wishface

2 hours ago, skidder652003 said:

£400 would get you a decent used iMac, great screen, decent power and holds its value

 

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/593456492157894?ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post&tracking=browse_serp%3A018f4900-df4e-43b5-9057-7c1678214c22

all my apps are windows apps though, not sure I want to re purchase my DAW and all of that again. 

Also it's a private seller so i'm reluctant as there will be no cover if I have a problem (I assume). I'm not comfortabel taking that chance

3 minutes ago, paul_c2 said:

 

Good spot, that's probably why its cheaper (but better/higher spec). It sounds like its The Asus Store themselves fulfilling this, but its a return (probably with no fault whatsoever, just opened then rejected within the 14 day period for a reason other than faulty). They're covering their a*** with the "may have scratches" description but its probably cosmetically fine. Its obviously a newer model so can't be that old anyhow.

 

So given that, I'd say the Asus and the HP (from PC World/Currys) are well matched. Either would do the job, and you'd never know if the other were 'better'. AMD is a 6 core while the Intel is 4 core, this often means that certain workloads run better on the more cores, while things which tend to be single core heavy (like games.....) run better on the Intel. I don't know if the average DAW and plugins would even tax a CPU enough to worry about these days, its not really a "heavy" load like Cyberpunk 2077 or video editing etc.

 

I think you're right to avoid secondhand desktop PCs.

I'm not bothered about cosmetic damage, within reason. But I am concerned about whether it comes with a guarantee or warranty of some kind.

I will have to think on it, otherwise sems like a good deal and, from what i can tell, the memory can be upgraded

18 minutes ago, SubsonicSimpleton said:

Might be worth taking a look at the used market for desktop machines - gamers are always upgrading to be on the bleeding edge,

 

https://www.gumtree.com/p/desktop-workstation-pcs/six-core-gaming-pc-for-sale.-like-new./1437408093

 

There are loads of similar ads, this was one of the first that popped up - if you have the space and don't need to be mobile, the screen real estate on desktops makes life much easier.

 

If you go this route it is worth googling the main components - although this is 5 years old, it is still a massive step up performance wise (not quite as quick as the asus laptop according to CPU mark @12333, but worth remembering that you have complete freedom to upgrade/replace anything should you wish, but better cooling and more RAM and HDD storage and better cooling is likely to result in better real world performance)

Thanks, but I'm very uncomfortable buying something like that used. If there's a problem I'm screwed. 

From what I read on some cpu comparison sites, the currys i5 outperforms the Ryzen. Or does it, the ryzen has more cores fwiw? I am absolutely no expert. I can't speak to what HP put on their laptops, but I don't want extraneous guff installed, obviously. I don't dspeately need 512. I have 1tb right now and have used 260gb so far. That includes OS and all the stuff I have, which I don't all need. But 512 would be better. Plus the curry's one is new, while the Amazon one is "used, acceptable". 

It's all a bit confusing tbh.

This https://www.currys.co.uk/products/hp-14sdq2512na-14-laptop-intel-core-i5-256-gb-ssd-silver-10222231.html for the same price from currys seems better, according to cpu benchmakr, but i can't find a specific listong on crucial as to whether it can accomodate more RAM. But this seems pretty good and I can have it tomorrow if I order by whenever o clock

probably not a good idea to just spam this thread with endless listings though

EDIT, just noticed it has no ethernet which means no wired connection. That's a problem for uploading because my wifi isn't good

13 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

 

... but i3, dual core. Nice price for new, though. 

Is it powerful enough though? Only dual core?

Someone suggested this on another site https://www.amazon.co.uk/ASUS-Vivobook-5-5500U-Backlit-Keyboard/dp/B09GKK4RTH/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3G7RXDPY8QHKJ&keywords=ASUS+Vivobook+OLED+15+M513UA&m=A2OAJ7377F756P&qid=1657916208&s=warehouse-deals&sprefix=asus+vivobook+oled+15+m513ua%2Cwarehouse-deals%2C440&sr=8-1

Seems pretty good?

2 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Does it have to be a laptop?

 

While they are pretty good for portability, the compact design is the main reason why they fail more regularly than desktop machines and especially in hot conditions, and on the whole they are never as powerful as the equivalent price desktop, plus that tiny screen doesn't make life easy especially for most music apps.

No, but I don't have a monitor. I'm sure I have a usb keyboard somwhere though. 

Thanks.

Currently my machine is around 80 degrees as I'm composing. Partly the weather I think, as it runs cooler in winter a bit. I have a fan angled right over (but not blocking) the vent. It's age I think. Unfortunately I can't open it up so I've no idea how dusty it really is, I do use compressed air to do what I can. I've no idea if that temperature is geninely an issue, but I can't help thinking that, at least, in the long term it contributes to wear and tear. It runs fine otherwise though. I have it on a desk so the underside is covered. I've tried a cooling pad, they do nothing except raise it off the surface. Even that made no difference. I think it's just age. I'd hate to have it break down on me though

30 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

It depends on what you want to do, of course. I've been using a modest PC (i5, 12Go...) for years, with no issues. I compose using Reaper, recording through a decent Tascam interface, which serves for entry, but also output to my monitors. I use Vst stuff, and samples, in various genres, and have never been handicapped with PC performance, even my orchestral stuff (30 or more Vst tracks...), or mixing our group's stem tracks (a dozen audio tracks, with Vst FX...). For 'pro' use, or intense studio work, bigger is better, naturally, but for home production, either one has the budget or one has not. In my case, it's 'not', but I see no advantage in having oodles of RAM or proc. power. My PC is a very modest quad-core i5, and is well up to treating the stuff I do (here's my Soundcloud, but be aware that it's not 'FM Radio stuff that I churn out...).
If there's any money available, having suitable 'phones is a 'plus' (for home recording, especially if there's no dedicated studio...), and quality monitors (not necessarilly uber-expensive, but far more important that RAM, I'd say...). Ah yes: an SSD disk is a Good Investment these days, and the prices are coming down fast. I've just this week changed my 110Go System ('C'...) drive for a 250Go; the whole affair runs better with SSD System and/or data files, for music stuff. Look, then, for a laptop with as much SSD as you can budget for, as it's difficult to upgrade 'em.
Hope this helps... 

 

Edit: Of the laptops I linked to, the very first one has a much higher spec than my own PC, except for the 8Go RAM. I'd say that that's just fine for most domestic stuff.

Thanks, that's encouraging.

I have an i5 3210m and it handles a lot as well, but I do have to render some files. I use softsynths (uhe and arturia stuff) which can be taxing if a lot of tracls are running simultaneously. That is not an issue per se though it would be nice to minimise. However this machine runs hot these days (heatwave doesn't help).

However that first machine on the list is a dual core and you said yours was quad core. Wouldn't that be better?

EDIT: your soundcloud certainly shows great results! very nice.

here's mine :

6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

A refurbished Lenovo (plus a USB interface, naturally...) should do the job...

 

Refurbished Lenovo laptops ...

 

Other sources exists. I worked with a park of several hundred laptops of the sort for about 15 years; they're not bad at all. Worth a look..? 
(I'm typing this on a refurbished HP8100 i5, our sons have the same model, they cost about 250€ a few years ago now; no issues...)

Thanks, is that model good for music? I've been discussing this on other forums, I'm completely ignorant of computer tech, and the vibe was you need really powerful gear (at least 4 cores with 3ghtz cpu). So I'm a bit confused.

Though I can't really afford more than about £400.

Currently I have a Sony Vaio i53210 which does surprisingly well. That cost me £250 8 years ago.

Obviously I'd like to get the best I can afford. If that's not possible I'd rather not buy anything. No point wasting money. I don't need the bestest and the brightest. In fact eh main reason for upgrading is that this machine is getting hot and bothered these days (the weather ain't helping). I feel it's only a matter of time before it goes to computer heaven.

Any thoughts? Thanks

Do you want to hear an electronic/synthy/proggy/psychedelic imaginary fantasy soundtrack?

If so: https://automatedhero.bandcamp.com/album/the-sigil

Thanks for listening

PS: there is no actual bass guitar on this, which is a bit of a weird thing to admit on a bass forum. But that's just how the piece came out, even though some of the melodies were inspired by me playing, and, properly, I'm a bass player (not a keyboardist).

Cheers

I love a bit of bleepy bloop synthwave as well as playing a real bass guitar.

I know there are quite a few freebie vst instruments out there, but are there any good ones that aren't free but aren't as horrifically expensive as most music software seems to be.

(not looking for a bunfight, but three hundred quid for something like Serum is way out of my price range).

Thanks

Thanks again.

Now I'm wondering: is there a way to do this during a sequence where the part that's producing the effect (eg, kick) isn't playing but the compressed part is?

I think I've got it thanks

Ok, could someone explain how to sidechain because I cannot get this to work at all and al the videos seem to be from an older build of Reaper (or perhaps the mac version who knows). I can't figure this out at all and i'm watching lots of videos that all seem simple enough. I'm trying to do a bog standard effect of having the synth duck under the kick drum but I cannot get the effect to work and I can't see what I'm doing wrong. THanks

On 15/11/2020 at 22:21, Dad3353 said:

In Reaper, make sure that 'Record Monitoring' is 'On' ( HP symbol just below the track name...).

It was, but the problem seems to have sorted itself out now, which is good, thanks

2 hours ago, lurksalot said:

I am not stating that your music should be simple at all.

what I am saying is that your approach should start in manageable chunks.

make your music as intricate as you desire, but keep the process realistic.

that said, creativity as inspiration strikes us all differently.

Good advice thanks

On 11/11/2020 at 19:44, Dad3353 said:

This ...

Amazon, Behringer UMC22 ...

... will do what you want.

I just got one of those. Seems to work fine but for one minor wrinkle (bearing in mind im' no Reaper expert), if I have the audio setup so i can record into Reaper through the interface I can't hear anything when i play my midi controller, but I can hear the parts already written. If i change back to the driver i was using before installing the interface I can't then record using it. 

I'm sure there's a simple solution

9 hours ago, lurksalot said:

I’ll be honest here and suggest exactly as @BigRedX .

keep it as simple as you can , get some ideas first , make written notes , build a framework for the composition , the minutaii of the recording software should be way down the list of issues at the start.

once you have an idea roughly formulated you can start to flesh them out with sounds, and the chances are that you will find you can play with how they work together later in the process .

but break the process down into chunks that you can get your head around , do it but by bit and find a quick way of remembering the creative bits you want.

BRX can do it in his head as he has years of experience doing it , I write notes and voice msgs on my phone . 
 

if you start by trying to see the whole picture and finished article done, (and all by yourself) it will possibly become overwhelming and demotivating .

I have downloaded a fair few VSTs , Kontact and the like , but if I don’t use them in a couple of months , it is a total PITA trying to remember how to use it again 

it works differently for some , but that’s my take on it.

 

Thanks, there's nothing wrong with simple music at all. Zappa is just one musician I like and if everything music was all like that it would be very boring. I like all kinds of stuff from Tangerine Dream early eighties synth stuff to Dream Theater to the Iron Maiden to the Aphex Twin. That's not to show off :d because I think most people are like this today, but it  does make collating a variety of influences into a coherent expression quite difficult. I ike anbalog synth music, like Synthwave stuff (a guilty pleasure), but I don't just want to do that,.. If i ever get to writ music as complex as zappa it would be very rewarding I think  intellectually, whether i'll ever be capable is another matter entirely. I mentioned Bjork because she manages to be simple music (relatively speaking) but it's also quirky and accessible. But that's just one example. Just imagine that but wiht Chris Squire bass licks. Heaven!

It's not just a question of gluing bits together. I'm going to have (so to speak) to learn all the weird tricks electronic musicians use to lecture transitions: all the tricks you can do with this software i've never learned. Programming filter sweeps, pitch bends, modulation etc. All the quirky sound effects that disguise the fact your song is just a sequencer loop running round and round (hello Tangerine Dream)

2 hours ago, lowdown said:

The free 'Spitfire Labs'  is well worth a look. It has plenty of not so obvious patches to work with.

There are also some traditional sounding patches in there as well, along with some great sound design material.

 

https://labs.spitfireaudio.com/#category=&search=&new=true

 

Thanks I downloaded that.

5 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

Download and install the Reaktor PLayer, it's free. Use that, through Reaper, to listen to the .ens files you have. When you're happy with what you're hearing, render the track to audio. From that point on, you won't need Reaktor for that track. Rinse and repeat.
30 minutes, continuous, should be easily enough to decide if the sounds are what you are looking for. I've just tried out a few (Kontour, Polyplex, Monark, The Finger and more...); if you can't find decent sounds in there, take up crochet.
I have maybe a thousand or so Vst synths, mostly free ones, and many have great sounds. One needs patience and a bit of effort to find the right ones, and having a big budget is far from the only criteria (I'm retired; my budget is very slim indeed...). Reaktor 'Spark', for instance, costs 49€ or so, and has a bunch of excellent presets, none of which are 'cheezy'.
As for wanting to compose high-flying stuff, I'd advise starting off modestly and building up over time. No-one comes up with 'Zappa' lines, or prog opera straight off. Get something simple done, then do another, and another. It needn't take decades, but it won't take minutes.
Izotope were offering the Iris 2 for free the other day; similar offers come up regularly. 

Here the Viking, for free... VK-1 ...

... and here, Cobalt ...

Thanks I did already download those. I think I have enough old school analog synths right now.   

There doesnt seem any shortage of such things. 

4 hours ago, BigRedX said:

So what (and how) do you want to compose?

I've always found that the act of composing and the act of recording were two entirely different things and approached in entirely different ways.

For me composing is done in my head or when I'm playing an instrument. Even in the days when I was playing in bands that used a lot of technology to produce their sounds, the recording equipment didn't get a look in during the compositional process. If I'm writing for my band, I just need to present the others with a basic idea of the main musical themes, and then we'll deconstruct it and flesh out the missing bits in rehearsal. Recording happens when we are ready to capture a definitive version of the song for consumption by the general public.

When I've been writing on my own without a band or musical collaborators, I'll have the song almost completely mapped out in my head in both structure and arrangement before committing anything to tape or hard disk.

I think the only time I've used the recording process as the composition was for one of the Composition Challenges on here where I wanted to use the inspirational picture as audio data, and therefore I had no idea how the composition was going to develop until I actually had produced the sounds themselves, and even then I went through most of the import options in Audacity until the data produced some audio that I thought I could work with. However it was more of an intellectual process rather than an inspirational one. 

If you are going to use the recording process as a compositional aid, the most important thing to remember is not to commit to anything in terms of structure or arrangement just because it has already been recorded. Instruments put down early in the compositional process will almost always need to be replaced as the track develops, because by the time you've got the main melody components recorded, you'll be able to hear better versions of them. Don't keep parts recorded early in the compositional process just because they've been "done" already when you can hear a much better version now that the music is more developed.

Good luck!

There are no easy answers to those questions. I want to compose music I enjoy. Probably more rhythm based and perhaps more ambient. Im a huge prog rock fan but I don't think i'm up to writing the next Close to the Edge on my own in my bedroom!

The stuff I've written before (years ago) was very limited due to not even having a keyboard to work with and so it became more abient based, which is fin since I also like ambient music. I've been listening to some bjork recently and I really like the soundscapes she works with, they are very quirky, heavily produced but compositionally simple, and very accessible. 

The problem I've always had when writing tunes is that I can come up with a basic idea but composing that out into a full piece is very difficult. I woudl love to be able to write pieces as complex as Zappa but that's a loooooooooong way off in the future (if ever!). So it's a case of coming up with riffs or ideas and gluing them together and hoping they fit organically. But when you listen to 'proper' composes, people that understand what they are doing, you hear ideas develop and expand throughout the piece. For rock musicians it's often just gluing riffs from each band member together, or jamming a bunch of ideas.

So far much of what I've found, in terms of free vst content, is kinda limited. It's cool people make free stuff but most of it seems to be various analog synth patches all of which are very obvious sounding and a bit hokey.  II'd like something more subtle to work with, more atmospheric. I'm not into sound synthesis or spending hours programming a synth. That's not for me at all really. I found a load of great ENS files, but that requires Reaktor it seems. I guess the best stuff (YMMV) is inevitably going to cost money. That's fine but I dont have two hundred quid for a piece of software unfortunately.

There are some patches out there, i found a good hang drum pad. But some of the ethnic vst patches are...not good. You can always tell when you hear somethng like an Oud played on a keyboard

4 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Getting into recording has never been easier of cheaper, than it is right now, and it's only going to get easier and cheaper.

Anyone with a computer (and if the you the right ones a smart phone or a tablet) can run free (or very cheap) software that will emulate a far more fully featured recording studio than those used to make most of the "classic" recordings of the last 70 years. When my first band went into the studio in 1980 to record our first vinyl release, one day cost us £50 for the studio hire and the stereo master tapes. This was for recording onto a 4-track tape recorder and mixing to stereo via what appeared to be mostly repurposed PA equipment (mics and desk). The only effect available was tape echo (from an actual tape recorder). That was it. In those days home recording was mostly for the rich and famous, and even the humble 4-track cassette portastudio cost almost £1k.

The only downside I see to the modern way of home recording is that you are straight in at the deep end with a steep learning curve ahead of you. No years of recording live in mono or stereo while you save up for a 4-track and 8 (or more) track system, learning bit by bit as more feature become available as you can afford the equipment that has them. 

Also remember that just because you might be a decent musician and/or songwriter doesn't mean that you also be a decent recording engineer. I learnt that the hard and expensive way.

 

Sure, but I guess it depends on what you want to compose