TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

I dunno, today I have been going through tracks of different genres, paying attention to mixing and mastering features like frequency balance and dynamics, and it is really getting me annoyed with the super bass-heavy, squashed, crowded sound of so much dance music.

This isn't necessarily about the songwriting quality, and not only about "loudness war," either, but the general claustrophobic sound of a lot of dance music. Once you turn it up there is no room to relax, just a constant assault on the ear drums. Does anyone else get sick of this? Anyone crave more space and breathing room? Am I just getting old and crotchety?

Space is something I strive for with my tunes but I tend to get a little lost in my own clutter with various ideas. I've been getting into having different elements move into the foreground and back-ground intermittently to kind of toy with that dynamic and I also like to have a lot of complexity in my backgrounds which I tend to keep out of my foreground.

To the more widely applied question of whether or not techno, in general, has lost its empty spaces, I would say yes, to a certain degree. This is just my own theory but there seems to be a new population of people who are producing (semi and pro) professionally and they haven't yet acquired, through their experience, a certain mixing ethos that earlier producers seemed to have. I think, however, it's getting better.

It wasn't too long ago that I would listen to a song in Windows Media Player and see this contiguous line peaking at the same height for all of the frequencies. Then the music sounded good and it seemed like these guys had really done their homework. To my error, the level lined spectrum became my own bench-mark.

Now when I'm listening to other people's material, I see that line has decreased substantially in its continuity. People are favoring elements which still deliver a robust sound but don't have to take up the whole spectrum to sound good. The music tends to sound better, or at least more nuanced, as well.

Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Am I just getting old and crotchety?

Yes. You and Richard can be hate buddies.


I like my own stuff to induce nosebleeds.

i usually try to make something classic sounding but every time i end mixingdown around a -2 kick , the loudness war is on fire and i can't avoid it.

Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I dunno, today I have been going through tracks of different genres, paying attention to mixing and mastering features like frequency balance and dynamics, and it is really getting me annoyed with the super bass-heavy, squashed, crowded sound of so much dance music. This isn't necessarily about the songwriting quality, and not only about "loudness war," either, but the general claustrophobic sound of a lot of dance music. Once you turn it up there is no room to relax, just a constant assault on the ear drums. Does anyone else get sick of this? Anyone crave more space and breathing room? Am I just getting old and crotchety?

Part of it is just getting older, but the other part is producers following the trends. People like Daft Punk and Deadmau5 have made that ultra compressed sound popular.

I've always been obsessed with what drives people to dance, and when you juxtapose popular dance music with EDM the differences can be quite baffling.

Most popular dance songs are quite open in dynamics and sound. The patterns are usually quite simple. Look at sandstorm, or Zombie nation. Very simple.

Check out this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUftr8YAtBo

It was a short produced for the Online Booty Call Commercial. If you compared it to EDM, its dynamic range is huge. Listen to what happens when you turn it up. It's not fatiguing at all and it still sounds balanced. This is what a professional track should sound like in my opinion. When you have it turned down, it sounds small, but as you turn up the volume it gets fatter and fatter. The same thing happens with Thriller. The loudness of a track doesn't influence how good a song is.

I guess its easier to think that, "My track must suck because there isn't any mastering on it!" Or..."It isn't loud enough." I mean, future music just had a feature on mastering where they compared, amateur to professional and the result was that the professional one sounded better. Now kids are going to think, "I need professional mastering for the track to sound good!"

depends on the genre too, techno has a saturated kick but there's usually space for other elements, uplifting trance on the other hand has always a pumping kick and a driving bassline that eats all the elements.

Listening to uplifting trance in a big PA system is a pain in the ass, you only hear "Boom Boom Boom "

Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Part of it is just getting older, but the other part is producers following the trends. People like Daft Punk and Deadmau5 have made that ultra compressed sound popular. I've always been obsessed with what drives people to dance, and when you juxtapose popular dance music with EDM the differences can be quite baffling. Most popular dance songs are quite open in dynamics and sound. The patterns are usually quite simple. Look at sandstorm, or Zombie nation. Very simple.

I couldn't agree less. Both those tracks have little in terms of open dynamics and were popular because they were either catchy or could be sung while drunk at a football match. It has little to do with "open dynamics". In fact sandstorm is possibly one of the more crowded tracks in terms of content I can think of.

And daft punk - yes their sounds are compressed but from an arrangement point of view, they are incredible well made to allow space for each element and in that respect they are very open sounding.

What drives people to dance? Groove. You can try to add whatever else you want, in any way, but people will dance to a good groove, period. It's primitive reaction in it's purest form (after eat and procreate).

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux Check out this song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUftr8YAtBo It was a short produced for the Online Booty Call Commercial. If you compared it to EDM, its dynamic range is huge. Listen to what happens when you turn it up. It's not fatiguing at all and it still sounds balanced. This is what a professional track should sound like in my opinion. When you have it turned down, it sounds small, but as you turn up the volume it gets fatter and fatter. The same thing happens with Thriller. The loudness of a track doesn't influence how good a song is. I guess its easier to think that, "My track must suck because there isn't any mastering on it!" Or..."It isn't loud enough." I mean, future music just had a feature on mastering where they compared, amateur to professional and the result was that the professional one sounded better. Now kids are going to think, "I need professional mastering for the track to sound good!"

Thriller (alegedly) doesn't have any compression on it, but that's not why it was good - again as per the examples you posted before, they are catchy, well written songs, and in the case of Thriller, performed by someone that was incredibly talented and one of the greatest performers(MJ), and produced by someone even more talented (QJ). It' not about the loudness war or compression.

Good engineering is giving elements the space to breath and stand out as individual sounds and as composite. Good arrangement is the same but in a musically creative way. Good mixing is making the most of those two previous statement and good mastering it just accentuating those previous three things.

Re: Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN I couldn't agree less. Both those tracks have little in terms of open dynamics and were popular because they were either catchy or could be sung while drunk at a football match. It has little to do with "open dynamics". In fact sandstorm is possibly one of the more crowded tracks in terms of content I can think of. And daft punk - yes their sounds are compressed but from an arrangement point of view, they are incredible well made to allow space for each element and in that respect they are very open sounding. What drives people to dance? Groove. You can try to add whatever else you want, in any way, but people will dance to a good groove, period. It's primitive reaction in it's purest form (after eat and procreate).

You're right. I had some other 90's songs in mind at the time.

It's not just groove though. Mau5 and Punk both have their own unique sounds, but they also use melodies and harmonies as well. As funky as "Around the World" was, if it didn't have a melody it wouldn't have been a hit. People can dance to a repeating 808 machine, but all hits need a melody.

Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles but the general claustrophobic sound of a lot of dance music. Once you turn it up there is no room to relax, just a constant assault on the ear drums.

This is a very timely thread for me.
I was thinking just before I read this that I want to go back to my original instincts which was to get away from the assualt on the ears wall of sound... sound.
I remember very distinctly saying I wanted to vreat uncluttered non wall o sound EDM a long while back, but somehow I get sidetracked.

My current track has one lead, one thin pad and one bass playing at once.

A reason I don't listen to music radio much is what I call the assualt on the ears - I'm always going on about this, so interesting thread.

The best sound in a track is space and silence between sounds. It allows for much more impact and grove.

Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux People like Daft Punk and Deadmau5 have made that ultra compressed sound popular.

I only know deadmaus 2007/8 stuff and I would say he is the exact opposite of the wall o sound noise menance I am fed up with. His tracks are pretty clean and don;t have oodles of synths layered up - in esscence just kick' bass and a lead synth (ok they may be layered for power but what I mean is there is little else going on).

quote:

Originally posted by Rodri Santos Listening to uplifting trance in a big PA system is a pain in the ass, you only hear "Boom Boom Boom "

Yet people on forums have long given the advice - you need more layers and 3 different hat loops - I've never been convinced. Some 80's classic funk pop tracks have very few elements but sound well full and driving.

Three hat loops? Naw, you need at least ten.

I was thinking about Queen's 'another one bits the dust' - a fullsome sounding grove with hardly anything going on. I for one can learn from the old school.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Three hat loops? Naw, you need at least ten.

I could not believe that 7 skies actually layers 8-10 hihat patterns. Seems like overkill.

Re: Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Butler I only know deadmaus 2007/8 stuff and I would say he is the exact opposite of the wall o sound noise menance I am fed up with. His tracks are pretty clean and don;t have oodles of synths layered up - in esscence just kick' bass and a lead synth (ok they may be layered for power but what I mean is there is little else going on).

I agree with this. A lot his tracks really don't have all that much in them but people still lap them up. They just work.

I tend to orchestrate rather dense but it is always meant to sound rather simple. The added layers that double lets say the violins add colour but not necessarily something you would hear alone

ALl sorts of combinations for orchestra. Cell a oboe.Viola and horns. ! first violin and flute. Much like addictive synthesis.

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad addictive synthesis.

Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles ...super bass-heavy, squashed, crowded sound of so much dance music.

Bass-heavy, squashed, and crowded all refer to completely different aspects of a mix.

It's been demonstrated for some time that bass heaviness is a good thing. Obviously you want to stay out of the mud range (around 500 Hz) as much as possible, but loud bass and treble against a relatively soft mid-band is what most listeners perceive to be crisp and clean, which is a prerequisite for dance music and also very common in mainstream genres.

It's also fairly straightforward to squash a mix without crowding it. Hell, you can squash a mix with nothing but a kick drum playing if you want. And actually, a certain amount of compression tends to make people perceive the track as less crowded/muddy, because the increased gain makes individual elements easier to hear at the same master volume.

If a track really sounds "crowded" then it's probably a sign of poor or inadequate EQing and possibly too little compression. I would not classify the majority of dance music as sounding crowded. In all likelihood, if you're finding some track to sound just relentlessly headache-inducing noisy then it's probably overdoing the midrange, especially if it's trance we're talking about (those supersaws and the like tend to fill out the midrange a lot and can bring a lot of mud into the track if the producer isn't careful).

Or maybe you're just referring to tracks that have no dynamic range, but I think that tends to relate more to arrangement than the technical aspects of mixing and mastering. If you record a concert pianist and master it to have sharp EQ and high gain, the result is still going to sound very clear and spacious. Muddiness would be the result of bad compression or mastering, not necessarily too much of it.

It is possible, even likely, that you are experiencing this as a direct result of age. As people get older their tolerance for harsh sounds starts to decline, just like their tolerance for spicy foods or other types of mild pain. And as pain tolerance decreases then you start to notice it more; things that may once have been enjoyable become just painful or irritating. Sounds in a mix also become more difficult to distinguish from each other, which is why you always see the old fogeys turning their TVs up to preposterous volumes just to hear the voices.

Could also be the trend in music production, but I think the trend reversed a few years ago as producers started to gain better awareness of the effects of overcompression. If nothing else, they've at least gotten much better at it, developing the ability to eke out more gain without actually making the track sound squashed (typically due to better compressors and multiple stages of lighter compression).

Bottom line is I think your complaint is about 5 years late. Dance music definitely did go through a stage (several stages, if you consider the technology that was available at various times in history) where everything was just hideously squashed and ear-splitting. But eventually the producers wise up, and I think the pendulum's been swinging the other way for at least a few years now.

Re: Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Thriller (alegedly) doesn't have any compression on it, but that's not why it was good - again as per the examples you posted before, they are catchy, well written songs, and in the case of Thriller, performed by someone that was incredibly talented and one of the greatest performers(MJ), and produced by someone even more talented (QJ). It' not about the loudness war or compression. Good engineering is giving elements the space to breath and stand out as individual sounds and as composite. Good arrangement is the same but in a musically creative way. Good mixing is making the most of those two previous statement and good mastering it just accentuating those previous three things.

Back then , musicians sort of did compression on their own in that they mimicked the sort of consistency you get when using compression. You didn't need to put a limiter on every channel input because players where that good. I remember practicing drums spending hours just hitting the drum to get a consistent loudness and be able to control it. You would also hit things with velocities that sort of mirrored the pumping action of a compressor for example the hihat Also whem you really wack a drum or guitar or bass, you get that boost in transients that compression also does for you. And add someone that knows how to mc things and you really don't need that much compression. I 'm sure the tape process and the tube saturation provided enough crunch to make the final product great.

It really was an era where musicians could just be musicians and make a great living doing just one thing. Even drummers and bass players made money.

Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Bass-heavy, squashed, and crowded all refer to completely different aspects of a mix. It's been demonstrated for some time that bass heaviness is a good thing. Obviously you want to stay out of the mud range (around 500 Hz) as much as possible, but loud bass and treble against a relatively soft mid-band is what most listeners perceive to be crisp and clean, which is a prerequisite for dance music and also very common in mainstream genres. It's also fairly straightforward to squash a mix without crowding it. Hell, you can squash a mix with nothing but a kick drum playing if you want. And actually, a certain amount of compression tends to make people perceive the track as less crowded/muddy, because the increased gain makes individual elements easier to hear at the same master volume. If a track really sounds "crowded" then it's probably a sign of poor or inadequate EQing and possibly too little compression. I would not classify the majority of dance music as sounding crowded. In all likelihood, if you're finding some track to sound just relentlessly headache-inducing noisy then it's probably overdoing the midrange, especially if it's trance we're talking about (those supersaws and the like tend to fill out the midrange a lot and can bring a lot of mud into the track if the producer isn't careful). Or maybe you're just referring to tracks that have no dynamic range, but I think that tends to relate more to arrangement than the technical aspects of mixing and mastering. If you record a concert pianist and master it to have sharp EQ and high gain, the result is still going to sound very clear and spacious. Muddiness would be the result of bad compression or mastering, not necessarily too much of it. It is possible, even likely, that you are experiencing this as a direct result of age. As people get older their tolerance for harsh sounds starts to decline, just like their tolerance for spicy foods or other types of mild pain. And as pain tolerance decreases then you start to notice it more; things that may once have been enjoyable become just painful or irritating. Sounds in a mix also become more difficult to distinguish from each other, which is why you always see the old fogeys turning their TVs up to preposterous volumes just to hear the voices. Could also be the trend in music production, but I think the trend reversed a few years ago as producers started to gain better awareness of the effects of overcompression. If nothing else, they've at least gotten much better at it, developing the ability to eke out more gain without actually making the track sound squashed (typically due to better compressors and multiple stages of lighter compression). Bottom line is I think your complaint is about 5 years late. Dance music definitely did go through a stage (several stages, if you consider the technology that was available at various times in history) where everything was just hideously squashed and ear-splitting. But eventually the producers wise up, and I think the pendulum's been swinging the other way for at least a few years now.

Thanks, Diginut. This had me take a look of a mix from a bit of a different perspective in conjunction with some feedback it's been getting. Maybe it's not the panacea the mix needs but I think it just made things a lot clearer for me and the mix.




The rub is that it's essentially a simplicity which eluded me that was right under my nose the whole time.

Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Bass-heavy, squashed, and crowded all refer to completely different aspects of a mix. It's been demonstrated for some time that bass heaviness is a good thing. Obviously you want to stay out of the mud range (around 500 Hz) as much as possible, but loud bass and treble against a relatively soft mid-band is what most listeners perceive to be crisp and clean, which is a prerequisite for dance music and also very common in mainstream genres. It's also fairly straightforward to squash a mix without crowding it. Hell, you can squash a mix with nothing but a kick drum playing if you want. And actually, a certain amount of compression tends to make people perceive the track as less crowded/muddy, because the increased gain makes individual elements easier to hear at the same master volume. If a track really sounds "crowded" then it's probably a sign of poor or inadequate EQing and possibly too little compression. I would not classify the majority of dance music as sounding crowded. In all likelihood, if you're finding some track to sound just relentlessly headache-inducing noisy then it's probably overdoing the midrange, especially if it's trance we're talking about (those supersaws and the like tend to fill out the midrange a lot and can bring a lot of mud into the track if the producer isn't careful). Or maybe you're just referring to tracks that have no dynamic range, but I think that tends to relate more to arrangement than the technical aspects of mixing and mastering. If you record a concert pianist and master it to have sharp EQ and high gain, the result is still going to sound very clear and spacious. Muddiness would be the result of bad compression or mastering, not necessarily too much of it. It is possible, even likely, that you are experiencing this as a direct result of age. As people get older their tolerance for harsh sounds starts to decline, just like their tolerance for spicy foods or other types of mild pain. And as pain tolerance decreases then you start to notice it more; things that may once have been enjoyable become just painful or irritating. Sounds in a mix also become more difficult to distinguish from each other, which is why you always see the old fogeys turning their TVs up to preposterous volumes just to hear the voices. Could also be the trend in music production, but I think the trend reversed a few years ago as producers started to gain better awareness of the effects of overcompression. If nothing else, they've at least gotten much better at it, developing the ability to eke out more gain without actually making the track sound squashed (typically due to better compressors and multiple stages of lighter compression). Bottom line is I think your complaint is about 5 years late. Dance music definitely did go through a stage (several stages, if you consider the technology that was available at various times in history) where everything was just hideously squashed and ear-splitting. But eventually the producers wise up, and I think the pendulum's been swinging the other way for at least a few years now.

panning X frequency X depth X TIME

THERE IS A FOURTH DIMENSION!!!!

Depending on how shit is arranged and how things are close together, there is the effect of pre/post masking.

Compression can make the release stage of a sound longer, and that will have a bigger masking effect.

I think while bass is obviously important in dance music, i think it can be overdone to the point where its just a constant boominess and no therefore no punch or groove - ive heard this a lot in clubs this past few years (clubs with very good soundsystems)

Re: Re: Re: Crowded sound vs. spacious sound (mixing / mastering / arrangement)

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux panning X frequency X depth X TIME THERE IS A FOURTH DIMENSION!!!! Depending on how shit is arranged and how things are close together, there is the effect of pre/post masking. Compression can make the release stage of a sound longer, and that will have a bigger masking effect.

There are many more than four aspects to the mixing and arrangement of a track; I was simply referring to the three under discussion.

There's also timing of individual instrument/sample tracks - imperceptible delays in the attack/release can significantly affect the perceived tempo vs. actual tempo. And swings or other "grooves" can significantly alter the perceived mood, turning a harsh, somber track into a playful one.

And then of course there are all sorts of tricks you can play with the stereo field besides panning - stereo imaging, special types of reverb, M-S compression, yadda yadda.

Compression itself is not one-dimensional. At a basic minimum you're trying to balance RMS gain with peak gain. As a simplification you can imagine it as a reverse-asymptotic X-Y chart; eventually you hit diminishing returns and further compression is just squashing more low transients without netting any significant gain. And then you have limiting or hard compression which is only concerned with peak removal, not gain.

Anyway. I'm just saying all this to highlight the fact that my previous post was not intended to be a complete dissertation on all of the interdependent variables in a mix, it was only intended to address the specific question being asked here.

mixdowns are definitely getting more crowded and masters are definitely slammed to the point of lunacy but heres some things i think about when im in the studio:

i feel like the loudness war is important in the DJing sense that you are mixing tracks into each other and they have to be cohesive. when i mix a really old track (when compression wasn't so abused) into a newer slammed-beyond-all-reason track, the life just falls out of the mix and the dancefloor. it all of a sudden just sounds like something is missing.

dance music is supposed to be somewhat overwhelming, especially on a big system. but i find alot of the really intricate things in really crowded tracks get lost when they are played so loud and they are already slammed through a limiter in the studio and then again at a club. this leads me to question alot of the extra layers in my tracks...are they really going to get heard? or could i take this out of the mix and my mixdown would be alot easier to compress, eq, etc since its not as much stuff fighting each other for space.

i think the real "dynamics" in dance music are in the arrangement. of course its good to make sure each sound has its own space and is full of dynamic and character, but i think the easiest way to counter act this is to be really careful about how you arrange things when you have so many possible tracks/sounds in your mix.

just my way of looking at things when i write tracks. some other really good points in this thread as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell dance music is supposed to be somewhat overwhelming, especially on a big system. but i find alot of the really intricate things in really crowded tracks get lost when they are played so loud and they are already slammed through a limiter in the studio and then again at a club.

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