recording on the 'puter (1 Viewer)

[herv]

note also that buzz and fruityloops take vst instruments, and fruity takes dsi's as well. worth checking out. i run a couple of vst instruments in buzz and they work very well.

 

[pad]

whats a vst and a dsi? and how do i get sounds like the notwist?

 

[Goff]

VSTi's V DXi's

VST's are plug in instruments and effects you can use in Cubase. DXi's are the same but for direct x progs, like cakewalk sonar, et al.

There are a few differences, but that will all be moot when sonar 2 comes out. (Not going to bore you with details).

Basically, you can use the vst or dxi like a synth module. FM7 will give you your very own Yamaha DX7 (oh the joys) to mess with.

If you want to use vst's with cakewalk then get FXpansions vst-dx adaptor which lets you do it. Works with 90% of 'em anyway.

 

[Charlie Fett]

do you need a powerful computer to do crazy shit like that?

 

[nine]

Depends what you mean by powerful.a 500 mhz+ pentium and 128 ram is good enough.a decent soundcard also.

 

[Anne OMalley]

The general rule is: if you're just using the software to send MIDI signals, then the computer doesn't have to be very powerful. This is also true of tracker software such as Buzz - hence the continuing use of Atari computers by certain parties who shall remain as nameless as they are German.

On the other hand if all your work is with digital audio (i.e. WAVs, AIFFs, PCMs etc.) then you'll be asking your system to do a lot more signal processing so, basically, the more tracks you want to work with, the more powerful a system you'll need. Win 98 Second Edition is still the PC operating system that scores highest, as far as reliability and availability of software is concerned. (There's never a shortage of people to rave about the Mac OS, but I put that largely down to sentimentality, a certain defensiveness and just plain madness. I'm hugely ignorant of Macs, I should add, in my non-defence.) As for RAM, the consensus is "the more the merrier" but I've also been told that Win 98 can't make use of more than 256MB. (I don't know how true that is - Pete?)

Anyway, 256MB is probably enough, unless you want to multi-track record the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Jean-Michel Jarre playing a baroque version of "Popcorn". And I know I don't.

If all you have is a poxy computer - say, the kind you're allowed bring into the Leaving Cert Honours Maths paper - and you want to make music, then have a look round on the Web for digital audio freeware. Check out the program Buzz, for example - it's surprisingly powerful and economic with system resources. Our friend Herv uses and loves it (nightly). There are other options too e.g. "generative" software that uses simple mathematical algorithms to produce complex sound waves. Then there are programs that perform the basic number-crunching functions that lie behind all digital signal processing, whether it's the simple sine waves of the sort emitted by the buzz-wrecking 80s toy Simon to the most sophisticated Direct X or VST plug-ins used by professional digital audio workstations. There are such programs out there designed to run in DOS, believe it or not, often by digital audio researchers in 3rd level institutions. If you don't mind getting into the nuts and bolts of digital audio, there's loads of stuff out there for ya.

I'm no expert in this stuff but my motto, which I repeat to my children before I allow them to eat dinner every evening, is this: if it's good enough for Autechre, it's good enough for you.

Originally posted by Charlie Fett
do you need a powerful computer to do crazy shit like that?

 

[pete]

Originally posted by Anne OMalley As for RAM, the consensus is "the more the merrier" but I've also been told that Win 98 can't make use of more than 256MB. (I don't know how true that is - Pete?)

Theoretically, win98/2k/xp can address 4gb of memory (32 bit addressing) but in practice 'they' say that anything over 256mb isn't going to be touched by Windows 98....