ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Online Collaboration (long)

1/21/2003 5:05 AM
Mark Lavelle	Online Collaboration (long) I thought this deserved its own thread... My own interest would be in collaborating on original material. Here's an approach that I think could work online, assuming enough hosted space and patience/bandwidth [kg? do you really have a T1 at home?!]: 1. Author posts basic tracks and a txt file with chord changes. The tracks can be as few as 2 (click & rhythm guitar) or as many as Author has the inclination to post. If the goal is a song (as opposed to instrumental), a minimum of either a verse or a chorus should also be present. 2. Contributors post additional tracks to same location (presumably FTP directory), for comment by Author and stimulation of other Contribs. Note that tracks can include alternate arrangements (in terms of order of verses, choruses, etc., or even changes to the progression). For songs, lyrics could be suggested here, too. At this stage everything is still just a suggestion. 3. Producer (see Notes) determines final structure and solicits final tracks from Contribs. 4. Contribs contribute. 5. Producer does final mix & posts it. Notes: I believe that WAV files (mono or stereo) are best for the tracks, but in the early stages MP3s should be OK, too (they're less likely to end up in the final mix). Rather than cater to a specific program, the tracks should all be independent files that have the same start time. I'm pretty sure that any multi-track program can deal with that... The Author is assumed to be the owner/moderator and Producer of the piece. Author may designate someone else as Producer, who has final say on the overall structure of the arrangement and the 'official' mix. After the official mix is posted all manner of remixes are fair game for all participants, using any materials posted in the course of the project. Anybody still awake?

1/21/2003 5:05 AM

Mark Lavelle

Online Collaboration (long)

I thought this deserved its own thread...

My own interest would be in collaborating on original material. Here's an approach that I think could work online, assuming enough hosted space and patience/bandwidth [kg? do you really have a T1 at home?!]:

1. Author posts basic tracks and a txt file with chord changes. The tracks can be as few as 2 (click & rhythm guitar) or as many as Author has the inclination to post. If the goal is a song (as opposed to instrumental), a minimum of either a verse or a chorus should also be present.

2. Contributors post additional tracks to same location (presumably FTP directory), for comment by Author and stimulation of other Contribs. Note that tracks can include alternate arrangements (in terms of order of verses, choruses, etc., or even changes to the progression). For songs, lyrics could be suggested here, too. At this stage everything is still just a suggestion.

3. Producer (see Notes) determines final structure and solicits final tracks from Contribs.

4. Contribs contribute.

5. Producer does final mix & posts it.

Notes:

I believe that WAV files (mono or stereo) are best for the tracks, but in the early stages MP3s should be OK, too (they're less likely to end up in the final mix). Rather than cater to a specific program, the tracks should all be independent files that have the same start time. I'm pretty sure that any multi-track program can deal with that...

The Author is assumed to be the owner/moderator and Producer of the piece. Author may designate someone else as Producer, who has final say on the overall structure of the arrangement and the 'official' mix.

After the official mix is posted all manner of remixes are fair game for all participants, using any materials posted in the course of the project.

Anybody still awake?

1/21/2003 5:37 AM
Adam A.	Definitely still awake I think it would be a fun project, and I'm pretty sure I've got lots of ideas about it, once I'm working less than 90 hours a week and can actually think again (as opposed to just coding, which, contrary to popular belief, doesn't not always require concious thought...hmmm, guess that explains Microsoft software....) I've always loved to hear how different people interpret a tune. A great cover version of a great tune is a very cool thing (like Living Colour's version of "Love and Happiness", or Rickie Lee Jones' version of "Rebel Rebel"). It would be very cool to produce something like you described -- maybe start with a basic groove and end up with a finished piece. Then make the individual tracks available for remixing & re-interpretation. The important bit, imho, is to actually have a decent framework to hang your re-interpretation around, so that each version is recognizably the same tune. Start with a groove, some changes & a melody, maybe a bridge, and take it from there... I'm pretty well bandwidth equipped, so I'd be happy with working with large WAV files.

1/21/2003 5:37 AM

Adam A.

Definitely still awake

I think it would be a fun project, and I'm pretty sure I've got lots of ideas about it, once I'm working less than 90 hours a week and can actually think again

(as opposed to just coding, which, contrary to popular belief, doesn't not always require concious thought...hmmm, guess that explains Microsoft software....)

I've always loved to hear how different people interpret a tune. A great cover version of a great tune is a very cool thing (like Living Colour's version of "Love and Happiness", or Rickie Lee Jones' version of "Rebel Rebel").

It would be very cool to produce something like you described -- maybe start with a basic groove and end up with a finished piece. Then make the individual tracks available for remixing & re-interpretation.

The important bit, imho, is to actually have a decent framework to hang your re-interpretation around, so that each version is recognizably the same tune. Start with a groove, some changes & a melody, maybe a bridge, and take it from there...

I'm pretty well bandwidth equipped, so I'd be happy with working with large WAV files.

1/21/2003 6:46 AM
Steve A.	wav vs mp3 Mark: I believe that WAV files (mono or stereo) are best for the tracks, but in the early stages MP3s should be OK, too (they're less likely to end up in the final mix). Just a few comments about MP3 files... unless your recordings are pro studio quality, an MP3 file sampled at 128 to 192kbps is practically as good as the original WAV file. In other words, you will probably hear the limitations of the recording process before you hear the limitations of the file compression process. I was very skeptical about using MP3's for the AMPAGE CD, but I was pleasantly surprised that they worked as well as they did. I was just checking the compression ratios at various resolutions: 128kbps 9% of WAV file 192kbps 13.6% of WAV file 256kbps 18% of WAV file Just the same, once the final source tracks were chosen I'd try to get the original WAV files for the final mix if at all feasible... --Thanks! Steve Ahola

1/21/2003 6:46 AM

Steve A.

wav vs mp3

Mark:

I believe that WAV files (mono or stereo) are best for the tracks, but in the early stages MP3s should be OK, too (they're less likely to end up in the final mix).

    Just a few comments about MP3 files... unless your recordings are pro studio quality, an MP3 file sampled at 128 to 192kbps is practically as good as the original WAV file. In other words, you will probably hear the limitations of the recording process before you hear the limitations of the file compression process.

    I was very skeptical about using MP3's for the AMPAGE CD, but I was pleasantly surprised that they worked as well as they did.

    I was just checking the compression ratios at various resolutions:

128kbps 9% of WAV file

192kbps 13.6% of WAV file

256kbps 18% of WAV file

    Just the same, once the final source tracks were chosen I'd try to get the original WAV files for the final mix if at all feasible...

--Thanks!

Steve Ahola

1/21/2003 9:07 AM
Sean K	Jeepers, This is moving nice and quickly,must be a done thing. Yahoo group is under songwriting Ampage Jammers and so far,because of a mistake while reloading,we have two different mailouts within the group. ampagejamming@yahoo.com ,maybe more conservative genres ampagejamming2@yahoo.com ,for more experimental and looer expression. So join up if you will. And yesterday,serendipitous or what,I recieved this from recording.org > The RO Sessions - Global ways to get the song done > > Would you be interested in supporting this or do you have any suggestions? > > It would work something like this: > > example: > > 1.) I use Pro Tools 24 or other formats... > 2.) I need a guitar track; > 3.) I join RO Sessions and can begin uploading sessions; > 4.) I upload my session and wait for a guitar track to come in; > 5.) My session is downloaded by a member of The RO Sessions; > 6.) He or she lays it down, uploads the track to The RO Sessions; > 7.) I am notified that the guitar track is posted; > 8.) I listen to it and ... I use it, don't use it, pay for it or what? > > What's next? > Do you like where this is going? > Any suggestions? > Any help setting this up? > > RO is currently receiving 600,000 page views a month. Building an Online Session area seems to be a possiblity, > > Let's discuss the possibilities here: please visit http://www.recording.org/cgi-local/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000835#000006 > > *********** > > > > > http://www.Recording.org > Created for musicians, by musicians > I really like the idea of mp3 files,because they are small and they can easily be converted back to wav and the only problem I can see is remembering what you did with them when you actually recieve hard copy.With the stuff I've downloaded in the past,zipped wavs,its always been very tedious downloading and uploading but I suppose the key with this is that the sketches can be in mp3 to save time swapping but parts can be swapped in significantly smaller parts. Producer starts and defines property rights.Either owned or free. Basic song with paperwork showing parts to be added where and possibly how.Mailout of 30 second sketch. those interested download this stuff,to stop possibility of having mailbox filled to over capacity,create fills or whatever,which are sent out as mp3. Producer edits then the song moves into more serious territory...hardcopy between participants or some other method yet to be sorted. Anyways theres a group to join and another place to go and check out.

1/21/2003 9:07 AM

Sean K

Jeepers,
This is moving nice and quickly,must be a done thing.
Yahoo group is under songwriting
Ampage Jammers
and so far,because of a mistake while reloading,we have two different mailouts within the group.
ampagejamming@yahoo.com ,maybe more conservative genres
ampagejamming2@yahoo.com ,for more experimental and looer expression.
So join up if you will.
And yesterday,serendipitous or what,I recieved this from recording.org

> The RO Sessions - Global ways to get the song done
>
> Would you be interested in supporting this or do you have any

suggestions?
>
> It would work something like this:
>
> example:
>
> 1.) I use Pro Tools 24 or other formats...
> 2.) I need a guitar track;
> 3.) I join RO Sessions and can begin uploading sessions;
> 4.) I upload my session and wait for a guitar track to come in;
> 5.) My session is downloaded by a member of The RO Sessions;
> 6.) He or she lays it down, uploads the track to The RO Sessions;
> 7.) I am notified that the guitar track is posted;
> 8.) I listen to it and ... I use it, don't use it, pay for it or what?
>
> What's next?
> Do you like where this is going?
> Any suggestions?
> Any help setting this up?
>
> RO is currently receiving 600,000 page views a month. Building an Online

Session area
seems to be a possiblity,
>
> Let's discuss the possibilities here: please visit
http://www.recording.org/cgi-local/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000835#000006

>
> ***********
>
>
>
>
> http://www.Recording.org
> Created for musicians, by musicians
>
I really like the idea of mp3 files,because they are small and they can easily be converted back to wav and the only problem I can see is remembering what you did with them when you actually recieve hard copy.With the stuff I've downloaded in the past,zipped wavs,its always been very tedious downloading and uploading but I suppose the key with this is that the sketches can be in mp3 to save time swapping but parts can be swapped in significantly smaller parts.
Producer starts and defines property rights.Either owned or free.
Basic song with paperwork showing parts to be added where and possibly how.Mailout of 30 second sketch.
those interested download this stuff,to stop possibility of having mailbox filled to over capacity,create fills or whatever,which are sent out as mp3.
Producer edits then the song moves into more serious territory...hardcopy between participants or some other method yet to be sorted.
Anyways theres a group to join and another place to go and check out.

1/21/2003 2:31 PM
anonymous	The .mp3 format is highly compressed - and less. In addition to the compression algorithm, bits are actually removed. A simple way to think about this is the information between the notes is minimized. The designers explain this as information we don't really hear and won't miss on playback. The result is the mp3 file we all know about. But the mp3 format is not usefull for processing in the best tools. It must be re compliled as a .wav or other audio format to further process the material. The problem with this step is that all the bits you pulled out to get to the .mp3 stage are now gone. The process requires "interpolation" to get over the missing parts. That's a fancy way of saying the software fakes it. Most musicians can tell the difference right off, no problem. Sounds very gated to me. Most others will hear the difference once it's pointed out. If you convert to an mp3 format every time you pass the file around, you will end up with crap. Bottom line - to do this idea justice, you need to stick with an audio file format until the job is done. WinZip or other lossless compression format might be better. Or, you could send unterminated cd file sessions around in the mail. Just some thoughts.

1/21/2003 2:31 PM

anonymous

The *.mp3 format is highly compressed - and less.
In addition to the compression algorithm, bits are actually removed. A simple way to think about this is the information between the notes is minimized. The designers explain this as information we don't really hear and won't miss on playback. The result is the *mp3 file we all know about.
But the *mp3 format is not usefull for processing in the best tools. It must be re compliled as a *.wav or other audio format to further process the material. The problem with this step is that all the bits you pulled out to get to the *.mp3 stage are now gone. The process requires "interpolation" to get over the missing parts. That's a fancy way of saying the software fakes it.
Most musicians can tell the difference right off, no problem. Sounds very gated to me.
Most others will hear the difference once it's pointed out. If you convert to an *mp3 format every time you pass the file around, you will end up with crap.
Bottom line - to do this idea justice, you need to stick with an audio file format until the job is done.
WinZip or other lossless compression format might be better. Or, you could send unterminated cd file sessions around in the mail.
Just some thoughts.

1/21/2003 3:34 PM
TonyW	Nony said:Most musicians can tell the difference right off, no problem. Sounds very gated to me. This is true if listening to an isolated instrument,or to a mixed record that has been MP3'd. but if you are compiling (in effect)a raw multitrack,with several different instruments,then the gating effects tend to mask each other.Plus the addition of reverb and possibly an aural exciters at mixdown stage further mask this effect.....I think it's got to be worth a try.Cheers!

1/21/2003 3:34 PM

TonyW

Nony said:Most musicians can tell the difference right off, no problem. Sounds very gated to me.

This is true if listening to an isolated instrument,or to a mixed record that has been MP3'd.
but if you are compiling (in effect)a raw multitrack,with several different instruments,then the gating effects tend to mask each other.Plus the addition of reverb and possibly an aural exciters at mixdown stage further mask this effect.....I think it's got to be worth a try.Cheers!

1/21/2003 4:45 PM
carlo	the idea is to use .mp3 or .wma to post sketches, ideas, auditions...etc. say i have a song that needs a guitar solo. all my tracks...drums, bass, and rhythm guitar are recorded on my pc as .wav files. i then convert a rough mix of these tracks to .mp3 or .wma and upload them to the collaboration site and request a guitar solo. those that want to take a shot at the solo, download the .mp3, convert it to whichever format they need for their multitrack audio program...(usually .wav)...although programs like Samplitude allow direct use of .mp3 files side by side with .wav files. anyway, once loaded in the audio program, the guitar player records his solo in .wav format, bounces a rough mix, converts it to .mp3, and uploads it to the collab site. i then download the guitar player's rough mix (.mp3) and listen to see if i want to use the guitar solo in my song. if i decide i want the solo, i then ask the guitar player to upload the individual guitar solo track in either the .wav format or a lossless compression format such as .ape (monkey's audio). i download the solo guitar track and import it into my original multitrack. to make sure tracks sync up, it's best to have a sharp click to count off the song. this way the imported tracks can be lined up visually... usually to an accuracy within one sample. wasn't sure if i should post this here in the open forum or in the newly created collab forum. (thank you tboy.) figured since the question came up here, i should answer it here.

1/21/2003 4:45 PM

carlo

the idea is to use .mp3 or .wma to post sketches, ideas, auditions...etc.

say i have a song that needs a guitar solo. all my tracks...drums, bass, and rhythm guitar are recorded on my pc as .wav files. i then convert a rough mix of these tracks to .mp3 or .wma and upload them to the collaboration site and request a guitar solo. those that want to take a shot at the solo, download the .mp3, convert it to whichever format they need for their multitrack audio program...(usually .wav)...although programs like Samplitude allow direct use of .mp3 files side by side with .wav files.

anyway, once loaded in the audio program, the guitar player records his solo in .wav format, bounces a rough mix, converts it to .mp3, and uploads it to the collab site. i then download the guitar player's rough mix (.mp3) and listen to see if i want to use the guitar solo in my song. if i decide i want the solo, i then ask the guitar player to upload the individual guitar solo track in either the .wav format or a lossless compression format such as .ape (monkey's audio). i download the solo guitar track and import it into my original multitrack.

to make sure tracks sync up, it's best to have a sharp click to count off the song. this way the imported tracks can be lined up visually... usually to an accuracy within one sample.

wasn't sure if i should post this here in the open forum or in the newly created collab forum. (thank you tboy.) figured since the question came up here, i should answer it here.

Page 1 of 2

Next>

Last Page>>