|
You can also hack a wah wah with automating an EQ if you're in a pinch.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2008 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
wayfinder posted:Well, from Logic's point of view it was stupid. Sold under value, target market shrunk by over 90%, image loss (corporate pawn product/giveaway with uncertain future, moving toward a toy image a la garageband, iMusic, what have you), fewer people are going to learn on Logic -> fewer paying users. You said it yourself, Apple doesn't care about Logic as a product, only as leverage. That's not a good omen. I'm just surprised at your reaction--you act like you've never heard of this before. Company buys developer, developer works on their platform. What's so new about this? I guess you could say the same thing about oh, Windows-only software. I guess that makes Image-Line and Cakewalk pretty "arrogant" then. wayfinder posted:I think it's mostly that. Mac have a market share of what, 4%? It was a pretty dumb decision to make Logic Mac only. It's something like 8%, although a lot higher in professional studios. And no, from a business perspective, it makes perfect sense. You want Logic? You get a Mac. Might as well tell Microsoft to make the Halo franchise for the PS3 because they'd be "losing out" on software sales otherwise. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jun 10, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2008 17:57
|
|
|
squidgee posted:I'm going to have to see if I can't find a cheap copy on Craigslist or something. I wouldn't get software like Live over CL.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2008 23:57
|
|
|
I've got something like 300 909 Kicks. If I can't find the sound I'm looking for in there, something's wrong.Adrenochrome posted:Is there a trick to making Ableton Live export the song like how it sounds in playback? This song I made sounds fine in Ableton but when I export it the levels are all over the place and everything sounds 10 times louder It exports it exactly as it sounds. Make sure you're exporting the master track, and you don't have any crazyass routing that's going on that might bypass it. Alternately, don't normalize if your track is really low.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2008 04:11
|
|
It also sounds like some of the effects are getting left out.
|
Rkelly posted:I sang the Carmina Burana with a full orchestra. Intense is a good word. gently caress, I wish my strings sounded like Robert Miles.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 03:32
|
|
|
The Fog posted:A good song with a poo poo mix is better than a poo poo song with a good mix. Well, according to album sales, it's the other way around. Most people would rather listen to something that's mixed excellently. Even a really awesome song musically, without a solid mix, the majority of people are going to push it off as amateur work. Even I have a hard time accepting a really awesome song musically, if they can't even mix it reasonably well. Of course, most people here will jump on this with the "Naw, it's all about the MUSIC". gently caress that, recorded music is more than just putting notes down. If nobody gave a poo poo about the mix, we'd all be content listening to MIDI files. An rear end song isn't going to somehow be transformed into an awesome song by a good mix (although it'll make it more appealing), but you'd better believe that an awesome song is going to be brought down by a lovely mix. OMGWTFAOLBBQ posted:Here's what I have so far for that hardcore song I've been working on. Your song is entirely out of key. It's really hard to listen to. It sounds like you took some samples you downloaded, looped some drums, added really stale presets and then randomly pounded away on notes. That break in the middle is awful, it just drops away to nothing. It's bland, and it sounds like a terrible preset, and it feels like you're just walking along and all of the sudden you fall in a pothole. Why did you switch the kick you're using right before it? When the lead comes back, it's completely out of key from the rest of the song. Also, where's the rest of the drums? Are you purposely omitting everything but a kick and a snare? I understand that you're new to the game, so I'm not expecting a Grammy-winning track. I'll just tell you, that your song is terrible, it's not the worst I've heard, but it's still terrible. And not being a dick here, I'm saying that the faster somebody tells you where you suck hard, the faster you'll be able to turn it around and improve in those parts. Everyone's poo poo sucks early on, there's nothing wrong with sucking at something you're new at. I have a disc around here somewhere of all my early mixes, and holy poo poo they're painful to hear. If you're really set on this style, find a song you like, doesn't matter what it is, and piece out the entire thing. Where does it build? Where does it break? When do the leads come in, how does the song progress? Copy that entire structure, and try to re-create your song based off it. EG, 8 bars on kick intro, then add some snare, add some hats, play it for another 8 bars, add the bass, etc. It'll at least give you an idea of how your song should be structured, and hopefully avoid breaks like you've got right now. You need to up a track that's not so work-in-progress-y. I can't tell if you just haven't done the start of the track, or if you're purposely leaving it like it is (which I would change because it's stale and boring). At least to me, it doesn't help to give advice when I don't even know if you've already got these things planned out and just haven't done them yet. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jul 20, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2008 02:57
|
|
|
OMGWTFAOLBBQ posted:I don't know how to play keyboards. = ( That's why it's all out of key I guess. I'll work on that, though! I've got some reading to do on music theory. Do this for notes: Find a minor scale online, and pick a root note (G is usually a good choice to start). Now, only use notes that are on those keys, and make sure to come back and hit your root note more often than not. Ignore every other note that's not in that scale. I'd take that track and copy the kick and bass, exactly. The notes don't matter on the bass (EG, A, B, F#, whatever), but hit it exactly when it hits (between the kicks, I know, I mean more when it's not connected to kicks, where it plays). This will give you an idea of how songs are structured. F Even though that track breaks in the middle, you know it's going to drop out because the kick disappears but the bass stays. And no, it's not OMG STEALING MUSIC, there's only so much variation of drums (in any genre, not just dance, but dance moreso), so if you like it, use it yourself. Do this for everything (beat-related), the hats too. There's hats in the offbeats in that track. Note where the leads come in, try and link your leads to where those start. Sure, as time goes on, you'll break away from this design, but at the start, when you know nothing about the genre you're trying to do, the best way to get a feel for where everything sits is to just emulate everything. Use your own leads, your own bassline, your own musical ideas, but to start, align them all with an already established song of a style you're trying to make. To start, I wouldn't read up on synthesis. It's not that it's difficult to understand, it's that synths really sound like rear end. It's all the extra effects on them that make them sound good, which takes time to get used to. There's nothing inherently wrong with using presets, just make sure they don't sound lame, and that it's really the sound you want. Once you really know how all your effects work, then I'd start programming your own sounds. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jul 20, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2008 04:44
|
|
|
There's The Dance Music Manual from the Op. There's also a Second Volume coming in October.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2008 07:53
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:Unlike Cubase this has a pretty functional demo so go ahead and try it. It's actually got a full-featured 14-day trial, including saving and exporting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2008 21:22
|
|
|
Anacostia posted:I'm not very fluent in audio-interface hardware so I'm looking for some suggestions on what to buy. I've stumbled around the internet based on the suggestion in the op (MOTU Traveler) but it seems like this type of interface is totally overkill for what I want to do. I'm looking for a device that can provide midi connectivity and also have a limited number of I/O. I'm looking for something primarily for live performances so while the ability to record is nice, I'm really looking for something that can provide midi connectivity and be able to route audio to a mixer at least through two channels. XLR is fine in terms of I/O but 1/4 is preferable. Under 300-400$. Does such a device even exist? I'm such a newb. Look for anything by M-Audio. M-Audio makes a lot of cheap gear, that isn't really cheap. http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=products.family&ID=recording
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2008 04:17
|
|
|
Is a $200 hardware verb worth a drat? I was looking at the TC M350 or the Lexicon MX200 for a cheap reverb. Currently, I'm using Live's built-in one, for reference. Mainly I just want to offload the processor some and I can make a global send to it.Elder posted:Also, I'd really like to have a VST that will show me in a large display the current tempo and also count off the beat. Basically a metronome but very simple and clear. Does anything like this exist? I'd imagine it'd have to be specific to the software, unless there was a beatcounter or something, but even then it may be off a little.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2008 22:16
|
|
|
Request (If it's legal, I forget the perfect legality of things like this) Can somebody with a JP8000 (or equivalent) sample me out that generic supersaw trance/euro lead that was huge in the late 90's? I'd like just a single C3, held for 20 seconds or so, no effects, open filter. The reason is I was going to load it up in Simpler in Live and it works better with long-rear end samples like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2008 02:27
|
|
|
Lynx Winters posted:I'd get the SH-201 and Live 7. ($499, or $249 if you're a student. Currently, it comes with Operator free (my favorite soft synth). You can get a free, full-featured 14-day trial here. My opinion is, that if you're gonna spend the money to really get into it, you should get one of the big names in software. You really don't want to be using something like Reaper as your main in your position. The only downside to using Live is that initially, you won't have as many softsynths to work with, but with Operator and the SH-201 you'll be just fine, and it'll also give you a chance to work with synthesis more. Personally, I say gently caress control surfaces. A MIDI keyboard is nice (which you'll have), but for me, they just seem clumsy and too dated. Modern mixing is about software. If you really want one, that's fine, it's a personal choice, but I never used any of the parameters on my MIDI controller I had, except to dick around. I'd get your synth and your software, and in a few weeks, if you're dying without having plastic knobs to push around, then I'd invest in a surface of sorts. When I was first starting out, I really thought I needed one, and never ended up using the extra poo poo. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Sep 6, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2008 06:18
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:I'm not joking when I say that Reaper will probably be the future of DAWs. It is already insanely well featured and the developer actually listens to the people that use it and makes changes accordingly. I'd give it 1 to 2 years before it is not only competitive with Cubase/Logic but better featured than both. Terrible idea. You're suggesting that he use a fledgling software suite as his first DAW. Maybe in one to two years if Reaper has a footprint (which by that time, remember, that every software suite is going to be upgraded), then it'd be worth mentioning, but for the time being, it's a terrible idea. I heard about Reaper years ago, and it's still nowhere near competitive. It's got far longer than "1 to 2 years" before it's anywhere near "competitive with Cubase/Logic".
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2008 00:58
|
|
|
This is a tip that I picked up for compression A/B. You compress a sound. It sounds better, right? Maybe. It sounds louder, and loudness is perceived as better (for all intents and purposes, just making a point). So, to check if compression is actually making it sound better, or just sound louder (and not better), dupe the track. Compress the duped track, then bring it's level down so it's matching the level of the original track. A/B them. This way, you'll be able to hear the compressed and uncompressed tracks at the same volume, and one being louder on the meters won't skew your idea of compression.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2008 23:02
|
|
|
I Dig Gardening posted:I learned this trick on my own, when one day I plain asked myself "does this even do poo poo?" and now I do it on EVERY track I compress. Well what I actually do is lower the "output" of the compressor until the meter peaks at the same spot as it would have without the compressor. Turn the compressor on, hit reset on the peaking meter and note the level, turn it off and do the same. Do that until it's the same number, ya dig? The only reason I mention the two-track trick is because it can be easier to eye it by looking at both the meters side-by-side. As long as you have the same levels overall, that's what matters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2008 03:03
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the matter completely? Compression lowers your peaks, and auto make up gain does exactly what you are doing here, so it's just the thing you want to avoid doing, since it will in fact make the compressed signal sound louder than the uncompressed. To a/b your compressor without the loudness factor, you should disable auto make up. It's fine if it sounds louder, just so long as it's not metered any higher. Yeah, compression is going to give the appearence of a louder sound, even though by the meters it isn't. Also, on things like drums, a slow-attack compressor isn't going to hit the peak, leaving it at the same level, but emphasizing the drums release. WanderingKid posted:I dunno what auto makeup is (normalise?) but that method is the long way of doing it. Auto-makeup automatically adjusts the compressors output gain up or down based on how much compression is going on. It's supposed to make your input level the same as your output level regardless of what you set in between. Quincy Smallvoice posted:Im not so sure anyone going to this much trouble to validate the effects of compression should be using it in the first place, personally. Well, once you get used to using it, it doesn't matter. I can set a compressor without hearing the source track first (just the nature of it), and get it 90% right, just because I've done it a thousand times. When you're first using compressors, you definitely should A/B the source so you know exactly what you're doing to the sound. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Sep 24, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2008 19:11
|
|
|
A compressor doesn't affect peaks unless it's got a fast attack. Give a snare a slow-attack compressor and it won't have cleared the attack envelope by the time the transient has passed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 04:34
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:Is there a reason to use a compressor instead of a regular gain thing then? It's a hell of a lot easier for gaining up. If you have a snare with a slow attack compressor on it, it'll gain up only the release stage of the sound, keeping the initial snap of the snare. I suppose you could do the same thing with automation, but it would be a pain in the rear end to do on every sound.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2008 05:13
|
|
|
Protip: A lot of devices are advertised as "compressor/limiter" for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2008 21:22
|
|
|
I need the Benassi Bros Bass sound. So far, I understand it's a Nord Lead Library in EXS24 titled Nord Lead W1200, with the "Saw Lead" preset. Does anyone have a Nord that can check this for me? I know it's compressed as hell also, but I'm missing the timbre of the original form. Alternately, does anyone have an idea of what would be used to achieve a similar effect?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2008 06:31
|
|
|
mezzir posted:Vengeance put out some Thor presets for Reason that have pretty much the exact Benny Benassi sound. Can you render out a C2 and hold it for like 30 seconds with any filters and effects off? Post a screenie for that too, so I can see how it's set. That's pretty much the sound I'm aiming for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2008 05:24
|
|
|
super_polack posted:I just bought an Axiom-49 and Ableton 7.... SOOOOOOOOOO?! There's an Operator tutorial on how to make percussion sounds.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2008 22:17
|
|
I'll try to pick up what I can, until I actually work up the courage to make my first poo poo-track 
|
chemicalhero posted:Here's something i've been kicking around recently to try out a new set of monitors I got, just some goofy new wave hooks. The main synth line is meant to be vocals, but suggestions on tones in general would be great; I think the chords at the beginning in particular would be better off as orchestral stabs or something like that. Sounds straight outta the 80's.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2008 00:13
|
|
|
How about you just sit down and make something? It sounds like you've already got all the reading you need taken care of.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 06:13
|
|
|
unixbeard posted:do some covers of songs you like Ding. Get a MIDI file of a track you like, and just try to re-create it. Musically, you'll know exactly what you're aiming for, and it'll help your technical skills when you've got something to reference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2008 22:16
|
|
|
El Scandelouse posted:i dont really see how making electronic music is much different than regular music? Well, musically speaking, they're pretty much the same. Electronic music doesn't use some magical set of notes that are different from every other genre. The thing that differs is the production, the actual creation of the sounds, and the devices and gear used. Even "standard" gear might be used differently in electronic music than in other genres, for effects. For instance, a trance lead might have a delay at an off-time on purpose, while other genres tend to keep their delays on-time, because it follows the beat of the music better.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2008 22:50
|
|
|
El Scandelouse posted:gear might be used differently in rock and roll, but its still basically the same. you make a sound, make some parts, put parts together in a song, record(or arrange) on computer. bam. music(hopefully). Yeah, but if you say it like that, you could argue that all music is fundamentally the same. Input > Effects > Output. Channels > Master. Any word on Live 8? I'm still rolling with 6, and I want to try and just skip 7 and go to 8, since it's this late in the cycle. Although, I don't know if it's worth it, if 8 is going to be out within any reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2008 04:25
|
|
|
tommej posted:This is a friend of mines trance track. It's almost complete he's just looking for a little feedback. This is the breakdown. Generic. Not bad, actually pretty solid, but basically a trance song in a sea of trance songs. I guess it depends on what he's going for. I thought Tri-State was a great album, and it doesn't bring anything new to the table. To me, this sounds like a filler track that you'd hear from a major DJ. Nothing specifically worth noting, but nothing bad about it, either. The production value on it is really, really good though. Sounds professional and well-mixed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2008 04:27
|
|
|
Cyne posted:For a while Ableton was really rolling these suckers out but I get the feeling we're gonna be sticking with 7 for a little while now. That's just a hunch though, I don't have any inside info or anything. I've used 7 quite a bit. 5 to 6 was a huge jump, 6 to 7 is not quite as big. It's not going to kill me to wait to upgrade, but if I have to say, wait another year for it, I'd rather do it now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2008 09:38
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:To toot my own horn, I made this weird, but catchy, minimalist song today. Took an old bass riff I'd made and tried it on a different instrument (organ) and after couldn't stop working on it: Your production value has got to be a lot higher than it is to pass as a minimalist song. The more basic a song is, the better you have to do it to keep it from sounding like some poo poo a 14-year-old cooked up with Fruityloops. Also, you need to modulate the sound more if it's going to constantly loop like that, or else it gets stale really, really fast. I think the idea is so-so, but it's really not mixing well. The reverb on some of the lower-frequency instruments is really clogging up the mix with them triggering that fast and that often. I do think that this could work, though, but this feels more like a musical sketchpad or experiment, more than a deliberately-made track with the elements like they are. Would love to get some feedback on a remix myself and a friend have spent a few days working on. It's of Britney Spears Womanizer which is pretty terrible but the vocals are nice and rhythmic which we kind of liked so decided to have a go at making it more to our tastes. There's not really much beyond initial mixing so forgive any muddyness. quote:
The beat seems a little bit.. not dancy, like it's not fluid enough, like the beat spacing isn't equal in the beginning. I like where it's heading, but it seems like there's a few glaring things with the timbres of some instruments and the beat timing, and the fact that it sounds like the song goes in four different directions from time to time. Like, the beat structure will radically change and it throws me off. Everything is really bright, too. Quincy Smallvoice posted:Well, we ARE discussing a genre thats generally not developed much since that era. Maybe not 1998, but definitely 2002 and onwards. Trance identified itself. It went from this experimental sound in the 90's, in the same soup as Eurodance and the 80's techno tracks, to something more tangible. It's the same thing that happens with other genres. They start out as this what the gently caress experimental poo poo, and then once ideas and concepts get pinned down, it stops branching out, and starts developing internally. For that matter, I can say that hard rock hasn't changed since the 80's. Well, it has, but it's still fundamentally the same, just like trance over the past 8 years is. I can say that When the Dawn Breaks doesn't follow the same base structure as trance did 10 years ago, but it's still trance. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Oct 13, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2008 09:56
|
|
|
cLin posted:Well in that case are there any websites or books you guys recommend for someone who hasn't dabbled in music? Something that starts from telling about terminology and proceeding from there? There are links at the bottom of the OP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2008 01:13
|
|
|
Splinter posted:Most of it should still be relevant since version 7 didn't really change how Live works. Live 6 and 7 are fundamentally the same, the main differences are things like new effects and instruments, and a few of the old devices have a new look (EQ, compressor).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2008 05:32
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:Plus sidechaining works in 7 right? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2008 11:14
|
|
|
What does sidechaining the filter do? I'm still using 6, and I can't think of how a filter would interpret a key input.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2008 10:33
|
|
|
Pootify posted:On that note, any recommendations/pointers for someone interested in getting into Ableton Live DJing? Mainly I'm looking for the best way to learn session view, and also good places to get vocal/instrument tracks suitable for mixin n mashin. There's tutorials included in the software. Load one of those from the Help menu and go at it. You can learn it in like 20 minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2008 10:20
|
|
|
Damien posted:EQ is something I've definitely always had trouble with, although lately I think I've gotten slightly better at it. Any online guides on how to EQ a track without making it sound like mud or two thin? Also I just realized I posted the wrong version of that track - but the only major difference between that and the other is that the cymbals in the beginning aren't distorted, sounds a lot better in my opinion. The right version of it is on the myspace. I kind of like the high-pitched synth although maybe I could take a little edge off the highs with EQ, but I know what you mean about the high cutoff on the bass, I should use more of a filter technique to bring in the high, acid-y sound on accents but not the whole time. Thanks for the critique. This is how you remove low-end mud. Find the kick. Find the bass. Remove the reverb off those tracks. If the kick needs reverb, try adding release instead. If it still has to have reverb, use it carefully, and lightly. So light that you pretty much have to try to find if it has reverb or not. Find the track that's your bass. Find the track that's your kick. You shouldn't have more than one of each of these (that is to say, if you're layering it's fine, but you shouldn't have two different rhythms going. Pick one) On every other track, put a high pass filter at like 250-300hz. If you mute your kick and your bass, your sub should just be sitting there, not doing anything. Now, with your entire mix playing all together, take each of these filters and individually start to push them upward until they start to carve in to the sound too much. Back them off until they become transparent. By doing this, you remove frequencies that might be present in a sound, but you can't hear in a mix because of everything else happening. Also, you might discover that by sacrificing a little bit of low end off one track (say, the lead), you gain a lot more room for your bass or other tracks to cut through the mix. Too many sounds in your low end will quickly ruin your mix. Keep anything that's not strictly kick/bass from sitting in the low frequencies (this includes non-lead synths). The big fat low end comes from having so little in the low end that everything that is there hits harder. By getting rid of extra bullshit from your synths, it opens a wide gap where your kick can knock over walls and the rest of the mix will still sound pristine. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Dec 7, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2008 11:02
|
|
|
I never noticed that until now. Why does the Mastering EQ have a LP filter but not one you can move the cutoff on? WHAT
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2008 13:41
|
|
|
I Dig Gardening posted:While the rest of your post is spot on and wonderful I have to fully disagree with this quote, its not great advice. I shouldn't say never use reverb, but you have to use it differently than with other instruments. A thick reverb on a bassy sound is really going to turn out bad. However, I've heard of many gated reverbs being used on kicks with great success (and their parameters set correctly). Usually when people want a reverby kick in electronic or dance music, they really want the sound of a longer release. Yoozer posted:You can introduce slight variations by automating parameters (you don't have to use several samples). Is that the Novation DrumStation? I had a chance to pick one of those up for like $200. I hear it makes some really solid 909 kicks. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 10, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2008 03:45
|
|
. There's a dozen lovely SynthEdit creations using 1994 samples in mono from Hyperreal.
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:46 |
|
|
Fists Up posted:I'll give it another go but it wasnt working for my VST's. Only for things that are on the actual live interface. You have to map it from the bottom bar, not the VST interface.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2008 12:30
|
|