doubling up the kick?

  • Thread starter Thread starter skiz
  • Start date Start date
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...

There is actually at least one sample library out there that uses that trick. I wish I could remember what library it was.
 
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. (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
Click to expand...

Right Tim, but the point is when you are building a sound like that you are using multiple sounds, not the same one altered in a redundant, pointless fashion. I'm not against that at all, but if you're trying to make ONE kick louder by doing a clone track then that means you didn't record the kick right in the first place.

Making the claim that 1 track altered by EQ in another track sounds different only sounds different in TONE. The timbre is still the same, pitch is still the same, the phase of the wave is EXACTLY the same, regardless of EQ and compression, only the peaks and valleys of the waves change in height but it is still the same wave. They are the same wave and what you increase in one does not effect the sound of the other until it reached the same decibel level.

When you blend different sources you create a different wave. When you are trying to use 2 of the same wave and EQ and Compress when you could have achieved the exact same results in a single track is simply dumb. To claim they are 2 different kicks is even dumber.
 
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. 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!
Click to expand...

In this case it's called being stubborn, or to a worse degree, pigheaded and it is not a good traight. You cannot win this argument at all because you are trying to argue against the laws of physics, plain and simple.

And the more you argue, the more transparent it becomes that you really have no understanding of the subject.

In another word, you are being obtuse.
 
PhilGood said:
Making the claim that 1 track altered by EQ in another track sounds different only sounds different in TONE. The timbre is still the same, pitch is still the same, the phase of the wave is EXACTLY the same, regardless of EQ and compression, only the peaks and valleys of the waves change in height but it is still the same wave. They are the same wave and what you increase in one does not effect the sound of the other until it reached the same decibel level.
Click to expand...

Or....like I said before:

waveform_addition.jpg
 
I learned some rules through the years!

"There are no rules, just guidelines." and "If it sounds good, it's OK!!"

You cannot argue about that. Whatever someone did to make it sound good, it sounds good. You might come with the 1+1=louder arguement, but if it sounds good, it just sounds good. Period!
 
moon said:
You cannot argue about that. Whatever someone did to make it sound good, it sounds good. You might come with the 1+1=louder arguement, but if it sounds good, it just sounds good. Period!
Click to expand...

It's not an argument. It's a fact. Nobody said it DOESN'T sound good. The point is that you will get the exact same results with ONE track.

You obviously didn't read the first 362 pages of this thread. You're repeating something that has been said about 20 times here.

Every person that has argued against the correct answer has come around to admitting they're wrong. Well, except for one, but I know he knows he's wrong. Don't be next in a long line of dufusses.


(I can't believe I got sucked back into this thread...."Just a peek", I said.....fuck!)
 
RAMI said:
It's not an argument. It's a fact. Nobody said it DOESN'T sound good. The point is that you will get the exact same results with ONE track.

You obviously didn't read the first 362 pages of this thread. You're repeating something that has been said about 20 times here.

Every person that has argued against the correct answer has come around to admitting they're wrong. Well, except for one, but I know he knows he's wrong. Don't be next in a long line of dufusses.


(I can't believe I got sucked back into this thread...."Just a peek", I said.....fuck!)
Click to expand...

I've seen these threads over and over again. On every recording site i've been.
:D it's like a cold glass of beer. You know you have to drink less, but it is so fucking tempting.
 
moon said:
That's a small kit for such a big room.....:p
Click to expand...

Hey, if it sounds good it sounds good, right? Plus, they've clearly doubled the SAME kick, so it will definitely be louder this way...
 
steve.h said:
Hey, if it sounds good it sounds good, right? Plus, they've clearly doubled the SAME kick, so it will definitely be louder this way...
Click to expand...
I bet they used the Photoshop VST on this one.
 
PhilGood said:
In this case it's called being stubborn, or to a worse degree, pigheaded and it is not a good traight. You cannot win this argument at all because you are trying to argue against the laws of physics, plain and simple.

And the more you argue, the more transparent it becomes that you really have no understanding of the subject.

In another word, you are being obtuse.
Click to expand...

No need to be an asshole about it Phil. I believe I have a good understanding of this subject and you're being narrow minded. Think outside the box.
 
yaknski said:
No need to be an asshole about it Phil. I believe I have a good understanding of this subject and you're being narrow minded. Think outside the box.
Click to expand...

I'm not being an asshole. I'm being bunt. You don't want to see me when I'm an asshole.

Narrow minded? There are certain laws that apply in this universe and they can't be changed. This is one of them. It can't be bent, moved, altered or made to be any other way. There is no "outside the box". You clearly don't understand anything about physics. You probably couldn't even tell me the difference between the four states of matter and the four properties of matter. You probably don't even know the difference between a particle and a wave, or the understanding of light or sound, the speeds they travel, how they interact or even what "Schroedinger's cat" means. Quick, go look it up so you don't look like more of an idiot!

If you did have any kind understanding of this subject, you would not even attempt to argue it because you would know the futility of it.

NEXT time, I will be an asshole!:mad:
 
Fooling Pirates said:
Dear Rami,

I never backtracked. I was being sarcastic from the get go. Sorry if it was over your head.

I also understand a lot about audio. I understand that, if things are
"identical", I shouldn't have to cut, or change anything in order to achieve the same results.

By the way, Did you even listen to the supposed "doomed" experiment? Do you even have quality (or any) speakers attached to your computer?

I can only assume you actually have a computer, because you use it to spew your ignorance all over this forum.

I found out that Rami doesn't even record via computer. He uses a Tascam "POS" digital workstation. 2488? Whatever...
(In case this too, is over some of your heads, POS stands for, Piece Of Sh*t)

RAMI, Where the F*** did you get the idea that you know anything about recording via computers and modern software?

Do you even know the capabilities Pro Tools and a Mac are capable of?

Do you know how tracks, waveforms and plug-ins respond in this type of environment?

Do you know that because you simply disagree with methods that are unfamiliar to you, or beyond your grasp of experience, that they are not necessarily 100% wrong?

I am only a Newbie to this forum. I am not a Newbie to music creation, and production.

I am 42 years old and have been playing/writing music almost all my life.
You, as well as others, might think my stuff sucks, but I enjoy creating, as well as listening to it, and that is all that truly matters.

I play guitar, bass, and drums, and have played all live in various projects.

I currently play bass in two bands, and have professional gear.
(A Fender P, Ampeg SVT 350 and currently a 2x15 cab, although I have played through every cab configuration possible)

I have taken recording technology classes in college (Analog, back in the 80's) and was introduced to Pro Tools (version 4.1) and digital recording back in 1998.

I have also worked in the live sound production industry, including manning the board of the Blues Stage at the 2000 San Jose Jazz Festival.

If after 25+ years of hands on experience with a plethora of equipment and recording devices, you still think I "don't understand enough about audio"... then who is being stubborn?
Click to expand...



Rami's cool, and he's trying to help. Don't knock people's gear - we've got all ability levels here and that's the way we like it.
 
PhilGood said:
I'm not being an asshole. I'm being bunt. You don't want to see me when I'm an asshole.

Narrow minded? There are certain laws that apply in this universe and they can't be changed. This is one of them. It can't be bent, moved, altered or made to be any other way. There is no "outside the box". You clearly don't understand anything about physics. You probably couldn't even tell me the difference between the four states of matter and the four properties of matter. You probably don't even know the difference between a particle and a wave, or the understanding of light or sound, the speeds they travel, how they interact or even what "Schroedinger's cat" means. Quick, go look it up so you don't look like more of an idiot!

If you did have any kind understanding of this subject, you would not even attempt to argue it because you would know the futility of it.

NEXT time, I will be an asshole!:mad:
Click to expand...

Damn, Phil. You are bunt. :D
 
This is what happens when the technical meet the creative. It's like when I'm in a meeting with both the marketing guys and the engineers. Sometimes they start shouting at each other even when they both agree. It's like they don't even speak the same language. Pretty soon straw men are bursting into flames all over the place. It's like someone double booked a scarecrow convention and the zippo lighter collectors guild. Tragedy ensues.
 
The difference is that both are still constrained within the laws of physics. Do the marketing guys ask the engineers to reverse gravity or make things go faster than the speed of light?

No.

And you are a straw man. Get some water.

My God! You are a fucking dipshit and I'd bet everyone at your company says so as soon as you leave the room!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top