|
Popcorn posted:I recently found a very old recording I made on a dictaphone. It's very hissy and noisy: http://popcorn.gunsha.com/my-cat.MP3 This is the balance I chose. Considering where it comes from, it's slightly more acceptable, but it was always going to be an excercise in turd polishing.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
Yeah, I wasn't expecting it to come out gleaming or anything. That sounds better though, thanks very much!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
The Leck posted:Is there any difference between USB-MIDI adapters? I'm curious about messing around with a keyboard and my computer, and realized that I should probably have some way to connect them. It looks like I can spend $4-60+ and I'm not really sure what the differences would be for the different prices. A lot of the low-end MIDI interfaces can be really unreliable or have weird limitations, like they can't pass SysEx. There are some M-Audio models that are notoriously bad, and the ones that literally just look like a cable with USB on one end and MIDI on the other have caused folks a lot of headaches as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Yeah, I wasn't expecting it to come out gleaming or anything. That sounds better though, thanks very much! Izotope RX is a pretty popular mid-to-high end denoising tool. I've had pretty good results with it. I also like the ReaFir tool in Reaper (powerful and free), but for heavy lifting I like Izotope. Using a something with a good spectrogram and other visualization tools (Audition shines in this respect, or at least used to) can also be really helpful, and might allow you to get good results with a simple parametric EQ. Rx includes really refined denoising algorithms with a very nice, very orange visualization. That said, with a dictaphone the noise is only half of your problem; the other is that a lot of important content wasn't recorded in the first place. It's possible you'll get the most listenable result by using a mix of clips processed in different ways. EQ and gating can help you to build a composite that sounds intelligible and reasonably natural in situations where even the best algorithms either take away too much or too little. Of course there are also times when dialing exactly the right settings in Audition or Rx, or even one of the cheaper options, does the trick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
I just purchased a used Akai MPKmini and I've been starting to dabble in GarageBand. I've read on Apple's support forums that GB supports several MIDI CC codes (not a lot by any means) like the standard Volume and Pan and has its own codes for Echo and Reverb and others. For the life of me though I can't get GB to recognize any of my knobs (or pads) except Volume (CC#7) and Pan (CC#10). I've setup the presets on the mini and the knobs and pads are sending the right MIDI messages (pads are set to Toggle) and the CC button is on. Am I just being misinformed and GB doesn't really support those other messages or is there something I'm doing wrong? Sending notes works fine.https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2687667?start=0&tstart=0 posted:Here is a list of the only midi controls recognized by Garage Band. The items with a "*" can only be controlled with a button (or one of your MPK's pads if send to CC mode) and the items without can only be controlled with a knob/fader/encoder etc. Also remember these will only control the track that is currently selected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
So I bought a friend's old Ibanez Gio from him, because the electric I've had for 18 years was a Peavey and is covered in nail polish and stickers from when I was THE PUNKEST PERSON ALIVE, and probably needs professional re-everything-ing to sound decent. This Gio is nice, I know it's a budget line but it plays alright to me; a few concerns though. The knobs are, like, sticky; not tight or loose, but like there's physical gunk in them, which, coming from a house with 9 cats, is probably true. Can I pry these off/ wipe down things etc, or can I just buy new knobs and they will fit? I don't actually know how to tell whether or not the pickups are working 100% how they are supposed to, what's a good foolproof way to tell if it needs new ones? I re-strung it, but back when I was a teenager and taking lessons for like 7 years I remember I had this tube of fret cleaner stuff that I was "supposed" to wipe the fretboard down with after playing, to help keep the strings clean/the fretboard smooth? Was that snake oil, or a good thing to do for maintenance? I guess I'm really asking if I should bring it into a music store and have them charge me for "repair and maintenance" for like $100 or whatever, or if it's easy enough to do myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
It's probably not worth spending 1/3 of the guitars price on a setup, cheap instruments like this are perfect for honing your setup technique so if you graduate to a higher-end guitar later on you are less likely to gently caress anything up. The knobs should just pry up off the body, some have a small hex screw holding them on but most are just friction fit. Spraying some electrical contact cleaner into the existing potentiometers should hopefully remove the sticky feeling, unless it's just actual buildup under the dials from years of cat secretions in which case just clean it off and see how the action feels. If for some reason it turns out to be the knob itself and not the potentiometer below causing the issues then any set of guitar dials will fit. Pickups work if they make sound is prettymuch the crux of it. If you get a decent amount of volume out of them and one isn't appreciably louder than the other then they are probably OK, but depending on the sound you want is if they are appropriate or not. Are you still into the punk stuff? I use a Seymour Duncun Super Distortion for all my 3 chord riffing and it sounds ace. Again probably more expensive than you would want to invest into a cheapie guitar but there are some decent low-cost pickups like the ones from GuitarFetish that might give you better results. I like to use fretboard cleaners and oils when I change the strings but I never clean the stings or fretboard outside of those times and my guitars stay perfectly playable for a long time (months/years), although my sweat and finger oils don't seem to affect the strings in a negative way so if you find yours developing tarnished areas around where you commonly fret then regular cleaning may extend the life of your strings. It might make the guitar sound and look a bit fresher for slightly longer if they are cleaned regularly as well, but it's up to you if it's worth the effort. Best compromise is to put a set of coated strings like elixirs or some of the d'addario ones and enjoy a long, corrosion-free string life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
I've noticed that a lot of people who post stuff on SoundCloud begin their tracks with a second or so of silence. Is this an intentional thing- and if so, why?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Could be to counteract skipping in the first couple seconds as the buffer catches up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
I have a piece of poo poo strat clone I got ripped off for when I was an idiot kid, how possible would it be to, I don't know, cut off the sides of the body and make it sort of like Bob Mothersbaugh's labaye 2x4? I'm not looking to make a replica or anything I just really like the planky look and my back is getting too lovely for heavy guitars
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
bad posts ahead!!! posted:I have a piece of poo poo strat clone I got ripped off for when I was an idiot kid, how possible would it be to, I don't know, cut off the sides of the body and make it sort of like Bob Mothersbaugh's labaye 2x4? I'm not looking to make a replica or anything I just really like the planky look and my back is getting too lovely for heavy guitars If your back hurts, I recommend a wider guitar strap. Definitely a question for the guitar thread. It'd probably be a lot of trouble for you, considering you want to have experience with woodwork and the tools to do custom luthier work without tearing up your body, then you'll have to repaint. The LaBaye had custom chambering for a specially configured electronics setup that came out of the side; your strat doesn't have that, so you'd have to rechamber the body and find another place for your electronics. You'd have to compensate for the weight adjustment, because your guitar would become very neck heavy with most of the body gone. I would not advise this at all unless you were an experienced luthier or a woodworker with a lot of time and dedication for design. Either way, it'd probably be easier just getting a block of wood and using that instead of mauling your strat body. If you're looking to customize at a lower professional level, I would recommend the following: -Sanding down the body, if you're trying to reduce weight, you could get away with reducing the amount of whatever crappy heavy wood they used -Repainting -Replacing pickups -Replacing electronics -Replacing neck/nut -Replacing bridge -Replacing pickguard -Just sell your junk for pennies (or keep it) and buy a different guitar, may I suggest something lighter like ash? gEDIT: what's the brand of Strat clone you got? Jeff Goldblum fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
I have no idea about the brand, the head stock was blank. This is really good information to have, thanks so much dude. I'm nowhere near agile enough to play the higher frets without the horns getting in the way, and the 2x4 just looks so cool and easy to move around with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Be careful when you do stuff like cutting off chunks of the body. When Eddie Van Halen cut up his Explorer into the star shape, he eventually had to use metal bars to reinforce it because the body just started falling apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
bad posts ahead!!! posted:I have no idea about the brand, the head stock was blank. This is really good information to have, thanks so much dude. The previous posters gave good advice about body mods, I just wanted to add that if you're having problems hitting the higher frets, it could very well be because of how you're holding the guitar. The guitar should be centered over your left side and the neck pointed upwards at about a 45-50 degree angle. This should allow you to comfortably play all the way up to the highest frets without bending your wrist or any kind of awkwardness. (apologies if I'm stating the obvious, but I'd been playing for a while before I figured out my playing position was less than optimal) h_double fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
I hold my neck pretty much parallel to the floor  (I also fret with my thumb which I hear is not too great. Ive got stubby fingers and huge palms) nishi koichi fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
In general, the bigger your hands the more lenient you can be about where you hold your guitar without destroying your wrist. The main thing is that you should keep your wrist as straight as possible as much as possible, ideally always. Thumbing the low E is not necessarily ideal from a shreadhead technique perspective, but a lot of the times you don't actually bend your wrist very much doing that, so it's not a health hazard. What wrecks the wrist is heavy playing with it bent forward or backward at a sharp angle. If you're playing with a 90 degree bend in your wrist a lot it'll probably send you to a doctor sooner or later.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Yeah definitely experiment with pointing the neck up at more of a diagonal, the important thing is that you be able to play up on the neck without bending your wrist, your wrist should stay straight and relaxed. Look at the playing position jazz and classical players use. I personally don't use my thumb to fret but a number of first rate guitarists do just that, there are definitely some chord shapes and playing techniques (like using the fretted 6th string as a pedal note) that you can't really do any other way; it's just never been my thing. Hand size probably makes some difference, but I think that good technique, and adding some stretching exercises to your practice routine, go a really long way to giving a comfortable reach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Wow, well I came in here asking if i could hack up a lovely guitar and I leave with better posture, a better-feeling back and better playing altogether. This thread kind of rules. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
I guess this is the best place to ask: Is Soundcloud not working properly for anyone else? I've tried both Chrome and Opera, plus the inbuilt uploader in Live 8 (which I normally use) and it gives me an error before it gets to even 1% uploaded. Sometimes the site won't load at all, other times it's refusing me permission to listen to my own public tunes whilst signed in as myself! Not had these issues before today, but I've now spent more time trying to upload this little demo than I did writing/recording it. The link to the 'Classic Uploader' is broken too  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
My cheap condenser mic is making a noise that I, in my inexperience, am finding hard to describe . It sounds like this:  I've tried two different phantom power suppliers and preamps with it. It's done that since I got it quite some time ago. Is that sound typically just something that happens with cheaper condensers? The mic is a Behringer C-1. Should I just throw it away?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Cross post from Home Recording megathread: Can anyone recommend a good test or benchmark program for monitoring CPU performance that's geared towards audio? I'm running Cubase 7 and I'm having weird CPU loading issues with Kontakt, and I'd like to figure out if it's genuinely a VST performance load problem or not. I've heard of people testing CPU load by just inserting multiple instances of the same VST (I want to say Kramer Tape is a common one), but is there any science to that process?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been addressed before, but I really didn't want to look through 72 pages to try to find it. What's the deal with this A=432hz tuning thing? Is it a bunch of hippie-dippie bullshit? Is it some conspiracy theory thing involving Nazi mind control? I saw some comparison video between 440 and 432 tuning and the 432 just sounded flat to me, and thats about it. None of that "warmer, more defined" stuff people keep saying. Some concrete evidence to shut people up would be awesome too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
"A" was set at various frequencies before 440 became the standard, so in some cases people think music sounds "better" in the register it was originally written for. I've never heard anyone claim that one alternate standard is better for all music though. The small difference in pitch might have a noticeable cumulative effect with a big ensemble, but "warmer, more defined" sounds like audiophile nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Ferrous Wheel posted:sounds like audiophile nonsense. foonykins posted:hippie-dippie bullshit [...] conspiracy theory thing involving Nazi mind control For more context, this link was posted in the synthesizer thread, and is what I suppose Ferrous Wheel is talking about (and not Natural Instrumente Fanatiker or whatever you'd call them, as you very reasonably assumed). And it's just plain insanity. Mad, completely baseless ramblings from conspiracy theorists. FW, you shouldn't be seeking to "disprove" anything. In my language we have a saying that a crazy person can ask more questions than a wise man can answer. It would just be a waste of your time. By the way, if you watch the video on that page and the 440Hz version sounds worse to you, it's because of the artifacts of the stretching algorithm used in the comparison, which are evident enough to be noticable on laptop speakers. The salt-on-a-plate thing there totally depends on the size of the plate, the density of the material used and whatever other stuff factors in with resonance. There are no magic frequencies. You could do the same experiment with a different plate and end up with other frequencies. The whole page and indeed the whole website is full of bullshit and unfounded claims to the point that I'm sitting here, awaiting the moment someone tells me this is some Onion-style parody or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
foonykins posted:Sorry if this has been addressed before, but I really didn't want to look through 72 pages to try to find it. It's basically complete new-agey bullshit. The Wikipedia article on Concert Pitch has a lot of good historical background, but the basic relevant facts are: a) they didn't have oscilloscopes in the 18th century, so tuning standards varied over time and from place to place. ("For example, an English pitchpipe from 1720 plays the A above middle C at 380 Hz, while the organs played by Johann Sebastian Bach in Hamburg, Leipzig and Weimar were pitched at A = 480 Hz, (info) a difference of around four semitones. In other words, the A produced by the 1720 pitchpipe would have been at the same frequency as the F on one of Bach's organs.") b) certain instruments, like string instruments, will objectively sound brighter tuned to a higher reference pitch, because of the physics of the instrument -- more tension on the strings causes the whole system to resonate differently. Conversely, this is a big part of the reason why some metal guitarists downtune a semitone or more; it's not just the extra note range, it's because it changes the timbre of the instrument. c) I'm willing to concede the possibility there might be a genuine psychoacoustic effect to binaural beats, but there's not any hard science to support it, and there's no evidence that those effects happen at musical pitches. d) instrument physics aside, it's the ratios between notes that matter (different tunings etc.), far more than the notes themselves. Flipperwaldt posted:The whole page and indeed the whole website is full of bullshit and unfounded claims to the point that I'm sitting here, awaiting the moment someone tells me this is some Onion-style parody or something. The "vaccines cause autism" article in the sidebar makes me fairly certain it's not parody 
h_double fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
h_double posted:It's basically complete new-agey bullshit. That is the most brain-meltingly stupid video I have seen in at least a couple weeks (which is a long time by internet standards). They keep saying "physics" but they never explain what "physics" they are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
I want to buy headphones for producing for around $150-$200 for when I can't use my KRK 6s-- what would you recommend? And I want to buy a cheap MIDI controller as I'm sick of using my QWERTY keyboard... but only looking to spend like $100 for now -- what would you recommend?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
All Else Failed posted:I want to buy headphones for producing for around $150-$200 for when I can't use my KRK 6s-- what would you recommend? And I want to buy a cheap MIDI controller as I'm sick of using my QWERTY keyboard... but only looking to spend like $100 for now -- what would you recommend?! For headphones, I'd recommend a pair of Ultrasone hfi-580s. They may not be the perfect pair for you (they have a really wide stereo field, which I kind of like for mixing) but I know Ultrasones tend to get overlooked by a lot of my audio friends. There are plenty other good ones in that range, but if you can get your hands on a pair I really recommend you try them. Also, I'd stay away from the Sony MDR-7506. They get quoted a lot as the go-to $100 pair of headphones, but a guy I work with did an A/B with a pair he bought ten years ago and one his workplace just purchased, and the new one did not sound the same at all. At some point some of the circuitry changed, and they don't have a great character anymore. If you can find any in that price range, and don't need to mix in a noisy environment, get a good pair of open-back cans. They're generally more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Can't comment on the Ultrasones specifically, but the mention of "surround sound" would make me very wary. I don't like any "enhancements" in my monitoring hardware. That's pure prejudice, however. I'm pretty happy with my Sennheiser HD280 Pros. I know there are probably better headphones out there, but I've never felt betrayed by the picture they gave me. Seconding open backs giving you a more natural sound if you can get away with them, though. For a midi controller, $100 gets you a bunch of fairly awful compromises. You'll get some of these: toy-like mini keys, less than 32 keys, awful response, terrible production quality control, poor build quality. To avoid most of those, you should be looking at spending $200-$300. Unless you're specifically looking for something tiny and portable, I'd recommend no less than 49 full size keys (apart from the Roland A300 Pro with 32). Sweetwater has the M-Audio Keystation 49es for $99.95. If you need knobs and sliders, the M-Audio Oxygen 49 is about the least you can get away with at $149.99. These are mostly okay, though not spectacular. If upping the budget more is an option, Roland's A49 is very good at $179. A-300 Pro for $219 at the time of writing if you need sliders and poo poo. I'm really a fan of those two and the latter seems a really good deal comparing to what it normally goes for. Korg, Akai, Novation and M-Audio are also generally decent brands of controllers when considering stuff from $250 and up. You could look at smaller controllers if it's got to be portable, but you're not going to save a lot of money doing so. Specifically stay away from Alesis QX series and things like the Korg NanoKeys. Those are awful. On top of that, the build quality of the Arturia MiniLab doesn't make it worth its price as a controller either. Ironically, the cheaper you go and the further you get away from normal sized keys, the more real life testing I'd recommend. Everyone's got their own standard of what compromise is technically workable and when toeing the line so closely, you can't really rely on internet strangers to share your standards anymore. You'll find more opinions on midi controller keyboards in this thread: The "how do I make electronic/club/DJ music" Megathread! and this thread: Synthesizers! (One of us! One of us!). Just ask around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:Oh, it's much worse than that.  Holy poo poo. That comments section... Also seconding the recommendation of HD-280s. They're efficient, relatively flat (for closed phones), have good isolation and are durable as gently caress. And if you do break them, parts are easy to get and install. I think of them as the SM-57 of headphones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
My pick for headphones at $150 are the Audio Technica ATH-M50. I broke my first pair after 5 years of use and bought another. They sound great, and get better once you break them in with a wide range of frequency content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
I'll just mention them since they don't seem to get talked about much; I picked up a pair of Denon AH-D2000 headphones last year and they are the best pair I've ever used. So comfortable I can (and do) wear them for hours at a time, closed-back and super quiet from the outside (seriously no headphone bleed into my vocal tracks when I'm tracking lyrics). They're known for having a pretty flat response, and for some reason they deliver more faithful/accurate bass than my 8" reference monitors. They were $300 when I got'em. I'm also an owner of the Roland A-49 keyboard controller. I LOVE it. The combo pitch/mod joystick works fine for my purposes, but it should be noted that the mod resets to zero when you let go. Some people prefer mod controllers that stick... I really don't like that, so the Roland solution works fine for me. The A-49 also doesn't have real aftertouch, although you can use its Theremin-like D-beam to send AT CCs. It works fine, but I never use aftertouch. The keys are great- the best I've felt on a dedicated MIDI controller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Radiapathy posted:The A-49 also doesn't have real aftertouch I guess if you're as big as Roland, it's worth it to nickle and dime that poo poo. edit: for the benefit of the thread, I'll mention that if you don't like the joystick for modulation on the A49, you can probably map one of the two knobs to it (to set it to a fixed level, like for rotary effect on an organ or something). Flipperwaldt fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
I know squat about music theory and have only tooted around on a guitar for a couple years. I recently bought a ukulele and I'm sort of confused as to why the fourth string (G4) is higher than the one below it (third string, C4). On a guitar it goes from lowest to highest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
hayden. posted:I know squat about music theory and have only tooted around on a guitar for a couple years. I recently bought a ukulele and I'm sort of confused as to why the fourth string (G4) is higher than the one below it (third string, C4). On a guitar it goes from lowest to highest. You can tune it either way (though of course if the low G is the lower octave, you'll need a heavier string). Having the higher G is to keep the uke's range within a specific (soprano) voice so it's easier to fit it in with other parts. I think that with larger (tenor) uke's, it's more common to use a lower 4th string to give a bassier voice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
I have a stupid recording/mixing question. I've been playing with properly mixing demos for practice with Reaper and AmpliTube (AmpliTube just released the model for the Mesa Rectifier for free by the way. Probably my favourite model short of the Mark III). Taking a cue from Mr. Corgan (And everyone else) I've been layering my tracks and wow does it make a difference with fuzz and distortion. But I'm not talented enough or have good enough timing to match up multiple recorded tracks in time. So I've been duplicating tracks and editing the EQ settings for each to get the right blend. My question is if that's how people do it now or is it still the norm for people to physically record separate layers? I figure if I get around to buying a good amp and physical equipment I'll have to anyway, unless there's tricks to get around that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 09:51
|
|
|
I think (not based on any current experience though) that they still do that, although another way to layer is to record the performance through multiple amps at the same time. It's one way people get a good distorted tone, because a crunchy overdriven amp mixed in with a thick distortion can actually give the kind of attack and definition people are looking for, instead of a crushing tone that gets lost and indistinct in the mix. You can do it with amp modelling too, which is sort of what you're doing with the EQ. Microsecond shifts in duplicate tracks can thicken them up too, but they have to be tiny otherwise they start to sound like a playing 'feel' or actual timing differences. The other thing about modern recording techniques is PRO TOOLZ - you can actually edit tracks with mistakes or outright bad timing, and turn them into slick, robotic perfection. It can even be automated to an extent. That could be done in the past with tape splicing, but now it's so fast that it can be easier to just chop up the performance and let the software stretch and blend it than to actually shoot for a perfect take. You can do this in Reaper, although I'm not sure how far that's come along now. It depends on your tracks too, obviously the messier the timing the more work needs to be done
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Since neither of you specify, I'll just add for clarity that your best bet is to use a passive DI box and have a setup that allows you to record the un-amped, un-distorted signal from the guitar. Possibly along with the sound you use for monitoring while recording (output of amp or amp plugin is what I mean). The neat thing about a passive DI box is that you can send the signal of that recorded take back through it in reverse (after some replugging, obviously), back into a different amp or the same amp with different settings, different microphones, different microphone placement etc. The signal the amp receives will be the same thing it would have received if you plugged your guitar into it directly. Although this doesn't give you identical results to recording something through several amps simultaneously (you'd have sound from all amps leaking into all microphones, making their relative placement and acoustics a factor), I'm told this trick is used a lot. Of course some people are perfectly capable of doing several takes that are virtually identical and do. Cobbling together several takes is indeed a good option when you're almost there and a good excercise in getting close enough in any case. When all you're using is plugins, you don't really need the DI box (your audio interface probably takes care of this for input), but the main thing is you record the 'dry' signal somewhere. Editing each layer to introduce timing imperfections, using a fully wet slight chorus or messing with the phase of the source sound are all fair game in fattening the resulting layered sound up. As is equalizing the source sound to (more or less) simulate different guitars. Sorry if this is what you were doing all along; it wasn't explicit what you were EQ'ing and you wouldn't want to miss out on this technique if you didn't know about it. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Thanks for the info guys. What I'm currently doing is running my guitar/bass through an interface into Reaper and recording the raw signal. Then I'm using AmpliTube as a VST for the track and getting the sound nice. Then I duplicate the track and tweak the new tracks VST settings for a different sound. I do have one track that runs through a Marshall model for the cut so it gives the sound some definition, too. Running the signal back into an amp is a pretty good idea when I actually get decent equipment. Money basically dictates I use whatever modelling I can get for now unfortunately. But one day!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:46 |
|
|
If you feel like a bit of experimentation, you could try a comparison. First record two good takes you're happy with - just do a short part if you like. You could use the takes system so you can play away for a while and pick the best ones, or construct a final take by selecting parts from different ones, or you could try the editing tools to cut up a take and line up all the timings and crossfade them nicely. If you don't know how to do some of those things, it's a good learning exercise and they're pretty easy! Once you have your two good takes you can duplicate one, so you can switch your layering track between an identical one and one with organic performance differences. Then create another empty track with all your plugins and effects, and use that as a send, so you can pipe both layering tracks into the same setup. Now you can switch between the two (you can probably set up some fancy soloing setup that leaves the main track playing while the others toggle) while it plays back, and see if the performance version sounds any better or more natural than the copy
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 06:50
|
|