Lets talk modern home-based production!

Post Reply New Topic

Well, since this particular area - home studio, computer-centric, modern music production - is my 'thing' so to speak, I figured I'd start a thread. I wanna see who my peers are, and who I might lure into my lil trap of a hobby.

Seriously, it's an incredible craft and hobby that never ceases to challenge. It can be potentially very deep and technical, and with modern technologies, the sound-scapes are as malleable as they are limitless. Yet if can also include any aspect of more 'classic' composing or songwriting techniques and theory.

Do you fiddle with software or hardware sequencers or audio programs just a little? Tell me about it!

Are you a poet and singer who finds themselves reliant on others to produce the music? Then lets talk about how to take things into your own hands.

Are you an instrumentalist who's been in and out of bands, but can't get enough fulfillment relying on those other jokers? You don't need them to complete your own material!

Are you a music lover who's never bothered to pick up an instrument? Well the fulfillment from your own music just might eclipse even your favorite songs. So take a step forward!

Have you been at it for years, gone through many ups and downs with the craft? Then show off a lil!

OK, I found your new thread mate.

I'm a musician who hasn't been too satisfied with the people he jams with lately. I feel held back and need to just go solo.

I've done stuff on four-track cassette and stereo reel-to-reel stuff, but always wanted to get into the computer side of it without having to get a bunch of new gear. Also, really would like to have analog audio input instead of fake sounds -- I like layering and combining natural sounds. Is there an easy way to do this with a computer? My mikes have 1/4-inch plugs and of course there are no 1/4-inch audio inputs here. Also I got rid of the midi keyboards and only have guitar pickup or mike inputs for music as well.

I started off a few decades ago with real gear; mixer, 8-track (not that 8 track!... tape deck, compressors, effects, tons of instruments. Had a lot of fun doing it, but had to sell it all.

Now I have probably 30-40 programs that I've picked up for free (magazines like Computer Music, etc., have CDs chock full of stuff, and you can pick up more free gear at sites like KVR, etc). I used to have a copy of Cakewalk somewhere (it's what came before Sonar), but the main problem is
1) how to get the @#$% modules to work
2) how to get them to work together
3) how to record, lay down additional tracks, etc.

I have Audacity with a VST plugin, and a DVD full of VSTs that tried to blow up my computer (in fact my audio on the system board died, I had to go get a sound card to get it back..

Probably what I need are some really basic tutorials. Just haven't got around to it yet.

Hey TenisuBaka!
So you use Cubase 5 eh? I use Cubase 4, they're practically the same. If you're still learning the ropes on it, I'd be glad to help out in any way. I remember the first... well, year that I had it. I was reluctant to really dive in, so I took quite a while to get started. Hopefully I can help you avoid the roadblocks and time-wasters that I experienced, learning it alone.

Per the other thread, I have do have a suggestion to start out -
Renoise is a great program, from my brief experience, and I'm not familiar with Record, but it is highly likely that any features that those two programs have will already be contained (with quality) within just Cubase. My suggestion is to focus on Cubase to the exclusion of those other hosts, for now. The learning curve for a full-featured host is already harsh enough; introducing many complex programs will only slow you down. Even if you gain a few cool benefits from it, I don't think it's worth the time. Come back to those later, once you feel more secure with Cubase. Once you're secure on one Host, every host is a lot more clear and understandable (like programming languages, I'm told?).
Or if Cubase doesn't strike your fancy quite as much as those other two, then by all means pick a different one to focus on. But don't dabble. I dabbled.... It was a huge waste of time. Pick one, and focus. You wont be sorry.

I took a look at Camel Alchemy - That looks like a pretty sweet synth. Focus on it, and don't get distracted by other synths. Synthesis and sound design is a bit of a specialty of mine, and I feel there is one absolutely dominant rule: It's all about the craftsman, not the tool.
From what I saw on it, as long as Alchemy has enough oscillators, has flexible enough routing, has enough envelopes, and enough core synth features, you absolutely do not need any other synth. The trick lies in getting to know it entirely, and (unfortunately) reading it's manual. PITA, I know, but it's huge bang-for-the-buck, in terms of stuff learned vs time spent, absolutely huge.
So like your host, pick one strong, full-featured synth(like Alchemy), and focus. Don't fall into 'the gear trap,' as I like to call it. You probably don't need more stuff than that, it simply wont help you... Particularly with Cubase 5's excellent packaged VST's.
Unless you feel something in particular is missing from the arsenal? Or if you've got some specific puzzles to figure out, let me know!

BTW, I love Squarepusher as well. And Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, so that's encouraging. Ever seen his composing studio? Simply amazing. LINK

Then this is the topic for you.
What instrument do you play? Do you feel pretty solid with computers in general?
In order to get started you'll need a few things, which I'll list in order of importance:

1) A musician-oriented Audio Interface (sometimes incorrectly referred to as a sound card, or D/A converter).
This will be your computer's 'audio processor' and contains the digital/analog converters, your 1/4 inch & XLR inputs and outputs, often includes a mic preamp built in, and has your volume control surface. I highly suggest getting an outboard, conveniently small unit that's ergonomic. Some of them, like mine, include routing options to create complex monitoring setups which is good for recording others.
It's tempting to shoot for a big, fancy, expensive Interface, but I believe that's a bad idea for beginners; First start small and cheaper(perhaps used?), you can always upgrade later, and no real-world fidelity will be lost. Browse and research for a while for a quality, entry-level audio interface. Two inputs really will be enough - Recording multiple sounds at a time doesn't tend to give good results, unless you want that 80's garage punk band vibe, or something.
An audio interface on the upper entry-level will run you $150-250. It's likely you'll stick with it for years. I still am, happily.

2) A DAW(digital audio workstation)!
Also called a host, as it is the program that links everything together. There are solid hardware multitrack recorders out there, which can be very tempting if you're used to using hardware, but I sincerely believe that purchasing those nowadays would be shooting oneself in the foot. Modern software combined with modern PC processors and hard drives are phenomenal. Modern software's digital fidelity is immense, and unrecognizable from analog unless you have many years of PRO audio experience (even then, it's a stretch). Nearly all modern albums are recorded through DAWs, meaning there is an inevitable analog to digital transfer. So, just in case, don't fear the DAW.

Anyways, the DAW. It is very likely that your current PC is good enough to get started without a hitch. There are many, many good ones out there. Pretty much all the prominent, popular hosts are great, they're pretty much all equal in capacity with minor differences. If I were to make a suggestion nowadays for beginners, I'd suggest checking out Cockos Reaper, as it is by far the cheapest high-quality DAW out there, and competes with all the other DAWs on features and fidelity. If you're particularly into dance music, you will find the most peers using Ableton Live. My sister uses that one (...blech). If you're a Mac person, then Logic is very very good.
Although, for my part, I'm a Steinberg Cubase fanboy. It's organization and routing scheme speaks to my nature. And it's about as professional as one gets.
Some of these programs are very expensive, although their 'light' versions are quite good. I use a 'light' version of Cubase, and the only thing I really lack is a bundled multiband compressor, and the ability to mix in surround sound(but no one uses that outside film).
The choice itself is quite personal, so you'll have to do some shopping to decide what you're comfortable with, and how much you're willing to spend, since this is often the most expensive piece.

3) A midi keyboard. This is needed because it can be used to trigger many instruments. Even if you're a guitar player or singer, you'll still want it for easy control of drums, samplers, keys, or more exotic stuff. The simpler, the cheaper, the better. Choose a relatively small model, 41 keys - big ones like mine are very unwieldy. Unless you're a pianist, it's quality does not matter. There's some with lots of knobs and faders, but they're really not that useful, not at first. Get one thats cheap, has a mod wheel/pitch bend, and like 4 assignable knobs. That's ALL you need. Get it used if you can. Upgrade later. I bought a $300 monster that's impressive as hell to look at, and is a complete paperweight. I don't use it's features, just the basic keys mostly. Don't do what I did. $50 will do ya. Another easy upgrade for later, if needed.

4) GOOD headphones. I'm talking $150+, 'phones that are built for flat frequency response. In reality, unless you have an acoustically treated room, and high quality(read: expensive) powered reference monitor speakers that are placed correctly, you'll get a more accurate picture from headphones than you ever will with your speaker setup. You'll miss out on the sub-audible bass frequencies, but that's a small price to pay compared to the innacuracies that will come from an untreated room with non-studio monitors.
As a bit of proof, professionals cannot tell that I do all my mixing (prior to final-mixdown) on my headphones.

5) A condenser mic perhaps, but you've probably already got that.

There you have it, for starters. That's the cheapest road to solo music production that could easily get you signed to labels, if you put in the time. You need literally nothing else. You don't need any more hardware; software generally supersedes it nowadays. It didn't used to, but it absolutely does now. The bundled software instruments (usually called VST's) included in a full-featured DAW are enough to make high fidelity hit songs, and many artists have proven this. After going at it for a few years, I find myself often tossing out the various VST's I've downloaded and purchased in favor those that came with my DAW. Mostly, it's just a matter of learning how to fully use your existing tools, and make them sing(This is true of hardware as well, btw).

Last edited by Sound on 13 Feb 2010, 3:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Indeed, you'll be a-okay. A solid entry level audio interface will take those plugs and convert to digital with complete fidelity. It will play back your recording with professional bit-transparent accuracy, and allow you to edit non-destructively at that resolution as well.

However, it wont introduce various audible distortions, so if you're used to that from various hardware, it might not sound as 'warm,' or 'analog.' However it's important to realize that this lack of warmth is not due to a sound's digital nature, but rather from some distortion that used to happened to it along the line. This 'warmth' can be emulated and added with software plug-ins, or (more often in my case) good sound design. Or you could try 're-amping' sounds - I hear some folks record their VST's or instruments direct/clean, and later run the sound out to outboard amps, and then record the result back into their DAW. That could be interesting, and makes a ton of sense from a mixing/editing standpoint.

As it happens, if you're interested in working purely with recorded sounds, then working with a DAW will be quite a bit easier than if you elected to include other software elements. It's quite easy to get started with recording and audio tracking, manipulation, and mixing. The software developers have gone through great pains to make these programs as efficient and ergonomic as possible, without sacrificing features. I think you'll like it.

KVR is great! I troll around the sound design forum there daily, help people figure out sound design puzzles. I've learned a ton there.... though interestingly, I've found myself electing to skip so many of the VST's that pop out of there on a monthly basis. I'm very sold on the "master what you already have" paradigm, so it takes quite a nudge to get me to feel I need more stuff.

Likewise, those CM DVD's with samples and demos are solid gold. I used to buy the magazine hoping for good articles, but eventually it started running dry on useful info for me. The horizon they have to cover is simply too broad to help me anymore. =o(

Cakewalk, boy I remember that program a little bit... I experimented with it a tad as a teenager, but I suppose it didn't give me a good vibe.
And that's possibly why I'm suspecting you might be well served by dumping it, and switching to a more modern, full featured DAW. For example, I use Cubase4, which has basic audio editing(+some advanced editing features) seamlessly integrated, as well as every common type of FX (EQ, upward/downward compression, limiting, gate, mono/stereo/pingpong delay, reverb, chorus, flange, phaser, bit crusher, distortion, saturation, filtering, etc). There's no need to look for software outside of the program most the time, and the means of using those plug-ins are extremely intuitive. And an added plus, there's tutorial videos all over youtube for it (as well as other modern DAWs).

I don't know if I'd recommend upgrading anything else, but a modern DAW could do you some serious good.....
Hm, no, I do suggest dumping your sound card in favor of a proper audio interface... If you're willing to commit a bit to the craft, at least!

Yeah, thanks for the advice. I started with Reason 2.5 when I started to give this a serious go. I was following a Reason book and made a few experiments, then upgraded to Record/Reason 4.0. The Renoise, Cubase, and Alchemy purchases are fairly recent, and I definitely want to focus on Cubase and rewiring Renoise into that for sample/beat stuff. I haven't even really played with Alchemy at all yet except to play with presets a little.

I have a soundcloud account where I have uploaded my first experiments. Please have a listen and let me know what you think.

http://soundcloud.com/djeayzonne

Fascinating stuff! Very creative. I agree with your commenter - reminds me Orbital.
I already envy you quite a bit - Although I'm very technically proficient, and have soaked up tons of knowledge, I tend to have trouble finishing or elaborating my songs. Very frustrating! Your first experiments definitely blow my first experiments away, hope you keep up the energy.
My stuff is up in the 'showcase' thread.

Now I'm recalling Record - that's the new 'version' of Reason? Cool! I've been curious to see that in action. What made you decide to switch to Cubase? And why Renoise?

Waiting 'til later to focus on Alchemy isn't a bad idea. Synthesis and sound design is a whole 'nother set of problems that requires it's own specific kind of practice.

Actually, I had an 8-track, 96/24 Layla sound card and rackmount 8-channel setup, but someone 'borrowed' my sound canrd, then disappeared (grrr...) I can probably find a replacement on ebay, but that's upwards of $200 I don't have.

Actually, the challenge is to do it with free stuff. I think it can be done, and I'll get around to it...thanks for accepting the temporary hijack...over to the OP...

Thanks for the positive comments. However, those things are nothing compared to what I actually hear in my head, and I have yet to actually get something in my head out yet, so I view those as nothing more than projects to help me learn how to use the software.

Anyway, Record is not the new Reason. It is a separate application for working with audio. If you have Reason also, then you can load Reason into Record and use it as a combined application, which for me, is the only way it is worth anything. Record by itself is only useful for bands. But, as cool as it is as an instrument or even a nice idea pad, it is not a real DAW, which is why I start looking elsewhere. I tried Live and Reaper back in the fall, and I didn't really care for either. Plus I bought Alchemy during this cool group buy, and I didn't have a host for it at the time. I bought Renoise because it is cheap and lots of people say it is the perfect tool for glitch/IDM, and that only a fool would try to do that kind of music on a traditional DAW.

At this point though, I am really trying to study theory and learn how to write out on staff paper what I hear in my head because if I just start trying to make something on software, I lose what's in my head after a short time of hearing the noise I am making with the software. Plus my computer hasn't been working right for the last few weeks, so now I am just researching what to buy and I just can't focus on being creative at all when I am in research mode.

Hijack? To borrow a term from the Brits, bullocks!
Although, your mention of doing it all with free stuff: In philosophy, I am in total agreement. If you have equipment or software that can do the job, one should endeavor to make it excel! That's how I think about it anyways, roughly.

Assuming someone doesn't need to record outboard instruments, you could even do without an Audio Interface. ASIO4ALL does a great job of processing audio at low latencies.
For about a year, my M-Audio interface lacked x64 bit OS support, so I was relegated to my motherboard's built-in outputs. ASIO4ALL is what made it possible, though, dumped down the latency 10-fold. Pretty awesome, and FREE. Can't argue with that.

Good way to think about it, IMO. Some folks get all revved up about distributing their early work... But the fact is that it usually sounds very technically novice, and it's noticeable.

Getting the right textures, like whats going on in your mind, is one of the hardest dang things to accomplish. I still struggle with that, even though I'm quite competent with making my synth patches. Nowadays, the way I think about it is that if I have a song in my head that needs to get transitioned out to the DAW, I leave the melodic textures alone at first. Like a bare Saw or something. And instead I'll focus on getting the melody notes out, and the rhythm ideas sketched. Because it's unlikely that I'll forget that the synth texture sounds crappy, but it is likely that I'll forget the melody line itself, or the rhythm. One gets forgotten before the other, so focus on what's likely to disappear first.

Now this strikes my curiosity. Why is that? I've done my fair share of manual glitch edits with relative ease in Cubase... But to be honest I've never seen that style done by any other means.

I can understand that. I think that's how I'd respond too.

Since you're computer shopping I'll give you some reference from my experience... I build my current desktop specifically for music, its an Intel Q6600 quad core, 4 gigs memory, Vista64. Only in my most complex, hyper-full projects, which use numerous complex synths and tons of complex bussing, does my computer bog down. Therefore, don't go off assuming you need a super-modern, powerful rig. You don't. Even if your projects get incredibly complex, you simply bounce/freeze a couple synths, and you have plenty of processor left to spare. No big deal, very little hassle. So don't go breaking the bank, it's not worth it. Bang-for-the-buck is the way to go.
So that's my 2 pence, anyways....

Theory was one of my more recent topics that I focused on(still am, really - I'm intermediate I think). I suggest thinking about learning piano from an instructor. One of the major benefits is that the practice you'll do at the instructors behest teaches chords better. Specifically, it helps you associate certain chord styles with it's particular sound & vibe. You can read up on chords for years, and it will never teach you the 'vibe' a certain style of chord imparts. Only by physically playing the chord, or by programming it into the DAW and playing it back, will you come to internalize those chords.

I've done both recently, self-study with a solid text-book, and a recent classical piano instructor (but not anymore - Now I'm broke!). Both were great, but in retrospect they taught very different things each. So give an instructor a thought, if you can afford it.


So, anyone else out there interested in this stuff?
Speak up!

Actually, what I wish I could learn/someone was able to teach is the ability to know what chord progressions I hear in my mind are, and then be able to write them down or program them into the DAW.

As far as what people say about Renoise, I don't know why, that is just what I kept seeing over and over again when researching how to program IDM/glitch beats. Haven't really messed with it much yet though, to be honest with you.

As far as computers, good or bad, I have no choice but to buy a laptop. Here in Japan, basic laptops are nearly 2000 dollars, so instead of spending that kind of money for average, might as well buy the Clevo D900F which actually has desktop motherboard and CPU (core i7) for around 2300. But then I just saw a new E series VAIO from Sony today, and it looks pretty decent for around 1200. I hate these kind of decisions.

Computers. Never an easy decision, hehe. But at least you can rest assured that no matter what you get, it'll run your music apps & VST's just fine.

Regarding chords... There's two ways to think about it. There's the chords themselves, and that's pretty hard... Then there's the chord progression, which is a bit easier.

Regarding progressions, the method I've taken to nowadays is focusing on what the bass is doing. If there's a particular note that the bass is 'centering around' or spends a lot of time on, or one note that seems to dominate that phrase, or a note that the bassline always wants to 'resolve' to, then that's probably that song section's chord root. 99% of the time, everything starts at this note that bass part is playing. Everything else could be playing some stuff that seems complex, but if the bass keeps on hittin (for example) the C, or keeps resolving on the C, then the sum of the songs parts, if all jumbled together, almost certainly come out to a C chord. Your leads may have a bit of freedom, but your background harmonies, like the pads, or rhythm guitar or whatever are most the time gonna be a straight up C chord if the bass is orbiting or playing a C.
So build a chord starting from that root, and you'll start hitting the notes that everything else is playing. Anything else probably will sound dissonant. That narrows things down significantly, and is a great help, I've found.

In other news, I won a sound design competition on KVR today! I'm really psyched. I've never won anything before. This was my winning submission - http://www.mediafire.com/?hgzmomgdmdz
Per the contest rules, all sounds were made from the same synth - absolutely no samples were used, and I created all patches from the ground up. I feel like MacGuyver, heheh!