Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Yes, I know I said I wasn't really interested in considering a DAW at this time. But given all the trouble I've had with Sibelius and NotePerformer, and given that the experts can't even be sure which software component is responsible, AND given that Avid doesn't offer tech support without an added cost contract, I figure I had better start thinking about a Plan B.

So... which DAWs are people using? What are the pros and cons of different DAWs? What is the workflow like when working in a DAW? Can you enter notes in something like the way you would in a notation software, or do you have to specify frequency in Hz and duration in seconds? Will I need additional hardware to be able to compose in a DAW? Are sample libraries compatible with any DAW or are they generally matched to a particular DAW?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as time goes on, but that will do it for starters I think... apologies if these questions are naive or poorly posed - I freely admit I know very little about the subject.

Thanks,

Liz

Views: 572

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have the introductory version of RX. I mainly use it for removing pops in files I record in Magix Vegas because their audio conversion doesn't work very well. I removes maybe 80% of the pops. Probably similar to the program in Audacity. The less expensive version of RX is very limited though in what it can do. 

The full paid program doesn't stop at 300.00 I think it's in the 500-700 range and mostly used by engineers doing forensics work. It will do things like take a fan noise from the background of an audio recording. It's a great program and if I were in a position to charge for my work I would probably invest in it. Broadcasters use it a lot to clean up field recordings. I guess TV and radio stations can justify buying it. I can't, even at their offered cross grade price. Occasionally I'll get someone who made a recording of their grandmother playing piano or similar. The recording might have been made on an old cassette recorder in 1972...I'm making that up, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. RX would make a recording like that really shine.

As a general FYI to anyone interested there's also Zynaptic's UNFILTER. At 159.99 on sale right now it's a lot less expensive.

Hi Dane,

The risk of deleting part of the music is small when you're just trying to remove a pop due to a paste into a section where the audio level is nonzero. Removing background noise is another matter - Audacity has a tool for that, and it requires sampling the background first. I've not had occasion to use it, but I seem to recall that even the Audacity manual warns that it is prone to attenuate the music as well as the noise even if used carefully. But I think the click remover uses a different algorithm - not sure, it's been a while. The main problem I found with it is that it largely doesn't work, it just attenuates the click slightly. To do any better the only tool I've found that helps is "Repair", which is what I think you were talking about: it requires that you zoom into and select a section containing <= 128 samples. That's less than a millisecond, so the damage it does to a rendering is imperceptible. But it's a big hassle to do this, and it doesn't always work too well - you can often still hear a residual crackle or even a softer pop. For me the bottom line is, I really, really don't want to have to mess with this kind of editing just to create an acceptable demo. So for the time being I'm going to avoid the string quartet medium with NP.

On velocity: thanks for the explanation, that's pretty much what I figured the origin of the term was. I realize it's important to have a word that corresponds to force of attack, which affects timbre i.e. the overtone structure as well as amplitude. It's just counterintuitive for someone coming from the physics world to see a familiar word used this way... it took me a while to figure out what the heck people were talking about!

"On velocity: thanks for the explanation, that's pretty much what I figured the origin of the term was. I realize it's important to have a word that corresponds to force of attack, which affects timbre i.e. the overtone structure as well as amplitude. It's just counterintuitive for someone coming from the physics world to see a familiar word used this way... it took me a while to figure out what the heck people were talking about!"

As you know Liz, things start getting really weird as velocity approaches c: you get all kinds of temporal and spatial distortions. Like, your piece is over before it began.

Just thought this thread needed a little humor.

 "Just thought this thread needed a little humor."

Humor? What's that? :)....as you might know I can get carried away sometimes on another forum. General buffoonery it is. I didn't know if Liz would appreciate that. It's like a Baptist going to a Presbyterian church.....I'm not sure how much I can get away with here. Probably not much.

Thanks Michael, that's a good one!

Tim, no worries on my account... a little buffoonery from time to time is good for the soul.

michael diemer said:

As you know Liz, things start getting really weird as velocity approaches c: you get all kinds of temporal and spatial distortions. Like, your piece is over before it began.

Just thought this thread needed a little humor.

The whole worlds needs to take a step back and have a good long laugh. It's been under way too much stress lately.

Michael, Liz,

Look what we really need is a far more modern technical-sounding musical vocabulary. Nothing better than a buzzword creator.

Here are some suggestions to start. PLEASE add your own.

You choose 3 numbers between 1 and 10. Look up each number in columns 1, 2 and 3 and you get an instant new music term.

like, choose 1, 5 and 9 and it gives you "systematized thematic congruity". Write a definition and use it to bluff all those academics! 

9-4-10 Morphic peripheral hyperchromaticism ; very painful but hopefully not contagious, affects mostly atonalists.

Hmm... some of these combinations kind of make sense. 3-1-8 could almost describe my new piece... dynamic tonal ambiguity. Pretty sure I've heard 1-9-6 working in some early 20th century works (Ives maybe)... systematized chordal clustering.

Optional Chordal Organisation: For keyboard music. The performer simply substitutes alternative chords/tonalities. Best done when sufficiently primed with favorite liquid refreshment. 

And Aleatoric Serial Organisation might describe the way some of my teachers tried to get me to compose back in the '70s... didn't work. ;)

Marvellous performance aid. Some sheet music should have a performance instruction "con macallens" or "molto inebrio" "un poco intoxico".

It's a bit quiet here today.

Thought I'd say hello before popping down the (now open) art shop to replenish pastels and ingres paper for a new composition sketch. The visual sometimes beats a daw although I adaw my dore. 

michael diemer said:

Optional Chordal Organisation: For keyboard music. The performer simply substitutes alternative chords/tonalities. Best done when sufficiently primed with favorite liquid refreshment. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2020   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service