And you don't use Inserts either Bones? Has the world gone mad!!!
Comp's for me on the inserts now, drums and bass pretty well. Possibly a glitchy one on a channel. Back a few years ago, I was using inserts like crazy. Cool what can be done with them, but got too easy messing up sounds with so much stuff.
As Paul Williams said in Phantom Of The Paradise "The muuuusic Philbin. Listen to the muuusic..."
Icaro wrote:1. High-pass filter 2. Delay 3. possible reverb
Channel EQ, send, send - no inserts required at all.
Honestly, if everyone did everything the same way, ABBA would be singing songs about believing in demons, and drinking the blood of christian babies, just to piss off god, who they don't believe in anyways. It would get very boring with no variety after a while. Maybe I don't want to have the same delay on the hat, that I have on other things......... but that doesn't matter ------------> I didn't even say if I work like that or not, your question was why would anyone need three fx on the hat, and that it's totally ridiculous that they would.
Well, there are three effects I could think of putting on a hat, and actually I didn't account for the fact that I've read tips from producers who suggest that sometimes a little subtle chorus could help bring the hat out in a shimmery sort of way. Why would you seek to confine the creative process of others to the Bones method of mixing? It doesn't even matter if you have a somewhat conventional method of mixing, there are still people who like to put fx on hats, and if they want more inserts, then they want more inserts. I can't see how one or two more insert slots is going to ruin the next NovaKill album...... I mean it's not like someone's requesting timestreatch here, now is it?
which eq are you talking about on the hat bones? the one on the mixer? where do you roll off the lows for your hats? I can't see how the mixer eq would always work for that purpose.
Who cares if the fx on the hat are sends, you said there's no reason anyone would need three fx on a hat, and sends are stil fx, so you don't need those either.
Last edited by Icaro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
:superlol: I never saw the comarison to Vince Clarke and Abba ever.
Not knocking anyone's use of effects and how they route them. I was running synths through guitar pedals and guitars through synths long before Brian Eno got wise to it. But Orion has 4 slots per send = 16, 2 inserts per channel + 4 simultaneous Insert Busses with 4 inserts per = 18 - that's 34 effects a user can aleady have on a SINGLE channel with Orion currently. Then if you start throwing 'multi-fx' plug ins to any of these slots, you could be talking 48, 64, who knows? If someone is going to be so enamoroured and austentacious with the amount of effects they use for a 'minimal house tune', I'd say Orions more than robust for them already.
I just feel if people can't be creative and organised with what Orion already offers, 2 more sends isn't going to help them any. :confused:
@ DS - I agree with you in part, but to tell the truth, I wouldn't mind having more inserts on the mixer, so that I can see everything right in front of me, instead of a bunch of multi-fx containers that I have to go into in order to see the fx.
Either way, I can take it or leave it. It doesn't effect me so much. However, I can understand why some others would want more inserts, and I'd welcome it myself. So, I don't think calling others' ways of working ridiculous, is in any way constructive in this case. (not directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation)
Dungeon Studio wrote:But Orion has 4 slots per send = 16...
:ei:
Think before you write. Dou you think I can share those 4 different effects between several instruments if I put all the 4 into the 4 slots of 1 return channel? Is it clear now?
Yes, but Lance - if one instrument is going to have say plate reverb, chorus, delay, and auto pan, that could all be done on send 1 right? And another instrument is going to have ring mod, flange, IR reverb, and analog distortion - that can all be arranged on 2. Your 3rd instrument is going to have Simple reverb, 2 tap delay, phaser, and a faster auto pan, that's all on send 3. Then for your 4th instrument, you may want it to sound much like 1, but have a bit of grunge mixed in, so bring up send 2 a bit. 5th instrument with a lot of reverb, and really grungy, so pump up sends 2 and 3 on it, and so on and so on. And if that's not enough, set more stuff on Send 4 and mix that into a track as well. If effects aren't mixable on their own, or with wet/dry - find one that is. Again, the industry and the listener doesn't give a crap if you used simple reverb mixed in with IR on a channel, or went with some Waves monster mixed in with Luxonix. They're just going to say 'Man! That's a lot of reverb and crazy stuff on that riff!'
I'm not sure if you can see the effects for the knobs or vice versa Lance? Or get yourself this Timecube or Spectrum Worx if you really must lather on the spread constantly? :confused:
But still, you could build up some serious send channels, and mix them on a instrument channel could you not? :confused: And too, a lot of VST synths have their own built in reverbs and delays and such too - so if you were really in a pinch. I just don't see how 6 different types of reverb - good reverbs at that, is going to stand out and differentiate tracks and substantiate focus and ambience? If we all had just a simple reverb and nothing else - maybe? :confused:
Dungeon Studio wrote:But still, you could build up some serious send channels, and mix them on a instrument channel could you not? :confused:
Experiment it before you suggest such. What works in parallel to achieve the desired sound, that will sound inappropriate in serial chain.
Dungeon Studio wrote:And too, a lot of VST synths have their own built in reverbs and delays and such too - so if you were really in a pinch.
In my latest song there are 7 Wasp5 (for bass, pads, leads, plucks, fx...). Wasp has no onboard effects. Do you think I'm a VST lover?
Dungeon Studio wrote:I just don't see how 6 different types of reverb - good reverbs at that, is going to stand out and differentiate tracks and substantiate focus and ambience? If we all had just a simple reverb and nothing else - maybe? :confused:
I don't see either where this 6 reverbs idea comes from. But anyway short decay verbs for drums, longer decay verbs for other, and extremely long decay verbs for piano, staccato and fx sounds.
Rich and Jouni use to say Orion handles this as Cubase, Orion handles that like Cubase...
Cubase has 8 sends. So it's also limited. OK, let Orion remain limited too following Cubase. 6 sends on an efficient redesigned GUI is not a lot, but still an useful improvements, even for using them for busses too.
Last edited by Lance on Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dungeon Studio wrote:And you don't use Inserts either Bones? Has the world gone mad!!!
Of course I use inserts but only when they are needed. On very rare occasions, usually with a vocal track, I might need more than two, so I simply assign the channel to a bus and that gives me an extra 4 inserts, for a total of 6. If 6 inserts isn't enough, then I should probably think about going back and re-recording the vocal, or at least doing some destructive fix-ups in SoundForge. That said, I've been using GearBox on the vocals for this album, which means I get a dozen effects in one insert slot, so it hasn't come up for ages.
Icaro wrote:Honestly, if everyone did everything the same way, ABBA would be singing songs about believing in demons, and drinking the blood of christian babies,
Everyone drives a car the same way too, because that's the way they are meant to be driven. Within that restriction there is still plenty of room to do it your own way but we all sit in front of the steering wheel with one foot on the accelerator and the other hovering over the brake or clutch, because that's how it's designed to work. Given that you're the guy who can't get by with the set-up the way it is, I'd have thought you were doing it the wrong way, like someone visiting the UK from France who still wants to sit in the left-hand seat to drive, even though the controls are on the right. But if you don;t want to learn how to use the tools properly, you can ignore all advice and keep having problems.
Why would you seek to confine the creative process of others to the Bones method of mixing?
My method is to look at what's in front of me and find the best way to get the most out of it. It's a method learned and refined over almost 30 years. I'm sure some of the 25 year-old producers you read articles about know a lot about production but I'm equally sure they understand that it is very important to get the most out of what you have without painting yourself into a corner. You can take their comments out of context and throw all those ideas into one mix but I bet if you showed it to those guys they would laugh at you, or at least helpfully point out that you don't have to use every single trick you have ever read about in every song you produce.
It doesn't even matter if you have a somewhat conventional method of mixing, there are still people who like to put fx on hats
I always put effects on hats, it's absolutely necessary to get them to do their job in a mix. And yes, I'll ever put a chorus on a hat channel if it needs it, or a phaser or whatever. They also always have EQ, reverb and delay, just as I laid it out for you.
if they want more inserts, then they want more inserts. I can't see how one or two more insert slots is going to ruin the next NovaKill album...
Want and need are two very different things. The GUI right now is about as complex as it can be without tipping over the edge into a state where it would be no more useful than any other host. Having to make the mixer strips longer or wider would necessitate going to a bigger monitor for studio use. That would cost me $500-$600, which is OK, but where it would seriously affect us is when I'm away from the studio and have to rely on my laptop's 1280x800 screen. A couple of extra sends would add enough length to the Mixer that there would be no useful space below it, which would require other windows to be placed elsewhere or hidden behind other things, where they would no longer be to-hand. If I had to move them, it would mean that other things would have to be hidden that are currently accessible.
which eq are you talking about on the hat bones? the one on the mixer? where do you roll off the lows for your hats?
What do you think the "Low Shelf" EQ is? It's a low-cut filter with +/-20dB of gain. Try it with a synth and the volume slider. Start with the slider right at the top [0dB], and adjust the master volume so it sounds about right, then turn it down to -20dB and see how much quieter it is. Now, think about how much bottom-end content is in a hi-hat sample/sound in the first place, then imagine how much quieter it will be with that much attenuation. In fact, I'd suggest that in most cases, the Low Shelf is probably too low to have any effect, so you're more likely to use the Low Mid, where you can select the centre-frequency, which goes all the way to 45Hz.
Who cares if the fx on the hat are sends, you said there's no reason anyone would need three fx on a hat, and sends are stil fx, so you don't need those either.
Don't be an idiot. The example was not enough insert slots, so it didn't seem necessary to qualify it. As you can see above, I regularly have three effects on my hats, sometimes more, so clearly I don't think three effects is too many, simply that three Insert effects should never be needed if you choose the right sounds in the first place.
I agree with you in part, but to tell the truth, I wouldn't mind having more inserts on the mixer, so that I can see everything right in front of me, instead of a bunch of multi-fx containers that I have to go into in order to see the fx.
So you do understand the importance of being able to see everything in front of you, but clearly only as far as you need to take it? It wouldn't occur to you that more send might have the same effect to some as using containers has for you? I would further suggest that people who crave more FX slots probably don;t have issues with being able to see everything at once, because they clearly have little understanding of the process, so it wouldn't be an issue for them. Even if it was a problem, taking 10 seconds to give a container a meaningful name, like AD1/2tap/Chor could alleviate most of those issues.
Lance wrote:Think before you write. Dou you think I can share those 4 different effects between several instruments if I put all the 4 into the 4 slots of 1 return channel? Is it clear now?
Which might be OK if you only had one send, but you have four so your argument is not in any way clear at all.
What works in parallel to achieve the desired sound, that will sound inappropriate in serial chain.
So use a MultiFX container in an insert. There are many ways around any of these issues if you know what you are doing.
In my latest song there are 7 Wasp5 (for bass, pads, leads, plucks, fx...). Wasp has no onboard effects.
Yes, it does. It has it's own distortion effect, which has recently been enhanced. What else would it need? A little delay and maybe a touch of reverb? Both easily done from your song-specific sends. if it's going to be a lead sound, it might need something a little more specific, which is why you have two sends left, as well as two inserts and 4 busses. If you want to put some chorus on it, for example, think about why. usually it's to fatten it up and give it a bit of movement. That can now easily be achieved using the "fat" knob and a bit of "fine" detune if you don't have any FX slots available. Tailoring a synth sound to work in your mix and applying EQ will almost always reduce the need for effects to zero. I rarely use on-board effects and never, ever run out of slots.
Dell G7 (Hexa-Core i7)|Cubase Pro 10||Analog Keys|Ultranova|MicroMonsta|Uno|Skulpt|Craft Synth 2.0| novakill.com
That's my thinking exactly. I mean, I went through the stages of taking the most mundane Casio sounds, or GM tones and applying as many effects as I could on them to make them sound totally unique and warped and strange. But then when people asked 'Are you using a Wusikstation, or that NI Session everyones getting for free?' I was like WTF? Here I am busting my ass like it's 1971, and there's a freebie that does the same weird warped sound that just took me 10 or more effects to acheive on a marimba sample. :rolleyes: Some gearhead purist maybe fascinated with all the crap I used and how in a CM article sitting by the toilet. But in the end, the listener and recording industry only cares about good sound and how quick you can do it and play it live. The days of Kraftwerk and Queen spending years and thousands of dollars in studio time to make that 'perfect song' are over. As much as I like My Bloody Valentines 'Loveless', I'm sure Kevin Sheilds knows he can do that and more in a weekend at home with his guitar and laptop now. And I doubt he'd be using half the effects he did to get twice the output and craziness today?
Everyone wants a masterpiece, sure.... In 5 minutes for $5 these days. The only thing that should take any artist a month or more to work on now is their packaging, dance steps, image consulting, and video backdrops... BTW, How is that choreography going with those chicks Bones?
@ Bones - my point regarding the eq, was that the lowshelf doesn't reach a high enough frequency to really be of use for hats, which you kind of touched on. I'm pretty well aware of what high and low shelf eq settings are for.
and no, I'm not the guy who can't get by with the set-up the way it is. As I said in my previous posts, I can take or leave the extra inserts, but I can understand why someone would want them, and I wouldn't mind at least one more being there. An extra insert wouldn't make that big of a difference to me. However, given the way your skins are laid out, I can understand why an extra send would seem like big-foot to you. No ofense, your skins look pretty cool, but they aren't laid out right for my taste. So, I don't use them.
You don't know which producers I listen to, or how many of them are 25 years old. To be honest, that kind of attitude is a bit insulting. Sure I read CM, but I'm older than most of those guys, as well. I don't use every idea I read from that mag, but I'm smart enough to know that there are things to learn from everyone, even if they are younger, and possibly have a less experienced method of doing things than I do. Aside from knowing one magazine that I read, you have no information about who I've studied with, or who my influences are.
My response to your post was when you said this:
bones wrote:Why on earth would you need three effects for something as simple as a hi-hat? It's madness!
So forgive me for sounding like an idiot for reading ^^^^ these words as - 'why on earth would you need three effects (not qualified as either insert or send, but just effects)' on something as simple as a high-hat? It's madness!' - to mean exactly what was said in your post.