 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/09/2012 01:28 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Who said anything about high quality microphones or sound-proof rooms?
> Most music is done with synthetizers nowadays.
I would dispute that assertion. But sure, if all you want is electronic
music, you really *do* just need a laptop, some software, and possibly a
few MIDI controllers.
If, on the other hand, you want to record your totally kick-ass flute
playing, or you want to produce any kind of music that includes vocals,
you're going to need a microphone and a quiet recording environment.
> And in the event that
> they actually want a good mic, they can get them used for less than $100
> off e-Bay.
And a room with low noise and suitable acoustics?
> Professional recording engineers don't come beofre you get an actual
> record deal with a company.
See, the thing is, I've made plenty of music in my bedroom. But it never
sounds anywhere as good as even the crappiest shop-bought CD. And that's
because I am not a professional sound engineer. I don't know how to do
things like EQ adjustments to give an optimal sound. Thus, everything I
made screams "this was done in somebody's bedroom".
> Most people are do-it-yourselfers nowadays. I know a few that actually
> made enough money by recording in their bedrooms that they are actually
> making a living out of it.
Seriously? I mean, for real? That's actually physically possible?
I mean, I can imagine that every once in a while, someone gets lucky
this way. But /several/ people this lucky??
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But really, with a laptop and few hundred dollars 99% of people (who are
>> systems) are not going to be able to tell the difference whether you
>
> You honestly believe that?
Yes.
> record something, it sounds like I'm sitting /inside/ a waterfall.
> There's just so much hiss!
That's not the microphone's fault (unless it was faulty), you're doing
other factors; what do you have it plugged in to (including cabling and
where it is routed), how loud is your source and how close is it to the
mic, what is the background noise like in the room etc. It's perfectly
standard PC sound card in a normal quiet room. I've done it before and
didn't have any issues with hiss.
> (What is more perplexing, you would /think/ filtering out a constant set
> of frequencies would be pretty easy... but I've yet to find any software
> which can actually do it.)
Isn't hiss by definition all frequencies? If you want to filter out set
frequencies that's easy, even Audacity can do that, but you won't get
rid of hiss like that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> record something, it sounds like I'm sitting /inside/ a waterfall.
>> There's just so much hiss!
>
> That's not the microphone's fault (unless it was faulty), you're doing
Perhaps, but paying money for a sound-proofed room probably would.
> There are many
> other factors; what do you have it plugged in to (including cabling and
> where it is routed), how loud is your source and how close is it to the
> mic, what is the background noise like in the room etc. It's perfectly
> standard PC sound card in a normal quiet room. I've done it before and
> didn't have any issues with hiss.
cable the mic came with. I get about -24 dB of hiss, and the mic easily
picks up my voice (or, indeed, the TV downstairs).
>> (What is more perplexing, you would /think/ filtering out a constant set
>> of frequencies would be pretty easy... but I've yet to find any software
>> which can actually do it.)
>
> Isn't hiss by definition all frequencies? If you want to filter out set
> frequencies that's easy, even Audacity can do that, but you won't get
> rid of hiss like that.
It seems to me that the sound is concentrated at high frequencies, but
hey. I did try using Audacity's "noise cancel" function. You're supposed
to feed it some hiss, and then it removes that from your actual
recording. But I found that with the effect level low, it hardly removes
any hiss, and with the effect level high, the actual signal becomes
highly garbled (without actually removing all of the hiss).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> cable the mic came with. I get about -24 dB of hiss, and the mic easily
> picks up my voice (or, indeed, the TV downstairs).
Did you try turning down the gain? If the TV downstairs is coming out
above -24 dB then I find it hard to believe you could get an unclipped
signal when singing a few cm from the microphone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 27/09/2012 01:28 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> Who said anything about high quality microphones or sound-proof rooms?
>> Most music is done with synthetizers nowadays.
>
> I would dispute that assertion. But sure, if all you want is electronic
> music, you really *do* just need a laptop, some software, and possibly a
> few MIDI controllers.
It may come as a shock, but the majority of the music being produced
today is indeed at least partly electronic. Yes, there may be some
acoustic guitars and vocals, but by shear number, there are more people
playing with synths, electric guitars, drum machines and samplers than
anything else.
>
> If, on the other hand, you want to record your totally kick-ass flute
> playing, or you want to produce any kind of music that includes vocals,
> you're going to need a microphone and a quiet recording environment.
>
Never denied that.
>> And in the event that
>> they actually want a good mic, they can get them used for less than $100
>> off e-Bay.
>
> And a room with low noise and suitable acoustics?
>
Never said that this was available through e-Bay. But some people can
actually have decent sounding bedrooms.
>> Professional recording engineers don't come beofre you get an actual
>> record deal with a company.
>
> See, the thing is, I've made plenty of music in my bedroom. But it never
> sounds anywhere as good as even the crappiest shop-bought CD. And that's
> because I am not a professional sound engineer. I don't know how to do
> things like EQ adjustments to give an optimal sound. Thus, everything I
> made screams "this was done in somebody's bedroom".
>
First, you don't need to be a professional sound engineer to know how to
properly equalize tracks. Just like you don't need to be a classically
trained musician to be good at an instrument.
Second, I never said that it needed to sound like it was produced by
Brian Lanoix. Garage bands sound like garage bands for a reason.
>> Most people are do-it-yourselfers nowadays. I know a few that actually
>> made enough money by recording in their bedrooms that they are actually
>> making a living out of it.
>
> Seriously? I mean, for real? That's actually physically possible?
>
> I mean, I can imagine that every once in a while, someone gets lucky
> this way. But /several/ people this lucky??
Yes. Lots of indie bands do it, or are signed to indie record labels
that are run out of some guy's bedroom.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It may come as a shock, but the majority of the music being produced
> today is indeed at least partly electronic.
It's the partly /not/ electronic which is problematic. ;-)
> First, you don't need to be a professional sound engineer to know how to
> properly equalize tracks. Just like you don't need to be a classically
> trained musician to be good at an instrument.
I'm sure it helps though.
> Second, I never said that it needed to sound like it was produced by
> Brian Lanoix. Garage bands sound like garage bands for a reason.
Maybe I don't want to sound like a garage band?
>>> Most people are do-it-yourselfers nowadays. I know a few that actually
>>> made enough money by recording in their bedrooms that they are actually
>>> making a living out of it.
>>
>> Seriously? I mean, for real? That's actually physically possible?
>>
>> I mean, I can imagine that every once in a while, someone gets lucky
>> this way. But /several/ people this lucky??
>
> Yes. Lots of indie bands do it, or are signed to indie record labels
> that are run out of some guy's bedroom.
Sure. But for every successful band, there must be, like, a million
hopeful wannabies who never get anywhere.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/26/2012 12:28 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 21/09/2012 10:29 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Similarly, a later chapter comes tentatively close to saying "You don't
> need a multi-million dollar recording studio to make music any more. All
> you need is a laptop and a few hundred dollars worth of other stuff."
> This is not true, of course. High quality microphones still cost a
> crapload of money. Sound-proofed rooms are still extremely expensive.
Not really. Any cinder-block room, with carpet on the walls as well as
on the floor, will be as quiet as you need for most applications, and
can be gotten at a modest expense if you're not worried about the pattern.
> Professional recording engineers aren't cheap.
And as Youtube has proven, incompetent recording engineers are common.
> But really, if music did not have copyright, I'm pretty sure we would
> see an army of backroom musicians putting out some great stuff. I'm a
> little worried that, like YouTube, most of the cool stuff would be
> drowned in an ocean of stupid musical burping and other nonsense.
That was already the case even before Youtube. 90% of everything is crap.
> But
> there would be a lot more music out there. (I could show you some of the
> music *I* made, for example...)
The problem with the music business is not copyrights, but the fact that
in order to create a great deal of music, you have to be able to make a
living at it. And to do that in the past required the support of two
parallel industries, the music industry and the radio industry, which by
their natures only supported a limited number of acts at any given time.
If you didn't get the support a key player in both industries, you
essentially had no chance at all. This led to a high level of
centralization, where a small number of executives determined the fate
of a large number of creators.
The Internet has changed all of that. Your success is no longer tied to
your willingness to hand half of your earnings to the gatekeeper. You
no longer need the record company to distribute your product, or the
radio stations to promote it. Youtube does it all.
You still need a decent studio and the know-how to use it (unless you're
focused on working live performances), and because you're not the only
one freed from the record company, you have more competition. But at
least your chances do not depend on persuading one of a small handful of
executives that you deserve a shot.
> And you're seriously telling me that somebody is going to spend
> $225,000,000 of their own money, knowing that as soon as the first DVD
> is minted, the entire movie will be available globally for $0, and the
> studio will never make a single penny back? Like, seriously??
One thing keeping the movie industry alive is that people enjoy the
theater experience, and that creates an essentially captive market. But
the Internet helps us there, by allowing the early attendees to warn us
about over-hyped suckfests.
What strikes me most about IP law in the US is the contrast between the
laws we live under and the plain wording of the US Constitution[1]. In
the COTUS, Congress' authority was limited to providing IP protection
for the *creator*, and much of the mess with US IP law could be swiftly
ended by applying that understanding to the law today.
Regards,
John
[1] This contrast is by no means unique to IP law; our government has
enthusiastically voided waste on the Constitution for the better part of
a century.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
