dumb guy asks a question
Home > Home Recording Forum > Computers & Software > dumb guy asks a question
Posted on Feb 21, 2003 05:23 am
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
why is it that people were telling me you need a lot of processing power/speed if you want to run a lot of plugins?
i dont know about plugins yet.
when i have to work on sounds i do it after they're recorded, by performing operations on the .wav file, usually in a program like cool edit. so i don't really understand all of this plugin stuff. could someone give me the lowdown on what the purpose of (what i am assuming are)realtime plugins are? i dont get why i need power/speed to do something that to me seems it could be done even on my 533 celeron here.
much love
fortymile
[ Back to Top ]
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 21, 2003 07:45 am There is a plug in for almost or more accurately more than every physical piece of recording equipment made. A lot of what you are doing (not all) can be automated by a plug in. A plug in is a piece of secondary software that your main mixing program calls on to perform a special task. Examples are, compression, reverb, delay, tube simulation, etc. Each one of these additional "programs" have some CPU demand. There can come a point where that demand can not be met. It doesn't sound like you are in any danger of that.
Feb 21, 2003 02:57 pm yes but cant you just add these effects after the sound has been input and recorded? that wouldnt take up processor power as near as i can tell, since the processor wouldnt have to overexert itself to meet the demands of a real-time input.
Feb 21, 2003 02:59 pm Do you really plan on applying affects that you have not actually listened to in real time? I wouldn't...
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 21, 2003 05:54 pm I apply them after I have recorded a dry track frequantly. It is called Off Line Processing. Most apps give you an audition button or play button so you can tweak the FX to your taste. If you do it and you find you dont like it you can go back and undo the process. I do however always archive or save an original copy of the track just in case something goes wrong. You can stack up several FX and twaek Offline till your heart is content with the sound and then put it into the mix and see if it fits. I prefer it this way, but will still use the FX lvie in realtime to hear it and maybe get a better idea of what I want before I record the track. I still use many outboard processor's simply for the fact some of them do thing's the way I like them and I havent found a pluggin that willdo it yet. Eventually I will though.
Feb 22, 2003 03:53 pm isn't adding effects to prerecorded tracks basically the same thing as using a loop effect setup? i dont see the problem. you can audition effects over a narrow slice of highlighted audio and see if you like it...the process takes about 3 seconds. if you dont like it you can undo it and try something else. thats definitely the way i'm going to apply EQ. so why wouldnt i apply effects that way too? create some reliable guitar patches, save 'em, call 'em up when i need 'em.
sometimes i wonder what assumptions have been made far in the past by members of message boards--assumptions which begin to be expressed as law. it is confusing to see something like 'high processor speed is crucial so that you can run plugins'--the assumption being that everyone wants to use plugins in real time. if i hadnt asked, i wouldn't have known.
hmm what other assumptions have i run across that i still need to ask about? i still dont quite get the need for a an external mixer.
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Feb 22, 2003 08:00 pm good for you. if you don't see a need for a mixer then you're better off... they're expensive.
but applying eq's or anyother effect blindly without hearing it 'in the mix' is a bad thing. yes you can audition the effect on a single track but things sound different when combined with other instruments. not to mention that you might change your mind. what you are doing is 'destructive' meaning that after you have applied the effect and saved the file you can't undo any changes made by wav editors... hence the term 'destructive'. the contrast to this is obviously 'non-destructive' or real-time which allows you to change settings back and forth on the fly.
but from reading your post it seems that you are very confident in yourself and as long as you are happy with how things turn out then... good for you.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 22, 2003 09:40 pm Sonico, if you read my previous post. You will see that I recomend archiving acopy of the track for just that porpuse. To insure that you can go back and retweak the track if the FX do not owrk once they are in the mix. There are a million ways to do this. And for those who do not run a P4 2gig processor, and are on limited ram and so-on. Offline processing is a good choice. Just remember to make a copy of the track before you edit it, and all is good.
Peace
Feb 22, 2003 10:58 pm yeah thats what i'm trying to say. also, you can hear the results in the mix by just performing the operation on the track and then playing back the results within the context of the full mix.
my currect aim is to develop a set of reliable EQ signatures that won't need much tweaking. i like learning about mixing and tweaking, but ultimately my goal is to produce a vast number of songs so what i need most is just to develop my own set of presets and then just dont get bogged down in the details. you know what is the most frustrating? according to the research i've done so far, there's only one plugin/program--steinberg freefilter--that allows you to 'steal' and apply an eq signature lifted from another sound source. i find this hard to believe. its the one thing i need more than anything else, and i dont really love cubase, so i guess i cant use it. hard to believe no one else is making this sort of thing.
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Feb 23, 2003 06:59 am Hmmm,
You seem to have a very wierd view on music production, fortymile. Production is not about getting a "set of presets" and then applying them to particular instruments. Music is dynamc and music constantly changes from one piece to the other - as a result, one certain preset may sound all well and good on one track, but completly wrong on another.
As for real-time plugin usage... Same thing really. I audition ALL my plugins real-time (and we are talk a LOT of plugins here) so that I can alter things if I want a different sound whilst I am mixing - surly this notion speaks for itself.
regs.
jues.
Feb 23, 2003 07:08 am So, fortymile, appartently what you are trying to do is develop a "one-size fits all" set of preset effects so every instrument in every song sound exactly the same.
Sounds boring...and the resulting music will be boring and predictable. Kinda like manufactured pop bands.
I am not much of one to play around a lot while recording, I plug in and lay down a track pretty flat, it's either clean or dirty. But, after all the instruments are recorded it's play time, no presets, no "formula", just mess around and find something cool sounding. I do have starting points for most instruments that I have grown accustomed to over the years, but they always change a bit during the mixdown.
Also, food for thought, if you are not interested in messing around, and really just want to apply your typical, dull templated sound to everything you record, or just lift it from someone elses music, production and engineering may not be your thing. That mentality really doesn't get anyone very far. Not trying to be rude or anything, but it's true.
BTW, FreeFilter can be used in any application that supports VST plugins. Not just Cubase.
Feb 23, 2003 09:26 am I don't know if I agree with that. If you get a sound on a certain song that you really like and want to put on a similar style song, than presets are a great way to do it. Of course, you should go back and tweak everything, but having a similar sound throughout a CD project is also important to make the mastering process easier.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 23, 2003 09:47 am This forum is getting increadably phylisophical. That's no judgement, just observation. Presets, starting points, or things that have worked well in the past, have a place in my recording. Being carefull to say "my", not "the way to do". Even in production recording, there is a lot of "tuning" to be done. For most hobbiests, the "tuning" is the object. There are a lot of opinions on "starting" points throughout these threads, however, guidlines exist, rules don't for recording. If for no other reason beyond "people get bored" with the same sound continously, this industry is all about finding new sounds. Sorry to say there is no formula for new. Music can not be made in the blender, however the blender can make music.
Oh now that's gotta help. What was I thinking? I'll go take a picture of something, lota nice snow here today.
Good Luck!
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 23, 2003 11:43 am If you want your stuff to sound just like someone else, that is you choice. I personally have spent my entire musical journey trying to not sound like someone else. Yes, I have a handfull of presets which are as Walt stated, starting points. Form there is where the fun beggins, looking for that lost chord so to speak.
And those in the bussiness of mastering are there for just that purpose, making it all even and level. That is the job they do, and most look for the challenge of doing it. I know when I get a job here, I will spend hours seeing how it all fits together, how to blend the differances between tracks and sounds. And that is what makes it enjoyable, not trying to make it all sound the same, but making it all play out on the CD as if it were one. Like jues said, it is the differances in dynamics and the suttle changes that we try to fit together and make it flow throughout the CD.
A CD that is sonicly the same from start to finish is not something I, or most people I know will listen to from start to finish more then a couple of times. But a CD that is moving and changing will keep my interest for the entire length of the CD. And that my friend is what creation and differance is all about.
Peace
Feb 23, 2003 12:18 pm Quote:
If you get a sound on a certain song that you really like and want to put on a similar style song, than presets are a great way to do it.
Oh, I totally agree with that, that is not the way I took the meaning of the post though. It sounded like he wanted a quick-fix processing for everything.
flame...bringing sexy backMember
Since: Jul 01, 2002
Feb 23, 2003 02:05 pm i try and use something new every time to keep it interesting - which i s why ivegot so many free effects on my machine!
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 23, 2003 03:16 pm flame, you are my kinda dude.
Feb 23, 2003 10:58 pm alright, listen. i didnt expect to have my methodology critiqued here. on the one hand i agree with what you are saying about the dumbness of having everything sound the same. on the other hand, i do have a specific goal and im trying to learn what i can to bring it to fruition quickly. my goal is not to learn every in and out of the art of mixing--not at this particular time. my goal is to write 14 songs that i love and to get them recorded with the least amount of hassle as possible. in a consistent style. starting from a 'boring' home-base template. one of the things i love most in an album is when a band packages tone and lyric and vibe to produce a single powerful statement. i love it when a band decides upon a certain vibe and exploits all of the possibilities of that vibe through the songwriting. consider alice in chains' 'dirt.' a classic album. different effects, yes. but a more or less consistent guitar tone and mixing throughout. i love my jesus lizard records, on which the guitar tone is the same through and through. i love a good danzig album with similar distortion and mixing through and through. for any album i write there will be the hard songs and the ballad type songs. for the hard rock songs, i've had so much frustration over the years, that i am really, at this point, looking to rein it all in and just get the damn distortion to peak and be punchy and 3-D-colorful instead of flat. and i will use that in each of the hard rock songs on the album. from there, once i 'get it,' i will be more open to experimentation. my mind right now is a mess of loose ends and half-remembered 'audio rules.' the one thing i need most of all is a solid foundation, a starting point. and for me that equals reliable presets so i can quickly get down to the business of writing and recording songs. from there, i can look at those presets and learn for them. i can ask why they work and then ask what else might be done. for allah's sake there's no need to be snobby about this. not everyone has your depth of knowledge. i have to be foreceful and persistent to get it. i do want to copy what someone else has done before so that i can see how it all fits together. beleive me, when i get my studio set up i will experiment. this is my research phase. you had one too.
juesContributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002
Feb 24, 2003 04:03 am *sigh*
For the last time, there are no presets.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 24, 2003 10:22 am Allow me to appologize if my affect was snoby. That was not the intent. You have simply exhausted my ability to help you. My experience in recording was not one of being able to expedite the process. My experience was that of listening, trying, being dissipointed, reading, talking, changing, trying, being a little less dissipointed. That has been my experience with music at all levels. Performing, recording, arranging, producing, ......
Namatsa' I hope I spelled that at least close!
Feb 24, 2003 03:25 pm I think that there are two levels of production or whatever that we're talking about here. Everybody wants their stuff to sound like a commercial CD; they want it to sound pro. You want the general EQ curve to be like a pro CD and you want everything to sound balanced. You need to follow some rules to get that kind of a quality sound. That's why we have tutorials on how to record guitar and vocals and how to EQ. Then there's the artistic level of it where you try to make things sound new and interesting. See where I'm coming from?
I totally agree with FortyMile's last post. I love when an album sounds real packaged and tight.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 24, 2003 05:43 pm OK,fortymile. We will take a step back to another post you made. Yes, FreeFilter is sounding like a good choice for you to start with. I have used it, mainly to check my own EQ settings, but it doees work great. What you will want to do is import a wave file of lets say just the guitar part of a band you want the curve from. It only takes a small piece for it to read it. Let FreeFilter do the work it was built to do. Now you can save the image it took of the EQ curve of said track, and your home free. I do see your point of wanting to get it done quickly. However, as Walt said. I have never had anything finish itself overnight. All my music has been long hours, sometimes frustrating long hours. But in the end, I was always happy with the outcome. And I am sure you will be too.
Good luck, and ask all the questions you need to.
Peace
Feb 24, 2003 06:33 pm yes. general EQ curve to be like a pro CD.
*bangs head against wall*
jues, come now. there are presets. i've had a few of my own. if you want to design a consistent album then you simply find one set of input sounds and, keeping them consistent, you EQ them in a way that makes them all fit together. and you use that scheme for your next 12 songs. that IS what im trying to do, whether you guys think its boring or not.
i have found mixing to be an incredibly frustrating endeavour, and one that i dont have the time right now to absorb to the degree that it deserves. it is certainly an art, but a very technical one. right now, all i care about is writing songs. and i want to avoid the frustration that comes from recording them in a bad mix. the best way to avoid that is to NOT experiment. just get a system and stuck to it. so that i can write.
Feb 24, 2003 06:56 pm OK here are some starting point and some good EQ rules to follow:
www.dbmasters.net/hrc/new...story&id=38
Those are basic frequencies I use a lot as a place to start. showing how to cut and boost various characteristics of various instruments.
Now everybody relax.
Feb 24, 2003 06:44 pm fortymile, here are links to a couple of threads in which jues gave some pretty good "starting points" for EQ settings. I know how you feel about wanting to get right to the point of making a good sounding record, but unfortunately it's not quite that simple. The info that jues gave will give you a place to base from, but you'll need to start learning and understanding the concepts behind them in order to get the most out of them. I think maybe a point that is trying to be made from everyone that is not coming through is that every single recording is going to have a different tonal signature. Even though you might record the same instruments in a series of songs, the chordings, keys, drum parts, etc., etc. will obviously vary. That variance seems minor in terms of creating consistency in a live situation. However, with a recording, those variances can have a dramatic effect. If you use the exact same EQ settings on guitar tracks in two different songs that have the same general style and were recorded using the same guitar, amp, etc., they will likely sound different. Understanding why they sound different will make it easier to make the necessary adjustments to get them sounding consistent.
Here are those links. Try the settings out and disect them as much as you can.
www.dbmasters.net/hrc/for...=1478&frm=1
www.dbmasters.net/hrc/for...=1367&frm=1
Feb 24, 2003 10:55 pm yes, i have seen these EQ settings from jues. though i have not yet tried them, they appear to be just what i was looking for. i am indebted. in fact, jues was replying to my own question in those posts. in this post here, i am just trying to rationalize my methodology.
i guess you guys would have to see where i'm at in my mixing ability to truly understand my predicament. every time i sit down there is something majorly wrong with the outcome of the distortion sound, and in the general spread of frequencies. i feel like i need a personal tutor.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 24, 2003 11:01 pm Well forty, you have about 500 tutors here. Of which not all reply, but the info you gleen from this site is from and for all. Well sortof in a round about way.
Feb 24, 2003 11:24 pm forty, you're not the only one who feels that way. I know exactly how frustrating it is when you hear something in your head or on another record and can't seem to reproduce it. If there was a quick fix, I would certainly hand it over to you. Well, maybe for a small fee! ;) Anyway, I think the best thing for you to do is probably to post some music for us to listen to and maybe give us some examples of the type of sound you're going for. We might be able to help you better if we can get a better frame of reference for where you're at and what you're trying to accomplish. Try those settings from jues and post a tune or two. We'll get you to where you want to be in due time.
Feb 25, 2003 01:56 am hey everyone, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't te end product the fortymile is going for a finished mastered CD?
i think it might be important to point out that some of the final EQing, compression etc, that makes the whole album of recordings flow together is the final mastering done to that whole slew of songs.
Agreed, Alice In Chain's "Dirt" is a masterpeice. The whole album has that same gritty but smooth dark red coloration throughtout, and while alot of this was recorded into each tack, alot was also smoothed out once all the tracks were stuck together in order and processsed one last time to create the CD you now own.
most of the techniques outlined by the pros are simply learned practices that save them the trouble of more work later. for instance, you could record a bassline flat without EQ and just go back and filter out the highend later, BUT if you went and recorded with a highpass filter killing all the low end, you'd never be able to quite get all of that lowend back into the mix. I know that's an extreme example, but it's atcually something I did once, hurrying on my way to band practice i accidentally applied the filter to the wrong track LOL! obviously i had to come back later and rerecord the bassline :O)
but personally, i realize i have tons to learn before i'm ready to produce that awesome album i dream about, so i'm sticing around here learning everything i can. people ask me, "why aren't you recording your own music?" and i have to explain to them that i've only been into this computer recording stuff for 2 and a half years, and I have ALOT to learn about audio engineering before i can ever think about jumping ahead and recording.
the way i can put it best is this: when i first bought this DAW system 2 and a half years ago, i bought it because i had the intentions of tracking my guitar and producing a CD. soon after i bought it a ran across a GREAT book called "Zen Guitar" by Philip Toshio Sudo, which is nothing about guitar, just zen from a guitarist's perspective, zen being the logical prgression of everything. I opened the book and looked through the table of contents thru the "white belt" section with "rhythm" and "technique" and down through the "black belt" section with "sound painting" and "tone" and then I saw it, all the way at the bottom of the Black Belt section, "Recording"... I knew at that point that the logical progression to my goals was a long and fruitful path of learning.
I'm still on that path, and I know I will be for a long time. Probably the rest of my life. I've been able to apply the ways of zen to everything in my life. It is logic and everything. Take your time as those who are patient will be rewarded.
Thanks for reading all of that :O) -j
Feb 26, 2003 03:23 pm thanks guys...
sorry for getting bent out of shape before. ive been lashing out at everyone, sometimes for no reason, lately.
Feb 26, 2003 05:10 pm Around here we usually have a habit of looking beyond the immediate question and look at a bigger picture. Usually that is a good thing, sometimes it steps on toes and pisses people off...
