Nase

i've said it b4 somewhere, but: superlux headphones are amazing for the price. i got the HD681EVOs for under 30 euros, just to test if they live up to the praise on some forums. i can't comment too much on them, only tested them for a while, but they really didn't seem much worse than AKGs, which is sort of the point since superlux used to produce some parts for AKG or something. they cost a quarter. they're serviceable headphones for the studio. probably not great, but decent. i'm using some AKG headphones from my dad that he wasn't using, K301. they're not ideal for studio, but i'm kind of liking the sound of them (very spacious) and they're super comfy to wear. they work well for me, but i don't mix with headphones primarily. so if you wanna go pure headphones, it might be wise to spend a little extra. if it's a 50 50 thing for you, lower cost cans can be enough. there may be some coloring of the sound that you'll get used to, but really, there are amazing low cost headphones around these days. i think people tend to be a little conservative with brands and word of mouth.

the alias thing...i find it doesn't really matter. if it helps you to split your style into different categories, that's ok. i wouldn't say that's the gist of the discussion. one thing that strikes me as relevant, i just uploaded heaps of old tunes on my soundcloud...some of it bordering on the embarassing. like really early stuff from 10 years ago. i might've done that to stop me from worrying about reception altogether, because i know most of it will just be obscure shit to most. i don't wanna be bound by any self-required level of consistency. sometimes i like making trash, plain and simple. but it's some enjoyable kind of trash to me.

fans come and go. you have to do your music, and will have to accept that fan interest will shift. some will lose focus on you, some will become more interested as you go along. to compromise based on your past path and the reception thereof means to cut what you want to express short. this may sound a little hard, but hey, everyone of us does it. everyone just needs to know that it's not a good way to make more music. you're saying it yourself, you feel pressure to live up to earlier tunes.

ok, i'm this guy in a movie by helge schneider. someone craps into my boots. i dunno, i used the name in counterstrike.

i saw him live in hamburg in 2007 or so! it was more of a guitar crowd so they just stood and watched. someone got annoyed when i jumped against him a bit. haha. i think he's a complete allrounder. and very musical. also, like jeff beck a bit, he's so good at playing guitar that his songwriting skills kinda pale in comparison. he's a pretty good songwriter, don't get me wrong.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gilmore yeah i find that more likely right now i mean i would've bought that this is PF's DG, surprising as it was. i don't even know PF well at all. which is sort of a shame isn't it lol.

that's what i mean with "part of the journey". i assure you, 1 out of 1000 times that phaser on everything is gonna sound FUCKING AWESOME. you might get lucky once and it might be worth it. this is part of what shapes you as a musician. discovering hilarious stuff.

dude haha, everone who browses kvr would know that. what i say is personal opinion ofc. my point of view is: realism is overrated. character is where it's at. i've become good at making whack samples sound interesting. that's one of my things. i suppose this site helped a bit at that; listening to people like mazedude. i like big multisamples, don't get me wrong, but i have a limit. i think some of the everything buyers are more of the lazy kind, and that's ok. you can do a lot to one piano sound with the right effects though. again, i'm not really saying anything about the library, so sorry for derailing. i think the piano sounds pretty. i'd use it if i had it. just don't need another one. good luck, maybe we should stop it

things just got very bloggy, but i appreciate the effort tim lol i think these 'common mistakes' differ wildly for everyone, and i would even be careful about calling them mistakes. i'd say, preferences shift. you know, maybe you liked to compress the shit out of everything and now you don't. or vice versa, you discovered compression after 2 years of fooling around and are overusing it. it's just part of the journey to overdo things at some point, that's part of getting to know it. call them necessary mistakes, or something?

i think the notion of "sampling in a total fashion" is a bit silly. you'd have to record every possible sound. and in the end you'd have to build a perfect piano interface that looks and feels just like a piano so you can play it just like one. see the problem? even when you record every possible sound something can do (nearly impossible), the interface is still an abstraction (although a very close one because piano is a keyboard instrument, duh.) say you want prepared piano and the top piano sampling library of the year 2099 has a wealth of dynamically playable prepared piano sounds, in the billions. you'd still be lacking the perfect interface to play them, which is something that actually looks and feels haptically like a prepared piano. you'd have to build a prepared piano. ok, this gets MORE SILLY when you approach other instruments that don't have a keyboard at all. it's simple, all sample libraries are and will stay approximations. certainly closer ones, but you cannot argue against the "good enough" effect taking place with keyboards more than any other instrument. computer music interfaces use piano logic, s'all. that's why modeling pianos with a computer is easier than modeling guitars with one. atleast in the way they're played traditionally. velocity and discrete semitones. no pitchbend, no glide, no vibrato, no swells, etc. sympathetic resonance and all, i won't say thats not valid, but cmon, it's pretty subtle. and you got it on other stringed instruments as well. so this is not meant as an attack on the library at all. you simply got me into debate mode now but i'll stop. good luck! edit: i think the thing here is, my use of the phrase "raising the bar" annoyed you as a developer. it's great that you're interested in the intricacies of piano sampling. sure, the bar will be raised technically. and i'm sure it'll sound nice too. i'm more talking from a 'consumer' perspective, i guess.

beck's my old guitar teach's favorite player, and he turned me on to him back then. i think he's basicly mandatory watching for any lead guitarist, because he can show you things you can't do with a plectrum. he's 100% fingers, and that makes his sound.

i buy that. it's just i've seen so many sampled pianos that sound great and are reportedly very playable, and i still get by fine with onboard library and free stuff. i'm not saying everyone can, but i think with pianos the sampling standard is so high that it's near impossible to come up with something that raises the bar. so i question the business aspect, and i think i can say that here without any negative impact. but it's all good, it can still be a fun and worthwhile endeavour to sample one more piano. and maybe it becomes a reference piano magically, who the hell knows lol.

oh i got another one. same song each time watch his fingaz

i love stevie. no question about him. but tbh, i love his hendrix stuff most. vai i'm torn about, i think he has more taste with his noodling than say malmsteen, but i hardly like any song written by him i've heard. satch i like, i think he's written a few great songs (among other mediocre ones). i listened to "strange beautiful music" so much when i was 16/17 and in my guitar prime. i really liked that album. eric johnson flew past me a bit, idk i'll check him out sometime. ohh, you linked to little wing too, ha. but your video happens to be banned in germany so i'll keep my link

ok, more sabbath. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCT5uTdPRgs

piano, eh? good luck...but i guess it's an obligatory thing for a sampling studio to make at some point? but if you're a fan of it yourself and use it lots, that's cool.

who the fuck is david gilmour

ah yeah, this was a good one. i suggested some drums in the wip thread, but i think this is perfect as is right now. i'd describe the sound as intimate, and the bass gives it some distinct rhythm. it doesn't need drums, and if it had some they'd have to be really interesting, something more than swingy hihats.

thanks man. i think it's a rather tame mix honestly. but i have to say, to me it has the best drum and bass fills i've ever done. it was sort of an educational mix in that way.

it's still kind of a novelty, isn't it? zoom out a little...it's a pretty small scene. this ain't japan probably secret of mana for me, i remember doing guitar tabs for that in 2002 after i replayed it. i played back the boss battle track a lot and tried to play it on guitar, and failed of course. i wanted to cover it but couldn't. and then there were mixers showing you what's possible, of course...protricity and mazedude were the two i adored most.

it's not just close, it's a cover. this site is more about arrangement. good work though, sounds lovely.

i just remembered this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geLR_0_mLYM this one impresses me much more today than when i was starting to learn guitar, and that's because of what tony iommi does with his, in technical terms, somewhat limited blues box solo style. i think he's a genius in his own weird DIY way. his licks sound like some kind of primal conversation. it's a long one though...and it's grown on me over the years.

that comparison is pretty rofl. see, what it boils down to is, if you have a synth, are you gonna use that thing? i mean really use it, explore it sonically and stuff? good. that's cool. not like you have to. some of em i can't get into at all. but if it clicks and you're somehow pushing the plugin's sound into interesting territory, then everything's good! and that involves learning to program it a bit, most of the time. period. doesn't mean you have to reprogram every tiny sound from scratch over and over. you know, apart from giving you readily made sounds, these preset thingies are pretty good at storing your OWN sounds as well! that's awesome! you can reuse your old shit! and expand on it! technology these days...... sorry i have a headache.

isn't this whole discussion an extension to the "does music have to be original" question? and if original, how original? if so, isn't it a bit stupid?

ehm, gecko's post made me think a little more...i'm not really 100% happy with the analogy both i and DS used. one has to acknowledge that the essence of a synth is the fact that you can program a multitude of pretty different sounds on it. that's the essence of the instrument. the essence of a synth is that it offers many sounds that have some instrument-like quality in their own right. that's why comparing an acoustic instrument with a synth patch doesn't feel perfectly right to me. the instrument is the synth, at the end of the day. and this is reflected in electronic music. when a new sound appears, it hits hard. if people dig it, it becomes kind of an instrument in its own right. think acid 303, dubstep wobz, hoover sounds lol.....a lot of electronic music is about finding new genius/silly/orgasmic/transcendental/mindnumbing sounds. and the instrument for doing that often is the synthesizer. not the patch so ehm, anyway, it's really about what you want. idk, i don't mind some cheesy elements in my music either, sometimes using a really fucking silly showoff preset seems...just right. sometimes it ends up sounding genius in the right context. and that's awesome. but one has to acknowledge that the sound searching is a large part of many electronic genres.