I am looking for a sound that a water tower on the roof of house would make when it suddenly falls. The watertower actually first falls on the edge of the roof and then down to earth.
I am thinking of an old water tower, maybe one like this here:
www.bilderbook.org/tag_e_book/newyork_water_towers/extra_pictures/manhattan_water_tower_2.jpg (I hope I am allowed to post links).
I already tried to put differnt sound together, like waterfall sound, crashes and so on, but yet no satisfying result.
Can anyone help me on this?
I agree to RHumphries, normalizing will create a less real impression of a sound. If i see a waveform which is just a simple line, its clear that it will be noisy after normalization.
I am not sure if the Amen Break is something that could be considered copyrightable. The courts would probably have to determine whether its that unique or just something a lot of other people could have come up with just like you can't copyright a C major chord.
However, I think they would find grounds if the original recording of the Amen breakbeat was used versus someone who records their own performance of it.
I can't remember exactly what the courts said in regards to someone who cites a sample in a piece for artistic quotation but it was something along the lines of your free to cite that element if you reproduce the sound yourself to sound like it, otherwise pay for the license to use the original sample. (Its stupidly inefficient but that's the gist of what they said) I guess their logic is they're protecting the performers of the original recording.
I realize you are in Spain but is copyright law that different there? That I really wouldn't know. I've been under the impression from reading stuff that generally countries tend to have similar laws for the most part. But I really can't say how it would go down in Spain.
Then again... we (Freesound nor the people who run it) are not in the usa.
Again: blatant copyright infringement: no, very, very grey areas: yes.
First of all, I'm not so sure the argument that worked in the US would work in Spain, second of all, if we ever get a take-down notice (still to happen), we shall take down.
All samples posted on Freesound are -ultimately- a risk to the initial uploader. Like YouTube we have a review process that tries to iliminate the illegal parts, but like youtube
I'm quite sure we have illegal samples taken from sample libraries. Any owner of such library is welcome to supply us with their library and using MTG technology we can
immediately filter out all infringing files automatically. The people who entered dare3 all very clearly know this.
Would you say the same about each and every music piece that is distributed online, but uses the Amen Break?
For example, but obviously not limited to http://ccmixter.org/files/sharp/5513
We are strict, very strict even, when it comes to moderating.
Now that I review, some of the samples in dare3 (or 4?) need removing because they are a bit too literal.
The wordings confusing but I think the "Work" is referring to the sample your using.
Just to clarify there are different CC Licenses, so don't think that's the case with everything else you see out there that is CC on other sites.
I think for example, CC Share Alike licenses force you to share your whole work in the same way.
I would like to see a court of law defend the fact that a 200ms slice could be copyrighted. And hey, I might write that that's a remix of MIA, but... it actually isn't. Or is it?
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York basically did say taking any sample is violation/stealing.
The lawsuit that was settled regarding Pump up the Volume only seemed to happen because Dave Dorrel said that M/A/R/R/S used
Stock Aitken Waterman's sample in a really distorted way that Waterman wouldn't have even recognized if Dave Dorrel
didn't mention it on the radio.
In Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films is another case where the court basically said : "Get a license or do not sample - we do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." ( I disagree but that's how their ruling it)
(in the addendum section)
You don't allow people to put up sample libraries why allow people to post up vague samples that have been twisted but are
still not owned by them?
Why set up users of this site up for potential lawsuits when you don't really have to? Why compromise the site's legitimacy with
samples like this?
I would say leave the potentially infringing samples to the "underground" sites. Is there really a demand for these samples to be
posted? People are more likely to rip these samples or steal them somewhere else. The remixes/twists can be interesting to listen to
but their posted up here like people truly have a license to use them when they could instead get in trouble for using them.
It just doesn't seem right to set up unwitting users for problems like this down the line.
OK. Thanks. I am a computer programmer who use GNU license alot. It stipulates that further works also carry it(GNU). So I got a little confused and thought songs created with CC samples had to be under CC. Which it does not say that.(In CC under "7. Miscellaneous b" is what confused me.)
i actually have PureData, i just havent gotten around to learning how to use it ^^' as for reaktor, i got a warez of it and it pretty much sucked D:
I think regarding your 1st question you retain the copyright on your song's arrangement and all the other ORIGINAL samples in it.
But if someone wants to use one of the samples from freesound that you also used in a song they could because you don't have control over
Yes, you have a finely tuned ear for looping.
The thing is I was working in Soundtrack Pro 1.0 to learn the program and it absolutely sucks for something like this. Snapping barely works, I had to zoom in very very closely and try to tile my samples up.
This is before I knew about setting project tempo and the built-in loop features, which I still don't use.
But next time maybe I'll play around in either Soundtrack 2 or Protools.
Alright, stick it to the man!
Just to tell, that I have bought the Zoom H2,
I'm really satisfied for the price, (don't forget, it's my first one)
I really like the size of this "engine"...
I bring it everywhere.
In 4 to 6 mounths i will speak more about my satisfaction!
But in first impression, I like many of the possibilities.
I have no problem with tripod mount. It look like tought, solid.
My first capture! Some errors of "beginner"...
Wind, levels, gain... Bad recording position...
About the quality recording,
I used most of the time,
48Khz at 24 bits WAV, with internal mic!
Maybe it's a litte bit "maniac"
perhaps, to do more recording time a 44 at 16 it's OK... I will try soon!
I have purchased, a 4 gigs...
I have captured a live concert for MY personnal used!
It's sure, it's not a real live quality show recording...
But when we compared to ... since a 20 years ago, about a botleg.
Is it the same history in 6 mounts?
Now, i'm going outside
I was just recently purchasing a portable recorder. I got Zoom H4, because its internal stereo mic and overall sound quality is satisfactory for me - you can record at higher sampling rates and edit sound in the DAW and it is even more excellent. Also its more professional line inputs come handy (recording live concerts from the desk, etc.) - but the additional preamps are not so good (but still useable).
Here is one good site to listen to some examples of several portable recorders:
(I would want a Sony PCM D1 some day).
or what about this company:
Its Mic2496 V2 + M-Audio Microtrack II plus some high-end binaural microphone can give you a really high-end portable recorder for not too exaggerated budget.
(now I regret that H4 doesn't have digital input)
Ah, PD, but if you are more a musician and less a programmer (or let's say more of an Audiofucker than Mindfucker) there is also Audiomulch by Ross Bencina - not totally free, but almost (89$) and it has 60 days full functional demo and another 30 days of limited demo... CRAAAZYYYY application!
There's a **LOT** of free software and even free linux distributions JUST made to do music: http://ubuntustudio.org/ for example.
And sometimes the free stuff makes even nicer results than the expensive stuff.
People do CRAZY things with PD ( http://puredata.info/ ).
Many free things have a steeper learning curve, but are worth the investment.
PS: hello_flowers, you should really check out PD. It's a bit of a brainfuck (well, ok, it's a total brainfuck, but you're young ), but I think it suits your style more than Reaktor:
check http://puredata.info/downloads and http://www.crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Pd_documentation/
it looks really lo-fi but it's crazy powerful.
dobroide told me about this one yesterday:
it's TINY and supposedly has good mics as well!
heigh hoo has some nice sounds online recorded with it.
very fat boy slim
now you only need someone with a catchy phrase ("right about now, the funk soul brother, ..." and layer it on top, add some 303 for good measure.
that said, it's fun, but you need to sync up your loops better. If you tap along the tempo you'll see that the tempo changes when you start a new slice length.
the original is also not "perfectly looping":
as in: !.......!.......!.......!...... <- you're missing a piece here
a perfect explanation by nemoDaedalus!
qubodup, that's not particularly good looking at my resolution
nightingale will have automatic linebreaks ( <p> or <br /> ) and will allow the usage of <strong>, <em>, <a> and maybe <img> in both the forum and the descriptions.