|
Has anyone here put together a decent track W/O using a sampler editor whatsoever?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ClearWater |
I was silly enough to overlook my Cubase Sample Editor for a long time, only using samplers like shortcircuit with midi tracks + provided dsp fx to get some (relatively) basic use and modulation out of my samples.
As far as trance and progressive goes, has anyone here ever gotten by making music with only midi, vsti's and softsamplers? Or should direct audio editing, destruction, reconstruction, shaping, etc be key to any well produced track? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ClearWater
I was silly enough to overlook my Cubase Sample Editor for a long time, only using samplers like shortcircuit with midi tracks + provided dsp fx to get some (relatively) basic use and modulation out of my samples.
As far as trance and progressive goes, has anyone here ever gotten by making music with only midi, vsti's and softsamplers? Or should direct audio editing, destruction, reconstruction, shaping, etc be key to any well produced track? |
I've done severe editing of samples AND have also done without. The past three songs I finished have been strictly using my DAW, Reason, and assorted plug-ins.
I think it depends entirely on the song. If a sample needs treatment in an audio editor or a dedicated software sampler I use that to tailor the sound I'm looking for. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| I wouldn't say that wave editing is "key", as there are certainly enough tracks in the wild that clearly don't have any of it. But it's definitely the best for creating really slick-sounding effects that make the track stand out. |
|
|
| Theran |
| I never edit tracks in a wave editor. I only open my tracks in it to see how the waveform looks like, or the see the overall volume. I do everything inside Cubase (except if I have to tune a sample or determine what pitch it's in, but still, I don't do that in a wave editor). |
|
|
| Eric J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theran
I never edit tracks in a wave editor. I only open my tracks in it to see how the waveform looks like, or the see the overall volume. I do everything inside Cubase (except if I have to tune a sample or determine what pitch it's in, but still, I don't do that in a wave editor). |
If you use s(m)exoscope you can see the waveform in real time, as your producing. |
|
|
| Theran |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eric J
If you use s(m)exoscope you can see the waveform in real time, as your producing. |
As from tonight, I am no longer using a wave editor. Thanks Eric! |
|
|
| ClearWater |
Wow, a bit surprised I suppose... getting to play with audio seems to give quite a few advantages when it comes to manipulating and creating new samples... certainly can see getting a lot of interesting percussive effects for drums and expressive effects for leads/pads...
Do any of you work with chopping up your audio or is it all smooth modulation of timbres through arranger envelopes? Do you just work on getting the complicated stuff done in the VSTi? |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by ClearWater
Wow, a bit surprised I suppose... getting to play with audio seems to give quite a few advantages when it comes to manipulating and creating new samples... certainly can see getting a lot of interesting percussive effects for drums and expressive effects for leads/pads...
Do any of you work with chopping up your audio or is it all smooth modulation of timbres through arranger envelopes? Do you just work on getting the complicated stuff done in the VSTi? |
Chopping, reversing, glueing, duplicating, adding effects, and one very important thing like adding volume envelopes such as fading in and out, which otherwise requires tedious volume automating. (in Cubase that is, it has this neat little feature where u can drag the top of the audio file to fade in or out, or use the draw tool to draw a curve on the event) |
|
|
| wrzonance |
Manual editing is good because everyone can tell when you're using dBlue Glitch, or it's mac ripoff Effectrix .
I love getting in and tweaking with stuff... but when I just start a track I usually just do nothing but midi. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| How are you able to tell the difference between dblue glitch and doing it the long way? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
How are you able to tell the difference between dblue glitch and doing it the long way? |
I've used dBlue glitch to record about 40 bars of glitches from an original track, then spliced the non-ty parts back into the original and added my own effects, and nobody really noticed it as the glitch "sound". It's a lazy man's approach, like wading through a thousand preset patches and samples instead of trying to make my own, but it actually still involves a lot of work.
Plain vanilla Glitch is, well, pretty obvious. It just doesn't provide a wide variety of rhythms, effects, or timbres in general. Plus, to an alert listener, it sounds random, because it is random. Good stutter/glitch edits are supposed to blend well; they should add character but not seem out of place. They should help the track's rhythm along rather than disrupting it. Throwing on a Glitch plugin and tweaking a few knobs doesn't accomplish any of this. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
So how do you glitch an incoming signal without a glitch FX?
Also, Who uses the default for dblue glitch? |
|
|
|
|
