Jump to content

scarecrowbob

Members
  • Posts

    3,249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by scarecrowbob

  1. I found that my guitar stuff translated pretty well, as I play a lot of simple stuff. It's pretty easy to chug along some bass/chords and noodle on the right hand. Once you figure out how to navigate the left hand stuf, you find some patterns and its easy enough to fall into a groove. Unfortunately, even though some folks find it entertaining, it's a lot like my piano playing, in which I can play chords/bass lines, but don't have a lot of facility with my playing of lead lines. That can be entertaining, too, but only as long as people are focused on me singing and not my playing . Which, as folks note above, is enough when people are drunk, but not somethign that I'm especially proud of...
  2. A couple of years ago I bought a very similar instrument for a very similar price. I still haven't gotten beyond the boom-chick bass-chord-chord... that's pretty easy to get down and sounds "credible", but it is kind of like an early 20th century casiotone kinda deal: very repetitive. But fun to play in a park while I drink whiskey from a perrier bottle.
  3. 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.
  4. "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.
  5. "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.
  6. 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
  7. The OP was asking about a specific application. There is no problem placing speakers around the venue for stereo effects but what he wants to do is a lot more complicated then that. We never said he was wrong and he should stick with mono. We just told him that his original idea was very difficult to achieve and impossible without a huge amount of investment. Nothing wrong with pushing the envelope as long as the goals are physically achievable. Fair enough.
  8. OP Statement: What I had in mind is Orb/Tangerine Dream type music performed by two or three players witht he outputs of their submixers fed into something that then enabled the sound to move through the soundspace either controlled via MIDI or just through the patches. My statement: If he plans on running that in surround, it won't be cheap or easy. Most likely, it is not going to work very well for this situation unless he has lots of experience and/or deep pockets. Yes, you are right. The surround thing isn't going to work. Even with deep pockets, and experience shows that surround ain't happening. Once again, I think that there is cognitive dissonance between the normal goals of Sound Reinforcement and the stated goals of the situation at hand. If you want to put a loud ass guitar amp at the back of the room and feed it the B-tap of a digital delay, then it would achieve the "move the sound through the sound space" goal that you state there. Not expensive. Perfectly doable. Good? I dunno. But it meets the fundamental criteria for playing with the front-to back sound field without breaking the bank. It may be boring or bad sounding. And I get your point that it isn't the same as taking the guitar players signal and running it around the room with an azmuth coordinator. Definitely not mixing for the entire audience, either. Everyone is right: you ain't going to be able to hook a joystick up to a PA and make the drumkit fly around. But that doesn't mean the problem is stupid, and that there is no way to play with the front to back sound field and that everyone should just give up and have a nice mono PA in every occasion.
  9. Eh, I gotta say that the OP has at least a little point. I do not think it is possible to create anything useful in a 5.1 surround sound sense. If the goal is to reproduce anything remotely like the experience of listening to a band but louder, then it ain't gonna happen on any realistic budget. And if that is the goal of sound reinforcement, then the OP ain't gonna get anywhere. But this might not be a sound reinforcement problem. It might be a one-off audio installaiton, or a sound sculpture. OR jsut something goofy. There is absolutely no reason why you can't put a powered speaker or guitar amp in the back left and right of the room and pump some crazy signal to. There is no rule against it. Similarly, there is no rule that says you cant do the same with a delay return. You don't need a mixer to accomplish this, though, and that is where the cognitive dissonance is creeping in. It is a goofy effect that leaves different parts of the audiences with different experienced. It isn't the kind fo thing that you would use a mixer to accomplish. But the goal here isn't to fix the problem with reverberation under the balcony, which is rightly an engineering problem. The problem is to put some kind of noise maker behind the audience, and if you missed that element of the system then you may be a great engineer but a deficient problem solver.
  10. Sounds like a pita. However, If you are basically talking about creating living room music on a some home theater 5.1 system, (which sound groovy and all but maybe not my thing...) ....why not just get a multichannel sound card and use some 5.1 capable software like protools along with a USB controller?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. I wouldn't bother with a compressor-- it is a gain issue.
  14. 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.
  15. "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.
  16. 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.
  17. Since all it would cost is time, then why don't you try it and see how it sounds.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. I haven't messed with them, but the audiofire series looks cool. I have the 12 and it sounds really nice; the drivers have been no hassel on several platforms and three separate computers. The echo audiofire2 looks pretty good, and it's under your budget. The audiofire 4 also has preamps. Do you just need two ins? Do you need preamps with those inputs? XLR or TRS inputs? 1/4" inputs for direct recording guitar or bass? Do you need MIDI? If you don't need MIDI, I'd second having a look at the m-audio mobilePre. we use one at an elementary school where I work, and it does an okay job. For two channels of audio, I don't think the format (USB/1384) matters: we have gotten very low latency with the mobile pre, and it's USB sharing the bus with a lot of other devices. "Zero-latency" just means that you can route the input to the a output -- so you can monitor what you are recording withoout having to pass it to the computer and back. Most interfaces should let youdo this. But it doens't ahve anything to do with how much latency there is between the audio coming out of the computer and your interaction with the computer.-- like the timne between when you press a key on you MIDI keyboard and the soft synth sounds a note. Yous chould be able to get that in the "playible" range with msot interfaces, assuming you have a good computer.
  23. Originally posted by Merc Zach After working in LA I can say that people occasionally use a specific DAW because of the features. The decision to use specific software is in fact not opinion based. For each person the features you need will be specific to what you are doing. So there really isn't a perfect or "best" DAW. In fact, for some people PT's may be the best solution. For example, in LA people expect to be able to bring a PT's session and open everything up. So in that respect PT's is the only DAW that's going to work. Well, yeah, but it isn't the case that PT is the best in every situation, either. I agree that there are some circumstances where only one tool is the best, and when you need interoperibility systems that are widely adopted (like PT) are the only answer. But there is no right answer in some situations. It's all opinion for the hobbiests who aren't getting work anyway-- so to a person who doesn't already know what the right answer is (who doens't have the demand of turning over a session to another person), the only answer is that it's opinion.
  24. Originally posted by cov99 Or which recording software is the best? [...] Hard facts, not taste. That's not gonna work-- it's all a matter of taste. There is nothing objective there.
  25. The delta can make good recordings; I've had one since maybe 2001 or so. 've heard good recordings made on the, and I don't think at the price they are bad at all. One issue is with the caps in the breakout box; they've given me a lot of problems. I sent it back once, they recapped its sppuly section, but a year later I still have two dead input channels. I don't know if it an issue with curent models. Personally, I have switched to an audiofire 12 because I wanted some more channels, and I have the delta on a machine I use mostly for video and graphics. I like the firewire better and I believe that it will be easier to upgrade in the future, especially as I've been able to be moblie and record with a laptop. I don't really know what "pro"means. I think that it would be easy to get you're money back recording with them, whereas I don't think that I would ever recoup something like the mytek or appogee converters. I don't trust my particular breakout box anymore, but I think that it is just an issue with some older versions and I would hav ebought another one if they had been availible when I needed one.
×
×
  • Create New...