TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- I put my heart and soul into the production on this - Production feeds (unmastered)
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Yep

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Everyone thinks their own baby is beautiful.

quote:

Originally posted by Notle I think it is good. Thats my opinion as an avarage music listener because i dont listen trance a alot. But it definitely needs a better mixdown to make it shine.

Fixed*

Mastering shouldnt have to fix the shitty areas in the mix, its all up to the mixdown.

The musical ideas of the track, itself, are very good. I like them. I think the weaknesses of the mix have been abundantly covered. The only thing I can add to it is that it has a lot of phenomenal ideas that I think could be explored more fully and that I did enjoy it, as it is, currently.

I've got to say, I'd hate for you to feel downcast about the feedback you're getting, here. I certainly understand it. I think I went through something like that, this weekend. My problem is that, once I release a song out onto the internet, I can begin hearing every weakness it has - not before I put it up, but right after I do - then I hear the utter suck.

It's a shitty, shitty feeling. I was thinking to myself that I should be at a point where I really ought to be able to hear my own shit objectively. Nope. It's not working that way, at all.

It just goes to show where I'm at on the infinite learning curve. Getting attached to the end result turns my whole world into shit.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker It's a shitty, shitty feeling. I was thinking to myself that I should be at a point where I really ought to be able to hear my own shit objectively. Nope. It's not working that way, at all.

I find a reference track to be severely humbling.

quote:

Originally posted by evo8 +1 how many times does this need to be said??? If its not there in the mix it wont be there after its mastered

i know its the rule that the track should sound perfect before in goes to mastering stage. but i find sometimes a track doesnt always have the same energy and drive as when some compression, harmonic excitation and a little stereo imaging has been added on the master channel, a track sounds (to me) like it has more life and energy in it.

quote:

Originally posted by djandymac i know its the rule that the track should sound perfect before in goes to mastering stage. but i find sometimes a track doesnt always have the same energy and drive as when some compression, harmonic excitation and a little stereo imaging has been added on the master channel, a track sounds (to me) like it has more life and energy in it.

But mastering wont add any of that. There was a thread here a while ago comparing mastered/unmastered tracks...they had very subtle differences. If you think about it, mixdown should be much easier to work with, you can EQ/compress certain sounds, add reverb to "fill up" empty spaces. With mastering you cant pin point the exact problem...

quote:

Originally posted by sako487 But mastering wont add any of that. There was a thread here a while ago comparing mastered/unmastered tracks...they had very subtle differences.

You are so wrong mate. Mastering can add lots of things but if the mix is great ofcourse they only make subtle changes. But if its not that good, then good mastering engineer can make it a whole lot better.

And if you dont hear any differences in mastered and unmastered tracks then your speakers are shit or you are not very experienced listener or something...

anyone interested in mastering should go to :

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/

I dont want to make you feel down, but I want to be honest about your track.

Firstly let me preface with this. In the past when I've had negative feedback I feel down for a while - how could that 'immense' track have gone down so badly, how??? A little while later I get a fire in my belly to do a lot better and through this process I'm hopefuly improving, so DONT GET DOWN, or if you do, dont let it take your soul, grow from the experience.

FEEDBACK;

Essentially it sound like a track from circa 1994. I dont mean just the mix, I'm really talking about sound choices here. In a world cluttered with demos, you can't get away with chosing 'ok' sounds, you need to really listen much more closely to the pro tracks you like and transfer these lessons to your work - not copy them exactly though.

I see so many people, myself included at times, rushing things. I know myself if I want a decent lead it could take days of work, not an hour or so. Now people might counter this with 'x producer made a whole track in an hour', but thats the exception I'd say and also it might be a pro with 15 years under thier belts. I watch all the FM visdoes and nearly always pros talk in terms of spending a lot of time on tracks.

I think of the michelin stared chef trying to create the perfect dish - YOU HAVE TO USE THE BEST INGREDIENTS and it takes years to learn. Essentialy thier output is an excericse in immensely small details and I see music production as requiring this same attention to every tiny detail.

Take your opening few bars, those syncy sounds. They are just inredibly basic, and wont catch the ear as people are being served up something very ordinary.

Also you perhaps would benefit from more of a groove which is about timing, quatusation, keeping some live played parts, and that ethereal phantom funkiness we all seek which I find is very dependant on things like the compression of the kik and bass - again something that can take me endless hours.

In summary mate you need to immerse yourself in the sonics. Bare in mind thousands of releases each month die a quick death so think about that - do you want to present something a memorable or just ok?

A label guy said to me recently that very very few tracks stand out from the 1000 or so he gets each week.

Maybe you are happy with 'ok', in which case I would never critiscise such, but I suspect deep down if we are honest we all want a bit of appreciation and with luck to make something vaguely original and that just doesn't happen without a lot of effort, sometimes almost insanse amounts.

Please don't get down mate, know that being good at anything, ANYTHING tends to be largely down to putting in out of the ordinary effort.

No one has some God given right to be good at this just because they've spent a few years in it. I notice on forum demos people that put up stuff they've worked on a few hours is nearly always throwaway and interchangable. Why should they be able to catch your ears with just 8 hours in a work? With luck maybe they will, but not normally.

A painter needs hundreds of days on a really decent work - why shoud making music be any different? Timbaland said he can spend weeks on just the drums for a track.

I've found the journey immensely difficult and often wanted to give up, but sowly I'm getting there I think. I have to say to improve means for me 30 to 40 hours in the studio per week every week, and even mad things like going in there after arriving home at 10pm after a holiday!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler I dont want to make you feel down, but I want to be honest about your track.

Cheers mate, Im not down anymore I have had another go and it is much improved like for example one of the bass tracks I had accidently bypassed my low cut So I am not giving up.

I am committed by the way, I have lost a long term girlfriend because I would do music instead of work, then when I had finished 'working' all I would do is music and she never saw me. Still now I would say I spend several hours a day on it and have for about 4 years. Im also at university studying for a degree in popular music studies with production where I have about 2 years left.

I guess what happened was I invested emotionally in it I thought ok no more mediocre stuff this is the one, when it wasn't I was a bit sore to say the least lol. your right too just because I'm studying it and have put a few years in doesnt mean I have a right to be great, I guess like someone said its the infinate learning curve were on.

At least a few people said musically they enjoyed it which means a great deal to me

quote:

Originally posted by Notle You are so wrong mate. Mastering can add lots of things but if the mix is great ofcourse they only make subtle changes. But if its not that good, then good mastering engineer can make it a whole lot better. And if you dont hear any differences in mastered and unmastered tracks then your speakers are shit or you are not very experienced listener or something... anyone interested in mastering should go to : http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/

hes not wrong at all, mastering was important for vinyl for technical issues etc not so much for mp3 releases, all mastering does really is make it louder
Yeah you can eq it, make it wider but that should be done in the mix where you have more flexibility - not just 1 wav file

Mixing is 95% of the job, mastering is only like the final polish being added
read some of the stuff Eric prydz has said on it, his productions sound fantastic
A shit mix is a shit mix is a shit mix and no amount of mastering with tonnes of fancy analog stuff will save it

quote:

Originally posted by evo8 hes not wrong at all, mastering was important for vinyl for technical issues etc not so much for mp3 releases, all mastering does really is make it louder Yeah you can eq it, make it wider but that should be done in the mix where you have more flexibility - not just 1 wav file Mixing is 95% of the job, mastering is only like the final polish being added read some of the stuff Eric prydz has said on it, his productions sound fantastic A shit mix is a shit mix is a shit mix and no amount of mastering with tonnes of fancy analog stuff will save it

if a mix lacks energy it doesnt mean its shit though, it surely means i just needs that extra sparkle and drive that CAN be created at the mastering stage.

if a mix is shit i.e. muddy, instruments masking others, no room to breathe etc. then yeh mastering will do nothing to help it. but if a mix sounds good but lacks that little extra drive or sparkle then mastering can bring that out. in my opinion ofcourse lol

quote:

Originally posted by djandymac if a mix lacks energy it doesnt mean its shit though, it surely means i just needs that extra sparkle and drive that CAN be created at the mastering stage. if a mix is shit i.e. muddy, instruments masking others, no room to breathe etc. then yeh mastering will do nothing to help it. but if a mix sounds good but lacks that little extra drive or sparkle then mastering can bring that out. in my opinion ofcourse lol

but thats where i would disagree, what is mastering going to do to give your mix more energy and drive?

I just dont think you should wait for mastering to make your mix into something awesome if its not already there at the mix stage
When i started making tracks and they were pretty awful (not saying they are anything special now) compared to released stuff i used to think "yeah but those released tracks are all mastered, if only mine was mastered it would be up there with them" - the horrible thing i realised was that was not going to happen solely down to having them mastered...

anyway thats just my opinion!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler I see so many people, myself included at times, rushing things. I know myself if I want a decent lead it could take days of work, not an hour or so. I watch all the FM visdoes and nearly always pros talk in terms of spending a lot of time on tracks.

Damn it man, you save my day - I tough that it's only me who is so slow (will take me some times a few good hours to develop one particular sound). I tough that I'm getting to old (I know that, lol) to produce a music and was thinking about let somebody younger than me taking over this fun, but after you post, I think, I may stay for a few more years, producing music.

Cheers

quote:

Mixing is 95% of the job, mastering is only like the final polish being added read some of the stuff Eric prydz has said on it, his productions sound fantastic A shit mix is a shit mix is a shit mix and no amount of mastering with tonnes of fancy analog stuff will save it

Yes i agree that mixing should be 95% of the job, but what ive read its not the case all the time. Then the good mastering engineer can help it a bit.

Prydz and hes gang has their unique sound and approach to mixing and mastering. I dont think its the most common way. We have no idea what they have on their master output. So without the mastering chain they got those songs wouldnt be as huge sounding. Ofcourse you need to know mixing so the elements wont clash. But i dont think they have some magic stuff in tracks, its the mastering chain.

Just for the record I never said mastering will fix my mix, I just said it was unmastered.

quote:

Originally posted by Sonic_c Just for the record I never said mastering will fix my mix, I just said it was unmastered.

lol we know mate. i also never said it will FIX it either, as it doesnt need fixing it just needs some life imo.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceLover007 Damn it man, you save my day - I tough that it's only me who is so slow (will take me some times a few good hours to develop one particular sound). I tough that I'm getting to old (I know that, lol) to produce a music and was thinking about let somebody younger than me taking over this fun, but after you post, I think, I may stay for a few more years, producing music. Cheers

Keep doing what your doing.

I like paintings, films, food and classical music that that took blood and sweat, tears and tantrums and above all an attention to detail, with real effort and care behind each action.

Stanley Kubrick and other outstanding film directors all had an obsession with detail way beyond the norm. You can see the huge difference between the many mediocre plastic unrealistic 80's sci films and something like Alien.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler Keep doing what your doing. I like paintings, films, food and classical music that that took blood and sweat, tears and tantrums and above all an attention to detail, with real effort and care behind each action. Stanley Kubrick and other outstanding film directors all had an obsession with detail way beyond the norm. You can see the huge difference between the many mediocre plastic unrealistic 80's sci films and something like Alien.

Thank buddy,

I feel already much better may friend.

Cheers

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.