|
The Effect that BT uses (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| emc^2 |
Here's a very easy and quick way to create a stutter effect (no hardware/software involved):
1. Put some auralex on your vocalist's back
2. Wear a boxer glove (for padding)
3. Have vocalist sing a verse
4. Tap him/her on the back while he/she is singing. Padding will deaden your taps. You can bypass steps 1 and 2 for some analog percussion clap/tap sounds.
4a. Increase tapping for lesser delay, decrease for greater delay between "stutters"
4b. Scare the crap out of him/her before the session - with any luck they'll be stuttering all by themselves during recording session. You might even get some random stuttering - you can then nanoquantize it too!
5. For deep base drum, synchronized to stutter and "AAAH" sounds, use baseball bat in step 4. Be careful with your force, extreme force may render your vocalist unconsicous or worse yet, they can knock over your mic and ruin it or the recorded part. Other possibility may be that your singer can take away your bat and use it on you, without your conscent. This could result in the unwanted part, vocalized by you to be recorded. Though you might get a pleasant result, depending on your vocal talent or brittleness of your bones. Nonetheless, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK and don't be afraid to experiment with other tools - you might create a new genre... or give true meaning to style known as "Beats and Breaks"...
Now, that's real "emotional technology" for ya. :D
Rock on! :p |
|
|
| The Drow |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
Here's a very easy and quick way to create a stutter effect (no hardware/software involved):
1. Put some auralex on your vocalist's back
2. Wear a boxer glove (for padding)
3. Have vocalist sing a verse
4. Tap him/her on the back while he/she is singing. Padding will deaden your taps. You can bypass steps 1 and 2 for some analog percussion clap/tap sounds.
4a. Increase tapping for lesser delay, decrease for greater delay between "stutters"
4b. Scare the crap out of him/her before the session - with any luck they'll be stuttering all by themselves during recording session. You might even get some random stuttering - you can then nanoquantize it too!
5. For deep base drum, synchronized to stutter and "AAAH" sounds, use baseball bat in step 4. Be careful with your force, extreme force may render your vocalist unconsicous or worse yet, they can knock over your mic and ruin it or the recorded part. Other possibility may be that your singer can take away your bat and use it on you, without your conscent. This could result in the unwanted part, vocalized by you to be recorded. Though you might get a pleasant result, depending on your vocal talent or brittleness of your bones. Nonetheless, USE AT YOUR OWN RISK and don't be afraid to experiment with other tools - you might create a new genre... or give true meaning to style known as "Beats and Breaks"...
Now, that's real "emotional technology" for ya. :D
Rock on! :p |
lol :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Axolotyl
Its a tool and it comes down to the person using it and their technical know how. |
You know what the craftsmen say, the right tool for the right job. Some jobs you can do with duct tape, others need a couple of screwdrivers, and others need the jigsaw and belt sander.
There are lots of things Fruityloops can do - and there are lots of things it can't do. Same goes for Reason, Cubase, Logic, Pro Tools... |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Originally posted by Apollo303
OH YEAH!!!!...and does Tiesto's ((Traffic)) goes "OONCE OONCE OONCE OONCE"...buddy I think you were high when you replied to this...
Viva Fruity :D |
Exactly. Anyone can make that sound. Even Tiesto.
And I don't smoke, ass.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Axo Uh... I think he was being sarcastic. Claiming Floops insn't 'professional' is rediculous. Its a tool and it comes down to the person using it and their technical know how. |
I'm serious. I'm not saying it isn't professional. I'm saying it isn't as high quality as some of the more expensive programs.
It's getting better, though. And in keeping with Fr0st's Law, it's price is increasing for people who don't already own it. |
|
|
| Reactance |
| quote: | | The software started out as nothing more than a toy, and yes, I understand it has evolved with leaps and bounds since then, but it still has a long way to go before it reaches the "professional" level. |
Yeah,Im with u on that !
I also like the feel for logic but that was only when it was on the pc 5.2,too bad its on the mac now,but hey we cant have everything !I still have reason and cubase sx
Cuabse sx to the end :wtf: |
|
|
| Reactance |
Also stop covering up for ur toy software, by using statments like its who u use it not what u use,only use the phrase when the software is worth while using,
:wtf: |
|
|
| Axolotyl |
| quote: | Originally posted by fr0st
Sorry i dont normaly intervene in these arguments, but the fact is the summing busses in fruity do not compare to protools, nuendo, logic... There is a reason fruity cost what it does, logic cost what it does and protools cost what it does... |
And that doesnt make it professional?
I hate the way 'pro' is slung around like a term of cedibility. If you can put together a track with it, and master it to a good level then as far as I'm concernced its pro.
I use Live, which I admit doesnt sound quite as good as cubase sometimes, but for my purposes it does me fine. I know where its weaknesses lie and can compensate for it in my final master, just as I would with my monitor setup. I'm not trying to score films in 5.1 and I know at the end of they day I'll be able to get a good sound out of it, regardless of what technical specifications say about the bus. I'm not an audio programmer and have no desier to be, so why should some numbers matter to me if I'm confident in my ability of produce a clean sound from my host?
I dont see the point of claiming packages or the people that use them are not pro, arrogent, delusional of whatever. It just creates an us vs them mentality. I've heard fantastic trance mastered in Floops and complete and utter e come out of Logic. One of the best producers I know prefers Muzy, which is completely free...??
Its rediculous to get all high and mighty about a host. Its all about the ideas and knowledge of the user and the care they take in producing a clean sound. Host preference is exactly that... just a preference... |
|
|
| Axolotyl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Reactance
Also stop covering up for ur toy software by using statments like its who u use it not what u use,only use the phrase when the software is worth while using,
:wtf: |
Da ?
Are you serious?
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
I dont even use Floops, but nevertheless if you think its a toy, then you should really spend some more time producing. Then you might actually realise that the host has very little to do with the quality of the end product. |
|
|
| Reactance |
| Hey i was not talking about u ! |
|
|
| peejunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by fr0st
Sorry i dont normaly intervene in these arguments, but the fact is the summing busses in fruity do not compare to protools, nuendo, logic... There is a reason fruity cost what it does, logic cost what it does and protools cost what it does... |
Ahh, a Vestmanist.. Well, this is utter bollocks, my friend. Here chew on this:
http://www.dogsonacid.com/showthrea...103#post2683103
Tho I kinda doubt you'll understand it. Read the rest of the discussion but the post I directly link to is the place wher our unbeleiving Thomas realises he was way off.
Again, summing is a simple floating point addition that each application dlegates to the CPU to do, which in turn delegates it to the FPU, which (FPUs) all have a defined algorythm for all mathematical operations that ensure, among other things, that each summing of some two figures gives the exact same result every time (otherwyse, computers as we know them, couldn't work).
This behavior is defined by something called the IEEE 754 standard, and is now a common design of about 99% FPUs of all computers or computer-based equipment on the market, including Mac, PC and various specialized platforms including DSP chips that run your precious Viruses and Nords.
Yes, there are differences in hosts, but they are definetly not in summing "quality" or "sound quality". We would first have to define sound quality in easily descriptive and objectively measurable terms. Only a total computer illiterate could add something like "quality" to summing.
It's the features that make the price range division, and most of them are of little use to dance producers. I've tried many hosts (including Cubase in versions going form 3.7 to SX2), finished tracks in all of them and ed around with their inside stuff and I've found that the only thing that matters in the end is the workflow, and FL workflow suits ME the best. Simple as that.
Please explain to people like Concord Dawn or Black Sun Empire, that FL Studio summing sucks, so they can punch you on the head with their best-selling club hit vinyls like 'Morning Light' etc. |
|
|
| Axolotyl |
| quote: | Originally posted by peejunk
It's the features that make the price range division, and most of them are of little use to dance producers.
|
Damn straight. No offense to anyone, but were not exactly composing soundtracks here. Most of us are making relatively formulaic trance. No one said it was easy, and it does require some know how, but any of the major hosts are more than up to the task. |
|
|
| thoughtlessjex |
| quote: | Yeah,Im with u on that !
I also like the feel for logic but that was only when it was on the pc 5.2,too bad its on the mac now,but hey we cant have everything !I still have reason and cubase sx
Cuabse sx to the end :wtf: |
| quote: | | Also stop covering up for ur toy software, by using statments like its who u use it not what u use,only use the phrase when the software is worth while using, :wtf: |
Well, DigiNut, I guess you can stop saying it's just Floops users who are arrogant. And he's incoherent to boot.
And by the way, peejunk, that link was an awesome read. |
|
|
|
|
