KVR Audio

Wormhelmet · Post by **Wormhelmet** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:48 am

Just got tracktion for free. i already have a bunch of freebie plugins. un-fricken-believable to be able to setup a home based recording studio with virtual instruments for the cost of your PC + Soundcard + Controller. How much would it cost you to buy a bunch of gear that could reproduce the sounds of all the freebies out there plus go into a studio to record after lugging all that gear around?? I'm betting that with some talent you could easily get a better mix than a lot of people that rush out to buy the latest bloated version of DAW that don't have a clue yet how to use it properly. well, this thread was very useful. I was wanting to test drive Tracktion and now I can test it for as long as I want.

paradiddle · Post by **paradiddle** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:48 am

Just got tracktion for free. i already have a bunch of freebie plugins. un-fricken-believable to be able to setup a home based recording studio with virtual instruments for the cost of your PC + Soundcard + Controller.

Yup! I couldn't do that just a few years ago. Now you get the synth, studio, effects all in one.

and nice selection FAX, I use quite a few of them myself.

jura · Post by **jura** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:15 am

Mackie

Its better to spend money on controlers, masterkeyboards, mics, mix.

Recently Ive been thinking about Live4.
Ive been very close to buy it (discount50%due to Quatafire).

In fact they offer good quality effects, but the VST implement is horrible (for freeVSTs witch ive tested).

Finaly ive havent do that.Ive found EnergyXT.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:29 am

FaX wrote:Everybody ELSE other than YOU obviously !!!!!!

Works for me.

Xander wrote:anyone of you lads from 'Down Under' know Charlie Bevk over at 'Guitar Crazy" in Sydney?

I don't even know Guitar Crazy. Never even heard of it.

FaX, the whole idea was to offer a managable set of options for people and you go and ruin it with a huge list.
My main motivation [really] was that there are so many huge lists of freebies that a newbie could spend forever tracking them down so I thought I would publish a somewhat more targeted list as a starting point. Sure, I don't use most of those things myself but that's because I have a host which, whilst I got in on the ground floor for $59, is now seriously priced and covers a large percentage of our needs without the need to resort to plugins all that often. But if I didn't have ORION I am sure that I could do nearly as good a job with the stuff in the list. The only thing I'd miss are those sweet, sweet filters in WaspXT.

[ Lex ] · Post by **[ Lex ]** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:43 am

BONES wrote:
[ Lex ] wrote:The proof would be some references to "quality" artists
That would just come down to your definition of quality which would invariably include some aspect of the artists' commercial appeal which is completely irrelevant in my view.

BONES wrote: Everything You Need to Make Release Quality Music for FREE!

But to make "Release Quality" music you need an artist of some "quality" to make it in the first place...

... or do you think there is a big difference between an artist and a musician, meaning that an artist must have a commercial appeal and a musician does not need to have it?

/ Lex

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:20 am

Millie Vanillie?

Are we "makin it" yet?

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:34 am

[ Lex ] wrote:But to make "Release Quality" music you need an artist of some "quality" to make it in the first place...

Are you trying to suggest that nothing ever got released that wasn't really, really good? Plenty of stuff gets released with awesome production values and no substance, just as plenty of great music sounds like shit, production-values wise.

... or do you think there is a big difference between an artist and a musician, meaning that an artist must have a commercial appeal and a musician does not need to have it?

Artist/musician - the're just words. They only have the meaning you care to assign to them. In my head, when we're talking about music, they mean roughly the same thing. From your posts it seems that you assign some degree of commercial success to one or the other. Frankly, commercial success is of absolutely, completely and utterly no interest to me whatsoever but that shouldn't mean that I can't consider myself an artist. OTOH, my lack of technical proficiency would certainly prevent me from thinking of myself as a musician [or even a musician's arsehole].

[ Lex ] · Post by **[ Lex ]** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:05 pm

BONES wrote:
[ Lex ] wrote:But to make "Release Quality" music you need an artist of some "quality" to make it in the first place...
Are you trying to suggest that nothing ever got released that wasn't really, really good? Plenty of stuff gets released with awesome production values and no substance, just as plenty of great music sounds like shit, production-values wise.

The volume/style vs. content is very appearent in many art forms (music included). I guess quality comes in many flavours... some think loud quality production is fun, others like the sound of seabirds, and sometimes the substance meet a great production and is really good.

BONES wrote:
... or do you think there is a big difference between an artist and a musician, meaning that an artist must have a commercial appeal and a musician does not need to have it?
[...] From your posts it seems that you assign some degree of commercial success to one or the other. [...]

No, commercial success is not a factor for me in the quest for quality music, but before questioning the quality of a piece I have to hear it, and commercial music gets more air time in my head cause of the nonstop TV/radio ads. But I also have "underground" musical influences that moves me into another realm, and that is what makes me call it quality.

Cheers
Lex

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:14 pm

BONES wrote: Ditto for speakers - my "monitors" were cheap as chips...

and it shows...your music is shite imo...

all the friggin' tracks sound the same on "Hardtech for a hard world" so your idea of only using waspXT or whatever is prolly not a good one...BONEHEAD, you have been annoying me for a while now, just pipe down and don't go trollin' all the time...

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:24 pm

What does it matter?

Crawling Chaos is good as is Everything.

It must be that time of year.

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:26 pm

I'm just expressing my opinion...as is everyone else... (you muppets)

androidlove · Post by **androidlove** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:29 pm

Can I be Animal?

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:35 pm

SampleScience · Post by **SampleScience** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:50 pm

fractalism wrote:all the friggin' tracks sound the same on "Hardtech for a hard world" so your idea of only using waspXT or whatever is prolly not a good one...

Agree on that, but it's often the case in these underground genre-oriented music.

BONES · Post by **BONES** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 12:05 am

Especially if you have no point of reference in the scene. How you can think that songs with tempos ranging from 88 to 160 BPM can possibly sound the same is beyond me. I suppose that every rock bands' songs all sound the same too because they use the same guitar, bass and drums in every one. What a dumb-ass thing to say. I could care less that you don't like it but to say that all the songs sound the same is a nonsense, as most of the reviews you would care to google up will confirm.
EDIT:
fractalism, having listened to the mind-numbingly boring mp3's that you put up on 26 Aug 04, I think you've got a damned hide to accuse anyone else of having a samey sound. You may use a few different sounds bu tthe feel is almost identical in all of them. Maybe it just shows how little you get from music?