Thanks for the points of view. I do like to use m/s mode, the eq in ableton is enough for my needs.
I also started to use eq instead of compressor for sidechaining kick duties. That way, if the bass sound contains some higher frequencies, you can hear the kick and still get the feel of bass IMHO, almost like a magic trick.
One Synth Challenge #104 - Zebralette by u-he (Photonic Wins!)
-
- KVRist
- 476 posts since 20 Mar, 2015 from Nerima, Tokyo
-
- KVRAF
- 2752 posts since 15 Feb, 2017 from a worn out vinyl groove
Definately Mid/Side EQing brings more flavours to the art, as well as dynamic EQ... we could not even dream of these in the old analog days. Though I seem to remember playing with active crossovers and compression and EQ.. problem was we were so limited by the amount of hardware, not like now were we can just plug_in another instanceTaron wrote:OH, YES, we're in the #104 thread, wonderful...we can just chat!
. Lately I have really fallen in love with the mid/side balance, because it's so easy to push parts into the background that way, for example. I do, however, really understand why EQ has to be dealt with very consciously. For all those, who are tempted to think that the composition doesn't have to change to clean up a mix, but some heavy EQing may do the trick. It really doesn't.
This also reminds me of doing voice overs for commercials and if the speaker could not get the phrase in the allotted time (a 15 or 30 sec advert had to JUST that) we would speed up( or slow) the tape with inevitable pitch change>> then along came the Harmoniser.. I think it was 7000 or something... not perfect but with a good sound bed underneath, workable )) Oh yes.. I also remember, before the harmoniser, going along the tape and physically cutting out small slices to get the time right.. I loved all that really... some thing tangible and tactile about the whole process.
hmmm lucky Peter with Cubase and mid/side EQing... if not for OSC restrictions I would be using toneBoosters EQ..
-
- KVRAF
- 2080 posts since 22 Sep, 2016
It's so cool to get some insights in the older days, when all was hardware and far far harder...The more one understands the restrictions of these times the more one can enjoy he tracks and their sound. Thinking of Eno-Shimmer and that stuff, but also Kraftwerk...toonertik wrote:Definately Mid/Side EQing brings more flavours to the art, as well as dynamic EQ... [...]Taron wrote:OH, YES, we're in the #104 thread, wonderful...we can just chat!
. Lately I have really fallen in love with the mid/side balance, because it's so easy to push parts into the background that way, for example. I do, however, really understand why EQ has to be dealt with very consciously. For all those, who are tempted to think that the composition doesn't have to change to clean up a mix, but some heavy EQing may do the trick. It really doesn't.
hmmm lucky Peter with Cubase and mid/side EQing... if not for OSC restrictions I would be using toneBoosters EQ..
Does TDR Nova not support M/S? Don't know, haven't checked it out myself. It's just a best guess because its pretty capable for a free EQ. And there was some M/S stuff from Voxengo...
Seems we could now restart the discussion about having a fixed, restricted set of FX that are allowed in the tracks...because your right toonertik, I'm lucky that I can afford Cubase Pro with all it's fancy Plugins. Apart from the "Frequency EQ" I make heavy use of Multiband-Stuff...not easy to find as freeware...
-
- KVRAF
- 2752 posts since 15 Feb, 2017 from a worn out vinyl groove
Not sure if I would agree that it was harder... I think analog gear and tape is much more forgiving.. also our expectations were not so high then, I think...] Peter:H [ wrote: It's so cool to get some insights in the older days, when all was hardware and far far harder...The more one understands the restrictions of these times the more one can enjoy he tracks and their sound. Thinking of Eno-Shimmer and that stuff, but also Kraftwerk...
Does TDR Nova not support M/S? Don't know, haven't checked it out myself. It's just a best guess because its pretty capable for a free EQ. And there was some M/S stuff from Voxengo...
Seems we could now restart the discussion about having a fixed, restricted set of FX that are allowed in the tracks...because your right toonertik, I'm lucky that I can afford Cubase Pro with all it's fancy Plugins. Apart from the "Frequency EQ" I make heavy use of Multiband-Stuff...not easy to find as freeware...
Now we can visual see our Fk_Ups... they are there in front of our eyes, not just our ears, which can sometimes deceive
After doing live sound I got into studio work...
For "Sampling" I had 5 very expensive 8 track NAB cartridge recorders/players..
Cutting tape into physical loops, these machines had a very fast startup and I would do my sound beds mixing live.. punching the samples into play when required... fast ofc is relative..
Not the accuracy we have today where we can line up the start to the sample... we never had that...
BUT it was organic, to use a misnomer phrase
You know what... I still miss THAT EXCITEMENT and the touchy feel of Penny and Giles faders...
I gonna go and cry for the old days now.....
Nova does not do mid/side, the free version does downward EQ_compression... the ToneBooster has a compressor on each band. It can do up_ward as well as standard compression as well as mid/side TRICKS))
-
- KVRian
- 860 posts since 13 Jan, 2013 from United States
In addition to having virtually unlimited sends and aux busses (as opposed to creatively patching the hardware we had with physical patchbays), the biggest difference between now and the old days is that everything is non-destructive - which completely changes the decision making process.
Going to Toon's example of cutting out bits of breaths and spaces between words -- if you didn't like what you cut, you had to re-assemble it. And you could only do that so much before the tape was physically destroyed (which is why we had to make backup copies). That's kind of an extreme example but I hope it makes my point -- actually was a bigger problem on film than on audio tape) I worked on a popular cartoon show and we recorded the voices to two mono tape machines at once -- one to work with, and one to have as a pristine master, and safety, so if we needed to go back to something we would always be able to make a new working copy to cut with.
Digital has lowered the bar on thinking things out. Bringing a group of musicians into a studio to record music required a lot of planning and forethought. Deciding that a take was ok but not perefect required recording over, and destroying what was done previously. There are pluses and minuses to being able to do unlimited takes -- creative freedom and being able to go back and use something that would have been otherwise erased is nice. Not thinking before working and just playing and playing until you have something you like is not so great -- just my opinion of course.
Imagine working without an "undo" button. That's the good old days -- and they were good!
The OSC is interesting because in a way it mimics the old way of working. You have a limited resource -- one synth -- we had limited hardware resources and had to make the recording work. Kind of similar.....
Going to Toon's example of cutting out bits of breaths and spaces between words -- if you didn't like what you cut, you had to re-assemble it. And you could only do that so much before the tape was physically destroyed (which is why we had to make backup copies). That's kind of an extreme example but I hope it makes my point -- actually was a bigger problem on film than on audio tape) I worked on a popular cartoon show and we recorded the voices to two mono tape machines at once -- one to work with, and one to have as a pristine master, and safety, so if we needed to go back to something we would always be able to make a new working copy to cut with.
Digital has lowered the bar on thinking things out. Bringing a group of musicians into a studio to record music required a lot of planning and forethought. Deciding that a take was ok but not perefect required recording over, and destroying what was done previously. There are pluses and minuses to being able to do unlimited takes -- creative freedom and being able to go back and use something that would have been otherwise erased is nice. Not thinking before working and just playing and playing until you have something you like is not so great -- just my opinion of course.
Imagine working without an "undo" button. That's the good old days -- and they were good!
The OSC is interesting because in a way it mimics the old way of working. You have a limited resource -- one synth -- we had limited hardware resources and had to make the recording work. Kind of similar.....
-
- KVRian
- 860 posts since 13 Jan, 2013 from United States
From Toonertik:
You know what... I still miss THAT EXCITEMENT and the touchy feel of Penny and Giles faders...
Great comment! There was an excitement to analog recording that you don't get when you are just sitting in a room with a computer and keyboard.
You know what... I still miss THAT EXCITEMENT and the touchy feel of Penny and Giles faders...
Great comment! There was an excitement to analog recording that you don't get when you are just sitting in a room with a computer and keyboard.
-
- KVRist
- 476 posts since 20 Mar, 2015 from Nerima, Tokyo
In nova click the stereo button and either select sum or diff for mid and side. You will need two instances to achieve M/S eq.
I'm a big fan of TDR feedback compressor, but somehow i don't like Nova too much, don't know why, it feels sluggish and i don't like the results usually... just me lacking skills probably.
Im very happy with ableton stock devices.
I'm a big fan of TDR feedback compressor, but somehow i don't like Nova too much, don't know why, it feels sluggish and i don't like the results usually... just me lacking skills probably.
Im very happy with ableton stock devices.
-
- KVRist
- 41 posts since 24 Sep, 2016
voted.
Lots of 5:s this month.... wooohaa!
Lots of 5:s this month.... wooohaa!
-
- KVRAF
- 3008 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Croatia
-
- KVRAF
- 2080 posts since 22 Sep, 2016
I've started my journey into the domain of frequencies and music in a time of transition. I've started - call it a serious start - with a Roland JV1080, a 4-track mixer and *one* DB266A compressor and a Multi-FX Unit...that was quite nice. Coming from some experiments with 8-Track Software on my beloved Acorn Archimedes RISC Computer...ontrackp wrote:In addition to having virtually unlimited sends and aux busses (as opposed to creatively patching the hardware we had with physical patchbays), the biggest difference between now and the old days is that everything is non-destructive - which completely changes the decision making process.
Going to Toon's example of cutting out bits of breaths and spaces between words -- if you didn't like what you cut, you had to re-assemble it. And you could only do that so much before the tape was physically destroyed (which is why we had to make backup copies). That's kind of an extreme example but I hope it makes my point -- actually was a bigger problem on film than on audio tape) I worked on a popular cartoon show and we recorded the voices to two mono tape machines at once -- one to work with, and one to have as a pristine master, and safety, so if we needed to go back to something we would always be able to make a new working copy to cut with.
Digital has lowered the bar on thinking things out. Bringing a group of musicians into a studio to record music required a lot of planning and forethought. Deciding that a take was ok but not perefect required recording over, and destroying what was done previously. There are pluses and minuses to being able to do unlimited takes -- creative freedom and being able to go back and use something that would have been otherwise erased is nice. Not thinking before working and just playing and playing until you have something you like is not so great -- just my opinion of course.
Imagine working without an "undo" button. That's the good old days -- and they were good!
The OSC is interesting because in a way it mimics the old way of working. You have a limited resource -- one synth -- we had limited hardware resources and had to make the recording work. Kind of similar.....
The next big step was Sonic Core pulsars - dedicated DSP Cards...wow, what an explosion in quality...still have them...I should give them a try again...A track of past times (around 2004, yeah I know that is not old, but was partly mixed on the outboard mixer, using the DBX and the FX-Unit...sigh... to many cables back then) is this here - very kraftwerky, contains traces of JV1080, and Pulsar - seem like I allways return to my roots again and again.
https://soundcloud.com/p-e-t-e-r-h/intensiv-kreativ
Meant to say - I cannot compete with the experiences of the fully analog area, like tapes and that but fiddled a lot with cables and some outboard stuff myself too. It a tremendous developement right now...and sometimes I doubt that the music got better.
-
- KVRAF
- 3008 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Croatia
Danged, I can't hold back, haha...I had a JV1080, too, but some 24 years ago, or so...well, I ACTUALLY still have it in the garage with all my other wonderful hardware, so ruthlessly neglected. Man, I loved that thing, too. I also started with a multitrack, but it was 8 tracks from Fostex. The funny part was, that somehow all the hardware gear just had a different sound than what we're doing these days. I can't help it. Possibly the recording circumstances, too, of course, but even the less expensive effects units somehow provided a warmth and depth that is hard to achieve with computer only. Might be that I don't have a direct compare anymore, who knows.
There's also a lot to be said about direct access to the knobs and sliders and the way you'd record things/perform on them.
And I CANNOT believe you had an Archimedes, haha, no freaking way. I thought, I was the only other human being on the planet, who had one of those, hahaha...and I never really used it, actually. A friend gave it to me back then, because I could program. But this thing just never took off. Instead I was always on Commodore, actually...C16, C128, Amiga... ah, them olden days. Way too nostalgic! 
Anyway, thanks for the reminder, Peter.
...I didn't get to use my gear since 1998, I think, except my precious Korg M1, of course, which now is in a coma... 
There's also a lot to be said about direct access to the knobs and sliders and the way you'd record things/perform on them.
And I CANNOT believe you had an Archimedes, haha, no freaking way. I thought, I was the only other human being on the planet, who had one of those, hahaha...and I never really used it, actually. A friend gave it to me back then, because I could program. But this thing just never took off. Instead I was always on Commodore, actually...C16, C128, Amiga... ah, them olden days.
Way too nostalgic! Anyway, thanks for the reminder, Peter.
...I didn't get to use my gear since 1998, I think, except my precious Korg M1, of course, which now is in a coma... -
- KVRAF
- 2080 posts since 22 Sep, 2016
I had one borrowed for a few weeks. The drumkits were so cool compared to those of the JV1080...yes...nice memoriesTaron wrote:except my precious Korg M1, of course, which now is in a coma...
-
- KVRAF
- 2752 posts since 15 Feb, 2017 from a worn out vinyl groove
Sure could have done with one of them >>> as you say, there were only so many cuts and re-assemblies before the whole lot is just splicing tape. But one soon learnt how to read/hear that "rockN_rollinig (scrub) tape sound>> mark>> cut>> splice>> pray >>> phew ))))))ontrackp wrote:In addition to having virtually unlimited sends and aux busses (as opposed to creatively patching the hardware we had with physical patchbays), the biggest difference between now and the old days is that everything is non-destructive - which completely changes the decision making process.
Going to Toon's example of cutting out bits of breaths and spaces between words -- if you didn't like what you cut, you had to re-assemble it. And you could only do that so much before the tape was physically destroyed (which is why we had to make backup copies).
Imagine working without an "undo" button.
I never got to work on film professionally (I did a 16mm film course in Auz) but I did work with video, in an offline studio doing the EDL and audio and doing voice overs we always worked on a copy, just in case.... no one wants to pay for a re-recording session.
-
- KVRAF
- 3008 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Croatia
On the Korg M1:
Above all else, the keyboard was wonderful. I have to fix mine somehow, really. It's so soft, but solid and incredibly playable while not being too loud. Aftertouch had just the right feel for me, too. I could fly over this thing without any hesitation. It was my very first instrument purchase when I was 16, 1988. Oh dear... to think that it's just in the other room, waiting for me. Whimper...
Above all else, the keyboard was wonderful. I have to fix mine somehow, really. It's so soft, but solid and incredibly playable while not being too loud. Aftertouch had just the right feel for me, too. I could fly over this thing without any hesitation. It was my very first instrument purchase when I was 16, 1988. Oh dear... to think that it's just in the other room, waiting for me. Whimper...
