Anybody want their demo recorded?

[optimum sound]

Certified pro tools operator with a sound engineer diploma. Complete mobile pro tools system, available to record anywhere anytime.
With my system on the go I can easily come to your home without any hassles with wires or moving your equipment.
contact me optimum_sound@hotmail.com

[ppcock]

and you probably charge a pretty penny.

Wavelab does me just fine.

[clevich]

mabye he accepts sexual favours in return.... YOU GOT A CHANCE PPCOCK!

[ppcock]

im happy with using wavelab.

[Revolver]

were did you go to school?

what pt system do yu use?

how much?

[optimum sound]

Columbia academy, and I use pro tools 6.7.
I don't charge much, I am simply doing this to meet other dj's and provide a service to people that might need it.
Althought wavelab is a great program it also depends on what kind of sound card you are using as the sample rate is different for every kind out there. Assuming you are recording from vinyl you want to have the best sample rate possible so it plays back like the original mix. I use to record into cool edit pro 2 and although it sounded great, nothing compares to pro tools. This also being the industry standard.
Once again, fees are very low as I am doing this more to network with people in the scene. I spin Hard Dance, Breaks, Dnb and house and I invite everyone to take advantage of this offer as it will be a benificial experience for me and the person that gets their demo done.

[mux]

I gotta agree, sound card is everything. You can have the best software in the world, but if you're recording 16bit/44.1khz into a Soundblaster, you'll never have the depth and clarity that'll have people listening to your sets over and over and over. I don't really agree that protools sounds better than cool edit pro tho, it's all digital at that point. I sure can't tell the difference.

optimum sound: what are you using for an A-D? Exactly *how* portable are you? There may not be as much interest in having you over to folks houses, but if I were you I'd definitely approach promoters about recording sets live at parties... I don't know why more promoters don't record all the sets at high quality and have them on their websites, it'd be a big draw for me.

(I've got my own MOTU 828mkII / Mackie HR824 rig over here, so I'm not looking for services, just curious :) )

[dj_soo]

^ you have to get the DJ's permission and most of the big-name talent isn't that down with having live sets of theirs floating around.

[ppcock]

what they dont know wont hurt them.. UNTIL ITS TOO LATE! MUAHAHAH

[mux]

Originally Posted by mofo-x

^ you have to get the DJ's permission and most of the big-name talent isn't that down with having live sets of theirs floating around.

Who said anything about big names? There's plenty of party crews around town with awesome unknown DJs who'd love to have a free demo recorded.

IMHO, the DJ sets are more inspired at 200-person parties, 'cause there's more of an intimate feeling between the DJ and the crowd...

[ppcock]

i agree with mux. I'd love to have my set recorded at parties.

[Séguin]

lol, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Not that DJs are into shitty sound. But they'd rather spend their money on more records.

[mux]

Originally Posted by Robb Peppertre

lol, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Not that DJs are into shitty sound. But they'd rather spend their money on more records.

*shrug*. their choice, basically.

check this mix out tho:
http://www.granolaboy.net/granola/ma...dio-whitetrash

my housemate, he borrowed my MOTU 828mkII to record the mix. listen close, you can really tell the difference.

using better gear to record your demo is pretty key - and not having to figure out complex gear just to get a demo recorded is worth money. Not $1000, but if I were a DJ, I'd prolly be in for $50-$100 to record a 74-min demo. Prolly $50 and some beers and weed would be more realistic.

[Akeel]

lets not forget cd's are at 44.1 so recording at any higher is pointless....unless your going to do some serious post editing..which makes you a wanker.

[mux]

Disagree. It's all about dithering: most devices that record at 16bit/44.1khz throw away the extreme high and low frequencies as they're being recorded - so when you go to EQ and compress it later, you're already missing a bunch of information. If you record at 24bit/96khz and use high-quality tools to do your EQ and compression (if any), then use something like Protools or Wavelab to convert to 16bit/44.1khz, the difference shows in sub-bass and extreme high frequencies (like, the "air" after a cymbal hit).

[Akeel]

^
the majority of people cant hear those extreme high and low frequencies anyway, and your not going to be recording anything even remotely similar to the "air" after cymbal hit when recording from vinyl. If your recording live instruments - sure why not...but for the purposes of a dj mix cd its pointless.

Sub bass and extreme high frequencies shouldnt be such a major consideration for something like a demo. People can only hear from 20hz to 20,000hz anyway, and the wavelength is so short at the high end that it probably wont even come close to reaching your ear unless your standing right next to the speaker. As for low end, those bottom heavy frequencies are awesome and can be "felt" in your body more then heard which is great for large systems...but listening to someones demo on your cd player its not going to matter.

</geek>

[decypher]

Yeh most peoples speakers dont even goto 20hz, recording a vinyl mix at 96khz sample rates is purely geek factor from what i understand.

Making ur mix punchy with proper compression would probably get noticed more.

[mux]

Alright, I concede. I'm not a DJ, and I'm extremely anal about sound quality.

I dunno tho, my housemate recorded all his previous demos using his onboard soundcards, and this last one with my MOTU, and I can *sure* tell the difference. The new one sounds way more like vinyl.

[Akeel]

^
onboard soundcards are just plain shite in general...a dedicated quality card will always sound much better.

[shift]

Frequencies aside, recording at a higher bit depth reduces the number of quanization errors. This decreases the amount of noise and distortion that gets added to the signal when you record. As Mux said, as long as you dither when you downsample to 16 you're going to get a significantly higher quality recording. Recording at higher sample rate isn't quite as necessary in my opinion if your final medium is cd, I record mine at 24/44.1.

Call me a geek if you like Akeel, I'll still stand by the difference it makes.

[Royal_Phunk]

^I totally notice a difference while recording @ the higher sample rate, my mixes always go 24 48, dithered to 16 441 that white noise that is introduced during the final conversion is good shit, go dithering. Whichever guy was talking about compressing the recorded mix... not always the best way to go, imagine what music goes through jus to get to vinyl, drums sub compression, overall mix compression, mastering multiband compression, limiting(extreme compression), (if your mixing cds the mp3 compression), and you wanna compress more that jus seems odd your mix should have enough "punch" anyways.