51m0n

There is some reasonably hefty learning curve in all DAWs when you learn the first one. However once you've learnt one they are all pretty similar... Download the Reaper manual, its an excellent resource. Try no tto let yourself be overwhelmed by the sheer size of it though. Tackle one subject at a time, starting at the beginning. It may take you a couple o fweeks, but the way to look at it is that you are learning a lot about how all DAWs work, and the mindset required to use them properly.

[quote name='TenLetters' timestamp='1353271795' post='1873160'] I dont post very often but I think this is a great idea so going to be giving it ago! I also have a song or two which I would be more than happy to supply stems for to see what others do with them. I will put the full tracks up [url="http://soundcloud.com/adam-wells-3"]here[/url] shortly if people are interested. [/quote] I'm sure people will be interested. May have to have a seperate thread for notifications that someone wants to add as ong for consideration? Not sure how that will work.

Crikey, we arent looking to put a poll up until January, dont feel you cant sit on it for a while if you want to....

Glad it was helpful!! Swept Mids every time on an amp for me. Better yet, all 4 bands being swept, like the MB TA503. The top and bottom are shelving but you a can change the frequency on them - lovely! Remember cut first, cut as sharp as you can, cut hard, boost gentle, boost wide. If possible. The result always sounds more natural.

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1353176192' post='1872474'] ive got a nice sounding mix of this, if i could only convince reaper to mix it down onto mp3.... [/quote] [quote name='OldG' timestamp='1353227744' post='1872743'] Have you dropped a LAME encoder into your Reaper program folder? Reaper needs this to create mp3's, but doesn't come with the install... link if you need it [url="http://free-codecs.com/lame_encoder_download.htm"]http://free-codecs.c...er_download.htm[/url] [/quote] Yup, right answer. Actually I do all my mp3 encoding in Foobar2000 (which uses LAME too), and tagging with a different program again (name escapes me and I'm not on the machine in question) that lets me embed ISRC codes into the mp3s.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1353175112' post='1872462'] Ok, I think I've sussed this K-meter business (made interesting reading!). Si: I'm assuming here that it's as simple as... 1. Produce my mix in Reason as standard 2. Render and output it as a wav, or whatever 3. Load it up into Reaper with the SPAN plug-in enabled 4. Select 'K-14' under 'metering' in the plug-in 5. Turn down the master fader of the mix until it's peaking at 0db ... hopefully that's it (?). If so, I'm sorted. If not, please help! Paul [/quote] That will do it yup. Nice one

New Blog Post up on [url="http://blog.basschat.co.uk/equalisation/"]Equalisation[/url] Enjoy....

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1353096754' post='1871698'] Personally, I like seeing lots of gear behind the band My approach to my own gear though is to try and make it as easy as possible to carry my own into the venue. I've got it down to two quick trips now! Trip 1: Backpack with amp, tools and leads, two basses in one hand, pedalboard in other Trip 2: Carry 4x10 in on my own Job done! [/quote] Thats how I roll too. Its two trips for me, One for the cab, one for the bass (on my back), cable bag (on my chest), rack (left hand), pedal board (right hand). I just about fit through doors - that's not so different from when I'm completely unladen sadly....

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1353162456' post='1872273'] To echo what a couple of the previous posters have said , my approach is to take a bass that is easy to play and that I like the sound of , plug it into an amp and cab that is loud enough for people to hear me and then play the bass . In my experience everything else is pretty superfluous . The only really neccesary effect to have in your arsenal if you are a bass player is compression , and most amps have some version of that built in nowadays anyway . [/quote] Compression built into amps is at best a poor alternative to 'the real thing', and more often completely rubbish IME. Avoid at all costs....

Yeah granted its aimed more at audio than MIDI, it can do some video, but its not in any way aimed at that. As an audio workstation with reasonable MIDI but no notation its a top performing bit of software and superb value. If you need notation, serious video stuff, or very serious MIDI then its not for you.

Kinda, I am considered almost paranoid by some of the bands I work withy, but its quality kity, I literally saved for ages to buy some of the bits. I have every right to feel a bit worried. However it is all insured with Endsleigh (note to self need to redo that before the end of the month) for just over a hundred pounds a year - which really helps the sense of dread!

I do intend to get all this stuff on the recording blog, but its a huge topic and I'm doing all my own diagrams and its taking an age, and a bunch of other people want an eq blog too, I need more time....... Quick answer. There are several different types of transducer design that generate electricity from sound. [b]Dynamic[/b] This basically uses a tiny speaker and magnetic assembly These are rugged, but by mic diaphragm standards the mechanism is not the lightest and therefore is not the most accurate at reproducing transients. Not an issue for most live applications [b]Condensor[/b] The transducer is a one plate of capacitor, it can be made of a very very thin membrane covered with an conductive material. These can be rugged if made specifically for live, but they are generally not so rugged as a dynamic, they do pick up the most nuances in the sound though, having the lightest diaphragm. They require 48v phantom power to charge the the capacitor up [b]Electret[/b] Like a condensor but the capacitor is charged up and retains its charge, meaning they dont need phantom power. Over time the charge ca seep away though, degrading the mic . [b]Ribbon[/b] An old fashion form of dynamic employing a corrugated strip of aluminium as the membrane. These are delicate, prone to relewaseing the magic smoke i you accidentally put phantom power up them, they sound darker than the other mics, but take eqing very well, and can sound smooth and lovely. Not really suitable for live though as they are generally a figure of 8 polar pattern. [b]Polar Patterns[/b] There are three main types and they describe from what angle the mic picks up best. Or looking at it the otherway where they reject from the best. Live its common touse tighter mics to try and help prevent feedback [b]Omni directional[/b] These mics pick up evenly from any direction - they are in effect miniature super sensitive barometers Not really suitable for live [b]Cardiod[/b] Pick up mostly from the front, reject from the rear Useful for many live applications (ie vocals, cabinet micing, kick and poss snare) [b]Hyper-Cardiod[/b] Reject from the sides and off to one side in the rear, but not at 180 degrees. Good where you want to tighten up the pick up pattern significantly. Useful sometimes for toms, or hats or snare where you want to control spillage. Even on some vocals a tighter cardiod can work better All directional mics (not omni) show to a lesser or greater extent something called boundary effect, whereby the nearer the mic is to the source the more bass boost you get. This is why omnis are so nice for recording beautiful sounds in beautiful rooms - they sound most natural of all. Great omni condesnors can set you back several grand If a mic can be used on a tomtom it can be used on a cab, a voice, a trumpet, whatever. How nice it sounds depends on a multitude of factors, trust your ears! Kick drum mics are cardiod as a rule, dynamic and their frequency response goes down to around 40HZ. Anything marketed specifically for kick (ie AKG D112) will tend to have a more or less significant dip in the mid range. Vocal mics should have good anti handling noise characteristics ie when you move them around the mic shouldnt pick up handling noise so well. Its a good rule of thumb to use one or two condensors (one is fine for live) as an overheads on the drums - I've miced up drums live with a kick mic and a single well placed OH and had fabulous results - you need to be micing a good well tuned and played kit though. [url="http://www.red5audio.com/acatalog/Drum_Kit_Mics.html"]Red5 Audio[/url] do great cheap mic kits for live SM58 or Sennheiser e835/e845 for vocals are great starting points SM57 for guitar cabs, horns and toms

I cant cope with 23ms latency Thats the same as being about 8 meters away from your amp, which is really disconcerting to me!

Yes it will seem very quiet in the first instance. Turn your monitors up at the amp! There are very good reasons to mix at sane levels in the box (ie on a DAW). The only time you need to get it loud is when you reach the final mastering process.

Reaper $60 Win!

[quote name='RockfordStone' timestamp='1353071664' post='1871242'] thing is, i wouldnt be against paying for good software if they price it reasonably. i use an old version of cubase, if i was to buy a new version it would cost me 700 quid, unless you are a pro studio you just can't afford that [/quote] Then get a copy of Reaper. $60 for the full featured software, with support for the next 2 large version numbers (so its on version 4.30 now, you would be supported up to but not including version 6.00). Brilliant software, excellent price.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1353067282' post='1871145'] Thanks again - more great advice there. I learned about the dangers of noise gates some time ago and I don't use any processing while recording now. You are absolutely right about spending time with the drums and mic placement, it can't be that hard, especially with such a small kit - we don't use any toms, just kick, snare hi hat, ride and crash. I quite like the current set up which is close mic'd snare and kick, with one overhead. But I'm far from being an audiophile and the song is always the important thing for me, rather than the recording. We also have a new drummer, (since the one on this recording) so the kit sounds quite different again and he's had to learn our live set very quickly. We spend much more time writing and arranging the songs, so the recording is almost an after thought and we treat everything as a demo. I just hit record when it feels right and hope for the best. But quite a few of these 'demos' end up on the radio and the BBC DJ said he'd play more if the quality was better. I use Cubase 5 and I put the K-meter in the output and set it to K14, but the cubase master output over rides it and I don't know how to set it to 0db. [/quote] Ok, you are doing the right thing wioth where you are putting the KMeter - slap it on the output buss insert. Then if you drop the master faders the K-meter will drop its level accordingly. Its not showing the peak level (far far from it) its showing an average level over time, so just set your master output so that the output sits where it just comes up to 0dB on the KMeter. I hasten to add this isnt how yu would normally use a KMeter, there is no issue with going over 0 on a KMeter for loud stuff normally - just avoid the red really, all I'm trying to do is find a way of getting al the mixes about the same volume, and this should be a pretty good and easily reproducable way of doing so for everyone (I hope!). If it porves too tricky we'll have to bin the idea I think...

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1353021557' post='1870762'] I'm struggling with this - I got the K-meter and I read the user guide, but I can't work out how to use it. Can you give some very simple instructions please. [/quote] Which version of Cubase do you run?

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1353016994' post='1870667'] I appreciate your analysis Si and it may make me a bit more careful in future...... (or not) I can only apologise for the poor recording quality and I totally accept my laziness is to blame. In fact the more I listen, the more ashamed I am - why didn't I choose a better track? Oh yes, cos there aren't any! I've uploaded the other snare track and also the original vocal track complete with drum spill in case it helps: The drums are permanently set up and I don't change the mixer settings between sessions. I have changed the way I mic the drums recently, in that I got rid of the hi hat mic and just have kick, snare and overhead mics now. You can hear some of these recent mp3s here: [url="http://soundcloud.com/rutterio"]http://soundcloud.com/rutterio[/url] Guitars, bass and keys are DI'd and the vocals recorded with a £20 mic from Thomanns. I love Cubase, especially on my new fast PC and it's a great tool for song writing, but I'm not a recording geek and I don't know how 95% of it works. This topic is a bit of a wake up call for me and my recordings can only improve, as I'm sure you'll all agree [/quote] Mate, this is precisely why I want this to be a learning resource rather than a other 'mix off' competition nonsense Well with the drums permanently set up you have no excuse now Everything in the signal chain has a knock on affect on the next stage in the process. So the better rehearsed you are the easier it is to record a great performance, the better the kit is the easier it is to get great sounds, the better the mic position the better the sound captured. Blah blah blah. I think the sounds you have captured are pretty typical actually, this is exactly the kind of thing that people get when they are just doing a quick recording to document a song. The thing is, get out of the habit of thinking its just a quick and dirty recording. Spend a bit of time making it easier to always capture great sounds, and then you can worry about performance only when you are recording. Every time you record (these days) its something you could put on the web, or release as a part of an album. So record it like its going to be! You dont need mega expensive kit to capture great sounds, kit with mojo can be damned cool, but you do need to use your ears to get the best out of any of it, and that takes a little time initially. If you spent a few hours once sorting out the kit and the mic positions, then document those positions (ie take photos from all angles) so you can change the heads at a later date, or sort things out of someone bumps them. Then with a permanent set up you can take that whole "Is it the mic position" thing out if the equation. We do something very similar in the live room I usually use. There is a studio kit, it is set up always, it never gets moved with other than to change skins and record. It is pretty much permanently mic'ed and all mic positions are documented. The process of finding the mic positions took a long time, but its done now. We always run off a quick recording and check that all the individual tracks sound good and the whole lot together are great and nothing has gone a bit squirly in the meantime. Its done while the drummer is warming up, and they dont even realise we do it usually. They often want to hear a bit of the drums anyway though, so we can play back to them what we captured straight away. Theres nothing to be embarrased about here. Its totally typical of the kind of thing I get asked to mix all the time, and sometimes the tracking was done in 'proper' studios. The Kit Richardson EP had some terrible mistakes on one kick drum mic on one song (luckily there was another mic on the kick or all bets would have been off) - basically they tracked with a noise gate on the channel and didnt check it between songs, song b was quieter than song a (for the drummer) and the gate didnt open on half the beats. If we learn anything from that its dont use noise gates down to tape on the drum kit

Yeah, you should spend some time listening to the mics before you even try and mke a take. Listen critically, move them around to try and get a bit mroe of what you need, less of what you dont. Come mix time the better you have tracked everything the less you need to do. Uploading the mic on that was on the top of the snare cant hurt at this point, it may be just whats needed to get a bit of body into it. The guitars sound fine (like them a lot), the bass is really good for the genre (excellent in fact), the keys are fine. Havent really listened to the vocal yet, but the drums, oh my...... We may be here some time my friend

Might take a while WM

Had a bit of a play with this RS. You really should be paying a lot more attention to the mic placement on the drums mate

They're silly. He was ace though. Love a bit of LG so I do

Anything that can load VSTs and play a stereo track can be used to MAster to some degree these days . Interestingly a lot of how you approach the mix itself directly translates into what can be mastered loud and what cant. There's a very interesting Pensado's Place ITL about exactly that. However, mastering isnt about loudness in the first instance, its about preparing tracks for the desired medium (CD, radio, mp3 etc) as a group of tracks (an album, en EP) or as a single track. And what the mastering engineer does the most of is actually that. On top of which they must make the tracks sound as one whole (nopt always as eay as you might think) level wise, and eq wise. There are a raft of techniques that can be used to do this, and finally the last thing they do is bring up the level to a commercially acceptable point, whilst losing dynamics. If we all mix to K14, then that 'loudening' process, which no one on this site has the tools to do as well as a real mastering engineer in a £200k studio need not happen. If everyone mixes to 0dB K14 then what we are doing os comparing like for like, and if you squished the heck out of your mix it wont matter one jot, because it will be no louder than someone who embraced the transients, and dynamics. The scary truth is the latter mix will usually sound better played quiet or loud in any decent listening environment. I'm not talking about not using any mixbuss compression if thats your bag, or mixbuss eq, or group comps, or who knows what else you might like to do to get a more glued, consistent, exciting mix. I'm just saying leave the loudening off, everyone get to the same nominal level. Then turn your monitors up. The result will be judging mixes not maximisers...

I'm certainly not suggesting anyone bother to adopt the full K-metering approach, merely that a KMeter is a very well defined meter of output, and so [i]could[/i] be used to get comparable level between mixes from the get go, making judging a tad easier....