SteveMac
New member
EDAN said:
That's arguable.
It could be Chicka-boom, Chicka WHAM chicka - WHAM! WHAM!
BOOOOOM!!
That's arguable.
It could be Chicka-boom, Chicka WHAM chicka - WHAM! WHAM!
BOOOOOM!!
cjacek
Analogue Enthusiast
antispatula said:
I think it'd be hard to beat this for the price / performance ratio, if you wish to stay in analog:
http://www.platesonics.com/page3.html
NOTE: They've updated (lowered) their prices. The Cathedral (MODEL#3600) plate now sells for $850:
http://www.platesonics.com/page5.html
Judging from the mp3 samples, the plates do sound quite extraordinary.
rayc
retroreprobate
The image dialogue was most informative - pity it peterred out.
I learned a few things just following along.
I learned a few things just following along.
dkelley
Active member
Beck said:
Speaking as a full time software developer by day to pay the bills and house and feed my family, I take offence to someone saying that the development work that goes into creating a great sounding piece of software that can emulate a great sounding piece of hardware and run on your computer isn't worth every penny that the software vendor charges.
It's incredibly hard work to conceptualize, design, program and release the software version, much harder work in fact than designing and building a good sounding piece of hardware. I've done both and that's been my experience.
Just because it doesn't cost as much to release and mass-produce a piece of software (R&D, QA, marketing, internet bandwidth, cd duplicating, copy protection, license fees, legal counsel, patents, copyrights etc) as it does to release and mass-produce a piece of hardware (R&D, QA, safety testing and certification, marketing, manufacturing, parts supply, outsourcing, distribution, etc), does not make a software plugin a way for vendors to make money off of nothing.
I know this is off topic but the way you expressed yourself there sounds very suspicious of someone who would also happily use and even help distribute illegal copies of commercial audio software, something that I for one am strongly against. Yes yes, I know you said you don't use any software plugin stuff, but you also apparently feel it is of no value at all, which probably means you'd be quite happy distributing it to others since you apparently feel that the original developer of the software doesn't deserve to get any money from anyone who uses his/her product.
I hope that isn't what you meant and that you actually do have respect for the work that goes into creating and releasing software plugins for pro audio use. You have no idea how difficult it is to create something like that and then watch it get copied freely in warez newsgroups and similar outlets while your paycheque disappears and your hard work never pays off.
Sorry for the rant - I'm feeling much better now
Cheers!
Don
Last edited:
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Hey, Don, credit card companies work hard too
If the line above makes no sense to you, then I'm sorry, I can't explain you anything here.
********
Developing software is hard work. Beck isn't talking about making software, he is talking about selling it, more specifically about seller. He also puts "nothing" in quotes, which I'd say is a waste of quotes in this case
Like it or not, but software vendors SUCK. And, yes, they do make cash out of nothing. They are not the same type of vendors as a guy who buy and sell fish. So, no need really to defend software vendors here. They suck and I have no problem saying so, and I have a feeling that they don't mind it either. making cash from nothing is fun, you know...
*******
As for your suspiciousness, you can stuff it, man Don't even go there., it drives me nuts 
. You've got a wrong place and really wrong guys here to suspect in f*ng software pirating. You would HAVE TO PAY ME! a big buck to make me take and use your software, and I would rather sell stale tomatos on the street than a software (and I am talking about legal software. don't even mention illegal sh*t...grrrrrrrrrr!). I'm sure many other guys are the same here.
so, happily use and even help distribute my as$,
here's the REAL vendor:
/respects
If the line above makes no sense to you, then I'm sorry, I can't explain you anything here.
********
Developing software is hard work. Beck isn't talking about making software, he is talking about selling it, more specifically about seller. He also puts "nothing" in quotes, which I'd say is a waste of quotes in this case
Like it or not, but software vendors SUCK.
And, yes, they do make cash out of nothing. They are not the same type of vendors as a guy who buy and sell fish. So, no need really to defend software vendors here. They suck and I have no problem saying so, and I have a feeling that they don't mind it either. making cash from nothing is fun, you know...*******
As for your suspiciousness, you can stuff it, man
Don't even go there., it drives me nuts . You've got a wrong place and really wrong guys here to suspect in f*ng software pirating. You would HAVE TO PAY ME! a big buck to make me take and use your software, and I would rather sell stale tomatos on the street than a software (and I am talking about legal software. don't even mention illegal sh*t...grrrrrrrrrr!). I'm sure many other guys are the same here.so, happily use and even help distribute my as$,
here's the REAL vendor:
/respects
Attachments
B
Beck
Guest
dkelley said:
For a programmer you've made a very sophomoric error in logic with your statement above. Apparently my disdain for software plug-ins alone isn’t quite a capital offence so you felt a need to associate me with software piracy, though I advocate no such practice. My guess is you’ve never participated in a debating society. Well, for future reference, you get points off for baseless leaps in logic.
First of all, some of my best friends are software developers. Secondly, I make my living in computer networking, but I wouldn’t produce my art on a DAW if you held a gun to my head.
I've never experienced a software plug-in claiming to emulate the legacy hardware version that did it justice -- NEVER! They aren't the same, and manufacturers that participate in such Chicanery should be dragged into court by their state attorney general.
I advocate hardware devices because they are designed as a complete system… the entire signal path is self-contained and therefore not affected by different soundcards, processors, and the general quality or lack there of found in various PCs. They are dedicated to a specific task, which means they don’t share processing power with other resource hogging programs.
You’ll have to get over it… just like Alesis or Yamaha fans have to get over the fact that I think Lexicon is generally superior when it comes to spatial effects.
However, I am happy to hear you feel better. Now, when you can vent in a logical fashion and wind up with a sound argument at the end of your rant you will feel down right euphoric. Try it sometime! It's a rush.
Kind regards,
Tim
Last edited:
J
Jillchaw
New member
Come Together
Hey isnt "Come Together" a fucking rip off of another song? Yes it was. There was a lawsuit and everything. Strangely, its still a genius tune and i love it and it works even though i know its stolen.
I think that pretty much sums it all up, even though i doubt anyone will even see my point in relation to the previous topics. Too much fun to shit on other mens opinions i guess.
I do feel that to be a great musician you only need inspiration and understanding of your medium. Without inspiration and fundamental know how you will strive to control your art through outside methods. Like particular reverbs and particular equipment. And when i say "understanding of your medium" i mean for the type of music you are making, you NEED to know how it works and there is no level of overanalyzation possible. Study EVERYTHING. Not just the chords. Ive found that even the people who study music and theory dont really know shit. Their technical "know how" is just another form of artistic substitution just like equipment fussing. Emotional honesty is the only light that can guide you and help you truly improve as an entertainer, as gay as that sounds.
Hey isnt "Come Together" a fucking rip off of another song? Yes it was. There was a lawsuit and everything. Strangely, its still a genius tune and i love it and it works even though i know its stolen.
I think that pretty much sums it all up, even though i doubt anyone will even see my point in relation to the previous topics. Too much fun to shit on other mens opinions i guess.
I do feel that to be a great musician you only need inspiration and understanding of your medium. Without inspiration and fundamental know how you will strive to control your art through outside methods. Like particular reverbs and particular equipment. And when i say "understanding of your medium" i mean for the type of music you are making, you NEED to know how it works and there is no level of overanalyzation possible. Study EVERYTHING. Not just the chords. Ive found that even the people who study music and theory dont really know shit. Their technical "know how" is just another form of artistic substitution just like equipment fussing. Emotional honesty is the only light that can guide you and help you truly improve as an entertainer, as gay as that sounds.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
wild assumption rather,Beck said:For a programmer you've made a very sophomoric error in logic ....
.
not every full time software developer by day is a programmer. Some work hard on "realistic" feel, for example. They are artists in a sense
********
btw, , Beck, you are right on target by saying: "...manufacturers that participate in such Chicanery should be dragged into court by their state attorney general". The most pathetic part IS that those "developers" are so f*ng full of it, that they have nerve to worry about THEIR rights and their "intellectual property". But you see, you can't really get them. You can get McDonalds, because the damn fat is real, but how can you get someone for making something who does not really make anything. No dead body - no crime, sort of speak
**********
back to stadying everything , or analyzing something
/respects
Attachments
G
Good Friend
New member
Tapco
Has anyone here used one of those 70s Tapco spring reverbs?
Has anyone here used one of those 70s Tapco spring reverbs?
E
EDAN
New member
Jillchaw said:
How very true.
fraserhutch
Flypaper for freaks
What a load of reverse-snobbery bullshit. It may be true for SOME, but as a blanket statement, well, it's just crap. Just as SOME of those who don't study music and theory don't know shit. The difference is, I would wager that MORE of those who don't study music anbd theory don't know shit. They just don't know they don't know shit.
Technical "know-how" is like a tool-box, they have tools you don't, but as in ANY form of art, without that passion and inspiration, it's just craft. With the passion and inspiration, they have more tools.
Technical "know-how" is like a tool-box, they have tools you don't, but as in ANY form of art, without that passion and inspiration, it's just craft. With the passion and inspiration, they have more tools.
Jillchaw said:
J
Jillchaw
New member
nope
Dont misunderstand. I myself learn music theory, its just a different kind of theory than is usually taught. Usually theory is piles of scales and all this memorization. But i dont think that all that memorization can help write good music. Thats why i say people who study theory are mostly still dumb to how music really works.
The type of things i look for in song writing theory starts at the binary level. Mostly how the brain chunks pulses and phrases into larger parts. Then i try to recognize any parallel construction that is going on. I scrutinize at the smallest level to see if there is something im missing. Since i have learned what the brain regards as excessive in the realm of music, i can look for where parallel construction works to alleviate that excess.
I just dont understand why that type of theory isnt more widespread. Everyones a musician but no one even knows the 4 types of chord progressions or how the harmonic scale works, let alone the rest of it.
Almost everyones songwriting is amateurish and when youve studied parallel contruction you have the ability to see who knows what they are doing and who is just pulling out things randomly, just by looking at the song itself. It isnt a matter of taste. If i hear a song that starts right up and doesnt establish tonality quickly i can tell theyre an amateur. If the modulations are poorly done and they seem transient then i know its an amateur. Because even a decent songwriting student would avoid a clumsy modulation simply by leaving it out of the song.
The great misconception about music technique is that it is a set of rules that must be followed. Everyone is bent on rebellion and "rock n roll" attitude.
But i laugh at those people because the rules that exist in music theory are put into motion LONG before youve ever written even one note. Human short term memory limits music more by itself than any other book or lesson could. Also, since numerous studies of the human brain indicate that its organizing principle for intervals and chords are universal (meaning everyones brain reacts the same), i dont see how someone could reject the technical side of music citing "there are no rules in rock and roll".
So everyone just goes on shitting on technique, yet spending millions on albums written by the beatles, paul simon, bob dylan, led zeppelin and so on whos songs clearly contain intentional manipulation of every known compositional element that exists.
Dont misunderstand. I myself learn music theory, its just a different kind of theory than is usually taught. Usually theory is piles of scales and all this memorization. But i dont think that all that memorization can help write good music. Thats why i say people who study theory are mostly still dumb to how music really works.
The type of things i look for in song writing theory starts at the binary level. Mostly how the brain chunks pulses and phrases into larger parts. Then i try to recognize any parallel construction that is going on. I scrutinize at the smallest level to see if there is something im missing. Since i have learned what the brain regards as excessive in the realm of music, i can look for where parallel construction works to alleviate that excess.
I just dont understand why that type of theory isnt more widespread. Everyones a musician but no one even knows the 4 types of chord progressions or how the harmonic scale works, let alone the rest of it.
Almost everyones songwriting is amateurish and when youve studied parallel contruction you have the ability to see who knows what they are doing and who is just pulling out things randomly, just by looking at the song itself. It isnt a matter of taste. If i hear a song that starts right up and doesnt establish tonality quickly i can tell theyre an amateur. If the modulations are poorly done and they seem transient then i know its an amateur. Because even a decent songwriting student would avoid a clumsy modulation simply by leaving it out of the song.
The great misconception about music technique is that it is a set of rules that must be followed. Everyone is bent on rebellion and "rock n roll" attitude.
But i laugh at those people because the rules that exist in music theory are put into motion LONG before youve ever written even one note. Human short term memory limits music more by itself than any other book or lesson could. Also, since numerous studies of the human brain indicate that its organizing principle for intervals and chords are universal (meaning everyones brain reacts the same), i dont see how someone could reject the technical side of music citing "there are no rules in rock and roll".
So everyone just goes on shitting on technique, yet spending millions on albums written by the beatles, paul simon, bob dylan, led zeppelin and so on whos songs clearly contain intentional manipulation of every known compositional element that exists.
J
Jillchaw
New member
one more thing
For those of you (fuck this is way off topic by now) who dont believe what im saying, try to think of it this way. Lets take Dali for example. World reknowned for his psychedelic mind bending imagery. If you mention Dali to someone they will instantly recall his melting clocks and his elephants with super long legs and so on. But the true genius of Dali starts with his mastery of REALISM. If you want to "bend the rules" and "rock and roll" then youll have to learn what the rules ARE first. Because rules can be broken but you are going to lose something that must be compensated for with technique or the listener will lose interest.
For those of you (fuck this is way off topic by now) who dont believe what im saying, try to think of it this way. Lets take Dali for example. World reknowned for his psychedelic mind bending imagery. If you mention Dali to someone they will instantly recall his melting clocks and his elephants with super long legs and so on. But the true genius of Dali starts with his mastery of REALISM. If you want to "bend the rules" and "rock and roll" then youll have to learn what the rules ARE first. Because rules can be broken but you are going to lose something that must be compensated for with technique or the listener will lose interest.
Dr ZEE
Anti-Pro Circles Insider
Jillchaw said:
That's maybe so, and if it's so, I'm truely happy for Salvador. However, I still believe that a vendor who sells "True Plate Reverb for Your Laptop" belongs in jail
Speaking of rules and bending them. Here's a nice rule to follow: "If you had a nerve to publicly accuse someone in criminal activity, then you better either have and present an evidence, either say: "I'm sorry".
/later
antispatula
Active member
woah I don't believe this thread is still going