giant ll

Hi all. I'm recording a song, i record the guitar, the drummer the track of drum, the singer the voice. I would need to play by myself also the bass. I've thought to make it with a Vst plugin(playing with midi key or just writing on piano roll doesn't mind), i would need a free Bass simulator. I just need a standard bass(electric bass) sound, i don't need advanced sounds or effects. Does anybody could tell me one? Thanks in advance.

Ok. Thanks.

This is my screenshot

Hello all. I would like to ask an information if is possible. In these days when i delete and overwrite a track i find all the old memories to delete. For example: if i deleted 10 times one track.. i find 10 recording of the track to delete. All the memories. Something like.. i have to delete all the history. Before wasn't like this, i usually in the past find only the last recording to delete. Do you know what i've done or what could be the problem? Thanks in advance.

No, obviously not. I would not open this question. If you use a microphone and you use an headphones, and the sound comes out to the headphones... some kinds of mic could take the sond that you are earing from the headphones. It could take the metronome also.It can happen to my singer for example, she use external microphone. And yes.. she take a little bit of everything if the studio where she record isn't well separated and silently. I record in an internal mode.. i can record near an explosion and it doesn't ear nothing! lol. It's a way to say that it is internal and work good. I don't have the same problem of my singer. i don't use external recording methods. All the signal is internal, from the source to the audiocard. That's why the Audiocard Support say that is impossible that the metronome is there, i showed them all the settings, but the metronome is there! Ok: second question: my Audio Card has a loopback mode. If you want to record everything the computer ear... and obviously also the metronome.. you can make it, you select as input mode: loopback mode.. and you record everything together. IT's not the case because the setting is disabled. Audio card Technical support admitted that disabling process was correct. You have an option. To make this you can select input: loop back.. and so yes.. you will hear the metronome. But you will ear it loudly! and very strong. The issue is that disabling every kind of loopback.. it countinue in deep and very slow volume.. to have a form of loopback. You have to put the speaker volume high to ear it, it's a very small signal. This is not normal. Your last question: Loop Back 1/2 is off, in every setting.

Ok. Which menu?

Thank you for your answer. Yes, absolutely it's a problem in audio card. The control panel is this, and it is all correct. I've contacted the technical support and in a first time they tried to tell me that i had in settings ... loop back. It wasn't correct obviously. I've sent them all the screenshot that i've sent you. Understood that was not loopback in settings.. they told me to be happy that there is not loopback! That's incredibile! So... i have a record track. He told me that there wasn't metronome on the track? I've sent him the track.. The volume is low of the metronome , because it's an issue, it's not normal that is there. I told them to put high the volume and listen... he told me that he don't listen the metronome! Is incredibile. I think they don't want to admit that the soundcard has an issue.. Here's the mp3... i've cut it but it's the first part, you can ear the metronome. It's impossible that a technical support don't ear the metronome in this file... mp3 (mp3cut.net).mp3 mp3 (mp3cut.net).mp3

And this is cakewalk setting. Metronome is set to play only during recording, not during the play. And the input is sected correctly. It's why i'm thinking that could be in the audio card the problem....

And this is the output setting.

Also in control panel, it's all well selected. There is no selection of loop back channel.

I'vre cheked all the functions of audio card, every setting is for mic 1 input. I has got also the possibility to record in loopback but you have to select it in a separate way. It's not. How you can see in the mixer, all the input is set on Line 1 input. There is no loopback selected on the computer.. Anyway-- if i put the volum of the speaker really high.. you can continue to listen a little bit of loop back the same. The same problem that i've wrote for. I think could be an issue of thew Audio Card and i don't know if there is a possibility to fix it with this Audio Card.

Every answer to my exact words.. would be welcome. Expecially to my last comment because i used it to clarify. Obvioulsy not the old comments. The problem is when the answers are related to words that i've never told. I usually quote the exact words of the user, when i answer to anybody. Example i quote myself: "I've told just an obviuos thing: the "normalize" effect didn't make any change because the width in Db of the "source" track was so small that didn't reach the range where that effect was set to work. Didn't reach the range where the effect was set to modify the original wave" These are my words. I answer to myself; ok.. so that effect didn't modify the track. If a person watch the video in Youtube dedicated to this effect, how this effect work, how this effect modify the original track, would understand in one minute what i'm talking about. If any word that i use it's not clear, my english is not perfect, one person can ask: what do you mean exactly when you say this? I can Answer: i mean that it didn't "reach" the range. For example. I've sent the picture to clarify better. Bombing with information not related to my words make impossible communicate. I know that you are expert.. I'm totally new. If we talk we should try to understand what the other person is telling. We cannot communicate. I think should be better to stop. Thanks anyway to everybody for your help. It has been really useful.

I've never told that the dB level of that wave form is showing the output level of the fx. Putting words in the mouth of everybody that he didn't tell, i think it's not a good game. Also the last post told me "If you use ctrl +alt + mouse wheel" but i wasn't talking about the view of the track but the large in db. The last post didn't understand what i was talking about and has taken a line. I told that i had tried to apply that effect to the track. I told the characteristic of that track. I told just an obviuos thing: the effect didn't make any change because the width in Db of the "source" track, was smaller and the wave didn't reach the range where that effect was set to work. The wave didn't reach the range where the effect was set to "modify" the track. So the track remain the same... I told only this. I told this to make other people know that my first question had an answer. The effect is called "normalize", I was not talking about "normalize" in general. The effect, in the tip that i was using, is applied in every "original" track. Who don't use this effect,.. i have the doubt that can misanderstand what i was talking about. Some said 2000 interesting thing.. i thanks so much to all for this.. but my sentence was "specific". I used the last comment to clarify. I cannot communicate if we don't understand before. I think there's a problem in communication in us, i will stop here. I can't delete the post, but i don't want continue in that way, sorry. Anyway thank you to all for all the informations.

Nothing change. If you use ctrl +alt + mouse wheel you change only the "view" of the track, not the large in db of the track. You change also the scale how you can see in the left part from the wave form. I was talking about the second. How you can see in this photo, track 9 enlarged, the -10 range where this effect(who use this effect use similar values often) is out from the wave form.

I've answered to my starting question. The range where i was working in, with the effect, didn't touch the wave form. That was the reason of the "apparent" problem. I don't want make confusion. Another separate discussion but connected would be: why the tracks were so thin? And i should analize the "source" of sound. I've recorded with an electric guitar, Stratocaster, directly connected in the guitar input of an Evo 4 Soundcard. This is the first time that i make this experiment. The sound is nice.. and so .. with mastering and mixing(putting up the volume of single tracks also) i've reached a good volume. The same. The fact is that: with acoustic guitar, connected directly on this input i had used, i have a much a bigger signal. With electric but with Vg 88 connected there also. Now i have to investigate why with this configuration i have a so weak signal. What can i do(if i can). (i mean "source" signal), not in the software.I I know that i can use apps and have an high volume the same.. etc but it's not the same thing. Asking this, is really important for me, because the "source" wich i work with depends on this . I told this just to complete because was really correlated with the final result. Obviously it's not a "cakewalk" subject, so.. i don't want to go "offtopic".

I mean all the tracks "thin", in my projest, except the 1st track that is "bigger". The first track is the only wich with the "command" normalize, worked, also with -10db level. Everybody can try to use that effect, with that setting, with a so thin track, will see that have no effect to the wave form, for obvious reason: don't touch the wave! When i talked about "normalizing", thinking that we are in a Cakewalk forum and it is an effect of Cakewalk, used for some different reason, i thought that would be not misanderstanding. Now i've written this to divide the first discussion: "normalize effect" : Process - Apply Effect - Normalize. and the second discussion: mastering in general app.. etcc... they are connected but not the same.

I quote myself just to continue: if anybody make me the question: if TH5 could have skipped the effect of normalization command? because is an amp and normalization had no effect for this? Answer:It wasn't like this. It wasn't the problem. Normalization command, applied in the way that i've explained, exactly following one Youtube video, work to the "original" track. Modify directly the original track. Mathematically change a part of the track, if the range selected say them to make this. In that case, simply: "normalization" command didn't have any effect to the original track. This happened. What happened? I used in a first moment -10db parameters. The original track was so thin itself that every try to change on the wave form, working on that range, didn't have effect. Didn't touch the wave form! Normalization "command" was my first question. I mean the "effect of Cakewalk". Process - Apply Effect - Normalize. When i tried to "normalize", with that effect, with a "stronger" level, normalizaton "command" worked perfectly. So... it's closed that part of discussion. We were taslking about the "effect" normalization, included in Cakewalk. In the higher part of the screen. After we talked more in general. Limiter, apps, EQ etc..

About LUFS for example: before was higher the value.. now i changed some settings and it should be more near the -14 raccomended value. I'm but how i said... i'm new subject for me.

It is a new part of working for me because i'm obviously not expert in mastering. LUFS is a new thing that i didn't investigate enough. To be honest. I try to mix first and master separately. Anyway.. i'm using lot my ear at the moment. I like? ok go on.. i don't like? stop and study what to do. It is a starting work on this song but i could try to learn it better in future recordings. I record songs really often. The results it's for some Youtube videos, not strictly for musical value used in commerce, so i would try to stay "near" the values raccomended, but if a result go a little bit out.. i listen anyway if the musical result is sufficient or really poor. I'm starting on this.

Ok. That was an old message that 've sent you. Now i have a pretty good final level, for i homemade record, made by a not expert person. Does not matter if they are graphically thin. It was the thing that i would like to obtain, slowly it's going better.

I know. But when i had to adjust the limit of the track, using the app you told me to use, i had to put the level of TH5 down, to avoid that the headroom for the fx exceed over that value. That's why i talked about the level of TH5 amp. It influences the level of the single track and if it exceed, the result go out. I'm sorry if my english it's not perfect, this is a bit technical subject and sometime i can be misanderstood. It's connected only in that sense.

As limiter i'm using this.

Yes. Something are a little bit technical, but at the moment my recording is going much better. Thanks very much to all. I've downloaded the Ozone 11 EQ from NAtive Instrument. I will learn to use it in next days. The commands. Just one question: I have to add in master, Eq the Ozone 11 EQ as limiter, like this? Now i'm just trying to apply this to the master track level because i've never used it. I had this results. The values are similar to this in all song.

Thank you very much, the plugin is really useful. I've just downloaded and i'm trying this. Just one question: i've tried to use -13db withouth effect, about -6db with effect. I've saved the old version, recorded again all the song in another file and tryed this. The sound is really clean.. but i would need a little bit more powerful. I had to put the volume fo TH5 amp to 5. Before was about 9! Is not now too thin the wave? Probable you were meaning for clean guitar, but an overdrive fusion guitar i would need a little bit more high level? This is an example. I'm just curious because it's the first day that i'm trying to use this plugin. So could be that i didn't understand something. I'll analyze it better in next days.

Thanks very much to all for your help. Now i've tried to put just the master level to 0 db, all the other things are like before. I didn't change anything other. The file don't go anymore to "red". It seem ok. The fade of the single tracks are the same. Is at limit because is orange but ok. Lower than this i think should be not an option because the level would be too low. This seem the best solution at the moment.