Forums

I'd say none of them is absolute best at making sounds. Why? Because besides the instruments and effects eventually available within the DAW (LMMS, Ableton) you can add any external instruments and effects you want, obtaining the same sound on all those DAW when not using the built-in ones.

What do you exactly refer to when you say "creating sounds"? Synthesis? Sample processing? Both?

You might want to whet your appetite by taking a look at VST and VSTi databases like these

http://www.kvraudio.com/get.php
http://www.gersic.com/plugins/

to see how much sound creating power you can add to any DAW.

Check my last upload on my profile page, hope I pronounced well your name.

Hey guys,

I saw a lot of people posting in here, things I never replied to.

Could someone help me by make a nice list of the the requests in the last X months so I can go over it quicker?

- bram

What do you think about this?

http://github.com/MTG/freesound/issues/527

- bram

We've rejected many ideas over the years about downloading "big sets of files in one go", mostly because our servers would die. It's already quite heavy with the packs.

Additionally, this would allow people to mindlessly download gigs of sounds from freesound. Just consider freesound an extension of your hard drive and only get the sounds you really need. That'll save us on bandwidth

- bram

cool, thanks for the advice! i will check them out. Think I might invest in some other sofwares which will create better sound, heard of logic and cubase, but have no idea which is best. They may be too expensive though, know any cheap decks by any chance?

Guys, sorry, I really don't want to add more licenses to freesound. Remember: I get all the support emails people send and more than half of those are of the "hi can I use the sounds of freesound to do XYZ?!?" type.

In freesound 1.0 we did a long poll about the types of licenses people wanted to use and the ones we have right now came out as "winners".

If we can prove that a large section of freesound uploaders want to have SA-like licenses as well, we'll reconsider.

- bram

Bram wrote:
1. it doesn't make sense for a tiny 50ms sound to dictate the license of a song/movie/game

*see reply to ayamahambho in this post

Bram wrote:
we aren't "regular people": we understand about licenses, we use linux, we throw around terms like copyleft and GPL like it's normal. Don't forget freesound has a userbase of > 2 milion people!

ayamahambho wrote:
Can not the selection of available licences depend on sound lenght and belonging to pack of short/long clips? (i.e. blocking some licences for short sounds, allowing some licences for longer sounds or for packs of shorts). This can be automated.

The copyright of a sound the length of 1.1 seconds has been respected by Prodidy's producer after they found out it was CC-BY licensed: http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/4189/

Hi
I'm playing guitar in a powerrock/punkrock band called 'Orange Apple'.
We're kinda political orientated.

Feel free to check some of our songs out
-> https://www.facebook.com/kevin.moeyersoms?ref=tn_tnmn#!/OrangeAppleMusic?fref=ts
-> http://vi.be/orangeapplebelgium

Now we would like to create an intro for our live performances.
I was thinking about some radio frequencies mixed with vocals from
politicians or something like that.
I'm not sure about the length but I think 1 min will do.

Probably anyone of you will have a much better idea so let them hear!
So is anyone interested in creating something for us?

All ideas are welcome.

I thank you all in advance

Greetz

K

Got it. That is a great sound, thank you !

A quick question.

Can not the selection of available licences depend on sound lenght and belonging to pack of short/long clips? (i.e. blocking some licences for short sounds, allowing some licences for longer sounds or for packs of shorts). This can be automated.

There are a couple of samples that I've posted that were recorded with a shotgun + figure of 8. You can use the (free) voxengo MSED to mute the mid/side alternatively to listen to the mics separately + boost the side to hear it more clearly.

MSED: http://www.voxengo.com/product/msed/

some M-S samples:

http://www.freesound.org/people/Yuval/sounds/185598/

http://www.freesound.org/people/Yuval/sounds/187279/

http://www.freesound.org/people/Yuval/sounds/185367/

Hi,

From begin June a new radio will be launched, i've been asked to do a monthly podcast ''Sound of Inverserz''.
I was hoping someone could help me out by making a ''Dark sample'' of ;

''Welcome... To Sound Of Inverserz''.

Example ; http://www61.zippyshare.com/v/34448675/file.html

Thanks!

IMVHO, the quickest way to overcome Audacity's limits is to use DAW programs, some of which are not just cheap, but free. To name just a few examples:

Ardour (Linux, Mac) http://ardour.org/
Qtractor (Linux) http://qtractor.sourceforge.net/
LMMS (Linux, Windows) http://lmms.sourceforge.net/
Ableton Live Lite 8 (Windows, Mac, Linux via WINE) https://www.ableton.com/en/products/live-lite/

HTH

We're not adopting the SA licenses because:

1. it doesn't make sense for a tiny 50ms sound to dictate the license of a song/movie/game
2. 3 licenses and one "deprecated" license are already more than enough to confuse the hell out of "regular people"

( qubodup, we aren't "regular people": we understand about licenses, we use linux, we throw around terms like copyleft and GPL like it's normal. Don't forget freesound has a userbase of > 2 milion people! )

Freesound is GPL/Affero because it's a HUGE codebase and we wanted to make it public.

- bram

digifishmusic wrote:
For example -
http://freesound.org/people/digifishmusic/sounds/39914/

becomes...

http://freesound.org/people/spsound-bkk/sounds/131157/

under - http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0

However, you are required to give attribution and also to require that the attribution gets preserved, when re-distributing the remix (that's my interpretation of 4.b. of CC-BY 3). CC0 does not require this, so you are correct that audio which remixes CC-BY3 works needs to be CC-BY3 or CC-BY-NC3 (these are the two options on Freesound that require attribution).

In this case, the remix is not marked as a remix using the Freesound remix system ( http://freesound.org/browse/remixed/512359/ ). This means that the Freesound system doesn't even know that it is a remix and if the feature your request would work, it would not work in this case, as it would rely on users using the remix system.

When I see such cases, I contact the remix-uploader, explaining what I wrote above and request that they change the license. So far most have been glad to respect the works of others with one exception that reacted annoyed and unwilling to invest time into giving attribution. They left Freesound as a result.

Some users never reply (there could be various reasons). In these cases I write to the admin team, requesting to delete the sound or change the license.

By the way, I highly recommend to forget about http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and instead to refer to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode when discussing the license in detail.

If you haven't contacted the user and don't mind, I would contact them and ask them to change to CC-BY3 or CC-BY-NC3.

Bram wrote:
We explicitly did NOT choose to work with the SA licenses because I think they don't make any sense: say you license a bass-drum sound under SA, someone uses this sound in a song and ... they HAVE to use the same license for the song.

Using -BY-SA would block many use cases (-BY and -BY-NC doe as well) but I do think that it's still very useful. Just like all the text on Wikipedia and most of the images, videos and audio files on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons are. (I have no statistics but my impression is that -BY-SA is the most popular media license on Wikimedia Commons.)

I would love to have the -BY-SA license on Freesound, especially if it would replace the non-free -BY-NC option.

Bram wrote:
The case you show, digifish, seems like fair usage to me, but that might just be me.

This remix does not seem to infringe on CC-BY3 - except for the incomplete attribution - but it uses CC0, which allows all uses, including ones that infringe on CC-BY3.

I would love to hear Freesound's lawyers' position. They did a great job on the Terms of Use page!

Hi all,

I'm looking for samples of different microphone techniques used in field recordings for demonstrative purposes in a class about field recording. I would be particularly interested in any recordings where the same or a similar source has been recorded with different microphones and/or different techniques, such as: binaural, shotgun, M/S stereo shotgun, or other different (omni or cardioid) stereo techniques. I'm aiming to demonstrate some differences in the images captured with the different techniques by comparing these (and other) recordings.

I would particularly be interested in any M/S stereo shotgun recordings where the M and S channels are still separate, so I could demonstrate to the students how one can change the balance between the ambience and the focal center (and hence in a way "zoom in" to a sound) by adjusting the balance between the mid and the side.

I'd be very grateful if anyone knows sounds that would be useful for such demonstrations either on this site or elsewhere, or if anyone has recorded sounds him/herself that would fit what I'm looking for.

Thanks in advance!

Audacity is quite a good tool, but very limited. Its just very difficult to get the timing right when trying to create a sound, but for free music tools, its definitely one of the best ones around. Does anyone know any good music sofwares which are cheap? or just mixers?

To be honest this is a difficult to judge thing by me. We'd have to read the attribution legal code in detail ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode ) and I'm not a lawyer. I think in this case especially part (4. Restrictions.) of the license is the important bit.

We explicitly did NOT choose to work with the SA licenses because I think they don't make any sense: say you license a bass-drum sound under SA, someone uses this sound in a song and ... they HAVE to use the same license for the song.

That said, it would be rather interesting that if people flag files as a remix of other files on freesound they should get a restricted selection of license possibilities. This was implemented in ccmixter I believe, but there even more importance was given to remixing.

The case you show, digifish, seems like fair usage to me, but that might just be me. The user credited you, perhaps not perfectly, but even so ("Thanks digifish") and remixed/transformed your sound into a new piece of work. I think that perhaps this should still be credited better "this song uses sample XYZ from digifish which you can find here", but it's better than the average usage (which contains absolutely no attribution ).

This might shound a bit harsh, but... If you do not want people to use your sounds wrongly, i.e. without crediting you, I think the best is to keep your sounds on your hard drive and never share them. Using share-alike will not help in combating people using the sounds illegally. The reality is that your sounds WILL be used in the wrong way once you publish them! The only advantage is that people have the possibility of doing it legally. And that is the power of CC!

That said, I think it's interesting enough to ask the lawyer we have working on freesound things ( he made these: http://www.freesound.org/help/tos_web/ ) to see what we should do about the licenses of sounds on freesound that use other sounds... I'll see if we can figure out what this means legally...

- bram

What are you looking for?
Give me more details.