|
|
|
|
|
|
#249910 - 12/01/08 07:47 AM
Re: Best Arranger for Non-performing Songwriter?
|
Senior Member
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 6703
Loc: Roswell,GA/USA
|
Rice, this is somewhat O.T., but a comment on your demo tunes. Well recorded. Great vocals, a clarity and honesty that's easy to hear and believe. I'm an old jazzer but like to think that I'm open to 'good stuff', whatever the genre'.
My main comment is this; the unconventional intervals between (chord) changes make the songs less intuitive to follow (IMO) which could hurt their commercial appeal. Somewhat like some of the old (and authentic) Mississippi Delta blues tunes where the artist seemed to change chords whenever the mood hit him. Not saying this is bad, just not as familiar to the popular listening public. This is not a critisizm of the changes themselves, which, in general are very good, just where they occur. Again, this is just a matter of personal taste and could be completely off base. In all fairness, I only listened to the first three (and enjoyed them all).
chas
_________________________
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." [Nietzsche]
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#249913 - 12/01/08 11:15 AM
Re: Best Arranger for Non-performing Songwriter?
|
Senior Member
Registered: 03/24/08
Posts: 1099
Loc: Myrtle beach SC
|
Originally posted by Diki: With all due respect, Kingfrog, the original poster laid down a bunch of criteria. Hence, he was not asking all comers for what works for THEM (unless it fit the criteria, which, as cost was 'very important' to him, a T3 is NOT what he wants!).
He was asking which would work for HIM under those criteria. I simply asked for more info, as it wasn't possible to help HIM without it, IMO.
'Rational' input isn't ALWAYS what we use... how many of us are that rational, anyway?
BTW, the reason most recording is done at 24bit these days is that it gives FAR more detail to the plug-ins, and digital processors especially compressors and EQ's to work with BEFORE the song is dithered (NOT truncated) down to 16bit. The differences are easily heard, and cumulative. If you process a track with several different things, then mix and master (more processing), working with 24bit files will give you a much better end result.
Working with much higher sample RATES, OTOH, 96kHz and especially super high ones like 192kHz, is definitely more taxing to the computer and harder to discern (unless you are using boutique stuff in your entire chain, probably unlikely). But a move to 24bit (and everything but really budget audio interfaces handle that easily) will make a BIG difference...
Trust me, I'm a doctor...
Just remember, somebody with a Tascam Portastudio could make exactly the same point about YOUR recording rig... i.e., why even bother with digital and 16 bit? It's all about the song, not some fancy recording gear
[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 12-01-2008).]I based my comments on listening to his work more then anything. I made the assumptive he did not want to be a tweaker but wanted as transparent a keyboard as possible to the result. 24 bit vs 16. The increased file size is not worth it. Not even you really quantify how much better a song is going to sound recorded at 24/96. Yeah a 24/96 file has 200 Plus times the audio resolution. But dude that does not mean it will sound 2oo times better; it won't even sound twice the quality. Non-musically inclined friends most likely will not even notice the difference. You probably do, I did but it wasn;t all that dramatic. The theory is much more impressive then the result. The you HAVE to make a decision. Dither or truncate. You have to chose one depending on the material. I would rather not deal with that decision. One does not ALWAYS use dithering for good reason. I have never been a fan of adding noise to a signal to smooth out the negative but subtle result of truncation. Either way you have to convert the signal from 24 to 16 bits. You have to listed to the quietest passages in making that choice with a critical ear. The question is not so much truncation vs. dither, but rather, doing nothing vs. adding dither. I have experimented with 24 bit and have found the increase in dynamic range is more a function of the digital noise floor and only comes into play on extremely quiet passages such as the end of reverb tails or fades. I don't believe the average Joe could tell the difference between a 16 bit recording or whether 24 bit recording was truncated or dithered without a little coaxing and teaching what to listen for. A 16 bit bit recording that requires neither. You get what you hear and for the most part that is plenty good enough for most ears. AS for a computer over cassette its all about the editing capabilities. That should be obvious, even to you. I actually prefer analog and use Magneto a lot. IF I could edit tape as easily as digital I would still be using it. Albeit 30ips. ITs not all black and white. The wholw 24/96 argument reminds me of those twin blades. People still shave over the same spot a few tims like they did with one blade. Now they have FIVE blade razors...the same result you cannot cut a hair 5x lower. Sometimes technology sold on paper. No where is this more prevalent then in the Audio world. Monster Cable has made Millions on a piece if wire on paper......
_________________________
Yamaha Tyros 4 Yamaha Motif XS8 Roland RD700 Casio PX-330 Martin DC Aura Breedlove ATlas Solo Bose MOD II PA
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|