Building a studio computer

[nickbatzdorf]

Nope. That would definitely not even the score! Well, Craig Anderton is now at EQ, so (assuming they give him enough free reign) it's going to become a good magazine.But the analogy also breaks down in that I use Nick P.'s stuff all the time (along with other libs, of course). We actually have an interview with him in our next issue (shipping in a few days) as part of our MIDI Mockup Microscope series - "how did you do such and such" Q&As.

[aubreyz]

Quote:Nope. That would definitely not even the score! Well, Craig Anderton is now at EQ, so (assuming they give him enough free reign) it's going to become a good magazine.But the analogy also breaks down in that I use Nick P.'s stuff all the time (along with other libs, of course). We actually have an interview with him in our next issue (shipping in a few days) as part of our MIDI Mockup Microscope series - "how did you do such and such" Q&As.I think I’ll quit posting after this before I insert both feet and a few other appendages. Funny how screwed up you can get sometimes. I use quite a lot of Nick P’s stuff too. VOTA and RI the most. It’s been a couple of years since I was seriously keeping up with sample libraries and such. We ended up going with VSL and not EWQL. The final palette of sounds and plugs we purchased has met my needs quite nicely, and I just haven’t kept up with any of the forums and such. Only recently have I gotten a bit bored with the selection I have. Time to find the budget for some new toys.I started stopping by here because of a little personal project I’m working on. Your name was familiar to me because of the mags and other forums, but I didn’t actually read the bio/intro and thought “oh yeah, he’s that Nick guy that does all the samples”. Sorry for the mixup. But, I’m pretty bad with names anyway. I have six kids and usually have to go down the list before I get the right name. Lucky for me I do have a driver’s license for quick reference for my own moniker. btw- I'll look forward to the new issue. Ought to be an interesting interview.

[matto]

Quote:Quote:Nomi,4 out of 5 dentists surveyed can't really tell a difference, so I wouldn't worry about it. You just posted a couple different times saying you can hear the difference.Nomi,1-I don't think Aubrey is a dentist 2-Why don't you do a few test recordings on your system? If YOU can't hear a difference on your OWN voice, chances are excellent neither will your target audience, whoever they may be. If on the other hand you hear a noticeable difference, then use 96k for critical recordings/tracks.

[nomiyah]

Quote:Nomi,1-I don't think Aubrey is a dentist 2-Why don't you do a few test recordings on your system? If YOU can't hear a difference on your OWN voice, chances are excellent neither will your target audience, whoever they may be. If on the other hand you hear a noticeable difference, then use 96k for critical recordings/tracks.Using my own ears alone hasn't gotten me far enough. The most common critique I get is my sound quality is not high enough. With all my focus on lyrics and melody, learning how to hear sound quality is new to me. Hey, I started out bouncing tracks on a dual cassette deck and I thought it sounded great!Anyway, I know detailed discussion on minor subjects like sample rates are bound to encourage people to say it's all about the song, Sgt Pepper's was done bouncing 8-tracks and such pithy concepts. But the problem is, there are such sophisticated sounds available in this century that something underpar won't hold up, even if it is a good song.

[nickbatzdorf]

Hey Aubrey, I'm just bustin' your chops. Please don't apologize!"We ended up going with VSL and not EWQL"I use both, and Sonic Implants (now Sonivox) and some custom stuff. Each one complements the others.

[matto]

Quote:Quote:Nomi,1-I don't think Aubrey is a dentist 2-Why don't you do a few test recordings on your system? If YOU can't hear a difference on your OWN voice, chances are excellent neither will your target audience, whoever they may be. If on the other hand you hear a noticeable difference, then use 96k for critical recordings/tracks.Using my own ears alone hasn't gotten me far enough. The most common critique I get is my sound quality is not high enough. With all my focus on lyrics and melody, learning how to hear sound quality is new to me.Oh okay. Well I can guarantee you if somebody (like a Taxi screener?) complains about "sound quality not being high enough" it has nothing to do with 44.1 vs 96, not even 16 vs 24 bits. So don't sweat that stuff. It's about making clean recordings, using realistic sounding samples (and tweaking them to get the most believable sound out of them), and making a crisp, well balanced mix. In a sense it's about training your ears to learn to hear what "good sound quality" is, so you'll be able trust them to make the right decisions.

[edteja]

One of the strange things that can happen is that songs done at different times, and different ways, wind up on one critique. I had a reviewer tell me he thought I should have more realistic samples, and suggested I check out the particular program that one of them actually used. The complication was that there were three songs in the submission-- one with that did use the samples the screener suggested (although the screener didn't care for a 15 sec string bit in that tune I happened to think was clever--note to self; delete anything clever) and one done live (no samples) and one with smart synth. On the last one, I didn't think the fact that the realism of the instruments made a lot of difference, given the listing, but the reviewer did. Fair enough. The screener knows much I don't. But I am left HOPING, that the samples he/she referred to as not good enough, were the same ones I knew were kinda, well, bogus and that the others were okay. Anyway, now I submit them individually and maybe the critiques will relate to the individual song. And the critique ended in the middle of a sentence, so maybe there is more to know. Quien sabe?

[nomiyah]

Ed, Submitting more than one song at a time doesn't work very well for me either. Combined critiques seem to deal with overall impressions, rather than each song getting a complete commentary. And like you said can be confusing.Matt, I'll take your word for it. Nick, I was visiting your site (again) and noticed that your first issue came out a year ago. So... Happy birthday.

[davewalton]

Quote:Using my own ears alone hasn't gotten me far enough. The most common critique I get is my sound quality is not high enough. With all my focus on lyrics and melody, learning how to hear sound quality is new to me. That's kind of funny to me because as an instrumentalist (that can't sing) I only ever paid attention to the backing track and never much to lyrics or melody (still don't really). OK, so vocals aside and assuming that you're able to record at a standard 24-bit or 16-bit, 44.1kHz (keep it simple), the biggest factor is going to be the quality of your samples. Sample quality is a budget issue not a musical issue really, but it can really interfere the the listeners perception of a song. I'll pick on "Time It Takes" for a minute. Within that song there are two very different qualities of samples and/or instruments. The strings and piano/harpsichord are such that they would never really sound very good no matter how or where they were recorded. It's just the quality of the samples. On the other hand, the bass has a very good sound I think. Actually I noticed that on other songs as well. Of course what most people are listening to in terms of the backing track are the main instruments, the strings and piano/harpsichord. Since those are weak, it brings down everything else.Part of the problem with correcting the samples issue is that there are SO many software instruments and loops out there it's almost overwhelming. After coming into the 21st century almost straight from the analog 70's I really had a difficult time. I wound up initially buying one of the "all-in-one" packages called Reason (www.propellerheads.se). Since then Cakewalk has published an "all-in-one" package called Project 5. Basically these are self-contained packages that include the sequencer, synths, drum machines, loop players, and sample players. Both are pretty affordable considering that they're an entire studio-in-a-box (around $300 I think) and in and of themselves, they pretty much eliminate the sample quality issue so that you're just left with the issue of writing music. I'm keeping the issue of recording vocals separate. I'm just dealing with what I sort of know, the backing instruments.Anyway, I'm just rambling. Just wanted to say that personally I think the issues you're dealing with are budget issues and not music issues. Might be time to think about a little additional shopping.Keep the faith, Dave

[nomiyah]

Dave,Actually, upgrading my studio was the beginning of this thread so you're right on target. When I did my last upgrade over 5 years ago, the Trinity was top of the line. I did my last CD using Trinity sounds and MPC drums using various sample libraries.The basslines were also done on the Trinity but I multitracked them, layering 3 or 4 bass sounds together to make them heavier. Plus the guy that mixed it is urban bass-oriented.I am also an instrumentalist but find that my problem (as well as my asset) is my imagination. For example, on Time It Takes, I imagine a full live string orchestra, a large live chorus, and a band as well. The finished product is not like my imagination and I'm learning to be more objective while producing.To be able to use what is now state of the art sounds, I needed to upgrade my system. I'm starting out with the included sounds on Pro Tools but will soon branch out to build my library. The next CD should sound much better. Thanks for the comments.Nomi