TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Discussion: can mixing & mastering still improve?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Discussion: can mixing & mastering still improve?

Putting aside your personal biases or opinions on what constitutes �good� mixing and mastering, how much further do you think we can go with audio quality in productions?

Of course, when compared with the early �90s, the productions of today have a lot more clarity and generally sound better. Again, if you�re prejudiced against the heavily compressed sounds of today, please keep it to yourself.

Do you think that in another ten years, people will look back on the productions of this decade and note how tinny and muddy they sound? Is there much more than can be achieved with mixing and mastering, or have we reached a state where any improvements will be basically negligible?

I think in 10 years we wont even use speakers or headphones anymore, we'll just jack into the fuckin matrix and rock out like mad cvnts. Since we would no longer be limited to the poor frequency range of the human ear, I would say mixing and mastering has a long way to go yet.

Shutup Kimset7, you are a noob.

lol wut?

I've often wondered if we will reach that stage too actually.

I've read experiments about sound behind beamed directly inside the human skull so that American soldiers can communicate in complete silence on the battlefield. Also, the cochlear implant plugs more or less directly into the parts of our brain that receive sound, yes?

I would love to jack into some kind of matrix because then you could listen to music as loud as you wanted, for as long as you wanted. I'm paranoid about noise exposure.

Also, it would be funny if all existing music became redundant in a few decades time because sound was beamed directly into our brains, bypassing the ears and giving us a far superior frequency detection, making pre-matrix music seem primitive and ugly.

Re: Discussion: can mixing & mastering still improve?

Remember though music needs to be felt

Re: Discussion: can mixing & mastering still improve?

quote:

[b]Originally posted by Domesticated Again, if you�re prejudiced against the heavily compressed sounds of today, please keep it to yourself.

You want us to talk about mixing but not talk about the only problem that has ever existed in digital audio quality?

Do you want to talk mastering or matrix?!? .........

quote:

Originally posted by Raphie Do you want to talk mastering or matrix?!? .........

Either or both, it doesn't really matter.

Yeah you started the thread by saying:

Give us your opinion, but not your opinion.

(my brain's a bit fried currently (just finished some intensive brain work), but I'll reply anyway since it's an interesting question)

I'd say the main reason for the change in audio quality now compared to 10 years ago is computer DAWs, and the number of people creating music due to it being much cheaper now.

Back in the day, people used a lot more hardware, and computers weren't as powerful. And there wasn't as much competition in terms of a lot of people creating very high quality audio in trance.

These days, you can put parametric EQs on every channel in realtime and spend as long as you want perfecting the sound. And you need to do that because the bar has been raised to a certain degree now. If your mix sounds like it was made in 1999, people will notice. If you have an unbelievably fantastic song then people will still listen to it, but they'll wish the mix was up to today's standards.

So the question is, will there be another change as monumental as going from hardware with a few EQs to hardware/software with as many EQs as you want, with all the effects running in realtime, being able to be adjusted in realtime? Will there be a further massive explosion in the numbers of people creating music, thus driving people harder to get ahead of the pack?

Any tools that help people to lift the quality of their music - great sounding sample packs, synths/ samplers that are capable of creating more evocative sounds, tools that help to balance your sounds based on the genre you're producing, tools that learn your production techniques and are able to automate some things you'd do anyway - who knows what lies ahead - but anytime you make things easier for people and lift the quality of those at the bottom, the quality at the top will rise as people invest that time (that has been freed up) on other aspects of production which will help to separate them the majority of people. You're always going to have those people who are willing to put in a heap more effort than others and drive things forward.

I guess my quick answer would be to say I don't know. If there are big developments in the next 10 years, then the trance we're listening to today could well sound inferior. I can't imagine it would sound the same. Otherwise a lot of people would get bored and move on to another genre which is progressing and changing.

It has improved significantly throughout the years.

But one should not underestimate the effect of imperfection and emotion in a track.

I can find a 10-15 year old track i have never heard before and just totally dig it.

until recorded audio can sound exactly like it was being played live, there is room for improvement.

Will mastering improve?

One of my long-term studio goals is to be able to record from hardware summing into a Korg MR-1000. It's simply optimal for high-resolution recording, in order to capture detail and clarity that might otherwise be ignored. Programs like Sonar are capable of developing 64-bit resolution to audio recording but I don't think the day is too far away when individual tracks in a DAW will be capable of delivering one bit resolution.

I think, in-so-far as the question Domesticated posed, that such a "level" is still entirely subject, albeit generally, to Moore's Law. The higher the resolution that may be obtained, as the result of general technological development, the better recordings will become. Innovations, in both music hardware and software, will be developed to take advantage of the ever expanding ability of technology.

it can nothing but improve beacuse todays music sounds fucking worse than ever thanks to commercials, radio, mp3, cellphones and all other medium needing to scream for attention.

quote:

Originally posted by palm it can nothing but improve beacuse todays music sounds fucking worse than ever thanks to commercials, radio, mp3, cellphones and all other medium needing to scream for attention.

Yes! The loudness war. Ironically the mixing and mastering can be improved by actually LOWERING the volume.

Re: Discussion: can mixing & mastering still improve?

^ what Palm said.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Again, if you�re prejudiced against the heavily compressed sounds of today, please keep it to yourself.

Um...no thanks, I prefer to exercise my right to express my opinion, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. There are many people (myself included to some extent) who would argue that music sounds worse now than it has in the past few decades precisely because it is so heavily compressed and that the current trends of excessively squashing the dynamic range and overlimiting is ruining the expressiveness of many good tracks. So, yeah, there's a lot of room for improvement in both mixing and mastering IMO. Try googling "loudness wars" and you'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Subtle Yes! The loudness war. Ironically the mixing and mastering can be improved by actually LOWERING the volume.

+1

Re: Re: Discussion: can mixing & mastering still improve?

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik ^ what Palm said. Um...no thanks, I prefer to exercise my right to express my opinion, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. There are many people (myself included to some extent) who would argue that music sounds worse now than it has in the past few decades precisely because it is so heavily compressed and that the current trends of excessively squashing the dynamic range and overlimiting is ruining the expressiveness of many good tracks. So, yeah, there's a lot of room for improvement in both mixing and mastering IMO. Try googling "loudness wars" and you'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion.

Yeah for the home listener this really sucks, we have volume knobs and want to control the volume of a track ourselves.

It does however probably work in clubs etc, and get more sales on download portals, but the end product will be forgotten pretty fast.

It doesn't matter how much compression you put a track through; if it blows nobody is going to listen to it. On the other hand, if it's good then people will turn it up!

I don't think the loudness war really applies to dance music. Dance music is meant to be really loud on a consistent basis.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV I don't think the loudness war really applies to dance music. Dance music is meant to be really loud on a consistent basis.

Hence it is played on a large PA system capable of amplifying to a desired volume. Does it really require a track to be mastered to maximum dB with that being the case?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Hence it is played on a large PA system capable of amplifying to a desired volume. Does it really require a track to be mastered to maximum dB with that being the case?

The whole turn it up philosophy implies that you can turn it up when it is soft or down when it is loud. It allows the listener to control the dynamics, not the engineer. How would this work in a club ? You going to pay a gay to turn it up and down ? And how will you know when it is too loud or too soft. Are you going to take a survey ?

maximum dB is irrelevant. the maximum rms level is what is important. The criticism of loudmusic is that it was tiresome on the ears but clubs are so loud that this argument doesn't really matter so much. People are drunk or high... , and what really makes people want to dance is that full wall of sound that is unrelentless. People aren't there to really listen to music and all its beautifull dynamics. They are there to feel the actual vibrations.

I'm not advocating killing dynamics in every music . I work in a field where the average engineer mix is - 18 db rms but the point is that for dance music, the loudness war is reallty irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV You going to pay a gay to turn it up and down ? And how will you know when it is...too soft.

Sorry, but I'm not going to pay a gay to do anything, especially not to turn it up and down and let me know when it's too soft.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV The whole turn it up philosophy implies that you can turn it up when it is soft or down when it is loud. It allows the listener to control the dynamics, not the engineer. How would this work in a club ? You going to pay a gay to turn it up and down ? And how will you know when it is too loud or too soft. Are you going to take a survey ? maximum dB is irrelevant. the maximum rms level is what is important. The criticism of loudmusic is that it was tiresome on the ears but clubs are so loud that this argument doesn't really matter so much. People are drunk or high... , and what really makes people want to dance is that full wall of sound that is unrelentless. People aren't there to really listen to music and all its beautifull dynamics. They are there to feel the actual vibrations. I'm not advocating killing dynamics in every music . I work in a field where the average engineer mix is - 18 db rms but the point is that for dance music, the loudness war is reallty irrelevant.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's really up to the DJ, in a club, to determine how loud the music is going to be played.

At some point, I think you're correct, however, in that the media that's being played by DJ whoever, has to have a respectable peak level. It's not going to do to have an improperly mastered track on whatever device they're using.

I think, where the loudness war comes into play is that, from what I've heard and observed, there is a tendency to make the entire track as loud as possible - so much so that at whatever level a song is played out any semblance of detail or finesse becomes completely obliterated.

Don't get me wrong, I like loud music, but I want to be able to hear little (and big) psycho-acoustic nuances.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Frost Yeah you started the thread by saying: Give us your opinion, but not your opinion.

No, I asked you to withhold your bias. There's a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV until recorded audio can sound exactly like it was being played live, there is room for improvement.

Good point, however I was talking about electronically created sounds, not live instrumentation. I should have said this but I assumed it would be a given.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Will mastering improve? One of my long-term studio goals is to be able to record from hardware summing into a Korg MR-1000. It's simply optimal for high-resolution recording, in order to capture detail and clarity that might otherwise be ignored. Programs like Sonar are capable of developing 64-bit resolution to audio recording but I don't think the day is too far away when individual tracks in a DAW will be capable of delivering one bit resolution. I think, in-so-far as the question Domesticated posed, that such a "level" is still entirely subject, albeit generally, to Moore's Law. The higher the resolution that may be obtained, as the result of general technological development, the better recordings will become. Innovations, in both music hardware and software, will be developed to take advantage of the ever expanding ability of technology.

I wasn't so much talking about bit-depth (though that's important too) as I was talking improving the relative levels and clarity within tracks.

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik Um...no thanks, I prefer to exercise my right to express my opinion, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. There are many people (myself included to some extent) who would argue that music sounds worse now than it has in the past few decades precisely because it is so heavily compressed and that the current trends of excessively squashing the dynamic range and overlimiting is ruining the expressiveness of many good tracks. So, yeah, there's a lot of room for improvement in both mixing and mastering IMO. Try googling "loudness wars" and you'll see that I'm not alone in my opinion.

I'm well aware of "loudness wars". Why do you think I asked people to withhold their bias as one of the first points in this thread? I don't want it to degenerate into a conflict between those who prefer heavy compression to those who don't.

However, whether or not you like this heavily squashed sound that destroys track dynamics is irrelevant; we can all agree that compression has greatly increased the clarity with which individual elements in a track can be heard. My question concerned this. Will the clarity and "thickness" of tracks have improved markedly in another decade (or ten)? The title of the thread is perhaps misleading in this respect.

Interestingly, with loudness wars, I wrote a small article a while back proposing that human hearing may evolving to be worse. While iPods, clubs, movie theatres and loud industrial noise in general bombard us, our ears may adapt so that we are unable to hear softer sounds and tend to speak louder. As a result, music devices would be manufactured to have even louder outputs, which would start the cycle all over again. I think it's entirely conceivable that in 100 or 200 years, western hearing will be much less sensitive than it is now, but that will be the norm for society.

I'll just state that my response was limited solely to the type of trance on the trancemaster series of CDs. I often make the assumption that posts on tranceaddict are about trance, rather than music generally.

For a lot of other styles, music quality has gone backwards due to overcompression/limiting. And in trance too, those factors haven't helped the sound. But there are other factors to take into consideration besides the loudness war.

I absolutely love some of the old trance songs - as subtle said, and as I alluded to, people, including myself, will listen to great music even if the mix quality isn't what it could be. The sound quality ten years ago is noticeably worse, in general - flat sounding kicks, muddy basses, sounds getting totally lost when other sounds come in. Not for a second am I saying all songs suffered from these problems, but I am saying it is very noticeable overall if you listen to a 2009 trancemaster CD and then listen to one from 1999.

The style will keep evolving though - sounds go in and out of style - at some times trance may feature a lot of extremely hard sounding kick samples, then someone may release a song which works incredibly well with a very soft sounding sample and people really like it because it's so different.

Today's music will sound dated in 10 years - people will be able to tell it's 2009 trance rather than 2019 trance. But as to whether it's undeniably better audio quality/ mixing, remains to be seen. It could well be the case.

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