Veracohr

Wow, this was stupidly hard to do. OpenOffice blows. I know, it's a pitiful collection.

No, an expander does the reverse process of a compressor. A maximizer is a limiter with automatic gain makeup. The lower you set the threshold, the more limited the audio is, and since the makeup gain is automatic, that means that the lower you set the threshold, the louder the audio gets (and, secondly, the worse it sounds.)

For one thing, music from a commercial CD has been mastered. For another thing, it just takes practice. Outside of the electronic music world, few musicians are engineers, and for good reason.

I have a small, 4-channel mixer for monitoring. When I'm writing, I have two channels coming from my audio interface to hear the softsynths, and my two outboard synths go into other channels (one synth is mono, the other stereo). When I'm done and it's time to mix, I record everything into the DAW, more or less one instrument at a time. Then I mix. This enables me to take a load off my computer's elderly processor by not having the softsynths running, and allowing me to increase the buffer. How do you record? Hardware? Is that what you mean by 32 tracks? Because mixers have channels, not tracks. If you run out of tracks, you should be able to bounce multiple tracks to one stereo track, freeing up some of your tracks. This could be a good idea with some of those little sounds that aren't dominant.

'Psychedelic' is, academically, not as nebulous a concept as many of these replies make it seem. While Gnome may be correct about the origin of the root 'psyche', it still remains that the invention of the term 'psychedelic' was intended to mean "mind manifesting". If they had the etymology of the word wrong, so be it; it doesn't change what the word was meant to convey. The "mind manifesting" definition of the word 'psychedelic' has been around much longer than the internet has been around. However, on the experiential side, 'psychedelic' is extremely nebulous. If your question is, "what is psychedelic music", well, I'm inclined to say "who fucking knows?" Some music I hear that is supposed to be psychedelic just seems like any other kind of music, only with the heavy use of phase shifters, flangers and echoes. And other music which is fairly straightforward in presentation can seem much more psychedelic to me. Or vice versa. While I can say that because my entire worldview is influenced by my own psychedelic experiences, and therefore my music is influenced by psychedelics, that doesn't mean that anyone else might hear my music and think it psychedelic. In that respect, what is psychedelic is completely subjective. So the answer to the question, "what is psychedelic music", can only be "you tell me." This is the world of psychedelics, where nothing makes sense, and the answers only lead to more questions.

I don't know Renoise, but could it possibly be your Prophet 5 is running out of polyphony? Maybe the way the sequence is playing back is causing that. Check that each note in the sequence is in fact only one note, not multiple notes stacked on top of each other. I don't know if that's even a possible cause, but it's something to check. Plus, make sure there's no unintentional CC data in the sequence that might be causing it.

I hope that isn't the same Blue Submarine I saw here. He played the most annoying bunch of full-on I've ever heard.

Post of the week. :clapping:

Older vinyl, such as records from the 70s, sounds quiet by comparison because at the time they didn't feel the need to make everything as SUPER DUPER LOUD AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE AND THEN SOME!!!!! :wank: It's kind of silly that the Loudness Wars didn't really start until the CD, with its wider dynamic range, became the norm. Compression is necessary with a small dynamic range, but with a larger one its less so. Yet CDs are almost invariably more compressed than vinyl. In my opinion, everyone should do their part to combat the loudness wars, by ensuring that their music is not mastered at insane levels of compression and gain maximizing. Yes, it will be lower in level, but that's why they invented volume knobs. :clapping:

MOTU Digital Performer 5. I couldn't ask for anything better; it's superb in both MIDI and audio, and I need both. I ReWire Reason to it and use some outboard synths.

I assume this is sidechain compression you're referring to, since I'm not familiar with any other use of the word sidechain in audio. The following is another description to help round out the definition: Sidechain compression is triggering the compression of one signal with another. The way a compressor works, in normal mode, is that the input is split into two paths: one gets rectified into a DC voltage, which is then used to control the attenuation on the other path of the signal, which is what appears at the output. In sidechain compression, you are simply bringing in a second signal to be rectified and used to control the attenuation of the signal you want compressed. Ducking, as mentioned above, is often used with the kick triggering the bass or other sound, so that the compressed sound drops in level when the kick hits. Therefore, the bass 'ducks' the kick. This is kind of a cheap way of dealing with an overabundance of low frequencies, when used to have the bass duck the kick. Another application of sidechain compression is de-essing. In this, a vocal signal is split into two, and one of these is equalized such that only a certain frequency range is present (what range depends on the vocal). That way, the vocal part is only compressed during the sibilant parts (the parts with overly high levels of high-mid frequencies).

I was looking through Shakta releases at Saikosounds, and saw a song called "Subterfuge", and said "Hey, that's my song!" I have a song that's a few years old called "Subterfuge", which I never completely finished because it just wasn't going that well. Then, a few more songs down the page, I saw ANOTHER Shakta song with the same name as one of my own. It's "Falling Down", although my "Falling Down" isn't even an electronic song, it's an acoustic guitar song. Weird.

Funny thing is, quite some time ago I heard Narkotische Fruchte on a radio stream, and thought it was totally awesome, and I had been looking for it ever since. But I hadn't heard it since that first time. In the mean time, I had gotten a Medium Records compilation with Der Grosse Kumpo, and while it was a good song I felt it wasn't as good. So I get the record today and listen to Narkotische Fruchte, and I think "I don't recognize this. Is this the same song?" It's not as awesome as I remember it. Still good, but I wonder what happened between that first listen and now.

http://www.discogs.com/release/443558

Another option is to start with a simple waveform. In previous versions of Reason, the Subtractor and Maelstrom both started up with a default waveform with no filter, no modulation, no nothing. Just a waveform. But in Reason 4, when you create a new synth it has a complete default synth patch. One thing I just recently noticed that I never noticed before (if it was there before) is that if you select a synth, there is an "Initialize Patch" option in the Edit menu, which gives you just that simple waveform with no bells or whistles. I personally prefer to start from scratch. Just lower the output of the instruments and/or lower the volume of the mixer channels. A limiter is a poor way to achieve the same thing that turning down the volume does.

That's called "translation", as in "my mixes don't translate very well" from one system to the next. A mix that translates well is generally thanks to a mixing engineer with a lot of experience. And the song itself plays a part. Maybe you could post a sample? I don't think you really need to use a sub. Unless your songs have have bowel-shaking bass in the sub-40Hz range, you probably don't need a sub. ESPECIALLY if you can't control the level of the sub. It's ridiculous to have a sub if you can't control the level of it. In the long run, experience and subject (the song you're mixing) have more to do with the quality of the mix than gear. But on the gear side: I just took a short glance at the website for Altec Lansing. Those are consumer PC speakers. They are intended to make music sound good (according to whatever standard they use for 'good'), not accurate. Consumer audio systems typically have a smiley-face EQ curve: over-hyped bass, scooped-out lows and over-hyped high end. A good mix will generally sound good whether its on a consumer system or a professional system. But that good mix was undoubtedly mixed on an accurate monitoring system. Accurate means, more or less, flat. When you are mixing, you want to hear an accurate representation of the audio. I would start with getting a monitoring system that is at least intended to be used for audio production. I understand not having any money, but eventually you'll need something better if you continue to mix your own music. I have Alesis Monitor One Mk2 monitors, which are passive monitors that are only $200/pair (USD). They're passive, which means you would also need an amp. They're not the greatest, and I wish I had better, but I've used them for long enough that I'm used to them. That's another key to making a good mix: knowing your monitors. All monitors have limitations, but if you get used to how a good mix sounds on you monitors (ie. listen to a lot of good mixes on your monitors and compare your own mixes to theirs), then you have a better chance of getting there. Alesis also makes an active version called M1 Mk2, for about $300/pair. One monitor manufacturer that I don't think I've ever heard anything bad about is ADAM Audio. Their products are more expensive, but definitely worth it from what I hear. They sell a passive monitor called ANF-10 for about $375 each ($750/pair). Their cheapest active monitor is the A7 at $500 each. One really important thing you can do is to do some serious researching on acoustics. One of the best and easiest things you can do to help improve your acoustical situation is to make sure that your monitoring setup is placed in the middle of wall. That is, make sure you don't have a wall three feet from you on one side and the other wall 12 feet from you on the other side. Of course, that's kind of funny, because as I write this I am looking at my own monitor setup, which is very similar to what I just said is bad. But you do what you can, right?

+110100111100101 Ethan Winer is an excellent source of acoustical knowledge.

A while back I posted something called "Death to Ants" that I had started. I worked on that for a while, it grew to over 11 minutes long, then I decided that the feel of it changed too much at one point. So I split it into two different songs, and further developed the first part (which is based around the "Death to Ants" part), which itself has now grown to 12 minutes. I just wanted to get some opinions on it. Sometimes I totally love it, but sometimes I wonder if it doesn't drag on a bit too much and get a little too repetetive. This isn't completely done, and I already know a few changes I'm going to make, a little bit I'm going to take out, but what do you fine people think of this? This is, of course, just a rough mix that I didn't spend much time on. Stranger Than We Can Suppose

I don't know if it's really considered particularly 'rare', but I think of it that way since it was so hard to find the song (vinyl or CD). But I finally found it, and it should be on its way to me in a few days: http://www.discogs.com/release/93493 Actually, I have Der Grosse Kumpo on a Medium Records compilation, but it was Narkotische Früchte that I really wanted. Can anyone tell me how to pronounce Institut Für Bassforschung and Narkotische Früchte?

In the drum module, each channel has a little folder icon, which will open up a file browser. All samples included with Reason are located in the Factory Sound Bank and Orkester refills. Find those, and browse around. In the drums, there's a folder called "Xclusive drums sorted", or something like that. That's the folder where you can find individual drum samples. Or you can load a whole drum kit. There's a folder icon elsewhere on the Redrum that allows you to load entire kits. If you're not familiar with synth programming, I suggest loading some preset and fucking around with the controls until you get a good idea of what they all do. And don't forget the User Manual. I've used Reason for years and I still refer to it often. It's very readable.

What do you want to do? Are you using Reason solely? Personally, I don't sequence in Reason. Mostly because I use outboard synths, so I use Digital Performer and slave Reason to it, but also because I loathe Reason's sequencer. I have, however, used it a little. So my question stands: what do you want to do? What are you having problems with? I see questions like yours a lot online. And my immediate reaction is: what do you know, what do you want to know, and how can I possibly answer your question without at least knowing the answer to these two questions? Such vague questions are very hard to answer. What do you know about music composition and theory? Do you have any inherent musical ability, or are you simply trying to see what you can do? Do you have an idea for a song, and just don't know how to start? Or do you want to write a song, but have no inspiration? Knowing how to use Reason, does not a musician make...

It's really not. The vast majority of people aren't as passionate about music as we who come to a web forum simply to talk about a particular style of music. Most people just want to put on some sort of entertainment, and they have no problem letting their tastes be dictated by what the radio plays. Either that, or they have no idea that their tastes are being dictated by someone else, and that there is a hell of a lot of other music out there for the hearing if they chose to dig a little.

I'm not familiar with nitzhonot, and the brief descriptions I've read previously on this forum has made me want to stay away from it. I don't like much darkpsy either, but I do recommend Toi Doi By the way, that Toi Doi website I linked to sucks. You'd do better finding audio samples on saikosounds.com or psyshop.com

Not quite sure. I downloaded Mahadeva from AP's MP3.com site (the original MP3.com), and that was either my first goa song, or finding the 'goa' genre on MP3.com led me to Mahadeva. And that must have been around 1999-2000. That's a pretty wild guess. I wasn't very active online until 2001, when I got my first computer. If 1999-2000 is correct, that would have made me 20-21. Funny thing, the mp3 file of Mahadeva I have has survived that long. It lived on a ZIP disk for a while, and when I was finally able to load everything from that ZIP disk onto my computer, I saw that song and said, "oh yeah, I remember that song being good." But even though I first heard goa about 8 years ago, I didn't really become a super-fan until about 2 years ago.

Listening now. Holy shit there's some good songs here!