| Author |
 Topic  |
RenzoTheMC
Posts: 8
|
 Posted - Thu Jul 24, 2003 1:50 pm |
|
|
Okay, I've been using Cool Edit Pro for a while...
and my sound has been...well..sub par....better than some...but not what it could be...
so i just purchased a sound card...Sound Blaster Extigy...
and i'm in the process of getting a better microphone...
I've heard some recordings of other people using the same equipment i'm using and it sounds so much closer to studio quality than mine...CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT I'M DOING WRONG???....
I'm working with 20gb worth of hard drive...
My friend creates beats with other programs..(fruity loops, etc.)...he then sends me the beat/instrumentals in mp3 format over the net...I then record my vocals to the track on cool edit pro 2.0...can anyone tell me how to get my quality up to where i can make a demo???...if so I would greatly appreciate it..
|
|
Sage
Posts: 19
|
| Posted - Thu Jul 24, 2003 2:18 pm |
|
|
Your mic is the big link there.
That is what makes your sound.
Your buddy and his mic are just as crucial
If it sounds like ****.....start at the source. Isolate your stuff....is it the problem? Is is what your buddy is sending...when you build on a **** recording, you get....a ****tier recording.
Your sound card is secondary to a couple of things.
1. Your talent. **** is **** run through a mixer of gold. the mixer does not make it gold.
2. Your mic. Gold, through a ****ty mic, is ****.
If all of the above checks clean....then I would suggest the following......
1. Do a search on dynamics processing....it is limiting....compression......it is a good thing.
2. Check out the basic concepts of signal in, processing, and signal out.....in is from the mic, and out is to the speakers. A whole world can happen in between.
|
|
RenzoTheMC
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:30 pm |
|
|
Thanks for the reply Sage....
and trust me...the talent is not the problem....
so I'm gonna upgrade my mic...and hopefully with
the sound card and i'll try and figure out exactly what dynamic processing, limiting, and compression really are...I've experimented with them...but i'll have to study up on them...thanxx again
|
|
post78
Location: USA
Posts: 2887
|
| Posted - Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:47 pm |
|
|
Read this: 'New members: please read...'
| Quote: | | and trust me...the talent is not the problem.... |
_________________
Answer = 1. Probably.
|
|
|
|
RenzoTheMC
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:11 pm |
|
|
C'mon post78...is that really necessary...are we in 3rd grade here??...damn...if you doubt that my skills are bad...let me know...I'm not great...but i'm aight...oh...and thanks for the help...oh wait..you didn't help me at all...your probably just a fat lonely computer geek that thinks it's fun to make fun of people you'll never meet...so close this page and go back to your child porn collection..
|
|
MusicConductor
Location: USA
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted - Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
I'd also recommend doing a forum search here for "Extigy" and especially "SoundBlaster." In general, SoundBlaster cards are problematic for serious recording, particularly since they frequently don't live up to the expectations the marketing hype would lead you to believe. A search will help you find out why.
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:17 am |
|
|
MusicConducter is right here.... the Soundblaster Extigy is garbage. (nothing personal). If you are using the web to send files back and forth, then your probably using an MP3 (lossy compression format). It also is garbage. Do a search here for soundcards and you'll see plenty threads that reveal why Creative makes trash cards. Another search on the MP3 format will also shed light into how the process (by design) ruins sound by throwing out the very data that makes it sound good. 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 4:28 am |
|
|
VoodooRadio has picked up on your basic problem. You are using files in MP3 format. This is never going to provide you with the 'studio quality' you seek.
Another point, you might consider, is using the Extigy with a microphone. This is not a good card at the best of times and its performance in the microphone department is excruciatingly poor! Until you address this problem, it won't make a lot of difference, no matter how good a mic you buy.
You should consider buying a small mixer (something like a Folio Notepad would suffice). Plug the microphone into the mixer (thus making use of its considerably better mic pre-amp) and plug the output of the mixer into the line input of the card.
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:35 am |
|
|
| VoodooRadio wrote: | | Another search on the MP3 format will also shed light into how the process (by design) ruins sound by throwing out the very data that makes it sound good. |
For the love of God, enough with this broken record !
I suppose it could be his mp3 encoder settings, if they're particularly low. But come on..... You can get some idea of what he's recording from the language that he's using, and somehow I doubt the focus is on texture or detail. If you have a recording of a 60hz hum, are you telling me that a conversion to mp3 "just makes that 60hz hum unlistenable" ?
Do you really think if he'd stuck to wav, that he would be overwhelmingly satisfied ? "Ruined" is (I guess) a relative term. And what strikes me as comical about all the crap I read about mp3 on this forum, is that, despite it all, - most people could care less, most people don't have a clue what the eff you're talking about. It sounds fine to them. They don't hear the difference, even when you explain it to them ! And if you have to explain, or convince somebody that "No, it actually sounds bad, you just haven't been listening correctly." what do you think you're really accomplishing ? It sounds fine to them. Live with it.
I mean, do you believe psychoacoustics are some sort of myth ? Personally, I don't think the problem is as much with the codec itself, as it is with it's implementation. MP3 is a "standard" only by the loosest definition of the word. And it seems like they started with a target filesize, and then did whatever they had to in order to make it fit, rather than see how much they could completely get away with, and then stop. There is unneccessary information stored in wav files, and it can be removed without you, or anybody else being able to tell. But the codec shot itself in the foot with the bit-rate limitation. And developers (not the codec) rub a bit of salt in the bullet hole by with the 16khz limitation. Even 320kbs seems like an awfully great deal of compression to subject audio to without severe damage occurring. But, they seem to have pulled it off as far as most people are concerned, so if you don't like it, don't use it.
Anyway, Renzo, if you become convinced that mp3's you're problem, you might look into Monkey Audio's ".ape" format, or even better is "WavePack" for some lossless compression alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
William Rose
Location: USA
Posts: 467
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 5:59 am |
|
|
|
|
|
MusicConductor
Location: USA
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Hmmm... Renzo, I opened this page yesterday and replied some time later. Had I seen your response to post78, I probably would've not said anything. Take it with a little humor and lighten up, please! I'd like to take what you wrote the same way, but found it rather tasteless.
|
|
VoodooRadio
Location: USA
Posts: 3971
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:55 am |
|
|
| Quote: | William Rose Posted
-----------------------------------------For the love of God |
Willy, God has nothing to do with this. And, if you like the MP3 format... use it. I don't and I won't use. That's my personal preference. Now, that said.. if you want to get into a pissing match feel free to email me "off forum" and we both can really discuss it without having to worry about the moderators! 
_________________
I said Good Day!
Voodoo
|
|
|
|
RenzoTheMC
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:24 pm |
|
|
Thanks for all of your comments...
all of you have been very helpful...
MusicConductor...don't take what I said about post78 seriously...I'm just messing around...he swung first..and i swung back
|
|
MusicConductor
Location: USA
Posts: 1524
|
| Posted - Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:15 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbsy
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 327
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 26, 2003 7:10 am |
|
|
Hmmm,
A few comments. First, though "ruined" might be a bit strong, since we're talking about improving quality here it's entirely appropriate to mention the use of MP3. Transferring music tracks via a lossy compression system probably hurts the final quality as much or more than using a Soundblaster card (which we all agree is a bad idea). By all mean email an "audition copy" (pun intended) in MP3, but stick the real wave files in the post for the actual mix. This WILL make the difference.
I'd also support the idea of buying a small mixer like the Folio notepad. Your other option is a dedicated mic preamp but I'm a fan of using a mixer because it allows use to use Aux sends to create a good headphone mix while you record. Hearing exactly what you want in the headphones can make a big difference to you performance. Whatever you do, DON'T trust mic preamps in PC soundcards.
Third, don't skimp on your mic upgrade. As has already been said, a good mic makes probably the biggest difference to the quality of your recording of anything. Everyone has there own ideas on what sounds best, but at present I'm a big fan of the Studio Projects range of large diaphram condensors. They seem very good value for money and they quality rivals many much more expensive mics.
Finally, in all this, don't forget about the acoustics of the room you use for recording. Computer noise and/or too much of the wrong kind of room presence can make a big difference.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
RenzoTheMC
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
I was planning on getting a mic that came with a phantom pre amp...is this a bad idea to use with a sound card?? Should I just get a condenser mic with a mixer instead??
|
|
clintfan
Location: USA
Posts: 455
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:56 pm |
|
|
post78 just posts this to every topic that comes in with a nebulous title such as "help". The goal is education, but not 3rd grade; actually it's meant to help you get more answers to your questions, quicker, the next time you post a question. More people will bother reading your topic if they can tell, from the title, that they might know something about the subject.
-clintfan
|
|
RenzoTheMC
Posts: 8
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 26, 2003 4:21 pm |
|
|
Clintfan...yah...I realize that now..and he's right about the topic headings...but throwing jokes at me for being a newbie...means i must fire back at him...another question though...
DOES A MIXER WORK LIKE A PRE AMP??
|
|
groucho
Posts: 334
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 26, 2003 5:40 pm |
|
|
| RenzoTheMC wrote: | | ...means i must fire back at him... |
| Quote: | | he swung first..and i swung back |
CAREFUL!!! Somebody might get hurt if you start swinging and shooting...!!!
Oh.
It's just text on an internet forum.
It's really quite safe.
For all concerned.
Talk on,
Chris
|
|
Graeme
Member
Location: Spain
Posts: 4663
|
| Posted - Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:21 pm |
|
|
| RenzoTheMC wrote: | | DOES A MIXER WORK LIKE A PRE AMP?? |
Yes - a mixer is a number of pre-amps, all in one box. Most mixers will also supply the phantom power required for some types of microphone.
Some people will argue that a stand-alone pre-amp is better than a mixer, but we're talking big money here and I don't think you are at anything like the sort of level of proficiency where you need to worry about such stuff.
On the other hand, a small mixer is always useful to have around, since it is so versatile and will provide you with more than simple amplification.
|
|
| |
Topic
|
All Forums
Please Help Me Out....Pleaseeeee