Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Advice, GIMME GIMME GIMME< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: April 22 2003, 05:47

I think some of you allready know I mainly (read: only) work with the technoprogram 'Fruityloops' to create my tracks. I've had a lot of fun with it, but still it's just Fruityloops... At the time I write this, I'm working at Tubular Bells IV, and as it is free from techno/dance/trance/etc influences I'm realising I've pretty much seen all of the program.

Does anyone has some suggestions for some better software? Software that isn't specialised for one musical style?

Also, I've got a piano in the living room. It would be cool if I could use it in my tracks! But I've absolutely no idea what I need to do this. Could anybody tell me this, or refer to a site or so that explains things? Pretend I'm just the average computer user/pianist/amateur composer and that I know nothing of music recording (because that's kinda true  :/  ).

Any answers will be gratefully accepted!


--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 22 2003, 09:42

For MIDI sequencing, two popular ones are Steinberg's Cubase and Cakewalk's Sonar - they both handle audio as well, so they should be perfect for when you want to integrate things like that piano into your recordings. I believe both companies produce versions to suit various different needs and budgets. There are probably other good ones which I've forgotten about. Have a look at http://www.cakewalk.com/ and http://www.steinberg.net/ for more information.

As for that piano, this is a tough one, as getting a good recording of something depends on so much...
The first step in getting a good piano sound recorded is of course having a good sounding piano - some instruments can take a lot more work to get a good recorded sound out of than others. Secondly, the acoustics of the room are important, as some rooms can enhance and some can weaken the sound of a particular instrument. Positioning of the piano in the room is also going to affect how it sounds. How much effect the acoustics have on the recorded sound depends on where you place the microphones, of course...
Assuming you have your piano sounding nice, where next? You'll want a microphone, and the piano presents a 'problem' in that its bandwidth is very wide, going all the way from very high frequencies to very low ones. As a result, you'll ideally want a microphone to match (this isn't completely necessary, of course - you can use any microphone, as long as you realise you're not likely to be able to get the best sound possible). One I would recommend looking at is the Samson C01, which has had some good reviews and seems to be good value (though I should stress I've not heard it myself) - you might want to have a read of the Sound On Sound review. You ought to be able to buy one for around ?70 (that's Euros, in case the symbol doesn't work...). A microphone like that will also need a source of phantom power (that is, power sent to it down the microphone cable) - a little mixer like Behringer's UB802 will do that, and provide a better microphone preamp than you'll find in your soundcard (it seems its suggested price is around ?100, though you're likely to be able to find it a bit cheaper than that). You'll also want a good adjustable boom-type stand for it, to allow you to position it well.
You may of course not want to spend out that much to start with. Like I say, you can record a piano with any microphone, and you may find that you can use a very inexpensive one and be happy with the results. Sometimes a well positioned, but mediochre microphone, recording a really good instrument in a really good acoustic, will give a better sound than a great microphone in less good conditions. But hang on...what have I just mentioned? Oh no, it's the mystical art of microphone positioning...
You'll find lots of guidelines on how to position microphones to record instruments, but as you'll probably find, they're just guidelines, and sometimes things in the real world work out differently.
Where to put them depends on whether it's a grand or upright piano - I'll assume upright for the moment, as they tend to be the more common in homes. Now, the thing is that while I've recommended buying one microphone, you may find you need two, pointing both at the soundboard of the piano, one towards the treble and one towards the bass strings. You can do a lot with one, though - try having that pointed towards the middle of the soundboard from a metre or so away (not much further, as it's likely to start picking up too much of the room sound). You can also try opening the lid and having the microphone above, or at 45 degrees from behind. Really, move the mic around until the sound's right - the exact point is going to depend on the way your particular piano projects its sound, and where the reflections in the room are coming from.
Another solution is a contact microphone which sticks onto the piano's soundboard. These tend to sound rather unnatural though, and are mainly intended for use on stage, but you may find it's worth a try (also bear in mind that some are about as expensive as the samson C01 and a little mixer like the Behringer together).
There are lots of articles on the net about this - I've only scratched the surface here! My main piece of advice would be to trust your ears and go with what seems right to you (that goes for choosing equipment, positioning microphones and all the rest!)...and when something doesn't work, experiment until it does!
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: April 22 2003, 13:56

Wow!  :O
You wouldn't have any such advice on recording flutes and recorders, would you?
Back to top
Profile PM 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: April 22 2003, 14:51

Thanks you very much to introduce me to this 'how to get the right sound out of a piano' issue.
Got a little question: what's a preamp?

I've got a recorder to, but I think I'll have enough trouble with the piano...

Anyway, thanks Korgscrew. If I one day will become a famous pianist, I'll credit you on my albums! :D


--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 23 2003, 07:40

The mic preamp - pre-amplifier - is what brings the signal up from the low level coming from the microphone to the much higher line levels that most recording equipment works at.

A lot of what I can say about recording any instrument is going to apply to all of them. Some general advice is that the acoustics of the room are important, and become more important as you move the microphone further away. The most natural sound is often going to come from fairly distant miking, as the sounds from an instrument often focus a little way away from it. This is also why reflections in the room can be important, as sometimes the sound of the instrument which we're familiar with from playing it is the sound that's been radiated from all sides of the instrument and has been reflected back to our ears, along with the direct sound (it can be a tad more complex than that, as sounds that have bounced off something and are returning are going to be arriving at the listener slightly after the original sound, and that's when things can start to cancel out and reinforce each other...but let's not go there, there are books about this kind of thing if you're really interested). The kinds of sounds we'll all have heard on 'pop' recordings (I say that as the opposite to classical which normally takes a very purist approach, and mean pop, rock, country, a lot of jazz recordings and anything else that doesn't take such a purist attitude to sound capture) are usually the result of close miking and so aren't necessarily exact reproductions of how the instruments sound, but are rather a selectively picked form of the instrument's sound.
Right, after that long ramble, let me get to the point. There are all sorts of places in which microphones can be positioned for recording the flute, but it's usually one of two. Having one in front of the player from maybe 20cm away, aimed at the head joint (and making sure the player isn't blowing directly into the mic) is one way, having a mic coming in from behind and above the player, pointed at the holes, is another. The first is likely to get a more 'pop' sound, the latter a more natural one. For a really purist type recording, you'd probably want to go even further away - maybe six feet or so. Experiment, above all - you'll soon find something you like. Knowing that some of the sound comes from the flute's holes is helpful. Similar with recorders - as far as I remember from the last time I recorded one, about 30cm away, from in front and slightly above to capture a little of the sound coming from the body of the recorder, gave a decent sound.

Types of microphones also plays a part - sime have wider pickup patterns than others and so will give different sounds depending on how much of the room reflections they pick up, and how wide a spot on the instrument they are picking up from (and other factors as well...). Microphones commonly in use also divide into two types - condenser (like the Samson) and moving coil dynamic (I'll just call them dynamic from here on, as most people do, but I should say that they aren't the only kind of dynamic mic, and others don't share all their properties). Condenser microphones are generally more sensitive, especially to high frequencies, and so have a more open sound, and will pick up more detail. The dynamic type tends to be less sensitive, but also less fragile (stage vocal mics occasionally get used as hammers, which may dent the wwindshield a bit, but rarely stops them from working) and less sensitive to handling noise. They won't pick up the high frequencies in the same way as a condenser, which isn't always a bad thing. A popular dynamic microphone for instruments is the Shure SM57 - it's used a lot on stage (along with its vocal-mic partner the SM58, which is the archetypal microphone that you'll see singers using in just about every concert - like you'll see in the TBII/III and Berlin concerts). In theory they're an inferior design to condensers like the Samson (and cost around the same amount), but you may well find they sound nicer on certain things (they're certainly more suited to things like miking up guitar amplifiers...it's a horses for courses situation, and just because one thing is technically better doesn't mean it's going to work better in any particular situation and of course a good dynamic microphone will probably sound better than a bad condenser).

I think that's enough to be going on with...the most important thing is that you have fun with recording :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Holger Offline




Group: Members
Posts: 1506
Joined: Feb. 2003
Posted: April 23 2003, 14:05

That's cool, Korgie, thanks!  :)
Back to top
Profile PM 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: April 26 2003, 19:09

I've checked out both Cubase and Sonar, and they are two programs my system can't handle. :/ The only thing my system can cope with seems to be the Cakewalk Home Studio. Some reviews I saw are very different from eachother. What do think about this, Korg?

--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 27 2003, 10:03

I don't know much about it, but it looks ok to me, as long as you feel you can live within its limitations. The 16 track limit for both MIDI and audio is going to be the real limiting factor, but it can be worked around.
There are probably other things around (did you look at Cubasis VST?) - I know there are all sorts of products out there which are fairly low priced and don't need you to upgrade to a supercomputer just to be able to run the things, but I don't remember what they are...I'm sure that people using the forums are using these things, though!

Sequencing MIDI, by the way, is far less system intensive than recording and mixing audio - you'll certainly be able to get something like Cakewalk Home Studio to run as a MIDI  sequencer on a machine with the minimum spec, but you might find that if you try and record too many tracks of audio, you start getting problems. Real-time effects and virtual instruments are also things which can quickly bring a computer to its knees.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: April 27 2003, 11:43

Korgscrew:
Quote
(did you look at Cubasis VST?)

Whoops, missed that one! Gonna check it out. Thanks!

Anybody:
Does someone else of you, music software users, have a recommandation for a light (nice word for weak) computer (pentiumII 300mHz)? Cakewalk home studio/cubasis vst/something else? If I get famous I'll credit you on my albums next to korgie!  :D


--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
CarstenKuss Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 362
Joined: Nov. 1999
Posted: April 28 2003, 16:24

You asked, so let me tell you how I do it. First thing, recording. I use Cubasis VST on a PIII-500, and have never been disappointed. The rule is MIDI first, which means drums & keyboards. Then, acoustic signals. I use Shure SM58 mikes, but there sure are better ones (and more specialized, but expensive...). I put them thru a mixing console for rough EQ and adding reverb (Yamaha FX-500, there sure are better FX processors). Then, mix it all down into WAV. A good mix is important! Next, we go into mastering. I use WinOnCD (really!;) for final EQ, overall room & (sometimes) denoising. Next, I'm a friend of compression, for which I use WaveLab. Again, there sure is better software. Clean it all up with Creative WaveStudio, and compress to MP3 with AudioActive. And that's about it.
My recordings at the Amarok website were done like this, plus also the little snippet which I put online under "What is this riff?" in the "Other artists" forum here. Check them out if you are interested!
Happy recording...


--------------
-Carsten-
Back to top
Profile PM WEB 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: April 28 2003, 18:37

You've got yourself a credit, Carsten! :D

Still got some space for credits on the cover of my world-wide-recordbreaking-debute-album ;) , so keep posting, dear musicians!


--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 29 2003, 13:12

Certainly using external processors and 'offline' effects is a good way to go when mixing audio on a slower machine - the realtime effects are the ones which demand the real processor power (or DSP power in the case of the systems which use add-on signal processing hardware), as they have to be processing data at a certain rate, and you'll probably want more than one at once, and so on...rendering all the effects to disk is a more processor friendly way of doing it. Adding the effects via an external unit while you're recording, as Carsten does, is a similarly processor friendly way to go, though you have to be sure of the exact effect you want at the time you're recording, and if you get the settings wrong, you have to play the part again. People often find external mixers good for monitoring through while recording, as some soundcards and their drivers have a quite noticeable delay between the signal going in and coming back out again (latency - it's there in all digital systems to a degree, but only begins to bother people after it extends beyond certain limits).
Another piece of software you might like to try is Pro Tools Free, though as you're probably coming at things more from the MIDI than the audio angle, it might not be quite the right thing...but it is free, and provides 48 MIDI tracks. Apparently people have reported it working with setups like yours...but it only runs on Windows 98/ME at the moment (the only systems of theirs which support XP at the moment are the HD and Mix systems, which will cost you about the same as a nicely kitted out new PC with Sonar, Cubase or other software of your choice, so probably won't be top of your list...).
Back to top
Profile PM 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: April 29 2003, 17:04

Pro Tools Free demands way to much RAM for my poor 32 Mb...  :/  

But I'm glad to see I can be able to cope with the processor problem without buying a new computer, with those nice techniques you mention. There's still hope  :D


--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: April 30 2003, 11:04

Anything that handles multitrack audio is likely to demand more than 32mb, unfortunately. I'd say the cheapest option is to upgrade the computer (RAM is quite inexpensive nowadays, depending on the type your computer needs), but you could alternatively buy a digital multitracker and run that synced up to the sequencer, if you were to require audio tracks. They usually have on-board effects and mixing capabilities, and are usefully portable. You could even sync up a cassette multitracker, though it requires extra hardware.

Something to try is, if you can get free trial versions of the software, ignore the minimum specs the software publishers give and try it anyway - you may find that if you don't use most of the RAM-eating features, it'll work anyway.

You could alternatively look for an older piece of software, which you may find has all the features which you need, and requires less computer resources.

There's lots of stuff at the Shareware Music Machine website - you might find something that which does what you want. Harmony Central has quite a selection of things to try as well.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: May 25 2003, 10:14

I've decided to buy a new pc. I'll just buy the parts and put them together myself, with the help of a friend of mine, which knows great deal about it. He doesn't know anything of soundrecording though, so I've haven't a clue what soundcard is best for a mike with preamp. It doesn't have to be to super high quality, it all just has to go together.

Anyone a clue?


--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
BOOsTY
Unregistered





Posted: May 25 2003, 18:13

heh I would just like to point out that Fruity is not a techno program :O) it's a sequencer with possibility to load any sample or any VST/DXi Instrument...

btw guess what's ommadawn 2003 done with ? :P
Back to top
Korgscrew Offline




Group: Super Admins
Posts: 3511
Joined: Dec. 1999
Posted: May 25 2003, 23:03

You might find that now's the time to start looking in music recording/hi tech music magazines - they often run features on how to optimise PC systems for music making and are of course a good source of soundcard reviews.

You could do a lot worse than the Soundblaster Audigy 2 - the soundblaster cards always seem to put in a fairly competent performance. While they may not be the thing to base a professional studio around, I don't think you'll have any major complaints about the quality for your intended use  (though bear in mind when I say this that I don't own one myself, so there may be things I'm unaware of).
It's also possible to get devices (most seem to be USB or firewire based, rather than being PCI cards) which have a mic preamp onboard, complete with provisions for phantom power. I know M-Audio does one, I believe Edirol do as well, and there are more...you might want to do a bit of research on all these, as USB audio devices can have their drawbacks.
Back to top
Profile PM 
Music, the ancient language... Offline




Group: Musicians
Posts: 407
Joined: Jan. 2003
Posted: May 26 2003, 15:33

Thx again, Richard!  ;)

--------------
Read everything I write at own risk.
I cannot be held responsible  for
depressions and/or suicide attempts
of any kind, caused by reading my posts.
Back to top
Profile PM 
17 replies since April 22 2003, 05:47 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

 






Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact

Mike Oldfield Tubular.net
Mike Oldfield Tubular.net