You'd be lucky to find software for this purpose that is Freeware but if you look in the KARAOKE category of this site you might find something there.../I think there is a karaoke section..?/ Have a look from the front page anyway..

: I was wondering if any of you know how to create Karaoke CD out of audio CDs or mp3 file by editing the songs using any available software ( freeware).

: Please suggest any software packages that provide this functionality.

: Thanks
: -Pani

hi, check out, http://www.kxproject.com/ this is about drivers for the sblive, I haven't tried them though, as it says you lose the four speaker or EAX bit (they haven't built drivers for that part yet)

What system are you running it on? (CPU, RAM etc)

Lister

This is not a good place to look for serial numbers, as this is not a crack/serial site. In fact, discussion of this is verboten (forbidden) here.

: necesito un manual de cubase vst en español

necesito los siguientes manuales:
Windows XP
Word, Excel, power point, access, publisher, outlook todo en version 2000

corel 10
photoshop 6 o 7
Freehad 9 o 10

A lot of 'professionals' use Acid Pro.

: I'm looking for a Professional music maker.. Like Magix Music Maker or Sonic Acid Pro, but then a program REAL professionals use, not the commercial shit! I know there is stuff like that!
: Can anyone help me with it???
: thanx
: Zaz

: How can I use my PC to hear SVQ files from a Roland XP80 ?

: How can I use my PC to hear SVQ files from a Roland XP80 ?

You can convert mp3 files to .svq in real jukebox.

I have had similar interaction with Cubase in Cubasis VST on my old PC. I remember that to ensure a stable BPM, you must first set the BPM of the blank default arrangemnt/song to the exact BPM of the song you are about to import. After that, the grid will work.

If you can't do that, I have a technique which I use (in Logic Fun) which applies universally to such situations. I will share it with you now. The primary principle is successive approximation. I did not make up this term; it's an audio technology term that applies to how some analog to digital converters measure a voltage quickly and efficiently by optimized trial and error until the correct voltage is measured. I found a way to adapt this process to BPM gridlocking.

I am used to applying this technique to MIDI gridlocked audio tracks, so if you don't have any long audio tracks, you will have to first export the entire song to WAVE, and import it into a blank document for this.
Having a long audio file is necessary as a tempo guide because looking at the waveform and listening to it will indicate the percussive and accented sections where you can discover the rhythm, and indirectly, the BPM. It is very helpful to always keep a calculator and a stopwatch handy for such events as this.

So, like I said, if you have a MIDI-only track, export the troubled track to WAVE, and import it into a new document. Actually, you might even WANT to import it into the SAME document as a new audio track, because whatever BPM we rediscover for the jumbo audio track, we will need to apply to THIS document. OK.

Before you start, make sure that the first beat of the first rhythmic section is lined up with the first grid marking. I am referring to the first visible amplitude spike which corresponds audibly to the start of the rhythmic section. The goal is to put the first beat ON THE BEAT. This will insure that you have a reference point for correcting the BPM. You have to start somewhere. OK. Now you are ready.

First, start by entering in whatever BPM is your best guess for the song's real BPM. It's good to start guessing by using commonly used BPMs such as 80, 96, 100, 120, and 140. Many such BPMs are common because they translate into loops of integer durations (evenly divide into groups of seconds).

Next, decide if what you entered was too fast or too slow. You have a hint by looking at the gridmarkings on your arrangement. Assuming that your audio track is displaying the waveform, you can look it over for clues as to where each music loop or measure or phrase begins shortly after the very first one. I acknowledge that this could be a bit difficult if not maddening if your samples or instruments are inherently rhythmic in nature but not periodic enough to tell you the natural song BPM. This could happen if you are mixing multiple and contrasting rhythmic textures, such as 3/4 over 4/4 or 5/8 retriggered over 8/8 or something like that.

At any rate, each time you enter in a new BPM, the BPM gridlines will get smaller or larger. Faster BPMs have smaller gridline sections. Slower BPMs have longer gridline sections. If you strategically control how much you add or subtract your guessed BPM, you can successively approximate the actual BPM. Again, the visual indication of this is whatever indicates the beginning and ending of the first rhythmic phrase. Ideally, when the BPM matches the first beat of the first complete rhythmic musical phrase will start and end on a gridline marking. Each time you adjust the BPM you should notice the visual representation of the audio beat getting closer or farther away from the gridline.

Here is how to speed up the process:

0) notice the initial BPM setting (it doesn't matter that it's the wrong BPM, it's the reference point)
1) take a guess
2) look at the results
3) double your first guess or halve it
to determine if your guess is too big or two small
4) try it again: if your last guess was too big, this time add only 1/2 of your previous guess to the initial BPM. Conversely, if your last guess was too small, add 1/2 of your previous guess to the initial BPM.
5) whatever you end up with right now, unless it is obviously way too large a step in the wrong direction should be used to replace your "initial BPM" as you repeat the process.
6) repeat the steps above. You will know you are doing it correctly if you start adding and subtracting from your BPM setting in decreasing increments. This can be persued at each digit in the BPM from the 100's to the 10's to the 1's all the way through the decimal fractions. Accuracy to 3 decimal places is usually quite adequate and is extremely precise. Accuracy of the BPM to 2 decimal places. Will be good enough to get you through most of the song as long as you can perform a handful of manual edits spread out during the song. Each manual edit will be just to set the beginning of each rhythmic phrase/measure back on point.

OK. An example: Let's say the TRUE BPM of my song was 68.57142857 BPM. Sure this is way too precise for us humans, but this is how the computer would deal with 7-second long phrases or loops or measures. It might be more precise to say that the BPM is actually 34.28571429, but most BPMs in common music are between 60 BPM and 180 BPM. I just doubled the number to place it into a usuable range. This will not hurt our process.

OK. Let's pretend that I forgot that the BPM was about 68.5714, but I could remember that each loop was about 4 seconds long or 8 seconds long, depending on how I counted it. That's helpful, because that gives me a number to start guessing from, instead of any random number. The formula for a BPM is 240 divided by the length of the loop. So 240 divided by my estimate of 4 or 8 seconds yields 60 or 120 BPM. I pick whichever number sounds most natural as the starting number to guess from. That's too easy for this example, because 120 BPM divides evenly into 2 second segments. Let's not cheat in our example. Let's say instead of 8 seconds I guesstimated 6 seconds as the duration of the basic looping: 240 divided by 6 = 40. 40 is BPM is quite slow, and is the slowest some metronomes go, so I double it to 80, which is in the common range.

OK, so I type in 80 BPM as my guess (the real BPM is about 68.5714, but I don't know that yet). Now, I look at the beginning of the rhythm section (bar/measure/loop) which is lined up with the first gridline, and scan visually (and perhaps even audibly) to find the end of the first section/start of the second section. With my grid display in Bars/Beats mode, the gridlines will indicate to me that 80 BPM is too fast, because the measures will be two small. The measures are too small at 80 BPM, so the correct gridline marking for the end of the bar/measure/loop will arrive too early, and my waveform will have an extra "tail" extending too far out.

To fix this situation, I could now type in 40 BPM (one half of 80), but instinct tells me that 40 BPM is obviously either too slow, or not really a change at all. So I divide 40 in half and instead try a more modest change from my initial 80 BPM; i choose 80 - 20 = 60 BPM. OK. this is progress, because it's closer to the TRUE BPM of 68.5714, but I won't know that yet until i look at the waveform and check to see if the start of the second phrase has gotten closer to or farther away from the gridline marking for where it should be. Actually, the waveform might not change but the gridlines will. Either way, something is changing each time I enter in a new BPM, so pay attention.

OK. So I'm at 60 bpm which is still too slow, so I try 70 which is higher than 60 but lower than 80, which I already know is too fast. I am successively getting closer. At least now, I know it's between these two numbers, 60 and 80. 70 was picked almost arbitrarily; I could have tried any number greater than 60, but I don't want to keep guessing forever. Each time I guess, I'm going to take into account my previous guess results. Actually, 70 turns out to be a very good number because it's 1/2 of 20 is 10. Before, I subtracted 20 from 80 to get 60. Now I'm subtracting 10 from 80 to get 70. If I discovered that I subtracted too much, I would just half the amount I'm subtracting, or try adding half of what I subtracted. The same goes for adding.

If you follow the progression, I will end up adding and subtracting.... effectively zigzagging around the true BPM. When I start getting close to 68.5714, I will start trying numbers such as 68, 69, 68.5, 68.75, 68.6, 68.55 (in between 68.5 and 68.66), and then progress through 68.5750, 68.5700, 68.57250, 68.57125, 68.57150,... Now I know that it's between 68.57125 and 68.57150. The difference is so minute that it probably already sounds okay by now, but if I must do sample-accurate BPM matching, I could keep going, but just scanning through those last decimal place until I hit 68.5714.

This is a bit more abstract, but you might notice the pattern here to ultimately be useful even as you don't follow it exactly. The pattern is important, because it helps to show how doubling and adding in smaller and smaller amounts gets successively closer to a central number

0.000 x ? = Initial BPM
1/8 = 0.125
2/8 = 0.250 x ? = (1/2 of BPM)
3/8 = 0.375 = (.25 + .125)
4/8 = 0.5 x ? = (the true BPM)
5/8 = 0.625 = (.5 + .125)
6/8 = 0.75
7/8 = 0.875
1.0 x ? = {BPM x 2}

I'm having trouble explaining it any better than this, though. You will just have to try for yourself. it's a bit like triangulation. I hope I haven't just driven you more nuts with my explanation.

: How to convert real player audio files to MP3 audio files

<a href="http://www.cultdeadcow.com/">Bringing sight to then blind</a>...

: <IMG SRC="http://involution.org/images/copywrong.jpg">

: Wow, I did an advanced keyword search for "Macintorque" on Google and discovered somebody making a death threat to Macintorque jokingly in passing. I wonder what that's all about. Jihad already?.

: On another note, I wonder why in all of this discussion about "homeland security" and "axis of evil/weapons of mass destruction/threat" we never hear about the guys at the top of the information food chain? I mean, we get crumbs of info about the FBI, CIA, and now NSA. The U.S. news coverage of international politics and espionage is so primitive if not merely rigged in every manner (besides just for profit).

: In my general purpose to enlighten all of you with my esoteric knowledge, i give you <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm">Echelon</A>. Good fodder for future song lyrics and of course steganographical compositions to test the system which tests us all.

: QUOTE:
: <b>#25 ACAD2A::AXSLK

: From: Shane Kingry - CaTS Consultant

: the best way to accelerate a mac is 9.8 m/s^2 yup yup, most deffinetly

: -- R: Damn straight! Death to Macintorque!
: </b>

: That's so mean! But i like the math component.
: The best way to accelerate a sample is 2^(1/12), yup yup, most definately.

: <A HREF="http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/wwwboard/messages/116739.html">Please read this significant message of mine which I hope is of some literal or figurative value to you</A>

:
: <A HREF="http://webdev.archive.org/">Tracking everyone on the internet might not be so hard after all! I mean, we CAN record the entire internet already, and have been for over 5 years!</A>

: <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/991101-voice1.htm">Too bad we can't use this to learn the lyrics of our favorite unintelligeable recording artists!!! I tell you, our pre-fascist government is acquiring all of the best new toys! First they get vocoders, and now this!</A>

: hi

ya twat! write a message that makes sense..

Converting WAV/MP3, or any other "mixed" format into MIDI is extremely difficult to say the least. When you have more than one instrument playing together, extracting the required information (e.g. what instrument is playing which note, how long the note lasts and so on), there is considerable overlap, and at the moment it is impossible to do this with anything approaching 100% accuracy.

There are some programs which can cope with relatively simple tracks (i.e single instruments), but your best hope is to find a MIDI version of the track you're after.

As for converting in to your phone, this is a bit outside this forum.

Lister