Seems all you need these days is a computer and software to arrange your sounds Wouldnt worry too much about bucks = bang. Dont use it myself but fruity is a great program, Pro (i.e. signed) Tracks being produced with it all the time. Dont see trance dying off anytime soon either

Last edited by /I\ on Mar-24-2006 at 22:35

I would have to agree with Tweak. You can get very decent results even with the free software of today, you shouldn't worry about the extra 5-10%. Even if you would own the expensive hardware, you wouldn't have the experience to take the full advantage of it. An experienced engineer could make a better sounding master with free software, than you (or I) could with his gear.

You just need to find the right software and learn to use it. For freeware synths, check out Synth1, Triangle II and Superware P8. For plugins: http://www.kvraudio.com/

There has got to be something more specific that can help. I agree with you all that it requires experience moreso than gear. So I have all these cheap/free programs, but I wonder which traits of their output make it quality, what are the traits of a piece of music with quality production and what are some little things that you personally do in attempt to obtain those things.

Say I set up this synth to make a goofy buzzing sound, my sounds always come out sounding "raw", I don't quite know how to describe it. It doesn't sound like its coming from an instrument, it doesn't sound like I can point to where it is coming from on the stage, just a "raw" buzzing noise. I try to do stereo panning and reverb(those are the things I read about that give a sound the feeling of coming from somewhere), but still someting about it still sounds a little off, I play with these compressions because I read that compression is important, but that just makes it loud, echoey, to the left or right, but still sounding "raw". That being just one example of the many probelms I have in reaching quality sound.

I wonder what it is I am missing, if it is improper use of effects, bad initial sound design, some sort of EQ trick or something that I havent tried yet, just wondering what makes it sound so "off", why it always comes out so ugly. I just do this for fun, not trying to get famous or anything, just playing with sound and persuing quality, but I feel as if I am not making any progress toward that goal.

I guess you couldn't really answer unless I posted some noises, maybe I'll get around to that in a few weeks.

Last edited by Zombie0915 on Mar-24-2006 at 23:59

Well there's no such a thing as a recipie for music creation, specially electronic music because the sound source can be anything, not just instruments. Eq, crompressors, etc don't work like magic, if the sound recorded is bad, it won't get better, in the other hand you can screw a good recording when using eq and compresion on sounds that don't need it.
In your particular issue i think that you should try to experiment more with fx and filters (compresion, reverb, etc...), start with a mono sound, and try different things (saving many versions as you want) until you get the sound that you want.
Listen some track with a sound that you like and focus on that particular sound and later try to reproduce it. In the process you will learn what filters/fx you need (and amounts of it) to produce a similar sound.

no recipes, know that one all too well, and that really isn't what im asking for, just some clues.

So some sort of manipulation of effects will help make it sound convincing and not "raw", I guess that helps a little.

I try to separate these things, composing and producing. Say in the realm of composing I do my synth programming, sound design, and line up all my rhytms and melodies and stuff. All of that subjective, those things being external to the kind of "quality" that I am struggling to reach. I think I know what I need to work on in order to write better rhythms, melodies, and timbres, so I'm not asking about those things here. But I don't know what I need to work on to raise the "quality" of the recording, the "production values", it is hard to identify just what it is that makes it. I read alot about dynamic range, stereo spread, proper use of EQ and compression to give each sound its own place in the mix, those types of things are hard to do on the cheap, things keep coming out sounding cheap, and not cool cheap(like a lead from an amiga chip), but crappy cheap(like a low bitrate mp3).

It doesnt sound like playing music, it sounds like circuit experiments, or a sound generated in matlab.

Last edited by Zombie0915 on Mar-25-2006 at 01:24

Kinda thought amiga sounds where cool. Suppose your looking to expand your sonic pallete, maybe if you posted examples of what your stiving for would help others to point you in directions. If its more sweaping pad sounds or plucks then the superwave and synth1 mentioned above would do that.

Finding EQ and compression kind of hit and miss myself, experimenting could be another word for it . Been plowing through all the tuts sticked at the top of the production forum and all the ones listed over here http://www.computermusic.co.uk/tutorial/features.asp ... *goes back to experimenting*

I think the last thing I need to do is more reading. I've read all of those computer music tutorials, I've read everything on tranceproduction.com, I've gone all through the tweakheads guide, I've taken courses in electricity and signal proccessing, I've taken books out of the library, and I'm even taking a computer music class at school right now where this guy teaches about "electronic art music".

It is a real problem of mine, spending too much time reading and not enough on practicing.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 Say I set up this synth to make a goofy buzzing sound, my sounds always come out sounding "raw", I don't quite know how to describe it.

I think I know what you're getting at here... a lot of times you'll get a nice synth or something going, but once you stick it in the mix it's too raw or in-your-face sounding. Some tricks to making stuff sound smoother (and more pro)... Stick a phaser or a chorus (ever so subtle! experiment with different settings) on it. Probably the most important would be EQ! A nice trick is to use EQ to reduce the frequency peaks in the sound. Set up an EQ with a very narrow Q, set the gain to maximum, and sweep it around the frequency range. The places where it sounds really, really awful are peaks, and once you've found them, use the EQ to reduce those peaks! By reducing the peaks, you draw attention away from the fundamental frequencies of the sound and open up the rest of it's frequency range, resulting in a more distant, interesting sound. Don't be afraid to make drastic cuts, the goal is to make the sound fit into the mix, and it could sound pretty weird solo-ed. This all helps to achieve a smooth frequency response with your sounds, which is essential to getting a mix that approaches the pro level.

___________________
So many unfinished tunes to complete...

Latest track: Transformations

www.psyklolink.com

Last edited by psyklolink on Mar-25-2006 at 04:04

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 proper use of EQ

is the answer to all of your problems.




only production tools you need is your sequencer and some synths (and some quality percussion samples, of course). If you're gonna invest in some VST, i would HIGHLY recommend Pro 53 and Vanguard.

you need to just sit down and play around with synths until you get it right... if you have a specific question then forums are the best place to go, but honestly, you're nto gonna learn until you sit there and figure it out on your own. after months and months of playing around and making music, your ears will be trained to know what sounds "right" and what doesn't. it's a long process and there's really no easy/fast way out.

all the best

___________________

Oops i produce dubstep now.

NumberNin6 / Ethereal / Orana Project / Greenlight

I used to think you could accomplish the same with a laptop and headphones as you could with high end gear until I saw some people actually producing in a semi decent studio. It kind of all clicked then.

Seeing hardware synths run through a big mackie desk with focusrite compressors and lexicon fx was just so immediate. The sound quality seemed to be right there from the start. You can accomplish the same with just software ofcourse, except it might take you a bit longer to get it right. Obviously one has to weigh up the pros and cons of both, since big studios are expensive and fiddly which can even hamper productivity.

At the end of the day though, its about knowing your tools and playing to their strengths.

___________________

Well, I think unrortunately you can read all you want, though if you start experimenting thoroughly and give it loads and loads of time just being at it, I think you'll come a tremendous step further.

I personally didn't read too much on eq, compression, effects and so on, I merely gave some attention to some compression tutorials (but then again not that extensively compared to some others perhaps). The rest I did all with fiddling and tweaking until I thought it sounded right.

I have bought myself some good software over the years, though I myself too started with the cheapest of the cheapest.

Don't let any prices fool you towards their value for money in a production environment. If you look at the Synth1, which is a completely free synth (and let's dearly hope it stays that way), you'll see that price - and size- obviously don't matter at all.

Apart from Synth1, you can get some damn fine free effect plugins from Kjaerhus Audio as well (the Classic Series), which for me, together with the standard FL plugins, are a nice alternative to the enourmously expensive Waves plugins.

___________________
Icone / Van Gelder / Blue Manta / The Elemental

Icone Home
Icone Store -> New Percussion SAMPLE CD here!
Icone MySpace