By 950skweezyotitties
Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:29 pm
you cant get the sp sound from moogerfooger pedals, or any other mix technique/plug in/outboard/sampler
Nym wrote:You cats wouldn't have survived in the 80s or 90s real talk!!!!!It's not silly, it's basic fundamentals. If you are not listening to your music at the beggining of its creation, how could you expect someone else to listen to it. I think their is too much reliance on technolgy.
the bolded part is what's just plain silly.
"not listening to your music?" come on, now, think about that... not one person is chopping utilizing a waveform display without listening to the slices as they do it. that's your assumption - that it's either X or Y when ideally it's a combination. a "scrub" feature coupled with a vertically/horizontally zoomable waveform is simply the most accurate combination possible without adding a spectroscope into the mix...
BUT, that being said, by virtue of horizontal and vertical zooming, i could easily chop a break "deaf," relying solely on the waveform, more precisely than anyone could "blind" without said waveform. that's just the way it is, it's like comparing a microscope to a glass eye. without listening to the music as i'm chopping it, i could in fact slice it "better" than if i were listening til my eardrums bled. the resulting slices would be slightly tighter.
the question is, of course, at such small values of inprecision, does it matter if the "blind" slicer's slices are less accurate than my "deaf" slices in this example?
not at all. the end listener wouldn't (and hasn't) noticed.
"not listening to your music?" come on, now, think about that... not one person is chopping utilizing a waveform display without listening to the slices as they do it. that's your assumption - that it's either X or Y when ideally it's a combination. a "scrub" feature coupled with a vertically/horizontally zoomable waveform is simply the most accurate combination possible without adding a spectroscope into the mix...
BUT, that being said, by virtue of horizontal and vertical zooming, i could easily chop a break "deaf," relying solely on the waveform, more precisely than anyone could "blind" without said waveform. that's just the way it is, it's like comparing a microscope to a glass eye. without listening to the music as i'm chopping it, i could in fact slice it "better" than if i were listening til my eardrums bled. the resulting slices would be slightly tighter.
the question is, of course, at such small values of inprecision, does it matter if the "blind" slicer's slices are less accurate than my "deaf" slices in this example?
not at all. the end listener wouldn't (and hasn't) noticed.
Nym wrote:hahah way to dodge the topic there, boss...get over yourself. you're no better off for the attitude.
if a frequency exists in a sample, it is necessarily represented graphically in the waveform. especially in the case of a clean drum-only break, there is nowhere whatsoever for a sneaky frequency to hide.
So then, if you can't hear those frequencies that you can see, why would it be better to chop using your eyes instead of your ears?