The Song Fight Bulletin Board

deshead wrote:A screen shot might help too, for the "digitally lengthen or compress" bit.

Anyone that knows me personally knows that I came into the "Rock" world from the "Techno" world, so I'm still using the software that I'm comfortable with. It's a primarily-techno-oriented production environment called "Renoise". It's very capable software but I wouldn't recommend it to most people because, not only is it pretty scary looking if you don't know what you're looking at, it requires a lot of down-close interaction with the actual waveform - which people tell me is too "tedious" for them, because there is a lot of manual interaction with the waveform during production (which is the reason I give for loving it so much). <a href="http://www.renoise.com/" target="_blank">www.renoise.com</a>.

Anyway, Renoise gives me the ability to take a section of a waveform and loop it between 2 points which I can select. The waveform for an individual string on an overdriven electric guitar doesn't really change a whole lot as it rings out, so I just set up the waveform so that it loops between peaks. For a lead guitar line which is this fast it ends up sounding a lot better as that demo shows.



That's what the waveform to an individual overdriven string looks like, and I can loop between those red lines and you can't really hear it. For longer, slower, more drawn out lead guitar lines though, I don't really do any "Individual String Chopping" stuff.

Ah Southwest Sauce, you miss my point. Your methods are what ever you want them to be, as is your right, however, if you put all your chops into technology, at the end you will be a superb technician.

I'm referring to putting time into musician chops, for obvious reasons. It's all well and good to use technology to achieve a vision, and certainly all entertainment mediums seem to have benefitted, but you will NEVER be able to do that live. This is much more important to me than cutandpaste corrections to a track. My habit is to play a part 100 times if need be. Sure, I could play with the toys , and occasionally I've edited this or that, and I certainly use compression, and volume mixing, etc.
I get a lot of personal satisfaction from the fact that every track I record is a "take", mistakes and all. A captured performance. Clearly, there are many types and styles blah blah. I personally don't care. I will always value a performance over an edit.

So, option three isn't about explaining in greater detail your process, it's about trying to get it right in the first place so you don't have to do shit like that.

damn leaf, that was pretty coherant, in addition to being right on.

Your stuff DOES sound great. I definitely give you that. In your tutorial, you aren't talking so much about moving things in time,as you are processing. I thought the converstation here was about timebased editing of "mistakes" as opposed to effect processing?

Also, it seems to be a common opinion that listeners feel cheated when watching a band live that can not reasonably reproduce the sound of their recorded tracks, and conversly, the energy and presence of a live performance... this is something I am occasionally sensitive to.

You certainly have great production skills....

jack shite wrote:damn leaf, that was pretty coherant, in addition to being right on.

How unusual eh? ...the coherent part I meant...

Leaf wrote:I will always value a performance over an edit.

With the right light show, I'd pay to watch Southwest_Statistic perform his edits. Oh, and go-go dancers. There'd have to be go-go dancers too.

Leaf wrote:Also, it seems to be a common opinion that listeners feel cheated when watching a band live that can not reasonably reproduce the sound of their recorded tracks

Amen to that: http://www.petitiononline.com/StopAsh/petition.html

Leaf wrote:Ah Southwest Sauce, you miss my point. Your methods are what ever you want them to be, as is your right, however, if you put all your chops into technology, at the end you will be a superb technician.

I'm referring to putting time into musician chops, for obvious reasons. It's all well and good to use technology to achieve a vision, and certainly all entertainment mediums seem to have benefitted, but you will NEVER be able to do that live. This is much more important to me than cutandpaste corrections to a track. My habit is to play a part 100 times if need be. Sure, I could play with the toys , and occasionally I've edited this or that, and I certainly use compression, and volume mixing, etc.
I get a lot of personal satisfaction from the fact that every track I record is a "take", mistakes and all. A captured performance. Clearly, there are many types and styles blah blah. I personally don't care. I will always value a performance over an edit.

So, option three isn't about explaining in greater detail your process, it's about trying to get it right in the first place so you don't have to do shit like that.

It's also good to point out that recording everything live (and accepting your mistakes) is endlessly *easier* then editing it to perfection. Editing is not a 'cheat' for me, but another step. Attaining audio perfection is really hard. However, the editing step comes "after" spending hours and hours writing the song and learning how to play the guitar parts perfectly. I do plan to perform my songs live and I am unwilling to record anything that I would never be able to duplicate on stage.

I do respect your artistic standpoint, but at the same time remember that Live recordings are no longer competitive. Your $14.95 CD has to sound just as good as everybody else's $14.95 CD, or you aren't going to sell your CD because your band isn't as "Talented" from the public perspective. What sent me down the audio processing road in the first place was trying to get my friends to like the music I made and stop calling it crap because of production quality.

Leaf wrote:Your stuff DOES sound great. I definitely give you that. In your tutorial, you aren't talking so much about moving things in time,as you are processing. I thought the converstation here was about timebased editing of "mistakes" as opposed to effect processing?

Also, it seems to be a common opinion that listeners feel cheated when watching a band live that can not reasonably reproduce the sound of their recorded tracks, and conversly, the energy and presence of a live performance... this is something I am occasionally sensitive to.

You certainly have great production skills....

Even though I didn't say it in the tutorial, next time that section of the song comes around I'm going to re-use what I've already processed. Not re-process everything to perfection all over again.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:Modern recordings just sound better.

This is a point of view I can not appreciate.

Do you think it sounds better or we've just gotten use to listening to music that's put down to a lesser medium in terms of fidelity? Sounds better how? Cuz the average kid listening to Linkin Park listens to their pirated music from Kazaa on their shitty computer speakers from an mp3?! Come on, there is magic in magnetism or else big studios would all be completely digital which they are not. Nothing, NOTHING beats BED tracks recorded on Two Inch. Nothing beats tape compression, and from my opinion algorithms digitally haven't been able to reproduce that sound yet. Too complex. Sure the digital medium is getting closer with various algorithms cum plug-ins but I'm not so narrow-minded to believe that digital equals analog tape. That's like comparing records to cassettes. No fuckin' comparison.

Tapes sounded way shittier yet the record companies pawned them off as a better medium. CDs when they first came out were pawned off in the same way but they still can not equal the dynamic range of a good record on a good player played through an awesome amplifier through good speakers. Grab yourself an executive stereo magazine and you'll see it's come full circle for audiophiles. Record players worth 30,000 dollars that beat CDs and DVDs all to hell. I'm a purist. I've heard the difference and the only difference is cost. Cuz if they were cheaper than a computer and A to D converters I'd own a two inch with a nice Nieve console any day. Preferably MCI or *drool* a Studer A80. This is the same feeling I have about film versus video. Albeit you can transfer and get it close, there is a WARMTH or NOISE induced in recording something that uses mother nature to create. I like noise...... makes me feel real and not so cold like from what I hear from so much music these days.

For that matter though, I've always kind of felt like the "Warmth" and "Authenticity" people talk about when it comes to Analog recordings is just another word for "Imperfection".

That is one of the narrowest opinions I think I've ever heard. Listening to an old Tom Wait's record or an old Beatles' record on a good sytem is way, WAY more perfect than most shit I've heard produced for CD in the last two decades. Not disputing that the quality is getting better and editing is easier and helps it, but people still cut vinyl, and record with tape. If you check out most big bands, most CDs BED tracks are recorded on two inch then transferred digitally. Hell there are people who still believe mastering to 1/4". All the power to them cuz I'm jealous that there are people out there that can have the ability to record to tape. And I'm not talking 4-track shit. Computers haven't won yet. Yet!

Pablo

Southwest_Statistic wrote:Live recordings are no longer competitive.

I wasn't aware they even still made any.

Anyway, SteakSauce, your whole arguement is the same kind of turd smoke and ball polish that has completeley bled all life out of popular music.

I'll take a band over...over.....whatever shit you're talking about ANY day.

"audio perfection."

[furhtermore, tonetripper: the sincerity & voracity of your argument is neato, as well as, uh, tape-want-inspiry.)

Leaf wrote:I'm referring to putting time into musician chops, for obvious reasons. It's all well and good to use technology to achieve a vision, and certainly all entertainment mediums seem to have benefitted, but you will NEVER be able to do that live. This is much more important to me than cutandpaste corrections to a track.

If Radiohead had this mindset, they'd still be banging out grunge tunes for screaming teenagers.

Part of the appeal of the recording world is the idea that you can polish a song if that's what it needs. You can do things that aren't possible live, and in the right hands, it's a damn good thing. I'm guessing SwStatic's songs aren't meant to be strummed in a coffeehouse. Production chops are as much a part of his genre as any instrument. No, it doesn't always translate into songs that are meant to be played live, but it makes for a great listening experience at home.

I dunno y'all, I'm pretty sure I've never in my life been able to afford a record player that sounded a tenth as good as my $400 CD player/stereo system. Or my walkman/$100 headphones.

I remember when CDs first came out, hearing one on a small boombox at radioshack and going "holy crap". (It was the Beach Boys.) I'd never been able to hear that kind of fidelity before, because I'd never had equipment that could reproduce it.

So yeah, in an idea situation we'd have analog equipment that would beat digital equipment. But it's not an ideal world, and my digital equipment allows me to do more and hear more than the equivalent dollar-amount in analog equipment EVER would.

Digital will get more and more information added to its stream. 96khz 24bit isn't the end. We're already moving ahead, with those super CDs or albums on DVD etc etc. More and more data will go onto the CD, and you lovers of "warmth" will still gripe because older is always better for some people. :-)

On that video with Albini, his complaint isn't that analog tape sounds better than digital (at least, not that he said in that speech) but rather that analog tape and records have more archival longevity than CDs because once the technology to read a digital medium is obsolete, it becomes impossible to read that media. Somewhere there is a research team working on a gadget that will be able to read digital media without knowing the codec in advance.

jb wrote:I dunno y'all, I'm pretty sure I've never in my life been able to afford a record player that sounded a tenth as good as my $400 CD player/stereo system. Or my walkman/$100 headphones.

I'll second that. I never understood the love affair with vinyl. And yes, I have a friend who has the multi-thousand dollar turntable and hard-core hifi setup. It still lacks the punch and bass response that a good digital setup gives.

jb wrote:Digital will get more and more information added to its stream. 96khz 24bit isn't the end. We're already moving ahead, with those super CDs or albums on DVD etc etc. More and more data will go onto the CD, and you lovers of "warmth" will still gripe because older is always better for some people.

In theory, I don't think that'll do much. 44.1khz already produces signals higher than our ears can hear. I've heard some techies talking about being able to subconsciously perceive higher frequencies, but I doubt it's significant. The jump from 16-24 bit is a pretty nice jump, but even that's barely audible. Better digital equipment will get closer to that "crystal clear" goal, but from what I can tell, it'll make things even less "warm". It's the imperfections in analog that give it warmth. It's just not worth the tradeoff for me. Give me a good warmer plugin for those rare times I want it, and I'm happy.

jb wrote:I remember when CDs first came out, hearing one on a small boombox at radioshack and going "holy crap". (It was the Beach Boys.) I'd never been able to hear that kind of fidelity before, because I'd never had equipment that could reproduce it.

If only the Beach Boys had recorded digitally, so their stuff could be properly enjoyed.

to me, digital recording vs. analog recording is not that far removed from the digital vs. film argument in photography today. and ultimately, whichever method of data capture offers the best option to capture continuous tone, whether that "tone" is audio or still images, will ultimately produce the most faithful reproduction. digitizing quantifies things into ones and zeros. tape and film does not.

jack shite wrote:to me, digital recording vs. analog recording is not that far removed from the digital vs. film argument in photography today. and ultimately, whichever method of data capture offers the best option to capture continuous tone, whether that "tone" is audio or still images, will ultimately produce the most faithful reproduction. digitizing quantifies things into ones and zeros. tape and film does not.

Right, and tape adds noise, wow, flutter, cross-track bleed, and distortion to the signal. Neither is perfect, both have uses. Beach Boys should use analog. Radiohead should use digital.

well, as a guitarist, i'd never buy anything but a tube amp. there's a reason why the mesa boogies and the fender twin reverbs sit in the front of guitar center (and cost so much). everyone wants one. there's a reason all those PODs EMULATE analog amps and cabs, analog stomp box modulation, etc. it's pure tone. not replicated.

digital has made recording available to the masses and the dummies. which will only serve to increase the noise to signal ratio. present company included.

joshw wrote:Neither is perfect, both have uses.

aaaaaaaaaaaaand scene

joshw wrote:If Radiohead had this mindset, they'd still be banging out grunge tunes for screaming teenagers.

Radiohead doesn't use real tubes anymore. All digital emulation.

Edward O'Brien - Radiohead (Guitarist)

Equipment Description and Setup:
GUITARS:
90's Fender Stratocaster
90's Fender Telecaster
'67 Gibson ES-355
90's Rickenbacker 330 (6-string)
90's Rickenbacker 360 (12-string)
"The Plank" - a handmade guitar from his tech
PEDALS/EFFECTS:
Digitech Whammy
Digitech Whammy II
Lovetone Meatball
Lovetone Big Cheese
Lovetone Doppelganger*
Lovetone Ring Stinger*
Lovetone Wobulator*
Morley Bad Horsie Wah
MXR Phase 90
MXR Micro Amp
Electro-Harmonix Small Stone
Electro-Harmonix Electric Mistress*
Dunlop Stereo Tremolo
Boss DD-5 Digital Delay
Boss RV-3 Reverb/Delay
Boss PN-2 Tremolo Pan
Boss CE-1 Chorus
Boss TU-12H Tuner
Boss PSM-5 Power Supply/Master Switch
Boss Volume
E-bow
Akai E1 Headrush Tape Echo Delay
Companion Distortion
Roland Space Echo
Marshall Shredmaster
Boss Delay (3 - half rack)
AMS Digital Delay
Line 6 DL-4 Delay Modular

GUITAR AMPS:
Mesa-Boogie Tremoverb
Vox AC-30

jack shite wrote:Edward O'Brien - Radiohead (Guitarist)

Equipment Description and Setup:
All that great stuff

Overkill.

What's overkill about liking lots of different brands of equipment?

Hoblit wrote:

jack shite wrote:Edward O'Brien - Radiohead (Guitarist)

Equipment Description and Setup:
All that great stuff

Overkill.

hahahaha. instead of going for emulation in a box, he goes to the source.