51m0n

Yes, it was about £25 when I bought my copy. The download will not expire, it will nag the hell out of you, and rightfully so. If you find yourself using it after 30 days you should buy a licence, its the decent thing to do after all.

[quote name='redstriper' post='1355329' date='Aug 29 2011, 03:36 PM']OK I'm convinced - I'll try Reaper.[/quote] Hope it gives you something more than Cubase 1, any questions just ask!

Having said the above I like compression, not necessarily a lot, and not necessarily so you would know it was there without checking themeters, but I do love compression all the same. It helps keep the bass in the mix.

Define 'better'.... Could be a really nice compressor, or a little bit of tuby dirt or a smidge of chorus, or octaver. Couldnt say what would work for you though...

[quote name='lojo' post='1355304' date='Aug 29 2011, 03:05 PM']Is there a way to really measure output at varying volume settings, if so , then one of the magazines should surely set up a test when reviewing and give some sort of rating or benchmark, which at least would allow you to compare across the board with a level benchmark As I said before whatever amp I use I always seem to end up with the dial in the same place anyhow[/quote] Yes. Take an anechoic chamber, a reference system measuring actual dB of sound, and test pink noise and frequency sweeps to accurately plot the volume at various frequncies and the slew rates etc over time of the entire rig. You could even work out THD from this. Personally I dont think most bassists are ready to try and take the output from the corresponding figures and try and work out if that would make it asny good on a gig.

I have one of the lowest gear turn over rates on the forum I think. Still cr4p at playing bass too

[quote name='cheddatom' post='1351009' date='Aug 25 2011, 08:58 AM']I'm looking for a VSTi for strings. I don't need the world's best sounds, just something better than the microsoft MIDI voices. Is there anything free?[/quote] Try DSK Strings. Its not the best I've heard, but its pretty cheap (ie free!) - does require a fair bit of effort to get a good result, but that is probably as much my fault as the vsti

Damn I'm too old And a filthy arrogant son of a soap dodging miserable goat too...

[quote name='charic' post='1350357' date='Aug 24 2011, 03:36 PM']Question about reaper as I have to put my purchase of protools on hold Is it closer to logic or cubase? I only ask because I've always found Cubase unusable in any form. This is probably my fault rather than the software mind you....[/quote] You could try Reaper for free, they have a 30 day trial period... It is absurdly versatile wrt workflow (more than logic or cubase or PT, not that I am up on the latest versions of those but I read a lot about DAWS cos I'm sad), but there is a learning curve

[quote name='redstriper' post='1350267' date='Aug 24 2011, 02:06 PM']Well if you need any of those things fairy nuff, but I don't - or do I ? I'm still finding new tricks in Cubase 1 and I don't have the time or desire to learn new stuff that I don't need and can't afford. I started recording many years ago on a TEAC 1/4" 4 track with a room full of boxes and I find Cubase 1 does so much more in a laptop than that whole room could manage. I do have Waves Diamond plug ins and Melodyne for extra fx, but I could happily live with the packaged Cubase plug ins if I had to. Cubase 1 is used for all my recording sessions over the past 5 years and it has never crashed or lost any data. I think there is a lot to be said for being familiar with whatever tool you use and to work within it's limitations, it's the music you record that matters and no new software will improve that. I'm still playing my '63 Fender Jazz bass and I consider Cubase 1 as a wonder of modern technology! Having said that, I'm not a professional audio engineer and I use the cheapest mics and gear that I can find. I would love someone to give me a copy of the latest version really. You can hear my latest album recorded in my front room on Cubase 1 [url="http://myspace.com/tacsiband"]here[/url] if you can be bothered.[/quote] Absolutely, I wouldnt be able to say what you need to get the job done, you asked for things Reaper did/had that Cubase1 doesnt. I think its Chris Lord-Alge who is still mixing on PT5, and critics be damned.... So how about the ability to do an install to a USB stick so yuou can tae youDAW with you to a studio/mates house and run it without installing it? Could that be a useful thing for you?? You could try Reaper for free, they have a 30 day trial period...

Holy mother of ..... That is luuuurrrrrverrrllllyyyy!

[quote name='cheddatom' post='1350043' date='Aug 24 2011, 10:51 AM']oh that's an idea. The song i'm doing at the moment is just verse chorus verse chorus to a click so I can use each half with the opposite half. Nice one![/quote] We aim to please, bud, we aim to please....

That is a pretty phenominal mix off a desk. Definitely getting the multitrack to really go to town on it, but great sound all the same!

[quote name='redstriper' post='1349552' date='Aug 23 2011, 09:39 PM']What is wrong with Cubase 1 ? I ask because I use it and I can't imagine what any newer software can do that it can't.[/quote] Oh boy.... Complete grouping freedom for a start Inbuilt time stretching/pitch shifting, that not only works, it sounds excelletn too Extremely wide ranging and efficient and most importantly fantastic sounding built in effects Total customisability to match your workflow No concept of a midi track vs an audio track vs a group, a track is just a track Full 64bit version (for modern machines this allows use of immense amounts of RAM) Written to take advantage of modern multiprocessor machines from the ground up - Cubase 1 cant do this and so only utilises the power of a single core/hyperthread Large choice of real nitty grritty things like pan law on a per track basis Ability to apply different fx to different objects in a track Totally non destructive editing of audio dry/wet mix levels of every vst on any track, even if the vst doesnt have this built in Complete automation of any and all parameters of every channel, and every paramter of every vst on every channel Up to 64 channels of sound per track - allows massively complex routing to be set up that then makes for far easier mixing Active forum where you can find help, tips and tricks, request features, and talk directly to the developers ..... The list goes on and on and on...

The answer is, dont listen to modern pop, do listen in a proper environment, rather than in the car....

[quote name='Wil' post='1349173' date='Aug 23 2011, 04:57 PM']Could it be a result of digital recording - more frequencies from each instrument are present and potentially taking up sonic space in the mix? Plus modern music is more likely to include synths, distorted guitars etc.[/quote] Interesting point, all the older stuff you are talking about was mastered for vinyl, and as we all know on vinyl you cannot have too much deep bass energy as you will literally pop the needle out of the groove. Now we have digital there are no such constraints so bass can (and does) go a lot deeper. The point is that the OP feels that along with the greater energy at deeper frequencies there is a perceived lack of mid range info to give his ears somehting to grab onto and relate to timbre and pitch of the specific bass instrumetn. Again I dont think he is wrong, the loudness wars have also meant a massive reduction in the ratio of RMS to peak in a track, or how much the volume changes when something loud happens (like a kick drum transient), leading to far less punchy sounding CD's. Ironically this is as a result of record execs wanting to have the loudest track on the radio when heard in a car....

[quote name='cheddatom' post='1349116' date='Aug 23 2011, 04:08 PM']yeh when we record properly I double track most guitars. I play in a sort of "jam band" type thing where we just turn up and play, and I record these. There are no vocals so I quite like dominating the centre of the mix with bass, but that requires panning the guitar, and there's only one track. It's not important enough to chop up the guitar track and make it sound like another take (although i'm kind of lost trying to imagine what i'd do - cut it into 5% chunks and stretch some and squash the others time wise?). Is there any way to easily avoid the comb filtering etc? Like pitch shifting one of the tracks or something?[/quote] You are looking to move some of the initial attacks back or forward in time a bit, to loosen up the two tracks. Another way to do it it to reorder the sections, or even swap individual bars around where possible.

Actually I think its the car stereo to blame, and the listening environment in general you live with in a car. For one you have immense noise in that environment, secondly it is highly possible that the bass response is highly tuned to the point of producing 'one note bass' and nothing else on that system. Both of these situations will cause you to only hear a single tone from the bass across a variety of material. You suggest that all bass tones in modern pop are the same, well depends on the modern pop really, but deep pillowy bass is easy to mix the rest of the track to, its underneath everything. One other poitn, the worst palce to hear full deep bass is tinny little laptop speakers, instead more and more amterial is mixed for earbuds, and the car (large contributing factor in the loudness war was geting mixes heard in that environment).

[quote name='cheddatom' post='1349073' date='Aug 23 2011, 03:27 PM']I tend to find phasing issues when doing this, so I play about with the delay between 3 and 20ms until I get a sound I like. If I were to EQ or compress one of the tracks differently would that somehow stop the phasing issues?[/quote] Ideally you wouldnt use a simple delay at all, because it will cause comb filtering and phase issues. The editing the second track will significantly improve the situation. It is time consuming but it can certainly be done and really quickly in today's DAWs. In place of that then anything else you can do to change the nature of that second track a bit (without turning into something pants in the mix of course) will really help. Remember the ideal is a true multitrack. But even then you can treat the two differently to a certain extent.

34ms is a long time in terms of this kind of processing... Not wrong at all just long. The human brain can detect time alingment differences between left and right ear down to around 3 or 4 ms

[quote name='Skol303' post='1348781' date='Aug 23 2011, 10:41 AM']^ Ha ha! Yeah, that's exactly where I'm at right now. I finish something and it sounds "ok", then I come back to it the next day and it sounds terrible. Practice makes perfect, and all that... so I guess I have a lot of practicing to do. Cheers again for the top notch advice. You've definitely given me some 'clarity' in terms of how I should approach EQ'ing, which has been a great help. Honestly, you and Rimskidog should a write a book on this stuff some day! "Never Mind the ****ocks: Here's the Basschat Guide to Mixing" ^ PS: I'm probably being very thick here... but what do you mean by "multi track" in this instance? I understand this in the context of working with two separate guitar tracks. But if I have only one guitar track, then the only option I can think of is to duplicate it and pan the original track left and the duplicate track right (both in mono). Like I said, please explain further for the sake of my addled brain![/quote] I really do mean multitrack, double the guitars, especially in rockier stuff, and hard pan them. Its so much the sound of modern rock that without it you are almost not in the same genre. If you only have a single guitar source then you can do all sorts nasty tricks like send a slightly delayed signal to the other side, adding a spot of reverb or compression or extra dirt to it, or some kind of chorus/flange/modulation to it or the reverb or the delay, eq it differently over there, anything really just make it slightly different as well as slightly delayed. Or you can put some other instrument over there - Hammond is always a good one - to balance things out. Hell even an automatic double tracker vst is better than nothing! If you get serious about this you can certainly use massive amounts of time copying the original guitar part and then editing it to be out ever so slightly with the original track, cut here, stretch there, chnage the levels here and there so the compression acts differently, make it sound real, and subsequently the two together will sound fatter. In this day and age nothing is unfair. This will work better than the simple delay trick, and give you ultimate control compared to an ADT effect. If you just duplicate ithe two all you are doing is raising the volume of a track panned central. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid at all costs, its far too much competition with the lead vocal. Get it right and you have: Wall of Guitar + Perfect Vocal = Mix WIN! Other possiblities are to take this approach and in the heaviest choruses edit two more tracks up and place them at about 90% L and R and add them to the mix just for the biggest payoff choruses. Doesnt half add to the wall of sound if doen with care.... All from a single guita track. Forget what the band line up is, forget what the band say go mad and produce a mix so devastatingly effective that they realise thats what they actually wanted ion the first place (HINT: this may only work sometimes!)

True Nige. A musical instrument is a tool for making music. There is at least one joke in there I'm sure... In todays world of mass production almost anything is a halfway decent bass, certainly with a proper set up I have seen very few basses that couldnt do the job adequately without a good set of strings put on properly (given the required amp and a decent musician etc etc) Doesnt mean we wouldnt prefer this that or the other in its stead, or that certain instrumetns perform better in certain musical or acoustic environments than others for certain musicians though. Or that the audience will ever be able to tell.....

[quote name='Rimskidog' post='1348434' date='Aug 22 2011, 09:19 PM']Now I just feel old As ever though, great explanations from 51mon. More articulate than I could ever be. [/quote] Me too! I feel better when I remind myself that 16 tracks (not 8) was the defacto standard in a decent small commercial studio when I started. It doesn't help a lot, but it kind of takes the edge off! And thanks

[quote name='Skol303' post='1348067' date='Aug 22 2011, 03:18 PM']^ Superb and detailed advice as always, 51m0n - and greatly appreciated! So in essence: there's no point me getting too hung up on frequency ranges, because ultimately I'm going to have to treat each instrument in each mix in a different way... so I might as well start training my ear now, as that's what I'll end up using anyway. I think I get it now, cheers for bearing with me! I actually had some proof of this over the weekend, when I was practicing with EQing. I did start by using some of the frequencies I'd posted in the document, but in the end I ended up resetting all the dials/faders and doing it all over again by ear! I'm reasonably confident using things like stereo width and panning, but compression is another 'dark art' that I'll probably be asking for your advice on in due course... Anyway, thanks again.[/quote] Yeah exactly!!! Every single person on this forum could learn how to do this in a short time, it is not hard, and the best bit, the result is the right one, every time. It is very intuitive. As soon as you start imposing someone elses findings from some other mix you are going to be going wrong. Training your ears to do this is totally and utterly different from the ear training a musician needs. Rather than identifying intervals and chords you need to learn to identify regions of detrimental frequncy build up. Of course you still ge to make all the wrong choices about which of any overlapping instrumetns is the dominant one in that part of the frequency range One 'gotcha' that will get you time and again (still gets me), in learning to concentrate your attention on a very specific part of the mix in terms of frequency I find it becomes increasingly easy to put aside other areas of the mix, and sometimes you come back to your work only to hear all the bits that you never got round to fixing. Suddenly the mix you had a warm glow about has become an absolute mess. Time to get the eqs out and cut some more crud!!! Compression is a similar beast, a lot of people find the concept hard to grasp, and the tools hard to hear, and the available parameters too many and too varied with bizarre names and so decide that comnpression is the work of the devil and the best approach is to use either a cookie cutter set of parameters without really understanding what that should/could/will/did do. Its as bad to do this with compression as it is with eq, both will damage your mix equally! Learn how to use a compressor, and then you dont worry about cookie cutter settings, you just tailor the sound to your needs for the mix. Put it another way mixing is a bespoke activity, like tailoring, if its done right. Off the shelf never fits as well, never looks as good, but it is cheaper....

I think a lot of this way of working eq comes from using real desks to mix back in the day, and on a real desk two things become apparent very soon:- 1) You never ever look at the frequncies when you turn a knob on a parametric eq, cos your hands are in the way 2) the frequencies printed on most desks are laughably innaccurate anyway, so they are only good to document a mix on that particular desk, they are useless for any other instance of that device even. So I would put money that Rimskidog and I , having learnt to mix before the advent of computer DAW mixing are totally at home with the idea of listening to a mix as we mix rather than lloking at the screen - I still always turn the display off very regularly when mixing, I even keep the lights down low as I want as little visual info coming into my bonce as possible.