Messages

It just seemed to me that you were coming across to be a little irritated by the fact that I didn't realize that it was my "cheap soundcard" because everybody should know that.

If that were my attitude, I wouldn't have told you. And I'd be going around hating everyone, including myself. But that's enough about that.

If you feel like it, perhaps it's an idea to post something in the Critics Lounge? I'm sure there's plenty of advice to be had with a more practical basis for things.

This is called DC offset, and it's probably a result of the cheap A/D circuitry in your cheap soundcard.

Alrighty, well, you could certainly phrase it a little nicer than that I get the picture already - CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP! Hopefully I'm just missunderstanding you, but you seem to have a hair across your ass. I suggest plucking it, shaving it, or even some of that hair removal cream, I don't give a shit, but for some reason it seems you've got some personal vendetta for cheap sound cards and cheap people - which I'm neither. I just had a goddamn question, that's all.

I didn't say you're a cheap person, and both you (I hope) and I know perfectly well that you are not a sound card of any kind. I stated (actually guessed) that your sound card is cheap--by which I meant not suitable for audio production. That's just a statement of fact. Actually, I'll admit right now that I also have a cheap sound card. This is not something that I am ashamed of.

I'll also say that I have never been into the habit of putting a little smiley at the end of everything I say that is not dead serious, and I'm aware that this can lead to misunderstandings on the internet where tone of voice is for obvious reasons not apparent. If you like, you can pretend that I said "your cheap soundcard " instead of just "your cheap soundcard". I hope that clears it up. If not, that's fine with me. I'm not expecting anyone to like me.

From my personal experience, if you're going to home-record a track and plug your guitar into a cheap pre-amp and then directly in your normal computer, completely normal computer-speakers (maybe not the cheapest ones of course) are perfectly fine and well enough. Kick-ass studio monitors only make sense if you have the right recording-equipment and expect a certain quality.

You have a point. "The cheapest ones" are honestly what I was thinking of--I'm probably a bit behind the times here. I have a set of "computer speakers" from something like close to a decade ago, and they suck. So that's the perspective I'm coming from. "Kick-ass monitors" was, of course, a bit of a hyperbole.

*I'm recording through the sound input jack - not the microphone jack.

Since you're not saying otherwise, I assume you're talking about some cheap (perhaps integrated?) soundcard here... and that's one of your bad bottlenecks at this time. A cheap soundcard is cheap soundcard, you get what you pay for, and cheap soundcard means cheap sound. That's basically it. Aside from a decent soundcard, you'll also need some kind of pre-amp at some point in the chain, as dkh says. Only then do I think it really makes sense to talk about equalization and stuff. Of course, if you're firmly set on not spending any money there are probably things you could do to cover up the crappiness of the dry recording, but it'll never be the same as starting off with decent material.

When I record it also records a tad below the center line instead of perfectly centered (in the wave window). What am I doing wrong?

This is called DC offset, and it's probably a result of the cheap A/D circuitry in your cheap soundcard. However, this is one problem that is rather easy to get around. Audition should have a means of correcting it (look for "DC offset" in menus or the manual). IIRC Cool Edit Pro had it conveniently included in the normalization plugin.

Definitely try to play your music on several systems (kitchen radio, bedroom radio, car, whatever), I suspect that if your music sounds good through normal pc-speakers, it should usually be okay for the rest and your problem is the radio.

What? Unless I'm missing something and "PC speakers" nowadays means "kick-ass monitors", I disagree firmly. Most of the stuff people call "PC speakers" or "computer speakers" (though the former, to me, has always meant the little speaker on your motherboard that makes beeps...) are pretty bad.

That said, I'm all for the idea of making sure your music sounds good on a variety of sound systems--in particular the kind you're expecting your audience to be using.



This post is getting huge, but I'll reply to the post that appeared just before this one as well.

1. What's a good way to record a distorted section of a song instantly following clean/chorused guitar? And, how's a good way to record clean and distortion at the same time (ie, clean rhythm with a distorted guitar doing a solo, or clean rhythm with a distorted rhythm)? I guess this question has to do with keeping them the same volume or whatever. My girlfriend will sometimes decribe these parts of the songs as "scary" It's nice and clean then BANG!

Eh, good mixing? I haven't used Audition, so I don't know any specifics, but I hope it does multitrack stuff (if not, get something else right now). So record the clean guitar to one track, the distorted guitar to another, and adjust their volumes to your liking. Maybe I don't understand your question?

2. CDRWs. I've never tried and would assume no, but is it possible to burn a music CD on a CDRW? This way I could test my songs without waisting a ton of CDs. If so, does the finalization of the CD still make it final? Or can I erase it like any other?

Well... yes. That's the point of CDRW. In this respect, audio CDs are no different from data CDs. It's all data.

She likes Halo? Must be some special girl. Such an obscure underground game and everything.

It could be the fact that my intellect is of such gargantuan proportions, but it seems like you're kind of pointing out the punchline already in the second frame, only to point it out again in the third, in a more obvious manner. That's not really optimal here, I think.

oh, and about sometimes not looking good, the main reason I was trying this is that as I'm not much of an artist, I need to get sprites from somewhere so I can get the feel of the editor.

If you just want to make sprites in a simple way (as opposed to some kind of experimental artwork where the fact that you're using photos is relevant), making some kind of paintovers might be good. You might even learn something. Look at The Last Express; their way of working was rather more sophisticated, but the principle is the same. If you just use the plain photos, you will get the Terry Gilliam look. Which is awesome if that's what you want, but in many cases it might not be.

I usually don't venture into the popular threads, but I failed a dice roll and had to go in this direction... Or just happened to.

Smells Like Teen Spirit by Nirvana

I'm surprised this only came up once. It's somewhere around the top of the stuff I spontaneously thought of when I read the title of this thread.

However, I think it's stupid to name a "best" anything in music, except in very special circumstances. "THE BEST ROCK SONG" is not a special circumstance.

I suspect the motivation behind many nominations here tends to be nostalgia. At least it would be for me. That's why, although I deeply adore Frank Zappa's musicianship (including the most blatantly "rock" of his music), I really wouldn't mention anything by him in this context. Since it's basically impossible for me to relate to the question truly candidly (What's the best Bach fugue? The best Beethoven piano sonata? Best rock song? Why would you even ask that and expect a serious reply?), I take it more as a kind of drunken hyperbole: "Hey, guys... this, ah, is like THE BEST ROCK SONG EVER." And that ought to be said about something like Bohemian Rhapsody, or Smoke On The Water (although with time I've come to hate the latter more than it deserves)--something with a high nostalgia-to-objectivity ratio. And I'm probably most likely to agree with an answer of that sort, even though if I had to go live on a desert island with only one "rock song" with me, something like "Montana" would kick the crap out of most of them. My appreciation of the latter is perhaps too sober.

Whatever; the synopsis of my opinion is still that it's all stupid. ^_^

GO AND GET UBUNTU. Because it is a really handy operating system that won't steal all your resources like Vista does.

If it runs Compiz out of the box, though, as I understand the latest version does, you're really on your way towards the Vista end of things anyway.

(Of course that doesn't have much to do with Ubuntu per se, as you could very well use more lightweight stuff with a Ubuntu system, but since Ubuntu seems to be going for the user-friendly, pre-packaged, everything-included style, it's good to realize that their style is not moving in the lightweight direction.)

...but this is completely different than any crush I've had before.

Of course it is.

Build it yourself.

It prolongs that feeling of wanting a really awesome computer, and it's very enjoyable.

Neither building nor buying it is a more efficient way of prolonging that feeling.

Well, if you can't think of anything to use that quad-core for, there are people who can.

Relevant to some above posts:

What's the meanest thing ever said to you before, during or after a gig?
[Matt Stone]: When people say to me, 'God, you guys have one of the best shows on television. You and Family Guy.' That fucking hurts so bad.
[Trey Parker]: Very well said. It's such a kick in the balls.

I understand them. I don't dislike Family Guy any more than I dislike most sitcoms--probably less. I generally enjoy it when I watch it. But it doesn't stay with me. With time, it is quite possible that I will forget Family Guy, and I will not have a spontaneous urge to watch it again. I will not bring it up in a conversation about awesome stuff. Kind of like how there is so much popular music from past decades that I did enjoy (and still would), but that I do not remember at all now. Other music I will never forget--and although there may be times when I have not heard it for many years, yet I still get a sudden desire to listen to it or play it. As far as TV goes, early Simpsons is like that; just like Monty Python's Flying Circus or South Park. They will leave a legacy (and already did), for reasons other than their enormous popularity. Family Guy, or later Simpsons seasons (entertaining though they may be) will not, I suspect. To me there's a very significant difference between highly entertaining and brilliant. To a lot of people it seems that there isn't, and with only superficial appearances to go by, it is understandable that one could see similarities between South Park and Family Guy. Just like "A Whiter Shade of Pale" is, as some would say it, "kind of like Bach," but... well, I suspect if Bach played you Das wohltemperierte Clavier, or Die Kunst der Fuge, or the Goldberg variations, and you told him, "I like this, because it reminds me of that song by Procol Harum"... I think old Johnny Seb. would feel much like Trey and Matt above.

I don't listen to a lot of podcasts, but there is one that I do listen to, and I like it so much that I'll return momentarily from the dead to mention it here.

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. In their own words:

"The Skeptics Guide to the Universe is a weekly Podcast talkshow produced by the New England Skeptical Society (NESS) in association with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) : discussing the latest news and topics from the world of the paranormal, fringe science, and controversial claims from a scientific point of view."

It's basically a bunch of guys discussing the above issues in a rather informal manner. (Kind of like eavesdropping on a dinner conversation... in a good way. You get to know and like these people very quickly.) For the most part, they understand their purpose very well: there are no needless attacks or rants against stuff that they do not have a solid basis to criticise, and their conclusions hardly ever miss the mark from a scientific point of view; largely thanks to host Steven Novella, a clinical neurologist who really knows his stuff, not only in his own area but in the general philosophy of science. (I've heard him in this and other contexts debating people with, to put it mildly, quite peculiar ideas about how science works, and it's really remarkable how calm, thoughtful and objective he can remain, even when talking to the most aggressive advocates of pseudoscientific or antiscientific ideas. Not once have I heard him lose his temper, or say something I'd imagine he might regret saying.)

It's quite entertaining, and an easy way of getting a weekly update on controversial issues from a very objective and sane point of view; but it's also a great way to learn about the scientific method, and what makes real science different from nonsense--as well as to be reminded (as people on both sides of the fence, as it were, probably need from time to time) that there's more to scientific skepticism than being bitter and angsty and shouting at people. Go have a listen.

I can agree that amnesia is a cliche, but zombies isn't now?

Well, when the richest and most powerful (theoretically) country on Earth gathers together to decide what the majority want to do for the next 4 years, I think that it is a pretty important event in its own right.

When you consider that the majority in this case is a rather slim one, and the two big ones aren't that different, the impact lessens considerably.

I don't see how hillbilly woman or raised-muslim black man would make important decisions for rest of the globe. Racist or not, I think that both main candidates are... well... not material for this.

Please tell me you mean something other than what that looks like.

I am soon getting my driving lisence and I will, of course, need a car.

I have had my driver's license for about six months now, and as of yet this fact has not caused me to need a car.

Really, my suggestion (like Andail's) is to really think about why you need a car. It doesn't seem to me like you really do.

Apparently this is my 401st post (in nearly five years, so without further proof I assert that I am even more productive than Grundislav), so my timing in finding this thread sucked.

and Eldkatt, I apologise for being an idiot.

No harm done whatsoever.

If anyone gets the idea that I'm calling everyone an idiot, sorry, that's not my intention. ("Just about everyone except Nikolas" doesn't mean "everyone except Nikolas: I assumed people would be able to decide for themselves if I was talking about them.)

Regarding the case in point, there's obviously a difference between theory and practice. Having exclusive rights doesn't mean that courts are standing by to help you protect enforce them, that is true. That said, I do not think my previous post was a misstatement of fact, and I am somewhat bothered by the certainty with which some people have made patently false claims. Thanks.