All that stuff is great. So you made an awesome CD and then give it to your best friend or your mom to listen to and they have a cheap, crappy stereo to listen with.
Again, who cares? No comment on the rest of the post? Just the correction?
Do people like listening to you play the guitar and are you having fun? That's all that matters.
(Here I am. Falling for the same stuff. Sitting here typing meaningless crap when I could be and should be playing my guitar.)
I have shared many of your same sentiments and said as much around the various forums.
The debate really stops if we hold to the basic idea of using the tools that inspire you to make better music. It is that simple. The goal is music that we and others enjoy hearing (as much as playing)... and the GNX3K gets my dollar at the end of the day. 8)
A nice, small tube amp doesn't hurt either though!! Hehehe.
All that stuff is great. So you made an awesome CD and then give it to your best friend or your mom to listen to and they have a cheap, crappy stereo to listen with.
Again, who cares? No comment on the rest of the post? Just the correction?
The digital stuff only applies up to the point where CD is made. Then it's up to the D/A of the cheap, crappy stereo to preserve the sound. Once that happens (hopefully at 16-bit 44.1kHz), it's up to the stereo to reproduce the sound faithfully - but here analog considerations come into play, and the digital stuff is over and done with.
As far as who cares - I would say predominantly people that plan on layering, adding effects, digital reamping, and processing with digital mastering effects.
Think of mixing software (or a standalone digital recorder, whichever) as a grid on which you capture the sound. I'm sure you've worked with some kind of grid-oriented software, whether it be an MS Office program, graphics software, or CAD. If you have, then you know two things: (1) the smaller the grid, the more accurately an original is represented, and (2) the smaller the gride, the more accurate edits you can make and the more effective graphics effects you can add. Now, you'll most likely end up compressing the color (in graphics this is also determined by bitrate), and resolution - but the rounding that occurs in this process will distinguish between decent- and great-quality graphics.
Bitrate for music is this same grid. Because every sound wave is a range from -100% to 100% with the zero-crossing a 0%, you'll have a much easier time giving yourself the digital headroom of 24 bits, instead of only 16.
If you're not doing much of that, 16-bit mixing may well do the trick for you. Of course, once the waves are added/subtracted in the final bounce, you lose a lot of detail due to the relatively low resolution of 16-bit storage - but you can live with it.
However, the advantage of being in 24-bit is that, once again, the additional digital processing produces desired results (or rather results closer to those desired) when the additional grid points are available to it.
Do people like listening to you play the guitar and are you having fun? That's all that matters.
You're absolutely right there; no correction to make In the late 90s, 22-bit was considered the absolute awesomeness in mastering (many remasters boasted 22-bit resolutions). Back in the 60s, we never even had the A/D/A and DSP issues requiring us to look at silly things like digital representations - that was all outside of musicians' (and even techies') frame of reference. Now that the tools are easily available, it behooves us to take advantage of them - but in the end it's the music that matters.
(Here I am. Falling for the same stuff. Sitting here typing meaningless crap when I could be and should be playing my guitar.)
As one of the top 10 posters on this forum, I certainly know how the feeling... :oops: I'm such a loser! Somebody give me a life! Or at least teach me to play...
As one of the top 10 posters on this forum, I certainly know how the feeling... I'm such a loser! Somebody give me a life! Or at least teach me to play...
i've been here awhile now too. :oops: :?
I have some comments on what has been discussed here, since my last post and i hope i can make my take on it a little clearer.
Firstly i would like to say that it is not that i do not care about or respect all the technical background / know how and history of certain kinds of tones from legendary guitarists / rigs. It is that i only have a limited amount of space left in this sorry ol brain of mine to fit new stuff in there. I would love to know as much as possible about anything and everything but due to my specific (or non specific) ailment i only have a little space for learning new things and i want to learn new things that i feel take on priority for me right now. And maaannnn, there seems to be so much in terms of what i think is important too and sooo little time i don't know how i would ever get around to knowing how to research for instance all the rigs that were used for the cover songs i do and then turn around and try and replicate them on the GNX. Then on the other hand i actually love hearing a cover tune being done uniquely with either something added to it or taken away to make it different than the original. Of course many bands are expected to play covers pretty faithfully (and i hope i never have to play to that crowd :P ) it really sounds like a lot of work to get it right and in the end you are replicating what someone else did. Again a great respect goes out to the people that can do this. Even if this is not your ambition you are bound to learn a hell of a lot by trying to succeed in this format.
For me yeah it's the tools that help me get things done and keep me having fun. If they are over complicated and don't give me the sound i want i gotta stop playing at some point and start fiddling around with stuff i never wanted to in the first place.
In the end though it IS knowledge that can take you further as a songwriter, guitarist, or whatever, so these new tools that are always being developed in the right hands can be used to create in new ways never thought imaginable. But it at least takes a lot of basics. Those basics can be a b*tch, and they are in my mind not always the \"fun\" stuff, but there is a lot of knowledge up here on these forums and by continuing to come here and share, steal, (waste my life away some of that stuff is bound to creep in whether i was purposely looking for it or not.
that's the best to me, learning new stuff and having such a good time at it that you don't even realize all the new stuff you’ve learned. You have to really step away from it all and do something like look back at where you where a year or two ago.
i guess what i'm saying is \"it's all good\".... or maybe i'm just stoned, or both.... but i know for a fact that it is neither of those
I understand all the stuff you are explaining aand appreciate you doing so.
Actually, I would like to extend my appreciation to ALL who post here. I too, like Mr Alexander, have little time to do all the tweaking and what have you.
Someone posted a patch called HAZEEEE or something like that a while back which I dearly love. It's become my main patch with very little tweaking. It could have taken me God only know how long to create something like that. Let's put it this way. It's almost two years of patch tweaking and downloading and testing. I've got a lot of great sounding patches but I haven't got a clue as to who they sound like if they do at all.
I like them and my friends like hearing them. So you guys keep up the awesome work and keep creating and posting. I love it. (maybe I should post some of mine and help someone else)
I happened to be listening to some Creedence (did I spell that right?) and realized that a lot of my patches sound like that band.
iliace, You are from Maryland. I used to live there when I was a kid. Actually, Andrews AFB and a few other spots in the area.
Is this off topic? Sorry!
Someone's got to teach me how to do the \"quote\" thing.
definately post those patches...the Creedence sounding stuff will be a pleasure even if i can't play like Fogerty (actually i might be able to figure that out 80 ~ 90%).
Comments
Thanks for the correction. I asked for it.
All that stuff is great. So you made an awesome CD and then give it to your best friend or your mom to listen to and they have a cheap, crappy stereo to listen with.
Again, who cares? No comment on the rest of the post? Just the correction?
Do people like listening to you play the guitar and are you having fun? That's all that matters.
(Here I am. Falling for the same stuff. Sitting here typing meaningless crap when I could be and should be playing my guitar.)
I have shared many of your same sentiments and said as much around the various forums.
The debate really stops if we hold to the basic idea of using the tools that inspire you to make better music. It is that simple. The goal is music that we and others enjoy hearing (as much as playing)... and the GNX3K gets my dollar at the end of the day. 8)
A nice, small tube amp doesn't hurt either though!! Hehehe.
The digital stuff only applies up to the point where CD is made. Then it's up to the D/A of the cheap, crappy stereo to preserve the sound. Once that happens (hopefully at 16-bit 44.1kHz), it's up to the stereo to reproduce the sound faithfully - but here analog considerations come into play, and the digital stuff is over and done with.
As far as who cares - I would say predominantly people that plan on layering, adding effects, digital reamping, and processing with digital mastering effects.
Think of mixing software (or a standalone digital recorder, whichever) as a grid on which you capture the sound. I'm sure you've worked with some kind of grid-oriented software, whether it be an MS Office program, graphics software, or CAD. If you have, then you know two things: (1) the smaller the grid, the more accurately an original is represented, and (2) the smaller the gride, the more accurate edits you can make and the more effective graphics effects you can add. Now, you'll most likely end up compressing the color (in graphics this is also determined by bitrate), and resolution - but the rounding that occurs in this process will distinguish between decent- and great-quality graphics.
Bitrate for music is this same grid. Because every sound wave is a range from -100% to 100% with the zero-crossing a 0%, you'll have a much easier time giving yourself the digital headroom of 24 bits, instead of only 16.
If you're not doing much of that, 16-bit mixing may well do the trick for you. Of course, once the waves are added/subtracted in the final bounce, you lose a lot of detail due to the relatively low resolution of 16-bit storage - but you can live with it.
However, the advantage of being in 24-bit is that, once again, the additional digital processing produces desired results (or rather results closer to those desired) when the additional grid points are available to it.
You're absolutely right there; no correction to make
As one of the top 10 posters on this forum, I certainly know how the feeling... :oops: I'm such a loser! Somebody give me a life! Or at least teach me to play...
I have some comments on what has been discussed here, since my last post and i hope i can make my take on it a little clearer.
Firstly i would like to say that it is not that i do not care about or respect all the technical background / know how and history of certain kinds of tones from legendary guitarists / rigs. It is that i only have a limited amount of space left in this sorry ol brain of mine to fit new stuff in there. I would love to know as much as possible about anything and everything but due to my specific (or non specific) ailment i only have a little space for learning new things and i want to learn new things that i feel take on priority for me right now. And maaannnn, there seems to be so much in terms of what i think is important too and sooo little time i don't know how i would ever get around to knowing how to research for instance all the rigs that were used for the cover songs i do and then turn around and try and replicate them on the GNX. Then on the other hand i actually love hearing a cover tune being done uniquely with either something added to it or taken away to make it different than the original. Of course many bands are expected to play covers pretty faithfully (and i hope i never have to play to that crowd :P ) it really sounds like a lot of work to get it right and in the end you are replicating what someone else did. Again a great respect goes out to the people that can do this. Even if this is not your ambition you are bound to learn a hell of a lot by trying to succeed in this format.
For me yeah it's the tools that help me get things done and keep me having fun. If they are over complicated and don't give me the sound i want i gotta stop playing at some point and start fiddling around with stuff i never wanted to in the first place.
In the end though it IS knowledge that can take you further as a songwriter, guitarist, or whatever, so these new tools that are always being developed in the right hands can be used to create in new ways never thought imaginable. But it at least takes a lot of basics. Those basics can be a b*tch, and they are in my mind not always the \"fun\" stuff, but there is a lot of knowledge up here on these forums and by continuing to come here and share, steal, (waste my life away
that's the best to me, learning new stuff and having such a good time at it that you don't even realize all the new stuff you’ve learned. You have to really step away from it all and do something like look back at where you where a year or two ago.
i guess what i'm saying is \"it's all good\".... or maybe i'm just stoned, or both.... but i know for a fact that it is neither of those
I understand all the stuff you are explaining aand appreciate you doing so.
Actually, I would like to extend my appreciation to ALL who post here. I too, like Mr Alexander, have little time to do all the tweaking and what have you.
Someone posted a patch called HAZEEEE or something like that a while back which I dearly love. It's become my main patch with very little tweaking. It could have taken me God only know how long to create something like that. Let's put it this way. It's almost two years of patch tweaking and downloading and testing. I've got a lot of great sounding patches but I haven't got a clue as to who they sound like if they do at all.
I like them and my friends like hearing them. So you guys keep up the awesome work and keep creating and posting. I love it. (maybe I should post some of mine and help someone else)
I happened to be listening to some Creedence (did I spell that right?) and realized that a lot of my patches sound like that band.
iliace, You are from Maryland. I used to live there when I was a kid. Actually, Andrews AFB and a few other spots in the area.
Is this off topic? Sorry!
Someone's got to teach me how to do the \"quote\" thing.
I'm going to go play now.
L8R.