Pig in mud

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rusty K
  • Start date Start date
R

Rusty K

New member
Hello,

Well I registered my N-track software yesterday.

My first impression is that I can't believe how much clearer the sound is compared to coming into my pc from my digital 4track. I've observed much discussion here about whether or not there is a sound loss when transfering from digital to analog and back to digital. Many have said there is none. My newbie ears can definately tell the difference. It was always standard practice for me to apply noise reduction to my tracks after transfer. Now I don't hear any noise to speak of.

I'm now trying to decide what plug-ins I really need to start off with. I'd appreciate input on this. I want to keep things simple and cheap since I'm relatively new at this. I know I want compression. Is the Fa-soft DirectX compression the way to go? With the tone controls built in to the mixer is the parametric EQ plug-in necessary? I've read many here, like Sonusman, are not to big on EQ. He has given a compelling argument for his preferences.

I believe there is a drum machine plug-in also on the N-track plug-in page. Is it any good say compared to a good Boss etc.?

Thanks,
Rusty K
 
After I registered my copy,the next day I got the compressor and the para EQ also.Both are useful and well worth the bucks.
N-track supports VST as well as direct X plug-ins.There are scads of free VST plugs on the web.Look on the Cubase web-ring for starters.
As to drum plugs,I haven't yet found one as versatile as my old Alesis HR16.Check out the n-track forum via http://fasoft.com for lots more on that subject.
Good luck and welcome to the club!
Tom
 
Thanks Tom,

I just got registered at the N-track forum. I don't have time to check out all the posts right now but I'll get back.

If you get the time could you tell me how/when you use your EQ?

Rusty K
 
Before you go spending money on a plugin, first try this:
http://www.digilogue.de/english/download.htm
One of almost everything you'll use! Groovy color!

Also, you really should snag the VST version of Freeverb from:
http://home.onet.co.uk/~jzracc/freeverb.htm
Compare this one to n-Tracks reverb...I like it mucho bettero. (that's spanish)

Now check out the free section at the bottom of:
http://www.db-audioware.com/download.html

And you can also try:
http://members.nbci.com/bosplugins/

Hell, try these too:
http://members.nbci.com/synchromesh/html/home.htm
http://www.prosoniq.com/html/download.html
http://vellocet.ii.net/software.html
http://www.abel.co.uk/~maxim/vst/
http://www.divzero.com/
http://www.vb-audio.com/
http://www.smartelectronix.com/plug.htm
http://www.cycling74.com/index.html
http://www.multimania.com/scdevelop/syntha.htm
http://www.arboretum.com/S50_freesoft/S50FREESOFT.html

There's a free drum machine plugin and some VST instrument here:
http://fxpansion.com/

Tired yet? Too bad. Now check out:
http://www.linplug.de/Download/index.htm
http://www.kvr-vst.com/index.htm
http://www.hybridalien.demon.co.uk/

Does "virtual analog" mean "digital?" I would think so!:
http://www.musicshareware.com/item.asp?FileId=177&Category=SEQ

Could life get any dorkier? Perhaps:
http://www.psp.l.pl/indexen.html

Ok, back at it:
http://www2.one.net.au/~4viewst/vst/
http://members.tripod.com/DJ-GAP/cubase_vst.htm
http://www.iprimus.ca/~mugwump/cjfaudio/products.htm
http://www.sinusweb.de/index.html
http://vellocet.ii.net/software.html

This one's not in english...but music is univeral or something:
http://www.indygo.de/

More:
http://www.digitalelements.be/download.htm
http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/audio.htm

A plugin remover:
http://209.211.248.205/software/vstplugs/p14.cfm

More:
http://acidfreak.future.easyspace.com/
http://www.chez.com/rainbowvst/en/dl.html
http://www.dsound1.com/download/index_en.php3
http://www.silverspike.com/Download/download.html
http://www.kagi.com/smaug/vsamp/
http://nolv.free.fr/nolvsite/software.html

Nice interface on these:
http://come.to/richy

Ok I'm done. :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
slack,

Damn man thanks a lot. Of course you've planned my surfing schedule for the next week.

Rusty K
 
I have a lot of old casette 4 tracks.Real hissy, not so nice to listen to,but some of the performances were worth saving.
I set up cool edit as my default wave editor,selected a region of silence and used cool's frequency analysis feature to graph the peaks.Using that chart,I used the para EQ to knock down the room resonances etc one at a time.
Tedious,I know.But the old tracks clean up real nice that way.
More conventional is to use is during mixdown to "voice" the instruments.For example on bass,the boom lives around 200 Hz.A 10dB cut usually helps.The punch is about 300 Hz so I give that a little boost.See?Each instrument has certain frequencies already present you will want to boost or cut to make it fit better in the mix.
Tom
 
Tom'

That's exactly what I do with my old tapes and Goldwave. Sounds like the same kind of noise reduction. In Goldwave you just copy a section of silence to the clipboard and analyze then apply noise reduction to the music. I've never used eq on my tapes though.

Have you read any of Sonusman's posts on the subject of eq. I'd hate to attempt to explain exactly his thinking on it but it's something like; adding and taking away frequencies distorts the original wave. Taking away frequencies is not so bad but boosting frequencies that aren't there originally causes a distortion of the wav. Very simplified version, forgive me but that was just this newbies understanding.

Bottom line of course is how it sounds to the person doing the editing. If it works it works.

Rusty K
 
I think you should read and reread sonusman's posts. Don't hasten to assume that he's "against" EQ...that would be absurd. I think he was probably trying to argue that EQ should be used sparingly and appropriately. It's not a magic tool that can make something out of nothing (unless you're very creative :) This is true for all types of processors and effects.

I'll get him in here for you when he comes on today.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Hmmmmm..

An analog filter will cause phase distortion. It is acutally a phase delay effecting broadband frequencies. Blah blah blah....

Digital filter don't suffer per se from the same thing. But, they do suffer from quantiniaztion errors from the wave form having to be recalculated. So, software uses internal dithering to help a bit with that. But all in all, digital eq will effect bit depth, which cause quantiniaztion errors, which is another form of distortion.

EQ is a good thing. Used well, it is a wonderful thing.

Noise! Depending upon what the noise it, and after careful listening to whether is can actually be heard, it is mostly best to leave digital audio alone if you can. If you copy a LP to your hard drive and it has a little hiss, and a few pops, well, you had that on the LP too....:) Any filtering is going to have bad effects usually on the audio. Especially if you are working with 16 bit files. A move to 20 or 24 bit really does wonders to audio when DSP is applied.

Anyway, Tom's idea for restoring hissy cassette recordings may or may not hurt the audio. I have not heard any of it so I cannot say. But, when I have had to copy from cassette to the hard drive, I usually just leave it alone. The human brain has a way of ignoring the hiss after a few minutes of listening anyway, and I would rather have the audio unaltered by any possibly bad DSP.

Ed
 
The idea about using EQ to restore old cassettes is basically a lark,as we are fast moving past that point (see the posts about recording an 8-track for God's sake!).
Most guys will EQ mainly during mixdown.The thrust of my earlier post was that every time you turn that EQ knob up, the noise (however much is present) is being amplified also.If you do the same thing on every track that adds up significantly!
Subtractive EQ is the opposite approach.Kill the freqs NOW you know you won't be using (bass freqs on a flute,or highs on a kick).This keeps the signal to noise ratio up and avoids a syndrome that really bugs me.Ever see a guy "carve" out a spot for accoustic guitar or whatever with EQ?They want to make it sit down in the mix and that's fine.But why do it at the expense of the common frequencies shared with keys,vocals etc.?
Maybe we should call it "pre-Q",planning out how all the various instruments will fit together BEFORE tracking.Often,sensible mike choice and placement is all it takes.But subtractive "pre-q-ing" makes more sense here before tracking even begins.
My two cents.
Tom
 
Tom,

I hope you didn't take offense at my last post. I just throw things out for discussion sometimes especially when I'm the one that's most confused by the subject.

Really from your other posts it sounds like we come from much the same place, a longtime musician. Anyway I hope you didn't take it wrong. I always appreciate your input.

With that being said I sort of found what Sonusman has had to say on the subject of eq to be true for me. I spent many hours trying to eq files with software that didn't have real time effects. I never could improve on the sound really so his suggestions seemed to make sense to me. Now that I've got real time effect, oh joy of joy, I may change my impressions. I hope so.

Ok Sonusman if you get the chance could you expand for a student on your statement: "EQ is a good thing. Used well it is a wonderful thing."? So specifically when should it be used and how sparingly?

Thanks fellas,

Rusty K
 
Oh Rusty, you're going to hate hearing this:

If it makes the sound better, it's a good thing. If it makes the sound worse, it's a bad thing.

Entire chapters and perhaps even books have been written on EQ. The problem is that each and every time you hit record, you're doing something completely and totally unique. Then add in that the concept of "good" and "bad" in terms of art is subjective, and what you end up with is my first statement up there. Bummer, it's very hard!

I'm pretty much a total amature, I haven't been doing this long. All I can tell you is that you have to try things...read some books and apply some of their tips...read posts around here and do the same thing. You can't follow a procedure and expect to get equal results, but you'll get a good feel for WHY things are happening.

If you want to hear a blatently good example of when EQ is used to completely change a sound....listen to acoustic guitar tracks in just about any pop song. Yes, you can tell that they're acoustic guitars. Yes, they sound pretty. But how would they sound outside of that mix? Like shit. How would the mix sound if the lower frequencies of an acoustic weren't tamed? Like shit. It's all about context.

Slackmaster 2000
 
slack,

You're right I did hate hearing that. I guess I'm just looking for easy answers when there aren't any.

Your last paragraph rang a bell though. As a bass player I'm always sensitive when other instruments infringe, shall we say, on my turf. And I'll be damned if ever time I record my acoustic guitar the bass strings sound great but walk all over the bass frequencies. That's where I'll start work. Thanks a million.

Rusty K
 
Rusty
Your posts give no offence whatsoever.I look at this free exchange of information kind of like a bunch of guys standing on a ladder.We should be humble enough to accept valuable info from those above us and be gracious enough to share our own knowledge with those just a rung or two below.
I check in on several audio boards and there are some real flamers out there.Angry egos who just want to stir up some virtual shit and fill their empty lives.This board is real friendly and helpful compared to some of them.
regards
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top