 |
|
|
|
 |
Diginerd
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Stamford, CT, USA but from the UK
|
|
|
Ask not what you can do to dynmaics, but what they can do for you.. ;-)
|
|
Sep-07-2007 03:03
|
|
|
 |
 |
Fledz
Banned

Registered: Sep 2006
Location: London UK
|
|
|
Sep-07-2007 08:57
|
|
|
 |
 |
Derivative
Bipolar Bear
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Diginerd
Ask not what you can do to dynmaics, but what they can do for you.. ;-) |
In a crazy way this could be construed as being actually true.
If you peak at 0dB you have the most dynamic range. It makes no sense to record with peak level anything significantly less than that because you have less dynamic range, and the listener can solve that problem by turning the volume down on their hifi.
also, if you mixdown a track and it is extremely quiet compared to professional releases then you technically fucked up the mixdown or at the very least wasted a load of headroom. There is a margin where professional releases will have a loudness maximiser close to or at the end of the signal chain for the final push in RMS peak level. But if you are miles off, then thats an indicator that you should remix your track and have another stab.
Its the compressor thing that bothers people and I just don't get that. There is almost no such thing as overcompression or too much compression in professionally released music.
To hear overcompression you would have to get your own compressor and run a tune through it with 10:1 ratio and -60dB threshold, normalised to 0dB at the output. That is indescriminate, overbearing compression. I have never heard a professionally released tune that approached anywhere near that degree - it would be painful to listen to.
So when people point to that typical wave editor window showing a full stereo track looking like 2 blue brick walls as evidence of a loudness war, I am reminded of that scene in Amadeus when Mozart is told that one of his peices has 'too many notes'. To which he replies perplexedly 'but the peice neither has too many nor too few notes - it has exactly the number of notes that are required'.
People cite Oasis - 'Definitely Maybe' as an example of the Loudness War in application. But really - when you listen to Oasis what do you expect? Noel Gallagher divulges on the video documentary 'There we were, now here we are' that he used to just turn everything up to 10 on his amp because that was no messing around.
How do you expect an Oasis record to be mixed? peak level normalised to 3 decibels below zero, no loudness maximisation and all the meters green? Hah! Oasis is loud and brash and rude (though for different reasons now compared to then). 'Definitely Maybe' for it to be true to the spirit of the people that created it, needed to be loud and brash and rude. And it took something like 10 engineers before they got a mixdown they were happy with. And that engineer tried to brickwall every track and confessed as much on the same fucking documentary.
Its an issue of appropriateness and inappropriateness. Nothing else. So if people think its inappropriate - especially on the engineering front in a field which, lets be honest, always chooses what sounds subjectively better over what is mathematically correct - the only correct answer is this:
Shut up and write your own damn music to your own arbitrary standard of excellence, mixeddown to 3 decibels below zero and every meter in the green. Or to whatever arbitrary standard one feels is appropriate and right about music production that modern popular music 'lacks'.
I'd respect that if not agree with the fact that it proves nothing - only that its an example of different strokes.
I suppose the same reasoning could be used to suggest that Pollock used 'too much paint' or Rothko didn't use 'enough colours' or that Faulkner didn't use 'enough punctuation' but there you go.
Last edited by Derivative on Sep-07-2007 at 22:30
|
|
Sep-07-2007 12:41
|
|
|
 |
 |
derail
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
|
|
There are good examples of brickwalled music, good examples of highly dynamic music. And bad examples of each as well, naturally.
Trance would sound quite different if it didn't have such a prominent kick (well, duh!). If that was a chunk quieter we could all push our songs up heaps more, to Rock levels. The kick would sound tiny but the tracks would be hot as can be.
I don't really listen to modern rock so I can't really comment on the loudness wars. I don't mind some heavy music from time to time. But some of it, like Static X, which sounds like it could be really good, is crazy brickwalled and I can only listen to half a track. From the first note, through the verse, the chorus, all of it, it's right in your face and never backs down for a second. There's no tension, no "man, they're really coming at me here in this bit", none of that at all. They're an example I can think of where they could've knocked 3 to 5 dbs off the average RMS and it'd sound heaps better.
|
|
Sep-07-2007 16:33
|
|
|
 |
 |
Subtle
Subreme tranceaddict

Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Urban Shakedown
|
|
|
Sep-07-2007 17:26
|
|
|
 |
 |
meDina
puttin CUTE into execute
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: LATA#222-Redondo Beach
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Zombie0729
just looks to me like they didn't record the drums right from the get go :P
|
how were those drums incorrectly recorded?
___________________
I really suck at making music
|
|
Sep-07-2007 23:15
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:59.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|