Jump to content

bcfromfl

Member
  • Posts

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

bcfromfl's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. As the old adage goes, you don't get anything for free... (at least anything good.) It doesn't really meet your criteria, as it costs a little and requires an iLok, but I'm really surprised no one has mendtioned QL Pianos. I am a piano player since childhood, and very particular about how pianos sound. As with any digital library, QLP requires tweaking (note duration, velocity, etc.) but the three represented pianos, Steinway, Bosendorfer, and Bechstein, are as good as is necessary for any demanding digital performance. If you're looking for a good, moody Bosendorfer (although nowhere as good as QLP), there's a pretty good one in the EW Goliath library, although, again, requires an iLok. I haven't checked, but Goliath has been out for so long it's probably pretty reasonable, especially if you pick it up in one of their sales. -Bruce
  2. This is precisely one of my questions from my OP. Thanks, Rev, for your helpful reminder! Sometimes all this can be quite daunting when going it alone, and I appreciate your points to retain perspective! -Bruce
  3. Thanks all for your continuing comments. I really appreciate the help! Prodguy, as the Reverend pointed out, I'm a singer/composer and not a producer/engineer type. Despite the fact that I've been working with Logic for nearly four years, there's a limit to how far one can progress on your own...with no other knowledge or guidance to mixing techniques. Some of you have many years of analog before going digital, and much of that knowledge carries over. I only invested all that I have in this out of necessity, because I'm working solo, and no one else will do it for me. The investment of time for me is easily thousands of hours so far. I really admire you tech types who embrace and understand the software, as well as the subtle techniques. And I especially admire those who are both musicians and mix/produce their own stuff. I was just watching a YouTube video last week of one of the members of a popular group demonstrating how he mixed one of the songs off their current album....in their own state-of-the-art studio, no less. Makes me feel pretty simple... All in all, I've invested about $5-6,000 in my setup, which is about all I can allocate towards equipment and software. If I produce my stuff, that additional cash outlay is going to have to come from somewhere else. Since all my songs are unfinished at this point, it would not be wise to upgrade, hence, I'm stuck working with my G5. My biggest, single investment was in my mic -- a Miktek CV4. I may decide I want to run that through a good mic pre when I'm ready to record vocals, but I haven't reached that point yet. And yes, "proper" equipment can be VERY expensive, but maybe expense is a relative term. I'd love my vocals to be run through a Bricasti reverb, for example. Way, way beyond my budget, even if I could afford a decent desk to run outboard processors through. (And THEN I'd have to educate myself about managing latency.) Just this example alone demonstrates how quickly one's investment can snowball quickly. It struck me last night as I was watching an engineer demonstrate the EZMix software, mixing a song quickly using the software for the first time, that while he was unfamiliar with the software, he had considerable experience mixing. So, he got an excellent result very quickly. I'm sure the same can be done with Logic for someone with similar knowledge, but, realistically, I know I'm never going to get there...and I certainly wouldn't want to be thick-headed and insist that my limited understanding be the end-all for my final mix. There's a lot to be said for a tech guy with a good ear, knowing how to achieve a certain "vibe," or sound that you're trying to do, and which settings to dial in. He's done it before dozens of times. That will never be me. All my experience is tied up in a handful of my own songs, hacking away, trying to understand what does what, and why I might use something, or if something else might work better. Thanks for the link -- I've done plenty of searching, but a good percentage of the results seem to be geared for low-budget, cheap services. I don't have a lot of money to spend, but neither do I want to compromise what I'm doing and end up with something no better than what EZMix may be able to do. I don't want to sell myself short, as I think I've done pretty well, all things considered, but you have to admit -- engineering is a very specialized art. -Bruce
  4. Thanks weave -- I'm trying to learn as much as I can before I get to this point, but it seems that, as you say, I'm just going to have to cross that bridge when it comes! Good points, although I guess ProTools will accept the same filetypes. Since it's likely any studio won't have my virtual instruments, all my tracks are going to be simple audio files that anyone can handle. Brownsound -- "mixing engineer" was the first thing I tried, before audio engineer. Just didn't provide many results from indies. Thanks both for your input! -Bruce
  5. Nah...I wouldn't let others keep me from doing something if I thought they'd disapprove. I'm sure I ALREADY do some things in my mixing that would cause that! My main question is about the overall benefit of something like this product, if an AE wouldn't use tracks processed that way. And how far does the "dry" go in what is sent to an engineer? EZMix may make the tracks sound better for myself, but is there any benefit from that in how I may be preparing my mix? And what would that matter if it all gets subtracted out? Would there perhaps be benefit in sending a wet mix along with the dry mixes? Or are the effects that something like EZMix creates so basic that the AE wouldn't care or otherwise be influenced, because he'd already know what to do? I just understand so little about this that I don't even know the right questions to ask, I'm afraid... -Bruce
  6. Yes, I mean audio engineer, but I also meant to make a distinction between an audio engineer used as a professional mixer, versus an engineer used for mastering. Sorry if that wasn't clear. -Bruce
  7. I know this is a common topic on this messageboard, and I apologize for somewhat duplicating other threads. I didn't want to hijack another thread, as I have some different questions to pose. I'm completely self-taught with Logic and mixing, and have David's book and Roey Izhaki's Mixing Audio. There is a limit to how far one can progress with experimentation, and hacking, and while my mixes are "OK," they lack a certain dynamic quality, saturation, and life. I use EQ, reverb, and panning, but don't understand more complex effects like compressors and limiters, for example. I don't understand why I would want to use, for example, a parametric EQ over the channel EQ. I recently "discovered" the multipressor, and like what that does. I can set a respectable soundstage, but I recognize that I probably have a lot of frequency masking going on, even though I try to pan carefully. (For this reason, I find myself using the imaging tool to limit the wideness of some instruments.) Presets are great for me, as I can quickly achieve what I need without understanding the various settings to get there. I've been considering the addition of some basic mixing/mastering plugins to make my mixes sound better, but the field is pretty narrow for ones that will run on my PPC G5. I guess the only reason I'd like them to "sound better" at this point is for myself, as no one else hears my stuff. The only one I could find is the Toontrack EZMix 2. (I can picture most of you rolling your eyes!) I've come to the realization that if I ever want to bring anything I've done to CD, they're going to have to go through an AE before reaching a mastering desk. I'm just never going to understand enough about engineering going it alone. There's too much to know, especially the "whys" and "hows," not to mention the high-end equipment that I'll never be able to afford. Considering this, is such a plugin a waste of money, since an AE is going to want dry tracks/stems anyway? Is there any reason or situation why something like the EZMix would be beneficial? What is the demographic for EZMix? If such an approximation/compromise approach to mixing is so inferior, why do folks use it? Is it for people who just want to post stuff to SoundCloud, or maybe one-off some CDs to pass around to friends? It seems I can come up with plenty of reasons to save my money, although when I hear the demos of these plugins, they sure are appealing! Getting back to the AE question, how "dry" is dry? Does that mean the removal of all processing, even panning and automated volume, for example? I did some Googling, and was very surprised to find so few AEs with websites. How does one find a selection of enough indies to find a good choice/fit for one's genre? I understand that it can be important to use a different AE for the mix than for the master. Thanks! -Bruce
  8. If you're on a budget, and have a lot of patience, I have another suggestion. I do orchestral scores (with EastWest), and don't have a keyboard. I develop a score first using Finale SongWriter, then take the physical printout, decide which instruments need which parts, then enter each note, one at a time, using Logic's virtual keyboard. I edit note lengths, etc., afterwards, as many orchestral samples don't execute precisely on the beats where required. I realize this is a bit extreme, as it's not unusual for a composition to have several thousand notes, but I've adjusted to it...for now. It also allows me to do a lot of work on another computer, so I limit the times I boot up my Mac to when I'm actually using Logic. -Bruce
  9. Thanks so much, again, David! All the talk on the web about mic pres had me concerned that if I were to do an "important" recording, I would be doing myself a disservice out of my ignorance and lack of something perhaps important. Thank you for providing the reassurance with respect to the Duet! -Bruce
  10. I've studied the links, which unfortunately, are a bit beyond what I'm able to grasp. I've spent the past couple of days reading reviews of just about every major pre on the market today, and watching "shootouts" on YouTube. I am no closer to understanding all of this, or how to integrate something like this into my setup. On top of this, I believe my Apogee Duet, in addition to serving as an audio interface, also qualifies as a pre...is this correct? I read a comment on one forum claiming that the mic pre in the Duet is better than any that can be purchased for under $1500!! Would it be possible, if it's too difficult to explain in a brief post, for someone to provide a link somewhere that might shed a bit more light on this for me? Thanks! -Bruce
  11. Thank you again. Alas, the trials of living in the styx... No nearby studios or rental agencies. -Bruce
  12. Thank you so much, David! You've given me a lot to study, and think about. Forgive me for asking this, as I know it's subjective. But let's say you were going to record a rich baritone, aka Roubert Goulet/Nathan Gunn/Brian Stokes Mitchell on a mostly orchestral/acoustic piece using a Neumann M149/Bock 251 clone. What sorts of things would you notice with a typical "Neve" sound, and what sorts of things would you notice with a typical "Focusrite" sound? This will help me understand better what sorts of alterations these pres do to an otherwise excellent mic. Thanks again! -Bruce
×
×
  • Create New...