Harmony

Ok, yeah I agree. My brother uses Acid and feels like it's a lot easier than SONAR because ALL he wants to do is record the band. And fortunately for him, I think that's all that Acid can do well. So I should qualify my recommendation of SONAR for beginners looking to record. It's a great all around program that's suited to recording a band and doing other stuff; you won't be limited by it. But if you are only looking to get your band's next chart topping single into a computer, and are content to leave the heavy musical editing and fancy FX processing to someone else, then SONAR would probably be overkill.

I've used it a few times and I think it's the polar opposite of FL Studio (see how subjective this stuff is!). I've been a Sonar user since it was called Pro Audio 9 and every time I use Cubase, it's like driving a different model of the same car...very intuitive from a Sonar standpoint. I've also used FL Studio for a while and it certainly presents a different way of thinking about music making that other sequencers. Anyway, SONAR: Excellent interface, plugins, and workflow for audio recording, mixing and mastering. Some of the included plugins could use an update (Logic's FX plugins blow everyone elses out of the water, IMO), but they are definitely a good start. If you're a beginner looking to learn a software that will help you, say, record your band, this would be a better choice that, for example, FL Studio. On the other hand, I don't think SONAR is as easy to use as FL Studio for electronica. That opinion has nothing to do with the piano roll view, because I honestly think that SONAR's is equally as capable as FL Studio's. However, the way that FL handles automation, the included plugins, the step sequencer, and the program's interface are all superior to SONAR's in terms of that musical style.

https://www.rodemic.com/onedollarmic.php For August 2009, buy a Rode mic and get either a Rode M1, M2 or M3 for 1 Australian Dollar (0.82 US dollars). What!? Why oh why wasn't this going on LAST month Hope someone else cashes in on this amazing deal.

I usually use soundsnap.com (good quality) and findsounds.com (better variety) for free sound effects. I'd personally look for sounds that are as cleanly recorded as possible, then go about making them sound far away using EQ and reverb. The more control you have over the sound, the better

Have a good one, bro!

Me. Cheers man, thanks for the help you've given me, directly or otherwise.

Ahh, learn something new every day.

Good deal IF you actually practice. Bad deal if you're just going to goof around with it casually; you could have done that with a much cheaper guitar.

Augur, a Prophet vst, is in perpetual beta mode, but it worked ok the last time I tried it. Kinda overly harsh/digital sounding imo. However, these type of sounds don't generally make it into my music, so I haven't used Augur enough to form a real opinion about it.

Yeah, that's a big turn-off. I've also had bad experiences with Alesis. At one point I had two MutliMix 8 USB's and I couldn't get either to work without significant pops/crackles on two different setups. Meh, but that's what return policies are for Thanks for the suggestions Jimmy. You've given me a few things to think about.

I haven't had any real problems with my usb interfaces, but I have gotten surprised a couple of times. (Surprise #1: USB 1.0 limits recording/monitoring options. Surprise #2: Alesis MultiMix 8 USB != Alesis MultiMix 8 USB 2.0) I was just trying to avoid anymore surprises by going firewire. However, since $700 seems to be the sweet spot for firewire with 8 preamps (too rich for my blood right now), I may have to bow out and go with a nice usb 2.0 interface. My options do open up a little more then. So I'm going to have to look into the U82S. I don't know how it sounds, but it looks sexy.

Ugh, way to ruin my dreams Jimmy (a.k.a. thanks for the heads up!). Well, I guess the next best thing for me, besides possibly the MOTU 8Pre, which I know nothing about, would be the M-Audio Profire 2626 which is $200 more and has a bunch of digital I/O that I don't need. Wish M-Audio made a "Project" version of the 2626

Nice transition between the two themes. Could be a smooth conservative take on it when it's all done.

That's pretty lame. Well, my next interface will most likely be the Firestudio Project which would be an upgrade for you, but if you've got the money, I think the music gods were telling you something. Of course, if the "Firebox" overheats and destroys components, what should I expect from the "Firestudio"!? :tomatoface:

awesome, Sam

I swear it took me an hour to realize that you have to double click on the sounds in the right panel in order to load them up. Otherwise, nothing. If you're brighter than me and have already done that, let's keep this little embarrassing story between us, mkay? EDIT: ...and I see that Mike has already said that. Well then, nevermind

wait, died? Did you do anything extraordinary to it?

I couldn't ever imagine doing everything by ear with the tools that we have today. It's possible, and in some cases useful, but in general I'd call it counterproductive. If you have a ring in a snare that you want to enhance, you can immediately look at a spectrum analyzer, find the primary tone then push the EQ up a few dB on that AND the other harmonics. Sure you could sweep an EQ peak to find the prime tone then do some quick math to figure out where the harmonics are, but why when there is a tool that specifically shows you this in precise detail? How do you know it you have excess energy in the sub-40Hz range if the monitors you have don't respond in that range? Either buy better monitors or just look at your freq spectrum and see. Why isn't your track as phat as zircon's? Look at the waveform and you can see that his track is more compressed than yours. Looking at waveforms is especially useful for beginners who don't know what compression really is. It's hard to hear the effects of compression attack, release and threshold. It's extremely easy to see them. Why does my master of the same mix sound more mid-heavy than someone else's? Look at a freq spectrum and see that you have a hump at 2k that could be scaled back. Going further, Why doesn't my pop track sound as EQ-balanced as Rhianna's newest song? Well, since the majority of pop music follows the 3dB falloff per octave rule, visually check your freq spectrum and see where you're not in line with that. Bet your mix will sound "better" after you've EQ'd to that falloff rate. I doubt anyone without lots of training could do that by ear. There are plenty of times when the ear, and the ear alone, is your best tool, but I hope more applications continue to emphasize both visual and aural feedback. A great example is something like Logic's linear phase EQ where you can overlay the freq spectrum to hear AND see what you're doing. It's a win-win!

Is it a surprise that people gravitate towards quantitative mixing techniques over qualitative ones? Which concept is easier to grasp and implement? This sound needs a touch more "air", or this sound needs a 1dB boost at 3kHz?

by default sonar will bring gsnap in as a VST plug-in (effect), meaning that it can only operate on audio. To change this you need to configure it as both a plug-in (takes in audio) and a synth (takes in midi). I'm in sonar 6 so it might be different for your version, but to do this, go into the plugin manager, click on the "VST Audio Effects" category, then find gsnap in the "Registered Plug-ins" panel. Highlight it then click on the "Plug-in Properties" button. Set gsnap to be configured as both a plug-in and a synth by checking the appropriate boxes. After doing that, gsnap should no longer appear under the "VST Audio Effects" category. It should now be a synth found under the "VSTi Instruments" category. Now you can add it to your list of synths and start using it. In order to get midi mode to work, you can't (to my knowledge) use the simple Insert>synth method that automatically routes the midi channel to the audio track and turns the audio track into a special synth track. No, you have to go old school and route it yourself. Insert>Audio Track. In the audio track's FX bin, add gsnap as a SYNTH. Now Insert>MIDI Track. Set the input of your midi track to your keyboard and set the output to gsnap. That should do it. You might also want to check and make sure that gsnap is indeed both synth and a plug-in. Bring up the gsnap interface from the audio track fx bin, then check the vst properties from the drop-down menu in gsnap.

If you use the link that djp provided, anything you buy from Amazon will support OCR, not just the stuff that initially pops up. On the right side of the screen, select category "Electronics" then search for "Headphones" and you should find a big selection.

Good god, man. Just a little trigger happy there?

Happy Birthday! I think you should write a remix in your honor...or better yet, submit one of the ones you've already finished *hint hint*

Happy birthday djp. Have a great one!