doubling up the kick?

  • Thread starter Thread starter skiz
  • Start date Start date
boingoman said:
Dude, any other part of this thread aside, this is some really dumb shit to say.
Click to expand...

Do you expect anything more from him at this point. This idiot continues to believe his own crap and now he's talking such nonsense, it's a joke.

My TASCAM records 24bit. How it's piece of shit, in the context of this argument, only an ignorant un-informed fool would know. And the fact that this idiot thinks rules of audio change whether you're using Pro-tools or CUBASE or anything else shows that we're dealing with a half-deaf bafoon.

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is spent. You've had about 12 well informed people try to explain this, WITH PICTURES and everything. But you're dealing with someone that thinks insulting someone's equipment ( as if it's.....like....supposed to hurt my feelings....boohoo) is a way to win an argument. When, in reality, the fact that he even was ignorant enough to mention it shows the stupidity we're dealing with. :D

Over and Out.:)
 
You're test is flawed. I told you that. god you're dense.


Fooling Pirates said:
Duh!
I was being sarcastic and trying to get the point across that you can't do as much with one as you can do with more...
My whole point in this thread is to relay my experiences with mixing.
Simply doubling the identical track to increase volume, was NEVER my point.



By the way, I did post an audio sample that I thought proved my point.

Not to show the difference between doubling vs. a single track regarding volume, but to show that EQing multiple versions of the same waveform, creates a different sound then EQing a single version of the same waveform.

Identical EQ settings were used, and all faders were left at 0db.
The first 16 kiks are three identical waveforms: 1 untouched, 1 with EQ #1,
1 with EQ #2. Nothing else.
The next 16 kiks are the original waveform alone, with EQ #1 & EQ #2 applied to the single track. All volume and EQ settings are EXACTLY the same.

Amazingly, all 32 kiks do not sound the same, even though People have been trying to convince me that one track is "identical" to a group of duplicates.
Supposedly, duplicate tracks only increase volume unnecessarily, yet the 3 tracks together, are not as loud as the single track.

http://thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

Regardless of your opinions on duplicating tracks, you can't say that 1=1 and 1+1=1. It's simply NOT Identical.



I thought this did prove my point.

http://thestuffinder.ws/page8.html

Also, please humor me and check this out:

http://thestuffinder.ws/page9.html
Click to expand...
 
In a sincere attempt to humble myself, I would like to formally apologize.

I realize I became very defensive and stubborn, as well as represented myself as a buffoon after I was told that I was 100% wrong.

Not as an excuse, but as a fact: I drank a lot of whiskey over the weekend.

I will make a point NOT to "drunk" post in the future.

I DO agree that the same end result can be achieved with only one track, and that multiple duplicates are not necessary.

I still don't think that blending multiples is 100% wrong, or necessarily an invalid method.

It is a method that has simply worked for me in the past, probably because I am better at isolating desired outcomes using multiple 1 band EQ's and blending them via individual track levels, than with a single multi band EQ on 1 Track.

It is just a way I attempt to overcome my limitations.

Although the desired end result is the same, the method of reaching point B from point A, is different.

Riding a bike, and driving a car are different methods of transportation, but they both can take you where you want to go.

I only use this method (ride my bike) on rare occasions.

Due to the fact that my Mac is a P.O.S!, I have to limit the amount of plug-ins running simultaneously to avoid CPU overload.

When I am forced to deal with a weak sample that needs a lot of work, AudioSuite processing allows me to do just this.

I don't think that dealing with, and hopefully overcoming limitations is necessarily wrong or invalid.

If you don't agree with me, that's O.K.

I won't argue, or post any more replies regarding this thread.

Sincerely,

Jon Baz - A.K.A. Fooling Pirates
 
Fooling Pirates said:
I still don't think that blending multiples is 100% wrong, or necessarily an invalid method.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said it was. This all started with a few of us telling a guy that is totally new to recording acoustic drums that he should be able to get a perfectly usable - and good - kick sound with one track. Doubling and trickery isn't necessary. If you want to, go right ahead. But you shouldn't have to. I think most of us wanted to get the guy going in the right direction with the basics before getting into all this other shit.
 
Greg_L said:
I don't think anyone said it was. This all started with a few of us telling a guy that is totally new to recording acoustic drums that he should be able to get a perfectly usable - and good - kick sound with one track. Doubling and trickery isn't necessary. If you want to, go right ahead. But you shouldn't have to. I think most of us wanted to get the guy going in the right direction with the basics before getting into all this other shit.
Click to expand...

Very true, Greg!

The point is that a kick recorded correctly (tuning, mic placement, mic selection etc.) should yield results that won't need much correction, if any at all.

Doubling a track is mostly pointless, but there might be some interesting effects that could be achieved, but they would involve time shift, phase shift, loss of some signal because of cancellation before compression, EQ, effects etc. Not to mention what would happen to the phase of other tracks by trying this process.

Generally it's not a practical process.
 
I feel like I've watched a 6-hour Peter Jackson epic and the hero has finally gone home to his kids.

What a relief!
 
PhilGood said:
Very true, Greg!

The point is that a kick recorded correctly (tuning, mic placement, mic selection etc.) should yield results that won't need much correction, if any at all.

Doubling a track is mostly pointless, but there might be some interesting effects that could be achieved, but they would involve time shift, phase shift, loss of some signal because of cancellation before compression, EQ, effects etc. Not to mention what would happen to the phase of other tracks by trying this process.

Generally it's not a practical process.
Click to expand...

One good use for doubling/cloning a kick track (or any other track for that matter) that hasn't been mentioned is when you can't achieve the volume you need with 1 track (not enough head room/clipping or you haven't turned everything else in the mix down) a doubled or cloned track can get the needed volume boost often times.

I still maintain that 2 identical kicks sound different that one kick, besides being louder. Maybe my ears are better, my system/room is better or I'm full of shit - but respectfully to everyone (I respect your opinions) involved in this mutha-of-a-thread - that's how I hear it. Looking just inside the box (a summed sine wave) - yeah, the argument that 1+1= louder and not 2 is true. But outside the box it's different in my ears (i.e. SPL,etc).

My compulsive behavior just won't let me leave this fucking thread alone! Someone call Guiness!
 
The horse...........

has not only been beat to death but pounded so hard that it's now underground.
"It's DEAD Jim!"
 
yaknski said:
I still maintain that 2 identical kicks sound different that one kick, besides being louder. Maybe my ears are better, my system/room is better or I'm full of shit - but respectfully to everyone (I respect your opinions) involved in this mutha-of-a-thread - that's how I hear it.
Click to expand...

You are incessant on this point - and I guess you missed your opportunity to prove your point (that I took my own time to kindly provide for you.)

So here it is again:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=2870855&postcount=117

....prove it.
 
PhilGood said:
Very true, Greg!

The point is that a kick recorded correctly (tuning, mic placement, mic selection etc.) should yield results that won't need much correction, if any at all.
Click to expand...

Phil, this is where I would argue against this.

What if the kick sound I want is not anything like a natural sounding kick?

I've done some crazy stuff for a kick sound - such as sampled a basketball smacking on a concrete floor. (man, that makes an AWESOME Mallet strike for the kick drum.)

I understand what he is talking about as far as using multiple kick sounds to build a new sound - but not if they are all the exact same thing. That is just a plain waste of time/effort to me.




Tim
 
Tim Brown said:
Phil, this is where I would argue against this.

What if the kick sound I want is not anything like a natural sounding kick?

I've done some crazy stuff for a kick sound - such as sampled a basketball smacking on a concrete floor.
Click to expand...

..............................................................that's.........................fucking...............BRILLIANT!!
Please share more of this wisdom with us - pretty please?

Tim Brown said:
...if they are all the exact same thing. That is just a plain waste of time/effort to me.
Click to expand...

That's what this whole thread has been about...arguing over if duplicating a track in your DAW does something besides make your track louder.

Now I'm off to Wally World to get a basketball......I guess I need something concrete too, damnit....
 
TyphoidHippo said:
..............................................................that's.........................fucking...............BRILLIANT!!
Please share more of this wisdom with us - pretty please?



That's what this whole thread has been about...arguing over if duplicating a track in your DAW does something besides make your track louder.

Now I'm off to Wally World to get a basketball......I guess I need something concrete too, damnit....
Click to expand...


You need to let some of the air out of it so it flattens out when it hits - that yields the best smack.:D

You just have to cut it off as soon as the smack ends - otherwise you get the ring of the air inside the ball bouncing around.:p I didn't even have to EQ it. But I did put a little compression on it.


Tim
 
steve.h said:
Haha wow, this has to be the absolute worst thread EVAR!
Click to expand...

Naaahhh.... This was all worth it just to see the look on my neighbor's face when he walked outside at 11:00 PM on Wednesday night and saw me slamming a flat basketball onto the driveway, right in the middle of several microphones, and running over to my laptop to put on my headphones and check what the sample sounded like.

Didn't get any good ones, but that shit was funny!

I'll try again tomorrow, so the whole neighborhood can see me acting totally retarded, this is classic....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top