EMG456

42 minutes ago, bubinga5 said:

Slap in context magic. imo. 

 

Never heard this before but it's absolutely right up my street! Thank you for posting.

I checked out the Jones Girls original version and it's great too!

Couple of Belfast boys.

Very good, very clever, very funny- as you say, ace!

Thanks for posting.

4 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

When I finally graduated up to an Atari colour screen, I did some POV images. A popular model was the Caterpillar (a series of coloured balls in line, really...). I slavishly typed in the coding, and set it off overnight. The following evening, it was supposed to be ready. OK for the Big Moment, I hit the space bar, and there it was..., in brilliant multi-colour on the screen... for half a second. In my precipitation I had neglected to firstly press the key combination to save the image; it was gone forever. 
I didn't have the heart to type it up and run it again; I went back to my monochrome screen and 68K programming. 

...

Oh god- POV! I had totally forgotten that horror story. Now I'm having flashbacks!

8 hours ago, BigRedX said:

I think we've all become complacent about the power of modern technology.

In the mid 90s I was doing quite a bit of (static) 3D work. It was not uncommon for render times for a single image that was suitable to be printed on an A3 poster to be measured in days - and that's if the computer didn't crash mid-way through the process. 

Me too- mainly arcviz stills and animations. We had a wee render farm of half a dozen high spec (for the time) PCs and they would all have to run overnight to provide a 30 second clip at the huge TV resolution of 768*576! Usually when you came in in the morning and checked it, you would have forgotten to switch some object on for the render and it would all have to be done over again- how we laughed!

11 minutes ago, cetera said:

The Alan Parsons Project have had some amazing guest vocalists. This is my fave track with the beautiful tones of the late Chris Rainbow:

Ah, Chris Rainbow/ Harley- an old pal of mine, sadly missed. 
He’d have been really chuffed to have been given a shout on a thread like this. 
Thanks.

4 hours ago, NancyJohnson said:

I'm struggling to actually keep the program open!  It crashes constantly.

I had this and it also managed to break my Arturia virtual instruments. 
Try Shotcut- much easier on the hardware. 

The heavenly voice of Annie Haslam

4 hours ago, Bilbo said:

I always wonder what shortcomings guys like Linder have. Is his intonation on fretless really poor? 😃

Err... probably not! 😀

1 hour ago, toneknob said:

Speaking of Superstition, it's always good to find an excuse to pull this out:

https://www.liveabout.com/mixing-stevie-wonders-superstition-1817747

 

Never come across that before - brilliant- thank you!

Like them or loath them (and I know there's a bit of that around), that is the sound of people who really know what they are doing.

What's happened to the keyboard player/ singer?

8 minutes ago, Silvia Bluejay said:

The snippet you drop in the main video under Elements overwrites the whole of the remaining main video. Even if the snippet is 30 frames and the main video is 10 minutes long. Horrible and stupid.

Edit: the only other option is to insert instead of overwriting, which leaves you with having to trim afterwards.

These applications all work on the basis of overlaying. Unlike an audio mix where we hear a combination of all the tracks at once, in video we usually just see one of the available tracks.

So if camera 1 is the main view, we add a track above it and pop camera 2, say on that. In the final render, if camera 2 has content (clips) all the way then that's all we will see. You need to go through and cut the camera 2 clip into the lengths (roughly) that you want and delete the bits you don't want.

So in your case, pop the clip on a new track where you want it to show and trim off the end at the point where you want it to hide.

Apologies if you know all that already but the little tutorial @wateroftyne posted shows exactly that process. I think at the start it can just be overwhelming and super frustrating.

1 hour ago, Silvia Bluejay said:

Got that Paul - unfortunately it's a major PITA for what we need to do, because the audio/video sync is again only manual. However, at least it's free.

With practise you'll soon be able to line tracks up very quickly.

All ours have the same cues at the start - I find that I can just zoom into the waveforms and match them visually. A quick check and maybe a nudge a frame or two sees it done. I thought it would be a big hassle but it really hasn't turned out to be. The last one I did I had four separate tracks lined up with the audio mix in literally about 5 minutes.

Resolve managed to brick all my Arturia V-Collection instruments to the extent that I had to restore the complete machine from a backup. I liked the way it worked but found it to be a huge resource hog and quite flakey.

Instead I've been doing the band lockdown videos on Shotcut. Free, light on requirements and versatile. Regularly updated as well.

The vids are on a thread here so you can see some of what it can do. All footage mobile phones. Audio either DAW or Zoom H1 recorder assembled and mixed in Cubase before being brought into shotcut as a stereo mix.

It was already D.O.A.

PJB Double Four- just excellent.

Bravo!

19 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

That's flattering, but I'm sure the kit timber would be judged by most to be of lower grade. The other significant determinant of sustain would be the neck fit which is fine for both. The Fender hardware is better quality, though the same basic design for both.

My input wasn't much more than making sure the screws were done up properly, which ought to apply to any bass.

Odd thing is the jazz has Fender roundwounds and the kit P had Fender flats.  I would have expected the rounds to have more sustain.

I suppose the real question is why do some basses have less sustain? I suspect that in part its down to the pickups with the 'vintage' pickups in the Jazz being less sensitive.

Again, the jazz maybe has woods that are assumed to be better quality but it's still a mass produced factory instrument with all that that implies. The pickups just report what the strings are doing - if they are lower output, that is compensated by turning up the preamp gain. You'll likely find that the difference is also noticeable acoustically. That string energy is being sucked up somewhere.

So we've done a couple more...

Not playing bass on these but as a bonus you get to meet Ailsa the dog on one and are treated to my mellifluous singing on the other! 😂

This is the basschat content I love!

2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

It's an indicator of difference.

As I said above, if a £77 first time kit build bass sustains longer than a respected £950 bass it's clearly not a direct relationship between quality and sustain.

You've mistaken price for quality there. And also possibly missed the real measure of quality - fitness for purpose. 

Me, I like a long, even sustain and have never, ever placed a piece of foam under the strings of any of my basses. The dull thump sound is not one which has ever held any attraction for me.

7 hours ago, leroydiamond said:

My floor is of the suspended timber variety, but I have bored holes in the floor, so that the legs of the rack are resting on the concrete underneath the floor to help with isolation.

Now that's dedication!

16 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Early versions of the Wal MIDI bass sported a separate pickup for the MIDI part. On later versions it appears to have been incorporated into the standard Wal bridge pickup. Since the pickup portion of the MIDI bass is simply there to sense whether or not a string has been plucked it can be quite rudimentary. I don't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that an extra set of individual coils (individually wired) have been fitted onto the pole-pieces closest to the bridge for the MIDI triggering (hence the raised pole-pieces) and the rest of the pickup is just a standard Wal one.

Like I say, I don't know the detail, just what Pete told me on one of my visits when I was buying the bass.

It could well be as you say but I have to say that the actual bridge pickup sounds pretty much as you would expect a Wal bridge pickup to sound and it does that whilst simultaneously in use for the midi side of things.

I've never looked in detail at the electronics (just works) but I'll have a wee look about next time I change the battery and see what I can see without disturbing anything lol.

16 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Did you see the photo of a naked Wal pickup a bit above ? It coud be used as a hex pickup if each and every coil was completely separated, buffered and self treated, which is not the case as it's a classic humbucker, not designed as a hexaphonic pickup.

Please wake up, there is nothing magical or mysterious about Wal...

Sorry to ruin your myth.

Not my myth- the late, great Pete Stevens told me that they were able to dispense with the separate hex pickup because the Wal pickups used individual coils for each string. The pole pieces nearest to the bridge on the bridge pickup are raised up. This may well be a different arrangement to the standard Wal pickup- I don’t know- but I can assure you that the Wal Midi Bass certainly knows which string you are playing even on open strings which do not use the fret sensing circuit at all.

By the way, I don’t believe I made any claim that Wal basses are “magical or mysterious” and I’m perfectly awake thank you, albeit going to bed shortly. 😉