All quiet here now. OT galore
Jim
I'm still moving old tunes out of Cubase. Man, that program had a nice
interface. Oft used functions were easy to get to. Even after a little
over a year, I'm not nearly as comfortable with Logic. Maybe Apple
should add an " configure this to act like Cubase " menu option to
Logic :-)
Another thing I'm working on is using some real drums on the next tune.
After the ( one ) comment that my drums sound processed, I thought well
crap, I'll dig out the old acoustic set and play that. Mechanical ...
what's that anyway ... is it that the drums are on beat ? Or that I
didn't overplay, adding drum doodles at every opportunity ?
I worked on some tracks for a friend over the weekend where the drums
were done by a " real " drummer. The big difference I hear is bleed thru
and echoes between the various tracks and a general sloppyness. Oh well,
I can do that. In the end, and by the bass players insistence, we
replaced all but the snare track with midi drums on that song.
Oh, and a big surprise for me. After years of midi and midi drums ...
I'd forgotten how loud, how really really loud real acoustic drums are.
No late night sessions with those !
No oldies gigs until wednesday, so I have two days to work on the
christmas cd. Life just flies by.
jim d
ps, managed a 27 Km ride yesterday. It's cold, but dry after weeks of
being too rainy ( on and off ). It's very different doing longish rides
now that the temps are dropping. Instead of my body struggling to lose
heat ( as in the summer ), it works to say warm. The after effects are
very different. No video tho ...... sigh ......
LoDan
jim said:
"Another thing I'm working on is using some real drums on the next
tune.
After the ( one ) comment that my drums sound processed, I thought
well
crap, I'll dig out the old acoustic set and play that."...
I'm guessing that might have been me...but I didn't mean it as a less
than good thing, only that I recognized the drums as cubase because I
had just started using them myself and I think they sound great!, in
fact I'm making backing tracks in cubase and rendering them down to
mp3 for stage use.
A bit of tinkering with levels, especially bass parts, again for stage
use and more specifically for my Bose.
Just last night I finally got a Roland VSC to work and recorded at 96k
is fabulous, especially the steel drum that records way better than I
can with my real steel drum.
Real drums are of course great, but as we have discussed here many
times how many listeners know? :) I don't have the skills or the time
to mic and eq live drums for stage work. Of course non-stage is
another animal and I wish I had acoustic drums on all my songs...but I
don't and probably won't any time soon as KnuckleHead Studio ain't so
big. In fact you can't cuss a cat in there without gettin' fur in your
mouth....
Now bring em on jd.
"
jim d
> LoDan <lde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> jim said:
>
> "Another thing I'm working on is using some real drums on the next
> tune.
> After the ( one ) comment that my drums sound processed, I thought
> well
> crap, I'll dig out the old acoustic set and play that."...
>
>
> I'm guessing that might have been me...but I didn't mean it as a less
> than good thing,
Opps, well make that TWO comments about the drums :-) There was yours
and there was that other.
> only that I recognized the drums as cubase because I
> had just started using them myself and I think they sound great!, in
> fact I'm making backing tracks in cubase and rendering them down to
> mp3 for stage use.
Your tracks on the net sound great. I caught myself wondering today how
you do them. And I'm not talking what brand of mic wire is your
favorite, more do you start with just an acoustic and do a vocal track
over a click. Or do you work out elaborate drum tracks first or
something ?
> A bit of tinkering with levels, especially bass parts, again for stage
> use and more specifically for my Bose.
>
> Just last night I finally got a Roland VSC to work and recorded at 96k
> is fabulous, especially the steel drum that records way better than I
> can with my real steel drum.
>
Real is nice. And if we had infinite time and space and all that, using
all real instruments would make the purists happy.
96K eh ?
> Real drums are of course great, but as we have discussed here many
> times how many listeners know? :) I don't have the skills or the time
> to mic and eq live drums for stage work. Of course non-stage is
> another animal and I wish I had acoustic drums on all my songs...but I
> don't and probably won't any time soon as KnuckleHead Studio ain't so
> big. In fact you can't cuss a cat in there without gettin' fur in your
> mouth....
>
> Now bring em on jd.
> "
Nice name for you space :-)
I don't have a lot of room either. Cats .. I actually put folded
blankets and pillows around for them to sit ( sleep ) on. They are gonna
be in there watching me and hanging out, might as well make them comfy.
Today's big issue was something that happens in all DAW's ... IO
latency. In Logic, you need to set that manually. I'd heard of it, but
coming from Cubase, I just assumed it was somehow being taken care of
automatically. It wasn't.
I have three projects going just now. One involves sending tracks back
and forth by email with a friend. He's a bass guy. I worked on some
tracks he sent me of one of his canadian projects .. then sent them back
to him to redo the bass line.
The next youtube song is also being lovingly redone. Both of these have
a similar problem. I noticed the bass lines are a tad late. Not a lot,
but some .... just a tiny bit. Not obviously hearable, but I can see it
in the editors. A few emails and phone calls later we realized that our
two systems were moving the notes slightly.
To make a long day a short story, when setting up a DAW you need to
measure the delay caused by the interface, and allow for it, set a
compensation value. Otherwise the small delay that comes from listening
to playback thru software and then recording back in thru software
causes slight delays in each new track.
To work out the IO delay value in Logic, you have to make a track, set
you audio interface to record back into another channel ( loopback )
play the track, record it back in and see how much delayed it is.
Not a BIG deal, but an important one if you care about the feel of the
tune.
jim d
LoDan
I'm still just a KISS guy, and heavy on that last S. I have been
trying to record audio in Cubase but have been getting a distorted
vocal sound even tho the waveform does not support it, so it's back to
old faithful Adobe Audition 1.5.
I've tried most common software audio recording titles, but it's
Audition, hands down for me.
For the vast majority of my songs it's been my Takamine Garth Brooks
model plugged to to a Mackie board and recorded along with the vocals.
One stereo track.
If I'm feelin' real froggy I'll record a guitar part and then sing
vocals. I de-ess the vox, add some studio verb from audition, maybe
widen the track and somewhere in there, some eg, bringing up around
2.2k and cutting 450-500 for the guitar.
I record 32 bit @96k even though audition tell me different. I use a
Delta 10/10 and the interface applet for it tells me I'm at 96k with
no mention of bitrate.
I convert down to 44.1k @ 16bits after any hocus pocus. Oh yeah, I
normalize to 98% just to keep tracks as even as possible. But in short
I got no clue what I'm doing but it sure if fun tinkering and
tweaking. :)
Although Cubase drums and bass are my newest toy, my drum and bass
part are with a Kawai K-11. As a drummer I feel comfortable finger
drumming and record in audio, again with audition. Same for the bass
parts. I might add a tad verb on percussion if it's hand drums line
conga and timbale etc.
Next step is to stop obsessing. If it sucks it'll sound better in a
week or so. If not, hell... record it again but save all the parts
because they sound different in 90 days anyway or when you hear them
on boom boxes or thru a good set of ear buds.
I keep track of not only the number of plays, but the % of the song
that's played.
...then record another one...ad infinitum..
rr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dan, have you ever tried using a decent mic setup to record guitar? I
just can't bear to use a direct-recorded acoustic track in any mix.
LoDan
ricky..it's me..leo. I had a problem once with a keyboard and the "e"
didn't work...Leo Dean (Lo Dan)
To answer your question ...lord yes, I have tried every combination
under the sun. I have a nice pair of Rode pencil mics and I've got
plenty large diaphram mics, but out of the last thousand CD's I sold,
not one person ever told me they didn't like my direct recorded
guitar...they just gave me the money and said thanks and I'll take
another one for my sister back in Mich...or where ever:)
We've beat this poor ol horse to death but...it works for me and even
with mediocre songs.. I SELL. I'm too damn old for all that artistic
sentiment and I've already spent waay too many hours in search of that
holy grail that is a perfect acoustic guitar sound.
Some future technology can re-master my stuff long after I'm worm dirt
and after the copyrights expire they can have at em.,,I don't care
I've already spent the money.
nuthin' personal of course ricky man.
LoDan
Jim
Do what works ....... use what you have ( or can borrow ) ... get the
song done.
jim d
SID
Taks are meant to be plugged in. A top end Martin is mic'd.
LoDan
Well said SID. I wished I had bought a nice Martin many years ago when
I started buying guitars. I had a guy come into the studio a few
months back with a D-28 and the strings looked like he dug em up from
the back yard and it STILL sounded better unplugged than anything I
had ever heard. (we mic'd it)
I've got a room full of guitars but that little Garth Tak is what I
always go to for recording (plugged in too)
leo
rr
LD, I gotta say it brother, you're gettin er done. (applause)
Ernie Garner
isn't neccesarily tied to real life performance. Actual recording
depth, based on the S/N ratio, is 18 bits. Actual playback is 20
bits. More likely your software is the only thing working at the 32
bit level.
I'd be curious to see how you got VSC to work with a 96khz clock. It's
samplesets are 22.05/44.1khz. The software would have to resample the
waveforms for the sounds to be in tune.
Try setting your clock to 88.2khz and see if the distortion problems
go away.
Ernie
Ernie Garner
>just can't bear to use a direct-recorded acoustic track in any mix.
I heard a kid play a Gibson electro-acoustic the other Sunday at the
folk club open mic. He was plugged directly into the board and the
sound kicked ass. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to ask him what
model he had.
Ernie
LoDan
wrote:
Thanks Ernie, It looks like I'm guilty of just reading an information
bar that said I was recording at 24/96K and took it at face value.
The recording template I set up is using the VSC for everything except
percussion and bass and I wondered how I could be recording at that
rate and now you've confirmed that I'm not. But to me, if I said I was
recording the VSC at 96K I mis-spoke, because I set up the Hyper
Canvas at 44.1K which was the best it could do.
The issues with distortion was with vocal track only, but now that I
think about it, the guitar was not as clean as I thought it should be
either.
After listening to the Cubase recordings I went back to Audition again
to listen and it's crystal clear. My Delta set-up applet tells me I'm
recording at 96K but I don't have a clue what Audition is actually
recording at. I do know I set it up to record at 32 bits and in spite
of my Delta info, an info line in Audition tells me I'm recording at
44.1 not the 96 that Delta says.
I do know that when I went from 44.1 to 96K the difference was
astounding. Audition says it CAN record at 96K but I'll be damned if I
know how or even if I can.
Thanks for trying to de-knucklehead me, I appreciate the help and I'm
off to try the 88.2. --leo--
Ernie Garner
The rate given in the applet is the default rate. Unless you check
"lock rate" it will be changed to the clock rate setting in the
recording application that is running i.e. Cubase
Ernie
Ernie Garner
>off to try the 88.2. --leo--
Sorry, I'm off base. I was thinking it would affect the VSC recording
but that's not the issue.
I just had some fun with Sonar vs VSC. I started up Sonar and set one
audio channel to record. Then I played a midi file with VSC and while
it was playing changed the clock rate in Sonar. When I changed it to
88.2 khz the VSC jumped up an octave.
Ernie
Jim
> LoDan <lde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> After listening to the Cubase recordings I went back to Audition again
> to listen and it's crystal clear. My Delta set-up applet tells me I'm
> recording at 96K but I don't have a clue what Audition is actually
> recording at. I do know I set it up to record at 32 bits and in spite
> of my Delta info, an info line in Audition tells me I'm recording at
> 44.1 not the 96 that Delta says.
> I do know that when I went from 44.1 to 96K the difference was
> astounding. Audition says it CAN record at 96K but I'll be damned if I
> know how or even if I can.
>
> Thanks for trying to de-knucklehead me, I appreciate the help and I'm
> off to try the 88.2. --leo--
It's good to see you and Ernie discussing this. For a tiny bit I was
feeling inferior ... thinking ... geez, *I* should be doing 96K or
whatever.
I'm past that now and just starting to realize that temporary feeling of
bit envy was just the precursor to realizing that now I need to try 96K
to see if it does sound better.
As far as 32 bit, or even 24 bit which is all my Presonii ( plural
latinized ) can do, I'm not even there yet. I just use 16 bit on the
tracks. Ernie is right tho about Cubase, it does internal calc-ing in 32
bit. That's easy, costs nothing, so why not. The reasoning is that 32
bit math makes better sounding reverb tails or something.
Seriously, I'd switch to all 24 bit ( probably stay at 44.1K tho )
recording if I had more hd space available. The files each track makes
are mucho bigger in 24 bit. Same for 96K, bigger files. For now, my
stuff isn't that pristine that I care. 16 bit 44k is SOOOOOO much better
than the old tape stuff I grew up on it's like heaven.
One real advantage some argue for with 24 bit is that it allows you to
eliminate the need for a hardware compressor on mic inputs. Software
comps won't cut it for taming input overloads. The overload damage from
too dynamic a signal ( me singing for example ) is done before any
software sees the signal. I read tho that with 24 bit, you can set the
input pads on the IO hardware low enough that the little red blinkie
doesn't... and you'll still have a decent signal. One that you can then
apply software compression to to level out.
I'll probable move some stuff off this machines hd and try 24 bit / 44k
on my next adventure, see if it sounds better. It will. Or at least I'll
tell myself that .. if the projects aren't so much bigger that I just
gag looking at the file sizes.
Hey, anyone wanna compare techniques for recording acoustic guitar
tracks ?
I've learned so much in the last two weeks. Midi is a thing, and it has
it's uses, but doing stuff in audio, with real instruments is so much
more satisfying in some ways.
Oh, and without question, a real snare sounds better than midi. Ok, the
cat's didn't appreciate it in the wee hours of the morning, but they'll
live.
jim d
LoDan
wrote:
Been having fun myself jumping around between CW, Aud. and Cubase.
Anything I record in Audition at "96K" wants to get re-sampled to 96K
in Cubase,. If I refuse it of course plays wrong. I'm a real noob at
CB but I'm learning. The piano view is easier for me to see but lots
of things are clunky but the curve is leveling out.
For mixed tracks, cubase is clearly the winner for me, but for
straight ahead audio, Adobe Audition is the man (all of this of
course.. imho)
I tried 88.2 and it seemed to work fine...till I checked and it had
gone back to 96....sheesh, at least I'm having fun and it is Mein
Kampt, so I can screw around till I hit on something that works for
me.
It was so much simpler using Cooledit Pro back when I had even less of
an idea about bit rates and clock speeds. Maybe some sleep will make
me smarter or help me remember to KISS :) later ya'll
theleo
Jim
>
> Been having fun myself jumping around between CW, Aud. and Cubase.
> Anything I record in Audition at "96K" wants to get re-sampled to 96K
> in Cubase,. If I refuse it of course plays wrong. I'm a real noob at
> CB but I'm learning. The piano view is easier for me to see but lots
> of things are clunky but the curve is leveling out.
>
> For mixed tracks, cubase is clearly the winner for me, but for
> straight ahead audio, Adobe Audition is the man (all of this of
> course.. imho)
>
.
.
.
.
.
> It was so much simpler using Cooledit Pro back when I had even less of
> an idea about bit rates and clock speeds. Maybe some sleep will make
> me smarter or help me remember to KISS :) later ya'll
>
> theleo
Leo, using several apps sounds totally normal to me. I'm currently
using Logic and Audacity both. Logic, because that's my Cubase
replacement, but like you are with C, I am with L ... there's lot's I
haven't figured out about it yet.
Like when I need to trim dead space off the end of a mix, or make an old
Cubase track into mono ... I load it in Audacity ( which I've been using
for years ) and do the thing.
I haven't begun to look into the whole bit rate resampling thing.
There's so much to do :-)
Oldies gig this afternoon, then I'm going to dig back into the recording
an acoustic rhythm track. One method I read about ..oh, wait, how about
some setup for this.
Or better yet, I'll break the whole story out in a new thread. Hope to
see ya there.
jim d
LoDan
I'll be there...now if I can keep ernie talkin'...might learn
something.
Gill Smith
news:ba17f62e-8ad1-40b8...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Real drums are of course great, but as we have discussed here many
> times how many listeners know? :)
cheesey is the new cool
you listen to the pop charts these days: they're not even pretending they're
using real drums
--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/
LoDan
wrote:
> "LoDan" <ldea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Kinda sad in a way Gill...but hey we move along. And sometimes we move
backwards a bit as we move forward.
We have a generation or two that really have no idea of what they are
hearing, nor do they care, which I suppose was my point. Oh well, give
em what they wanna hear and they'll buy your records.
leo
Ernie Garner
>> times how many listeners know? :)
>
>cheesey is the new cool
????
>you listen to the pop charts these days: they're not even pretending they're
>using real drums
and they have to be real because????
The problem with midi drums is not how "real" the drums sound but
rather how "real" they are played.
Ernie