| Author
|
Less The Better / More the Better ???
|
vox
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
114
Posted : May 24, 2005 15:03
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-24 01:52, mubali wrote:
What you just listed were some pretty good freeware, but bear in mind that not all freeware is going to sound the best and get you the results that you want. Sometimes you have to go with some of the commercial sofware as well...
|
|
i am completely aware of that. however, that was not the point. i mentioned all this software because that guy said that software also costs much when i said that the studio with 30 effects would cost a lot. that's it, nothing else.
of course, freeware is not as good as commercial in most cases, but that is not always the case. and the term 'the best' is pretty much subjective. someone might like waves rverb, someone might like spinaudio roomverb or sonicflavours r66. they are all good, but do they provide you the sonic flavour you need, it is up to you, not up to them. it is just like cars.
Quote:
|
And the Waves bundle is several thousand dollars. You've got many good vsts that are between 150 and 500 bucks... You get a few of these together and it starts to add up. So in the grand scheme of things, sure you could get a whole bunch of freeware that might be good or might not be, but it would be the equivalent of buying a bunch of cheap gear that you've never used before to play a live set with... Sure you could make it work, but at the same time do you really wanna chance it?
|
|
well, if you do not have a lot of money and you want your money to be well spent, and you want to buy a reverb, what will you do? you will download every possible commercial reverb demo and try for yourself. you won't shell out 2000 usd on waves package without making sure it is something you need, right? and with freeware, it is just a download away, just like the demo of a commercial plugin. if freeware sounds good, it sounds good and will get used. if it does not, it won't. just like any commercial plugin. simple as that. and cheaper.
Quote:
|
The goal of freeware is multifaceted... Those that do not have the capital for the big name commercial ones tend to use the freeware ones, and some freeware is better and even easier to use than some commercial plugins. But there are some that are buggy or don't sound that good, the most annoying part about software is sifting through the junk to get the ones that you really like using the most.
Just like gear shopping...
|
|
of course. a big part of freeware is a 1-day synthedit experiment with shitty sound, i know that.
and about sifting through the junk - well, it can be interesting, and you can find some real gems, even though you will use 80% of that time for nothing. and, of course, if you want to buy a good sub-200$ compressor you should test them all to see which one is the best for you. right?
Quote:
|
Not to knock any freeware at all, I definitely use a lot of freeware synths and fx, but at the same time I do have paid for ones that do the role that I need them to do. It really depends on the the user.
|
|
of course. the main point is that it is possible to make music with a sh*tload of money, and with zero money, and all the possibilities in between. and that it is cheaper with software 
but we somehow missed the point here, which was the number of needed plugins for a regular song. how many compressors and reverbs does a regular studio have? does any mid-range studio have 15 compressors? i do not think so.
i have been listening to goa and psy for 11 years now, and even though i pretty much like some of the full-on released recently, i really hated the psy-techno wave of producers some 6-7 years ago, when producers shifted their focus away from the music toward the sound design, which resulted in uninteresting tracks with (sometimes) interesting sounds.
  http://myspace.com/voxproject |
|
|
|
Nik
Error Corrective
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
142
Posted : May 24, 2005 18:45
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-24 00:09, UnderTow wrote:
Nik: Then he is consulting the wrong textbook. 
UnderTow
|
|
sorry the phrase "from the textbook" is one of those naf english football commentator phrases that wasn't meant to be taken literally. i aplogise for the confusion there.......and confused we are because i believe that two sides of the argument are referring to different stages in time.....
undertow, you are referring to the process of dither, whereas it was misconstrued, by myself included, that you were referring to the result of dither.
Of course, dither does not leave the resulting file at a higher bit rate than 16. just because you employ that process it does not mean that you will have a 17 bit cd at the end.........which, from your previous statements, is what i, and probably others, thought you were infering. duh!
but your explanantion of dither was referring to the process - ie. what happens to the wordlegnth before 'bouncing down'.....
okay you can read a textbook ....or should i say audiophile website here http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=27/
which amongst other things pretty much clarifys undertows previous analogy and also goes on to explain how processors can introduce problems in the audio, even in bypass mode.....
though this article, and much of what is written on digi audio theory, was originally compiled about 10 years ago and dosent really take in to account that most DAW that we are using now have 32bit audio engines.
to be honest im no math man. that you can probably tell from my sig.
1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-?-0-1 |
|
|
|
mubali
Mubali
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
2219
Posted : May 24, 2005 19:40
|
Quote:
|
but we somehow missed the point here, which was the number of needed plugins for a regular song. how many compressors and reverbs does a regular studio have? does any mid-range studio have 15 compressors? i do not think so.
|
|
With that you are correct, but at the same time many producers who have that 1 compressor or 1 reverb will send their instrument channels to it a record it to audio.... With software, it eliminates the need to run each instrument or sound individually to the effect. So in essence you could have 15 sounds that were processed by one compressor but you had to record each sound to audio through that one reverb or compressor. A tedious task no doubt. All software has done with allowing multiple instances of a plugin was cut back on some of the more time expensive processes...
An Eagle may soar, but Weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 24, 2005 23:02
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-24 15:03, vox wrote:
but we somehow missed the point here, which was the number of needed plugins for a regular song. how many compressors and reverbs does a regular studio have? does any mid-range studio have 15 compressors? i do not think so.
|
|
Are you talking about mid-range home psytrance producer studios or mid-range commercial studios?
Most mid-range commercial studios have a console with compression on every channel and a few esoteric outboard compressors. So I would say, yes, they have more than 15 compressors.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
vox
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
114
Posted : May 25, 2005 14:37
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-24 23:02, UnderTow wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-24 15:03, vox wrote:
but we somehow missed the point here, which was the number of needed plugins for a regular song. how many compressors and reverbs does a regular studio have? does any mid-range studio have 15 compressors? i do not think so.
|
|
Are you talking about mid-range home psytrance producer studios or mid-range commercial studios?
Most mid-range commercial studios have a console with compression on every channel and a few esoteric outboard compressors. So I would say, yes, they have more than 15 compressors.
UnderTow
|
|
i am talking about commercial studios. a psytrance studio can be commercial too, can it not?
what you mention is bending the truth a little. the thing you are saying is true if they own a digital mixer with a compressor on each channel. not all of them have it. and the situation here is just like with plugins - if you can use something 100 times, it does not mean you have to.
a friend of mine is making trance releases for 10 years now, and he owns a yamaha digital mixer with dsp, and yes, it does provide dynamics processing on each channel, but, due to dsp power, not all at once. a guy brought him a house track on his mc505 which has, as far as i know, 4 outputs, and he made that track sound wicked with compressors on 2 of them and one master compressor. so, it is possible to make a track with 3 compressors, we do not need 15 of them, and that is what i am trying to say here.
http://myspace.com/voxproject |
|
|
|
WAVELOGIX
Wavelogix
Started Topics :
136
Posts :
1214
Posted : May 25, 2005 21:21
|
who said I use 15 compressors ?? LMAO !!  |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 26, 2005 03:36
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-05-25 14:37, vox wrote:
i am talking about commercial studios. a psytrance studio can be commercial too, can it not?
|
|
Well those are usualy personal studios. I meant studios that do work for other people.
Quote:
|
what you mention is bending the truth a little. the thing you are saying is true if they own a digital mixer with a compressor on each channel. not all of them have it.
|
|
Well most analogue consoles for mid-range commercial studios have compressors on every channel too ...
Quote:
|
... he owns a yamaha digital mixer with dsp, and yes, it does provide dynamics processing on each channel, but, due to dsp power, not all at once.
|
|
What mixer does he have? All the Yammaha mixers I know have dynamics available on all channels at once.
Quote:
|
... we do not need 15 of them, and that is what i am trying to say here.
|
|
Oh I agree. I'm just nit picking.
UnderTow
|
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : May 26, 2005 03:43
|
|
TRapp
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
271
Posted : May 26, 2005 11:09
|
hehe 15 compressors....go team go...
i personally would prefer to have 15 different Reverb units ....
er what was the point of this topic again??
~~represent |
|
|
|
WAVELOGIX
Wavelogix
Started Topics :
136
Posts :
1214
Posted : May 26, 2005 12:17
|
|
time to go back to the begining . we have sidetracked , like we always do ........ |
|
|
|
fregle
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
982
Posted : May 26, 2005 20:50
|
I do think people exaggerate nowadays... Especially when it comes to reverb, u only need one reverb in a send, and then u just open the send on the track u want to put reverb on, the further u open it, the further the sound will back up in the mix, and it will sound homogenous... I really don't understand why some people insist on putting reverb on every track, it's simply useless... I think it's a luxury problem caused by the pc, a lot of the people i talk to who do things like that have never produced with hardware and don't even know what a send is... same with delays... U can make a stereotypical delay on a send and send everything that needs the stereotypical delay through it (psy melodies have the same type of delay most of the time, so why put a delay on every track? it's plain silly). Sometimes u can do this with other fx too, if u want the same effect on different tracks, group them, or put it in a send. Don't make one in every track... It is mainly a problem with delay and reverb though... ofcourse, when u use sends, don't forget to turn off the dry in every effect in the send, or u'll make ur sound louder by turning up the send...
For the rest i think a pc allows u to pile on fx without limits, so why not if it sounds good? Just look that u aren't exaggerating in ur fx-piling, when u have made the chain, just put every effect in the chain in bypass one at a time and listen to what it does, if u have 5 fx piled on one track, most of the time u can cut at least one out that hardly does anything.
But that's the only problem i see with it. otherwise it's much better now then it ever was (obviously...), and people who are used to using hardware will not have this problem... |
|
|
|
mubali
Mubali
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
2219
Posted : May 26, 2005 21:41
|
The biggest reason to use multiple instances of a plug-in instead of using sends is if the plugins have a different setting on each one. I use a combination of multiple instances and sends. I also route the outputs of all my individual channel to group busses, where I can control the overall volume and use group fxs on them. But if I want a certain synth sound to be processed by a certain type of delay (ping pong, or 3/4 or something) that won't be used by any other sound, then I will just put it on the individual channel.
I really feel that however many effects you put on there is dependant upon what you want that particular thing to sound like. If you can get the sound without having to use any effects, more power to you! If you feel you need 8 to 10 effects on that channel, go right ahead if your computer has the processing power to do so in real time without having to bounce it. It's not the method that's important, it's the result.
An Eagle may soar, but Weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
TRapp
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
271
Posted : May 27, 2005 00:38
|
Send effects for percussion, hihats and stuf flike that , and possible for pads....but as far as lead synths go....no way to sends...i would rather plan and use a custom Fx chain to that of my other elements in the track...
i can understand with hardware units tho especially reverb u would usually use it on the send(having got access to a hardware verb) but i say if your computer has the power to use inserts , then use them....but again it should be remebered that by piling a bunch of plugins isnt gona magikally make your sound insane unless you really know what you are doing, ....
maybe we shold start the Mother of all FX Chain threads...be a good idea, lol,
~~represent |
|
|
|
fregle
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
982
Posted : May 27, 2005 16:08
|
mubali: tnx for explaining what i meant in a much better way but i want to add that all of that is correct except for reverb... Don't put different reverbs on different tracks, it never sounds better... One great reverb in the send (an impulse responce from the good old 960 for example) will sound better then a different reverb on every track in the inserts.
Why? well, people are used to hearing 1 reverb at the time (u are never in multiple rooms at the same time), so it sounds much more natural to hear all tracks going through the same reverb (hearing all tracks in the same room) then when there is a different reverb on every track. Also, u can position ur sounds from front to back much easier, the further u turn open the send, the further back the sound moves in the room. Like that u have perfect x-y-z planes (x=pan, y=frequency, z=reverb).
ofcourse, on drums, and more specifically on snares, i would use a second reverb... Maybe even a third sometimes, but i have never had a reason to use more then 3 reverbs in the same song...
correct me if i'm wong!! i'm very interested to hear other peoples opinion on this subject... |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : May 27, 2005 17:40
|
I agree about the reverbs unless you are doing a special effect on a particular sound(s) in a section of a track.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
|
