Youll Never See Me Again Lyrics Techno
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags ➡️
OK. But what if you had a very big house and space was not an issue? The OP didn't stipulate that he needed a compact setup or didn't have the space for a larger setup.
My preference would be a very simple DAW that sounds amazing (Luna). Add to that a great controller and some Arturia plugs. The only OTB kit you need (which a DAW would never replace) is a groovebox for percussion.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
My preference would be a very simple DAW that sounds amazing (Luna). Add to that a great controller and some Arturia plugs. The only OTB kit you need (which a DAW would never replace) is a groovebox for percussion.
OK, you have made a very good argument for what you like and why using A DAW is better for you. But the OP specifically said he wanted to get away from his DAW and computer. Do you have any other suggestions for him that doesn't include the use of a computer or DAW?
Ok
My overall advice would be dip your toe in the water. Dont buy a couple of synths, drum machine and a pyramid - youll just keep buying more and spend the majority of your time on here justifying or yearning for more.
Get an OP-1 and have some fun
If you cant afford an OP-1 then buy the new SonicWare Bass and Beats -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oQ2g9_NgU
Both devices are backpack/park/pub/travel friendly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
You have pretend dawless - modern MPCs with a PC built in
You have LFO rabbit hole dawless - Octatrack
You have never gonna finish a tune in a life time dawless - Modular
I honestly think Ableton is sponsored by Elektron. I never hear of Logic users giving it all up and going dawless - its nearly always Ableton.
Is the answer that people using Ableton are more likely to be using their DAW in a relatively live and on-the-fly way, and are therefore using a workflow that is much more suited to DAWLess than the average Logic user?
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
Ok
My overall advice would be dip your toe in the water. Dont buy a couple of synths, drum machine and a pyramid - youll just keep buying more and spend the majority of your time on here justifying or yearning for more.
Get an OP-1 and have some fun
If you cant afford an OP-1 then buy the new SonicWare Bass and Beats -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oQ2g9_NgU
Both devices are backpack/park/pub/travel friendly.
OK, that sounds great if you want a portable setup to take along anywhere. But again, that is not what the OP is asking for. He already owns a few synths and wants a way to record or sequence them without using a computer or DAW. Do you have any suggestions for him to be able to do that?
Going off on a bit of a tangent... my current approach involves a 16 channel analogue mixer running into a 16 channel interface and a DAW.
Whatever is going into the mixer can be recorded (post fader as per my preference) as a stereo track or 16 individual tracks in the DAW. Hardware sequencers, synths with internal sequencers, midi-synced loopers all tempo controlled from a stand-alone midi clock mean that the DAW is utterly superfluous other than as a stereo "tape recorder".... but any time I choose I can move into the DAW if I want to edit, mix, or even decide I want to use the DAW as a sequencer.
I completely get the people who want to avoid DAWs and I completely get why others see them as so essential. I try to straddle those two camps as best I can.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniDX ➡️
These days you have many solutions to go DAWless. I'm surprised you suggested a DAW.
you're now on ignore, well done.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by fizzyfizz ➡️
The problem I find is I rely way too much on my software plugins whilst my hardware keyboards which I've spent literally thousands on sit unused.
My plan is to take the hardware synths away from the computer and set them up somewhere else. I just want something to connect them too to record ideas when inspiration arrives.
I will say it again. This is the sort of setup you need especially if you already have a lot of synths!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags ➡️
OK, that sounds great if you want a portable setup to take along anywhere. But again, that is not what the OP is asking for. He already owns a few synths and wants a way to record or sequence them without using a computer or DAW. Do you have any suggestions for him to be able to do that?
Again i feel avoiding a simple DAW with few distractions is creating a load of arse ache and delaying the inevitable (it will eventually end up in a DAW)
I guess your left with the usual - zoom multi tracks, tascam Model D multi track etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
Again i feel avoiding a simple DAW with few distractions is creating a load of arse ache and delaying the inevitable (it will eventually end up in a DAW)
I guess your left with the usual - zoom multi tracks, tascam Model D multi track etc
In which case you kinda have two choices -
(1) Avoid the thread
or
(2) Ignore OP when answering OP, other than to dismiss him as a complete idiot who doesn't know what's good for him or know how to ask the right questions.
(2) doesn't reflect well on you. HTH
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
Again i feel avoiding a simple DAW with few distractions is creating a load of arse ache and delaying the inevitable (it will eventually end up in a DAW)
I guess your left with the usual - zoom multi tracks, tascam Model D multi track etc
OK. Perhaps. But I've been DAWless for many years, and now with the Squarp Pyramid as the master sequencer controlling everything, I have no need or desire to ever use a DAW. And I definitely don't want to use a computer of any kind for my music creation. The only use I have for a computer in my studio is to load firmware updates or load new preset banks into my synths.
I'm just trying to make the best suggestion for what the OP was asking for and it just happens to be the way I have my own studio setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuyMy809 ➡️
In which case you kinda have two choices -
(1) Avoid the thread
or
(2) Ignore OP when answering OP, other than to dismiss him as a complete idiot who doesn't know what's good for him or know how to ask the right questions.
(2) doesn't reflect well on you. HTH
Ride your high horse by all means
Tascam Model D is still the best suggestion for the OP
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
Tascam Model D is still the best suggestion for the OP
There is no such thing as a "Tascam Model D"! 
Last edited by jags; 14th April 2022 at 12:36 PM..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags ➡️
There is no such thing as a "Tascam Model D"!
lols
sorry sorry
Model 12
Got the Moog on the brain atm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by akai_world ➡️
lols
sorry sorry
Model 12
Got the Moog on the brain atm
The Model 12/16/24 are great multitrack units. I'm thinking of picking up a Model 16 sometime in the future so that I can record non MIDI instruments like guitar and vocal and have my Squarp Pyramid sync up with the Tascam. But right now I don't really need that because I pretty much do all my music creation just with my MIDI synths.
However, I do think that a hardware sequencer like the Pyramid is a better choice than using a multitrack recorder because with a sequencer you can always quantize if you want, or do arpeggios and other MIDI tricks, or even correct a bad note here or there. Also if you don't like the sound of a certain synth part it is simple just to tweak the sound to make it better all while the song is playing back.
The OP does seem to have a pretty good selection of some really nice synths, and if he really wants to have them all up and running at the same time, using a hardware sequencer like the Squarp is the way to go in my opinion!
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by NawwwwwSun ➡️
Here's one reason: you don't want to use a DAW.
Exactly—which, for some reason, is difficult for some people to accept.
Those who don't use DAWs are somehow suspect, contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, Luddites or fools for not realizing that DAWs don't have to be used like (wait for it…) DAWs. 
Personally, I use several different approaches to producing music including a DAW. But I consider DAWless absolutely 100% unequivocally legit.
I also agree with you about the notion of "DAW music". It exists. The easiest way to avoid it is not to use one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague ➡️
Exactly—which, for some reason, is difficult for some people to accept.
Those who don't use DAWs are somehow suspect, contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, Luddites or fools for not realizing that DAWs don't have to be used like (wait for it…) DAWs.
Personally, I use several different approaches to producing music including a DAW. But I consider DAWless absolutely 100% unequivocally legit.
I also agree with you about the notion of "DAW music". It exists. The easiest way to avoid it is not to use one.
Yeah i agree some music sounds like Ableton
The best way to approach a DAW is treating it as a tape recorder
Lives for gear
Roomie had a car problem on Monday, went to sell some gear, music store couldn't get the wah pedal on a Digitech GNX4 working, and left him short $100.
By Monday night, I had re-calibrated the pedal, set the toe-threshold-whatev to factory default, and had it hooked to a two channel Peavey Bandit 60.
It sounded ok, but the normal gain channel was nearly unaudible, and the midrangey amp didn't do the onboard drums any justice, nor the octave divider, and all of those empty holes on the back were calling out to my spare cable collection soooo...
Tuesday I spent all day racking an S-16, an X-32R, and a 32 channel splitter for a drummer/production friend, lit and configged that, then helped him get 40 Chinese IP-65s outta boxes, ready to mount in 4 Bangers On Poles config, his Lightshow B rig.
Yesterday, bright and early... I left the GNX4's L 1/4" TRS Out connected to the amp. I brought the R 1/4" TRS out into my Live Room monitor mixer, using the line in, on a channel reserved for a quick-n-dirty SM58. Meaning I can "go direct" outta the GNX4, or mic the amp, all on the same monitor board channel, no re-patching.
I brought the GNX4 stereo XLR outs into the line in's from my Tracking Room, and set up Split One routing mode.
Now, I've got the GNX4's drums, and stereo mixdown outs, feeding a dBx crossover, a Crown X-4000 and a pair of Carvin LM-153s for mid-highs, and a bridged Crest Audio FA 2401 feeding a JBL MRX-518S... 3200 watts of rip yer ****ing face off, moving real air, rock and roll.
I brought the mixer's control room outs into the GNX4s line ins, now anything thru the board can be recorded too.
Head's Up. This Dawless Dissertation is about to sidetrack, but only for context.
That console takes 8 analog outs from the LR I-5, (and feeds in 8 more) which has 3 MOTU 2408s, connected via 3 ADAT pipes to 9 other computers, including A and V I-7s in the CR, Main and Support I-7s in the TR, which is fulla synths, tube amps, a X-32 fullsize and a second PA, and the DR, (Delivery Room?) ...(Drum Room? Yeah, that's it. There's a 13 pad V-Drum kit, an HPD-20, a DD-55, and a DR-3 in there too...) which houses my live rig...an I-7 Livestream Video Box plus 3 I-5 lappy's that control my DMX string and main PA, when they're not out on the road.
The core of this beast is a 30 ADAT pipe multiplex that stores 99 routing presets, a Z-Systems Optipatch Plus, soooo...
Being able to record "anything thru the LR monitor board" on the GNX4... covers a ... lot... of ground.
One switch brings up Studio Guitar Rig B, plus what I guess we'll call Gtr Rig C.. the GNX4 and Peavey Bandit.
Switch number two brings up the LR monitor rig. Instantly... the GNX4 takes about 2 seconds to "boot -up."
I hit "Play Drums", tap out a tempo, work up a riff, hit Record, play the riff, hit Play... and the riff and drums are looping. Seamlessly. I guess the original GNX4 owner turned on Quantize.
Spin the Preset dial 4 notches and now, the guitar in my hands becomes a passable electric bass (that tracks faster than my Octabass used to), hit record, and one pass later I have a looping, three part, drums, bass and rhythm guitar file on (not SD, some older Compact Whatev) card.
The card holds 48 minutes... of 8 track recordings. All of the above, is on one track. Leaving 7 more to record on.
No saves, no typing, no tree walking thru the file system, just hit two switches, hang my axe, and the whole rig is dark, song saved, done.
It's not perfect. The GNX4 won't sync to anything else. It can't be master either. Analog transfer only.
Except I can pull the card, or move the wave files across to PC via USB.
Except the GNX4 only does 24/44 waves. I do video, everything here is in 24/48.
On the plus side, the unit has a mic input, preamp, pickup, amp and cab modelling, EQ, dynamics, modulation, delay and verb processing, and I'm only in it for a Franklin.
I see this guy coming up quick, when I'm in the mood, capturing 3-5 track riff ideas, then going dark, until I have others over, with the whole studio lit and synced.
Then, the recorded ideas flow forth, getting added to by other musical minds, all of which goes straight into CR DAW.
DAWless? From idea to deliverable files?
Not even close.
A super quick, super simple, CD quality, 8 track scratchpad?
Yep.
One that can go on the road, too. Just add PA.
:-)
Last edited by JayTee4303; 14th April 2022 at 01:16 PM..
Lives for gear
I like working DAWless most of the time, usually with my trusty Tascam 4 track Casette but with some modern conveniences such as Drambo on the iPad for sequencing some of my synths via Kenton boxes etc.
I used to do most of music on an A3440 with an A77 as my master recorder. It's a totally different experience to Ableton/Logic and worth pursuing.
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonwhistle ➡️
I like working DAWless most of the time, usually with my trusty Tascam 4 track Casette but with some modern conveniences such as Drambo on the iPad for sequencing some of my synths via Kenton boxes etc.
I used to do most of music on an A3440 with an A77 as my master recorder. It's a totally different experience to Ableton/Logic and worth pursuing.
How do you find the sound/workflow of working on cassette compared to the sound/workflow of your older reel to reel set up?
I've been working with a cassette based set up for the past 6 years or so and have always wondered how it stacks up to r2r. I only ask because I have found that, if set up and gain staged correctly, cassette can actually sound quite good (imo) despite what people claim.
I know r2r can/will provide a higher fidelity, I'm just wondering what your findings are, especially when it comes to electronic and (presumed) bass heavy audio signal.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags ➡️
And I definitely don't want to use a computer of any kind for my music creation.
So why are you using the Squarp Pyramid and not analogue sequencer or playing by hand ?
Can't have MIDI without a computer of some kind.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags ➡️
However, I do think that a hardware sequencer like the Pyramid is a better choice than using a multitrack recorder because with a sequencer you can always quantize if you want, or do arpeggios and other MIDI tricks, or even correct a bad note here or there. Also if you don't like the sound of a certain synth part it is simple just to tweak the sound to make it better all while the song is playing back.
How do you record the audio if you're only using a MIDI sequencer ?
You still need an audio recorder of some kind.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags ➡️
I will say it again. This is the sort of setup you need especially if you already have a lot of synths!
No thank you. It looks like a tiny, difficult-to-use, inconvenient version of a computer. I would much rather use a groove box. Or a computer.
I'm curious what aspect of the computer the OP wants to get away from. The new MPC's are just a DAW in a smaller box without a keyboard. You'll still be getting a lot of screen time with that solution. If OP wants to hook up some hardware, do a live jam, and record what comes out without futzing around with automation, plugins, and other production fairy dust, does it actually matter what is doing the recording? What's the difference between plugging into a Tascam vs audio interface to DAW as a tape recorder?
It might help if we have the full perspective of what the OP wants and why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogsy ➡️
If OP wants to hook up some hardware, do a live jam, and record what comes out without futzing around with automation, plugins, and other production fairy dust, does it actually matter what is doing the recording? What's the difference between plugging into a Tascam vs audio interface to DAW as a tape recorder?
It might help if we have the full perspective of what the OP wants and why.
Good post. From the OP it's hard to see the extent to which he wants a 4 or 8 track recorder to make full tracks, or something to simply note ideas (dictaphone or cassette recorder could work for this) or something to record a few tracks that can then be expanded upon later (using, potentially, other gear including maybe a DAW).
DAW as tape recorder makes perfect sense to me, not least as it leaves you with the immediate options of (1) Turning what you were working on into a DAW-created full piece of music, or (2) disconnecting the DAW and being fully DAWless. If the DAW as tape recorder idea doesn't appeal (and having no screen in front of you does make a lot of sense) then it really is key to know what functionality OP needs.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by NawwwwwSun ➡️
It's just a total coincidence that everybody's vision is EXACTLY the same.
It's just like how once photography existed nobody ever painted a picture. Doing so would just be affectation. Going against the grain is not creative.
Lolololol
Those are totally different art forms. You are talking about tools... as in whether someone uses brush A or brush B to paint with is somehow an important creative choice.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grasspikemusic ➡️
So many great classic electronic music records were made in the 80s and 90s with a sequencer, some Synths, a mixer and then recording the stereo mix directly to 2 track analog tape, and later a DAT. If you were really blessed you might have a four or eight track deck
Once mixed down to two track, it could be mastered, but mastering was a different process
The whole dawless thing is simply a return to that workflow, everything old is new again
One can use that same workflow in a DAW too. It can function as a straightforward 2 track or multi-track recorder if you want it to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by draig ➡️
Those are totally different art forms. You are talking about tools... as in whether someone uses brush A or brush B to paint with is somehow an important creative choice.
I hate to break it to you, but Brush A is 6" wide and produces brush strokes between 1" and 6" wide dependent on how you hold it. Brush B has about a dozen strands, and with a steady hand and incredible eyesight you can create highly detailed micro-paintings. It would be almost impossible to see a picture and not know whether brush A or brush b had been used. For most ideas that need Brush A or Brush B having the wrong brush makes it pointless to even start work.
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogsy ➡️
No thank you. It looks like a tiny, difficult-to-use, inconvenient version of a computer. I would much rather use a groove box. Or a computer.
I'm curious what aspect of the computer the OP wants to get away from. The new MPC's are just a DAW in a smaller box without a keyboard. You'll still be getting a lot of screen time with that solution. If OP wants to hook up some hardware, do a live jam, and record what comes out without futzing around with automation, plugins, and other production fairy dust, does it actually matter what is doing the recording? What's the difference between plugging into a Tascam vs audio interface to DAW as a tape recorder?
It might help if we have the full perspective of what the OP wants and why.
Yeah... I bought an MPC Live and it felt just like using a computer DAW (it is a computer DAW) but with more annoying limitations and less visual clarity. So I sold the MPC
I love my Elektron boxes. I'll never part with them. Easy to make a cool pattern... so clumsy to fluidly string patterns together into more free flowing compositions.
I love eurorack for exploring sound design. I have yet to find a eurorack sequencer that didn't give me a headache and they all feel both too complex and too limited at the same time.
All of those tools (except for an analog sequencer) are complex software in a computer
I agree it would help to have a clearer idea of what the OP wants to do musically. There are various of musical tasks which hardware sequencers are not suited for.
Also, different people have different ways of learning and/or processing data. I am visual. Seeing my project displayed on a nice big screen is so immediate. A small box with lots of multi-purpose buttons and various combinations and little visual feedback does not work work well for me.
My guess is that the large majority of people who go DAWless end up back with a DAW, so offering such a perspective may be saving someone lots of time and expense. It is not an insult to those who have found a happy workflow without a DAW. It is just some discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by draig ➡️
One can use that same workflow in a DAW too. It can function as a straightforward 2 track or multi-track recorder if you want it to.
This is one thing that gets me. I can see why someone would want to avoid a DAW entirely, not have a PC or screen when creating... but then again get some bloody discipline! Promise yourself you won't look at it unless recording. Promise yourself you won't waste time editing and adding FX after recording.
Now if you lack that discipline then fine, use other tools... but maybe you should be working on your discipline and not simply finding new tools!
If people lack that discipline then it adds strength to the argument that too much technical ability on an instrument can be risky. If people can't turn on a DAW without using all it's features then it stands to reason they can't become a virtuoso pianist without showing off at every opportunity, including when a simple motif is all the song needs to round it off. If you have to go DAWless to resist spending time trapped in a DAW then maybe you need to make sure you don;t get too good at your instrument in case you can;t resist noodling at all times, even when restraint is the obvious thing the track needs right now
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuyMy809 ➡️
I hate to break it to you, but Brush A is 6" wide and produces brush strokes between 1" and 6" wide dependent on how you hold it. Brush B has about a dozen strands, and with a steady hand and incredible eyesight you can create highly detailed micro-paintings. It would be almost impossible to see a picture and not know whether brush A or brush b had been used. For most ideas that need Brush A or Brush B having the wrong brush makes it pointless to even start work.
hehehe... your brushes A and B are not the ones I was looking at 
Source: https://gearspace.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/1377756-dawless-where-start-3.html
0 Response to "Youll Never See Me Again Lyrics Techno"
Post a Comment