Veracohr

You know how they say that laughter is the best medicine? http://www.cradleoffilth.com/

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! :angry: MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!! Stupid Gravity Plus' website has broken Rule #5 of Veracohr's Divine Rules of Webdesign!! Infuriating, since I was listening to some Artifakt via Saikosounds thanks to Insejn's suggestion.

Here's a warning/qualifier/explanation before you read this thread: I got off work early today, and I've just been sitting around drinking for a few hours and listening to trance. So this is, ultimately, useless drivel of an psuedo-intellectual nature. Also, I can't claim to have a long history with trance. I'd say I've been into trance for about 8 years, and while I heard my first goa songs only a couple years or so after I got into trance (one of my first was AP's "Mahadeva", which I downloaded from the old mp3.com), I've only gotten really interested in goa and psytrance in the last year probably. And I didn't really like much electronic music before I got into trance. Ever since I got heavily into goa and psytrance, when I listen to a lot of older trance (classic-era trance, if you will), I can't help but think that goa and [good] psytrance are the natural evolution of the original idea behind trance. Of course, since goa and psy are my favorite kinds of trance, naturally I have a biased opinion, but I really think it's true. Just look at the name: 'trance'. By definition, trance music should put you at least somewhat into a trance, correct? It seems to me that the more popular side of trance these days has really deviated from this. While I don't like most of it, I have to admit that today's popular trance music does have it's hooks and tricks and melodies and things that work for it, so I can see why some people would like it. But when I listen to some of the older trance, I recognize a lot of signatures that I hear and like in goa and psytrance, that are missing in the more popular types of trance. Although I don't expect many here to disagree with me (this is a forum about psytrance after all, it doesn't seem likely), does anyone have any thoughts on the subject? Hmmm....it seems like I had more to say on this subject, but either my alcohol-clouded mind or the distractions I've had since I began writing this post, or both, have caused me to forget whatever else there was.

"would you like to be published compilations with rare and unreleased tracks of old goa-psy projects?" I don't know, I'm pretty comfortable being a human. I'm not sure I would like being a compilation. Do you mean would I like to SEE compilations with unreleased goa tracks? Certainly, if they were any good.

I haven't heard of it, but one of my favorite Pink Floyd songs remixed by Oforia sounds very intriguing!

The basslines appear magically in my head, and my fingers plunk them out as best I can on the keyboard. If it's too fast or difficult for me to play properly, I do what I can and then fix with the mouse. I try to get at least two or four repetitions of a pattern down live (sometimes more if it's an expressive sound), then repeat the pattern as is fitting with the repeat function.

I voted vinyl because I like the sound quality best, but that doesn't mean I always prefer vinyl. Nor do I buy more vinyl than CDs. I like vinyl best for classic rock (used record stores rock!) and trance/DnB. My ex-girlfriend gave me Tori Amos' "Boys For Pele" on vinyl after she lost my CD; I'd prefer that one on CD because the vinyl doesn't do anything extra for it. And I couldn't see myself buying any metal albums on vinyl either. I want to say I'll never pay money for lossy audio formats, but I try not to make such final statements so they don't come around to bite me in the ass.

Hmm...I'm out. I don't run Windows.

Well, the thing about Soundforge is that it has a tool that makes it easy to create kick drums (or any sound, for that matter). That's the only reason I'd want it. I don't have a lot of use for a 2-track editor.

That's a very useful tutorial, luckily I found it at a time I had access to Soundforge. I wish they made Soundforge for Mac.

There's an easy answer to "which converter is the best?" The answer: Lavry Engineering

I like my BassStation Rack. I've had it for a few years, but it has a couple things that annoy the hell out of me. Things inherent in the design, not resulting from malfunctions (like the fact that the velocity knob has to be turned all the way off and touched just the right way otherwise it continuously transmits MIDI data. That's just something wrong with my particular unit.) First off, and of foremost importance in my mind right now since it's what set off this bout of annoyance, is the fact that pulse width isn't controllable via MIDI. The thing doesn't have the greatest MIDI implementation period, but come on! Doesn't it seem kind of basic to have pusle width be controllable? I mean, it is continuously adjustable by turning the knob, but not via MIDI. The second thing is also related to pulse width. The BassStation Rack has an LFO. The pulse width modulation can be set to the LFO. But the thing is, they're not the same LFO. Yes, this is correct. The main LFO which has adjustable speed, delay and shape is different from the LFO which modulates the pulse width. The pulse width LFO is not adjustable, it's speed and shape are internally set. What's ridiculous about this is that they put an entirely separate oscillator in the circuit in order to create a somewhat useless situation. Had the designers never heard of syncing LFOs to tempo? Actually, they had; I know this, because the main LFO can be synced to the MIDI clock. Why not the pulse width LFO?

Pretty cool sounding samples. And some pretty bad translation there.

Apparently I'm missing something everyone else is getting here. Your third sentence seems to contradict the others. Are you pro- or anti- fullon bassline? Like anything else, I like it if it's done well. Sometimes it's cool, sometimes it's not. I use that bassline myself sometimes, and sometimes I don't. It can be kind of a cop out, an easy way of injecting a song with a lot of energy without going to the trouble of writing a good song. I'm sure we're all guilty of that at some point.

To date I haven't heard a kind I don't get. I may not like something, but I can always 'get' it.

All commercial music, excepting possibly classical, is compressed. If you're listening to uncompressed music and you want to be able to hear everything, it is useful to be able to turn it up and not have any noises around you. But compression isn't just a tool for getting louder music. Compression during mastering, if done well, often has the effect of 'gluing' the mix together into a smooth overall sound. When an album sounds like all the sounds are coming from the same place, assuming your stereo is wired properly, that means the producers (whether they wrote the music or not) made poor use of the magic of stereophonic sound. A good mix starts with a good arrangement, and forethought during the arranging process. A good producer will be thinking about panning and stereo sounds during the writing and arranging, and taking that into consideration. There's also the matter of how a song is mixed, physically. It's a matter of often heated debate, but some people say that mixing "in the box" (in the DAW) results in a more narrow stereo spread than mixing through an analog console, even with hard panned sounds.

The problem lies in the way that music is listened to now. As was stated in a thread on another site, these days music has to compete with road noise, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, all sorts of sound, because music is most often listened to in the background. People don't usually just sit down and listen to music like in the days of yore. Of course, comparing classical to hyper compressed pop is pretty extreme. Compare recordings from the mid-80s, say, to some of the stuff today. At that time, there was a healthy amount of compression generally being used, resulting in even mixes, but not the gain-maximizing limiting that is in use today. Classical music is a special case outside the normal realm of mastering. Another example of over-compressed and limited music is Tool's 10,000 Days, if you're familiar with that album. I can only listen to a couple songs of it with headphones before my ears ache. Most electronic music is pretty heavily compressed, and for the most part it's not too big a problem because electronic music doesn't typically have a whole lot of dynamic range inherent. But there's always that extreme and there's always someone who will go to it.

'Production' would generally be considered the writing, arranging, recording and mixing of a song. 'Mastering', the way most people mean, is actually pre-mastering. It's basically applying a final gloss on the mix. The mastering engineer applies small (usually) amounts of EQ, dynamic processing, possibly manipulation of stereo spread, and (if mastering a whole album) matches the level of each song in an album. Mastering engineers also generally try to make a mix louder, by applying compression and limiting. Unfortunately, most mainstream releases are hyper-compressed, with almost no dynamic range. They are incredibly loud, and most people find them fatiguing to listen to for very long. This practice started as an effort to get the music above the noise floor of vinyl records, back in the times before CDs. Unfortunately, it got out of control. 'Good' and 'bad' mastering are relative. It depends on an individual's preference. In my opinion, heavily compressed and limited music is bad mastering. To put it into relevant terms, Infected Mushroom's "IM The Supervisor" is bad mastering. It's too loud and compressed. It could be worse, actually, but it's too constantly loud in my opinion. If you really want to hear bad mastering, listen to Lamb of God's "New American Gospel". Highly distorted. If you hear a song that sounds bad, sometimes it can be difficult to tell if the problem is in the mixing or the mastering. Become a good mixing or mastering engineer, and you can easily tell the difference. I don't know how else to tell. Actual mastering, not pre-mastering, is the production of a master, which is the template disc that the CDs or records are produced from.

When I first saw the term 'progressive' in relation to trance, that Wikipedia definition is exactly what I thought it meant. Then over the years I saw people talk about 'progressive' electronic music, inferring that 'progressive' meant progressive in thought, in ideology. That sounded very stupidly elitest to me, but it's good to know now that I had it right all along. On-topic: I support good music, regardless of where it comes from, as long as it doesn't come from a label that is a part of the RIAA. Unfortunately, I don't know which psytrance artists are American. I'm always seeing new names since I joined this forum, so I know there's a lot out there I'm unaware of.

If you're using a 58 to record vocals, it doesn't really matter what kind of preamp you use. It's going to sound like a 58 no matter what. They were designed for live use.

A price range would really be helpful. A lot of people like the FMR Audio RNP (Really Nice Preamp). I haven't used one, but I don't think I've ever heard a bad thing. I have an M-Audio DMP3. 2 channels and cheaper than the RNP. The only vocals I've recorded through it were cookie monster vocals, and I don't have particularly good mics, but I don't have any complaints with it other than the small range of the VU meters. If you're recording vocals (that is, non-screaming vocals), a condenser is most definitely suggested. Studio Projects makes some cheap ones that are well-regarded in their price range. Rode makes some slightly more expensive ones that are also well-regarded. And I think Audio-Technica makes some cheap models, but I don't know how they sound. Their more expensive models are good. I must disagree with Mike A. A dedicated preamp will usually be superior to one in a cheap audio interface or mixer. And remember the adage: your sound is only as good as the worst-sounding piece of gear in the chain.

Actually, it must be calculated by abacus to be correct.

House usually has swing.

Right now I'm listening to "Walk With Me in Hell" by Lamb of God. It's the first song I've heard off their new album, and I've got to say I don't like it as much as earlier albums. Hopefully the rest of the album is better.

Actually, though, if you're serious about good sound and you don't have much experience mastering, pay a mastering engineer to do it. Provided you don't use someone who does a square wave rectification job on your music (meaning squashes the shit out of it so it's super loud), you will be glad you did it.