TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Does more oscillators = better sound? *sample included*
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

You and me have the same exact ability and freedom to do with the sound as we want. With one less click I can opt to not freeze the mixer, then I can edit any effect I want. So in 1 Click I get what you get, and in two clicks I get what I get :P You don't have to freeze the mixer, you can just freeze the synth. Though all that is pointless because you can't add effects to a wav anyways..go add delay or reverb to a .wav and tell me what happens :P All you can do to a .wav in terms of effects is slap a compressor or maby phaser on it, and do mastering work. WTF what are we still arguing about? lol

Seriously, mine is bigger than yours.

4 Clicks?!?!

I agree with Subtle. I used to freeze a long long time ago, but it got frustrating that I had to keep unfreezing and re-freezing just to make some tiny change. Now I always bounce.

Actually, that's only half of what I do. I also plugged an ADAT loopback cable into my 828, in order to actually "record" software instruments like hardware in real-time. It's great for those pain-in-the-ass patches with floating un-sync'ed LFOs that seem to sound subtly different on every replay/re-render/re-freeze. I can also use it to record multiple takes of the same instrument, then mix them together for a fatter sound. Although keep in mind this only works with floating oscillators; if the audio is identical on every take then it would just be making it louder.

Either way, it tends to be more convenient than freezing, because you can work with small sections at once without having to throw away the ones you've already done. And also because I love to mess around with the audio itself, treat it like a sample and stutter/distort/whatever it.

And uh who says you can't add effects to a wave track? It's exactly the same as adding effects to a VST instrument track. Man, this crono guy is fucking retarded.

Freeze and Unfreeze to make a tiny change..Do you even fucking make music? You have to do the same if you render the synth files as wav. You can't change the cutoff or do any of those "small changes". And if your too stupid to realize you don't have to freeze the mixer its no wonder.

Besides all that, hitting the freeze button and rendering to wav is the exact same fucking thing. Hitting the freeze button once, and it renders just the synth notes as wav. Everything else can be modified.

Diginut you arn't even a musician or producer, so why are you talking? Get the fuck out. You don't even know how wav file works.

As for the LFO problems, don't use shitty synths and you won't have that problem.

Edit: Diginut, I should have read your profile sooner

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Do you even fucking make music?

Um... yes? Lol, almost everybody on this forum knows that I do, you have no idea how much of an ass of yourself you just made.

quote:

You have to do the same if you render the synth files as wav.

Apparently you haven't figured out yet that it's possible to only render a few seconds, and not the whole track?

quote:

Diginut you arn't even a musician or producer, so why are you talking? Get the fuck out. You don't even know how wav file works.

Again, lol, I've been a musician for some 20 years and a producer for about 5. Good hustle though!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Actually, that's only half of what I do. I also plugged an ADAT loopback cable into my 828, in order to actually "record" software instruments like hardware in real-time. It's great for those pain-in-the-ass patches with floating un-sync'ed LFOs that seem to sound subtly different on every replay/re-render/re-freeze. I can also use it to record multiple takes of the same instrument, then mix them together for a fatter sound. Although keep in mind this only works with floating oscillators; if the audio is identical on every take then it would just be making it louder.

That is very sweet, the ability to record VST instruments directly on a channel is one of the few beefs i have with the program. (together with VST automation showing up in an own folder and native sidechain support)
Newer versions support this so

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Besides all that, hitting the freeze button and rendering to wav is the exact same fucking thing. Hitting the freeze button once, and it renders just the synth notes as wav. Everything else can be modified.

Thats the thing, you cant modify anything.. you cant even move the freezed file or do an volume curve or EQ it or add any effects to it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Apparently you haven't figured out yet that it's possible to only render a few seconds, and not the whole track?

Yeah that is the essence of it, you can just render the bits you need and just duplicate them.

Ok, so you having problems with the delay ? Just render 24 bars of an 8 bar sequence, keep the first 8 bars and then duplicate the middle 8 bars of the 24 bars and the delay with be exactly on time.

Even if its 1 bar, you put a wav and put delay or reverb or something on it, the delay and reverb doesn't act on each note, it acts on the start of the wav, a wav is just one sound and a synth is not. It sounds like shit. Because the delay or reverb isn't applied to each note in the wav its applied to the wav as if it were a one shot. Its like stacking the .wav on top of itself a whole bunch of times,...gets pretty loud too.

And no, when you freeze a track you can do ANY of that stuff you mentioned. Why would you need to move it? If your in cubase [well, for me] the composition of the track is already done. Arrangement and all. You are [well, I am] just applying sounds to midi tracks. After one sound is done, and you have automation for it, there is no need to change anything for it. Unless your mixing, and again, if you don't freeze the mixer, you can do any mixing stuff. Guess its different for everyone...

But yes, the freezing stuff, the mixer is totally free, and you can do anything you want with it. You can change the EQ the sends the effects and all, you can't change the vsti parameters and the events...

I don't usually do loops [too limiting] so I can't really afford to just "render a piece" If the lead has 10 variations, that is 10 loops you have to render. Not counting the variations in pads bass and everything else that accompany the lead.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does more oscillators = better sound? *sample included*

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Hmmm. Never heard of panning the kicks and can't understand why you would. At least in EDM, the kick really should be down the middle so panning the sub (which if anywhere, should be down the middle itself) just seems like a great way to fuck your element separation and have a imbalanced mix? "Left with your bass?" Am I missing something? Again down the middle, or in some case panned totally to the sides for that effect, but to one side? especially not by 80%. Maybe if you're panning real drums to emulate the kit, you might pan the elements to give you either drummers perspective or control room perspective but even then the kick is down the middle and the bass would be there too. I'm just curious, why do you do this?

The majority of the time I keep my kick in the center and I do widen the bass stereo field, but lately I've been trying different things like widening the kicks stereo and keeping the bass in the middle.

And with this project I used one of my quick templates where the setup is how I describe before. I made the template just to experiment where I'll pan the his/subs from the bass and kick to opposite sides so say from my left stereo I get kick sub frequencies/bass hi frequencies and right stereo I get kick hi frequencies/bass sub frequencies. It actually creates a weird blending where the bass and kick seem to be a part of each other rather than seperate and defined.
I know your not suppose to do shit like that but I do occasionally do things noone would ever consider doing, like widening a kicks stereo field and centering the basses. It just sounds different but not really bad like you'd expect.

Ive been listening to hardstyle all day, the kick and bass are virtually the same thing. And they hit only on the same notes. Trance is only a tiny section of EDM

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Even if its 1 bar, you put a wav and put delay or reverb or something on it, the delay and reverb doesn't act on each note, it acts on the start of the wav, a wav is just one sound and a synth is not. It sounds like shit. Because the delay or reverb isn't applied to each note in the wav its applied to the wav as if it were a one shot. Its like stacking the .wav on top of itself a whole bunch of times,...gets pretty loud too.

Just shut up. You obviously have no fucking clue how a sequencer works and I'm starting to wonder if it's actually you that hasn't really produced anything. You sound like someone who just got into this last week and are trying to convince people that you're a grizzled vet.

The output of a VST instrument is identical to the output of a recording of that instrument. All that comes out of that instrument is a waveform. Delay and reverb don't "act on each note" for a wave track, but they don't do it on a VST track either. That whole concept makes no sense. There's no note or timing information embedded in the output of a VST; that is part of the MIDI data being fed into the VST, and there's no such thing as MIDI reverb. There is, technically, a MIDI "echo", but I've never heard of anyone actually using it.

Just go away. Please, for the love of god, RTFM and don't come back until you've read the whole thing.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Even if its 1 bar, you put a wav and put delay or reverb or something on it, the delay and reverb doesn't act on each note, it acts on the start of the wav, a wav is just one sound and a synth is not. It sounds like shit. Because the delay or reverb isn't applied to each note in the wav its applied to the wav as if it were a one shot. Its like stacking the .wav on top of itself a whole bunch of times,...gets pretty loud too.

Ive done this houndreds of times.

Now here is a picture of what im talking about

PICTURE

And here is a sample of the picture.
If you listen you will notice that the delays are spot on, even though it is looped.

SAMPLE

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Just shut up. You obviously have no fucking clue how a sequencer works and I'm starting to wonder if it's actually you that hasn't really produced anything. You sound like someone who just got into this last week and are trying to convince people that you're a grizzled vet. The output of a VST instrument is identical to the output of a recording of that instrument. All that comes out of that instrument is a waveform. Delay and reverb don't "act on each note" for a wave track, but they don't do it on a VST track either. That whole concept makes no sense. There's no note or timing information embedded in the output of a VST; that is part of the MIDI data being fed into the VST, and there's no such thing as MIDI reverb. There is, technically, a MIDI "echo", but I've never heard of anyone actually using it. Just go away. Please, for the love of god, RTFM and don't come back until you've read the whole thing.

And you sound like a guy that thinks he is the shit because he was right about 1 thing in a discussion on the internet. So What, Biff? What does that have to do with whether or not freeze is useful or not.

Who said anything about Midi Reverb? [and why the fuck does it always say i misspelled reverb?]

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Ive done this houndreds of times. Now here is a picture of what im talking about PICTURE And here is a sample of the picture. If you listen you will notice that the delays are spot on, even though it is looped. SAMPLE

This has not been my experience with using reverb or delay on a wav file. I always get shuffled garbled crap. I guess it could be some other cause, I wouldn't know as I don't use wavs really [untill Cubase] But that doesn't change the fact that rendering a wav file, creating a new audio track and new mixer channel, is not different than freezing a track and plus you still have the cpu load from the vsti and the FX, which is the point of using wavs in the first place.

Isn't it amazing how some people manage to turn a joke into an argument?

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir This has not been my experience with using reverb or delay on a wav file. I always get shuffled garbled crap. I guess it could be some other cause, I wouldn't know as I don't use wavs really [untill Cubase] But that doesn't change the fact that rendering a wav file, creating a new audio track and new mixer channel, is not different than freezing a track and plus you still have the cpu load from the vsti and the FX, which is the point of using wavs in the first place.

No, this is not applied delay ON the WAV.
It just shows how you can render smaller bits of audio and still keep the delay etc. correct, and save time and effort instead of freezing or rendering whole tracks.

I dont have a problem with CPU, I do it because i like to work with WAVS, and i use a couple of outboard synths.
Working with WAV files in Cubase is extremely easy and convenient. (unless they are frozen and cant be altered)

Where are you getting the idea you can't alter a frozen track...you can't move it in the event windows...that's it. Do you really need to always move stuff around? If I freeze a track and load an audio file next to it, I can do exactly the same thing on each, minus moving the frozen one in the events window. But as I said, by the time I get to cubase, the arrangement is done. So its not relevant to me, I guess in your case using wavs would be better, until you want to modify the vsti of course, then you must do that whole render process again.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir What does that have to do with whether or not freeze is useful or not.

It's completely irrelevant, but I wasn't the one who brought it up. You were the one whinging about how a full bounce wasn't as good for reasons which I have recently shown made no sense.

Freezing is literally exactly the same as bouncing, with only three important differences:

1. Bouncing requires a separate audio track.
2. Freezing saves a little disk space by not bouncing silent parts.
3. Freezing operates on the entire length of a track; bouncing can be done and re-done for any part of it.

There just isn't much reason to use the freeze function. I would only ever use it if I was absolutely 100% sure that I was never ever going to make any changes to either the instrument itself or the notes/automation being fed into it, and I'm never certain of that until the track is done.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir by the time I get to cubase, the arrangement is done.

Riiiight... so where are you doing the arrangement, and why even bother with Cubase if it's already done? I suspect you're using a very unusual and possibly incomprehensible definition of "arrangement".

Accept, On my 2.0GHZ AMD, my lead alone uses 150% of my CPU. That is good enough reason to freeze my channels.

Its not possible for me to play the whole track in Cubase, and bouncing audio is a bit more than "an extra channel" its a whole world of importing exporting and playing wav jocky. It doesn't really take that long to freeze a channel.

My arrangement is the whole song done in Midi format. I actually compose a musical piece before I fancy it up in Cubase or FL, and I [now] prefer cubas because of the way it works with sections and such, and because of the freeze function.

Here is a finished song example: http://www.mediafire.com/?fg34wgyy2no

It sounds poopy in midi of course, which is why i would load it in cubase and add vsti and such to the channels. I would use FL for writing the song, but a proper notation program will be a bit better once i freshen up on my sheet music.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Accept, On my 2.0GHZ AMD, my lead alone uses 150% of my CPU. That is good enough reason to freeze my channels.

I had the same CPU before, and yeah it can be a struggle.
First of all you should set your latency to 1024 samples, or more. That will give you some room to work at least.
I think we have made it clear why freeze is not the ultimate way for a good workflow or whatever, so if you wanna use the tips are up to you really.

Any dual core CPU would have made your life easier, but im guessing you are on the 939/754 socket, which is completely dead by now.

Doing it your way would take longer for me. That's why I use freeze.

I have it set to 2048 samples, but it still kills the playback..and Cubase becomes unresponsive and even crashes. So I try to keep CPU usage at like 70% or below. Its crashed 3-4 times in the last two days.

FLStudio hasn't crashed in 6 years...that's one plus. :P But I will still likely never go back. FLStudio is a pain in the ass to produce on, all this loop based stuff is a big no-no.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir Doing it your way would take longer for me. That's why I use freeze. I have it set to 2048 samples, but it still kills the playback..and Cubase becomes unresponsive and even crashes. So I try to keep CPU usage at like 70% or below. Its crashed 3-4 times in the last two days. FLStudio hasn't crashed in 6 years...that's one plus. :P But I will still likely never go back. FLStudio is a pain in the ass to produce on, all this loop based stuff is a big no-no.

Who was the one saying those who have software doesnt need hardware ?

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Who was the one saying those who have software doesnt need hardware ?

LOL, as a long time Cubase user, I have to shed my light on this discussion.

First of all, Crono, you are PM-ing me with all these questions about Cubase (which I don't mind because I told you you can do that), but you are pretty much making an ass out of yourself here going into an indepth discussion over a program you barely know.

First of all, the freeze function in Cubase reaaaally sucks alot. When you freeze a track, there's nothing you can do with it. Saying you don't have to move it inside a track is crap, everybody changes there arrangement all the time, so you have to unfreeze it anytime you want to do something with it.

Working with wav files is much easier, it almost gives you all the freedom you need. You can drag it accros the sequencer, and yes you can put effects on them. You can even use a cut-off by easily aplying a filter on the channel and automate it. I work a lot with wav files, I have some external hardware which I record into cubase and apply effects after that it's really easy to do.

And Crono, if your leads taking up 70% of your CPU, you have to figure out if there's an easier way to do it. Freezing VSTi's still takes up some CPU (although they say it won't, I know it does). If you have a pretty fast harddrive, wav files take less CPU than freezing. It's really a myth that you need to stack a lot of synths together to get this great lead. 1 synth can do that as well, just know how to use it. I almost never layer synths for my leads, and if I do, it'll be a maximum of 2. The more synths you use, the more you got to EQ to let them sit right in your mix, so the less space is there for other sounds to cut through.

Also, I noticed you are producing hardstyle, and you are really fond of the Z3ta+ (which I understand ). But do bare in mind that the Z3ta+ is a huge CPU hog, so maybe you should try another synth that eats less CPU. You can try to use the Vanguard, it is great for those hardstyle sounds, yes it can eat a lot of CPU as well, but just pull down the voices of the synth, the more voices, the more CPU.

To conclude, the freezing function in Cubase SUCKS BIGTIME!

Then I guess I like using sucky features. From experience, using freeze mode does what I need better than spending an hour swapping wavs and stuff. And no, I don't change the arrangement. Ive been dealing with DAWs and production since 2000 I'm able to tell what tools and methods benefit me more than others, as far as using wav files, that is a very last resort.

Lets say I do it the wav file method. I spend 30 minutes setting up the vsti, render the part as wav, then delete the vsti and all its settings and thus all the automation, everything. Then load a new audio track, fiddle with the 'pool' buisness for a few minutes, browsing all over for the wav file [cubase likes to default to documents and settings, for who knows what reason.]...spend a few minutes listening and decide I want a square lead instead of saw...guess what, i have to delete the audio track reload the synth and redo all the midinotes all the automation and all the parameters. Thats an hour and 10 minutes worth of work, plus each time I do that there is a new 100mb wav on my drive that I have to go delete......or I can hit freeze and spend 4 minutes waiting. Lets assume the wav method is 70 Minutes. And freeze mode is 5 minutes. I can change via freeze/unfreeze the arrangement 14 times, before I can change the arrangement via wav files once...

And that is not counting the mixer work. When i switch to the audio track all mixer information is lost, so I have to redo all the FX and mastering done to that channel...thats another 20 minutes. AND after setting up the vsti and everything again, I still have to render it as a wav, delete everything I just set up, and load an audio track and do all that wav stuff again. So to make two changes to the arrangment or synth, requires two hours of work.

That is what working with wavs is like. That is my experience with it. And that is only one instance of one synth.

You find a way to make it faster then sure, the wav method will actually be viable, but now, its unrealistic for how I do music. I really don't know what the big deal is. Freeze mode is useful because it does ALL of that shit i jsut mentioned, automatically, and it takes a couple seconds. Couple minutes on big stuff. Even with the inability to alter the arrangement, freezing/unfreezing is still way faster.

You guys are the first people Ive ever met that use wav files regularly. Lol

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.