Guest guest Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Could I get the sequences done faster if I put the songs thru Pro Tools first and just hand copied the events graph?Anyone here have any experience doing this (cheat)?Thanks,Susy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Not sure that many of us here have used Pro Tools.Not sure if it's worth the time or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Basically I guess the difference would be that I wouldn't have to listen to the song to "tap out" the beats -The Pro Tools will create a graph that I can print of the "shape" of the song, would it be faster to just print that out and then copy the "taps" into the LOR.Or, in my fantasy mind, I thought maybe there is a way to import the .wav file from the ProTools and get the LOR software to read it into the program.Thanks,,Susy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Again, I've never used it.From what you have said, though, it sounds like you might be able to use it, but it would be time consuming to do so.LOR isn't going to let you import anything into it. The current software simply doesn't have that option in there. (At least not that we can see from the GUI.)If this Pro Tools will tell you exactly where the beats are, you could then take those marks, and manually import them into LOR. You'd be doing a lot of 'Right Click -> Insert Event At' on the screen, though.I'm all for people trying new things .. but my personal opinion is that it would take longer to go this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Don wrote: I'm all for people trying new things .. but my personal opinion is that it would take longer to go this route.However, for those of who are severely musically challenged and have no rhythm, this just might work!Thanks for the idea, bridegirl! I have been looking for a program that "shows the beat" of the music! I'm gonna check it out!WELL. :] Good news! bad news! :devil:According to the PRO TOOLS WEBSITE:The short version is that on the Mac side, they highly recommend the G4, the PowerBook G3, Power Macintosh Blue & White G3 or the iMac. Mac OS 9.x or 8.6. Some older systems may work, but you are taking a risk.On the Windows side, they highly recommend an Intel Pentium III , although "some success" is reported with Intel Pentium II - 300 MHz or faster, Intel Celeron, 300 MHz or faster, and the AMD Athlon . System Software: Windows Me or Windows 98, Second EditionI dont have any of those (I'm on Windows 2000) so I guess Ill have to let some one else try it out!! No sense downloading something I dont have the operating system to use!Thanks!Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Thanks Don and Kathy for writing backDon - yes, it would work just as you said. Having not done any sequencing before, I was you thinking you guys (the experts) could tell me if basically re-tapping an already made graph might be easier than listening to the song over and over and creating the events of the song. I guess I will try a little of both and see which takes me longer. As a total novice, I'm sure both ways will be very time consuming.The other good thing ( it seems) about Pro Tools for LOR is that it's easy to edit the music, and it will also output wav. files.Kathy - is that computer info you listed for LOR? Those system requirements?Thanks so much for the help, I need it!Susy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 No, it was the info about what the Pro Tools system needs to run. I edited my post, so hopefully its not confusing.I'll keep looking, though....Finding software that makes music easier to "see" with my eyes what my ears cant hear might be much easier than trying to reprogram my brain to see the music! :laughing:Any of you "music majors" know of any software that would help me??ladybyrd....tone deaf with no rhythm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Kathy, Unless you purchased your computer in excess of 8 years ago, you are very likely in excess of the minimum requirements.Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Susy,I have been trying to find a short cut like this for some time. I recommended that it be added as a feature over a year ago. It sure seems like, if you could see the wave form overlayed on the timeline as you sequence it would make life easier. I used to try to open another window over LOR with Magix Music Studio running. it has a beat detector and a nice wave form, but I just coundn't get it to work because the fixed scaling on the time lines never would match up. D-Light came out with this recently and I think LOR isn't far from having such a feature.As far as Pro Tools goes, I have it and while I haven't tried to print out the beats or the wave form, I'm not real sure that would be very useful. What we need is a row that depicts the wave form with a beat detector that will insert events automatically and selectable frequency filters.If you figure out how to short cut sequencing with Pro Tools PLEASE let me know. But I think we will just have to wait for a new version of LOR and hope that some of the above are included.Good LuckJohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Just a bit of advice to some people in the same boat as me. If you keep looking for the shortcut and not try to do it "by hand" you will never get anything done. I look but I still take a few minutes each night and play with one song (WHite Christmas, Bing Crosby). I'll get it soon. Just keep at it.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 rossg10 wrote: If you keep looking for the shortcut and not try to do it "by hand" you will never get anything done. Just keep at it.GregOh Greg....you sound just like my dad!Of course, thats not a BAD thing....Its actually rather good advice! Thanks for reminding me: "IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE PERFECT BY THANKSGIVING..IT JUST HAS TO BE DONE!" :laughing:Thanks!Kathy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Oh no... you have until halloween to get it perfect............. Just kidding... I think by Thanksgiving I'll be able to get the light to blink on and off... not to any particular beat...just on and off.greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 bridegirl wrote: The Pro Tools will create a graph that I can print of the "shape" of the song, would it be faster to just print that out and then copy the "taps" into the LOR.I do something similar to this using an MP3 editor. It allows me to make multiple marks on the graphic audio display. Then I export the list to a text file. In the sequence editor I create a sequence with with events at .01 second. Then I create an unused channel that I use to put the time marks from the editor. It takes a long time to do this, but it sure gets the timing right.This was not my idea... I got it from another PCer (giftoflights) a while back...jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 bridegirl wrote: Could I get the sequences done faster if I put the songs thru Pro Tools first and just hand copied the events graph?Anyone here have any experience doing this (cheat)?Thanks,SusySequences are not always about the beat. Some songs will require you to take a sound and make and effect for it or Choreograph a segment for a part of the song.You have to do it a lot in order to train your eyes. If you try to find short cuts, then you will be shorting yourself of a new skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Last year I sequenced by hand, this year I have started to use Cool Edit Pro (Adobe), it will give you a switchable spectral graph or waveform graph, within this graph you can place cue's (Marks). On the LOR side I create a music sequence without any events (Blank pallet) and manually enter the events by time events, it's dead on, I have cut a 1 minute sequence from one hour to about 15 minutes.I have not found a way to export the cue marks, so I manually transfer the times.Not sure if you will find a better or faster way but, if you do please post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 darrylb wrote:Sequences are not always about the beat. Some songs will require you to take a sound and make and effect for it or Choreograph a segment for a part of the song.You have to do it a lot in order to train your eyes. If you try to find short cuts, then you will be shorting yourself of a new skill.Well said, Darryl.All; If you haven't watched some of my videos, take a moment to do so. Coca-Cola is a good example where things don't always use the beat.And remember: you can do a lot with fades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 I would have to say that not all of my songs use the beats. Some use other effects,ect. What I am confused by this post is what you all are having a big difficulty with.. is it trying to sycronize the lights "exact" to the song? there is no way to get the lights sequenced exactly on target... very close is good though.. So what is trying to be accomplished here though.. I am a bit confused? Maybe its just the fact that I have a little background with being in band? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 DB wrote:You have to do it a lot in order to train your eyes. If you try to find short cuts, then you will be shorting yourself of a new skill.I agree. That is why I refine my sequences after the lights go up and I have had the opportunity to see the song play with my lights.Some people don't need visual landmaks in their sequence to help them create a sequence. I am not one of those people. If the beat of the music is laid down on a channel, even if I don't use it in the sequence, it helps me to see it in relation to the events I'm putting into the sequence.Likewise, if I was able to see the waveform of the music I personally think it would be an emense help.Efficienty and short cuts aren't bad things in my eyes. If there was a button I could hit that created a sequence, I'd buy it today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts