What's happening July 2026

Just sitting in a holding pattern. I think that is fine, you don't need to be go-go-go your whole life. I still regulalry mix songs - there is plenty to be learnt there. I pick up the guitar which is hanging right behind me and play it whenever I'm here. I still play "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" a lot, I find it quite relaxing. I play it weekly in the lunchroom at work and I usually follow with "Wish You Were Here" which then segues into "Breathe". I think I need to go and play them at an open mic, I haven't done an open mic in years. I need to share my love of Pink Floyd music. And maybe give them a short list of 20-30 songs "you choose what you want me to play next". I quite like that idea - keep a heap of songs fresh in my memory and play requests. I need to play a song through once every few months to keep it fresh in my head.

Except "Canon in D". I've dusted it off, practising it to record again for the 20th year anniversary of posting it on YouTube. I've changed a few parts to both improve the arrangement and the playability. I thought if I put in enough effort I would finally be able to memorise it and play it well. I was wrong. It is the one song that I have been unable to memorise, and as I push harder into it I start disliking it. I have been through this cycle several times in the last 20 years, including the first time I learnt it. (That's why the first recording of me playing it is from sheet.) I have resolved once again that I can only play it from sheet. If I push any further, I will stop playing it. It's like some sort of nemesis. That's okay, I will play it from sheet, put up the 20th anniversary play through, and maybe in another decade Canon and I will be on better terms.

AI coding - just when you thought it was amazing something changes and it's even more amazing. We are now at a stage where you can take your favourite software, ask Claude (running in the fable model) to rebuild it from scratch but fix up all those little things that you don't like about it. And it will give you a working application straight off the bat. I don't know what this means for software - will it all be bespoke going forward? The code itself is completely unmaintainable of course, I gave up understanding what is happening in there a while back. I'm glad I grew up when you had to write code yourself, because I understand how to write code myself, but now I kinda don't have to anymore. I will become dumber, I'm sure, but the amount of work I can produce that "gets things done" has gone through the roof. As with most things AI, I'm still not sure how I feel about it. But the genie is out of the bottle. I watch it, interact with it, let's see what happens.

More earbuds

When I'm mixing I use my Steven Slate VSX headphones which are kinda expensive and sound good, they can also emulate other headphone sounds which is great. I reckon you want to mix so that the song sounds good on any system - which is a compromise - but I have been surprised how little of a compromise it really is. As in, you can have a mix which sounds great on great headphones but sounds bad in a car, or with phone speakers...but with a bit of tweaking it still sounds great on great headphones but now sounds good in a car and on phone speakers as well.

Part of this is experimenting with cheap and budget headphones. Always wired, usually earbuds, and I avoid ones with built in microphones. As in, I buy them to test mixes to see what that style of headphone will actually reproduce. I reckon a lot of people are going to listen to a mix with built in phone speakers and it's never going to sound great on them. You aren't going to hear any of the textures or subtleties so the best you can kinda get is keeping the mix clear enough to understand the vocals and feel a beat. But I'm suspecting that many people will be using a budget set of earbud headphones, possibly some that came with their phone (is that still a thing?) so having a mix sound good on that is pretty important.

In my testing of budget headphones I have discovered a few things. Firstly, that there are good budget headphones. If for you headphones are a bit of a consumable, like they are for me - as in, you will get five years tops out of them before you have broken them somehow - then budget headphones can be a wise choice for casual listening. You can also have a few sets scattered around your house for quick and easy listening. My recent purchase exposed something to me that I guess I had always known but really stood out this time.

The real low end cheap headphones will reproduce sound but they aren't worth the money, even small amounts of money. They will do some electrical or mechanical trickery so that the bass sounds big (annoying - what are we, all gamers wanting to hear big explosions?), they will cut out the low mid muddiness but push the upper mid range so that guitars and vocals sounds crisp and clear. They aren't fooling anyone.

So the mid tier budget headphones will have a more natural flatter EQ, they don't need trickery because the drivers are better. I think back to the Sennheiser MX500 earbuds - the fit, the sound - it's earbuds so the sound is not going to be perfect, but they kinda got it right. The Apple ipod style were also okay but I was never into the Apple scene.

Which brings me to my point - the most recent budget headphones I have been using, when I'm walking around the house listening to mixes - kinda impressed me. Yincrow $AUD20(2025) earbuds, quite acceptable. I was testing $AUD30(2026) NiceHCK B40s. Both had a nice natural sounding EQ, there did not seem to be any trickery involved trying to disguise badness. In my A/B testing, the NiceHCKs had some edge over the Yincrows that I couldn't put my finger on. Sure, the NiceHCK has a slightly boomier bass and a slightly elevated high mid, but neither sounded "forced". The NiceHCK also had a slightly higher volume, I noticed the driver was slightly bigger so maybe it was pushing more air? Or just more efficient? I was nudging the phone volume up/down two clicks during the A/B test so to identify tone differences not volume differences.

I did some research (okay...lazy AI research...I didn't read and think through every subreddit post about headphones...) I realised what I was hearing was the minute transient response difference between the drivers. The NiceHCK must be able to respond a tiny bit faster and better articulate those tiny tiny harmonics and overtones present in the recording. So while they both had a similar frequency response there was some sort of time domain frequency smearing more apparent in the Yincrows. Quite the epiphany. Sound is complex, headphones are a compromise in reproducing it. Manufacturers are doing well with mid-tier budget headphones. Both these headphones are acceptable but the NiceHCK ones have an edge over the slightly older Yincrow, there is a lot going on in those tiny little speaker drivers!

20 years of YouTube

...20 years just clicked over last week - 28th May 2006 was the date of my first video upload. I didn't think I was an early adopter, YouTube had been around for a year. But in hindsight I was an early adopter. I was ten years earlier than Rick Beato who celebrated his ten years (I just watched his video). We had the same reason for using YouTube - it was an easy method to share videos with somebody. In my case it was for a fingerstyle forum (doesn't exist anymore). In 2006 digital videos were definitely a thing but not as easy as today's tide of smart phones. I had bought a Sony point and shoot camera capable of grainy video when my first daughter was born late 2003, in between hundreds of baby videos there are some of me recording myself playing guitar right back to 2004, so I was not stranger to it.

I never quite had that "viral video" moment like Rick did, however I had a lot of traffic - when I put out Canon in D it was getting thousands of views a day, the peak was 2010 when across my channel I was sitting at 7,000 daily views - enough to push Canon in D over 3 million views in those few years. Unlike Rick however, I didn't have much to offer - just an amateur fingerstyle hack (my original videos show the classic early stages of being a guitarist - it's just about moving your fingers fast into the next position and pluckin' them notes...it's missing musicality.) I never built anything around my YouTube channel, just arranged songs and played them, gave out my tabs for free (at least a hundred thousand downloads!) slowly got better while an ever-decreasing number of people watched. Not a problem, was never about being a star, was about sharing a hobby I was passionate about.

The stats - the early days show the rise - more and more people discovering YouTube. Then the fall - more and more people posting on YouTube. Those people, especially talented musical fingerstyle players, far eclipsed the increasing rate of people using it, hence the great rise and fall of my channel. In the later years it's the algorithm that decides who is going to see what - you can see a few blips along the way as events occurred, the one I remember the most was when Ennio Morricone died and a heap of people watched my Ennio video (I actually have two).

Black line = total views, Blue line = Canon in D, Green line = Here Comes The Sun.

Going forward? There is no "what happens now", I've always been doing the same thing! I get inspired to arrange a song, or something musical I'm interested in, and I record a video. Even back in 2008 I was talking about playing for audiences and how recording a video for YouTube is the next best thing, it forces you to finish a project - don't be a half-song playing guitarist. No more to say, I talked about YouTube statistics back in 2013 and not much has changed. I talked about how creators are at the whim of The Algorithm and not much has changed with that either.

So business as usual. I do have a backlog of songs to record but I'm not as single mind focused on just recording arrangements as I used to be...but that's okay. Just get out there and create - don't leave it to The AIs to do!

Train Your Ear

Train your ear is advice I preach to myself regularly. Sometimes I listen too.

If you like mixing audio, which I do (who doesn't?) then you just gotta keep persisting. I am reminded of some advice that really stuck with me - half a decade ago I was in Nunz's recording studio and my nephew was there because he liked the idea of being an audio engineer. When asked about what he should do, Nunz was emphatic, I will paraphrase: "Mix. Record. Sit at your console and keep doing stuff. Every waking moment of your life you should spend listening, mixing, learning. You life has to revolve around audio engineering. You need to be completely dedicated or you won't make it."

It seemed extreme at the time - but the longer I mix the more it doesn't seem extreme at all if you want to make a livelihood of it.

I have pretty much an endless supply of recordings to mix - at my local church I can hit a button and get a multi track high quality recording of as much CCM as I like! You might not be a fan of Contemporary Christian Music but it has everything you need - the staples of acoustic guitar, bass guitar, drums, keys, vocalists - but also electric guitar, violin, sax and other can make an appearance. The teams change from week to week, the music will vary from rock to ballads to classic gospel hymns. Not only do you get to mix the recordings, but actually being part of the team is another wonderful experience - the production - what everybody is playing when - the participation, the comraderie...one gig every week if you wanted it! Don't sit in your room playing by yourself - be part of your local church and get on the music team! But I digress.

According to my archive I have mixed 70 songs in the last two and a half years. I am now at a stage where I can hear a mix and mostly recognise what it needs. EQ, compression, reverb, limiters, saturation. Listen to the feel and tweak faders. Carve out spaces in frequency, in time, in panning. So many options, so many choices you can make. Still learning, still experimenting. My early mixes are pretty awful. My recent ones are okay. Because I have persisted, I keep listening, slowly, I am training my ear.

Jack's Utopish social media and recording a Quip

Gotta love what Jack Conte tries to do. All the creatives out there, feeding the social media beast which has turned into a piece of crap algorithm driven attention seeking advertisement focus killing machine so billionaires can make more billions...creatives don't stand a chance of being truly creative if they need to feed that machine or are creative as a hobby with the day job pays the bills. I like my day job, but I also love creativity and I have been dabbling in sharing my creativeness with the world via the internet for more than two decades now. When Jack started up Patreon several years ago I jumped onboard - it's a way for fans to support artists.

So he's just released a bunch of updates which included the concept of "Quips" - shortform videos on the platform, with the idea that they are just quick and not overproduced. Behind the scenes style. I can get onboard with that! I have been making Jawmunji Talks videos on and off for years, generally I go longer form, but I have also done a few Youtube shorts. Seeing as I'm a recovering perfectionist it's good for me to be less-producey, so I just recorded a Quip and popped it into Jack's machine. Will that machine turn ee-vil? Maybe, but I want to say no. People will game it for sure, but will it intentionally be made ee-vil like the social medias? I want to say no. Will it get traction? Maybe! It will if we feed it! Can Patreon be the vehicle where fans can actually support creatives? I kinda think it already is! I love the "1000 Fans" notion - that you "only" need 1000 fans to pay you $100 a year and that is a decent income. I think of my youngest daughter in her various bands, I know she has followers, and she sells merch at gigs, and it gets devoured. I helped her make 30 high quality CDs for Hyperfest - all sold (note to self - write a blog about that). The lino print cheap t-shirts she makes move easily at a greater profit...heh, I think the CDs are much better value for money, but there you go!

The point being that she is already supported by local fans who show up and buy merch at all her gigs. So that, applied world wide on the internet seems like an obvious step. But the current social media, the streamers, all the internet machinery for it - designed to make the maximum amount of money for shareholders and if the creatives got nothing from it then that would consider that great.

Stepping off my soapbox, I decided to post a Quip. I love to talk about creative stuff that excites me. I love to engage with people who also love to talk about the creative stuff that excites me. I don't need to make a living from being creative, but I wouldn't stop people who want to support me as well! I do have a bunch of mates already on Patreon - in the early days I used to offer stuff so I amassed a number of supporters - but I stopped offering stuff (it was in a very very grey legal area) - and encouraged supporters who were expecting stuff to cancel their subscriptions - but offered cheap tiers for anyone who wanted to keep supporting me. Some did! Thank you supporters - it is great to engage with fans but when someone supports financially it changes things...people making a sacrifice because they believe in something. They don't have to sacrifice but they want to.

Let's switch to tech talking.

I would dearly love to have a dedicated room with cool gear set up to make it super easy for me record a video whenever I am in the creative mood. I do not have that. So just now I spent more time setting up the gear than recording the video. Shame. So here are some notes to Future JAW to help him out:

• OBS Studio: still amazing. Keep using it for this sort of thing.
• Web cameras: I'm running a classic Logitech C922 Pro and a C920. Both are dated - I'm going to buy a more modern replacement for the C920. Important - don't saturate your USB bus with webcam feeds, try to make sure each one is plugged into a different USB bus...currently I have one on the laptop and one on the dock.
• Microphone: my ever-useful Zoom H1D. Turn it on a set it into audio interface mode. Plug it into USB, it's low bandwidth so it will be fine. In OBS Studio go into Settings->Audio and point a Mic/Auxiliary Audio to it.
  Remember! Windows->Sound Settings for Input and Output definitively show what is connected. All apps refer to the devices there including OBS!
• PeSonus Studio 1824 interface, via Reaper DAW: this is the complicated bit. Guitar instrument cable -> PreSonus interface -> USB to laptop -> Reaper DAW -> OBS + headphones. I use the 1824 in ASIO mode, which is the best way to interface with an interface, and Reaper can apply fx and send them back to the interface, so I plug my headphones into the front of it and get near-zero latency. HOWEVER that isn't shared on the Windows laptop I use UNLESS you turn on Loopback=virtual in the PreSonus Universal Control application. Once you do that, you will see in Sound Settings an input for PreSonus Virtual - which you can then add to OBS as another Mic/Auxiliary Audio.
• OBS Studio again: brings it all together. I've tried different picture-in-picture/split/shifting/etc methods for the webcams, I went for portrait this time, one webcam on top another on the bottom. In Settings->Video I went Base of 1080x1920 (ie portrait HD). Then it is a case of adding the two webcams, cropping and moving them to fit. The Zoom HD1 microphone I initially added a gate filter, but the electric guitar acoustically was getting through the gate when I dug in. If I increased the gate I had to shout to trigger it. So I added a mute/unmute hotkey and remembered to deal with it. Not great.

When in doubt, just talk through your problems with a chatbot - that's what I did. General life tip with chatbots: you have to have some basic knowledge of what you are trying to achieve, you have to half know the answer or they will lead you down a never ending garden trail to nowhere. You have to have  a year's worth of built up a knowledge of knowing how to get what you need from a chatbot, accumulated from trial and error...hence I wrote the notes above to help Future JAW when he forgets things.

What I need to do to be a little better for next time (and there is always a next time, I have been doing "behind the scenes" videos for 20 years) - at least one better webcam, and a microphone stand that puts a microphone close to my mouth so I don't have to worry about mute/unmute, so I can just use gating.

Oh and I played Pink Floyd Learning to Fly. I was aiming for a more "Pulse" live feel, so more bassnotes, wasn't quite getting it, still undecided whether I should be hitting it that hard. The G string rings a bit too much, wasn't happy with my playthrough. BUT THAT'S ALRIGHT...if you want perfection use AI slop.

Oh, shiny!

I am easily distracted. Not in a doom scrolling/cat video sort of a way, more some shiny and new creativity catches my attention. I think we all are at least to some extent - my fascination for new things/the unknown comes from a desire to understand everything. Case in point this very blog. I created it in 2008 born out of my obsession with fingerstyle guitar arrangements. But it was immediately filled with anything that had some grounding in music.

Currently there is plenty of shiny things around me - mixing, AI, recording - but underneath are still the fingerstyle arrangements. When I sit here at the computer, my custom electric guitar is hanging right behind me and if I've heard a song or had an idea I will grab it and hash something out. Further, I've learnt that if I spend so much as even half an hour hacking out a song, I need to type it up into Musescore, otherwise the next shiny thing will take over, my thoughts are lost and maybe years later it will be shiny again, I'd already had a crack at that song but there is no documentation and I'm almost starting from afresh.

For example, looking at my arrangements folder, I can see quite a number of arrangements unreleased. Don't get me wrong - there are a heap that are released! I learnt many years ago that you need to finish things, even if they aren't perfect. Just ship it - the next ones will be better. It needs to be to a certain level of quality and completeness though - I don't throw half cooked ideas out there as if they were baked, iced and ready to be served.

So - my most recent incomplete arrangements:

• Pink Floyd - Learning To Fly. It's a great song underneath, it meets the criteria of being simple enough - intuitive chords and melody - but with some nice flavours/textualisations that makes it interesting and engrossing. I can't decide whether to keep the bassline rolling like it is in Pulse or keep it laid back and relaxed.
• Supertramp - Give a Little Bit. Love the rhythm and the weird "chord progression get reversed" feel. Such a fun song to play and a positive vibe. I need to nail down the final arrangement, I have played this out a few times now.
• Dexys Midnight Runners - Come on Eileen. Fun, but quite difficult. Lots of chords that is hard to fit the melody in, hard to not play it too fast. Been sitting on that for ages simply becuase it is so difficuly.
• Gorillaz - 19-2000. Iconic. Weird. Challenging. Love it. Difficult to play. I need to simplify it to keep the groove and feel...in fact just then, looking at it, holding my guitar, I just resolved a tricky high melody into a bass groove. Simpler, but holds the same feel. Nice. Shiny.
• The Beatles - Blackbird. Yes, been playing this forever as just the guitar part, but then introducing the melody, the problem is the verse melody fits really nicely but a fifth down, but the chorus doesn't work a fifth down. Not idea how to resolve, have tried many ideas, have looked at others play this, still don't know what to do. Sits on the backburner. I play it out sometimes and just cheat through the chorus by not playing the melody.
• Metallica - Enter Sandman. I've basically arranged this in my head and play it out regularly, haven't tabbed it.  Pretty easy and super effective - a crowd pleaser.

Two layers of shiny going on here - first - arranging one song and not finishing it and being distracted by the next song - second - being distracted with mixing worship music/AI to automate and simplify processes/building guitars and basses/so many other tricks and hacks to thing about!

Oh, there is somethign shiny over there, I'll be back!

Note: I still don't know how I feel about AI pictures. They are quirky and fun and pull together ideas. But all built on stolen photos and art. Don't like AI music. Do like hacky AI code for tools. Don't like AI algorithms vomiting confirmation bias back at me. Do like AI as an intial research too. I could go on - but it's early days of AI and I'm still deciding where I stand. Today I felt like an AI picture. Sorry to those offended.

More vibe coding - song analysis

I am fascinated by the happenings in the LLM/Chatbot/"AI" landscape. I studied an "AI" unit at Uni more than 30 years ago, we called it "Artificial Neural Networks" in those days, but the underlying premise remains. I'm sure the tech is WAY more complicated than the simple models and training data we used. Heh, for my final year project I wrote a program in C, in DOS, that was running on a "luggable" computer (not quite a laptop, but a computer with battery you could carry around and use), that had a sound interface and a microphone. There was a small database of words, students would walk around with the computer and get volunteers to say the words that appeared on the screen and it would capture the audio - to be used for training data. I managed to put a pretty oscilloscope graphic on the screen as well - to make it fun for the person talking - as they pressed the space bar, said the word, pressed the space bar for the next word. After twenty or so words it would thank them and save all the sound files to folders to be later used as training and test data for speech to text. Very early stuff.

Anyway, it's fun to see it have come so far.

My most recent vibe code, with Claude who is my current favourite vibe coding chatbot, "we" wrote a python script to analyse music. Let me explain.

I have been mixing songs from my local church for a few years now, it's such a great way of practising and improving. Both as a musician and as a mixer/producer of a mixed song. I have mixed more than 60 songs over the last two years and I thought I'd take my favourite 12 from 2025 and make a playlist. But each mix has a different feel, as my ear developed, as my skills developed, so the 12 songs across 2025 have quite a different feel, even though they are all similar in style. Sure, there are differences - we aren't playing the same song over and over! - but I felt that as an "album" of 12 songs there should be a certain level of consistency.

I think you know where this is going

A basic consistency check is your LUFs and LRA. You don't want to be constantly turning the volume knob up and down between songs, or even within songs - so an overall perceived loudness (LUFs) and a measure of how much dynamics there are in a song (LRA) is important both for the listener and for a streaming service. Streaming services will adjust your loudness if you don't hit their metric.

In Reaper DAW I can easily track LUFs and LRA - but I was interested if I could get other sonic characteristics as a metric for comparison in Reaper.

In typical Chatbot style there was lots of talk about integrating various sonic libraries into Reaper (it has great programmability) blah blah, but chatbots just don't think outside the box. When it was talking about calling some python external to Reaper I said - "can we just do all this outside of Reaper?" and the answer was basically "yes that would be easy." Sheesh.

Suffice to say I now have an interesting python script that analyses a group of songs for an interesting range of metrics, looking for outliers and suggesting what needs to be changed and how it can be changed.

So much going on there. First thoughts are "C'mon JAW, are you trying to make all music hit the same bland boring metric?" No. And a little bit yes. Who else here turns down the start of "Time" on Dark Side of the Moon because they don't need to have extremely loud alarm clocks scaring them. I get it, the artistry, the "scare me into action because every year is getting shorter", but I don't need it on the 100th, 1000th listen. Or the first whalesong note in "Echos".

So I'm going to say yes, the LUFs should be close to each other (especially since the streamers will change them if you don't behave yourself) and the dynamics shouldn't be crazy wide. You don't want a listener turning up a song at the start because it is a quiet guitar intro only to turn it down again when the verse kicks in. At the same time you don't want your song to be so compressed that there is no dynamics at all (I was guilty of that on a few).

However for spectral data broken into bands, Sub - Bass - LoMid - Mid - Presence - Air, I do feel like there should be a certain amount of homogeneity across the board and yes, I did tweak some outliers. Frequency rolloff point at 85% is also another interesting metric. I don't want there to be some songs that sound like an AM radio and some that sound like you are standing outside of a rave party. Particularly when the recordings are from the same venue, the same style of music and the same groups of musos appearing in the songs.

From a vibe coding point of view - it s so good to do, fun and super effective and efficient. From an art point of view - I like consistency, I like having my mixes compared with each other to see where I went a bit wild in places. I have templates and recurring processes, but I mix to the song so they are always going to get a different vibe. From an album point of view I think reeling in some of the outliers is a good idea.

If you want to try it out, get it here.

Shine on you crazy tab

I saw Yoni play Shine On You Crazy Diamond many years ago, thought it was such a good interpretation, Ioved the idea of trying it, decided it was too much of an undertaking. Around May last year I had started noodling with it and even recorded a youtube short playing part I. Well I have been plugging away at it in the background. Yep, it is a massive undertaking. Heavily influenced by Yoni, there are a few bits he had taken out and I added in, a few bits he played I didn't. I also gave up at the start of part V whereas he took it a little bit further. I play my arpeggios different, more classical like maybe? I pay it different enough to warrant my own tab for it, otherwise in a years time I will have completely forgotten how to play it.

This very morning, on a sunny Labour day in Australia, I finished the tab...well it will need several more play throughs and tweaks - sooo many articulations. 6 pages. I kinda regret starting but it's so iconic and so nice to play. I play it through around twice a week to really push it into muscle memory, and at over 8 minutes, with a lot of complicated chords it's challenging. It's been more than six months, and it has kinda pushed out any other arrangements I have been working on, it would be at least three if not four of my normal arrangements worth. I practise parts on my electric, but my full playthroughs are usually on a classical. I think it sounds better on the classical, even though I run out of frets on a classical. On one calm day when I'm feeling chill and relaxed I'll try recording it. Then I can release the tab to you all. And get back to the backlog of all the other arrangements and recordings I have queued up :-)

Chord Pro - make good guitar chord sheets

We'll all typed out guitar chords and lyrics into a text editor and used spaces to try to line up the chords with the lyrics and then somebody wanted it in a different key so we painfully edited each chord.

Well no more, there is no need to ever do that again!

There has been a standard around since the early 90's but around a decade ago was reworked to produce beautiful pdfs. It has so many features over using a text editor we're not going to even waste time discussing them.

Let's just get started!

1. Download and install ChordPro. It's free, download the exe from GitHub last seen here
2. You can edit text right there, or use a text editor, however you want to add the text. BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME OF THE STANDARDS! We'll get to that.
3. You can use some of the built in styles to generate your pdf, I wanted a very specific look and feel, so in the Settings window tick "Custom Configuration File" and point it to your json file.
4. As you change text turn the preview on and off to to re-render the pdf until you are happy with it.
5. From the File menu, export your pdf, print, share, yay!

Let's talk the custom configuration file. I am very used to the SongSelect style so I made a json file that mimics it. If you want to make your own or edit mine, it is a little tedious, while the structure is "Really Relaxed JSON" ChordPro won't show you a preview if you have any errors at all. Open the Messages window to see what your problems are. Get a copy of the config file I am using here.

Title

This is self explanatory - add it to the top and fill it out:

{title: Happy Birthday}
{artist: Hill sisters}
{key: C}
{tempo: 82}
{time: 3/4}


This what you will get, very pretty and easy on the eyes:

Chord Diagrams

I like chords fretting to be shown. It doesn't hurt, stick it out right it's not in the way. Any usual chords you use in your song will be shown, any unusual ones you can define yourself like this: {define: Fadd#11 frets 1 2 2 1 0 X fingers T 3 4 2 X X}

Notice that the "fingers" part is what give the circles numbers, you can use that or leave it out to let the guitarist decide how they are going to do it - there will just be black dots. If you specifically DON'T want a chord shown, use:

{define: E diagram off}

Here's an example of a simple barre chord, using the "fingers" definition with the same finger 1 groups them into the usual barre look: {define: F#m7 frets 2 4 2 2 2 2 fingers 1 3 1 1 1 1}

You can make ultra advanced diagrams, for example this one is at 7th fret, using your first finger as a normal barre and then your fourth finger as a second barre: {define: Bsus4 base-fret 7 frets 1 3 3 3 1 1 fingers 1 4 4 4 1 1}

Arrangement

Layout the arrangement. I like to have two at the most pages so when they are in your folder you can see the whole score without changing pages. So having re-used verse/chorus/intro/turnaround is great, but list the order they are going to go at the top. I defined a bunch of fonts, the one I use for the default arrangement is "comment_italic". Example:

{comment_italic: Default Arrangement: V1, V2, C1, V3, C1, V4, C2, C1}

Verse/Chorus

Once again there are are headers for sections, I used {comment: <something>} for a header and then use {start_of_<verse/chorus>} to begin a section and {end_of_<verse/chorus>} to finish it.

Most importantly, use [<chord>] at the start of a word/syllable so that the chord will be shown above on that word/syllable. As for layout, add in extra spaces to pad lines out so they line up in the pdf. Look it's a bit clunky, but it does the job.

Mark out syllables! Sing it to yourself - hyphen the syllables to match the melody and rhythm - help the guitarist/singer know when to change chord, try to line up bars across a verse:

{comment: VERSE 1}
{start_of_verse}
Hap - py [C]birth - day to [G]you
Hap - py birth - day to [C]you
Hap - py birth - day dear [Fadd#11]Some - bod - y
[F]Hap - py [C]birth - day [G]to [C]you
{end_of_verse}


Intro/Turnaround/Instrumental

An Intro/turnaround/instrumental doesn't have a section as such, it's just inline text. Use barlines to help the reader out, especially

{comment: INTRO}
[|][G] [|][C]


If there is some tab you want to include, go for it! Of course this is a chord sheet but if you just have to show a riff or something, here is an example (with chords on top):

{comment: INTRO}
    [G]                              [C]
{start_of_tab}
E|------------------|------------------||
B|----------0-------|-------1----------||
G|-------0-----0----|-------0----------||
D|----0-----------0-|----2-------------||
A|------------------|-3----------------||
E|-3----------------|------------------||
{end_of_tab}


Other Good Stuff

• Change the key! From Settings->Notation click on Transpose, specify the key From/To and refresh the preview! (Note: any unusual chords you defined will need to have the new key versions defined)
• Force a new page with {new_page}
• In the same way you use spaces to pad out horizontally, use carriage returns to pad out vertically. If you can make your score fit on one page try to do that, but if it has to go over two pages then space it out.

Download my "Happy Birthday" chordpro file I was using here as an example, and the resulting pdf it made.

Crowd vocal isolation Part 1

So speaking of AI I used my current favourite Chatbot (Gemini 3 Flash) to research deeper into vocal isolation models. I had been using Demucs then Demucs FT (Fine Tuned) for a while but seeing as the space is active and busy I was interested to know what else was going on.

Let's back up.

If you are recording a live sound, which I do quite regularly at my local church, then having the sound of all the people singing in your mix is an ABSOLUTE GAMECHANGER. I also used crowd mics for recording my daughter's band concert - basically I will want to use ambience/crowd microphones for anything live. It's how the resulting mix sounds like you are there, part of it, with the crowd, rather than a studio performance.

Here's the problem - the crowd microphones are going to pick up the PA, of course. So step 1 is to use the right microphones and have them in the right place. I was lucky that someone had previously set up a pair of Samson C02 condenser mics at my local church and they kicked my inspiration into overdrive for adding them into a mix. What I found however was they were very low on the stage and pointed forward and would pick up what was in front of them rather than the "wider bigger vibe". We moved them up onto stands which helped a lot - they picked up a wider sound of the people but the PA house sound was still very loud in them. I have since experimented with location and different mics, which is ongoing hence this is Part 1 of an ongoing experiment.

One way of reducing the house PA sound is to use the right sort of mic in the right sort of placement and use EQ/etc to draw out the people's voices...but it's the 2020's and we have software models for everything. The application of music isolation blew my mind when models overtook the algorithmic systems (thanks for your persistence Steinberg, it was a good effort but it was the wrong approach). So if I run an ambience mic through a model to separate just Voices and Not Voices I get this wonderful ambient I can mix back in.

"Remind me why you can't just use the raw audio with some EQ and effects?"

As you turn up the crowd mics, even with a sculptured signal, the drums/bass/instruments in the recording starts to overpower the actual recordings of the drum/bass/instruments. You will start getting that phasey reverby roomy echo which sounds more like mud than like the crowd. A little is okay, too much is meh. So if you really want the people big in the mix, isolate out the instruments.

The Chatbot talked to me about other models to try beyond HTDemucs FT (developed by Meta (Facebook) trained on a massive set of internal data). We have the MelBand Roformer (developed by ByteDance (TikTok) and Kimberley Jensen) and community expansions of it with extra data of messy real world audio.

I discovered that for some of my recordings The MelBand Roformers were a lot better! But it is not a one-size-fits all unfortunately - if you really want to go to town you would run all the models and mix them together.

Okay, let's have a look/listen at an example - here is a recording straight from the crowd mics:

For reference here is what the microphones being held by the vocalists sounds like, mixed:

Notice that there is some instrument present, especially drums. They are dynamic mics and the vocalists are holding them close to their mouths so it's not getting much drums/instruments, but it is there. But also notice they are clear and crisp. That should be the predominant sound in the mix - not the mushy crowd mic version - but we want that underlying crowd sound as well!

I'm not going to mess with EQ and effects for this example - although that would make it a sound better/balanced - for the purpose of this discussion let's just listen to what the isolators do. To initially blow your mind like it did mine, here is just the instruments (for reference this was done with MelBand Roformer InstVox Duality V2 model).

Righto - let's first listen to HTDemucs FT. You can run this yourself - make sure you have python installed and execute:

demucs -n htdemucs_ft "test_raw.wav" --two-stems=vocals

Of course it's not perfect! But wow it is very very clever. The main vocals are lound in there - coming back through the house PA quite strongly - which is to be expected - but the crowd is underneath. Not as much as I want - but save that for Part 2 - different mics and different placement to better pick up the people and not the house PA.

Now for MelBand Roformer Big Beta (community)

audio-separator "test_raw.wav" --model_filename "melband_roformer_big_beta5e.ckpt" --mdxc_segment_size 256 --mdxc_overlap 2 --mdxc_batch_size 1 --use_autocast --output_format=WAV

Code tips: ask your favourite Chatbot. Some of these parameters are tuned for my laptop GPU which is not very powerful.

Notice it dropped off a little towards the end, and it grabbed a bit more bass towards the start - I think that was more the bass guitar then vox. Not bad but I don't think it beat HTDemucs.

MelBand Roformer original Kim version

audio-separator "test_raw.wav" --model_filename "vocals_mel_band_roformer.ckpt" --mdxc_segment_size 256 --mdxc_overlap 2 --use_autocast --output_format=WAV

Similar, handled the end a bit better, it picked up more nuance with the singing, for example the word "Surely" at the start has been captured better in this model than the other two.

MelBand Roformer Duality

audio-separator "test_raw.wav" --model_filename "melband_roformer_instvox_duality_v2.ckpt" --mdxc_segment_size 256 --mdxc_overlap 4 --use_autocast --output_format=WAV

Similar again, seemed to be slightly more gatey - decided the gap between phrases was silence, which is technically correct. Didn't grab quite as much bass as the other two.

Look I could go with any of them, in this test snippet I reckon the winner is HTDemucs FT or MBR Duality.

As a final closeout, this is what a people-less mix sounds like:

Notice there was an electric guitar being played, but the house had it down so low it was barely present in the crowd mics! But because I had all the channels recorded, I turned him up, because it sounded so good. So finally, with people mixed in, the point of all of this:

It brings out the "liveness" of the room. Because there was still a lot of main vocalists in the mix they come through a bit echo-ey, but the fact the people are singing underneath really turns the mix around.

There you have it! Using the power of AI to isolate vocals - but it's only as good as the original mic signals and I have room to make them better. Watch this space!

What's my relationship with AI?

Even if you don't want to use AI - you already are - it's everywhere, even just your internet searches. Since I work with tech, I have experimented as it grows and I'm forming some opinions about it.  First up, we shouldn't call it AI. I reckon "chatbot", "LLM", or if I go right back to 1992 when I actually did a university unit in it - we called it "Artificial Neural Networks" back then.  In reading up about LLMs I discovered that it is all still based on the premises I learnt about a long long time ago.

So what are my opinions?

Straight away I cross off life coach/counselling/psychology. It's just a plain 'ole bad idea.  It will just spew generic tyre-pumping tripe at you - it will tell you what you want to hear and help you rationalise bad ideas. Throw that away immediately. As a research tool - yes. I reckon it is a better search engine *at this point in time* than any of the normal search engines.  For starters the traditional search engines have all been SEO'd to death and skewed towards how to make money from you. The chatbots on the otherhand have devoured all the content and will regurgitate whatever you need in a friendly summarised manner easy to digest. It is still fraught with danger and it is only a matter of time before it too is all about making money from you, but we are right now in that happy phase where you can search for information and then continue to drill deeper and get more specific as you go. With the caveat that you can't believe anything is says, so references to actual sources of truth are important for when what you are searching for is important - like stuff about health, finance, legality.

Let's quickly deal with art.  Whilst I find pictures and videos it generates fascinating, I've kinda decided no. Not for anything serious or important. I took a photo of my work colleagues and I at lunch the other day and had the LLMs make it look like a "The Simpsons" style scene.  It was really, really good.  It has no practical value, is built on stolen art, it is essentially useless except as a curio. Last week I put a couple of headshots of myself into a video LLM generator and attempted to render a few scenes of me riding a horse with a guitar strapped to my back - as "Bard JAW" - rock up at a tavern, go into a room full of fantasy style creatures and then play some fingerstyle guitar.  Some of it was okay, but mostly it was a mess.  Once again, no practical value, built on stolen art and just a curio.

Music is the same deal. When people are less "actively listening" and music is just background, if it is LLM produced will anyone care?  Nope. But is that good?  Nope. And when it writes songs with meaningful heartfelt lyrics? The LLMs have no soul and have no place in trying to connect with people on a human level. So the LLMs can leave the music creating space alone...with a side note that using it as a research tool is not the same thing as creating music.

Literature? Hard no. Same as LLMs trying to connect with people on a human level.  With it's generic regurgitation of everything that it has scraped in a pleasant soulless manner devoid of new ideas. Just no.

Okay JAW So where would you use LLMs?  I have used the LLMs to create code that would have otherwise taken me days.  It's really good at creating code.  What's more, when I read through the code techniques it uses I see really clever stuff that I wouldn't have dreamed of doing - because it is based on the work of actual programmers whereas I'm just an engineer hack who taught himself BASIC on a Commodore 64 in the 80's and still approaches coding problems in that same way.  HOWEVER LLMs are just for little tools.  Even when you end up with a 500 line python script you can already see the cracks forming - it doesn't have a neat core with modular functionality written around it, it tends to a monolith that if you want just a little change the whole thing needs to be rewritten.  And it is not good at rewriting big chunks of code for little changes - suddenly it will drop functionality and you will fight it to put it back. I wouldn't trust AI to write anything big and important.

I have been using it for vocal isolation - taking a recording of a church congregation singing and getting it to remove the drums/bass/instruments just leaving behind the singing.  In fact just yesterday I used a chatbot to research the current state of vocal isolation, describing my use case, that I just wanted a command line interface with a model and it came up with a bunch of things to try.  I used a 10 second WAV snippet and ran it through several of the surprisingly many models that people have created, gave it feedback on how I thought it went, and it recommended other things to try.  In about two hours I had significantly improved my vocal isolation result - not just the model that gave me the best results for my use case, but it improved my approach to feeding that model.

I could go on more about this giant very topical subject but I've hit the key detail right there. What's my relationship with AI? I use it where I can test its output.  Not where I need to trust it - but where it has given me something that I can verify and is useful to me.  As a timesaver.  Yes, this *will* make me dumber, because in pre-LLM days I would have to do the research - all the grunt work - and it is that process where you learn a lot. And anything that is about human connection - no LLM, back off, stay in your lane, that is not your space.

No LLMs were used to generate this post.

Rode M5s for ambience mics

Over the Christmas break I picked up a matched pair of Rode M5 condenser mics, to fit in my local church auditorium, to mic up the congregation singing. Ambient mics, crowd mics, whatever you'd like to call them - I have fallen in love with the sound they can bring to a mix. We'd been using Samson C02 mics for a while now and they were doing a reasonable job, but the room/location/small diaphragm condenser style get a lot of house PA in them. I use vocal isolation to get rid of the drums and bass and other instruments but still get a lot of main vocalists reflecting into the isolated vocals so I can't go too hard with them in the mix.

My thought was to upgrade the mics and to mount them up high on the lighting rail to get them away from the musos. The mounting bracket was interesting - you can buy lighting rail brackets very cheap, but they are all metric. However it was pretty easy to source a 3/8 UNC bolt so that the bracket would do the standard microphone mount.

First recording I discovered that I liked the Rode M5 frequency response - very faithful, with a crisp sound, an improvement over the Samson C02. However, mounting them high actually increased the distance to the audience so I reckon the house PA bleed may actually be slightly worse. Argh! In hindsight, that was probably always going to happen, condenser mics do a great job of picking up everything, so unless you really have them jammed into what you are trying to mic then they are going to get everything.

Experiment 2 is going to be putting a set of shotgun mics up high and moving the M5s lower and aiming closer. The shotgun mics are pretty much condensers as well except they have clever slots on the sides to reject side sound...so they are going to pickup a lot more of what you are pointing them at. To get the "pointing at" even better, I have a green laser pointer for next time - hold it against the side of the mic so it is pointing in the same direction as the mic, and set the location based on the green dot - for the shotguns that shall be middle left/middle right, for the M5s closer to the front.

It shall be an interesting experiment - once again I'm learning by doing. I might find that the auditorium reflections are complex and the shotguns won't help that much. It might take longer and cost more to come up with a solution, perhaps getting in an expert would get a better result faster, but there is nothing like learning the hard way through experimentation to really understand something!

Learn by doing

After an email from Luke over at Korneff, I got thinking about my process of learning. He's got a lot of knowledge and wondered if I prefer lessons/courses in video or written. My initial reaction was "written" but it made me dig deeper and I realised I'm a terrible learner - slow, and scattered.

This is how it usually goes down:

I start a project. I quickly skim the internet for a few initial considerations and then I take it on, headlong. I fumble, experiment, slowly get stuff working. In the past when I'm stuck I would use a search engine and trawl through posts, these days the AIs do it for me. I eventually get what I needed/wanted in the project working.

If that's it, that's okay. But when a project continues, and I have to dig deeper in, I start to realise that how I have done it is not quite how a pro would do it, so I have to re-learn aspects, un-learn bad stuff, approach with better application.

It's usually at that stage where I say to myself "I should have taken the time to learn this properly from the start", shrug my shoulders, say to myself "too late now, just keep going." The reality is that it is never too late. And then I will also say to myself "Learning through experimentation can lead to great outcomes!" Again, mostly fooling myself. And even then, I irrationally believe myself.

Case in point - last Thursday my daughter's band put on a garage concert. I have been amassing enough gear to put on a live show so I had what I needed, and I have recorded audio/video for a few concerts in my time, just because I like to document things, never because I needed to. I've never done a course in concert staging or recording, just winging it. In no particular order:

• I came into possession of a Yamaha DTX500 electronic drum kit, with cymbal upgrades and a few other features. Has a nice big amp with subwoofer, but I didn't want any of that...I wanted it to be a midi trigger for a VST drum. I've done that before, I like it and it's great to mix and keep under control. I had purchased SSD5 so I could have a kit that didn't just sound like every other backyard studio free SSD5 kit. I spent time trying to calibrate the triggers through the DTX500 box, time trying to balance the SSD setup. I had to map the midi triggers manually because the default maps I could find on the internet did not match. It came out okay. I don't know if I was pleased with the live levels, but it was okay.
• I also came into possession of two condensor mics and decided I wanted to record the crowd. I've experimented with ambience mics and I'm totally convinced they are essential for a live feel. I set it up so they would record through my audio interface, but were not in the output stream. In post this proved to be a winning move - my placement was good, they had good rejection of the main sound and yet picked up the audience. I didn't even need to isolate them - just having them faded in at the right level, great feel.
• I set up an in-ear rig a while back, it's just a 4 way splitter with a volume knob. It works great, they can hear themselves at whatever volume they like through the headphones. Comes straight out of the headphone output on the interface. I want to make it better though - I want to be able to give them personal mixes, so I can dial them in their own personal mix. The interface has 8 mono outs on the back, but the levels aren't right for headphones, so it would require a little bit of hardware. And to learn how to make an easy-to-use software resolve for each in ear mix.
• I've got one Behringer Eurolive B112D. It is a great PA. But I only have one. So I ran two cables to it (stereo left and right) into it's two inputs and ran the volumes at the same level. It easily filled the area, which was the garage out onto the driveway - with room to spare. No feedback even at neighbour annoying levels. But it was basically a mono signal on one side of the room. I need a second one for stereo balance. They are "only" $AUD450 in 2025, so I'll be getting another...
• Video cameras. I have two quite old Canon EOS M but they take a great 1080p video. I have a slightly newer version as well, so my usual setup for this type of thing is the two old ones on tripods in fixed positions. I would have liked one high up in the middle but that's where the crowd was so I settled for one up high looking down on one side and one down low looking up ont eh other side. They gave me all of 3 minutes before the show started to set them up so I didn't manage to frame them well, and within a minute of the concert starting someone stood in front of one. Not great. I used the other video as a roving camera. So when I later did a video edit my two stationary/stable feeds were mediocre. I accepted it and edited anyway, the result was still okay. Note, the "easiest" way to film and edit a live concert is to have a guaranteed stable camera or two, try not to walk your roving camera into the frame of both too much, make sure that all cameras are rolling the whole time so they are easy to sync, lay the feeds out in your favourite editor target the roving camera as priority for interest and when the roving camera is a mess fall back to the two stable cameras. I only spent maybe 2-3x realtime editing it, so maybe and hour and a half
• I worked out why old Canon DSLR cameras will only let your record video for 30mins max before they shut off. It was some tax issue - that any camera that can record more than a 30 minute video had higher tax at the time, so they baked in 30 minutes max to the firmware to bring the cost down. How stupid. So if your concert is more than 30 minutes make sure you press stop and press start again within the 30 minutes on each camera...and not all at the same time :-)
• I need to relax with my pre-gain thresholds. My sound check setting I was twisting the gains so high that I was getting hardware clipping. And it was making crackling sounds. Bad. It's a 24 bit interface, I can afford to throw away the first 4 or so bits. I should be able to see the signal as it comes in, but it doesn't need to get close to filling the available bits. And once the pre-gain is set, I should leave those dials alone. Use Reaper's faders.
• When I did a quick and dirty post mix, I added my usual compressors and EQ and saturation and reverb on the vocals and instruments. I did very little automation. Which means that I should set up all those fx for the actual live performance...

I think you are getting the idea. I learn through experimentation and then read up on what I don't understand. It's burnt into me, I don't think I can learn in a structured manner anymore. It's been a long time since I was at Uni, I don't learn like that anymore.

So Luke, dunno mate, dunno.

For the curious, here is the video I made

More cracked/torn nail repairs

Some of us guitar players like a bit of fingernail. on our right hands. Especially when plucking nylon strings, it brings out the higher frequencies. Nylon can be mellow and dull on just fleshy fingertips. As much as you try not to break fingernails - doing things left handed, avoiding some activities which are known fingernail crackers - it still happens, generally at the worst possible timing. I've written about nail repair before but now I've got some science to improve the process! And pictures!

Superglue is still at the heart of it, but if you mix superglue with sodium bicarbonate - easily sourced while grocery shopping if you don't already have some - you get a really tough substance. I was using it while repairing guitar nuts. Last time I was applying superglue and waiting, now I add superglue and sodium bicarbonate makes an even tougher thicker layer that sets hard in seconds.

The science is that when you mix superglue (ethyl cyanoacrylate) with a weak base such as sodium bicarbonate firstly it hardens extremely quickly and secondly forms long polymer bonds. That's good, it's tough!

My process is to firstly have a stash of superglue tubes at the ready. Once opened it will eventually go off even when capped, and since you can get tubes for under 50c each in bulk, just have a stash at the ready. Step 1 is to put a drop or two across the affected area, let it flow out...basically just go for the tip of the nail over where you have cracked/torn it. If it is too challenging to get any into the tear (use toothpicks to poke around) don't stress it. What can be annoying is if you get a bit of glue on the underside of your nail and it sticks your skin to the nail... If that happens you can reset and start again - Acetone dissolves superglue.

Step 2 is to sprinkle sodium bicarbonate over the glue. Just add more than you need, once it sets you dust off the rest. Be cautious, it gets hot as it reacts. Don't do too much at once.

Step 3 is to then add another drop or two to float over the rough surface of bicarb. This will build a good thickness layer. Let it set, will only take a moment.

Step 4 is to do a bit of filing - just smooth it off, don't touch your actual nail. If you are a picker/fiddler, you will find having a lump of cement on the tip of your fingernail frustrating. Relax, let it go.

It will be good for a week before it will start to crack and peel away from your nail. Redo it again if you need. This time around I redid it a second time as I needed to play two gigs separated by a fortnight. After that, it will either have cracked off or just remove it with acetone.

Happy days!

Glued and powdered

Second glue coat ready for light shaping

What's happening Nov 2025

So much to do. I need to write this down so I don't forget about anything.

Record "Breathe (in the Air)" with Nay. Finish the arrangement - currently it is guitar, bass, two singers. It will be a "live" play through but I suspect we will also record the parts separately and mix it against the "live" video. To a click track, of course! This is cheaty, but for us both to sing - she's a good singing, I am not - and play complicated charts - of course I have made it complicated - is not easy. It will be fine, it will be more a music video to a studio recording. The arrangement is sounding great. We will be playing acoustic because:

Muck around with the new acoustic bass. I recorded a video about if of course, which is a story into itself. I had noticed that people seem to like short portrait videos, that people like discussions on specific types of guitars, and they reckon a good thumbnail goes a long way. Well for the first time ever I made a thumbnail...and it was specifically a video about a Tanglewood TRU7ABCEBW, and while it was portrait it was too long to be a short. Worst performing video I have done in a long time! But that is neither here nor there, I make videos because I have something I want to talk about/share. The bass itself is cool, but it's an acoustic bass, which means the only thing it is good for is aesthetics (think MTV unplugged...)

Backlog of mixing recordings from my local church - it's great, every Sunday there is 4 songs, around 20 channels each time with a huge variety of musos, gives me a chance to hone my mixing skills. I normally do one every week or two, I'm building up a collection and often share them with the team for inspiration...planning on getting my ten favourite mixes of 2025 to the music director for release on Spotify.

Record/video/edit/mix a "garage session" of the band "Solstice" my daughter plays bass in. I have ideas in my head to record them live, but also to have an almost "This Is Spinal Tap" documentary feel to it. Well, less irony, but a casual chat between songs (not necessarily me). Will probably get an audience, to give it an intimate feel, so the viewer can feel more like they are part of a small group listening/watching the music. Need to organise with Nay and Lyds when they finish exams.

Record "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" and get the arrangement finished and uploaded. It's super challenging both to play and notate out. Would be the longest song I have ever taken on. But it sounds so good. I need to get it out there so I can continue to develop it. Like Breathe (in the Air) I'm sure I will constantly be changing it as I find new treasures in it.

Record "Breathe (in the Air)" and update the arrangement and upload...again. I've changed it so much since I last recorded it, and even more since I have been exploring it as a duet. It's such a great song. I've been sitting on all my Dark Side of the Moon arrangements, to release one day as a book...but I've gotta give up on that, it might never happen. So get stuff done and recorded and scores uploaded.

Other Arrangements - I've got a few waiting to be finished, recorded, or both. Who can fit all this in?!

Continue to develop a tone for my new Cole Clarke acoustic. I'm just running it through a Zoom G1 four, which is convenient because it fits in the guitar case. It is super programmable, I reckon there is not much it can't do. It's "only" 24bit 44.1kHz 128x oversampling and a 32 bit processor so the audio purists would baulk but there is a lot to love about it. I've fiddled with it a lot, there is more to fiddle with.

Android Audio App for when I need a coding hit, sit with the Chatbots and code up an Android Audio App. Primarily I want it to be able to load an MP3 and play it AND PITCH SHIFT IT. Yes, you can download them, but they are all full of adverts or they want a subscription. With the Chatbots watching over me, I reckon I could knock this up with only a minor bit of frustration. Why? Because the songs I play at my local church are rarely in the same key as the recording and it is nice to play along with them. And I like to code. It would also be nice for it to be able to do a rough pitch detect, tempo adjust - and these are all things that exist in free libraries, so it all seems doable. But this is possibly a pipe dream.

So as you can see by my messy desk, there is always something musical going on but it's a mess...if only there were more hours in a day!

Shotcut Notes

Making video content with the free open source Shotcut video editing software

This is a reminder to myself about tips and tricks I use while editing videos in Shotcut. Yet again another piece of software that is jammed packed with everything you could possibly need, and since I only use it every few months I forget how to do stuff...

• Portrait mode: when you have landscape video that was actually recorded as portrait, to get it into portrait, apply the filter "Size, Position & Rotate" and use parameters something like position -420,420 size 1920,1080 rotation 90.
• Envelope audio volume/amplitude adjustments: add the filter "Gain/Volume" to the clip, select the clip, then click the stopwatch icon to enable keyframes. You can now double click to add points. Note that you can later switch from Timeline to Keyframes in the bottom left to re-edit.
• If you want to do more than just a fade out, say a variable opacity, you will need to add a black layer, File->Open Other->Colour Black. You can then add Opacity to your video, click the stopwatch and set keyframes to envelope your levels.
• Do effects on items by clicking on Filter and add a filter. You can then add keyframes into the effect - firstly make sure the windows is wide enough that you can see the clock on the right of the effect setting, click it, and then everything within that clock group can have keyframes added and you can adjust the setting level for each keyframe.

Restoration: Cassette

A mate of mine pulled out an old cassette of a recording from the late 70's that he played on, and ripped it to digital, handed it to me and said "if you feel like a challenge, see if you can clean this up." I do like a challenge.

The songs were really well done - great old Gospel hymns sung by a talented dude, backed with piano/guitar/bass/drums and a Gospel choir - I could hear through the bad quality that they were pros. But yikes, how do you recover that? Armed with my ability to use an AI model to do isolation, I set about trying to separate the instruments and vocals. Clearly the model was not made for such recordings, it couldn't separate out vocals/bass/drums/other, but it did a pretty reasonable job of separating vocals and other. I then had a chat to the Chatbots about what is going on a learnt a few new things.

My main issues were the usual hiss, boxiness and lack of sparkle, but the two other things that bothered me was the recording drifting from left pan to right pan, and the times the recording seemed to be out of tune. Some other minor things like vocals too loud at times and the drums were so mashed into the mix they were barely discernible.

So far, I have used the following approach and the initial results are quite satisfying:

• Separate vocals from everything else. The lead vocalist, not a problem, but the choir sometimes appeared in the lead vocals and sometimes in the other. Kinda makes sense, it was a dense choir, it wasn't too bad I found I could volume envelope my way around most of it.
• Collapse both tracks to mono, then re-expand them with:
• a hard left/right two tap delay which gives a mud-free perceived stereo effect. Depending on the difference in delays you can tweak how much expansion you want. My ears can detect even a 1ms left - 2ms right difference, it's subtle but it is there. At 5ms - 10ms it is quite clear. >50ms is starting to sound cavernous.
• Magic 7 is my favourite reverb at the moment which adds spatiality, but also adds muddiness for me, so I dial in a room sound and then adjust the wetness.
• EQ - lows and mids: I found the bass was booming annoyingly and the low mids were too prominent. I used a normal EQ to get this more like what I wanted to hear. I wanted to do a multiband EQ compressor but I find them hard to use - I need to practise more - so where there were sudden thumps I used a volume envelope to contain them. It's brutal, but if you don't push it too hard I don't hear it "everything suddenly ducked". Hmm, I really do need to practice using EQ compression.
• EQ - highs: Cassette seems to rob us of sparkle. When I tried to push it back in I was just increasing the hiss. So I used a little bit of EQ in the areas that didn't sound like his, and a saturator to create more high frequency overtones to "artificially" add more sparkle back. This seemed to work okay - what else can you do?
• Compression and limiting to help smooth out the dropouts and dips. And this might just be me, but I like smoothness and consistency in what I listen to. I like swells but I don't like to be jarred. Dynamics in music is great, maybe my ears are already too shot, but I like only subtle dynamics, I prefer a consistent balance. I don't want everything to be the same perceived loudness the entire time...well, maybe I do a little :-)

I noticed while trying to sweep the EQ listening for what annoyed me that "it seems to ring everywhere!" When I chatted to the bots about it, it's all artifacts from tape. Head misalignment, tape speed inaccuracies and just the nature of tape as a data storage medium. I found a compromise...these recordings are never going to sound crystal like they were recorded with modern gear, my main aim was to remove the panning warble, to balance the EQ, some re-producing/mixing to smooth out the dynamics, and I had to accept pitch drifts and out-of-tune sounds.

"Old school analogue vibe."

Steve Slate VSX Listening Routine

What to Listen For, What to Check, How Do You Use These Things Anyway?

This is a reminder to myself about how to do a mix translation test using VSX headphones through the VST plugin, after doing the bulk of mixing in Linear Mode.

* * *

1. Linear (Flat / Microscope View)

Play 20–30 sec mid-strength section

• Check local loudness relative to snare/kick.
• EQ balance has no harsh spikes, not dull anywhere.
• Bass and kick drum has nice separation.
• Listen for sibilance, cymbal/hi-hat/high end harshness
• Mono check (quick flip: does vocal stay centred? Does low end collapse?).

2. Mix Room – Nearfield (Producer’s Laptop Monitors)

Play the same section.

• Vocal placement sits in the mix, not on top or buried.
• Snare/guitar/keys clarity in the mids.
• Kick vs bass relationship in low end okay?
• Does reverb delay stick out?
• Small level tweaks (1-2 dB) often shine here.

3. Mix Room – Midfield (Full Mix Perspective)

Play peak song section.

• In low end does kick + bass still feel solid.
• Panning/reverb/stereo balance feels okay, no phaseyness.
• Automations and arrangement flow - do transitions lift the energy?
• Overall size - not too thin, not boxy.

4. SUV (Car Test)

Play full chorus/bridge at a higher volume.

• Vocals still audible? (cars bury them if too low).
• Kick + bass groove not too boomy?
• Sub-bass control - does anything rattle or overwhelm?
• Harshness at loud playback - does the mix stay smooth?
• Does the song feel exciting/hyped?

5. SA-Pods (Earbud Reality Check)

Play chorus at low–moderate volume.

• Vocals cut clearly (lyrics understandable).
• Snare/guitar mids provide drive even if bass vanishes.
• Quiet-volume test - does the mix still feel compelling?
• If it works here, it works anywhere.

What's happening Sep 2025

I have spent a number of weeks compiling an album. Nah, not an album from me, it is a live album, a production of originals showcased at my local church. There are 19 songs/poems, and many have introductions so the file count is actually 31. That's quite a lot of work. The styles were eclectic! From ballads to singer songwriter pianist to grunge to rock band. Each one I painstakingly reworked from the multi-channel recording from a trusty old M32 deck with SD card module added.

I had to think about stuff I don't normally have to think about - how will the songs all cohere together so they all sound like they belonged to the same event. I think some of that naturally happens because it is me mixing each one, and unknowingly I will already have a style that will carry through. But I considered how some of the quieter ones should sound quieter compared to the loud ones, but at the same time be just fine standalone. Some sort of album cohesion.

It's all but finished, which is great, because I've run out of steam for it... would be at least 50 hours invested to date.

To make my life harder while mixing all that, because of course you'd make life harder, I bought a set of Steven Slate VSX headphones. The ones which emulate a room, so you can say "this is what it would sound like sitting in a recording studio close to the monitor speakers. Or far away from the speakers. Or in a car. Or with earbuds." My youngest daughter kept stealing my Sennheiser HD280s...so I gave up and bought a set of VSX as my headphone replacements. They aren't as easy as they sound, it takes getting used to. Initially it just sounded like different EQ and different reverb. Which I guess it kinda is in a simplified sort of a way. Which is why it made my mixing more difficult, because I was now listening for other things.

I'm still getting used to them, I find I leave then in flat frequency response mode most of the time and only switch to a room as I'm finishing off a mix to see how it translates. It's interesting, well worth the effort. The sales pitch says "best mixes you've every made in your life" but I don't think it is that easy, it's not a silver bullet, I can see that they make a useful difference though. I just need to think differently, listen differently. Listen. Know what to listen for.

Meanwhile I play "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" twice or thrice a week. It would be around 7 minutes long at the moment - hmm, I should time it - okay, done, 8 minutes. It covers parts i-iv and end at the start of v, there are a few elements not included, but it's quite nice and definitely passes the pub test. There are a few more things I'd like to put in there, but history has shown the harder I make a piece the more likely it is to later fall out of my head and I stop playing it regularly. The song is already complicated, so I think if I'm going to do anything more to it - keep it simple! Well, "simple" is a relative term.

I've played it several times on my Friday work lunchtime hangout, there's one lady who stops past for a chat quite often, she doesn't recognise many of my songs because all she listens to is heavy metal and rap! The other week I played a few Metallica riffs, which she knew, I said I've work out something for her. "Enter Sandman" is a great Metallica song, I think we all know the intro, but I was sure I could do more than that. And you know what - I did - and not only is it relatively easy, but it sounds great! It is based on a listen through from Josephine Alexandra's cover, greatly simplified but still super cool. I even played it for my youngest daughter and she had a crack at it. I think that might be the highest compliment I can get - she hears it and wants to try it for herself :-)

Vibin' Reaper with The 'Bots

I still mix multi track recordings from my local church, I find it relaxing and therapeutic. The more I do it, the more I appreciate everything that is going on - music production, sound engineering, what to play, what not to play.

Early on, when I'd just started having a crack at Reaper DAW, waaay back in late '23, I realised that there are a number of processes that I was doing every single mix, so I created some scripting to get them done quickly. It served me well for nearly two years, but I still found myself doing other same things every mix, and while I put together some additional scripts, I still wanted to improve my workflow - the mixes I want to process are stacking up on my disk waiting for me. I want to spend more time on the creative process rather than the mechanical grind.

These days we have the LLMs - the ChatBots - and they code like absolute guru maniacs, I use them at work. When I started coding was a ChatBot wasn't a thing. Now it is.

So the first script I wanted created was the ability to look at a mix I had coming in, all the people involved, and apply my usual effects to each. In Reaper you can save an fx chain and then load it back up again on a different track. Pretty standard fare. Since there are around 20 people in the music team, each recording was a combination of fx...and I wasn't leveraging hard enough. I could come up with a baseline fx for each vocalist, guitarist, pianist, automatically load them, and tweak them from there rater than from scratch or manually copied from a previous mix. Especially the drumkit! Yikes, so many mics (never enough mics!)

I fired up ChatGPT5, and we got somewhere fast. It's one of those things, it has scraped enough of Stack Exchange and reddit to know about Reaper, and it understands Lua, the scripting language, so it has a good crack. But it's not instant. Oh no no no, you have to iterate and iterate and iterate some more. You get 80% of the work done in 20% of the time. A pretty standard rule in engineering I have found.

I ran out of Chatbot freebies, and firstly because I was being cheap, but secondly because I wanted to try other LLMs - I switched to Grok 4. Which Chatbot would do better?

I sent the code so far to Grok, and it changed some stuff, and improved it a bit more. Unfortunately, there was a lack of understanding by me, ChatGPT, and Grok, about a certain bit of functionality. None of us could fix it. Humans are still better than Chatbots - I can vouch. I forced it to rethink an approach to a section of functionality that no matter how many times it tried to fix it, just didn't work. I remembered having a similar issue when it was just me by myself. With Grok's help, we sorted it out. And then Grok ran out of freebies.

Again, being cheap but also wanting to see how the other side lives, I switched to Gemini 2.5 Flash. Not as good, but I didn't need much more, I was basically done. What I got it to do was remove fluff and tidy up the code, which it did admirably. "Clean up this code, simplify it, and I will test it and make sure it still works." "Okay, good one, still works, now simplify it even more, don't be afraid, we'll keep testing it." I was actually surprised how small the resulting code became.

I then passed it my old made-by-human script; I wanted a few enhancements. I gave me a "Very cute, nice try, I can see it works but it is full of bugs and poor coding techniques." Sure, it said it a bit nicer than that, kinda "good effort! here's a gold star!" and then ripped it to pieces.

But Humans for the win again! Even though it added in my enhancements and the code looked far nicer, it introduced an error, another "This Reaper API call is supposed to work like this, it doesn't, maybe this time. Maybe this time. Maybe this time." And I ran out of credits.

So, I gave Claude Sonnet 4 a crack. Quite different to the others, well, still a Chatbot, but it had a less-chatty more-codey style of operation. It wasn't fooled by the Reaper API - I did help it "Really, you need to think differently about this call, I'm pretty sure it's not going to work like you think, let's do some test scripts to understand the core functionality together AND THEN we'll put it into the main product". Claude surprised me, it felt like a coding buddy, and we came up with a great final solution. And when I said "TIGHTEN IT UP MORE!" it said:

  Looking at the cleaned-up code, there are a few potential improvements
  I could suggest, but I'd want to be careful not to over-engineer it since it's 
  working well now. But honestly, the code is in a really good state now. It's 
  clean, functional, and does exactly what you need. The improvements 
  [I suggested] would add complexity without much practical benefit. My 
  philosophy is: if it's working reliably and you're not planning major 
  changes, leave it alone! Sometimes the best improvement is knowing when to 
  stop improving.

That was good advice. I stopped, and my vibe coding for the day was done, and it will save me 10-15 minutes every mix.