Logan_4600

On 2/14/2019 at 8:05 PM, TimV said:

Your last sentence explains where you're coming from. If your main concern is learning how something sounds, then of course a video would be more helpful. There are probably thousands of videos already out there that cover all aspects of mixing.

I personally don't find them very useful for reference.  For example, say I want to know how to set an automation node to specific level. I don't want to search for a video on automation, watch the whole thing hoping that at some point it answers my question. With text, I can just go to what I'm looking for. 

Fortunately, I still have the manual for Platinum. I also still make frequent use of Scott Garrigus's SONAR  X3 Power. When you need a clear explanation of how to do something, his books can't be beat.

Indeed, software learning from videos can be tiresome and, sometimes, even counterintuitive; the lack of a proper index es one key problem too - maybe, small videos for VFX and CG3D they works best -.

Recording and Mixing, instruments and music learning, broad ear training, on the other hand, videos or writen material with audio is infinitley better imo

On 2/15/2019 at 11:36 PM, SomeGuy said:

Except the user guides are nothing like that... so the exaggeration is neither appropriate nor logical.

Secondly...  User Guides and Tutorials can be done in multiple ways...  Take Blackmagic Design, for instance.  They have a Fairlight Tutorial Book with 4-5GB of  footage that comes with it so that you can follow along with each lesson.

So no...  It's not that audio tutorials have never had audio.  It's just that the audio tutorials that you've taken/read have failed to provide it.  Providing sample audio and tutorials so that users can follow along has been very common, for at least a decade...  Adobe, iZotope, and others have all done this  for several years... 😉

Ear training from a YouTube video...  Cute. 

C'mon dude, I said broad strokes, even Spotify/Apple have some kind of compression or distortion, and they're the most consumed music distribution methods.

Back in the day, like, from 2000 to late 2010's, actual audio in an audio tutorials were something quite rare to find.

Separating DAW/Software tutorials (which, I do prefer them writen) from Mixing and training, to be honest, in which world I'm living where people prefer audio tutorials to be writen and with no actual audio in them!?

On 2/10/2019 at 6:26 PM, SomeGuy said:

How are you supposed to know how N thing sounds from a YouTube video, often badly recorded and super compressed/transcoded?

You  know the same way Homo Sapiens discovered cooking.  You try it and see.  That's the most optimal way to learn.  Context Sensitive Help was developed to facilitate this. Anytime you had an issue, you pressed F1 and the help file popped up on the screen explaining to you what this thing is.  The current help system for CbB is awful.  The website is not responsive.  Web Browsers eat up lots of RAM and CPU.  The search is worse than that of a PDF reader.  The Website is horribly laid out and not very "responsive."

Don't think I've stated that YouTube tutorials were "utterly bad."  I simply stated that they were a waste of time, because many of them waste  tons of minutes (which add up) bloviating about things that don't matter, or are tangential to the subject... like:

Gibson's old SONAR macOS Alpha and the BandLab iOS app in a video talking about Installing Cakewalk by BandLab (~2:30 long, but doesn't actually start talking about the installation process  until 0:55 in.  Meanwhile, nothing was said about the actual installation process itself - especially pertaining to how you can put the Content Folder on a different drive if you do an Advanced installation; or how to set up your Project Directory in a specific place.  Watching that video is literally a waste of time... yet, it exists.  No disrespect to the creator,  but it's 2:30 of filler content that really accomplishes nothing at all except to "just be there."

Meanwhile, a user could just open up a Quick Start Guide PDF distributed with the application and all of this is spelled out to them, in more detail.

Text is superior to video because you can fit more content and explain things more thoroughly in that medium.

No one wants to produce  30-45 minute videos for every feature, but that's literally what you'd have to do to offer as much useful information as an actual user guide or context sensitive help system.

I just want the documentation to be more accessible, as in other products.

A YT video showing me broad strokes is still 1000 times better than a "the crack of the snare is around 3k, search for it.... use the force" phrase. C'mon guys. Audio tutorials were for years full of secrecy surrounding actual audio. Thankfully that's changing thanks to streaming. And, I know, it can be heavily compressed or somewhat distorted in YT videos, but it's still years light from a "chek the 'muddy bits' at 400hz of X instrument'.

Then, of course, like written material, there can be a broad range from good material or tutorials, to really missleading and uninformed information.

But, besides all of this and what you say. Isn't it quite weird to be talking about audio tutorials and, for years, never had actual audio? How, in the good God's name, I'm supposed to know and differenciate what 'air', 'brown', 'omph', 'crack', 'sizzle', tracks interactions, phase,(and a large etc etc etc) is if I don't actually hear it. Or how you train your ears if the material given to you is just writen. I could keep going with examples and items, but, I bet you get the Idea.

Maybe, for a full DAW learning, videos can be exhausting, but I'm talking mainly mixing and ear training for mixing.

On 1/31/2019 at 4:56 PM, SomeGuy said:

Honestly, time is a precious resource.  I'd much rather they distribute a PDF user guide so that we can search and view while on the go.  I'd much rather read the manual while I'm riding shotgun or between sessions at the training center than waste hours of my time watching YouTube videos.

Not having a PDF manual, at least the old Sonar Platinum manual with the obvious caveat that some things may differ, is awful.

I have time in between activities while out and about, but I'm definitely not going to sit in front of YouTube and waste that much time.  I want an actual PDF user guide.

You know, I really wanted to discuss this in it's own topic, but, if we look back, and compare the Audio tutorial scene to others (like image editing, video editing, 3d, vfx...) the audio comunity, rareley had actual recorded audio turorials (be in audio format or video format). In it's vast majority they were written articles for years (How I'm I supposed to know how N thing sounds from reading an article!?). In the explosion of youtube and streaming, this trend remained for years up until recent channels and brands started doing tutors for their own products. If you do short videos, easily identifiable on it's topic (for search and index reasons), I'd say a video is infinitley better than any written article.

I've recently discovered the Rick Beato YT channel. Lot's of great stuff in there.

I've read the news, and, to be honest, I use midi only for hooking up an old Casio keyboard which is from where I record my keys, and sample em' up them varying on my needs; but, how's this going to affect or improve in our every day tasks?

On 1/21/2019 at 3:54 PM, InstrEd said:

LOL I have been there more then once and with my older brain I tend to forget things.

I feel your pain. My older brain's the reason I'm not even going past 8.5 hahaha

Learning a DAW can be really overwhelming, even upon reading tfm can leave you with questions. CBL going free is going to attract a lot of anxious newcomers (I bet most of them will be willing to spend time while being respectfull, but some, not...) trying to do it all, and quick. I think that we have to be patient and remember that we've all been there once

It's awesome how the term 'folk' varies from place to place. My folklore music is nothing like the european celtic, scotish or nordic folk

On 1/14/2019 at 9:17 PM, ØSkald said:

Yeah. I wish I was as good to write as the ones I listen to. I try, but I must make my own thing because I just can’t play as good as John Petrucci, Yngwie Malmsteen, Tosin Abasi and so many others. I try to make it interesting and in the genres I want and love tho.

I wish I'd have the talent Tony Banks has, but no, not remotely close. I have to deal with what I can do. (That's where the DAW comes in handy, and can make a great idea from a below average-musician sound good, and it's great)

On 1/13/2019 at 2:18 PM, Marshall said:

I listen to Dream Theater and there are about 10 people on the entire planet capable of playing their stuff...I am not one of them

I have this issue with DT (like with other virtuosos bands), they have this inmensley huge talent, but their songs lack some heart (and hooks too). But, yeah, they're great nonetheless

You know, the (non) jump from 8.5 to X was something kind of epiphanic to me. The learning curve was high, and time consuming, so, I asked myself "Do I really need to jump to the latest? Why?" and found that sonar 8.5 did everything I needed, and it still does it. Newer plugins still work (save for VST3), and Windows still supports it. So, I guess that I'll make the jump whenever one of these things happes: Windows breaks 8.5 compatibility somehow, or, newer versions of my everyday plugins lose compatibility with Sonar 8.5.

Going always for the latest can be really distracting and time consuming. I prefer to spend that (sadly little) time actually making music

2 hours ago, 57Gregy said:

I bought this singing program  (Vocaloid Miriam) and did a short song to try it out with her singing along with me.

Vocaloid! Jeez! I remember seeing videos of it! I thoguht it was painfully difficult at the time (never got back to it)

1 hour ago, Will Hackett said:

Ain't that the truth. I was born in '59. Radio stations when I was a kid would play an Elvis song followed by the Beatles, and then maybe a country-ish song (Bobby Goldsboro and John Denver were big back then for instance) or even a jazzy instrumental by Herb Alpert. Now the stations are all so divided into specific genres that it's a bit mind numbing to listen to any particular one of them for very long.

I remember, back when I was a kid, mainstream 'hits heavy' radio stations in my country (even MTVLA) had so much genres diversity in it's top 40. You know, you had GnRs sharin spots with New Kids on the Block; Aerosmith or Seal; Lenny Kravitz and Ace of Base... (you get the idea) And I could add a TON of great Rock-Pop Latin American bands in to that mix, wich makes it even bigger, better, and diverse. Nowadays, mainstream here feels like a one-24hrs-samey reggaeton song...

2 hours ago, 57Gregy said:

We heard so many different kinds of music as we grew up in the '60s and '70s.

I mostly chose rock albums when I bought music, but my mother loved country, so I heard a lot of that. My father loved 'beautiful music' so that was on the radio when he was home from work.

The songs I've recorded have been mostly pop/rock, but I've got a jazzy thing, a couple of countryish  and folky songs, a short classical piano concerto, and a nonsense song. Plus a Christmas song.

(The 'nonsense' song caught my curiosity!)

3 hours ago, msmcleod said:

I listen to similar stuff - mainly prog rock, hard rock and jazz fusion.

I try to compose in the veins and styles of the genres I listen to... then it goes unintentionally to other places!

Places near? or places far?

Hi everyone! A topic I always wanted to ask musicians/producers. I usually listen to prog rock, hard-rock, alt-rock, heavy (something that can range from good ol', Gabriel days Genesis, to Alter Bridge or Stone Sour), and then, even with the most distorted guitar, I end up with a Train like Rock/Pop song (a very distorted and dense rock/pop track), maybe, a Stone Temple Pilots esque type song at most.

So, do you end up composing in the veins and style of genres you listen to? Or when you take your instrument, it goes unintentionally to other places?

I'm actually surprised seeing that there's so many of us that, after all this time, still miss Layers. I feel kinda' reliefed by it.

On 1/1/2019 at 3:49 PM, synkrotron said:

I would say "yes," personally.

I was also hoping to see a section for hardware too. But at this moment in time all the forums appear to be all about software.

 

cheers

andy

+1 to Hardware

On 1/5/2019 at 12:06 PM, Noel Borthwick said:

Can you try and describe the exact workflow you accomplish with the old layers that you cannot do with take lanes? Maybe there is something we're missing here.

Sure! Lets take a guitar take as an example. Say I want to do some stretchs, or clip crossfades between chords to fix minor tempo or sustain issues. I usually start splitting those parts, maybe silghtly moving the clips and then doing the stretch and fades to avoid clicks and constantly Sorting Layers for the sake of visibility and space. I usually end up with 3 of 4 layers of clips, that at the end can fit in just two simple layers that I arragle again with the "Sort Layers" option (this is VERY important for me, I always end up with a two layer track, that ended up likes this after the automatic sorting). All in one simple view, really quick. Every time I tried Take Lanes, even watching videos of how to comp and the new tools, I never were able to replicate this workflow. Maybe, even reading topics and watching videos, I'm still missing something...

4 hours ago, Noel Borthwick said:

Take lanes was essentially built on top of the layers infrastructure. "Rebuilding layers" automatically happens behind the scenes and is no longer required as an explicit operation.

The main reason why Take lanes was built was to provide an actual UI dedicated to take management. Lanes allowed you to do that but had a lot of manual requirements operations that were non intuitive to the main task of take management that many other platforms offered. Hence we had to make changes.

I do agree that take lanes was a change of workflow for people who were used to simply recording lanes and manually comping them later but it was a trade off we had to make to add tools that were more current. And it would have been way too difficult to maintain both the old layers workflow and take lanes simultaneously in the UI. We'll try and improve on this feature in the future. The next release also has a small tweak to take lanes...

(Off topic) Noel, this is the first time I do actually have a chance to directly interact with you, so basically, thanks for giving me (us) Sonar!

(On topic again) I'll never argue with you about tech, I'll just say that, for me, Take Lanes never worked, and I've tried several times trhougout the versions. I really still miss layers after all this time. But, maybe, like you said, if you're working on them, I could make the jump soon

8 hours ago, Lord Tim said:

There are so many great amp sims out there now. I think there was a thread in the Coffeehouse where people asked what was the biggest innovation in the last 5 years or something like that, and a few people mentioned the realism of amp sims. You could always get something usable in context (which is really the only thing that matters at the end of the day - what does it sound like in context?) but the stuff that's out there now is in a whole different league.

It's good to be nostalgic about a cranked tube amp (which, of course, sounds fantastic) but given that vs. the convenience of turning up with a profiler or even something like what I use live, which is an iPod running Amplitube into a little 200w class-D power amp... I know what I'd prefer to lug around. 😉

I think also people would be really surprised at what actually ends up on a record, even if it was a real amp being used. Sure, that might be a great old Marshall JCM800 into Vintage 30s, but which mic? How many? Placement? And when it's recorded, what processing is being done? Sometimes it's slamming it down to tape that gets the sound, sometimes it's through a multiband to shape the tone and tame stray frequencies... Not to mention the sound might actually be a blend of several amps. It's fascinating and if you're inclined to experiment in the studio, it's super rewarding getting amazing tones doing that.

But then there's days you just want the job done - plug in, get a good tone first go, every time... yeah, I'll take the profiler/modeler, thanks! 🙂

I'm the OP of that thread, and my personal pick was the evolution of amp-sims. They've got really really good these last 2 or 3 years

2 hours ago, Jim Roseberry said:

Not so much Metal... but definitely a Rock guy.

Used to be more into Prog Rock when I was younger.

Now, I prefer simpler... well-crafted songs.

God knows I love prog rock, but jeez, what a time-and-brains consuming it can get!

I think that I'have to make myself some time and room for this new version (again) but with a more open mind

16 hours ago, ØSkald said:

I use it on everything. Not always tho. Just no limit on what to use it on. Fix a unmuted string on a bass recording, fix my bad guitar leads anz so on. I foud out you can  "progran" guitar leads like in piano roll programming. Just play enough notes and lay it out as you want. Lol

I think I only scratch the surface on usually on Melodyne (mostly vocal, maybe bass lines or minimal corrections over guitar solos). I think I have to push it a litle further and see the results