Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

For piano, it really is a matter of getting to where you can gauge what notes you are going to be hitting by a combination of excellent peripheral vision (this is typically what comes into play first) and later muscle memory which serves to give you a sense of what notes you are over as you extend your arm and hand by certain amounts. Most really good pianists can play pieces they know blindfolder by relying solely on that second mechanism. Don't expect to get to that point overnight.

The best way to learn piano is to play what you feel like playing so that you're actually interested. Piano is effectively useless if you're not enjoying it as you start to associate negative emotion with the action. Scales are most helpful when you practice them because you know what it will do for your dexterity.

At 5/3/11 09:30 AM, SBB wrote: ... on a frequency range with frequencies that are less and less discernible from each other the further down you go.

Here's some further reading on this in the technical realm to put what could still be a potential issue to some to rest:
http://dtmblabber.blogspot.com/2011/03/h earing-beyond-haas.html

Circumspectly, human pitch definition below 300hz is actually superb because of the way that longer waveforms allow more neurons to fire per cycle. Conversely, anything above 1 to 5khz is actually the problem area for pitch definition. From the article:

"Since we have poor time resolution in the bass but great frequency resolution, an EQ can trim the peaks(but boosting deep nulls is a bad idea in a moderately powerful sound system)"

So yeah, glad to put that to rest.

At 5/6/11 02:26 PM, DreamsfromGin wrote: Shure SM58

As an even cheaper alternative... this mic was compared to a Telefunken M80 by sound on sound... for a price of $30 a pop!

http://www.amazon.com/Prodipe-Ludovic-La nen-Dynamic-Microphone/dp/B001FBUBZC

And the review where they mention it:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct10/ar ticles/prodipe-tt1.htm

Pretty hard to go wrong for the money if that's anything close to true.

At 5/8/11 01:24 AM, midimachine wrote: This. Monitors that are actually worth getting are going to set you back way more than $300, anyway. If you want to shell out that much on monitors you might as well get some more advanced, open-back headphones.

I picked up my Behringer B2031p's for $180 shipped. They were used but in absolutely perfect condition. They are extremely good for mixing and very flat and accurate. Don't believe me? The proof is in the measurements my friend...

http://dtmblabber.blogspot.com/2010/07/b ehringer-b2031p.html

These are still on sale for like - $130 shipped (make an offer for $50 and see what happens), and they are really kick-ass... I had a pair but sold them as I picked up the Behringers shortly afterwards (though they could take bass like you wouldn't believe and are really quite accurate).

These you could probably land for about $110 for a pair - and with a MSRP of $899 - they likely sound quite nice. They are an active model.

In a ultimate pinch, these would likely offer a superb "on -the-uber-cheap" option for viable mixing. This model has received absurdly good reviews across the board and no-one really knows why they are such a massive blow-out sale. Offer $50 and they should accept (that's right! That's $50 shipped for a pair of monitors people are comparing to models under $500 per pair!!). I've contemplated getting a set just to see what they are all about (they are 11lbs. a piece, which is no joke for a 5.25" monitor).

Though I've had good success with mixing on headphones like the Beyerdynamic DT 770 pro (which I've owned both the 80ohm and 250ohm versions) and AKG's 701, I've realized much later it really never sounded "quite right" and will never mix on headphones again (and this was with originally using expensive $200 to $500 headphone amps...). I will sell you my perfect condition Behringer B2031a's (matched set) for $275 shipped if you want (and if you are in the U.S.) There are definitely some very viable monitoring solutions for under $300 that will serve very well until you have the cash to move up to PMC, Dynaudios, Questeds, Adams, or the high-end mackie's (the HR824 is one of the most accurate speakers for the money per frequency reponse tests).

Stop writing music until you feel like it again.

Serious, it's the only thing I've found actually works.

At 5/4/11 08:24 AM, LogicalDefiance wrote:

At 5/3/11 08:27 PM, SBB wrote:

At 5/3/11 08:08 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: Why do lower frequencies become "less and less discernible"?

Fletcher/Munson Curve anyone?

Nice try but the current accepted standard is equal-loudness contours and according to those charts the ear's sensivity has already dropped significantly at middle C (a fundamental frequency of 261.262hz):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(musical_
note)

I think we can all agree that middle C and an octave below it (extending to half that frequency) is not exactly a difficult range to detect pitch difference and timbre at. Loudness contours largely suggest the sound volume required for the pitch to sound as if it is at the same relative volume to humans varies - NOT that the pitch itself is still more difficult to detect if the volume is boosted to match that standard. Beyond a certain point (about 80hz), it becomes impractical to keep raising the volume of lower-frequencies to "hear" them the same but it's not as if bass players across the world struggle to understand what they are playing because "low frequencies are less discernible".

At 5/4/11 03:24 AM, Reaper93 wrote: That being said you guys are ruining a useful thread, go away :p

LOL. Well - yes this could be the case, though production methods are still being discussed. Just much more indepth.

At 5/4/11 03:38 AM, midimachine wrote: Oh no, lots of words and a typo! I guess reverberating bass is a good idea after all!

I was being facetious about that. Hence the smiley face.

At 5/3/11 10:57 PM, midimachine wrote: Oh, and if you really need a definition for those ""vague" terms:

Might as well address these while I'm at it.

Mud = Dissonant and/or loud sounding low-mids and mids.
Air = Presence. Sibillence. Just a bit of soft, understated treble or hiss.
Edge = Distorted high harmonics (16th+), with relatively clean fundamental and lower harmonics.

In my world there is no such thing as an "audio dictionary" that defines such words. The actual dictionary apparently doesn't see them pertinent enough to allow an entry for them (out of 12 noun entries for "air" on dictionary.com, not a single one of them mentions anything to do with sound quality - can you imagine? The sheer audacity...)

In my opinion/experience, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong! :)

I can't tell you if you're wrong. The terms are even less pertinent than me telling someone that apple pie tastes like "heaven" (there's at least a dictionary entry for that use). I guess you could write a nice fiction novel or audiophile magazine editorial with such flowery descriptions but that's about it.

Also, your first use of the acronym "i.e." (latin for id est) was wrong. WRONG. Look it up. :)

At 5/3/11 10:48 PM, midimachine wrote: It's just physically more difficult to discern pitch at low frequencies (i.e. <80Hz. 240 and 480 are NOT low frequencies, by the way).

That's cool. I never said they were low-frequencies. I was comparing them to low-frequencies.

I... I just don't know where to begin with how wrong this is. This statement alone is explanation enough for why you just don't understand what SBB, Chris and I are getting at.

So you would say a sound becomes "more clear" with reverberation? That seems really odd, to have a source and then think you can reliably improve upon the so called "clarity" of the source by adding information that wasn't there to begin with. Of course, I'll never know exactly what you're talking about with your non-argument about me being "wrong" for some reason you don't bother to define (maybe's it's buried in a semantic argument, heavens knows) so your position is a little useless, if not somewhat cute in how ineffective it is.

Beyond ~21ms, and you're not safe from phasing just because your delay is longer than that.

I can't hear a identifiable delay until 30ms personally, and we're not talking about a "delay" we're talking about a "feedback delay network", which are two very different things. One simulates a discreet echo (or echoes) and the other simulates reverberation.

Think about it logically; it doesn't matter when the next iteration happened, depending on the waveform the two can still come together in a way that creates a comb effect. The main problem with reverberation on bass is that it spreads bass frequencies out across the entire stereo field.

Uhhh, not really - the way a feedback delay network works is to create a couple small early reflection sounds and then a whole array of late reflection "echoes" using all-pass filters often with subtle chorusing. Each echo is fed back into the delay network (hence the term feedback) causing internal comb filtering within the wet signal which with enough delays destroys any "phase relationship" to the original signal. That's why reverb doesn't sound like it's fucking with the stereo field of the source material and causing wave interference. BECAUSE IT'S NOT HAPPENING. There are too many complex delays occuring which makes the reverb sound like, well reverb and not echoing.

To just beat this point into the ground I have made a little test track which shows a piano being played with a zero-predelay reverb (Nomad Factory Liquid-Verb II):

http://www.box.net/shared/1uppisv29j

You'll notice that when the reverb is set all the way to wet (i.e. %100) there is no change in the apparent stereo field or timbre of the source (which is what would signify phasing/comb-filtering with the original - the only change in timbre you're hearing is the actual mix of both wet and dry signals). The bass response of the wet signal was boosted 12db in this case within the plugin itself.

And here is more info on FDN-based reverb:
http://www.music.miami.edu/programs/mue/
mue2003/research/jfrenette/chapter_2/cha pter_2.html

Stereo bass is awful for people wearing headphones. Our brain isn't wired to percieve the direction of incoming bass sounds, mainly because the wavelengths are longer than the space between our ears.

Actually - it's half the wavelength and that is for anything below 800hz:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_local ization#Evaluation_for_low_frequencies

But then you've mentioned that according to you only frequencies below some arbitrary range under 240hz is actually "bass". So it appears both your arguments fall flat immediately.

Per the wiki article:
"As the frequency drops below 80 Hz it becomes difficult or impossible to use either time difference or level difference to determine a sound's lateral source, because the phase difference between the ears becomes too small for a directional evaluation."

Well, gee whiz - wouldn't you know that's the THX recommended x-over point for a subwoofer. There are also some white papers I've read that show situations where low-frequency (sub 80hz) tones can be localized readily in certain rooms. The human race hasn't yet become deluded enough that it believes everything that is currently known about sound localization systems used by the brain is comprehensive and non-appendable.

Having bass in just one channel confuses the listener's equilibrium and makes for uncomfortable listening. Having bass in both channels, but seperated or widened over the entire stereo image has the same effect as moving the bass quickly between one speaker and the other, because, unless the bass is at the exact same volume and phase in both channels (i.e. mono/centered), those long wavelengths are going to be affecting each ear in a way that the brain can't deal with properly.

Who said anything about panning a bass instrument or low-frequency signal hard right? I wouldn't recommend hard panning for any type of instrument period. It sounds obnoxious. That has nothing to do with "what our brain understands/doesn't understand". Our brains don't worry about information it can't do anything with, it just ignores it. That's why everyone is not OCD trying to memorize colors of every object in every room we walk into. It doesn't care.

Sure, you can still use stereo bass for effect but you have to know what you're doing, and even then it will still be unsettling and hard to listen to in headphones.

Right sure. I totally don't buy that actually. A stereo recording of the lowest note on the piano should be mono. I get it. Good luck with that.

I can tell you for a fact that the reverb you used on those bass instruments either:
1) Only affected the transients (i.e. the attack of the sound) because of built-in EQ
2) Made sense because of very specific circumstances (i.e. specific to genre, song structure etc.)
2) Sounded really bad, but you were okay with it.

What is with you people and "facts"?? Since when is you opinion a fact? Are you going to tell me for a fact that I like strawberry ice-cream? What they hell are you on? Something "sounding bad" can be a fact?! Jesus, heaven help us if you get into broadcast journalism - you sound like the next Dan Rather.

If there were no rules to begin with, there'd be no rules to break. Besides, the now long-forgotten OP is someone who is clearly not ready to start putting his own spin on mixing standards. If you would like to be completely ignorant of (very helpful) "rules", you are more than welcome to. But don't try to stunt someone else's growth with pointless ideologies.

The vast and utterly distorted interpolations you're drawing here from things I have said is truly astounding. Truly. Good luck with those straw-men arguments, logical fallacies don't go real far in the real world bro. And maybe do some more research next time.

At 5/3/11 08:27 PM, SBB wrote: Do I really have to explain to you how a low bass line does not sound as clear and pronounced with a lot of reverb on it?

Nothing sounds as clear and pronounced with reverb on it. That's what reverb is good for.

You don't hear the combing effect as much but a basic reverb is a bunch of delay lines (which can certainly cause the obvious combfilter effect). Phasing effects is maybe not completely accurate but the phenomenon is certainly similar.

Beyond a number of milliseconds the feeback delay becomes an actual delay. It doesn't cause phasing issues.

Great, let's call it clashing frequencies or something then. What the hell. You know what it means. Have you never experienced that reverb on bass instruments sounds like shit?

I don't know what "mud" means any more than I know what "air" or "edge" sounds like in audio. It's ultra vague. I've put reverb on lots of bass instruments and it sounds nice. There are plenty of times I didn't think reverb sounded appropriate and none of it was based off of whether or not there was lots of low-frequency spectra. It was based off of how it fit into the mix (as I mentioned - this is why I don't believe in hard/fast rules for mix production). If it sounds good, that's really all that matters and people can hate you until you die for doing things the supposed "wrong way" and getting great results. That's what music is about. Breaking "rules" and ideas of "how things should be". That's why we have rock'n'roll, overdriven tube amps, gritty waveshaping distortion fx, and crazy movie sound fx.

At 5/3/11 08:10 PM, LogicalDefiance wrote: Well listening to it in a sense of imagery, as I said, is better for training your ears but I also never said what you said was wrong or different so why are you asking me that question even?

Just because I thought it was weird to imagine some kind of 3d field in order to not use sounds with the same frequency range and panning, no biggie...

At 5/3/11 09:42 AM, midimachine wrote: It's just a really fucking bad idea in most situations.

Yeah man there are no rules. Render your mixdowns at +6dB it's all good!

If your peaks are at -6db pre master fader... sounds like a good idea. Two thumbs up.

At 5/3/11 09:30 AM, SBB wrote: It's not a rule. It's just, that's what always happens when you put a lot of reverb and delays on a frequency range with frequencies that are less and less discernible from each other the further down you go.

Why do lower frequencies become "less and less discernible"? That doesn't make any sense. I can hear 80hz vs. 120hz vs. 240hz vs. 480hz all the same. Anything outside the audible range (30hz - 16khz) is of course "inaudible" by definition but I have no idea what you're talking about otherwise.

You get a lot of incoherent rumble, phasing issues and mud.

Why is low-frequency reverb incoherent? It wouldn't be any more incoherent then the source itself (timbre and pitch is still preserved, it is now just part of a feedback delay network). Reverb does not cause "phasing" issues period. If it did you would hear "phasing" effects (comb-filtering of the source) at a variety of frequencies across the bandwidth. Mud is a nice term that has no testable or qualifiable application.

At 5/2/11 08:45 AM, Chronamut wrote: lol he fully deserves his place :)

I only hope these contests will pull other great musicians out of the woodwork.

Or force them to cower in humility.

At 5/1/11 11:29 PM, midimachine wrote: OH YEAH speaking of reverb don't ever reverberate frequencies below like 300-ish unless you have absolutely NOTHING else going on, otherwise you will destroy any clarity in your lows and low-mids and possibly cause harmonic dissonance.

erm, I don't know about this being a hard/fast rule at all...

There are no hard/fast rules in music production.

At 4/29/11 11:31 PM, Nav wrote: Well, you could at the very least tell us what the alias is so we can find your stuff on Beatport.

Yeah, no joke

At 4/29/11 05:14 AM, Sevkat wrote:

At 4/29/11 05:12 AM, Tekken9292 wrote: Stupidity hurts.
Seriously? Instead of working their way around their retarded families, they just kill themselves? Well done, they won't be missed.

You have a heart of ice.

Not really, that cat and his love interest were nut-jobs and the world will be better without them. Can you imagine a world void of people who cut each others heads off? I think it might actually be nice, you know - not having to worry whether the person you care about wants to slice through your neck with a steel blade.

At 4/23/11 09:32 PM, RedRavenRuler wrote: Lol, my apologies man. It just is seeming like more and more new producers just use presets because they don't HAVE to make their own sounds. To me it just seems "lazy' ... I mean a few people here have mentioned it takes HOURS to craft a good sound and I feel that's completely un true... if you watch some of my youtube tutorials I can make a nice solid starting point for a sound in 10-20 minutes and from there mixer fx really are just to help shape your sound a little more.

Why would I spend time duplicating work that's already been done for me? Lazy is being able to hit a button on a computer and play a tuba without ever learning tuba. Everything about using a DAW is "lazy" - that's what efficiency is all about.

There are tons of them, most require money to purchase... or at least that you own a sampler like kontakt.

For straight across free stuff you can use this:
http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/thesoundex change/make_music/samples/library/

And this:
http://sso.mattiaswestlund.net/

The former link would require some work to get into a usable format but would likely be worth it. The latter link just requires one of the sfz players mentioned on the page.

At 4/24/11 02:03 PM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: Second, while I was slightly suspicious about it as well, the fact that both the Newgrounds name is the same, and that they explicitly state where the music is from (The official site), and that they even put the copyright information... For all we know, TSFH could just be putting up their music here for a little extra attention (Not that they really need it).

While that's plausible... it's extraordinarily doubtful that artists who contributed music to Avatar, Tron, Narnia and Inception are going to put their music on newgrounds of all places. That seems really crazy (but I suppose anything is possible).

Does anyone else use this?!? Holy crap I've been able to resurrect all my old .gig files and Gigsampler stuff! Unreal how nice this program is!

http://www.linuxsampler.org/

I installed this a while back but have been playing with it more recently and seriously I'm running 4 instances with legacy VSL instruments loaded up playing simultaneously and my CPU load is 3 - 4%!! WOW. Eat that kontakt!! I've started buying old gigastudio libraries this thing is that freaking cool. Supposedly it also loads sfz and sf2 files now as well. It does diskstreaming so the RAM hit is negligible. For some reason, export on FL Studio 10 doesn't work for me (I have to do a live bounce) but if I can figure out how to fix that it'll be pretty much ideal.

There are tons of free .gig files out there and the instrument editing is seriously dead easy. I haven't even tried editing instruments in Kontakt but this is like freaking cake. Seriously, you guys - get on this. It's good.

• 
  Heart Break by joshhunsaker

  Click to listen.

  Score

  0 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Miscellaneous

  Popularity

  1 Views

• Loading...

film music

Meh, I'm really not impressed by EastWest stuff to be honest. UVI and Vir2 libs kick it's ass.

At 4/22/11 08:27 PM, Chris-V2 wrote:

At 4/22/11 08:11 PM, SkatingIsGenetic wrote
Nah, I mean Me and Midi.

...

so worth a ban

lol, i like it

At 4/20/11 12:56 AM, sugarsimon wrote: I obssesed this, what do they come are make these music?

I know bro I'm totally pissed about the whole thing as well. My only hope is that someone has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

At 4/19/11 09:02 PM, Croire wrote: I was basically asking for a step by step guide for exposure and attention from a record label or some shit.

Alright, Imma gonna break it down for ya. This is how it be done.

1. Get so insanely good at composition, arrangement and mixing that people hear your songs are like "holy sh*t what was that?! That was f**king sweeet!!"
2. Submit music to a label
3. Sign contract

Done.

Well, let's see... so garageband might as well be called garbageband and Reaper is immensely awesome and God-like.

They do both require computers though, so I would say they may still be comprable in some small way. XD

At 4/18/11 10:33 PM, EpicFail wrote: I suppose I will continue buying my beats off of those people, I can at least trust them as I've bought from them before.

Betchu they are warez users!! hehehehe

At 4/18/11 09:26 PM, Chando wrote: "Do you use a MIDI for all your melodies"

Oh gawd he's so right I don't EVEN USE A MIDI FOR ALL MAI MELODIES.

It's so hopeless, I just know I'll never be a real composer now :'(

At 4/17/11 06:30 PM, EpicFail wrote: Actually, I'm not.
There are producers all over the place that sell exclusive rights from 10-20 dollars for some of them, other producers want anywhere from 10-50 dollars.

Well, then I would definitely stick with those people. Because WOW that is cheap.