Hello Kevin! The differences in EQ lie in the filters used. Their characteristics (slopes and probably the way they resonate). Then there are the obvious things like what you can adjust (bandwidth, gain, filter-type per band, centre frequency...). With hardcoded centre frequencies, it's the question, which frequencies had been chosen. But I'd always go for freely adjustable. Warm regards Julien =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Such Is Life: Very Intensely Adorable; Free And Jubilating Amazement Revels, Dancing On - FLOWERS! ====== Find my music at ====== http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html ..................................... "If you live to be 100, I hope I live to be 100 minus 1 day, so I never have to live without you." (Winnie the Pooh)

Hey everyone! I use Calf Vintage Delay as my delay (couldn't make any other delay plugins to work, tbh. also, I need them in bpm, not ms). The only reverb that suits me is Zyn Reverb. I also use Zyn Chorus, Zyn Flanger and Zyn Phaser. All of those are either available within Rakarrack or as LADSPA plugins (http://holap.berlios.de/) I use Dj EQ (stereo) for simple equing and CALF EQ or Zyn EQ. I also require Vocoder. I am happy with LADSPA Vocoder and Rakarack Vocoder. Louigi.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:10:20 +0400 Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com> wrote: I use very little by way of plugins. Rakarrack for all guitar and vocal effects. Zyn's own internal effects and occasionally jamin -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.

Le 18/10/2011 10:50, Jeremy Jongepier a écrit : Hi list, All FX I use have been named already, but : SC4 and SC3 to compress, or LinuxDSP ones LV2 10 bands EQ Linux DSP paramétric mono EQ lo & hi pass TAP tubewarmth preamp simulator + tone control LV2 IR for convolution reverb or cabinet sim I don't use much delay, but if you like to convert easily from BPM to msec you can use : http://web.forret.com/tools/bpm_tempo.asp?bpm=100&beat=4&base=4 or have a calculator and multiply BPM by 3 (1/8), or 6 (1/4), or 9 , etc for binary beats or multiply BPM by 4 (1/6), or 8, etc... for ternary ones if like a 1/8dot delay, you add half the value of 1/8 to it ie at BPM =100 dly 1/4dot binary = 900 it is that easy : tempo is maths !! HTH, Fred

Le 18/10/2011 22:10, Harry van Haaren a écrit : Well, I'm alive and well, sir H, and never ask myself if it's ok to take 11 seconds to do : "programs/accessories/calculator/BPM*X/Enter" ; IF the delay is fine : me too !!! It doen'st shot creativity more than have a look at BPM, and choose a crap FX (that you probably do not)))) Means, when you deal with machines, you have no other choice than Maths, sometimes ;-)) With PC it's always many ways to have same result, you have yours with the BPM dly FX. I consult a R/V page given by a friend where there's dly/bpm stuff. Probably the 2 of us are right, if ears-pleased ?

On 10/19/2011 07:10 AM, Harry van Haaren wrote: Have you tried the Decimator plugin from the SWH collection? It does both of these: http://plugin.org.uk/ladspa-swh/docs/ladspa-swh.html#tth_sEc2.26 Thanks Leigh

On 10/19/2011 12:26 AM, Leigh Dyer wrote: And it sounds like this (Decimator applied to drums during the intro): http://linux.autostatic.com/temp/sodap-iconofyourtime%28mixdown20101117%29.… Best, Jeremy

On 10/18/2011 07:45 PM, S. Massy wrote: Oh yeah true! Most of the time the LADSPA Fast Look Ahead Limiter is sitting in my Master bus. Best, Jeremy

tisdagen den 18 oktober 2011 13.45.40 skrev S. Massy: I think you are very sensible in you choices and they will probably be avable for years to come. It's wise to stick the same stuff and get know it well (just as an instrument), and it's probably the only way to tweak things in a predictable way. It's interesting that in the 70's (the last half for me) and 80's, we did not have much possibilities compared to what we have today, we had to stick to what we had. But the sound itself and the mixes could sound very good. Much of what's typical of the sound from the 70's and 80's was not about quality but sound preferences, well expect for noise, echo and other tape and HW artifacts. Jostein

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:09:36PM -0400, S. Massy wrote: But still true, and it's one of the factors that sometimes make me wonder why I should invest any more time and effort into supporting this scene. Ciao, -- FA

I like this last sentence ;) It remembers Ray Davis, guit player of the Kinks, explaining how he made his 1st disto with a valve radio he plugs his guit in, and cut the speaker with his knife... Another side of globalization ? +1 : Please Fons, don't stop ! You, like many others LISTENED on this list are the ones that make this community alive, and no one can ever thank you so much for your work.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:02:44PM +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: True. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to play in the popular style of the present (Pop). But that's not the same thing as assuming that using the plugins/effects used on a recent hit will automagically produce something interesting, or that you need them at all. Some months ago someone wrote that zita-at1 was indeed the only usable autotuner on Linux, but that unfortunately it could not produce some effects that were popular at the time. As far as I know, that refers to male singers sounding as if their b***s are being squeezed or roasted. Is such an effect an essential element of 'the popular style of the present' ? AFAICT it will be forgotten soon if it isn't already. It's the sort of thing that gets boring the third time you hear it. Ciao, -- FA

On 10/19/2011 04:42 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: This whole "mastering plugin" thing is something I really fail to grasp from a logical, technical, and artistic viewpoint. In years past, the recording engineer, under direction of a producer (who may or may not have been the artist), mixed the track to sound how they wanted it. The record company then sent the half-track master to a "mastering engineer" who made sure it was technically acceptable to be cut on a lacquer and would play on a typical turntable. He also made SLIGHT EQ adjustments, based on his trained ears, highly-specialized equipment, and experience. As it turns out, a lot of "pop" music was mastered by two or three very popular mastering engineers. Alas, along came computers. Along came someone with the bright idea of totally automating what it was that the mastering engineer did. People discovered what equipment was in the mastering chain when so-and-so mastered a hit song by artist x. So, they strung all that together in their "mastering plugin." Then they examined the frequency response and dynamic response, and adjusted the chain of the "mastering plugin" so that, NO MATTER WHAT YOU FED INTO IT, the result would have that frequency response and roughly the same dynamic range. So, if you want your metal song to have the same frequency response and dynamic feel as a Donna Summers disco song that was mastered by whoever did her stuff, all you have to do is hit a preset. Nobody takes into consideration that a mastering engineer doesn't just leave his gear all set exactly the same no matter what song he is working on. He spends hours tweaking for each individual album/cd/whatever. This all makes as much sense to me as someone making a "mixdown plugin" that can adjust relative levels of your instruments in a mix, so that they match some hit song recorded by a pop artist. Besides completely removing all creativity and art from the whole process, it is the ultimate in a cookie-cutter approach that produces totally inappropriate and bizarre results 99% of the time, and barely listenable results the remaining 1%. If someone has mixed it to sound how they want it to, why the desire to take what they want, and strain it through something which will totally change it to something that resembles what some plugin author THINKS that Bob Ludwig's gear would do to your song if he left it set for a Steely Dan hit? -- --- My website is down. I had a motherboard failure on that computer!! (ugh) http://lateralforce.no-ip.org My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio, mixing, equipment, etc, is at: http://audioandmore.wordpress.com Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch; und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.' - [Friedrich Nietzsche]

On 10/19/2011 09:40 PM, Ricardus Vincente wrote: And that's my point. NOBODY who knows and values his art (i.e.- a professional) would ever use a "set and forget" configuration. However, that's exactly what many of the "mastering plugins" offer. I've played with some on Windows that ever had preset names that let you know it was supposed to be a Bob Ludwig preset, for example. My guess is that almost all of the users of these programs simply select a preset and don't change on thing, partly because they have no idea what they do or how they interact, but also because they are listening on a $100 pair of Behringer monitors and can't really hear any differences less than 3db (and NOTHING below 60Hz). These people would end up with a much better sounding, more original track if they simply mixed through a variety of monitors until it sounded like they want it to, checked levels, and called it a day.

On 10/19/2011 10:42 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Autotuning has been around for more than 10 years and the last 4 years it has become an essential element of contemporary popmusic, both as an effect (T-Pain) but also as a safety net (last time I watched a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame concert I shut it down, Tom Petty just sounds horrible through an autotuner). Even the popular comedy serie Glee relies on autotuning. So after Cher released Believe it didn't get forgotten and people are still not bored with it. Best, Jeremy With the help of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autotune

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:43:04AM +0100, Folderol wrote: Certainly 'Believe' isn't forgotten - I actually heard it yesterday on radio3 (which is the 'culture' channel here). But it doesn't need the effect and would be as fine without it. What will be forgotton are the imitations which have little to offer apart from the effect. I don't know what is exactly inside the Antares, but it's said to be a phase vocoder, which at1 certainly isn't. OTOH, the output produced by at1 would be similar to a phase vocoder tracking the phase of a signal at the estimated input frequency. Ciao, -- FA

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Jeremy Jongepier <jeremy(a)autostatic.com> wrote: Replace "essential" with "overused" and I might agree with you. It is sad that autotune is trying to replace true talent. I always tell people I would rather work with them to get the damn recording right, than to use autotune and try to band-aid it later. One the singers are better for it, and two the recording sounds better for it. It just takes time, something that people that use autotune aren't willing to commit to their craft which is truly sad. Seablade

Maybe the same reason why many women have false boobs ? Means, if you listen too much to commercial/propaganda messages ?

david wrote: Went to see Dylan in Rotterdam last night, autotune wouldn't have helped ;-)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:42 PM, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote: no need to speculate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLnci-65qrs

On 10/21/11, david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote: this may cleanse your palate ?? (N.B. autotune is nowhere in sight): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbc8DpcX3w&ob=av3e :-)

On 10/21/2011 10:30 PM, Paul Davis wrote: enlightening :-D

On 10/19/2011 10:42 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: And on a side-note, I really love Zita-AT1. I'm remixing Pneuman's Move Along track and it does magic with the vocals. Prehear: http://linux.autostatic.com/images/2011-09/export20110918.ogg (WARNING: autotuner + compression alert!). Feed Zita-AT1 some MIDI notes and you can create complete new melodies. Hats off for this powerful piece of software. Best, Jeremy

You could use (ecasound or sox) + autotalent, or lv2file + (talentedhack or VocProc) Jeremy

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:02:44PM +0200, Philipp ??berbacher wrote: That's one way, or you can build on what has been done by others, picking up where they left. Being influenced, even strongly so, is still a far cry from attempting to recreate more or less exactly what others have done. There is much truth in what you said. However, my initial comment was about the production sound rather than the musical content itself. Even if one should want to adhere closely to a certain style in order to gain an audience, I still don't see how attempting to copy even the engineering behind the style will benefit anyone. Cheers, S.M.

On 10/19/2011 09:09 PM, S. Massy wrote: Maybe that's because times are changing. Artists and bands do not have the budgets anymore that say Fleetwood Mac had when they recorded Rumors, when their producer rented a complete opera Hall to record just one song. They had the budget to do that, nowadays my bet is that even Coldplay or Lady Gaga are tied to much smaller budgets simply because the demand is less. No artist will ever top Simon & Garfunkel in Central Park again, pop and rockstars are being superseded by soccerplayers and DJ's. No wonder a lot of music production is sonically convergent, the record industry is getting pretty desparate if you ask me and as long as the shrinking audience still likes more of the same they'll get it stuffed through their throats. Another thing is that musicians are getting more and more lazy (well, that's the way I see it but it sure is food for thought). Within two or three decades Native Instruments will come up with something that will convert any ideas into music, exactly as you had it in your mind. Put on some kind of augmented reality helmet thingy and 'create' a complete record within a few hours. Just speculating here of course ;) Best, Jeremy

On 10/19/2011 05:36 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: And isn't that the point to which we've gotten? I'll admit that I'm an old fart - my first engineering job, in a 16 track studio was in 1979. If a band wanted to cut a 4 song demo, they had to book studio time at $250/hour. They had to buy a reel of 2" tape. The studio had several hundred thousand dollars of equipment, and who knows how much in acoustic design, room treatments, etc. The alternative for someone who wanted to record at home and save several thousand dollars was a TEAC 2440, a 24x4 mixer, and a dozen or so mics, which still was going to cost them a few thousand dollars. Then came the Fostex 16 track 1/2" machine. Suddenly, it was acceptable for a "project studio" to open up with a Fostex 16 charge $25-$35/hour for bands to cut demos (INCLUDING ENGINEER!!!!) The engineer wasn't necessarily any good - he just did it as a hobby since he only had to spend a few thousand dollars to get started. A band that wanted to do a song or two, which would take about 8 hours of time, then had to decide whether to spend $2000 at the "big" studio, or $200 at the project studio. The "value" of the big studio was lessened, because more and more REALLY CHEAP studios were popping up. Look at the situation now, for the cost of a computer, soundcard, and a few mics, They can spend unlimited time, cutting unlimited tracks, with unlimited overdubs. They don't however, have quality large monitors, or an acoustically "known" room. Now a band can spend that same couple of thousand dollars, and spend UNLIMITED time in the studio. The thinking is "why pay ANYONE to record a couple of song for us, when we can spend that same money and record ALL of our songs?" Which is exactly why our local musician union about had a stroke when someone showed up with a Mellotron. -- --- My website is down. I had a motherboard failure on that computer!! (ugh) http://lateralforce.no-ip.org My blog, with commentary on a variety of things, including audio, mixing, equipment, etc, is at: http://audioandmore.wordpress.com Staat heißt das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer. Kalt lügt es auch; und diese Lüge kriecht aus seinem Munde: 'Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.' - [Friedrich Nietzsche]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:27:55PM -1000, david wrote: True. Listening to people (older than I am), it used to be people would proof mixes through car radio systems and ghetto blasters, figuring it was the "worst" the tracks could be subjected to. Today, I think you're suicidal if you don't proof your mixes on a MP3 player and earbuds combination. In fact, I use my bluetooth stereo headset and mobile, figuring you can't get much worse... Cheers, S.M.

Well,,, maybe singers, sax players, or anyone who can't provide a jack output... Wow ! 2 guitar players at the same table, and they're not jamming together ? Hum, IIRC it was about mastering songs like Bob Ludwig does ? Don't see any offense, but playing for friends and try to enjoy masses with your art are 2 differents sides of the pleasure with music, OTOH it is a place where you can have a good result without big money, this place called FLOSS !

On 10/19/2011 11:36 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: Couldn't agree more. I hope music that contains some craftsmanship component will be relevant for years to come and that it doesn't get overshadowed by stuff from a box. Best, Jeremy

On 10/20/2011 12:01 AM, S. Massy wrote: The latter. The sonic convergence has indeed little to do with means. Best, Jeremy

Thanks Robin but in order for that page to be more useful than say Dave's list of available plugins we could do maybe do with a way for people to give a 'thumbs up' to the various plugins and a comments page for each. Maybe a thumbs up rating would be made irrelevant as a comment count would suffice? Chances are that the plugins that garner the most comments would be the first ones people should check out anyway. On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Robin Gareus <robin(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote: