Jump to content

Duardo

Members
  • Posts

    1,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Location
    My Basement

Duardo's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I don't know if anyone has pointed out that htaed is a simple anagram for hated. As well as "Heath" and "D Head"...and it's "death" backwards...
  2. If I had seen the thread about vocals being in the "center" first I doubt I would have responded in as much detail here as I did...even though I knew he was a troll..
  3. This is hilarious, all the know it alls that have absolutely nothing to show for all their misunderstood genius come out of the wood work and say how everything I've said is wrong, complete horse {censored}. Not all, just most. For starters, any EQ with 15 bands or more 99% of the time will be a shelving EQ. You'll never see a parametric reaching this many bands. Listen carefully nay saying whiners, I BUILD the damn things, ok? I design and build them...is your English as bad as your experience behind the mixing console? You build them? For yourself, or do you sell them? You're describing a graphic EQ. Nobody said that they thought you were talking about a 15-pand parametric EQ. You see, even though you don't know your teminology most of the misunderstood genius know-it-alls here knew exactly what you were talking about, even though you didn't. A shelving EQ boosts all frequencies above or below a certain frequency, so you will typically only see two shelves in an EQ, a high and a low...and they're typically accompanied by several bands of midrage peaking EQ. Sure, with digital EQ's you could probably theoretically put together a 15-band shelfing EQ, but why would you? A studio tech listens to the track a few times and decides what needs to be done, there's no secrets being kept, they just treat the ignorant for what they are, ignorant and keeping them employed! It's actually the ignorant who don't think that a real mastering engineer has any value. Mastering is a skill, like anything else...having the tools alone will do you next to no good. I'm sure that if you let Bernie Grundman into your studio with your inexpensive software tools and you went to his room with all of his custom mastering and monitoring equipment, he'd still turn out a better-sounding product than you...because the main reason people go to him is for his ears and his skill, not because of his gear. His skills are what have gotten him to the point where he can have the gear that he has, and you'll typically find that that's way it is...those who can tend to gravitate towards the best gear possible, because even though that gear only accounts for maybe 1 or 2 per cent of the "quality" of a finished product (if such a thing could even be measured) if you're already 98 per cent of the way there that extra 1 or 2 per cent makes all the difference in the world. The point of using compression and using a SOFTWARE EQ in such a manner is, it's an easy way to balance out the tracks peaks, that's all. If you REALLY are intent on going over the entire song and shifting down all the peaks until you flatten out the track, go right ahead. I simply offered a sure fire way that gives fair results and saves a lot of time. Since you're not using the correct terminology I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you're trying to describe limiting. Also, would you like to tell me how to play my 6 string, 8 finger tapped arpeggios?? I'd love for you to explain to me what I'm doing wrong there as well. Well, if you're like most people who play 6-string, 8-finger tapped arpeggios (I assume that what you're trying to say is that you play arpeggios with all of your fingers on a guitar?) then I'd probably say that what you're doing wrong is simply playing them in the first place. My album will be out mid to late summer, it will also be available all across the country. So nay sayers, please lets get together again in 6 months and compare album sales, sound like a deal?? Based on the content of your posts one can only assume that you are a troll and nothing else...you can't be real...but I'll point out that there is no direct link between the quality of mastering and album sales. Some of the best-selling albums have been horribly mastered, because even though they're mastered by some of the best in the business, they're done so under the direction of people who have no business telling someone how something should be mastered. I'm a neo classical guitarist and certified sound and music engineer as well as an audio tech with a lot of design experience. Point blank, you like the bulk of these people are out of your league. Who certified you? he thinks the tracking gap reference I made, something addressed in any decent college course for music and studio production, was in reference to frequency peaks. I went back to the book that we used in my college courses and the only "gap" mentioned is the head gap between tracks on a multitrack recorder, which is not what you're talking about. It's so funny when I make a critical statement that was relatively harmless then a mob of children forms and screams we're right because we outnumber you, even though we can't justify our claims or accusations and couldn't fill a thimble with our knowledge. Your so-called "critical statement" was harmless because nobody took it seriously, and the only thing that was even potentially harmful in your initial post was some of the advice you gave, which at this point I don't believe is a threat any more. If you weren't a troll I'd advise you that if you stick around you might actually learn something, but since you obviously are...please stick around, you're keeping this entertaining and people who really are here trying to learn something will be entertained as they learn. The lashing out and blind attacks are completely unfounded and unjustifiable.
  4. The thing is also, that mastering is just better done by someone other then the person that mixed the project. Or atleast is the general idea. This is true...even most engineers who both mix and master will not do both on the same project, or at least won't recommend it...one of the nice things about the mastering stage is that you can have someone listen to the project with a fresh set of unbaised ears... -Duardo
  5. But maybe people can add on their own suggestions, or maybe why certain things wouldn't work, but to just bash on someone because they have a different way of working on things is childish and it really doesn't reflect good light on people in this forum trying to be "professional." I don't think people would have bashed on the original poster...at least not as much...if his post wasn't so "bashy" itself.
  6. Wow, this is an amazing forum.... Everybody is always asking for the secret cheap piece of gear that will get them studio quality results for $100, yet when someone gives a few tips for people to try and maybe save a little money for their personal mixes everyone thinks it's stupid and you can't possible make anything happen without having $10,000 worth of gear. I don't think that's the problem here. The problem here is that the original poster obviously does not really have any idea of what mastering really is. He starts off saying that people who make posts regarding mastering don't know what they're talking about, and then goes on to mention "reference" amps with loudness buttons...the nonexistent 15-band shelving EQ Ethan has already pointed out...talks about "peaks in sync with each other"..."sucking out" the midrange...and makes no mention of limiting, or what's involved in mastering anything more than a single song at a time. There's some good advice in there...mainly, to listen to what you're doing...but there's no magic secret (or "pretty much standard method") for this, and the nonsense about "gaps" and making things sound "blended" and even "bland" is really meaningless. One can certainly do a decent job of mastering a song or album with some relatively simple tools, but if you think that there's one standard easy way to do it you're mistaken...and if you're going to say that people who frequent the forum "don't have a clue" about mastering you'd better make sure you have a clue yourself. -Duardo
  7. (As I was saying, while OMF is offered 'free' as part of some DAW softwares, Digidesign makes you pay an extra $500 for their OMF utility.) Oh so if using pro tools I wont be able to transfer my stuff to other DAWs ( ) but then again, why would I? Exactly...that's why Digidesign doesn't include it as standard. Everyone else wants their sessions to be as compatible with Pro Tools as possible so they include it to be competetive. Digidiesign doesn't need to include it with Pro Tools because not nearly as many people need to go the other way around. That was over eight years ago. Since then, computers have been able to run much more complicated plugins (such as convolution reverbs or physical modeling) and more of them, but the whole latency and realtime monitoring issue is still a pathetic joke. I'm really interested in why this is, as I would kill to get the performance, response, and feel of TDM in a host-based environment. I think you nailed the reason right there...because as computers get faster, the software gets more complex. And you're right, this is nothing new...I remember when the G4's first came out just over seven years ago that was supposed to be the end of Digidesign. Obviously, that didn't happen...but native horsepower has come a long way. It wasn't too long ago that a Pro Tools TDM system cost about what it does now, but was only able to do sixteen mono tracks and didn't have any sequencing capabilities. Now for a fraction of the cost you can run an LE system with 48 stereo tracks, plus MIDI, and when it comes to mixdown you can run a huge number of plugins that will smoke the plugins on the older system...but you still can't track a four-piece band with effects and no discernable latency (although I've heard as well that on the new quad MacPros you can get pretty good performance with Apogee's Symphony system, even with plugins... Duende? UAD-1? You don't have to run pro tools to have dsp effects. I would love Duende mmmmm..... True, you don't, but you do need to run Pro Tools to monitor off of those DSP effects in real time, as you track... I would say sound wise Nuendo 3 = Pro Tools HD Cubase SL 3 and SX 3 > Pro Tools LE Pro Tools LE > Cubase LE Upon what would you base that opinion? If you had the same converters, I'd say, sonic quality-wise, Nuendo 3=Pro Tools HD=Cubase SL3=Pro Tools LE=Cubase LE=Logic=Digital Performer=Sonar...sure, there may be minor differences, and the plugins you use will affect things as well (although, if you ask me that's what would really put HD above the rest)...but the software itself doesn't make nearly the difference that the microphones, preamps, converters, etc do. -Duardo
  8. "And, in one of the more famous of Hetfield and Ulrich's controversies with bassist Jason Newsted, the album almost completely lacks bass guitar. The standard explanation for this combines Newsted's absence from the mixing sessions (where he might have asserted his opinion) and the lingering issue of his "newness" within the band following the tragic death of Cliff Burton in September 1986." Sad but true? :-) I don't know, I think it has more to do with the fact that the bass was for the most part playing the exact same thing as the rhythm guitars. For better or for worse, though, "Justice" certainly was an influential ablum, production-wise and otherwise. I remember the first time I heard a song from it on the radio in the frozen yogurt ship I worked at in high school, and I could actually hear the kick drum through the little speaker. That didn't happen too often. I rarely listen to "production" when I'm listening to music, so the production has to be either really bad or really odd for me to take notice, and while I find "Vapor Trails" difficult to listen to I'd have to say that "St Anger" takes the cake... -Duardo
  9. This kind of contradicts what other people say about the difference between 44.1 and 96k. What most people say about 44.1 kHz and 96 kHz isn't correct...not that 96 kHz doesn't sound better in some cases as it certainly does, but now always...and when it does it's not for the reasons most people think it does. If most people can't hear between 18-22k, then why does it matter so much if it is attenuated by an antialiasing filter? Plenty of people still can hear above 18 kHz, and today's converters' filters don't start rolling off until past 20 kHz. It does matter, and not all CD's have the rolloff you're describing. Having said that, most consumers probably wouldn't hear the difference. -Duardo
  10. Take a look at a spectrum analyzer, and it looks like someone applied a low-pass filter with an infinitely fast rolloff at 18k. First of all, I have no idea how they pull this off. Every filter I am aware of (Bessel, Butterworth, Chebyshev, etc.) has a significant rolloff. Digital filters are capable of this...they're not limited the constraints of analog filters, which is why 44.1kHz converters have gotten better over time. Second, why would someone do this? In this situation, it would make absolutely no difference between 44.1 and 96k because there is no information above 18k. The antialiasing filter wouldn't attenuate any audible information because it doesn't exist. There are many reasons why people would do this...older converters, microphones and other pieces of gear that don't go up that high, and the fact that there's just not a whole lot going on up there, relatively speaking. When you're talking about 18-20kHz you're talking about a tenth of an octave that many people can't hear anyhow. -Duardo
  11. The reason that 96K is becoming standard is because in order to get rid the aliasing, you need to roll off those highs. When you are sitting at 22.05 kHz being your top end, your anti-aliasing filter begins in the audible range. When you go to 96K, you're anti-aliasing filter can start at 30 kHz and roll everything off on top of that. That's not quite the way it works...today's converters have a very gentle rollof that starts above the audible range, then the signal is sampled at a very high sampling rate, then a digital filter is used to cut the frequencies below the Nyquist frequency. These digital filters are able to provide a much steeper slope than any analog filter ever could and are still improving. And I'm not sure I'd say that 96K is becoming standard...sure, it's around, and has been for a while, but there's no demand for it from the consumer level, which is really what drives this industry. So the vast majority of our product is still being delivered at 44.1kHz, and often data compressed to boot. This is why 44.1K and 48K are obsolete - because even when you dither back down to 44.1, you are preserving as much high end as is possible, and getting as true of a signal as you can. You don't dither back down to 44.1 kHz...dithering relates to bit depth (you dither from 24 bits down to 16, for example). But what you're describing is true in a sense...today's converters do sound a lot better than yesterday's, even at 44.1 kHz, because the technology is still improving. You CAN hear a difference at 96k, and if you're doing anything serious, you don't have the option to do it in lower sample rates. Sure you have the option to do it, and plenty of people who are doing serious work still record at 44.1 kHz. And I'm not sure I would go so far as to make a blanket statement that you "CAN" hear a difference at 96kHz, at least not in every case...sure, with many converters you can, but there are some converters out there that sound just as good at lower rates as they do at higher rates, and some that even sound worse at higher rates. Personally, I'd much rather see 44.1 kHz continue to improve, even though my system is capable of running at 192... -Duardo
  12. It actually takes about 2.2 times as much CPU power as 44.1 kHz...it's pretty simple, it's more than twice the data so it will take that much more processing power to keep up, all other things being equal. 48 kHz may be nearly obsolete, but 44.1 kHz certainly isn't. Try recording a few tracks at both rates and see if 96 kHz sounds better on your system...and if it does, then decide if it's enough of a difference to warrant the extra storage and CPU hit. -Duardo
  13. Pretend for one single second that you know almost nothing about computers.And that you need one for audio production.Go visit everysingle "music computer maker" you can find and tell me they all don't have flaws.I have spent many months visiting everysingle music computer maker I can find on the web.and everysingle one of them come up short in multiple areas.The one with the fewest is CentralComputer.com because they carry tons of different components in many different brands at better prices. Actually, if I was a newbie that knew almost nothing about computers I'd rather go to a one-stop place who had a few standard tested variations to choose from rather than a whole slew of options. Of course, I probably wouldn't know this if I were a newbie, but knowing what I know now I wish someone had told me thins when I was a newbie (actually, when I was a newbie none of the options we're discussing were available, but you know what I mean). When you factor in time spent,Tech-support,labor warrentys but at perfectmpc you get those things as options the whole idea is about options.Some people know more about what components they want and can tweak there own windows settings for music production maybe they just wan't someone to assemble it and get a couple years of labor warrenty.and or tech-support. If you know what components you want and can tweak your own settings then why even bother with a music-specific company at all? And why would you need a labor warranty and tech support in that case? Just specify what you want and have someone build it. Believe me, if you try to offer all of those options, one of two things would happen...either the prices for the options a la carte would have to be so high that you'd be better off getting it all in one package, or it would be such a nightmare to get anything taken care of that you'd be out of business before you knew it. -Duardo
  14. I'll pay them to build it.And to do all the tweaking,and for tech support and any other service they may offer warrentys and factory restore disks and sh#$. I love the services that music computer companys offer But I ain't gonna buy their components cause the prices and selection is bullsh#$. You don't seem to understand that the companies that build audio PC's are not selling components. What they're selling is everything you say you want but aren't willing to pay for. Even in your theoretical company, when you add up the assembly, tweaking, tech support, and labor warranty costs you're not going to be far off of what the companies that build audio PC's charge. You just have to stop looking at it on a per-component basis. But you haven't figured in the cost of the research on the front end. Everything costs money, including figuring out which combinations of components do not work together in certain configurations, etc. Your theoretical company has some fundamental flaws if your comparing to a ready-built system. If you buy a PC and there's a warranty issue you go to one place. In your situation you'd have to figure out what went wrong, which component was at fault, and go back to where you got that component. That alone could put you out of commission for months. You can't expect your theoretical company to cover you in cases like that. And if things don't work overall, at best you could recoup what you paid them to build your computer, but you can't expect them to cover the costs you paid for the components or replace the computer as a whole. There are plenty of people out there who will let you buy your own components and build a computer for you. -Duardo
×
×
  • Create New...