25 Jul
2003
25 Jul
'03
12:09 p.m.
Hello.
I am something of an old-school rocker, not so much of a
digital-techno-looper (although that stuff sounds fun too). I am
curious to hear how you guitarists out there handle your sound. Do you
all go direct in now? Or do some of you still mic your cabnet? I still
have not gotten my system together because of extenuating circumstances,
so I am still of the old school (namely, tape). When last I tried
(about 10 years ago) there was no good (and affordable) way to go
direct. Has that problem been solved in the modern Linux recording world?
My friend recently purchased an "all-in-one" unit from Roland, a 24
track 24 bit digital recorder, that cost him about $2,500 I think
(excluding cabling, mics etc). He says he goes direct -- and not only
direct but totally clean. All effects, including distortion are added
after the fact. He goes from his guitar into his recorder! This sure
seems strange to me, although I can understand the logic there. Is this
what you guys do?
I would love to hear how you all handle this. :0)
Thanks!
Chris
25 Jul
25 Jul
12:25 p.m.
On Fri July 25 2003 5:54 am, Chris wrote:
Hello.
<snip>
My friend recently purchased an "all-in-one"
unit from Roland, a 24
track 24 bit digital recorder, that cost him about $2,500 I think
(excluding cabling, mics etc). He says he goes direct -- and not only
direct but totally clean. All effects, including distortion are added
after the fact. He goes from his guitar into his recorder! This sure
seems strange to me, although I can understand the logic there. Is this
what you guys do?
I would love to hear how you all handle this. :0)
Well, for a couple years I was able to do recording with my old Soundblaster
but that was very limiting, one channel in, not much luck with full-duplex
(recording while playing a previously recorded track). I bit the bullet and
bought an M-Audio Delta 44 (about $250 last year I believe) and a Behringer
project mixer.
Since I can't really even turn my guitar amp on in my apartment (Mesa/Boogie
has 2 volumes - off and *LOUD*) I do most of my project recording plugged
through an effects pedal, such as:
guitar --> fx pedal --> mixer --> Delta44 --> PC
I've also done a fair amount of live tracking (mic'd amps) with this same rig.
It sounds great. For the neophyte PC recorder I suggest Audacity
(audacity.sourceforge.net) as it has a very lightweight learning curve. I've
done a great deal of multi-track recording with it. There are quite a few
Linux apps for multitrack recording (notably Ardour) but Audacity was the
easiest one to get started with. A drum machine helps too. It allows me to
write songs, record the skeletons, mail them (on CD) to people I play with
who are 2 hours away, meet up with them and play, then do proper mix-down of
all the live tracked material afterwards. All with Slackware, ALSA and
Audacity.
Several of my friends have the all-in-one recording rigs (like the Roland you
mention above) but I like the PC solution - it's much more flexible. YMMV.
HTH - JB
7:36 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:12:02 -0400 John Bleichert <syborg(a)stny.rr.com> wrote:
It sounds great. For the neophyte PC recorder I
suggest Audacity
(audacity.sourceforge.net) as it has a very lightweight learning curve. I've
done a great deal of multi-track recording with it. There are quite a few
Linux apps for multitrack recording (notably Ardour) but Audacity was the
easiest one to get started with. A drum machine helps too. It allows me to
It always strikes me as strange that people in here suggest Audacity and
virtually ignore snd.
{ http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/05/snd_partone.html }
Snd seems more capable to me, uses the same plugins, has an easy
interface and is easily {guile http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html }
extensible and has more depth {potential depth}
I use linux because it's something I can adapt to myself... build on etc...
snd just suits that a little better for me.
{Delta 44s do definitely rock though.}
8:04 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 10:12:02 -0400 John Bleichert
<syborg(a)stny.rr.com> wrote:
Or maybe there's room for both, based on what your needs, interests and
temperaments are...
I know I'm just a lowly Windows Pro Tools user who keeps trying to use Linux
apps, but every time I've tried Snd it's always seemed so high-maintenance
compared to Audacity, so I've tended to like Audacity. Maybe I've missed the
point, but it feels (to me anyway) like if you don't program you won't enjoy
working with Snd.
I agree that, on the surface Snd does seem like it might, possibly, some day
be more capable overall, but the extra stuff has not proven important enough
to me to warrant the pain of getting over the learn curve. I didn't find the
interface very intuitive, at least for what I needed to do.
I think those of us that are Sound Forge users find Audacity's interface
pretty intuitive. Sound Forge is pretty popular in the Windows world and
Audacity, while not a copy at all, feels pretty similar. Things are done
pretty much the same way and in the same places.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but just pointing out that
there are some of us who have tried both and like Audacity. I'm not ignoring
Snd. It's just not my cup of tea.
thanks,
Mark
It sounds great. For the neophyte PC recorder I
suggest Audacity
(audacity.sourceforge.net) as it has a very lightweight
learning curve. I've
done a great deal of multi-track recording with
it. There are
quite a few
Linux apps for multitrack recording (notably
Ardour) but
Audacity was the
easiest one to get started with. A drum machine
helps too. It
allows me to
It always strikes me as strange that people in here suggest Audacity and
virtually ignore snd.
{ http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/05/snd_partone.html }
Snd seems more capable to me, uses the same plugins, has an easy
interface and is easily {guile
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html }
extensible and has more depth {potential depth}
26 Jul
26 Jul
3:10 p.m.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:36 -0700 "Mark Knecht" <mknecht(a)controlnet.com>
wrote:
> It always strikes me as strange that people in
here suggest Audacity and
> virtually ignore snd.
>
> { http://linux.oreillynet.com/pub/a/linux/2001/10/05/snd_partone.html }
>
> Snd seems more capable to me, uses the same plugins, has an easy
> interface and is easily {guile
> http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html }
> extensible and has more depth {potential depth}
Or maybe there's room for both, based on what your
needs, interests and
temperaments are...
I'm not disputing that at all.
I know I'm just a lowly Windows Pro Tools user who
keeps trying to use Linux
apps, but every time I've tried Snd it's always seemed so high-maintenance
compared to Audacity, so I've tended to like Audacity. Maybe I've missed the
point, but it feels (to me anyway) like if you don't program you won't enjoy
working with Snd.
I don't actually program... I muck about with scripts. It's the same as emacs...
with the same potential. I've not actually messed with snd that much... I'm
still
making an effort at other stuff {web pages - http://www.cs.auc.dk/~normark//laml/ ,
a consistent set of applications - http://gemacs.sourceforge.net/
http://www.sgi.com/software/inventor/ , http://glame.sourceforge.net/index.var ,
opendx, vtk, common music, etc, etc... which I'd eventually like to try to tie
together with this sort of interface. http://www.rocklyte.com/athene/index.html
{needless to say... the overall learning curve is a little steep.}} like learning to
use scheme to the point that it will actually do something useful.
The default in debian is pretty complete and fairly enabled. As far as maintianance...
it's one of few applications that require none on the systems I've set up.
I agree that, on the surface Snd does seem like it
might, possibly, some day
be more capable overall, but the extra stuff has not proven important enough
to me to warrant the pain of getting over the learn curve. I didn't find the
interface very intuitive, at least for what I needed to do.
I've used emacs for years... the interface seems pretty natural to me. I've not
noticed that there is a learning curve.
I think those of us that are Sound Forge users find
Audacity's interface
pretty intuitive. Sound Forge is pretty popular in the Windows world and
Audacity, while not a copy at all, feels pretty similar. Things are done
pretty much the same way and in the same places.
I use soundforge in win.... I like snds interface better. It seems more like a
drawing to me {if that makes any sense}
http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/software/snd/snd/snd.html ...It seems more
"graphical". but like you're actually manipulating the drawing rather
than
buttons and knobs.
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but
just pointing out that
there are some of us who have tried both and like Audacity. I'm not ignoring
Snd. It's just not my cup of tea.
Alright...
25 Jul
25 Jul
10:57 p.m.
On Friday 25 July 2003 17:30, Rick Taylor wrote:
It always strikes me as strange that people in here
suggest Audacity and
virtually ignore snd.
I mean no disrespect for snd or the people who use it, but to me this is
rather like saying "it strikes me as strange that people suggest Openoffice
when they could be using XEmacs".
Both have their places, but the more mainstream computer user (and I know
people on this list dispute this; I myself have been trying to come up with
ways to compose music in Perl, but by and large it's the truth) wants the
word processor that looks like Word or Wordperfect and the waveform editor
that looks like Cool Edit or Soundforge.
I gather that scriptability (I think with Nyquist and Python) soon will be or
already is in the development version of Audacity.
Rob
26 Jul
26 Jul
12:02 p.m.
Rob wrote
On Friday 25 July 2003 17:30, Rick Taylor wrote:
Ahem, it is called Nyquist :-)
Youe can find several plug-ins written in Nyquist in Audacity alread.
Besudes you can add your own anytime you like without recompiling Audacity
at all. And there is an intro guide for Nyquist in Audacity written by
Dominic --- http://audacity.sourceforge.net/nyquist.php?lang=en
But I really like other wave editors for Linux very much - snd, sweep,
ReZound etc. In fact, I translate all of them :-)
--
Alexandre Prokoudine
ALT Linux Documentation Team
JabberID: avp(a)altlinux.org
It always strikes me as strange that people in
here suggest Audacity and
virtually ignore snd.
I mean no disrespect for snd or the people who use it, but to me this is
rather like saying "it strikes me as strange that people suggest Openoffice
when they could be using XEmacs".
Both have their places, but the more mainstream computer user (and I know
people on this list dispute this; I myself have been trying to come up with
ways to compose music in Perl, but by and large it's the truth) wants the
word processor that looks like Word or Wordperfect and the waveform editor
that looks like Cool Edit or Soundforge.
I gather that scriptability (I think with Nyquist and Python) soon will be or
already is in the development version of Audacity.
3:21 p.m.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 17:48:16 +0400
Alexandre Prokoudine <avp(a)altlinux.ru> wrote:
Rob wrote
> On Friday 25 July 2003 17:30, Rick Taylor wrote:
> > It always strikes me as strange that people in here suggest Audacity and
> > virtually ignore snd.
>
> I mean no disrespect for snd or the people who use it, but to me this is
> rather like saying "it strikes me as strange that people suggest Openoffice
> when they could be using XEmacs".
>
> Both have their places, but the more mainstream computer user (and I know
> people on this list dispute this; I myself have been trying to come up with
> ways to compose music in Perl, but by and large it's the truth) wants the
> word processor that looks like Word or Wordperfect and the waveform editor
> that looks like Cool Edit or Soundforge.
>
> I gather that scriptability (I think with Nyquist and Python) soon will be
> or already is in the development version of Audacity.
Emacs seems like the ideal interface to me for composing sequences of
symbolic links... If you wanted to tie perl into it you could possibly
do this:
http://john-edwin-tobey.org/perlmacs/src/
"a
a
a
a
aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa"
{Assuming you're familiar with the interface in fruit loops
Emacs has pretty nifty graphical features already. You could
simulate the fruit loops interface with ansi blocks... even use bitmaps.}
Ahem, it is called Nyquist :-)
Youe can find several plug-ins written in Nyquist in Audacity alread.
Besudes you can add your own anytime you like without recompiling Audacity
at all. And there is an intro guide for Nyquist in Audacity written by
Dominic --- http://audacity.sourceforge.net/nyquist.php?lang=en
Nyquist is pretty nifty as well...
But I really like other wave editors for Linux very
much - snd, sweep,
ReZound etc. In fact, I translate all of them :-)
6:17 p.m.
On Saturday 26 July 2003 13:14, Rick Taylor wrote:
Emacs seems like the ideal interface to me for
composing sequences of
symbolic links... If you wanted to tie perl into it you could possibly
do this:
http://john-edwin-tobey.org/perlmacs/src/
I may use emacs, but I don't consider myself an "emacs user". I do all my
perl coding in emacs, but stopped having time to mess with elisp about 10
years ago. The only reason I keep using emacs is that ^p, ^n, ^f and ^b et
al are burned into my finger muscles by now. Heretical though it may be, I
consider it to be just an editor, easily replacable by the likes of jove, mg
and jed in a pinch, though I'm enough used to typing things like M-x
comment-region that I haven't switched to jed fulltime.
I don't like lisp or its siblings or descendents very much (though I thought
the implementation in sawfish was useful), and that's what's kept me from
picking up Nyquist as well though I expect to use it to customize Audacity in
the future. I'll likely come up with some way to generate midi or (better
yet) csound files out of perl code one of these days. Maybe I could even
generate Nyquist source files so that I could have the benefits of that
language without all that Lisp.
But I'm a programmer by trade, so it shouldn't be surprising that I am a
little more open to that kind of thing than normal musicians. There would be
no way in hell I could promote such a solution to my friends and colleagues
who own or work at studios or are themselves musicians: people, in other
words, who aren't "computer musicians", but who are using computers to
record
their non-electronic music because it's easier/cleaner/cheaper than tape.
Audacity, on the other hand, for quickie jobs (and maybe eventually Ardour
for the main job) may be something they could look at and say "Yeah, I could
do my work in that."
Rob
9:16 p.m.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:20:42 -0400
Rob <lau(a)kudla.org> wrote:
On Saturday 26 July 2003 13:14, Rick Taylor wrote:
The link is to perlmacs. "Perl"
The gobbledegook I typed before was an idea as to how to set up a file that you
parse with some engine or another and possibly run within emacs. The reference to
symlinks is an idea as how to manage sample banks... It all strikes me as an easy
way to generate music from emacs or anything that would run your wave player for
you.
I like computer music.
Emacs seems like the ideal interface to me for
composing sequences of
symbolic links... If you wanted to tie perl into it you could possibly
do this:
http://john-edwin-tobey.org/perlmacs/src/
I may use emacs, but I don't consider myself an "emacs user". I do all my
perl coding in emacs, but stopped having time to mess with elisp about 10
years ago. The only reason I keep using emacs is that ^p, ^n, ^f and ^b et
al are burned into my finger muscles by now. Heretical though it may be, I
consider it to be just an editor, easily replacable by the likes of jove, mg
and jed in a pinch, though I'm enough used to typing things like M-x
comment-region that I haven't switched to jed fulltime.
I don't like lisp or its siblings or descendents very much (though I thought
the implementation in sawfish was useful), and that's what's kept me from
picking up Nyquist as well though I expect to use it to customize Audacity in
the future. I'll likely come up with some way to generate midi or (better
yet) csound files out of perl code one of these days. Maybe I could even
generate Nyquist source files so that I could have the benefits of that
language without all that Lisp.
But I'm a programmer by trade, so it shouldn't be surprising that I am a
little more open to that kind of thing than normal musicians. There would be
no way in hell I could promote such a solution to my friends and colleagues
who own or work at studios or are themselves musicians: people, in other
words, who aren't "computer musicians", but who are using computers to
record
their non-electronic music because it's easier/cleaner/cheaper than tape.
Audacity, on the other hand, for quickie jobs (and maybe eventually Ardour
for the main job) may be something they could look at and say "Yeah, I could
do my work in that." 
25 Jul
25 Jul
12:39 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] [ANN] QAMix-0.0.4
Hello,
Version 0.0.4 of the MIDI controllable QT Mixer for ALSA is available from
http://www.suse.de/~mana/kalsatools.html
There are now GUI descriptions for SB Live, RME Digi96 and a default
description for AC97 compatible cards. The GUI has been improved and
there are new XML tags. Check the README for more.
Have fun !
Matthias
--
Dr. Matthias Nagorni
SuSE Linux AG
Deutschherrnstr. 15-19 phone: +49 911 74053375
D - 90429 Nuernberg fax : +49 911 74053483
12:40 p.m.
On Friday 25 July 2003 05:54, Chris wrote:
curious to hear how you guitarists out there handle
your sound. Do you
all go direct in now? Or do some of you still mic your cabnet? I still
I don't wire my guitar or bass directly into my Roland external USB sound
thingy, though I probably could. I run them through one of a couple cheap
DSP amp simulators I have, I think made by Boss. I was previously using a
direct box or just plugging in and always ran into one problem or another.
Noise, ground hum, bad levels, whatever. It may be that the Roland thingy
would eliminate those problems (previously I was also going straight into a
PC sound card) but I guess I've gotten used to the imaginary amp thing.
I would say I'm more of a keyboardist who uses guitars for effect than an
actual guitarist though, so maybe there are downsides I haven't thought of.
Rob
4:03 p.m.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:20:16AM -0400, Rob wrote:
On Friday 25 July 2003 05:54, Chris wrote:
Hmm... unless your guitar has active electronics (e.g. it has a battery),
you will get a quiet, dull, lifeless sound if you plug it directly into
a line-level device like a computer audio interface. A few audio
interfaces (notably some of the USB ones) have an input that is designed
to be used for guitar or bass. If you don't have one of those, you
need some way to get your guitar up to line level. The common
"professional" approach is to go through a direct box which produces
a microphone-level signal that is then run into a typical mic preamp,
and from *there* you go into the soundcard.
But even when all this is done, you now have a very clean, sparkly,
decidedly non-amp-like tone; to most guitarists, it will sound
horrible :-) So you need some kind of processing to do the distortion
and frequency shaping and compression that amplifiers & guitar speakers
do. You could either do as Rob does:
curious to hear how you guitarists out there
handle your sound. Do you
all go direct in now? Or do some of you still mic your cabnet? I still
I don't wire my guitar or bass directly into my Roland external USB sound
thingy, though I probably could. I run them through one of a couple cheap
DSP amp simulators I have, I think made by Boss. I was previously using a
direct box or just plugging in and always ran into one problem or another.
Noise, ground hum, bad levels, whatever.
hmm... bad direct box?
I would say I'm more of a keyboardist who uses
guitars for effect than an
actual guitarist though, so maybe there are downsides I haven't thought of.
die-hard guitar enthusiasts are (rightly) skeptical of amp & speaker
simulation, it's not hard to get it to sound pretty close but
it IS really hard to get it 100% there.
Anyway, there are a million amp & speaker simulators on the market
now, from sansamp to the line 6 POD models etc etc.
You could also just use LADSPA effects, either in your recording
app or with an effects-box app like Ecamegapedal or Jack Rack.
hmmm, i'm going to go play with those a bit :-)
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Look! Up in the sky! It's THE STEEL JUJITSU MASTER!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)
8:27 p.m.
Hmm... unless your guitar has active electronics (e.g.
it has a battery),
you will get a quiet, dull, lifeless sound if you plug it directly into
a line-level device like a computer audio interface.
If I needed to describe the above; how about listening to music from the other side of a
styrofoam wall?
We have a pod here and that seems to take care of the impedance mismatching of the guitar
output to line in. It also helps take some of the load off of the computer since the pod
has it's own dsp.
In the end, it will never sound exactly like a specific miced guitar amp in a specific
location. But, it will sound like most of the stuff recorded in a lot of studios that we
buy on CD.
Some of the direct in/line out guitar dsp boxes aren't that expensive for what they
do. I would suggest going to your local music store and giving them a try. Find a good
electric guitar from their racks, run it into the dsp box, and then into a good mixer. If
they don't have any decent speakers connected to the system, plug a good pair of
headphones into the mixer and listen from there. Some of the dsp boxes have their own
headphone outs, but I would suggest the above as you can mix and match guitars and boxes
until you find a good price/sound quality in the dsp box.
12:45 p.m.
On Fri July 25 2003 5:54 am, Chris wrote:
<snip>
I am something of an old-school rocker, not so much of
a
digital-techno-looper (although that stuff sounds fun too). I am
curious to hear how you guitarists out there handle your sound. Do you
all go direct in now? Or do some of you still mic your cabnet? I still
<snip>
As I mentioned in my previous post, since I can't really use my amp in my
apartment, I use an FX pedal that has a great rectifier-emulation setting for
distortion and/or repugnantly titanic crunch. Whenever we get together to do
'real' recording (a friend has about 10 acres, we can make all the noise we
want) I mic my amps at a decently (or indecently, depending on your viewpoint
;-) loud level and play/record 2 separate tracks, one for each side in
stereo, maybe more, time permitting. Plugging direct actually works pretty
well for the rhythm tracks, but not all that great for leads. I really dig
the warm, feedbacky sound I get from my Boogie tube amp and it can *not* be
replaced by an fx pedal.
So, to answer your question, at home I play quite a bit plugged into my PC
through an FX pedal and use the monitors (plugged into my mixer) as my amp.
Once I have my own house and a proper studio where I can shake the walls all
I want, I'll probably stop plugging in direct and mic my amps.
That said, I record tracks for people all the time with my fx pedal, convert
them to wav and send them off on the internet for them to use as they see
fit. Direct does have it's uses, but for a metalhead or hard rock fan I can't
see the use in playing clean into a PC and then adding effects. If it's not
crunchy while I'm playing, I'm not entertained, but of course that is
completely arbitrary. I have a few jazz/blues playing friends who do all
their recording clean.
JB
1:19 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 July 2003 16:31, John Bleichert wrote:
Direct does have it's uses, but for a metalhead or
hard rock
fan I can't see the use in playing clean into a PC and then adding effects.
If it's not crunchy while I'm playing, I'm not entertained, [...]
Crunchy licks don't "feel right" if they're played without overdrive,
don't
they?
I had some horrible latency with my old Microbloat system once. Playing guitar
through that setup was impossible.
I plugged the guitar into my mixer and routed the signal into the PC as well
as into a distortion pedal and my amplifier. I didn't tune that amp chain
much to make it sound exciting, but at least there was no latency with that
crunchy "monitor". It worked quite well actually, the clean signal that I
recorded got its overdrive and other effects afterwards.
I came across that idea when a friend of mine showed me his bi-amp guitar
rack. Most of his overdrive sounds use a clean setting of the second amp.
A little amount of clean signal can add a lot of punchy attack to distorted
guitars, but it's not that easy to mix the two signals smoothly.
- - Burkhard W.
- --
GNU/Linux in Education Wiki Project: http://book.schoolforge.net
public key ID:0xFD82303B - hkp://blackhole.pca.dfn.de
FP:0A65 5E83 F44F 47A5 3DFC 19C5 7779 E411 FD82 303B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/IUnCd3nkEf2CMDsRAmqbAKC+LUsZrBX7BifKzZRkc+krMyXsuQCgxCD7
usbGOhvohOwPDWnp5go0Ljk=
=b0FT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:33 p.m.
On Friday 25 July 2003 16:31, John Bleichert wrote:
Absolutely true. I play the guitar differently with a crunchy sound vs. a
clean sound. I pick differently. My fret board fingers move differently. If
I play the guitar 'cleanly' and then add crunchy effects, I don't get the
same product.
I do, however, record direct using a Pod Pro with a crunchy sound, and by
the time things are mixed down it seems quite acceptable to me. There's
nothing magic about the Pod Pro. All the same programs could, presumably, be
run with host-based processing as a LADSPA plugin, presuming that CPU cycles
and latency don't cause you problems. I haven't had much need (nor
opportunity) to experiment with such things under Linux.
Cheers,
Mark
Direct does have it's uses, but for a
metalhead or hard rock
fan I can't see the use in playing clean into a PC and then
adding effects.
If it's not crunchy while I'm playing,
I'm not entertained, [...]
Crunchy licks don't "feel right" if they're played without
overdrive, don't
they?
27 Jul
27 Jul
2:23 p.m.
Chris wrote:
Hello.
I am something of an old-school rocker, not so much of a
digital-techno-looper (although that stuff sounds fun too). I am
curious to hear how you guitarists out there handle your sound. Do
you all go direct in now? Or do some of you still mic your cabnet? I
still have not gotten my system together because of extenuating
circumstances, so I am still of the old school (namely, tape). When
last I tried (about 10 years ago) there was no good (and affordable)
way to go direct. Has that problem been solved in the modern Linux
recording world?
My friend recently purchased an "all-in-one" unit from Roland, a 24
track 24 bit digital recorder, that cost him about $2,500 I think
(excluding cabling, mics etc). He says he goes direct -- and not only
direct but totally clean. All effects, including distortion are added
after the fact. He goes from his guitar into his recorder! This sure
seems strange to me, although I can understand the logic there. Is
this what you guys do?
I would love to hear how you all handle this. :0)
Thanks!
Chris
Wow...
I never dreamed that this question would spark such a response, even if
it did get a little off topic at times ;), I thank you all.
So, overall it sounds to me like the "serious" way of doing it is still
micing the amps. True?
I am not only concerned with blowing the doors off the neighbor's house
(they are hardly home anyway ;) ), but ambient noise. I live pretty
close to a major road, and I get bumpers* driving through the
neighborhood which could really screw up a track (very frustrating).
So ardour and audacity would have plugins that would help me emulate a
mic'd sound?
I am putting together a wishlist for a new system.. pretty soon I will
be able to put it up to review :0).
Thanks again for all your help.
Chris
*bumpers=rap-listening types sporting subwoofers in their car with
cone-sizes larger thant their IQs -- who are both generous and
considerate enough to bless the entire neighborhood with their typically
substandard taste in music at any given hour of the day. This is
opposed to jammers who's music is primarily above the 22db mark, and
play their music loud enough to damage their own tympanic membranes, but
not those of their neighbors :).
7843
days inactive
7845
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
17 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Burkhard Woelfel -
Chris -
John Bleichert -
Mark Knecht -
Matthias Nagorni -
Paul Winkler -
Rick Taylor -
Rob -
Tracey Anne Hytry