![]() ![]() However, Chromebooks aren’t ideal for music production. You can make studio-quality tracks using a DAW that supports Chrome OS. Are Chromebooks good for music production? However, this can be great if all you’re looking to do is have some fun and come up with interesting new beats.While simpler than most DAWs for Chromebook, Song Maker – Music Mixer features recording, meaning you can use it to create 100% original songs. The workflow of Song Maker – Music Mixer, based on the idea of combining built-in samples and presets, makes it more of a game and less of a DAW. If you’re a beginner who wants to learn the basics of music production, Song Maker – Music Mixer is the perfect app. Various reasons why that could be but I have not the faintest as to which one it actually is.Even though Song Maker – Music Mixer is flawed (many users have complained about performance and exporting issues), there’s no doubt it’s a fun-to-use and extremely intuitive entry-level DAW. The problem seems to me seems to be that the code running the DAW itself is just not as efficiently written as it could be. Additionally, I've not had a problem of FL not working in Multi-Core or utilizing my CPU. IL are working on it, but they're not very big and it is going to take time to get all the bugs worked out. Another fun thing to note is that 64-bit support for Windows was added at the same time. Also note that Delphi compilers did not even support Mac OS X until late 2011. It is now on Windows, but on Mac OS X it is only 32-bit. Delphi for a longtime was not even 64-bit compatible. The problem is whether or not the language can compile into something that the OS can understand. So, Delphi is old coming in at 28 years? While C at 41 (and is used for Logic Pro on the Mac) is not? It is not about how old the language is that is the problem. ![]() I know FL has a 64-bit beta, but I'm waiting for an official release. Another big plus IMO is the fact that you can get Reaper in native 64-bit. I use whatever SRC happens to be built into the DAW and have not yet heard someone say, "Man, this could be SO MUCH BETTER IF you used a different SRC algorithm!".Īlso, Reaper runs faster than FL simply because the actual software is more efficient and lighter to run. ![]() I know after reading about that and testing it all the differences were just a handful of dB above the noise floor of my DACs. If you can blind test the difference between Reaper and FL using their SRCs then you can tell me if one is better than another. However, for sequencing FL is an absolute monster and I find that Reaper fails in comparison. ![]() I use Reaper for mixing & recording because I find its functionality much better suited to it than FL. The same thing applies to Reaper versus FL. FireFox and Chrome are lighter and more efficient than Internet Explorer. It is kind of like comparing Internet Explorer to FireFox or Chrome. But on the utilization of the given resources Reaper is just good at it. There is nothing about Reaper that is inherently better than FL per se. Simply put Reaper is lighter and more efficient than FL is. With that being said let us talk about Reaper (I use it as well). I work at 44.1 and have yet to have any issues. The result of higher sampling is merely just pushing the aliasing out the audible range. What most modern converters do is actually sample at an incredibly high rate (in the range of MHz on some) and then keep only the samples they need. This kind of filter is not possible to build in the analog realm. 96KHz is actually to interface with the analog world because the Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem requires a perfect LPF to work (this filter is known as the Sinc Filter). The reason for recording at 96KHz is not for better sound quality in the sense you're thinking. Let me also add that I have gone into the advanced folder and done the program reset to make sure it wasn't some settings improperly tweaked.īetter audio quality is completely up for debate, though depending on your converter design 24/96 could sound better. Any ideas on what could cause the performance differential? I get better sound quality,vastly better perceived latency, and more stability with reaper. I notice that this just doesn't happen when I use reaper. all things being equal, same hardware, driver, sample rate etc, why is this? In addition, when mixing in FL, mid playback things will distort and sound all wonkey (not underruns) very frequently and I'll have to open my audio tab and close and open the device so as to re sync the clock(?). When using the identical setup in FL Studio I am limited to 24/48, and have heavy latency with the same buffer size of 1024. Whats more is with a buffer size of 1024, I have damn near no audible latency when monitoring vocals or guitar via the master output. So, I have recently been doing some recording in reaper, and I noticed that when using asio4all on my fast track pro in reaper, I am able to use the full 24/96. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |