4 ms·

I've found this while looking for a backing track. Amateur musicians may find it useful.

brudgers 4y ago
There are some hardware options from the 1990's. Take a look at Yamaha's QY series. The QY10 can be found for under $100. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g The QY300 for under $200. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM As a bonus the dawless approach also generates tones.
- sh4rks 4y ago
  Is there any reason to use the hardware over the software?
  - dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
    Offloading CPU usage - and some people just love the feeling of physical equipment. Also, even if you map all controls to keyboard shortcuts, changing parameters by physical knobs is usually much faster anyway.
    - brudgers 4y ago
      Not having to map controls to physical knobs uses less of my CPU. And since I don’t have to remember how I mapped three days ago because it seemed like a good idea, hardware uses less of my RAM.
  - brudgers 4y ago
    I find physical hardware a useful abstraction. And the lack of email a bulwark against distraction…no HN helps too. I understand why people like DAW’s. And understand why I like dawless. For about $150, I can have the best Yamaha engineers could do in 1992 built into a roadworthy housing. Integration is only a matter of 1/4” TS cables, DIN MIDI and 120v AC. Or to put it another way, the QY gear is mostly software. Dedicated hardware gives it devoted user interface. The UI doesn’t have to try to be like the UI of my mixer or my effects boxes because it is not purely visual. The UI doesn’t have to compete with my mixer for space in my visual field because they both live in three dimensional space. But those are my reasons.
    - krnlpnc 4y ago
      I've found that the DAW itself wasn't the problem for me. It was using the same computer and space for work as I did for creativity. As soon as I set up a dedicated laptop and corner for music, and ran the DAW full screen, the distractions went away. I use a combination of hardware and software.
      - brudgers 4y ago
        For me, dawless seems to smooth over several points of friction at the expense of things I don’t care about right now. One is the dedicated configuration. I turn on a 36” power strip and everything is ready to go in less than a minute. An important part of that is everything is ready to go every single time. There are no patch Tuesdays. No semantic versioning. The process is rock stable except for how I change it. A second affordance is that I can make tradeoffs around the specific capabilities I think I want. An example is my 1980’s Yamaha QX5 sequencer will record Sysex. Ableton Live Lite — came free with my first controller — won’t. It is an upgrade or finding another daw or running another piece of software and managing sysex outside the daw. The QX5 was fifty bucks and has a well engineered interface because Yamaha knew what it was doing. I don’t care that the UI is dated because so am I. A third affordance is dawless means line level audio can be the dominant signal path. That makes it easier for me to reason about my setup. There are a some of this is just what works for me caveats. Mostly I just want to put on headphones and make noise because it brings me joy. I am not trying to make an album and if a song comes out of it that’s just a bonus. I am doing it all on the cheap. The $999 for Ableton’s top package represents a lot of gear I would rather spend money on. I’ve fallen into the Turing tarpit enough times to know what mine looks like. Mine looks kind of like a daw.
        krnlpnc 4y ago
        For me it was approaching the DAW as a digital tape machine that worked for my flow. I run Ableton, but only record audio in from my looper and instruments. And just use the middle edition thats $300ish I still haven't embraced the bottomless pit of software instruments, but do use a few nice plug in FX. A lot of my ideas come up from looping, and the DAW is basically just “rolling tape” to capture that jam in a linear way. Maybe with some adjustments afterwards

There are some hardware options from the 1990's. Take a look at Yamaha's QY series. The QY10 can be found for under $100. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5i66uPOe8g The QY300 for under $200. Tutorial, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR2UX3axNM As a bonus the dawless approach also generates tones.

sh4rks 4y ago
Is there any reason to use the hardware over the software?
- dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
  Offloading CPU usage - and some people just love the feeling of physical equipment. Also, even if you map all controls to keyboard shortcuts, changing parameters by physical knobs is usually much faster anyway.
  - brudgers 4y ago
    Not having to map controls to physical knobs uses less of my CPU. And since I don’t have to remember how I mapped three days ago because it seemed like a good idea, hardware uses less of my RAM.
- brudgers 4y ago
  I find physical hardware a useful abstraction. And the lack of email a bulwark against distraction…no HN helps too. I understand why people like DAW’s. And understand why I like dawless. For about $150, I can have the best Yamaha engineers could do in 1992 built into a roadworthy housing. Integration is only a matter of 1/4” TS cables, DIN MIDI and 120v AC. Or to put it another way, the QY gear is mostly software. Dedicated hardware gives it devoted user interface. The UI doesn’t have to try to be like the UI of my mixer or my effects boxes because it is not purely visual. The UI doesn’t have to compete with my mixer for space in my visual field because they both live in three dimensional space. But those are my reasons.
  - krnlpnc 4y ago
    I've found that the DAW itself wasn't the problem for me. It was using the same computer and space for work as I did for creativity. As soon as I set up a dedicated laptop and corner for music, and ran the DAW full screen, the distractions went away. I use a combination of hardware and software.
    - brudgers 4y ago
      For me, dawless seems to smooth over several points of friction at the expense of things I don’t care about right now. One is the dedicated configuration. I turn on a 36” power strip and everything is ready to go in less than a minute. An important part of that is everything is ready to go every single time. There are no patch Tuesdays. No semantic versioning. The process is rock stable except for how I change it. A second affordance is that I can make tradeoffs around the specific capabilities I think I want. An example is my 1980’s Yamaha QX5 sequencer will record Sysex. Ableton Live Lite — came free with my first controller — won’t. It is an upgrade or finding another daw or running another piece of software and managing sysex outside the daw. The QX5 was fifty bucks and has a well engineered interface because Yamaha knew what it was doing. I don’t care that the UI is dated because so am I. A third affordance is dawless means line level audio can be the dominant signal path. That makes it easier for me to reason about my setup. There are a some of this is just what works for me caveats. Mostly I just want to put on headphones and make noise because it brings me joy. I am not trying to make an album and if a song comes out of it that’s just a bonus. I am doing it all on the cheap. The $999 for Ableton’s top package represents a lot of gear I would rather spend money on. I’ve fallen into the Turing tarpit enough times to know what mine looks like. Mine looks kind of like a daw.
      - krnlpnc 4y ago
        For me it was approaching the DAW as a digital tape machine that worked for my flow. I run Ableton, but only record audio in from my looper and instruments. And just use the middle edition thats $300ish I still haven't embraced the bottomless pit of software instruments, but do use a few nice plug in FX. A lot of my ideas come up from looping, and the DAW is basically just “rolling tape” to capture that jam in a linear way. Maybe with some adjustments afterwards