|
Hitler vs. Bjork posted:So, uh, how much punishment can condenser mics take? One of my friends just dropped my Shure SM86 from a height of about five feet onto the (hardwood) floor. What kind of damage am I looking at here? For all the warnings I've heard about being careful with mics, I've found them to be a bit more durable than most would expect. I've had an Earthworks mic drop from a few feet onto a carpetted floor and be fine, as well as a pair of ribbon mics take a fall (sort of - I caught the mic stand right before the mics hit the floor - that will would have given them an unhealthy jolt). I've heard that Shure makes extra sure (durr) its mics are durable - supposedly every mic they make should be able to survive a five foot fall (including condensors).
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2007 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Just a quick note, Logic's sidechaining is pretty easy, though I've never tried it with compression. RivensBitch's explanation of compression is very interesting - I've never even thought about using it on distorted guitars to generate dynamics artificially. Also, for anyone on a Mac who wants some compression with a bit of character, there's a free plugin suite called Fish Fillets which includes a compressor called Blockfish. It's pretty cool, though I haven't used it enough to get a real handle on its sound. There's also the SSL talkback mic compressor, which is fun to use but has a very specific sound that you can't control a whole lot. That's free on SSL's web site.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2007 18:45
|
|
|
ParthenoNemesis posted:Of course, each song is different. I've done a couple that converted to mp3 without losing much in the way of volume and some that were shot to hell. It's confusing as hell because when I'm mixing the song in Acid, I get all of the levels to where I want them, but as soon as I try to save it to mp3 it's just destroyed. I believe you're looking for mastering plugins, which operate very differently than a regular compressor or limiter. My advice would be to not try to get the volume up in Acid at all - just mix so it's at a comfortable volume and not clipping. Export it, then bring it into a DAW of some sort. Then look into whatever mastering-style plugins you can use. Examples would be Logic's Adaptive Limiter, and stuff with names like "Maximizer," etc. This is something to be VERY CAREFUL about, because these plugins can make something loud AND/OR completely distort/flatten/destroy the sound. Then again, if you try to get that same loudness with a regular compressor and/or regular limiter, it will sound even worse 100% of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2007 18:54
|
|
|
I'd like to throw in on micing drums and say that mono overhead will probably not sound particularly good. If you're gonna go overhead, go stereo. Same with room mics. In my experience, mono room mics have been fairly useless, while stereo room mics can fill out the sound and provide a great natural reverb (if the room is big enough). Keep in mind that aside from the room, the kit and the player are the most important aspects. Keeping the heads tuned and the player... uhh... good... is also a good method of getting a good drum recording.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2007 23:57
|
|
|
Crystal Pepsi posted:*koff* beatles *koff* stones *koffkoff* ACDC *HAUGHKOF* Zepplin I'm sorry, but that's not a valid point. Those are bands with access to the absolute BEST in every other category. I'm sure you could have recorded John Bonham with one of those tiny mics built into old all-in-one Macs and it would have sounded relatively good. Record in a decent room with a decent kit and a good player into a mid-price condensor through decent preamps and onto digital using good converters, and I challenge you to come up with something that sounds 1/10th as good anything Zeppelin ever recorded. And, as much as I love the Beatles, they didn't focus on recording drums. Some of the best sounding drum parts on their albums have elements recorded separately (double-tracked snare drum, fills recorded separately and panned separately, drum set on one side and tamborine on the other, etc.).. nobody does that anymore anyway. edit: Not as familiar with Stones and ACDC.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2007 19:36
|
|
|
Lumi posted:
There's no point in buying a shittier mic that you're going to need to replace pretty soon if you get serious. If you get an SM57, you will be happy with it for the rest of your recording life. Plus, it's really durable, so you can drop it 100 times and it probably won't break. Not the best for vocals, but nothing under $500 is gonna be too good for vocals anyway 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2007 19:39
|
|
about SM57
|
Lumi posted:Anyway, there's actually a really high whining sound when I record with the SM58. I'm not sure, but this may be from my interface which is making a faint high noise, but I can't be certain. Any advice here? Probably. Or it's your computer fan 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2007 22:01
|
|
|
Crystal Pepsi posted:It's still a valid point because those recordings sound amazing sonically AND in terms of the talent used. Sure Bonham would still be Bonham through a laptop speaker, but the recording would still be poo poo, which is my point, that these recordings are considered to be among the best ever made. "when the levee breaks" was done with a mono overhead ribbon Beyer M160. Well yeah but a mono overhead only sounds good with a good room anyway so what's the point? I'd rather have a lovely recording with a stereo image of some sort than a lovely recording without any stereo image. Phasing issues, maybe, but I've never had a problem with that unless I've got the overheads fairly loud and the drummer is beating the poo poo out of crash cymbals or an annoying hihat. Mono recording CAN work and CAN be very useful, but I don't think it's at all helpful to advise against using stereo overheads just because circumstances aren't perfect, because if circumstances aren't perfect.. why limit your options even more? Ever recorded using some Earthworks omni mics as overheads? It sounds incredible, and if you play across the set and close your eyes you can tell where every drum and cymbal is in relation to the middle of the set.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2007 22:07
|
|
|
Misogynist posted:Presumably we would need separate mics to properly capture the highs and lows. No, you wouldn't. It doesn't work like that. You'd need separate mics to capture the left and right sides of the room if you wanted a real stereo recording, and it would be a good idea if they matched. If you wanted to mic sets of instruments separately (drums + bass, guitar + vox from the PA or something like that) then it would make sense to not have matching mics - but then there'd be no reason to get omni's. Actually, omni's would only make sense if your practice setup is with everything on different sides of the room. Otherwise, cardioids would be the ticket if you have it set up with everything on one side of the room facing the mics, performance-style. edit: A lot of budget options have switchable pickup patters. This is useful.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2007 04:20
|
|
|
Allen Fiverson posted:The first response to your post is, in my opinion, poor advice. The version coming out of a speaker is going to sound dramatically different from what you'd get recording at a distance. This is probably the first time I've really disagreed with RivensBitch, but I don't think he's got film sound training or experience. Here's what you do - get a good minute of outside-ambient noise. If you can't get a minute, just get big chunks of it. Record the stuff you want to overdub in a studio as best you can. Put it on top of the ambient noise and play it back to back with the location sound. Start EQ'ing until they match. That's all you should have to do, unless he's yelling and you need to add some kind of weird outside convolution reverb (doubtful). Chances are you'll be cutting some lows out completely, reducing in the hundreds of herz, and cutting the highest of the highs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2007 01:20
|
|
|
Allen Fiverson posted:Yes, I ended up doing this and it worked well. I have a good set of sound effect wavs and a couple city/crowd/forest etc ones did the trick. Thanks for your advice. Holy poo poo that was fast! You're welcome 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2007 18:30
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:While I don't have specific experience working on films on location, I have used this technique with voice and ambient spaces and had great results. My question to you would be, have you ever actually done this yourself, and if so what kind of speaker did you use? Studio monitors work great, you just have to adjust the volume to an actual speaking level. It's not that it doesn't work, it's that it's impractical and inflexible. The method I outlined is pretty much the standard, and while yours has the possibility of working instantly, it would also produce results that aren't particularly moldable - a full range recording can have stuff subtracted to make it sound like it's outside/far away, but if an outside recording doesn't have everything you need, boosting stuff in post is going to mess with the ambience and mess upt he whole thing. I agree about fighting bad advice. I think it can be done a little more tactfully than you do it, but I think you know that I've come out a few times and said "You're completely wrong what the gently caress are you talking about?" (IE 'you can only record 8 tracks to an external firewire drive' and 'micing away from the center of a speaker gets you more highs' and a few other weird ones)edit: wixard posted:I don't think it ever hurt the thousands of albums that brought PAs into the studio to 'reamp' drum kits or whatever else. Totally different application. That's an effect. A bit different than taking a PA system to a forest and reamping it there because you need the drums to sound like they were recorded in a forest because they're in the forest on the video
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2007 22:28
|
|
|
My experience with MOTU interfaces has been with a 2408mk3, and it was a mixed bag. It claimed to have no trouble syncing up via ADAT optical with two external octopres (Focusrite and Mackie), but there were a lot of digital jitter-related pops and whatnot. However, since it doesn't have any onboard preamps I cannot speak to the quality of MOTU's pre's. The mix software was okay but not great. Then, we ditched that and got a Fireface 800, which, with the exception of some driver bugs that don't affect recording, has been great. As a converter it's great - everything sounds instantly better from the MOTU, and I can't even really describe how it does... it's just better. One odd thing about the RME stuff is that they eliminate a lot of knobs and buttons you'd expect from the front panel and just load it into software. In the case of the Fireface 400, that includes gain control for the mic preamps. Weird. Also, the fireface 400 is a four channel converter - two mic preamps and two quarter inch ins, which apparently can both be switched to instrument level. I'd really suggest trying out the fireface. Also, the bugs on the fireface 800 are - the driver software has occasionally asked us to update the fireface's flash driver (whatever you call it), even though what we had was up to date. If it's asking to update, it won't work until you do. Keeping a copy of the latest update on hand always solved that one. Also, while running it via firewire 800, plugging in new devices on firewire 400 ports seemed to reset the driver - we'd lose audio for a few seconds and the driver software would reset. Of course, since we wouldn't (shouldn't) be plugging in new devices while recording, that doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2007 18:09
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Here's a question: Could you go cheap and skip out on buying monitors in exchange for buying some really high-quality headphones? I mean for 2-3 hundred you can get a drop dead sounding pair of headphones vs. the 500-thousand you'd spend on a really nice set of monitor speakers. Yes, but they're not as good for mixing if you're going to listen on anything other than headphones. It's the simple truth 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2007 08:18
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:also for the "protools sucks" crowd, how do you use side-chain/key inputs with other DAW software? Short of plugins that specifically support this, I've been unable to figure out how to use this trick with the plugins included with cubase/nuendo or cakewalk. Logic's got it. Works VERY easily. I recently used the side chain input on a gate on a track of noise to be triggered by the snare... bam, artificially rich snare sound Nobody can tell it's not real!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2007 19:33
|
|
|
Crystal Pepsi posted:-When switching between sources of different sample rates (CD / winamp / nuendo / youtube ) throughout the course of the day, the motu clock tends to 'flip out' until you stop all audio and flip the sample rate manually. YES YES YES I totally forgot about this. If I was unfortunate enough to turn on a preamp with optical ADAT out going into the MOTU AFTER turning on the MOTU and then having to switch sample rate or bit depth, total garbage noise. It seems to have no recognition of a mismatch - you'll get garbage noise OR duplicated inputs... Also, I had a Mackie Octopre crash (Yes, the preamp crashed. It actually got too hot and started sending out noise. We had to turn it off and let it cool down.) and the MOTU seems to have no automatic suppression of that sort of noise so... people recording with headphones got a bit of a blast in the ears.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2007 19:40
|
|
|
Mr. Heavy posted:I'm just wondering if cheap boom mics can actually introduce a rattle into the recording or something. No. The main issue with durability with boom mics is how long before they lose their grip and start wilting from the weight of the mic while you're recording. Until that happens, you should be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2007 02:09
|
|
|
Mr. Heavy posted:Is it a bad idea to plug a non-phantom powered mic into an XLR input that's supplying phantom power? As far as I know, you're fine. Just don't send phantom power to a ribbon mic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2007 00:24
|
|
|
wixard posted:In any case, there unfortunately is not a good way to soundproof a room (even with a lot of money) unless you were planning on soundproofing it when you designed and constructed the building. More mass usually helps, so lining the walls with old carpets and bookshelves and mattresses might help a bit but I don't think you're going to drop from 70dB to 50dB or anything. Maybe 57dB to 54dB. The drop will be different in different parts of the audio spectrum. Unfortunately, the range they're most likely to be complaining about - the bass - is close to impossible to eliminate for cheap. You can absorb cymbals and the high end of guitars etc. with foam and other stuff, but once you get below about 400 Hz the sound will go right through anything you can put up. If you guys have a small mixer, you could save money on soundproofing by getting a cheap electronic drum set and micing guitar amps at low volume and running bass direct and you could all practice with headphones (that's no fun though)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2007 19:45
|
|
|
Hot Bod posted:Has anyone here used the Apogee Ensemble interface with a Mac and Logic Pro? I am interested in building a Logic Pro centered home studio and this seems to be a pretty sweet interface for that. No personal experience, but given that they're advertised in packages together and Apple and Apogee have been working together on products, I'd say.... yeah go for it. Perfect match.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2007 04:42
|
|
|
brb buddy posted:I would say this is a ... stupid idea. There's no reason to do it the way you're doing it, especially because the Audio Out from both computers is not going to be of very high quality. I know it's for concept stuff, but still - you'll get much better stuff coming out of the recording interface. And as far as I know, things work far better when the recording interface is the input and output device on a computer. Audio programs expect it, and actually now that I think about it, I don't think CoreAudio (on a Mac) even allows setting it up that way. If you want to use a recording interface with both computers, you're going to have to switch it between them anyway, so you're always going to be using one Audio Out (if you're using both at the same time)... but you'll have to use the interface for the audio out on the other computer. I guess the most convenient way to do it would be to have each Audio Out always plugged into the mixer, and then have a dedicated track (or two if you don't have a spare track wth a stereo input) always for the interface. The only catch is for recording you'll have to make sure to set up monitoring and routing correctly through the mixer or you'll get a beast of a feedback loop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2007 04:47
|
|
|
brb buddy posted:I figured. I'm still going to test it just to see how it would sound, but I bet I'll get a thin sound from both computers. What the hell is an invisible mic preamp? All the XLR input channels have a Gain control, which means they are preamps. The other channels should be at line level (which means they're not preamps). That being said, you aren't going to need a preamp for signal coming in from the computer, because a preamp is to bring a microphone's signal level up to 'line leve', which is what comes out of your computer anyway. There ARE USB interfaces with no preamps, but if you ever plan on using, you know, a micropone, you should probably get ones. Berhinger is one of the shittiest brands in the market, so almost anything with preamps is going to be a step up. Swivel Master fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 23, 2007 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2007 22:21
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:But the manual SAYS they're INVISIBLE! That means no noise! Oh I forgot that's what it means. I thought it meant that even though there are no visible controls, the preamps are still there in the other channels. Haha, you're right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2007 01:36
|
|
|
Quiz Show Scandal posted:I'd really appreciate it if someone could offer some opinions or point me in the right direction on how to get set up. Haha you said interfacing. Nobody says interfacing. But yeah, you've got it. That is how it works. edit:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2007 01:38
|
|
|
coolbian57 posted:I have all the proper equipment to hook my Sm57 up to my computer. No you don't. If you're going direct into your sound card, that is. Why is this not stated explicitly in the FAQ?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2007 09:30
|
|
|
Quick note about studio monitors - M-Audio BX-6's are lovely and sound horrible with ear-splitting highs that will make you compensate by making all of your mixes sound dull. I currently have some Event Project Studio 6's and I like 'em a lot. However, their bass response doesn't quite go low enough to get totally accurate mixes. They also pop loudly when I turn them off, which is a very bad thing. Another disadvantage is that they have no options on them whatsoever besides gain, so good luck getting proper response if your room has problems. Back at the studio I share with my dad, there are some very nice Hafler trans*nova TRM8's, which are huge, heavy, loud, and loving amazing. They're also discontinued. After using them, though, I can really understand the importance of good monitors. Their bass response is incredible, and it's great to have the full range in both speakers instead of having to worry about tuning a subwoofer. The highs are crystal clear as well, and when I listen to really good recordings on them I can actually hear details that I never knew about before. They also have a shitload of EQ options, though they're controlled with a lot of dipswitches on the back that you need a manual to figure out. (I guess that saves money on knobs and stuff, but still...) The major disadvantage of having huge speakers is that you have to get them farther away from your head in order to turn them up enough to get bass loud enough to hear/feel it clearly without blowing your ears off from the highs. edit to respond more specifically to the above post: I'm pretty sure what I have is/are the precurser model to what you're talking about. I would say the TR-8's are probably worth it for the better bass response. edit again: Quoting a giant post to respond with one sentence is silly. Swivel Master fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Apr 4, 2007 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2007 21:06
|
|
|
Schmuckrat posted:Sorry for the simple question, but it is a difficult thing to find the answer to via Google. I have a Presonus Inspire firewire interface, the primary inputs of which are two mic inputs and two Hi-Z inputs. Is it possible to put an external pre-amp between a mic and the mic input, and dial down the internal pre-amp? If so, is this actually an advisable method (i.e. is it worth it), or do I really need a bigger device with XLR line-ins? Thanks! An external preamp should output to quarter-inch anyway. So use the Hi-Z input. Why do you want to do this?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2007 17:27
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Digi 001 racks have been selling at rock bottom prices. I'm thinking of picking one of these up for the studio to replace the 10/10. I just use protools, and I believe up till about 6.4 or something , these where still supported. The value equasion looks good to me. That might be a good idea if, you know, it was still supported. As far as I know, ProTools hasn't worked with the Digi001 since before 7 came out, and good luck getting it to work with Vista. If I'm wrong someone please say so but... I'm pretty sure this is the case. I lived with a guy who had an 001 and he spent six months trying to get it to work... I'm pretty sure he gave up. edit: Don't try to short-cut around what works just because poo poo is cheap. My dad tried that for a while with all these crazy configurations, but over the years we've sold a line mixer, a Fostex hard disk recorder, three audio interfaces, and probably more stuff I'm forgetting... all stuff that was supposed to add features cheaply, but it was very difficult to integrate well and even if the features were good on paper, there's a reason the popular stuff is popular and the cheap stuff isn't. Now we have one Firewire 800 interface, and the entire setup is based around that (the way it should be). It's new and it's supported and it's the best available for the budget. Swivel Master fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Apr 14, 2007 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2007 08:43
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I have been reading and comparing reviews, and it seems that Mackie mixers, though sometimes considered overpriced, are reliable. So I picked out this mixer: I think you're just really confused about the purpose of each piece of gear. The mixer is for just that - mixing. You put in a bunch of inputs and mess with the level/EQ and they all get combined into the main output. That has nothing to do with multitrack recording, because you want each channel to go directly into the computer individually. If you're plugging everything into the mixer and then the mixer into the interface, you're basically spending way too much money to record two tracks. An audio interface gets a signal into a computer. Now it gets tricky. An interface could have preamps, but not necessarily. It probably has analog inputs, but not necessarily. What you're looking for is an interface with 8 mic preamps and (most likely) some combination of two analog outs for monitors and another for headphones... and it'll probably be a Firewire or PCI interface. Quarter inch analog inputs would help, too, so you can plug a bass or guitar directly in, or put in something line-level like a keyboard. Anything the mixer can do while the sound is going into the mixer, you can do in software after the tracks are all recorded already. The 'control surface' aspect (moving faders controls the software) is really expensive and you probably don't need it for 8 tracks. It doesn't get you any extra features, really, it's just something people like to have for workflow reasons. Once you've got 8 preamps, you're looking at a lot more money... so it's a matter of quality and other features (and support). edit: This one is really cheap but I don't know anything about its quality. Handle with caution. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/io26/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2007 22:04
|
|
|
I have an Audio-Technica AT-4050 and I like it a lot. I've used it for kick, snare, vocals, room, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. I don't think money/quality is the appropriate correlation to worry about here. It sort of does, but the real factor is appropriateness. I haven't used those other mics so I can't comment. And nobody pays list price. Look online at Zzounds, Sweetwater, and Musician's Friend, and then see if any smaller places have the same mics for cheaper. My guess is that those are common enough that those three major sites should have the same prices within a range of less than twenty bucks... all significantly under list price. RivensBitch would actually be one to talk about bargaining because he worked at a store...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2007 08:37
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Ok, so I think I might understand this a bit better now; Yeah that's pretty much what you want. Just make sure to compare it with stuff with similar features/price points and make sure you're not missing anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2007 17:56
|
|
|
edit: Holy poo poo I can't read. Nothing to see here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2007 23:26
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Swivel - you use a condensor on your snare drum? Have you ever err..accidentally twatted it with the stick? Sm57s can take all sorts of punishment so its like - go crazy. But condensors are supposed to be way mroe delicate than dynamics right? I said I *have* used a condensor on the snare. It was not a usual occasion - I was recording my snare to sound like marching snare, so I tightened the poo poo out of it, dampened it, and recorded with the AT-4050 about two feet away facing the top of the drum. It sounded pretty good... though it would have sounded best if I actually had a marching snare in the first place! In regards to the Fireface 400... I use an 800 and I like it a lot. There's some funkiness with the drivers, but I haven't read about it anywhere else and it's never affected recording so I guess it's just me. The converters are indeed very good - I was using a MOTU before and there was a definite audible improvement. The 400 still has a lot of i/o options, too, so it looks like a good choice. And it's got six quarter-inch inputs plus the two preamps, so you can record up to 8 channels like that, plus it's got spidf and ADAT optical, so I guess you can record up to 18 tracks. That's badass. ALSO, I REALLY like the Fireface mixer program. It's really easy to use, especially for having different headphone/monitor mixes. Swivel Master fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Apr 19, 2007 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2007 18:06
|
|
|
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but you need to connect EVERYTHING to the back of the patchpay, top or bottom. Maybe inputs on top, outputs on the bottom, whatever. Then, you use the little patch cord to plug on device into another. If mixer output 1 is going to the bottom 1 and compressor in is going to top jack 1, take a little patch cord and plug one end into the output jack and the other into the compressor jack. Everything goes directly through the patchbay from back to front - the point is so you can route all the signals using the little patch cords.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2007 18:59
|
|
|
Elder posted:I've wondered this too, but I've heard that it's because the dummer wants it to sound like he hears it while playing. Since he probably created and performed the beat, I guess it's his call creatively. Basically. I record bands and I am a drummer. I want it to sound natural to my ears.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2007 06:28
|
|
|
TedStorm posted:Post an mp3. What's your guitar setup?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2007 02:26
|
|
|
MrSaturn posted:any recommendation for a particular manufacturer/brand/model, or even a website to look stuff up at? My god, do we have to do this every week? http://www.sweetwater.com http://www.zzounds.com http://www.musiciansfriend.com Read the rest of the thread. Seriously. This question has been asked over and over again.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2007 16:49
|
|
|
Quiz Show Scandal posted:So ProTools doesn't support VST, but Reason does? Is there a way to make the two "join forces" so that I could take advantage of all the free VST stuff? Maybe create a VST track in Reason, export it as a finished audio file, then pull the file into ProTools? No, Reason does NOT support VST's. That's not even what your quote said! quote:LE comes with Reason Adapted I think, which I'm pretty sure has a basic piano and rhodes patch, but it's a little more involved to use Reason than the average virtual instrument. virtual instrument != VST. VST's can be virtual instruments, but not all virtual instruments are VST's. VST is a specific type of plugin. Reason is a program. HOWEVER, Reason supports absolutely NO external plugins whatsoever - it's got its (notice correct use of the two forms of its ) own set of samplers/synths/effects and it comes with a crapload of presets and samples, but it is not and does not support VST's.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2007 19:59
|
|
|
RivensBitch posted:Reason only supports REWIRE which is a competing format to VSTs That's not a plugin! Stop being intentionally confusing!
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2007 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
RivensBitch posted:Technically you're right, but here's how I understand the (very important) difference - ReWire allows two applications to communicate with each other - both applications can operate as stand-alone apps as well. A VST-plugin or instrument is something that cannot run on its own - it needs a host program (Cubase, for instance) in order to work. You may be able to find contradictions to this, but 99% of the time when somebody is talking about either of these things, this is what they mean. edit: And Reason can only send audio out, right? It cannot receive via ReWire as far as I know.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2007 06:37
|
|