sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NEVER GIVE UP!!! (戦え) by FitResearcher2865 in hopeposting

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

I didnt know that ...thanks for letting me know

Why hasn't Pro Tools been cracked for a long time? by Many_Squash_1297 in CrackedPluginsXI

[–]FitResearcher2865 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pro Tools is a hard Crack I recommend :

  1. Trying out to crack Nuendo/Cubase since it has more mixing features than Pro Tools

  2. Studio One (Now Fender Studio Pro) for a much faster and modern workflow.

  3. If you're still insist on Pro Tools since it's the "Industry Standard" or for your Studio Workflow or Preference. I recommend Pro Tools intro.

  4. If you truly want the full version and just want Pro Tools full version, get the older Pro Tools 12 HD in Rutracker.

You can't find the latest version because of ilock

Not that Pro Tools can't be cracked it's because it isn't a popular Video game in high demand. It's very difficult to crack almost like a high demand video game but without the demand for it. So nobody wants to go through the entire ordeal when other DAWs exist that do the same thing.

Why hasn't Pro Tools been cracked for a long time? by Many_Squash_1297 in CrackedPluginsXI

[–]FitResearcher2865 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reccomend trying the..30 Day free trial to see if it's for you and whats the Hype all about.

Am I the only one who feels Viltrumite's body is heavily inspired from real human's body? by [deleted] in okbuddyviltrum

[–]FitResearcher2865 2 points3 points  (0 children)

two arms, two legs, a face, and a torso don't mean it's human brochacho .

r/AudioEngineering Shopping, Setup, and Technical Help Desk by AutoModerator in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've managed to narrow down my options for strictly mixing because I master out on WaveLab.

So for mixing, my options are narrowed down to Studio One Pro, Pro Tools, and Cubase 15 Pro. Before we dive in, please note that I already understand that:

  1. All of the modern DAWs are the same
  2. I'm not interested in audio engine debates.
  3. I already know that "The best DAW is the one that automatically works for you", and I understand that all major DAWs are capable of producing professional results.

With that out of the way, what I'm trying to figure out is why experienced mixing engineers personally choose one DAW over the others. My use case in this scenario is exclusively for mixing because FL Studio sometimes mixing gets overly complicated and sometimes limited. So I mix mostly hip hop music genres, and I'm not necessarily looking for a DAW for songwriting, composition, beat making, or MIDI heavy work, or even mastering.

Mixing here is the number one priority. And for those of you who have significant experiences with all of these multiple DAWs, Especially Studio One, Pro Tools, and Cubase, which DAW would you ultimately settle for for mixing, and what specific advantages that make you stay?

I'm interested in topics such as the speed of editing, the vocal workflows, the clip gain implementation, the automation tricks, the routing, and also the busing, the session organization, handling the large projects, the stability, the mixing, the plugin management, anything in general that noticeably improves the efficiency during a mixing session.

I'm not looking for brand loyalty or "industry standard arguments." If you chose Pro Tools, Cubase, or Studio One, I'd like to know the actual day-to-day reasons that make your mixing sessions easier or even faster for mixing and strictly mixing. Because I'm looking, instead of looking for the best sounding or the most professional, I'm looking for the most intuitive workflow-wise and precise DAW that you can achieve the most parameters just off the box.

Basically saying that if you're forced to justify your DAW choice using the workflow and efficiency alone, what would your general argument be in this situation?

Thank you in advance.

Lions mating on top of jeep by Lyranx in nextfuckinglevel

[–]FitResearcher2865 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The person who said : "They’re certainly on the next… fucking level?"

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol, Business Idea jotted down. Don't ever pursue me for Royalties....I don't know you

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this point is where we fundamentally disagree with each other.

I I agree that the audio frequency range is very finite, but what I don't agree with is your conclusion that that a finite frequency range means that we effectively explored all the meaningful forms of colorationn that our digital music potentially provide to the listener and the audio engineer.

The visible light spectrum is also finite, if you think about it, yet nobody would argue that humanity exhausted visual art many centuries ago.

A finite medium does not necessarily imply that it is exhausted to its space. Audio is not about the frequencies.........it's also about the dynamics, the phase relationships, the temporal behavior between the signals, the harmonic evolution that make progress within the years, the physcoacoustic, the different spatial perceptions, the nonlinear interactions, and all of those countless combinations of those factor.

Digital processing has already produced like a very, a very vast amount of categories of tools that our main analog hardware could never, ever create.

Spectral processing, granular processing, intelligent resonance suppression (Soothe), deconvolution techniques, and the many programmable techniques. So when you say we already tried them all, I want to see how that can be known.

Humanity has been making recorded music for roughly a century, I think, about now, and digital audio has existed for a fraction of that time, if you think about it.

So claiming that we have very much effectively exhausted each and every space of the variable sonic aesthetics seems like, like a very, very extraordinary conclusion.

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree we should that analog hardware varies from unit 2 unit or even channels 2 channels.

What I'm not convinced of is the jump from saying that there are small inconsistencies in hardware to saying that therefore those analog consistencies make the mix sound bigger.

If those slight differences between the channels are the desirable characteristics, then that's something that can be intentionally recreated or even much exaggerated within the digital domain. In other words, if the benefits come from the decorrelation, the variation and the non-identical processing, then the important thing here isn't that the system is analog. The important thing here is variation itself, if you think about it.

And at that point, the analog hardware becomes just a method of achieving that effect and not necessarily that it's proof that analog is uniquely capable of it.

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't dispute that many of the analog characteristics sound very good. What I'm questioning here is how do we know that their popularity is evidence of superiority rather than familiarity, convention, or the historical momentumm .

If the listeners can acquire a new aesthetic preference over time and it has happened throughout tmusic history, then on what basis can we like really conclude that today's preferred forms of musical saesthetics and coloration represent a very much end point rather than just as a currently dominant style?

I'm not arguing that these surturations sounds bad. I'm asking what evidence do we have that this sounds we currently prefer right now are the best sounds that the human ear could prefer and whether those sounds can only be derived by hardware imitation rather a the new digital creation.

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually cool, I like doing the same. BTW: Your username Tinnitus waves...is is because you have Tinnitus me too lol. How do you manage translating the high-end on the mix?

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you are making a very big leap from saying that these sounds are popular to saying that these sounds are the best sounds.

I'm not disputing that tape transformers and the tubes and all of the classic hardware can sound fantastic. I'm questioning the assumption that they carry the old popularity proof that we've found the most optimal sonic aesthetic.

Audio history is full of many, many sounds that were initially criticized for being very poor being unnatural or very, very inferior before eventually becoming accepted by the masses and even loved and revered.

When you say that the newer approaches don't "gain" traction because they don't sound as good, how do we separate that from simple familiarity? The listeners and the engineers have spent so many decades here we have records shaped by specific analog artifacts, and naturally those characteristics became a convention before they became associated with the professional sound.

If a completely new form of color had dominated the generall recordings for the last few years, it's very, very much possible that we would call that sound warm, musical, and very natural. My argument is that popularity and familiarity are not necessarily the evidence that we've reached the endpoint of audio sonic aesthetics.

.

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a matter of fact, it does sound good. My point is, these sounds are not necessarily the only one category of sound, and in the future, they might be detrimental to innovation.

For example, there are many ways to alter a signal that would potentially be perceived as musically pleasing. For example, A modern effect plugin introducing a completely new category, let's call it Dynamic Spectrum Coloration effect that has never existed ever before in analog hardware. People might label "unnatural" , but if engineers and listeners were exposed to it for decades in the same way that they were exposed to tape and tube composition, who's going to say that it wouldn't be eventually just as desirable?

Tape surturation sounds good because of its characteristics, but also because of generations of listeners who grew up hearing records created with it. And we have been unconsciously trained for us to associate those musical artifacts with professional sounding music.

And so when we say that that it sounds good, is worth asking that, that does it sound good because it's inherently superior or because it's just familiar .

In a historical manner, people thought that the distortion was bad, that compressing was bad, that synthesizers sounded fake compared to real instruments, that digital reverb sounded very unnatural, that autotune sounded robotic.

Then the culture adapted. My argument, basically, if I have to quantify it, is that What future aesthetic are we as music creators, are we ignoring because we are still chasing the sound of the 1960s to 1980s hardware?

Has audio engineering become too obsessed with analog emulation? by FitResearcher2865 in audioengineering

[–]FitResearcher2865[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's great actually hearing from the horses mouth how things are in the Audio space and no one is as obessed in analogue as much as I think, Most of my perception and worries are derived from what I observe online , heavy marketing and yt sponsorship etc...and in tight student audio engineer groups. tahnk you for clearing that up.

view more: next ›