TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Listen to a mas--....mix?
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Listen to a mas--....mix?

Scrapped the mastering thing in lieu of better mixing...

Trying again...(without the cold this tiem )

http://soundcloud.com/theterranastronaut/summer-snow

i don't think you should be focusing on mastering just yet.

what is mastering really? mixing? its pretty hard to know how well the master is when we cant compare to the original imo. if u want feedback on the mixing here it comes. the baseline is way too loud and subby. the kick is untight and the synths are too low and thin. the whole mix sounds like its played back on a PA system without midrange. also the reverb sounds too small and the sidechaining is overdonne. its a pretty bad mix imo. the synth sounds selected is also very dated and the whole track lacks identity somehow. i really like the chord progression and the vibe you are aiming for though, quite uplifting feel without being too cheesy. but u werent wondering about the actual track but the mix/master, so therefore my feedback is pretty harsh, just as the mix. hope it helps.

quote:

Originally posted by nortek what is mastering really? mixing? its pretty hard to know how well the master is when we cant compare to the original imo. if u want feedback on the mixing here it comes. the baseline is way too loud and subby. the kick is untight and the synths are too low and thin. the whole mix sounds like its played back on a PA system without midrange. also the reverb sounds too small and the sidechaining is overdonne. its a pretty bad mix imo. the synth sounds selected is also very dated and the whole track lacks identity somehow. i really like the chord progression and the vibe you are aiming for though, quite uplifting feel without being too cheesy. but u werent wondering about the actual track but the mix/master, so therefore my feedback is pretty harsh, just as the mix. hope it helps.

Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD.

Mastering is also removing garbage and artifacts, doing your final EQ'ing, and doing the final compression and touchups on the track. A master will also add that extra depth, shine and clarity.

I haven't had the pleasure of tuning my tracks to a club, so yeah the reveerb is what I remember the veerb being like in large dance halls.

Nothing wrong with dated either. I like older trance sounds better than alot of the new garbage I've been hearing lately. And the ONLY thing I sidechained in there really was the crash and one synth...I've heard more liberal uses of it :P

And maybe a picture to help describe what I'm getting at : http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/p...4/IMG_0192s.PNG

Cheers for the feedback...and the original IS there to compare with, so way to go guy. :P

someone correct me if im wrong, but normalization and mastering are two different things.

quote:

Originally posted by MSZ someone correct me if im wrong, but normalization and mastering are two different things.

quote:

Normalisation is a process that looks for the highest peak in the sound file, and then raises (or lowers) the level of the entire track so that peak matches a specific level. For example - say you under-recorded the whole take, and the highest peak is -48 dBFS. If you Normalise to -6dB, the algorithm works out that the entire track requires a boost of 42dB. This is an extreme case, where there isn't enough gain on the fader to do this in one step. It's a desperate salvage operation - not good recording practice.

quote:

Examples of possible actions taken during mastering: 1. Editing minor flaws 2. Applying noise reduction to eliminate clicks, dropouts, hum and hiss 3. Adjusting stereo width 4. Adding ambience 5. Equalize audio across tracks 6. Adjust volume 7. Dynamic range expansion or compression 8. Peak limit

My rectec book goes a little more in-depth, but copypasta shall suffice.

i realize what normalization means, what triggered my post was "when you said Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD." its much more than that, but hey what do i know about mastering, i always let mastering-professionals do that.

quote:

Originally posted by MSZ i realize what normalization means, what triggered my post was "when you said Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD." its much more than that, but hey what do i know about mastering, i always let mastering-professionals do that.

I elaborated further =\

Not trying to be an ass here, I get that people get uppity about mastering for whatever reason. It's not going to stop me from trying it.

It's not life or death, and if I ever sent this out to a record label I can simply un-tick the single 4-band compressor and EQ that were used and it goes back down to it's -3dB self...

Maybe my ears are just shot then...because the track sounds clean on my HSM80s. Would actually be shitty news tbh.

quote:

Originally posted by TaylorR i don't think you should be focusing on mastering just yet.

quote:

Originally posted by theterran Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD. I haven't had the pleasure of tuning my tracks to a club, so yeah the reveerb is what I remember the veerb being like in large dance halls. Mastering is also removing garbage and artifacts, doing your final EQ'ing, and doing the final compression and touchups on the track. A master will also add that extra depth, shine and clarity. Nothing wrong with dated either. I like older trance sounds better than alot of the new garbage I've been hearing lately. And the ONLY thing I sidechained in there really was the crash and one synth...I've heard more liberal uses of it :P And maybe a picture to help describe what I'm getting at : http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/p...4/IMG_0192s.PNG Cheers for the feedback...and the original IS there to compare with, so way to go guy. :P

i didnt mean dated as in oldschool but as in like 2006 softsynths or something, but that wasnt so important. sorry i still dont see the original raw unmastered version, id love to hear it to compare. but i seriously think you should look at a few of the points i mentioned anyway. especially the eqing of your baseline and the thin sounding synths pluss the unfocused kick. it seems you have high-passed all your other elements but kick and base, and overdonne the eqing on the baseline. just trying to help.

i like your avatar though but your name should have been terranaut.

quote:

Originally posted by nortek i didnt mean dated as in oldschool but as in like 2006 softsynths or something, but that wasnt so important. sorry i still dont see the original raw unmastered version, id love to hear it to compare. but i seriously think you should look at a few of the points i mentioned anyway. especially the eqing of your baseline and the thin sounding synths pluss the unfocused kick. it seems you have high-passed all your other elements but kick and base, and overdonne the eqing on the baseline. just trying to help.

Oh absolutly that's why I posted here.

The link to compare with is above the...nevermind I'll just link the widgit.

And no, I didn't ask what anyone thought of the mix itself. Only the main fidelity. Mids are lacking? Kick isn't tight? That's fine, I can fix that. As for the synths, I made them using an old analogue controller that my friend's father left her when he passed, so *shrug* I like 'em.

somehow i dont get the mastered version to play now, but i listened to the original and from what i can remember between the first listen(master) and this, i notice the same problems. too much eq on the baseline and to low/thin synths. also the hihats seems abit too much at the moment. im getting into the actual synth sounds after a few listen now though so it grows abit on me, they just need more body and presence, which is mixing, not mastering.

edit: i got to listen to both now, the unmastered version is alot better lol.

do u have a visual spektrometer(freq/amplitude) software or something? it would be rather clear whats missing using something like that at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by nortek edit: i got to listen to both now, the unmastered version is alot better lol.

Typical

It just sounds too cloudy to me, and it's beyond my EQ'ing prowess atm I guess...

quote:

Originally posted by theterran Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD.

no it isn't. Engineers generally don't make all the tracks have the same rms value as some tracks are meant to be quiet while others are not. Not sure where you heard that myth.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad no it isn't. Engineers generally don't make all the tracks have the same rms value as some tracks are meant to be quiet while others are not. Not sure where you heard that myth.

trololol read the rest. It's apart of it though, nobody wants to sit there and change their volume knob on their car the entire time they're driving for every track...About any CD I've ever listened to, I can set it and forget it. I'm baffled as to why the process of setting up your tracks to play at similar perceived volumes in mastering would be included in a professional recording technicians book...oh well, clearly the author had no idea what he was talking about.

no it isn't. Mastering Engineers have never tried to make all the tracks have the same rms level. More or less the same but never a target value which you stated. You also edited your post to explain your myth. They try and make the cd have a dynamic progression that makes sense, not make things equal. And if they did, they were shit engineers. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Mastering if anything is preparing something for a certain media format. They do sometimes have to do extra work because of weak mixes but really, that is all mastering every was and should be. Taking out garbage and artifacts ? that is something you fix in the recording process or at least in the mixing stage.

quote:

Originally posted by theterran Typical It just sounds too cloudy to me, and it's beyond my EQ'ing prowess atm I guess...

you should focus ALOT more on the mixdown/eqing than thinking about mastering (again, whatever that really is). try comparing with other tracks etc, if you have worked long with this your ears have adapted and then its impossible to do anything useful other than structure/transitions or creative stuff imo. most people who try to master their own track end up ruining them with overcompression, muddyness, distortion and so on. it should be done with fresh ears and when all the tracks on a album are like finished, and its meant to make the tracks have the same "balance" so it sounds like one, not to fix mixing problems. it is also meant to make all the tracks at the same experienced listening level, not RMS or Peak or whatever. Its about the end listener.

quote:

Originally posted by nortek you should focus ALOT more on the mixdown/eqing than thinking about mastering (again, whatever that really is). try comparing with other tracks etc, if you have worked long with this your ears have adapted and then its impossible to do anything useful other than structure/transitions or creative stuff imo. most people who try to master their own track end up ruining them with overcompression, muddyness, distortion and so on. it should be done with fresh ears and when all the tracks on a album are like finished, and its meant to make the tracks have the same "balance" so it sounds like one, not to fix mixing problems. it is also meant to make all the tracks at the same experienced listening level, not RMS or Peak or whatever. Its about the end listener.

Next time I'll be more explicit and state "Perceived Loudness."

Did I say anything about RMS values being the same?

And yeah I do compare my stuff with professional recordings as much as possible. Alot of my more recent tracks are sounding alot better because of it.

It's going back and fixing the older one's where I started off poorly that's a bitch. I haven't touched Track2 in about 2 months.

I've only been producing EDM since January of this year, so I'm sure after another 5-10 years of this I'll figure it out...

Again, thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate it, and I know it's hard to come acrossed as constructive while not sounding like an asshole at the same time. So it's cool, no worries, I don't take any of this personally. I'm here to learn, ask questions etc...

If I hadn't posted, I would have 0 feedback so, it's worth it to suffer through some of the more pointed critical feedback.

good you have your perspectives in order. it does indeed take 10 years to be good at, well actually, anything. i suck myself but after 5 years im aware of it and that might help my future projects, whenever that will be. btw have u only produced since januar? talent at melodies man! keep it up. i thought u where one of the ancient members around here, but maybe theres someone else with almost same nick.

quote:

Originally posted by nortek good you have your perspectives in order. it does indeed take 10 years to be good at, well actually, anything. i suck myself but after 5 years im aware of it and that might help my future projects, whenever that will be. btw have u only produced since januar? talent at melodies man! keep it up. i thought u where one of the ancient members around here, but maybe theres someone else with almost same nick.

Yeah, my very first track is at the bottom of my soundcloud, it's been up for 7 months. It took 3 months from start to finish because I had to learn how to use FL studio, and learn about things like sidechaining, compression etc...

I got my first pair of studio headphones (BeyerDynamicDT770Pros) after the track was completed in March...(I originally mixed on some logitech fatalities lol.)

So I am very much learning, and I thought I would try to use some mastering techniques in this book I have here to clean up Track2.

Exported the track as a .wav from FL and attempted the master in Cubase5.

i dont think u need to worry about that. focus on the mixdown in FL. the more u do there the easier will the mastering be (if that is ever a question anyway).

quote:

Originally posted by theterran trololol read the rest. It's apart of it though, nobody wants to sit there and change their volume knob on their car the entire time they're driving for every track...About any CD I've ever listened to, I can set it and forget it.

The entire time? What are you doing, gain riding? If the CD is loud, variations don't really matter. It takes like 1 second to change the volume. 15 tracks, 15 seconds. What else could you be doing that's so important while driving?

Do you have any previous musical experience? The melodies sound pretty good.

its fucking important imo that a cd have the same perceived volume all the way. i dont have a remote for my amp. lol.

He's mastering shit on anotha level.

quote:

Originally posted by nortek its fucking important imo that a cd have the same perceived volume all the way. i dont have a remote for my amp. lol.

no it isn't. Why would a heavy rock song be the same volume as a ballad with solo voice and guitar. Albums always vary in perceived loudness. Unless al the material is the same.

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