scarecrowbob

no, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it like that! People can be really touchy about stuff, and to make it even worse, it is a tough thing even for pro people to get good promo for stuff on the web. Best of luck on your site.

"I see. I didn't design it... It's a free site." Man, don't take it personally-- I'm just saying that if it isn't converting, there are places for improvement, and that the design is one of those places.

"Any thoughts?" Are you talking about this site: http://somnistatic.bandcamp.com/album/in-the-heart-of-the-sun I do freelance web dev for a company that does SEO... they spend a lot of time and money tweaking up websites, because once you start to measure outcomes you can see what is working and what isn't. Getting more traffic but fewer "conversions" which is a fancy SEO dude word for whatever you're trying to get people to do with the site (buy some shoes, sign up for an appointment, give you their email address, look at another website) is a very common problem that you can measure on about any website where you have specifc goal. Now, you can get a lot of traffic, but if you turn off folks for whatever reason (from having poor design to a bad offer) they ain't gonna convert. I ain't gonna do a line by line crit of your site, but to me, the design is at least one place where you you do better. The fact that people will decide if they want to listen to your music based on the first 4 seconds they're looking at your page is, to me a really strong reason why I don't even have a site for my music: I don't have time to make something super great, but something half-ass does nothing, either.

Well, there are a lot of things that you could do to increase traffic to your site. But a lot of it isn't worth a damn. I mean, if you can get a really nice ad and place it during the superbowl, I bet you'd get a lot more traffic. What is it worth to you to bring in a person to your website? $5/person? $400/person? $250/person? $25/person? That's how much the cost of search engine based acquisition can be in some fields to "get asses in the seats", though if (like a lot of folks) you make more off a client that that it can work out. If I were you, I'd just be a better blogger and comment/participate/write thoughtful interesting posts on as many other related blogs as possible-- that is how you build traffic for a blog. And then spin that traffic into your album. I bet that you could, if you were very talented, get 1 song play off your album for every 20 quality blog comments. Easy

If you can get an OMF or AAF export, then maybe you can open the edit in Soundtrack Pro or Logic. Maybe. It is wayyyyyy ifffy. Maybe sitting down at the edit machine and re-editing it there would be the easy thing to do.

I kind of depends on why there are clicks and pops to begin with. Are they part of the original audio, such as lavs scraping on clothes and equipment being powered on/off? Are they part of the location's sound? Are they generated by the edit, by things like cutting audio at a non-zero-crossing sample? How frequent are they? How long is the project? Do you have access to a workflow where you get the audio as an EDL rather than as the rendered exported file? What programs is being used to edit the piece? I have, in the past, sat down with a director and edited audio with him in Avid to match levels better. Would something like that be helpful? Anyhow, what you could probably do is this... as an alternative to redrawing the wave, ...assuming that the click doesn't happen on dialogue, you can take some noise from somewhere else in the scene (and if I am doing the location work, I'll actually record noise just for this purpose, we could call it "room tone") and cut the area with the pop out, and crossfade that noise in where the pop was. That is probably the easiest answer. I do that a lot. You have to be crafty, but it is a great tool.

I wouldn't bother with a compressor-- it is a gain issue.

Several people on this forum have reported mild successes just by making sure that the space was more-or-less air tight: caulking windows shut, making sure that the door jamb sealed, closing off venting to the space, installing storm windows, etc. That would be the cheapest place to start a project that is inherently expensive.

"For starters, low bass frequencies waves can be as long as 3 feet thus a headphone less than an inch from the ear cannot physically replicate this accurately." To reiterate b2b's post, that is wrong. You can have perfctly flat headphones that reproduce the entire audible spectrum. There are physiological reasons that mixing on headphones is difficult. Mostly, it is because we have two ears, and that each hear a good portion of information coming from all sides. This means that we're not just hearing a single source in each ear but rather hearing the difference between two signals in each ear. There was a neat point in the live sound forum about in-ear monitiros and why you need to wear two. The point went like ths: what do you do when you're in a noisy place trying to talk on the phone? You plug up your other ear, because what you hear in one ear is determined by the signal's relationship to the signal coming in the other ear. It's like, you can figure out the shape of an object like by looking at a set of photgraphs taken from different angles, but it is much more complex than simply picking it up and turning it around in your hands. If you are trying to make stuff sound realistic (which seems to be a big chunk of the goal of hevy production), then you're going to have a hard time doing that on headphones. You can mix on headphones, and I can see the utility of mixing crazy stereo stuff just becasue you know most folks will be listening in a crazy, separated headphone enviornment. That's how I listen to Electric Ladyland, at least. But the goal there wasn't to remake reality, which is always much more technology intensive then reveling in the truth that survives in the synthetic.

If you are playing into one mic away from the kit and the snare is too loud, then it is a performance issue. Do you use a lot of rim shots? Do you really pound that snare but back off on everything else? Don't hit the snare so hard, and it will be less present in that mic.

Since all it would cost is time, then why don't you try it and see how it sounds.

There are probably much better places to ask this question. But do you have some way of adjusting the envelopes, especially the release on your samples? I don't know jack about EWQLSO Gold, but if you can reduce the release time, then maybe the sampler would cut out the reverb. It won't help for early reflections, though, so it might just make everything sound really strange.

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Great post AJ - thanks for the heads-up. I may well be among those who goes out to buy one last copy of XP... Well, here's the thing - they've already got a time bomb strapped to our XP systems - it's called "authorization". Once they drop XP for Vista, and once XP OS support dies, how the heck are we going to keep XP running on our systems? What will we do if we have a HDD failure, or build a upgraded system and install a new C drive once MS will no longer support XP? How are we going to get an authorization? That won't happen immediately, but it is only a matter of time - MS isn't going to support XP forever... The librarian of the US LoC has authorized breaking digital protection measures in order to maintain non-infringing uses of non-comercially supported software. That is, the US gov has listed it in a provisional descision that it is legal to break software piracy protection measures in order to manitain non-infringing uses of software. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2006/71fr68472.html This notice announces that during the next three years, the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of six classes of copyrighted works. [...] b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian has determined that during the period from [ date of publication in Federal Register] through October 27, 2009, the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the following six classes of copyrighted works [...] (3) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace. So it is possible that if MS refuses to allow people to continue using their XP operating system, then breaking the copy protection could become exempt from prosecutio, even though the authorization system is not, strictly speaking, a dongle.

Originally posted by cov99 So if I can do all that what is ProT's OMF $500 used for? It sounds like (based on your repeated posts) that protools isn't something you would find vital. There are alot of recording programs out there. You know, you can downlaiod demos of a lot of these different programs and kind of run them through their paces to see which you like best.

Originally posted by where02190 If you are playing back only a few tracks then it's not an issue, but it's pretty common knowledge that USB1.1 has major latency issues when running a lot of tracks and plugins when overdubbing, and it becomes a very audible issue. Less bandwidth=less info flowing=latency. Would you like to explain how, if you are playing back a stereo track to monitor, there is more information flowing to the device when that stereo track is composed of a mix of many effects and other tracks than when that stereo track is composed of only a single stereo track coming off the HDD?