Absynth 5's Alan Lamb preset
Just noticed this Alan Lamb preset in Absynth 5. To my ear it doesn't sound like his work with 'the wires' but it's got a bit of the rattle that he adds on his aeolian harp recordings.
The drone ranger
NGC1313 Spiral Galaxy in Reticulum – Abre Ojos @ Electundra from abre ojos on Vimeo.
Above is a video from Scott Baker, who built an aeolian harp with Alan Lamb outside Wagga Wagga that - like Scott - has been an inspiration to me.
Below is video of my drums vibrating 'the wires' that Scott built with Alan Lamb.
Drum compression
A while ago I found this outline for compressor settings at www.orange-fields.com/widepages/drumscomp
It was useful to me so I thought I'd share. If they're your settings, let me know and I can attribute them to you or remove them if you wish but thanks for the help.
DRUMS - COMPRESSION
(A variety of different settings !)
KICK -
1) To "flatten" = 8:1 or more, short attack 2ms or less.
2) For more "attack" = slow the attack time to let the initial "poke" through.
3) 6:1, Threshold = -3 to -5dB.
4) Between 4:1 & 8:1, attack about 10ms, rel. about 200ms.
5) 10dB gain reduction (maximum !)
SNARE -
1) 3:1, Threshold = -10dB to add "crack".
2) Between 4:1 & 6:1, attack = 5 to 10ms, rel. about 150ms.
3) 10dB gain reduction (maximum !)
OVERHEADS -
1) 2:1 to lengthen signal decays.
TOMS -
1) Between 4:1 & 6:1, attack = 5 to 10ms, rel. about 150ms.
ANY DRUM -
1) 4:1, 5dB gain red. as starting point. Use AUTO (or attack 40 to 50ms, rel. 300 to 500ms.)
It was useful to me so I thought I'd share. If they're your settings, let me know and I can attribute them to you or remove them if you wish but thanks for the help.
DRUMS - COMPRESSION
(A variety of different settings !)
KICK -
1) To "flatten" = 8:1 or more, short attack 2ms or less.
2) For more "attack" = slow the attack time to let the initial "poke" through.
3) 6:1, Threshold = -3 to -5dB.
4) Between 4:1 & 8:1, attack about 10ms, rel. about 200ms.
5) 10dB gain reduction (maximum !)
SNARE -
1) 3:1, Threshold = -10dB to add "crack".
2) Between 4:1 & 6:1, attack = 5 to 10ms, rel. about 150ms.
3) 10dB gain reduction (maximum !)
OVERHEADS -
1) 2:1 to lengthen signal decays.
TOMS -
1) Between 4:1 & 6:1, attack = 5 to 10ms, rel. about 150ms.
ANY DRUM -
1) 4:1, 5dB gain red. as starting point. Use AUTO (or attack 40 to 50ms, rel. 300 to 500ms.)
Living
Tom Cosm - Moving from the studio to live performance using Ableton Live from Delicious on Vimeo.
This is good, I should try and see more stuff like this. Any recommendations?
Going the extra mile
Thanks to Abre Ojos for passing on this blog post:
Going the extra mile for unique timbres
It's a good read and the other topics covered look promising too :)
Going the extra mile for unique timbres
It's a good read and the other topics covered look promising too :)
bassling wants to be free
Five years before Chris Anderson published Free, three years before Radiohead released their album In Rainbows for a donation (of potentially nothing); bassling was inspired by Creative Commons to offer his first LP for free.
Don't wait another five years - download it today!
Don't wait another five years - download it today!
More meaningful differences
This morning I was reading that something like 95% of blogs don't get updated regularly. I felt a bit of guilt but another statement in the article also rang true, that most blogs have an audience of one. I blog because I like the interface better than writing in a diary.
One blog that I think deserves a large readership is The Stretta Procedure because it takes the current topics and adds a dose of reflection. The current post takes the issue of the latest mobile and keyboard and lifts the topic to focus on why people fuss about small incremental differences:
Stretta reminded me of something I was reading yesterday about language as a conspiracy. In Everything Is Under Control, Robert Anton Wilson discusses Count Alfred Korzybski, who:
The more I read about perception, the more I realise how little information we use to base many decisions upon. Recently I read a blog post (either Boingboing or Wired) which outlined audio illusions. Like, if you put on headphones and listen to a microphone as you rub your fingers in front of it and adjust the tone so that it's all treble, you'll conclude that your fingers are dry because of the sound. Likewise, if you do this while rolling off the higher frequencies, you'll think your fingers are moist.
Our brains must create realistic illusions every day!
One blog that I think deserves a large readership is The Stretta Procedure because it takes the current topics and adds a dose of reflection. The current post takes the issue of the latest mobile and keyboard and lifts the topic to focus on why people fuss about small incremental differences:
The recent introduction of Tom Oberheim's SEM re-issue sparked a spirited debate on the sonic differences between surface mount and through hole components. I found the discussion mildly amusing - not just because of all the half-truths, flawed premises and mis-information, but due to the psychology behind the discussion itself.
We spend so much time discussing the technical differences because we CAN talk about the technical differences. We can't talk about the sound or usefulness because this is entirely subjective. Those debates pretty much go like this:
"I think the re-issue sounds just like the vintage version."
"I think your ears are full of poop."
And so on.
Technology is concrete, exacting. We can zero in on some minute aspect and obsess about it. We can claim a re-issue isn't going to be EXACTLY the same as the original because the traces are too long, or make sharp 90 degree turns or a SMT chip package was used. The existence of these differences, whether or not they actually contribute something meaningful to the sound, nonetheless exist and can be endlessly debated.
Meanwhile, this generates a lot of noise, the issue is magnified and weighs disproportionately in our minds.
At what point is a difference a meaningful one?
Stretta reminded me of something I was reading yesterday about language as a conspiracy. In Everything Is Under Control, Robert Anton Wilson discusses Count Alfred Korzybski, who:
...observed that the words we use influence our perceptions and conceptions of the world - e.g., even in the same language, a book may be called "realistic" by one reader and "pornographic" by another, and each will tend to perceive/conceive the book that way more and more automatically if they repeat their label ("realistic" or "pornographic") over and over. This underlies the mechanism of hypnosis, as Dr. Bandler discovered later. It also explains why you won't make much progress preaching radical equality to somebody who continually uses the word "nigger," or defending the first amendment to somebody who keeps saying "smut" (or "sexism"). (p.276)
The more I read about perception, the more I realise how little information we use to base many decisions upon. Recently I read a blog post (either Boingboing or Wired) which outlined audio illusions. Like, if you put on headphones and listen to a microphone as you rub your fingers in front of it and adjust the tone so that it's all treble, you'll conclude that your fingers are dry because of the sound. Likewise, if you do this while rolling off the higher frequencies, you'll think your fingers are moist.
Our brains must create realistic illusions every day!
Big excitement
My big news is that a few of my videos are on the BIG SCREEN at Melbourne's Federation Square at 2.30pm each day during May as part of the Notes From The Underground program.
Current set-up
How technology shapes taste
Been reading this comment about research that suggests younger folk prefer mp3s to higher fidelity recordings and it's an example of a pet theory I've been mulling over about how technology shapes taste.
I started thinking about this when I reflected on how many years it took for me to appreciate the sound of synthesizers. All through the 80s I hated them, all those now classic sounds. Then in the 90s I began to appreciate the visceral nature of dance music and soon learned to love the aesthetic.
Then I thought about how Autotune used to be reviled and is now all over and over the top in popular music.
And before long I was thinking how digital mediums like CDs had allowed a wider frequency range, specifically deeper and heavily compressed bass, to be recorded and replayed.
Anyway, it's still a pet theory and it's needs some more thought.
I started thinking about this when I reflected on how many years it took for me to appreciate the sound of synthesizers. All through the 80s I hated them, all those now classic sounds. Then in the 90s I began to appreciate the visceral nature of dance music and soon learned to love the aesthetic.
Then I thought about how Autotune used to be reviled and is now all over and over the top in popular music.
And before long I was thinking how digital mediums like CDs had allowed a wider frequency range, specifically deeper and heavily compressed bass, to be recorded and replayed.
Anyway, it's still a pet theory and it's needs some more thought.
Is the Future of Music Generative?
This is an interesting essay covering a lot of issues surrounding generative music. If you've read a heap of Brian Eno interviews then most of the subject matter is more about whether the music industry would recognise generative music as music but it's a great collection of stimulating ideas.
I've been wondering when there will be a program that registers what the user/s prefer (breaks, ambient, dnb, etc.), what time of the day, what the stress level in their voice says their emotional state would be, etc. and creates bespoke background music according to their previous preferences.
But I guess the real issue is that generative music is yet to become as intricate and accessible as pop music because that is what is marketed to the 'mainstream' as 'music'
I've been wondering when there will be a program that registers what the user/s prefer (breaks, ambient, dnb, etc.), what time of the day, what the stress level in their voice says their emotional state would be, etc. and creates bespoke background music according to their previous preferences.
But I guess the real issue is that generative music is yet to become as intricate and accessible as pop music because that is what is marketed to the 'mainstream' as 'music'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)