Jump to content
Daktari

Recording direct to computer or BOSS 600 ???

Recommended Posts

Tekker    1
I have to disagre with the last post. I think if enough experimenting and care is taken, some of these stand alone digital recorders are capable of amazingly high quality productions.

Yeah, I'm not saying that good productions can't be done on them... But in direct comparison to PC recording, I think the quality is better with a good interface and PC software. As I said, I wasn't too impressed with a nearly $2k recording unit, yet I have been blown away at the guitar sounds I've been able to get plugging straight into my M-Audio Profire 2626 and using the guitar amp simulator that came with the latest update to my recording program (Samplitude).

Then when you add in the literally infinite amount of incredible free effects plugins, drums sounds, VST instruments for MIDI, etc. compared to a studio in a box unit where you are stuck with what effects/sounds are on the unit... Unless you transfer your tracks to the computer to mix, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of having the studio in a box in the first place if you're just going to use it strictly as an interface to the computer. :D

I checked out a couple of your recordings in the mp3 section and while I still do think PC recording with a good interface would likely give better sound quality, I think the Boss unit actually works really well with your style of music. It fits nicely with the classic sound/vibe you have going on in your music and adds to the character of the music. I definitely liked the overall sound of your recordings a whole lot better than the other video of the guitarist demonstrating the BOSS BR600 as he was doing a very different style that IMO didn't jive with the sound of the Boss effects. You made good use of the Boss effects though. For instance, that heavy slap-back delay on the vocals of One Day I'll Stay (2), normally I wouldn't care for that kind of effect on lead vocals, but I think it worked great on that particular song.

Hi Tecker. Mickey = moody= a ripped off counterfeit or otherwise dodgy, irregular or bogus piece of merchandise, often with a big name brand.

Yeah, that's kind of what I figured... just never heard it called "Mickey" before. lol

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotty_b    16

I have gone from a stand-alone recording setup to doing everything within Cubase. The biggest reason was the editing capabilities, and ease of then taking it to a mastered CD.

The quality of effects, VSTi and the like also make it far more attractive for me. And to throw open a contentious issue, I recently switched to a Mac for recording and it has been a fantastic experience. I have found the Mac to be far more intuitive, stable and offering more productive workflow than the PC-based setup I had used for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1
And to throw open a contentious issue, I recently switched to a Mac for recording and it has been a fantastic experience. I have found the Mac to be far more intuitive, stable and offering more productive workflow than the PC-based setup I had used for many years.

Ah man, you had to go and say the "M" word, didn't you? :brickwall:

Boss vs PC vs Mac.... Do we really want to go there? :D

...I still say PC! There, I said it. LOL

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daktari    0

Hi there,

As I mentioned earlier,my reason for choosing the Boss option was mainly to save me sitting in front of another computer when I got home from work and not really based on any technical reasons. Nothing is etched in stone as the saying goes and I may change my mind sometime in the future.

For now though, I'm happy with my Boss for my home recordings, it has everything in there I need, decent drums, excellent FX for both guitar, bass, vocals and it even has a final mixdown editing suite. Plus 64 tracks if needed.... more than I will ever use.

The only time I use the computer is to convert the finished stereo mix wav file into an MP3 file.

Each to their own I guess.

Cheers, Gordon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1
As I mentioned earlier,my reason for choosing the Boss option was mainly to save me sitting in front of another computer when I got home from work and not really based on any technical reasons. Nothing is etched in stone as the saying goes and I may change my mind sometime in the future.

For now though, I'm happy with my Boss for my home recordings, it has everything in there I need, decent drums, excellent FX for both guitar, bass, vocals and it even has a final mixdown editing suite. Plus 64 tracks if needed.... more than I will ever use.

Yeah, I know. But since Michael's thread is asking about using the Boss or PC, I've gotta fight for the PC. :D

Here's something I've been working on for the past couple days. It just started out as a guitar riff I recorded so I wouldn't forget it, and then it just kind of took on a mind of its own. LOL It's a rock instrumental (I don't sing lol). So check it out and let me know what you think. :)

http://www.guitarforbeginners.com/forum/home-studio/25796-amazing-guitar-bass-amp-simulator/#post259644

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daktari    0

A good Friday morning to all,

As it happens it was me who started this thread when I first found this site. I already had the Boss BR600 and I noticed that most home recordists on here seemed to have taken the pc option. I had just posed the question "BR600 or Computer" because at that stage I didn't know that much about either option.

This has been an interesting thread and as it's been moving on, I have slowly been getting into the Boss recorder and so I have decided to stick with it,at least for the near future.

I have a friend who has a MAC system and he was showing me all the music stuff that came with that as standard. He's not even a musician but it did look pretty impressive at first glance. If I do decide to change to the computer route, that would be the way to go I think.

Cheers, Gordon.:smilinguitar:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1
As it happens it was me who started this thread when I first found this site.

Ah, you're right! It was you who started this thread... I thought I went back to the start of the thread, but I must have hit page 2 on accident and saw Michael's name at the top. LOL Sorry about that. :D

I have a friend who has a MAC system and he was showing me all the music stuff that came with that as standard. He's not even a musician but it did look pretty impressive at first glance. If I do decide to change to the computer route, that would be the way to go I think.

Ok, here we go... a Boss vs PC vs Mac debate... this could be one of those apocalyptic events that will cause the universe to implode. LOL :D

I took a digital music course at college and we used a Mac with Logic and I had loads many problems with it. It took hours to do work that I could have done literally in minutes in Samplitude. And a lot of others had problems with Logic too... In fact at the end of the term, the teacher asked the class how many people had problems with Logic and well over half the class raised their hands. lol

So my thing with the whole PC vs Mac debate is to find a recording program that you like and if that program is available on both PC and Mac, then decide on the platform. My decision was made easy because Samplitude is only available on PC. Since you already have a PC, I would try out some demos of various recording programs and see which one you like. Then see if your friend will let you loose behind the wheel of his Mac and see what you think of it. I had heard all the hype of how awesome Macs were for music, but it wasn't until I sat behind one and tried to use that I realized they have problems just like PC does... But at least on the PC side I really like the software, which wasn't the case on the Mac side.

Also, sometimes the development is different on the Mac and PC sides for the same program. For instance, there is a version of Reaper for Mac, but from what I've read on the Reaper forum it is super buggy and way behind in the development compared to the PC version. So before spending any money, make sure to research whatever program and platform you're looking at.

And since you mentioned "comes as standard", I assume you're talking about Garage Band? I've also used that program as one of my drum students has a Mac with Garage Band and we tried to hook his electronic drum kit up to it so we could get some better sounds with the free VST instrument that I used for the drums in my recording I posted before... Turns out, Garage Band doesn't support VST at all. :( That was a total deal breaker there! So we downloaded the Mac version of Reaper and kind of got it to work, but for whatever reason there was to much latency for it to be of any use. You'd hit the drum and a second or two later hear sound. We didn't get much further than that unfortunately.

So having been on both sides of the PC/Mac wall, I'm still gonna say go with PC and Reaper. If the Mac version of Reaper ever shapes up (which it hasn't for a while) then that may change, but as things are now... go with PC. :thumbup:

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotty_b    16

I switched to Mac as I do session work for a few different studios around Sydney and they all use Mac...in fact most of the 'pro' studios I have worked in have used Mac.

The software is not as abundant as PC, but I knew what I wanted and the Mac has allowed me to be far more productive and far more intuitive.

I should also say that my setup is a little more expensive than the average home user would spend on their setup. I am running Cubase 5 as the core of the studio, and it is a brilliant programme, but I also appreciate a lot of people do not want or cannot spend the money on something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong but I think the Boss has this advantage. You can chuck in your case and take it to work on Saturdays and if you are the only person there you can waste four hours tweaking about with the editing trying to make a silk purse of a pigs ear.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1
I switched to Mac as I do session work for a few different studios around Sydney and they all use Mac...

But wouldn't that be an application issue rather than platform issue? For instance, I've heard of people transferring Pro Tools files back and forth between studios that are on a different platform.

in fact most of the 'pro' studios I have worked in have used Mac.

I think it depends on the type of studio... Most pro recording studios still use Pro Tools, which is available on both platforms and from what I've heard, Pro Tools works best on Mac (like how Reaper does on PC, but probably not as drastic of a difference as Reaper lol). But a lot of mastering studios are using Sequoia (which is Samplitude's bigger brother) which is also PC only. In fact Bob Katz (the guy who wrote the book on mastering) is a Sequoia user.

The software is not as abundant as PC, but I knew what I wanted and the Mac has allowed me to be far more productive and far more intuitive.

But wouldn't the intuitive part be based on the recording program rather than the OS? In other words, what would make Cubase more intuitive on a Mac OS than on Windows?

And I should say that the big reason I'm pushing the PC is not just for the sake of pushing Windows. LOL But it's because of Reaper and from what I've read on the Reaper forum, it clearly runs better and is more developed on PC. Not to mention tons of amazing free VST effects for the PC also give PC another huge advantage.

So my debate isn't so much Boss vs PC vs Mac as it is Reaper vs "everything else". :D

I should also say that my setup is a little more expensive than the average home user would spend on their setup.

...but I also appreciate a lot of people do not want or cannot spend the money on something like that.

Ditto. I don't actually use Reaper as my recording program, I use Magix Samplitude. But out of all of the recording programs I've used (every one I can legally get my hands on lol) including SAWStudio which runs at $2,500... I would put Reaper as my #2 choice behind Samplitude. If Samplitude were to vanish into thin air tomorrow, I would move right to Reaper without thinking twice. That's not just for the cheap price tag, but because it is an amazing program and it seems to be growing exponentially compared to other programs. If Reaper keeps going at the rate it has been, then one day I may even wind up replacing Samplitude with Reaper, who knows? :dunno:

I may be wrong but I think the Boss has this advantage. You can chuck in your case and take it to work on Saturdays and if you are the only person there you can waste four hours tweaking about with the editing trying to make a silk purse of a pigs ear.

I think the advantage would still be with PC or Mac in this regard as you already likely take a laptop to work. So that's one less thing to put in your bag AND you can edit while you are "supposed" to be working without looking suspicious. :winkthumb:

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a really bad thing about the Boss. I stopped it on playback to shift a track full left as there was another guitar track coming in full right at that point. I was bouncing four tracks to the two stereo tracks at the time. You cannot obviously pre set this shift so you have to do it while bouncing. The dial to move the shift swinging from right 25 to left 50 cannot be done turned quickly enough to get the effect. (with hindsight I should have gone right 25 to right 50 and brought the other track in on the left). Now, on playback of the stereo tracks I have an audible click at the start and end of the section where it was stopped for panning. I am really cross about this as it sounds like an insert and I spent good time playing straight through start to finish on each track until I had it as good as I could be because looping and copying dont really do it. Messy and ragged. Now I live with the clicks or re record the whole track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, worried about that for a while this morning then figured it could only possibly be on the stereo tracks I was recording to and that the source track would be sound. It is so I get another go to get it right. Good job there is no capital punishment in the eu cos I would have done for that Boss this morning and what a miscarriage that would have been. As it is I have only to apologise, so Sorry, Boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daktari    0

Hi there,

Hope everyone had a good weekend wherever they may be.

Quote:

"I may be wrong but I think the Boss has this advantage. You can chuck in your case and take it to work on Saturdays and if you are the only person there you can waste four hours tweaking about with the editing trying to make a silk purse of a pigs ear.

Mike".

Ok, as I've mentioned before many times, I am not a tech head and the only reason I get into this recording side of things is so I can get my music into some kind of format so it can be heard. Music after all is for folks to listen to... All this discussion about Boss or computer then Mac or PC, it's all about horses for courses.

Personally, I'm not interested in producing "silk purses". I'm gonna be very satisfied with a well written, well played and well recorded pig's ear and if it's good enough for the listener to enjoy the experience then to me, that's what it's all about. I've found my level with this Boss unit and it allows me to do a complete finished song in about 20 mins. If I'm in the mood, that's what I do. I record it live onto two tracks and then maybe add a little extra guitar or percussion. Of course, some of my songs take longer than that. But the four hours mentioned above tinkering around trying to recover something by tweaking. I say scrap it and start from scratch if that much work is needed to pull it round.

I know a lot of my stuff is rough and ready when placed under the 'recording microscope' but so what? I personally prefer that spontaneity and immediate feel to the music which becomes lost in the whole process when the original idea is picked over and maybe scrutinized too much.

Obviously, a good recording should be a nice balance between the substance coming in, (the song, guitar, vocal..etc..), and the way that substance is then recorded so it can be shared and passed on to other people. This is where the technical side comes in and would include both the recording hardware and also the recording techniques and experience.

I'm sure a good song can be ruined if it is recorded so badly that the listener never gets a true impression of the songs potential. On the other hand, that same song could be ruined by being over produced and too much attention spent after the initial performance on effects and more importantly to me... the time span.

All of the above is of course just my very humble and highly un-technical opinion speaking.

All the best, Gordon.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sheraton    20
Here is a really bad thing about the Boss. I stopped it on playback to shift a track full left as there was another guitar track coming in full right at that point. I was bouncing four tracks to the two stereo tracks at the time. You cannot obviously pre set this shift so you have to do it while bouncing. The dial to move the shift swinging from right 25 to left 50 cannot be done turned quickly enough to get the effect. (with hindsight I should have gone right 25 to right 50 and brought the other track in on the left). Now, on playback of the stereo tracks I have an audible click at the start and end of the section where it was stopped for panning. I am really cross about this as it sounds like an insert and I spent good time playing straight through start to finish on each track until I had it as good as I could be because looping and copying dont really do it. Messy and ragged. Now I live with the clicks or re record the whole track.

these kind of problems are why i use boss (BR 864) to record. then send each track individually as a wav file to laptop/pc using cubase, as many individual tracks as you need .64 tracks on the boss, in theory but bouncing tracks is no good (unless you're stuck in the

60's and a member of the beatles)

you're panning problem wouldn't be an issue once in cubase there are many ways u could do this , auto panning for a start.

i myself don't use many features in cubase, but wouldn't be without it now.

i recently recorded a song, and as i don't really like to overdub lead breaks recorded main guitar in one take with solo.

to boost volume on solo i doubled just the break (copied to another track) and was able to boost volume to my preference. sounds very natural. and more control than boosting volume as you record.

the debate continues .......

I still say Boss & PC.......... best of both worlds.

p.s the drums on Boss are very limited and a pain to programme i hate being huddled over that tiny wee screen pressing buttons and writing down numbers:brickwall: EZdrummer plug in for cubase!

as long as you have tempo set the same as you recorded on the Boss no worries.

btw my last post in members recordings is Boss drums just seemed to work. best of both worlds you see....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gordon.Re the four hours tweaking, if you ever heard anything I have posted you would realise it is time well spent. Better than actually working too. My playing and tech side are in very early days. If I dont do something about it I will never get any better. If you can record well enough to say thats good enough, then thats great, I would love to be there, but I am not. If you say that enhancing the recording with editing is sort of falsifying it, well so it is. If I make it sound better than I can do live, I am all for it and anyway, it is interesting and fun. Things can only get better, onwards and etc.

All the best Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daktari    0

Hi there,

Michael, no worries at all. I can see where you are coming from and if you enjoy that part of the musical process then playing around with it afterwards is all part of the fun in your case.

I think I have a slightly different approach to the recording side because first and foremost, I play live. My all set up is based so I can go out and play in bars, restaurants, pool parties, weddings, etc... and get the best live sound for a one man act I can possibly achieve, (without using backing tracks but I do use a looper), limited only by my abilities on guitar and as a vocalist. I'm no expert in either of those fields but I can get by to fool most folks, ha, ha. It also helps because I have a rather odd-ball style so most folks find it hard to find a straight comparison and eventually they realize that they like the fact that it's a little different. Not everything I play is odd-ball though. I love Elvis and I do a couple of his songs if I get a request, even Jim Reeves but I get tempted to go into reggae half way through, ha,ha,, it's hard to resist sometimes.

Anyway, I mainly got into this recording side because I have family and friends still living in Britain and they are always asking me what I'm doing on the music scene. Hence this recording venture which for me and the purpose I'm recording for, I have reached the point where I am happy with the results. It's good enough for the reason I had in mind. Any spare time after that is put into either learning how to play my bala or just practicing and learning new songs.

The recordong side is just a means to an end and not my most favourite part of the whole process. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

Take care, Gordon.:guitardude:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
solidwalnut    5
Hi there,

Hope everyone had a good weekend wherever they may be.

Quote:

"I may be wrong but I think the Boss has this advantage. You can chuck in your case and take it to work on Saturdays and if you are the only person there you can waste four hours tweaking about with the editing trying to make a silk purse of a pigs ear.

Mike".

Ok, as I've mentioned before many times, I am not a tech head and the only reason I get into this recording side of things is so I can get my music into some kind of format so it can be heard. Music after all is for folks to listen to... All this discussion about Boss or computer then Mac or PC, it's all about horses for courses.

Personally, I'm not interested in producing "silk purses". I'm gonna be very satisfied with a well written, well played and well recorded pig's ear and if it's good enough for the listener to enjoy the experience then to me, that's what it's all about. I've found my level with this Boss unit and it allows me to do a complete finished song in about 20 mins. If I'm in the mood, that's what I do. I record it live onto two tracks and then maybe add a little extra guitar or percussion. Of course, some of my songs take longer than that. But the four hours mentioned above tinkering around trying to recover something by tweaking. I say scrap it and start from scratch if that much work is needed to pull it round.

I know a lot of my stuff is rough and ready when placed under the 'recording microscope' but so what? I personally prefer that spontaneity and immediate feel to the music which becomes lost in the whole process when the original idea is picked over and maybe scrutinized too much.

Obviously, a good recording should be a nice balance between the substance coming in, (the song, guitar, vocal..etc..), and the way that substance is then recorded so it can be shared and passed on to other people. This is where the technical side comes in and would include both the recording hardware and also the recording techniques and experience.

I'm sure a good song can be ruined if it is recorded so badly that the listener never gets a true impression of the songs potential. On the other hand, that same song could be ruined by being over produced and too much attention spent after the initial performance on effects and more importantly to me... the time span.

All of the above is of course just my very humble and highly un-technical opinion speaking.

All the best, Gordon.:)

Hi Gordon--

We are all just where we are with it, you're right. It's all a matter of opinion, but I believe that the one constant is what you said: your music is for folks to listen to. Whether that's more 'raw' technically or more finished, the bottom line is to present your tunes in a pleasant manner.

And to best represent who you are. I'm saying all this to agree with what you've said, but I feel there's another component to how we all feel about this subject: many times we record and then produce, produce, produce and we're either trying to overcompensate for a weakness or are trying to add a more techno quality to our sound. For example, my weakness is that I am not that good at improvising (as I should be for as long as I've been playing).

I believe there's only one reason to spend time producing a recording: to enhance the feel, the vibe, the groove, the musicality that's there. No other reason at all. It's all about learning the craft so the craft can serve the inspiration. Next, it's all about design intent.

Often times I want to spend a good amount of time producing because of this simple fact: The more distractions that are out of the way, the more the listener can enjoy the music and not dwell on what they hear that is not pleasant. At the basis, this often means spending time on eq space for each instrument or voice, stereo pan position for each instrument or voice and volume level space for each.

But, when you talk about just getting it done, or just getting the idea down in scratchpad form and presenting the song in it's simplest way to preserve the feel, I totally get what you're saying. It's just that I believe that you can spend a goodly amount of time enhancing and amplifying the basic feel by spending a decent amount of time producing that. When I feel I'm starting to head down the road of tryng to make it sound like something it's not, then that's often when I'll say, "forget it. The feel is lost." Start over.

On your stuff: you've got such a great ability to craft a song that the structures speak volumes to me. When I listen, I hear a beautiful soul expressing themselves and in a unique way. The producer in me wants to spend time technically with your stuff. But that doesn't mean that's where you're at as far as spending your time. In your 'raw' recordings, I hear a wonderful basic mix which is pleasant to the ear. I think you're on the right track technically, and you're a good musician.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daktari    0

Hi there,

Thanks Steve for your last post, I take all that as a compliment because I know my recordings are a little rough at the edges. For sure, if I had more interest in that side of the process I could spend a lot more money and invest a lot more time on the recording side.

But, as I mentioned in my last post, they are of a good enough quality to let folks know what I'm doing on the music scene. Nearly every piece of music I have posted on here starts off as a live recording and then sometimes I take the initial idea and delve into the multi track area and it is this area that becomes like a chore. On one hand, it's interesting to learn about a new process but I just don't have the patience to sit there for hours when I'd rather be moving onto the next song.

As you say, we all have a different approach and different reasons for making our recordings and to me, as long as folks can have a good listen and get some enjoyment from the experience, then that's good for me.

After saying that, if I was trying to sell a song to a record company or artist, then I'd either get into a studio or at least bring in someone who had more experience than myself.

Cheers, Gordon.:smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gordon, Hi Steve. Yes to it all but there is another thing here. We are on line, we dont even know each other. In another situation we might be sitting around with a beer or a coffee and laughing at each other or putting it all together and getting it right. But we are not. We are posting stuff that is not realtime and will never sound the same no matter what. So, we put up here what we can do, and we do for the music and for whatever else in it makes it good for us. Where else, at the moment (unless I want to spend the rest of my life imitating John Prine and I dont, the lump I did spend doing that was quite enough) will I get an audience? Its also for debate and, for me, for the help I get. I could not have got this far but for that and I do not forget it. Not worshipping at any shrines, I know more or less what I am capable of , maybe I have got my potential mixed up with my wishfull thinking, but time will tell. It is perfectly obvious that you both are accomplished musicians, that is why you are on this site with me, guitarforbeginnersandbeyond. I really do appreciate the help and the guidance I get here, and the forebearance when I say or play something truly daft. So good luck to us all, and I am going to post this thing I have been recording and I need to know whether it is an improvement or not. So, get yer earplugs out.

Best wishes

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daktari    0

Hello again,

I know what you mean Michael, it is a bit impersonal sometimes having a discussion this way. For my part I'm not trying to make any sweeping statements or have a go at anyone's approach to music. As you know, I am certainly no expert on the recording side, in fact I'm a novice so anything I have been saying is all based on my limited experience and is based on what is right for me at this particular time.

I certainly did not mean to offend anyone and I look forward to hearing your next tune/song.

I have decided already that my next musical attachment will be a live one-take recording which hopefully will demonstrate how I sometimes use the looper in a live situation. I had thought about adding commentary as well as the thing runs and as each layer is added, similar to Mike Oldfield on Tubular Bells. Then I thought NO! that would be ultra corny. I just thought it might be helpful to anyone wondering about getting into the looping stuff. It would also be a good example of the Boss' on board stereo microphones. Not the best quality but good for sketching with.

Cheers, Gordon.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1
the debate continues .......

I still say Boss & PC.......... best of both worlds.

For me (being a poor college student) I always look for the best "bang for the buck", this is why I spend so much time researching equipment before buying so I don't wind up spending money on something when there are better and cheaper options available.

In the case of Boss vs PC, the price of the BR 864 is $400... But the Tascam US-1641 interface (which has 14 inputs) goes for $300 and Reaper for $60. So not only do you save $40, but you will have more options (if you want them) and better sound IMO. What's not to like about that? :)

Also, in regards of overproducing, computer recording can be as simple or as complex as you want to make it. Just because you have vast editing capabilities available, doesn't mean you have to use any of them.

I am one of those types who can spend hours tweaking reverb sounds, but that's because I choose to do that, not because computer recording forces me to. That's just my personality as I want it to be "perfect" or as close as I can get it.

While a good song should be able to stand on its own, IMO there is a whole new dimension added when the production and sound quality are amazing as well. For example, the rock instrumental I did with Vandal I feel the guitar and bass tones are very close to professional quality. Would that song have been the same had I used awful distortion sounds from a freebie guitar processor?... Well, let's find out.... ;)

Same song, same performance, same MIDI drums... VERY different guitar and bass tones.

Boogex:

http://www.guitarforbeginners.com/tekker/zPosts/Rock%20Instrumental_Boogex.mp3

Vandal:

http://www.guitarforbeginners.com/tekker/zPosts/Rock%20Instrumental.mp3

While I could have posted the first one and you could have gotten an idea of my playing, songwriting, etc. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to listen to it more than once as I don't even want to and I'm the one who made it. LOL

So I do think there is an important aspect to production. Yes, the song should not be neglected in place of production (this is where mainstream goes WAY wrong IMO)... However, if you already have good songs written and you have the skills to play/sing them well, then IMO making a good sounding production is only going to make a good song and performance even BETTER. :thumbup:

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tekker    1
The difference is astonishing. But, what is the "freebie guitar processor" that you used?

Mike

The freebie was Voxengo Boogex.

second take is better but still sounds processed

I did add more processing even after guitar processor, such as a stereo delay to widen the sound (that's why it comes from the left/right speakers instead of the center), EQ, and a final compressor on the whole mix. So yeah, it is processed quite a bit. But really, even a guitar amp is processing the original guitar sound... So IMO the question should be, does it sound "good"?

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×