread in Recording 101 is the appropriate place for further general discussion about the merits/nature of track sheets.
Last edited:
BazzBass
Soundaholic
I bought some 30cm sheets of magnetic whiteboard tape and cut them in the same width as my masking tape. 30cm covers all 32 tracks of the 32sd. I started writing on them w eraseable whiteboard markers for temporary use, Then when I start overdubbing and mixing I use one w tape on it, for permanency, and have one for each song. Becomes a pseudo track sheet too.
