LAYERING SAMPLES...LAYER ISSUES...

nym's original point about filtering/eq might make sense in theory or mathematically or whatever, but in real life usage i completely disagree with it. its like saying the low end theory method of production could achieve the same sound by just tweaking low frequencies on an eq itb instead of filtering and layering. and i've NEVER found that to be the case. tweaking an eq's low end has never given me the same sound as filtering and layering a sample in a sampler.

and as for the rest of this thread i see valid points on both sides, but i'll always favor sound and feeling over math. but everyone achieves that they're own way so neither is better or worse, but there is really no point to discuss it.

and to be honest trunk really had the only worthwhile post in this whole thread...

peace.

Banging my head repeatedly against a wall might feel right in a retard home, but the mathmatic explanation is how sh!t works. Feeling music is what matters for the masses, but Nym is on point.

j Def wrote:Feeling music is what matters for the masses, but Nym is on point.

the end result is all that matters. and again, in theory what nym was saying should be right, but in practice i've found that not to be the case. if thats not the case for you then awesome for you. dont bother layering samples and just eq instead. as long as you get the sound you want it doesnt matter...

but if i achieve the sound i want but then realize the mathematics aren't correct, should i then throw it away? the end result is all that matters, whether you achieve that the wrong or right way mathematically doesn't matter (to me at least).

this is like listening to people argue over subtractive or additive eq practices.
some say there is absoultely no reason for additive eq, while others achieve they sound they want through it. if you get the sound you want why dissect and argue the means to get there...?

that's just the thing - when are the mathematics not correct? or rather, when are the mathematics not correct and the incorrect-ness doesn't stem from human error? real world example. when does a spectrograph display only treble frequencies when all you hear is bottom end? by nature, the math isn't going to be wrong, otherwise we'd find a different way to count sh!t or measure it. sound isn't string theory.

its like saying the low end theory method of production could achieve the same sound by just tweaking low frequencies on an eq itb instead of filtering and layering

really, it can be. hand to jesus, it's been done and it ain't hard. low end theory is nothing but just carving the sh!t out of a sample by snaking the bass off the low frequencies and manhandling it back onto the sample after it's been messed with/turned up. if the sampler/daw isn't sample accurate, you'll get phasing in the bass frequencies unless you then carve a home out of the low frequencies in the original sample.

result - big, embellished bass that was already in the sample but is now super-apparent and can act as a bassline. the most amusing thing is that if i was completely, utterly, flat out incorrect about this, i'd be mathmatically incorrect

why dissect and argue the means to get there...?

no reason. i only find myself doing it when sky pilots want to inject metaphysics into everything hah. while there's a lot of innovation and discovery in the field of sound manipulation, we (you, i, and even those behind hundred thousand dollar racks) don't do much dabbling in the aurally unknown. when someone wants to tell me that there's a monster hiding behind an armchair i frequent, it makes me want to burst their bubble

i still think this thread needs to get locked. i could never stop refuting mysticism's place in a scientific medium, and i understand that it will never stop ruffling feathers. all it does is get people's blood hot and take up space

next week on nym radio...no "intelligent design" stickers in middle school biology books.

Nym wrote:really, it can be. hand to jesus, it's been done and it ain't hard. low end theory is nothing but just carving the sh!t out of a sample by snaking the bass off the low frequencies and manhandling it back onto the sample after it's been messed with/turned up. if the sampler/daw isn't sample accurate, you'll get phasing in the bass frequencies unless you then carve a home out of the low frequencies in the original sample.

result - big, embellished bass that was already in the sample but is now super-apparent and can act as a bassline.

you entirely missed the point i was trying to originally make. yes, i understand what is happening with low end theory, and theoretically it should sound same the same doing it with an eq itb, but i've never found that to be. i'll always favor the sound i get doing it in my sampler more. thats all i was trying to say. if thats not the case for you more power to you, but we all favor doing certain things certain ways cause of the end result. and this is what i've found for myself...


now why would i trust a spectrograph that says mathematically this sounds just as good when my ears are really telling me something different...?

Nym wrote:i still think this thread needs to get locked. i could never stop refuting mysticism's place in a scientific medium, and i understand that it will never stop ruffling feathers. all it does is get people's blood hot and take up space.

nah, no feathers ruffled or blood boiling, but i think this thread was already a void of two differing opinions getting no where and i kinda tripped and fell into joining the chore of discussing nothing for nothing's sake.


bleh...

^^^^^^yo i am a part time painter, i can paint that sh!t for a small fee?

NearTao wrote:

asr boy wrote:^ learn somethin' sucka.

Seriously... making a case about how awesome it is you know nothing about music and have no musical education, only to try and teach something. Smacks a tad self righteous.

so is a pedantical response to a practical question. then he jumped on his high horse with the needless musical theory drivel that i could give a rat's a$$ about. again, music is spiritual, not scientific. this is PROVEN through the development of american pop music...

yet you came to this forum to be educated on how to use your musical instrument...hm
welcome to dullardry

it was a simple question about the functionality of a modern machine. i didn't ask for your bookish, inkhorn junior college knowledge of music theory. i asked about pressin' buttons.

If u know the frequences of the notes a violin played, and if u also know the frequences of the notes a piano played in the same sequence, u can exactly calculate where the instruments will clash with each other.

A good engineer knows this of course, but he can hear it by ear.

Music is science. But a good musician feels this. But the 'right' feelings are always corresponding with the theory and science.

Another example: I work as a fitness trainer. With one simple test I can calculate all the weights for every machine and excercise for someone.
But I've trained so many people on the machines we have in our gym, that I can do it just on the feel after asking a few question and taking a good look at someones body type, age gender etc. I will come up with the same weight's as my calculator.