|
Does more oscillators = better sound? *sample included* (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| 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 |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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 . 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| 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 . 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 |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Just shut up. You obviously have no ing 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 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 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? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| 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) |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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". |
|
|
| cronodevir |
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. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| 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 ? :p |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Who was the one saying those who have software doesnt need hardware ? :p |
:toothless |
|
|
|
|
