GregP Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 Too much verb. Pretty good tone, though, all in all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 Too much verb. Pretty good tone, though, all in all! ← wrong.zero reverb.may just be your speakers rattling from all the bass. or it could be something else...but that is my secret for now.but there are no effects other than distortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 The 'magic something else' is doubling your guitar part, then, and offsetting it in time compared to the original, plus altering frequency content (the 'wet' signal is possible scooped more than the original) in order to "thicken it up". My speakers are definitely not rattling (though there IS too much bass, you're right about that) because they're just wee and not turned up all that much. I'm just guessing here, and part of me suspected you'd reply with 'no verb', but whatever you want to call it, it's a not-completely-dry effect. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 no offsetting either.my mouse is not sensitive enough to come any closer than about 64 milliseconds...which is WAAY too loose. no i will spill the beans.there are 5 tracks there,all played seperately,but with no monitoring...meaning they are played with the same click track every time,so there are no built up latencies...what you hear is just the slight variation in playing that occurs when you play a track 5 times in a row and put them on top of each other. all of the e.q.ing was done after all the tracks were combined.but there was some combining of different amp tones. EDIT but try listening again with the volume turned way down...it is a tighter sound than you think.i gaurantee part of what you are hearing is due to ther speakers not handling the bottom end of that mahogany baritone played through a mode 4 hooked up to a full stack of 1960 vintage cabs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 A very good technique. What I was actually hearing was probably the combined background noise of 5 recordings, then, coupled with the natural offset. It's the best technique for recording thick tracks, for sure. Props to you for having the patience! I usually do a second overdub, and then I use jiggery-pokery with offsetting to add 3rd and 4th artificial parts if I need to. I'm clearly lazier than you are. <laff> Regarding mouse sensitivity-- can't you just zoom in on the waveform so that it's sample-accurate? Should be able to offset to less than a millisecond if you really needed to. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 Regarding mouse sensitivity-- can't you just zoom in on the waveform so that it's sample-accurate? Should be able to offset to less than a millisecond if you really needed to. yes i can...but i don't know how.you may be lazier than me but i am sure you know your way around your software better than i do. everything i record is basically quite simply done...because i don't know how to loop tracks or any of that.i play the entire song 5 times in a row,then bounce it all to one track so i can record the bass seperately... then i am going to have to write leads for all of it...and also at some point i need to figure out my drum software so i can add that in. i am trying to pull the metal version of what nine inch nails and ministry did.one guy,a few guitars and basses,and some drum software. vocals i will have to get a vocalist for.you do NOT want to hear me do that part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 yes we do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehle Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 And the she-wolf screeeeeeeeeeaaaams in the niiiiiiiiiiight! Hey, wes, that kicked a**. I wouldn't have thought that was 5 tracks. I might have guessed 3 which is what I normally do. I just finished with this little thing today... It's just doubled guitar (with other crap going on too). It's nearly as thick sounding as your track... Satan's Bluegrass I actually recorded two stereo tracks. The first had a SansAmp (100% left) and a SM57 room mic (100% right). The doubled track reverses the pans. Oh, and nevermind that goofy banjo playing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 i cant find the mp3 lol. i only see this ad for a 1995 FORD ECONOLINE 150 CONVERSION VAN lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 nice van jehle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weezerboy Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 i was toying with the idea of using an old laptop for simple recording (no editing) but then realised that it would probably die in its grimy eight year old case then the idea struck me, to stick FL studio on it - et voila - a drum machine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehle Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 nice van jehle ← Oops. Sorry for the dud link. I fixed it... but I'm not sure why that redirected to there. <edit> I see what happened. New computer, crap FTP software scrambled a few files around. Anywho... you should be able to hear this now. Satans Bluegrass (for real this time) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 It's not a cheap hobby. I have what's considered a very minimal setup and I've already spent several hundreds of dollars. i'm spending 1600 of my own money on a new computer 800 on the firepod 300 for the rockit 5s 120 for an sm58 and 57 cubase, and other programs ill be getting for free, thank God. no wait, thank Dema, my friend haha. But that'll save me loads of cash. that's as basic as it is right now, in canadian dollars, and if brought brand new lol. -Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Béla Fleck would be proud of you, Jehle... I think. BTW, the drum sample even sounded a lot like Future Man's drumatar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saber Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Here's an example of recording an amp with an SM57 directly into the mic input of a Soundblaster Live Value card using Cakewalk and a decent drum soundfont... a little snippet of a tune I'm working on: Test Mix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Kick-ass! Further proof that you don't need the best gear in the world to make good music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drak Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 I -hate- it when Saber posts clips. I feel like starting a bonfire with all my gear and taking up the cultivation of bonzai trees. And the thought of Wes playing an acoustic guitar (like James Taylor) had me writhing on the floor like a skewered fish. I would have never thought he would even OWN an acoustic guitar, hehehe!! PS, fantastic thread, and thanks to -everyone- for posting such detailed info, I shall get around to all this computer recording stuff pretty soon, thanks to you guys and your veritable fountain of information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 And the thought of Wes playing an acoustic guitar (like James Taylor) had me writhing on the floor like a skewered fish. I would have never thought he would even OWN an acoustic guitar, hehehe!! oh yes...i have one.you will hear it when i finish this cd.i will admit though i do not play it much.it needs new strings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 saber that mix is awesome. the begining of the solo reminds me of mario lol. here's the computer i'm going for so far. if its good enough i'll be getting it after i come back from Europe... Intel Pentium 4 530 3.0Ghz Processor Intel D915PBLL Socket 775 ATX Motherboard Corsair 1024 gb memory ram AcoustiCase with foam Western Digital / Caviar SE / 200GB / 7200 / 8MB / SATA-150 / OEM / Hard Drive Western Digital / Caviar SE / 80GB / 7200 / 8MB / SATA-150 / Hard Drive 52x32x52 CDRW Drive 52X CDROM Drive 3-Port Firewire PCI Card w/ Internal Header Silent solutions for intel PSU, cooler, fan Sapphire Radeon X600 PRO 128MB DDR PCI-E w/ TV-Out, DVI 17 inch LCD 1.33 Floppy drive this will run be about 1600 canadian (ugh) i tell you, that firepod better be worth 800 bucks haha. -Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 Zoinks! Ditch the 2 CD drives and get one DVD-writer. DVD-writers are also capable of writing CDs. We used to need 2 optical drives for disc-to-disc duplication, but since we can both read and write so quickly now, it's not really necessary. AMD processors experience fewer denormal problems and tend to run cooler than Pentiums (thus reducing the need for a bunch of case fans), so a lot of people prefer AMD. For the same price, you can get an AMD-64 in a socket 939 (don't worry, it'll say in the spec sheet) motherboard, and be ready for 64-bit Windows. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 AMD has a big facility about 30 miles from my house.i remember when they built it.alot of ironwork in that building Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 are you sure about that greg p? I read here http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1194 that the intels are much cooler then the amd. other than the 2 optical drive problem, hows that DAW (digital audio workstation) look? lol. things to go with that, if its suitable are... rokit 5 monitors presonus firepod (phantom power) with cubase L/E sm57 or 58, and a condenser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 Old information in that webpage. Thoroughbred was the core before Barton, which is the most recent Athlon XP flavour, and even THAT is long in tooth. Barton runs noticeably cooler than Thoroughbred. Also, since the information is old-- Pentiums have become hotter and hotter, while AMD have reworked their architechture to produce a cooler-running machine. Athlon-64 is even cooler than the Barton. The exception is the Pentium-M, which is not only a cool processor, but a more efficient one. Pentium-M is under-exploited as a desktop chip. But a 3.0 Ghz Pentium, compared to a same-generation AMD chip, will run hotter. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepultura999 Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 thanks Grep. that thoroughbred, barton and that stuff confuses me lol. i could never tell the difference between intels amds and all that. if it runs, runs nice, im fine with it. im not completely computer illiterate. i can do some stuff, but im no h4xor haha. -Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted April 25, 2005 Report Share Posted April 25, 2005 The honest truth is that both are fine. Pentiums suffer from what's called "denormalization" problems, but if you're aware of them, they can be fixed. The main reason I'd go for AMD rather than Pentium isn't for a normal Athlon, but for the Athlon-64 in order to be 64-bit ready. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.