|
Dirk Muscleton posted:Garbage. I tried this in both GoldWave and Audacity (didn't have the heart to try it in WaveLab), and the clicks sounded even louder than before. However, if "invert" and "reverse" mean two entirely different things (as well they might), I am a complete and total dummy on this point. I inverted, but did not reverse (nor did I see an option to reverse - which is why I still have hope that this is just a case of two words for the same function). Invert is not the same as Reverse. When you Invert a wave, you will essentially turn it upside down vertically. So it is in opposite phase. When you reverse a sample you flip it around horizontally so it plays backwards. quote:The recordings in question are live recordings, and tracking down a fresh source is very, very tricky. This is what doesn't make sense. There is nothing in between left and right channels. A stereo recording has 2 channels - left and right. Unless you hard pan a sound left or right (such that it exists only in 1 channel) I cant see how this option can remove everything thats centred. What this process seems to do is to take a stereo pair recording. Invert either the left or right channel and sum it to mono. Then save the resulting mono wav as a stereo wav. Bear in mind that when you do that invert phase trick, it must be exactly in phase with the original signal. If its off by a degree of samples then it wont work properly. The more 'off' it is, the worse it will sound. And if you are 180 degrees off, it will actually make the stuff you want to remove double in amplitude. quote:Since a sample would probably be worth a billion words (see above), here you go (290KB mp3). The original file, of course, is nice and lossless, but I figured a .FLAC might be bordering on gratuitous. I'll check into this when I get home. But before then, could you also record a clip in the same quality as what you uploaded with the karaoke option thingy used on it? I'm sorry if you already did this but I'm at work at the moment and obviously cannot listen to music :\
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2007 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Slowfuse posted:Hey man, I been searching for a PC IO system for a while and was set on a MOTU 896HD, I have never heard of the Alesis io|26, but it seems even better at about half the price (looks cool as poo poo too) Despite the bad reviews people have been giving, I haven't had a problem with my io|26. To me, it sounds great and it works well, really, there's not a whole lot I can say about it because I've had no problems with it. I mean, I've just gotten into recording so I don't exactly have a trained ear, buuuuttt.. it sounds tasty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2007 20:08
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:By the way, in some of my mobile recording experiences different houses sometimes created pops in the recording, which we would attribute to electrical interference probably from other household appliances / electrical set ups. You're right about this, and it may have played a part in the issues we had with the Alesis. We live in a very old house which, as far as we can figure out, has no ground at all. Most of the outlets are two prong, and even the three prong outlets seem ungrounded. We have a lot of problems which are probably ground loops as well as little power drop-outs. It's really a pain in the rear end, and we have no clue how to fix it. On the other hand he replaced the Alesis with a MOTU 8pre and it's working much better. There are a few minor things but nothing too serious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2007 20:53
|
|
|
I've been trying out using my PC to record with the past few months, just doing single tracks through the microphone cable, using Acid Pro, Reaason and Cubase for recording, synthesizing, etc. I have an electric drumset, some microphones, guitars, and basically lots of things to plug in, but I never really require more than 2 or 3 inputs, although 4-6 would be a nice assurance. I'm definitely in this for the long haul, so I want to get some good equipment that will last but nothing more extravagant than my current needs. I'm a speed addict though, and latency will naturally be an issue. I also need MIDI in and out if possible. What sort of combination of sound cards and/or mixer would be good to start with, and what sort of curve do prices follow with this kind of equipment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2007 05:05
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:Confirm. All of their mics (except for the PG series) are made to military specifications And the military is well known for having the highest standards when it comes to microphone quality!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2007 06:24
|
|
|
PREG. MOM 2.0 posted:I've been trying out using my PC to record with the past few months, just doing single tracks through the microphone cable, using Acid Pro, Reaason and Cubase for recording, synthesizing, etc. I have an electric drumset, some microphones, guitars, and basically lots of things to plug in, but I never really require more than 2 or 3 inputs, although 4-6 would be a nice assurance. I just ordered an m-audio 410, and it should be all I really need. If you're only recording one or two things at once you don't really need a mixer, if the interface you have has preamps and whatnot. But I'll let someone who knows more than me answer you better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2007 06:59
|
|
|
Old Setup Dell Desktop tricked out with a Soundblaster Audigy Pro for direct hi-density inputs. Marshall 10" practice amp, Yamaha Tele ripoff and Fender Stratocaster. Mic'd with PC stock microphone. On board midi via Soundblaster, played on standard QWERTY keyboard. Recorded direct with no sequencing. Drums were downloaded Sbk samples for Vienna Soundfont Studio, always played in real time after guitars were laid down. Required tenacity like Rosie Odonell requires twinkies. Example of recording in this setup:  Current Setup Two Dell desktops. One for analog instruments (the aforementioned) and the other for Midi interface with Line 6 Tone Port KB37. ( I don't use this for the guitar function, just the bass and any keyboard stuff I want.) PG58 for microphone; both guitars and vocals. (Vox are incredibly hard to get with this loving thing.) Looking to buy a separate vocal mic, which I might do today, actually. Fender Telecaster, Takamine acoustic electric, Fender Jazz Bass. Previous guitars were smashed in a show. Oops. Line 6 Spider II 15" amp. It works because I'm in an apartment. But I'm looking to get back into tubes. Mic's real loving good. I'll keep it for those meaty distorted tracks you can only get with a digital amp. ACID 4.0 and Vienna Soundfont Studio on the older Dell for analog recording. Live 5.2 on the newer Dell for midi sequencing and finishing. Examples of the kind of sound I get found here. (not whoring, it's relevant.) Future sounds Whatever. I really need a vocal mic as I start developing my voice. I'm learning to restrain myself with this lovely PG58 because it's so sensitive to volume increases, and I'm having a hell of a time balancing the tracks. Any tips to that affect would be great. Also, the tube amp thing, but that's only cause I wanna start a band. Cool thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2007 14:02
|
|
|
cmerepaul posted:And the military is well known for having the highest standards when it comes to microphone quality! You might not be aware of this but Milspec is a highly respected set of manufacturing standards and measurements that the military requires of manufacturers that they purchase equipment from. These standards and measurements are used to ensure consistency in products from one production run to another and within individual product runs. If you think those standards are not good enough well my hat is off to you sir, I too appreciate the continued search for higher build quality. However I would point out that between the five main microphone manufacturers we hear about (Shure, Audix, Sennheiser, AKG and Audio Technica) Shure is the only one meeting the milspec standards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2007 20:16
|
|
|
Man lighten up... its a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2007 01:18
|
|
|
cmerepaul posted:Man lighten up... its a joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2007 03:47
|
|
|
Not that I'm bashing Shure or any particular mic brand but consistency in production doesn't necessarily mean that what's produced is good. A million milspec poo poo piles are still shitpiles, even if they're all exactly the same. But I'm not even sure why I'm arguing this, as I don't have a problem with Shure or any mic company, I just thought it was silly to think about a high-end microphone meeting the military's standards for audio quality or something. Like the military has standards for the microphones they use? ...Because they use microphones so much? Jeez tough crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2007 06:20
|
|
|
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2007 07:13
|
|
|
cmerepaul posted:Because they use microphones so much? Smoke signals are much more effective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2007 16:54
|
|
|
cmerepaul posted:But I'm not even sure why I'm arguing this, as I don't have a problem with Shure or any mic company, I just thought it was silly to think about a high-end microphone meeting the military's standards for audio quality or something. Like the military has standards for the microphones they use? ...Because they use microphones so much? I understand what you're saying, and I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I just thought I'd clarify the misconception. Shure sells mics to the government and military all the time, it's a significant part of our business. In fact, we went milspec back in World War II when we were making throat mics for b52 bombers, handset and headset mics for radios, address mics for pubic announcements etc etc. There is a whole division of Shure that covers government and commercial installs that most people don't think of, from mics for burger king to schools to government board meetings and disccussion systems. It's not that the military has standards for microphones in particular, it's that the government doesn't want to purchase anything that can't be replaced with the EXACT same thing. Milspec is a standard for consistency, and when I say Shure builds to MilSpec I mean that when you buy an SM58 it's the exact same SM58 you bought ten years ago. It sounds the same, it's built the same, it's identical. The government can't deal with bullets that are off by a hundreth of a milimeter from last year's run, and they carry that standard to everything they do. But you're right it's not that big of a deal or worth arguing about. But I would say over half our business is not related to Music at all, and while it's not necessarily with the military, it is with government agencies or corporate boardrooms, churches or public swimming pools.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 00:00
|
|
|
Wow, RivensBitch that military stuff is really interesting. It is funny how prospective audio engineers etc assume that audio is always directly related to Music Production. Think about it though, if you are doing bomb runs with your B-2 Spirit worth $2.2 Billion US, you sure as hell are gonna want to make sure you can communicate properly...You're launching your JDAMS or some poo poo and your Alesis 26/io starts giving you audio pops. Really you would be talking about lives being lost rather than snare harmonics being lost. Anyways if anyone is interested, I still can't decide between the Alesis 26/io or the MOTU 896HD for my PC... The Alesis is cheaper and cooler, and has midi input The MOTU has a better track record and seems to be much more professional. The only problem I have with the MOTU for me is the lack of MIDI input... anyone know of any reliabe 0 latency (close to) midi interfaces to supplement this beast? I'm losing my mind here... EDIT: Has the topic of software vs hardware monitoring come up before? I am having a hard time grasping what is going on when all these companies talk about their products, most offer 0 latency hardware monitoring. I feel like I have my wires crossed here...does this mean: The signal goes into the I/O, becomes digital and is monitored back post software mix with 0 latency, or does it simply mean you can monitor the pre AD conversion input with 0 latency? (this doesn't seem like it would be much use, since you won't be able to hear what you are recording in the context of the other tracks in the software mix, or be able to hear any soft plug-ins you may be recording with) Have I confused anyone or made myself out to be a complete moron? Never Post Again fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Aug 29, 2007 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 04:35
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:I feel like I have my wires crossed here...does this mean: The signal goes into the I/O, becomes digital and is monitored back post software mix with 0 latency, or does it simply mean you can monitor the pre AD conversion input with 0 latency? (this doesn't seem like it would be much use, since you won't be able to hear what you are recording in the context of the other tracks in the software mix, or be able to hear any soft plug-ins you may be recording with)
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 05:29
|
|
|
wixard posted:It means the latter, but it is useful. The delay from the DAW to the output is generally negligible, it's going all the way in and coming all the way back out that can throw people off. For most interfaces there is software or controls on the unit to mix 0 latency incoming signal with playback from the outputs as well. MOTU's software for that is called Cue Mix I think, not sure about Alesis. Oh I see, I thought that was the case...so you would simply have to mix in the raw signal with the stereo mix software playback whilst recording.... Thats a bit of a drag... Would it be unreasonable to expect to be able to record live signal and monitor it via the stereo bus outputs on logic/protools with near zero latency? The advantage of a software mix playback would be that it's streamlined, you can record and be pre-mixed 'in-context' to a song, you can record using soft plugins and assign audio buses to other musicians' mixes as they record. As I understand it, latency is caused by a combination of: The time it takes to convert from analogue to digital, then the time it takes for your CPU, drivers and software to record the information, and then the time it takes to convert it back so you can hear it... Is this correct? How the hell do the professionals rig it up? At this stage, my prospective DAW hardware set up will be: MOTU HD896 or Alesis 26/i0 PC - Core 2 dual core processor, 4GB RAM Some kind of supplemental MIDI interface hardware. Never Post Again fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Aug 29, 2007 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 06:06
|
|
|
My church wants to ditch their crappy tape player from the 80's and record their services onto CD, so I'm in the market for some software that records an audio input to a .wav or .mp3 file so I can burn it onto a CD. This software should be as simple (and preferably cheap) as possible- the people running it won't be computer geniuses. No crazy mixing is necessary, just a straight audio feed from the sound board into the computer (via the line-in jack on the soundcard, most likely). Anyone have a recommendation for software that does this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 14:25
|
|
|
RTM posted:My church wants to ditch their crappy tape player from the 80's and record their services onto CD, so I'm in the market for some software that records an audio input to a .wav or .mp3 file so I can burn it onto a CD. This software should be as simple (and preferably cheap) as possible- the people running it won't be computer geniuses. No crazy mixing is necessary, just a straight audio feed from the sound board into the computer (via the line-in jack on the soundcard, most likely). For free, you can check out Audacity, which should be able to do everything you need it to do and more, is about as easy as it gets, and costs nothing at all. A question of my own - will adding RAM to my setup improve my MIDI latency? I've got 2 gigs now, and my latency is pretty low (around 8ms), but when I'm jamming on my newly built electronic drumkit that goes straight into my computer, I still feel a little bit of a disconnect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 16:31
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:Oh I see, I thought that was the case...so you would simply have to mix in the raw signal with the stereo mix software playback whilst recording.... Processing a bunch of realtime plug-ins and instruments could get you into too much latency, however. Most firewire interfaces seem to have about 10ms of latency from input to output. You're going to start getting into trouble as you approach 30ms, maybe sooner maybe later depending on the musician. So if your DAW is loaded down with plug-ins and virtual instruments to the point that it is causing 15ms-20ms of latency you are starting to get into the danger zone. The professionals do it with a mixing console routing all the inputs and outputs through it and generating headphone/monitoring mixes through that in real-time. Or by having PCI-based interfaces and DSP processing cards that total around 5ms of latency from input to output even with plug-ins (Pro Tools HD). You can monitor through firewire interfaces fine as well, but you probably want to go easy on the plug-ins during tracking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2007 23:50
|
|
|
wixard posted:Latency with firewire interfaces isn't a huge concern, I was explaining how the 0 latency monitoring works. It usually isn't a factor with firewire, but they build it into most interfaces anyway. Latency is also not a problem with MIDI because on the input there is no conversion, it just sends control data and the only significant latency is your PC creating the sound then sending it out. That helps a lot, thanks dude. From what you are saying I get the impression that Pc RAM will be the biggest concern. Recording on my old Pentium 3, 512MB I would get about 20 ms of latency with a midi/usb input and about the same with audio using ASIO drivers. Not bad really, but enough to throw out a recording musician... Sounds it won't be an issue with a firewire, I should just chill the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 01:35
|
|
|
JohnnySmitch posted:A question of my own - will adding RAM to my setup improve my MIDI latency? I've got 2 gigs now, and my latency is pretty low (around 8ms), but when I'm jamming on my newly built electronic drumkit that goes straight into my computer, I still feel a little bit of a disconnect. I had the same question, I take it you are inputting the midi via a USB or Firewire or something into a software program? Have you tried screwing around with ASIO drivers and changing buffer sizes etc? More RAM would likely help, but you might want to look at buying some kind of dedicated processing hardware.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 01:42
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:MOTU HD896 or Alesis 26/i0 4GB of RAM is unfortunately excessive, since 32-bit operating systems can't handle more than 3GB. Furthermore if you're using Windows XP, then you are limited to 2GB of RAM for any one program. This may not be an issue with Vista or Macs, I'm not sure. Anyways if you haven't purchased the RAM yet you might be better off getting 3GB and spending the money elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 07:22
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:At this stage, my prospective DAW hardware set up will be: You don't need a MIDI interface. Not unless you are running absolutely tonnes of MIDI hardware. If you are all software, you don't need a MIDI interface. If you want to know why: A single MIDI port has 16 MIDI channels which you can assign to any combination of inputs/outputs you want. So if you never use more than 16 MIDI channels you absolutely dont need a MIDI interface. MIDI Interfaces are basically racks that are ear to ear MIDI ports. MOTU does a MIDI Interface called Timepeice or something and that has 8 MIDI ports, which is 128 MIDI channels. Example. Say you have an Access Virus Ti. That synth is 16 parts multitimbral which means that it can send/receive MIDI via 16 channels simultaneously. So you can (amongst other things) play 16 different arrangements, using different presets at the same time using just this one synth. But if you use all 16 channels it tends to gently caress up and not trigger in time and someone over at the unofficial virus forum suggested it was probably a result of the low bandwidth of a single MIDI port. So the idea with MIDI interfaces is to spread high bandwidth (running tonnes of MIDI channels at the same time) over a whole bunch of ports meaning you can run them all with less chance of mistriggering notes and drop outs and other glitches you normally associate with running tonnes of MIDI gear via MIDI thru out of a single MIDI port. quote:As I understand it, latency is caused by a combination of: They use the fastest sampling rate (in a Pro Tools 192 system: 192,000hz or a DXD convertor which is twice that rate) and every realtime process is crunched by dedicated DSPs. Not CPUs or computers which share resources with other applications and processes. That largely eliminates latency introduced by plugins as well.. WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Aug 30, 2007 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 10:46
|
|
|
Elder posted:4GB of RAM is unfortunately excessive, since 32-bit operating systems can't handle more than 3GB. Furthermore if you're using Windows XP, then you are limited to 2GB of RAM for any one program. This may not be an issue with Vista or Macs, I'm not sure. Anyways if you haven't purchased the RAM yet you might be better off getting 3GB and spending the money elsewhere. Haha, too late. Oh man, if this is true I guess I'm basically hosed. Maybe I can use it like a coffee table for a 4 track instead? WanderingKid posted:You don't need a MIDI interface. Not unless you are running absolutely tonnes of MIDI hardware. If you are all software, you don't need a MIDI interface. In case there was any confusion, I need an interface for MIDI input into a sampler program (Reason). I am currently just using a keyboard, but want to look at getting some V drums in the near future. My primary concern was with the latency, ie. you play a chord and the time it takes to hear that midi information trigger a soft synth. Currently while using a USB connection from the midi keyboard directly into my computer I am getting around 20ms of lag...I was under the impression that part of the cause of this lag was because it was USB and not a direct MIDI connection, since I don't have any midi inputs on my old store bought computer. Your post helped a fair bit, I will be the first to admit that I'm no expert on the way midi interfaces work, it's never come up for me before because as I have said that USB connector pretty much means: plug it in, play some poo poo, done. I have always just used it for recording bullshit demos/ideas, but now I'm getting serious I would like to be able to have a practically zero latency midi input, so I can really optimize the performance aspect of recording. Thanks for all your help guys Never Post Again fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Aug 30, 2007 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 11:32
|
|
|
It should still not be a problem. A MIDI data stream is pretty tiny - a constant 31.25kbps. If you are getting 20ms of latency its almost certainly an ASIO/DMA buffer thing or a sampling rate issue. Possible solutions: 1) Increase the sampling rate. This will stress out your computer more though. Doubling the samplerate from 48khz to 96khz with the same ASIO buffer size will halve your latency. 2) Decrease the size of your DMA/ASIO buffer. Will most likely be an option in Reason or your soundcard's control panel. Although having too much poo poo running on your computer can cause drop outs and other interruptions which result in jitter during playback/recording if your DMA/ASIO buffer size is too small. The only time you get MIDI 'lag' is when you are using MIDI thru to hook up like 5+ synths together. But all sorts of weird things happen when you daisy chain loads of instruments through the same port. Some of them start playing 'drunk' and not hitting notes at the right time. Its strange. WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Aug 30, 2007 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 12:45
|
|
|
Ahh...with each post my mind becomes a little clearer Much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 12:53
|
|
|
Slowfuse posted:Haha, too late. Oh man, if this is true I guess I'm basically hosed. It's no big deal really, I have 4GB of RAM, it doesn't cause any problems. But, it doesn't help anything either. 1GB of your RAM will simply go unused until you upgrade to a x64 system. If you'll be using a lot of virtual instruments you can hit a RAM ceiling, this is something I deal with a bit. It's a pain in the rear end but not impossible to work around. Don't worry about it until you get there, it might never even be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2007 18:44
|
|
|
I am currently looking for an audio interface and would like to be able to use pro-tools. I am currently looking at the M-Audio firewire 1814 and it sound nice and everything, but I have read a lot of mixed reviews. I was wondering if anyone here has any experience with this interface as well as alternative suggestions for audio interfaces. I would really enjoy hearing from Rivensbitch or Wanderingkid as they are two names I see often dispensing useful and helpful information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2007 20:59
|
|
|
I think the M-Audio stuff is fine if you have a good firewire chipset, any m-audio problems I've heard of are usually related to that. However the going rate for the 1814 is $500, and M-powered is another $250. Word on the street is it's still possible to get the old discontinued MX002 racks, and they're much cheaper than the original $1200 pricetag and will come with LE. If it was me I'd rather get LE + four preamps, and I think if you're willing to spend another hundred bucks and are willing to take a floor model you could make that happen pretty easy. If you're interested send me a PM and I might be able to help you. Otherwise go with the M-Audio and M-powered (which I could probably also get you a good deal on).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2007 22:38
|
|
|
Cool thanks I'll definitely shoot you a PM when I figure out exactly what I'm looking for. Also, looking around online I have seen some 1814's for around $300 which is one of the reasons that I am leaning towards one, but like you said it would require an extra $250 for m-powered. I'm taking from the numbers you posted that a mx002 rack would run me somewhere around $850ish if I am willing to take a floor model (I really have no qualms with used gear as long as it works). I'll guess I'll have to give it a bit more thought. I'm really trying to spend as little money as possible without trapping myself with an interface I will want to replace sooner than later. Thanks for the advice Rivensbitch, I appreciate it very much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2007 08:47
|
|
|
gooknooch posted:I'm really trying to spend as little money as possible without trapping myself with an interface I will want to replace sooner than later. That's why I asked about the Yamaha I88X a little earlier. Rivensbitch, do you have any experience with these at all? They were originally priced at around $1200, but now retail around $4-500. Most of the reviews I've read have said great things about it once you get it running, but a pain in the rear end to setup software wise. I'm curious if you've come across one and had any difficulties with it/think it would be a wise investment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2007 13:01
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:military stuff Good points... the mic in my mask during Altitude Testing sure didn't have the frequency response an audiophile might like, but it was tough as nails and could probably be VERY easily replaced with a new capsule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2007 19:13
|
|
|
nrr posted:This is pretty much the sweet spot that I gather almost everyone is trying to hit. I'm also in the market for an audio interface and have figured that if I'm going to pay $2-300 for anything half decent, then why not look into spending another hundred dollars or two and landing maybe a used/floor model of the next tier of interfaces? Something that's going to be a bit beyond my needs currently, but really show it's value a year or two down the track when my recording needs grow, and I don't need to throw down another thousand dollars for an upgrade because it can still cover my needs. Beyond a certain point the difference in A/D conversion between interfaces is so small that nobody on gearslutz could tell the difference in blind tests. They've had users doing it for ages now and I can't tell the difference between an 828MKII A/D stage and a Rosetta 200 A/D stage blind. Some people claimed they can, but at least half of them got it wrong when the results were posted so there you go. The stability and ease of use of the software though is really important to me. I want to be able to take my audio interface with me and work on other people's computers and in other people's DAWs if I have to and I want it to be as simple as 'plug in and go'. I've had some horrible experiences with my mate's ESI interface which has a driver so shoddy, it isn't even detectable in my DAW of choice. Which is pretty rubbish when you want to get something done. I've never used an I88X but if its available for less than half retail price (otherwise as new) you can bet with some certainty theres a reason for it. Swivel Master recommended an RME Fireface a while back and after trying it out I went ahead and bought a Fireface 400. The software is really good and to date havent had a single issue with it. Its fairly pricey but I figure if you want to get something that will go the distance, you should save up some more and get something thats a keeper. Definitely audition one or take advantage of a home trial if you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2007 23:12
|
|
|
Hi I need help on how connecting this amplifier to my computer and then connect my speakers and mixer on that too, for music recording purposes. I already connected my speakers on the amp but im clueless about the rest! By the way the amp is an old Kenwood KA-4006, and all of this should be working because my friend had this setup but he is on a trip so I borrowed it. thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2007 02:10
|
|
|
Thanks very much WanderingKid. WanderingKid posted:I've never used an I88X but if its available for less than half retail price (otherwise as new) you can bet with some certainty theres a reason for it. Yeah the reason they gave for dropping the price so drastically was to try and save their flailing MLAN protocol and give it a boost, not nesecarilly due to software problems as I'd first assumed. The A/D conversion quality wasn't so important to me as the great preamps that come in it. They're the same pres from their $20k ish DM2000 console which (from what I've heard) are easilly worth the $400 alone. I'm sure you can tell the difference between the DM2000's pres and the presonious firebox's. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned getting something that's currently beyond my needs, but will be well worth it later down the track when it saves me having to upgrade my preamp. And you're right, I definitely planned on shopping around before I throw any money down, just that I live in a small resort town with zero music stores and as such the only research I've been able to do so far is all online. I hadn't thought about ease of compatibility with other peoples computers, and now that you mention it, it would be very wise to factor that into any choice I make. I guess it comes down to whether ease of use is more important than that step up in a preamp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2007 04:20
|
|
|
Got a rather specific question regarding ideal computer workstations for a recording studio. I was originally going to replace my 1.33ghz G4 machine with a new Mac Pro quadcore, but I recently got offered a pretty sweet deal on a G5 Dual 1.8ghz (1.5gigs of ram now, i'd probably throw in another gig or two immediately). It's not a dual-core, just a dual processor, and I can't find out what exactly the difference is. My major question is, while it's a great deal, and I do almost no virtual instrument work, I do use a shitton of plug-ins during tracking and mixing, and they pretty much bring my G4 to its knees. I don't want to buy a machine that's not going to give me PLENTY of breathing room, but at the same time, saving a couple grand and being able to have the upgraded machine now would be nice. Does anybody have any experience with these particular models in audio production, and would they hold up for a good while yet? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2007 19:11
|
|
|
I have a microphone question. I'm doing a little bit of an equipment upgrade, and I'd like to get a new and better microphone, or phones. I have a really cheap MXL condenser mic right now so almost anything will be better than that, I'm sure. My main problem is micing my mandolin. The mandolin I have is very loud, and the design of the mandolin is such so that the the brunt of the sound is projected forward. I've had cases where I can record my acoustic guitar fine, but with the same settings the mandolin will clip and sound terrible. I have a banjo as well, and although I haven't fiddled around with recording it as much because I'm bad at it right now, it will be the same kind of deal. The word mandolin players use to describe this sonic quality is "punchy" usually. I would additionally like to record my electric guitar by micing up the amp, a 1976 Fender Champ. So maybe that's a little complex...What kind of mic will I want? Will I need two mics because I want to do different things? What would be best? I can probably spend around ~300 dollars, and I'm going to contact Rivensbitch about purchasing through him. External Organs fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Sep 6, 2007 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2007 19:29
|
|
|
External Organs posted:I have a microphone question. If you've got some attack from hell on it, you could try using some dynamic mics like they mic drums with as well. Of course, it could also turn out sounding like complete rear end, but that's recording for you. I'd spend the five minutes messing around and seeing what sounds you can get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2007 19:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Hey guys, can you recommend a recording software for casual composers? I only tried FL Studio from the recommended ones in the OP, and it was way too complex for what I want to do. Not to mention the overwhelming interface. I have a Yamaha PSR-172 keyboard. I'm planning on buying a midi-to-USB adapter so I can hook it up to my laptop. Essentially, what I would like is be able to play something on my keyboard, and have the "notes" stored in the software, free to be manipulated. The manipulations I'm looking to make are: 1) modifying the timing between each note (in case I make a slight mistake while playing and want to correct it) 2) speeding the playing of multiple notes to create fast melodies that I cannot achieve with my current keyboard skills 3) changing the instrument (such as having the notes sound like they were played on a guitar) 4) mixing recordings to be able to have a full song that involves multiple songs joined one alongside the other. I would sacrifice everything else for the sake of user-friendliness...ie, minimize the number of clicks to do something. Can you recommend something so I don't have to download and try each one?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2007 03:39
|
|