It's been a long while since I used Ardour, as I long since switched to Reaper. The problem with DAWs is that you have to learn specific approaches to their use, which are often not transferable...
It's been a long while since I used Ardour, as I long since switched to Reaper. The problem with DAWs is that you have to learn specific approaches to their use, which are often not transferable between software. Once you get locked into one, it's extremely difficult to justify switching to another. So I'm stuck (happily, to be sure) using Reaper. That said, I'm really glad to see that open source development is keeping apace, and that Ardour continues to grow. When open source improves, we all benefit.
That's why I keep my eye on Zrythm (Git) it seems like a truly advanced open sourced version of Reaper. We're finally reaching a point where the OSS world is getting up to par or better in some...
That's why I keep my eye on Zrythm(Git) it seems like a truly advanced open sourced version of Reaper. We're finally reaching a point where the OSS world is getting up to par or better in some ways than the propeitary world.
I always wonder what makes one DAW better than the other. Because, as you write and I agree, each one is specific with it's workflow and I wonder if there's a DAW that is more universal/common or...
I always wonder what makes one DAW better than the other. Because, as you write and I agree, each one is specific with it's workflow and I wonder if there's a DAW that is more universal/common or is very easy to change e.g. keyboard shortcuts, like I can use Ardour with Reaper shortcuts or the other way.
I guess it's like Vim vs Emacs - I've accidentally chosen and learnt one and I don't have time and mental power to learn the other :P
I think its like art, you know it when you see it. I used Pro Tools, then Digital Performer and currently use Studio One. I would say the biggest difference between modern daws and what I would...
I think its like art, you know it when you see it. I used Pro Tools, then Digital Performer and currently use Studio One. I would say the biggest difference between modern daws and what I would label "legacy" is that the legacy daws cater heavily to old school audio engineers. They do things that make sense if you've come from a world of patch cables and giant mixing consoles. Modern daws embrace the idea that a computer is both good at different work flows and that it negates the need for certain tasks.
In the old way, if you wanted to send an effect to a bus, you would have to create the bus track, route the original tracks to it route the effect then route that all to your main listen bus. This makes no sense in a modern world where the goal is to just get a separate volume control for the effect. Modern daws just know that this is the goal and auto route everything for you.
Studio One also does drag and drop very well, which seems crazy to say in 2023, but the reality is most daws don't. Want a synth on a new track? Just drag it into an open area of the workspace. With legacy daws, you have to make an audio track, route it to the main bus, make a midi track, route it to the audio track, apply the effect. This all makes sense if you think about the analog world of recording, but feels like what a caveman would do if you have been doing anything on a computer for the last 20 years.
I haven't tried Ardour , but there is always room for a free multi track recorder. For many people, the cost of entry is way too high for some of the professional software.
I tried asking on reddit and my post was removed, so I'll ask here. Would it be a bad idea to try learning music making starting with Ardour? I'm not trying to be a pro musician, I'm studying...
I tried asking on reddit and my post was removed, so I'll ask here. Would it be a bad idea to try learning music making starting with Ardour?
I'm not trying to be a pro musician, I'm studying towards game dev and I thought I should add music and sound to my skill set at some point, since I have next to no knowledge of it. But if possible, I'd rather not use proprietary, paid license software.
Well... first thing I'd like to do is have an understanding of music past being a consumer of it. As of now, I can't play an instrument nor do I own a working one (I have an old Casio CTK-2000...
Well... first thing I'd like to do is have an understanding of music past being a consumer of it. As of now, I can't play an instrument nor do I own a working one (I have an old Casio CTK-2000 keyboard from the short time I had piano classes in primary school but I can't even find the cable). I listen to a lot of music daily but I'm not even sure I know what a chord or measure is, and I'd like to fix that, because it may very well be important to my career goals (and also because it seems awesome). (also, audio work in general)
Second thing I'd like to do is learn how to make music and sound with a standard workflow, even if it sucks. Since I don't have an instrument, I was thinking I should learn to use a DAW even if I have to be resourceful about it. And because of both a tight wallet and of my personal inclinations, I want to try using one that's at least free as in beer and very preferably free as in speech. Thus, I want to know if trying to learn the basics of Ardour as a complete beginner would be sane.
To be clear, I'm used to using OSS with weird, clunky, antiquated interfaces, so that's a plus.
Okay, given what you've said, you may be better served with more basic sequencer software, such as LMMS. Ardour can do many of the things LMMS does, too, but I think it would take more manual...
Okay, given what you've said, you may be better served with more basic sequencer software, such as LMMS. Ardour can do many of the things LMMS does, too, but I think it would take more manual effort because it gives you finer control over details -- but then you need to know what to do with such control (i.e. be an experienced musician or composer).
LMMS would be faster to just get started with, laying down some patterns with common instrumental sounds like drum kits, and modern music sounds.
It's good that you want to start learning music theory -- and don't let me stop you -- but that's somewhat of a long road of study to get to a point where your knowledge becomes useful on a practical level. Don't get me wrong: do get started down that road, especially while your interest is high; but you can probably get started making some basic music without being too far down that learning road yet.
Something to try is to imitate (at a basic level) some music that you like. Try to imitate the melody, some of the drum pattern you hear, etc. Even if it's just a snippet of the song and not the whole thing. It would help you get your feet wet with LMMS and music making in general.
I'm copying a question here because I only thought of asking it when answering the other commenter: about the whole not needing any music theory thing, how so? Coming from a mostly technical...
I'm copying a question here because I only thought of asking it when answering the other commenter: about the whole not needing any music theory thing, how so? Coming from a mostly technical background, I don't really understand how one can make music without some knowledge of the basic building blocks. What do you actually need to know, then, if anything? And where does knowledge about music start being 'music theory' proper?
Music is different in the sense that it makes more sense to "get your hands dirty" first, then understand how it all works. It's like drawing. We all know someone from our elementary or middle...
Music is different in the sense that it makes more sense to "get your hands dirty" first, then understand how it all works. It's like drawing. We all know someone from our elementary or middle school days that had some aptitude for drawing. I'm watching anime right now, so I'm reminded of people who drew anime characters on folders or notebooks. And not only characters they saw in a show, but they'd make their own characters (often their friends) and scenes. And it actually looked decent. Did those kids go to art school? Probably not, other than weekly art class.
Now if they wanted to get better at drawing or even make a career out of drawing, they'd take more art classes. Maybe even theory classes. And ideally, what they would create as a trained adult artist would be significantly better than what they were creating in middle school. Because of the theory classes.
Music Theory -- at least the way that term is typically used -- is similar. It's not really the basic building blocks. It's actually the architectural and design flourishes that takes the creation to the next level.
I think what you're talking about is more just fundamentals of music. How to play an instrument. How to read music. How to interpret that music you're reading. That's different. But even then; aside from knowing how to play the instrument, is the rest of that necessary?
It's kinda like teenagers trying to start a rock band in their parents' garage. Do they know music theory? Maybe, but probably not. Just rudimentary chords and beats and stuff. But they're creating nonetheless.
I won't repeat what I said in my other reply. I'll just add: To get started, you don't "need" anything other than some desire. Even without a musical instrument on hand, you can use your voice...
I won't repeat what I said in my other reply. I'll just add:
What do you actually need to know, then, if anything? And where does knowledge about music start being 'music theory' proper?
To get started, you don't "need" anything other than some desire. Even without a musical instrument on hand, you can use your voice (or, as you said, some software). However, there is a lot of value and benefit to learning more formal music theory, and this is often underestimated (don't know what they don't know).
As for when or where theory study becomes "proper": It's a bit of a spectrum, I guess. However, the foundational rudiments of Western music are very well understood and established. For an absolute beginner, you can learn a lot from probably almost anything you find (book, website, course) that seems thorough and structured.
Oh, I'd heard about LMMS! I dismissed it because I assumed it was equal in ease of use to Ardour. I'll take a look at it, then! Of course! I wasn't shooting to go that deep so quickly ; I've...
Oh, I'd heard about LMMS! I dismissed it because I assumed it was equal in ease of use to Ardour. I'll take a look at it, then!
It's good that you want to start learning music theory -- and don't let me stop you -- but that's somewhat of a long road of study to get to a point where your knowledge becomes useful on a practical level. Don't get me wrong: do get started down that road, especially while your interest is high; but you can probably get started making some basic music without being too far down that learning road yet.
Of course! I wasn't shooting to go that deep so quickly ; I've learned not to after making that mistake in my other studies. I do actually keep hearing the phrase "you don't need to know music theory to make music", and while I'll admit I don't... fully understand how that works from my complete layman perspective, I'm keeping it in mind.
I just took another look at it, and it does seem to have deeper, more complicated features than I remember, but, in my experience, it's easy to just dive in and lay down some basic patterns, then...
I'd heard about LMMS! I dismissed it because I assumed it was equal in ease of use to Ardour.
I just took another look at it, and it does seem to have deeper, more complicated features than I remember, but, in my experience, it's easy to just dive in and lay down some basic patterns, then place some repetitions of them around a song, and put together something basic. Visual interaction, drag and drop, that sort of thing.
"you don't need to know music theory to make music"
don't... fully understand how
A lot comes from natural intuition, similar to how most people can do some simple running without studying anything. At more advanced levels, there's value in studying some anatomy, physiology, or such, training to learn how to more efficiently move the body to run better, faster, more efficiently. Not to mention actually physically improving the body, in terms of strength, flexibility, etc.
So, likewise, you can approach, say, a piano, and just start plinking away at the keys, using your ears and mind to hear what sounds nice, or what doesn't. Maybe playing one note at a time, and trying to play the melody line of a simple song, like Happy Birthday. In doing so, you're (however crudely) doing and using a number of things without knowing the technical terms for them, like tempo, rhythm, meter, note values, intervals. Later, as your knowledge and understanding increases, your performance (and composition) of music improves, and also becomes easier. You'll also learn what makes for better music, and why.
I'm not a DAW aficionado and my musical education was almost entirely instrument-based, so I'll not address the DAW question, though the other comment that suggests trying to imitate things you...
I'm not a DAW aficionado and my musical education was almost entirely instrument-based, so I'll not address the DAW question, though the other comment that suggests trying to imitate things you hear is excellent. But if you want to understand music better in general, YouTube is a great place to start. Try Adam Neely (general music discussion and analysis), 12tone (rock and pop theory, and fun drawings), 8-bit Music Theory (video game music), or Sideways (film music) to start with. A lot of it may go over your head at first, but that's okay. Just follow what piques your interest. These creators mix a lot of "big picture" ideas with their nitty-gritty analysis of chords and form, so I think they're a good place to go if you're someone who wants to learn about how music works and how musicians engage with it.
As far as learning rudiments (scales, chords, meter, etc), I don't have many specific resources to point you to, though there are plenty of YouTube channels and other websites dedicated to these things. musictheory.net and teoria.com have lessons and drills, primarily devoted to reading and interpreting written music. The same other comment makes a very good point that you don't have to know all this stuff before starting to make music, and that's very true. Long-term, if you can grow your knowledge and skills in parallel, that will give you the most freedom and ability to do what you're interested in.
Also, I'm a music teacher IRL so.... If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask! Consider that a standing offer. I really enjoy helping people learn about music (or anything really).
Thank you very much for the references! I'll be looking at all this. I told Pistos how I knew about the whole "you don't need to know music theory to make music" thing without really understanding...
Thank you very much for the references! I'll be looking at all this.
I told Pistos how I knew about the whole "you don't need to know music theory to make music" thing without really understanding it as well. But as I'm writing this, I realize I should probably ask: how so? Coming from a mostly technical background, I don't really understand how one can make music without some knowledge of the basic building blocks. What do you actually need to know, then, if anything? And where does knowledge about music start being 'music theory' proper?
All very good questions. The short answer to "why don't you need to know theory to make music?" is pretty simple: you already know what sounds good to you, so if you're able to reproduce that...
All very good questions. The short answer to "why don't you need to know theory to make music?" is pretty simple: you already know what sounds good to you, so if you're able to reproduce that without an in-depth understanding of music theory, then you're largely good to go! The Beatles are probably the most famous example of musicians who had an incredible intuitive understanding of what sounded good to them, but their knowledge of music theory was pretty limited (at least early on). For you however, if you have a technical background, then maybe for you music theory could be your key to making all kinds of things you love. Everyone's different and each kind of music has different theory and kinds of knowledge that go into making it.
What do you actually need to know, then, if anything?
Since you said you have a technical background, I'd say scales/keys/tonal centers and time signatures are good rudiments to start with. That will give you an understanding about how (western) music is organized on a fundamental level and it will apply to pretty much anything you might want to do. Additionally, while you don't need to be able to read music, written music helps a lot as a communication tool, so I'd recommend getting comfortable with notation as well.
And where does knowledge about music start being 'music theory' proper?
This one doesn't have a satisfying answer - there isn't really any defined "music theory proper". I'd say once you're talking about how any one musical thing (a note, a pitch, a beat, a meter) relates to some other musical thing, that's when you're getting into theory, even if just a little bit. There's certainly different levels of depth and detail to the general "music theory", but even something as basic as scales are considered theory because of how wide-reaching the implications are for understandings of how western music is put together. It also depends on the context; if you're learning to play a scale on an instrument, that's not theory, but if you're talking about how that scale shapes what you play and how you hear what you play, then that's theory. I suppose, to sum up, theory is all of the ideas and abstract things we add on top of just the literal notes we play/hear.
Sure. No reason why not. The basics of learning how to manipulate audio with plugins are useful in your field. I'd recommend getting an audio interface, treating the room, and studio monitors for...
Sure. No reason why not. The basics of learning how to manipulate audio with plugins are useful in your field. I'd recommend getting an audio interface, treating the room, and studio monitors for accurate changes though.
Putting this link here, because I'm curious if there are some Tildesians (or how do you call us?) that do some creative audio work and know about libre DAW, such as Ardour. FYI:...
Putting this link here, because I'm curious if there are some Tildesians (or how do you call us?) that do some creative audio work and know about libre DAW, such as Ardour.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardour_(software)
It's been a long while since I used Ardour, as I long since switched to Reaper. The problem with DAWs is that you have to learn specific approaches to their use, which are often not transferable between software. Once you get locked into one, it's extremely difficult to justify switching to another. So I'm stuck (happily, to be sure) using Reaper. That said, I'm really glad to see that open source development is keeping apace, and that Ardour continues to grow. When open source improves, we all benefit.
That's why I keep my eye on Zrythm (Git) it seems like a truly advanced open sourced version of Reaper. We're finally reaching a point where the OSS world is getting up to par or better in some ways than the propeitary world.
I always wonder what makes one DAW better than the other. Because, as you write and I agree, each one is specific with it's workflow and I wonder if there's a DAW that is more universal/common or is very easy to change e.g. keyboard shortcuts, like I can use Ardour with Reaper shortcuts or the other way.
I guess it's like Vim vs Emacs - I've accidentally chosen and learnt one and I don't have time and mental power to learn the other :P
I think its like art, you know it when you see it. I used Pro Tools, then Digital Performer and currently use Studio One. I would say the biggest difference between modern daws and what I would label "legacy" is that the legacy daws cater heavily to old school audio engineers. They do things that make sense if you've come from a world of patch cables and giant mixing consoles. Modern daws embrace the idea that a computer is both good at different work flows and that it negates the need for certain tasks.
In the old way, if you wanted to send an effect to a bus, you would have to create the bus track, route the original tracks to it route the effect then route that all to your main listen bus. This makes no sense in a modern world where the goal is to just get a separate volume control for the effect. Modern daws just know that this is the goal and auto route everything for you.
Studio One also does drag and drop very well, which seems crazy to say in 2023, but the reality is most daws don't. Want a synth on a new track? Just drag it into an open area of the workspace. With legacy daws, you have to make an audio track, route it to the main bus, make a midi track, route it to the audio track, apply the effect. This all makes sense if you think about the analog world of recording, but feels like what a caveman would do if you have been doing anything on a computer for the last 20 years.
I haven't tried Ardour , but there is always room for a free multi track recorder. For many people, the cost of entry is way too high for some of the professional software.
I tried asking on reddit and my post was removed, so I'll ask here. Would it be a bad idea to try learning music making starting with Ardour?
I'm not trying to be a pro musician, I'm studying towards game dev and I thought I should add music and sound to my skill set at some point, since I have next to no knowledge of it. But if possible, I'd rather not use proprietary, paid license software.
Could you go into more detail about what you want to accomplish or create? There may be simpler software which meets your needs.
Well... first thing I'd like to do is have an understanding of music past being a consumer of it. As of now, I can't play an instrument nor do I own a working one (I have an old Casio CTK-2000 keyboard from the short time I had piano classes in primary school but I can't even find the cable). I listen to a lot of music daily but I'm not even sure I know what a chord or measure is, and I'd like to fix that, because it may very well be important to my career goals (and also because it seems awesome). (also, audio work in general)
Second thing I'd like to do is learn how to make music and sound with a standard workflow, even if it sucks. Since I don't have an instrument, I was thinking I should learn to use a DAW even if I have to be resourceful about it. And because of both a tight wallet and of my personal inclinations, I want to try using one that's at least free as in beer and very preferably free as in speech. Thus, I want to know if trying to learn the basics of Ardour as a complete beginner would be sane.
To be clear, I'm used to using OSS with weird, clunky, antiquated interfaces, so that's a plus.
Okay, given what you've said, you may be better served with more basic sequencer software, such as LMMS. Ardour can do many of the things LMMS does, too, but I think it would take more manual effort because it gives you finer control over details -- but then you need to know what to do with such control (i.e. be an experienced musician or composer).
LMMS would be faster to just get started with, laying down some patterns with common instrumental sounds like drum kits, and modern music sounds.
It's good that you want to start learning music theory -- and don't let me stop you -- but that's somewhat of a long road of study to get to a point where your knowledge becomes useful on a practical level. Don't get me wrong: do get started down that road, especially while your interest is high; but you can probably get started making some basic music without being too far down that learning road yet.
Something to try is to imitate (at a basic level) some music that you like. Try to imitate the melody, some of the drum pattern you hear, etc. Even if it's just a snippet of the song and not the whole thing. It would help you get your feet wet with LMMS and music making in general.
I'm copying a question here because I only thought of asking it when answering the other commenter: about the whole not needing any music theory thing, how so? Coming from a mostly technical background, I don't really understand how one can make music without some knowledge of the basic building blocks. What do you actually need to know, then, if anything? And where does knowledge about music start being 'music theory' proper?
Music is different in the sense that it makes more sense to "get your hands dirty" first, then understand how it all works. It's like drawing. We all know someone from our elementary or middle school days that had some aptitude for drawing. I'm watching anime right now, so I'm reminded of people who drew anime characters on folders or notebooks. And not only characters they saw in a show, but they'd make their own characters (often their friends) and scenes. And it actually looked decent. Did those kids go to art school? Probably not, other than weekly art class.
Now if they wanted to get better at drawing or even make a career out of drawing, they'd take more art classes. Maybe even theory classes. And ideally, what they would create as a trained adult artist would be significantly better than what they were creating in middle school. Because of the theory classes.
Music Theory -- at least the way that term is typically used -- is similar. It's not really the basic building blocks. It's actually the architectural and design flourishes that takes the creation to the next level.
I think what you're talking about is more just fundamentals of music. How to play an instrument. How to read music. How to interpret that music you're reading. That's different. But even then; aside from knowing how to play the instrument, is the rest of that necessary?
It's kinda like teenagers trying to start a rock band in their parents' garage. Do they know music theory? Maybe, but probably not. Just rudimentary chords and beats and stuff. But they're creating nonetheless.
I won't repeat what I said in my other reply. I'll just add:
To get started, you don't "need" anything other than some desire. Even without a musical instrument on hand, you can use your voice (or, as you said, some software). However, there is a lot of value and benefit to learning more formal music theory, and this is often underestimated (don't know what they don't know).
As for when or where theory study becomes "proper": It's a bit of a spectrum, I guess. However, the foundational rudiments of Western music are very well understood and established. For an absolute beginner, you can learn a lot from probably almost anything you find (book, website, course) that seems thorough and structured.
Oh, I'd heard about LMMS! I dismissed it because I assumed it was equal in ease of use to Ardour. I'll take a look at it, then!
Of course! I wasn't shooting to go that deep so quickly ; I've learned not to after making that mistake in my other studies. I do actually keep hearing the phrase "you don't need to know music theory to make music", and while I'll admit I don't... fully understand how that works from my complete layman perspective, I'm keeping it in mind.
I just took another look at it, and it does seem to have deeper, more complicated features than I remember, but, in my experience, it's easy to just dive in and lay down some basic patterns, then place some repetitions of them around a song, and put together something basic. Visual interaction, drag and drop, that sort of thing.
A lot comes from natural intuition, similar to how most people can do some simple running without studying anything. At more advanced levels, there's value in studying some anatomy, physiology, or such, training to learn how to more efficiently move the body to run better, faster, more efficiently. Not to mention actually physically improving the body, in terms of strength, flexibility, etc.
So, likewise, you can approach, say, a piano, and just start plinking away at the keys, using your ears and mind to hear what sounds nice, or what doesn't. Maybe playing one note at a time, and trying to play the melody line of a simple song, like Happy Birthday. In doing so, you're (however crudely) doing and using a number of things without knowing the technical terms for them, like tempo, rhythm, meter, note values, intervals. Later, as your knowledge and understanding increases, your performance (and composition) of music improves, and also becomes easier. You'll also learn what makes for better music, and why.
I'm not a DAW aficionado and my musical education was almost entirely instrument-based, so I'll not address the DAW question, though the other comment that suggests trying to imitate things you hear is excellent. But if you want to understand music better in general, YouTube is a great place to start. Try Adam Neely (general music discussion and analysis), 12tone (rock and pop theory, and fun drawings), 8-bit Music Theory (video game music), or Sideways (film music) to start with. A lot of it may go over your head at first, but that's okay. Just follow what piques your interest. These creators mix a lot of "big picture" ideas with their nitty-gritty analysis of chords and form, so I think they're a good place to go if you're someone who wants to learn about how music works and how musicians engage with it.
As far as learning rudiments (scales, chords, meter, etc), I don't have many specific resources to point you to, though there are plenty of YouTube channels and other websites dedicated to these things. musictheory.net and teoria.com have lessons and drills, primarily devoted to reading and interpreting written music. The same other comment makes a very good point that you don't have to know all this stuff before starting to make music, and that's very true. Long-term, if you can grow your knowledge and skills in parallel, that will give you the most freedom and ability to do what you're interested in.
Also, I'm a music teacher IRL so.... If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask! Consider that a standing offer. I really enjoy helping people learn about music (or anything really).
Thank you very much for the references! I'll be looking at all this.
I told Pistos how I knew about the whole "you don't need to know music theory to make music" thing without really understanding it as well. But as I'm writing this, I realize I should probably ask: how so? Coming from a mostly technical background, I don't really understand how one can make music without some knowledge of the basic building blocks. What do you actually need to know, then, if anything? And where does knowledge about music start being 'music theory' proper?
All very good questions. The short answer to "why don't you need to know theory to make music?" is pretty simple: you already know what sounds good to you, so if you're able to reproduce that without an in-depth understanding of music theory, then you're largely good to go! The Beatles are probably the most famous example of musicians who had an incredible intuitive understanding of what sounded good to them, but their knowledge of music theory was pretty limited (at least early on). For you however, if you have a technical background, then maybe for you music theory could be your key to making all kinds of things you love. Everyone's different and each kind of music has different theory and kinds of knowledge that go into making it.
Since you said you have a technical background, I'd say scales/keys/tonal centers and time signatures are good rudiments to start with. That will give you an understanding about how (western) music is organized on a fundamental level and it will apply to pretty much anything you might want to do. Additionally, while you don't need to be able to read music, written music helps a lot as a communication tool, so I'd recommend getting comfortable with notation as well.
This one doesn't have a satisfying answer - there isn't really any defined "music theory proper". I'd say once you're talking about how any one musical thing (a note, a pitch, a beat, a meter) relates to some other musical thing, that's when you're getting into theory, even if just a little bit. There's certainly different levels of depth and detail to the general "music theory", but even something as basic as scales are considered theory because of how wide-reaching the implications are for understandings of how western music is put together. It also depends on the context; if you're learning to play a scale on an instrument, that's not theory, but if you're talking about how that scale shapes what you play and how you hear what you play, then that's theory. I suppose, to sum up, theory is all of the ideas and abstract things we add on top of just the literal notes we play/hear.
Sure. No reason why not. The basics of learning how to manipulate audio with plugins are useful in your field. I'd recommend getting an audio interface, treating the room, and studio monitors for accurate changes though.
Putting this link here, because I'm curious if there are some Tildesians (or how do you call us?) that do some creative audio work and know about libre DAW, such as Ardour.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardour_(software)
hand raised I use Ardour a lot. Very happy with it.
What is a "hard disk recorder"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk_recorder