quote:

Originally posted by Existo22 Josh Gabriel on vocals: ''Leaving several vocals with all the high end in place ends up being overload for the ears, Gabriel adds. “If I take off all the things that are killing high end, watch what happens — it hurts,” he says. “In this case, we're using a shelf, so if we pull 5 dB down from 5,600 Hz, it's like the vocals are losing a little bit of the edge. It just gives the feeling that they're falling behind because they don't have the same cutting power. And then to kill the bass, I've got a highpass filter at 1,100. It doesn't sound full, but it's acting as an in-between.”

You are quoting him out of context.

If you read the portion above what you quoted you'll find he's talking about multiple vocals and where he leaves the hi's of the main vocals to make it stand out, while cutting hi's on the rest of the backing vocal tracks.

You're not understand what you are reading. It's probably best to links to articles rather than sum them up yourself.

"The signal chain aside, two of the album's highlights, “Let Go” (featuring Bancroft) and “Enemy” (featuring a somewhat Bowie-sounding Burton), are good examples of Gabriel and Dresden's methodology of creating a very obvious lead vocal and separated, secondary layers. “[With the background vocals], there's no high end or low end. It's just very midrangey,” Gabriel says. “Basically, when you think of the sibilance, the high-end part of the voice is the thing that gives you intelligibility. So the high end is what makes the words clear. And what's clearer than one voice? Nothing. Everything else is going to get blurrier the more you add. So we want the one voice clear, and all the others, to some degree, have the high end pulled down so that the high frequencies don't compete as much with the lead voice. It seems like taking away high end would make it be muddier, but it doesn't. If you take away all of the high end off of all the voices except for one, then one peaks through and creates a definite position of all the little vocals. The layer comes from the pitch part of the voice, not the sibilance, so you can kill a lot of high end and low end, and it feels layered, but it doesn't get in the way.”

Leaving several vocals with all the high end in place ends up being overload for the ears, Gabriel adds. “If I take off all the things that are killing high end, watch what happens — it hurts,” he says. “In this case, we're using a shelf, so if we pull 5 dB down from 5,600 Hz, it's like the vocals are losing a little bit of the edge. It just gives the feeling that they're falling behind because they don't have the same cutting power. And then to kill the bass, I've got a highpass filter at 1,100. It doesn't sound full, but it's acting as an in-between.”"

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

Well, richie does have a bit of a point - some of the stuff there is blanket info which taken at face value and applied, does lead to over engineered and dead sonic qualities. I know it's a c&p from somewhere else but when truncated form the full thing something can be lost in translation.

I was trying to be a bit more diplomatic about it as there is some useful stuff in there (nothing really new but nice to see it in one place). It could have been made lot clearer and screencaps would make it better for those just grasping this stuff but neverthe less I appreciate posts like this because they are hell of lot more useful than "which monitors should I buy". Sometimes you find absolute gems in threads like this because other people contradict or expand on the content resulting in new useful information.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Well, richie does have a bit of a point - some of the stuff there is blanket info which taken at face value and applied, does lead to over engineered and dead sonic qualities. I know it's a c&p from somewhere else but when truncated form the full thing something can be lost in translation. I was trying to be a bit more diplomatic about it as there is some useful stuff in there (nothing really new but nice to see it in one place). It could have been made lot clearer and screencaps would make it better for those just grasping this stuff but neverthe less I appreciate posts like this because they are hell of lot more useful than "which monitors should I buy". Sometimes you find absolute gems in threads like this because other people contradict or expand on the content resulting in new useful information.

Thing is...I've noticed a lot of people saying "no that is wrong" but I don't see many of these same people telling why exactly it's wrong, or a possible better solution. Examples would be nice too. For example...limiting the master is wrong, should fix it in the mix..OK, but why? What would be the difference in quality of one method over the next? Or are they both just a means to an end? Anyways...less talk, more producing.

They are personal preference. I put a limiter on the master and I adjust the levels properly.

Existo22 be careful around here, unless you quote from Testio's guide to production, people will troll you. Only one type of production is allowed in these parts, and that is the Commercial Trance technique.

For example, a common belief on these forums is that 10Samples/1MS latency is best for every and all audio setups absolutely.

___________________
i'm the alchemist without the cyst without a doubt out of the mist
dig out the grout expose the pest to take it out without the rest

they will attest my patients restorations from the best

i'm from the west i'm not an acmeist only the alchemist

everything is a preference

But don't you think it is stange how most professional engineers tend to have the preference most consider the right way while those still stuck in their bedroom wondering why everything they do isn't sounding right have the preference most would consider the wrong way.

So yes, everything is a preference but certain preferences lead to great sounding music.

my pro tip on how to make your tracks sound better and more proffessional is to be very careful about who you take advices from.

quote:

Originally posted by RichieV everything is a preference But don't you think it is stange how most professional engineers tend to have the preference most consider the right way while those still stuck in their bedroom wondering why everything they do isn't sounding right have the preference most would consider the wrong way. So yes, everything is a preference but certain preferences lead to great sounding music.

Such as the preference to not have 5 compressors on every channel.

I also think the more work one does in making a song, the better it will be. This is why I try to avoid those big synths that do everything with the click of a button. Id rather use something smaller, and be forced to make it sound good via programming and FX, than to select a preset and change the cutoff and talk about how good it sounds.

___________________
i'm the alchemist without the cyst without a doubt out of the mist
dig out the grout expose the pest to take it out without the rest

they will attest my patients restorations from the best

i'm from the west i'm not an acmeist only the alchemist

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir 10Samples/1MS latency is best

I really thought we'd agreed on 512 samples at 44,1kHz = 11,6msec?
what your claiming here is that 10kHz is the best samplerate?

PRO-TIP: Your music will benefit if you spend less time on forums and more time writing music and developing your sound.

quote:

Originally posted by palm I really thought we'd agreed on 512 samples at 44,1kHz = 11,6msec?

No according to Diginut and DJ RANN 10 samples is best for every audio setup, even though latency is hardware problem only, and even though many don't use hardware.

Direct quote from Diginut and DJ RANN: "10 Sample latency is best for all audio setups, even if the person uses no hardware what so ever."

So sorry palm, you and I are wrong. Its Diginut and DJ RANN who got it.

___________________
i'm the alchemist without the cyst without a doubt out of the mist
dig out the grout expose the pest to take it out without the rest

they will attest my patients restorations from the best

i'm from the west i'm not an acmeist only the alchemist

quote:

Originally posted by Stylz Thing is...I've noticed a lot of people saying "no that is wrong" but I don't see many of these same people telling why exactly it's wrong, or a possible better solution. Examples would be nice too. For example...limiting the master is wrong, should fix it in the mix..OK, but why? What would be the difference in quality of one method over the next? Or are they both just a means to an end? Anyways...less talk, more producing.

well, tbh honest there was a seriously in depth thread on here a couple of months ago discussing mixing techniques and the limiter on the master was discussed heavily. I'll try to dig it up later and I with a lot of other people gave the specific reasons why...basically there is a well argued school f thought that there is no need to a limiter on the if you get the mix levels right. The master clipping means an incorrect balance and throwing a limiter on it is just putting a band aid on an infection - you're not treating the cause. There are of course situations where you have to have a limiter on the master (live mixing)or just want a limiter on the master for a specific artistic reason (1176 is classic example of this), but generally throwing a hard limiter on the master is just a shortcut to getting the master down to accpetable levels. Please note we're talking bout EDM here where we have near total control over the sounds (because we make them) as opposed to a recording studio with live musicians and far more random transients etc.

Bear in mind that a limiter is just, in essence, a compressor with a very hard knee and huge ratio - you wouldn't just compress the shit out an an individual channel or group becuase it was clipping, so doing it on the master in most circumstances is not good general practise.

quote:

Originally posted by cronodevir No according to Diginut and DJ RANN 10 samples is best for every audio setup, even though latency is hardware problem only, and even though many don't use hardware. Direct quote from Diginut and DJ RANN: "10 Sample latency is best for all audio setups, even if the person uses no hardware what so ever." So sorry palm, you and I are wrong. Its Diginut and DJ RANN who got it.

Bullshit: Find my quote or stfu.

All I told you is that 2048 samples (which is what you swear by for some bizarre reason and please, please spare us all from going to again) is not the norm or a the best way of working. If you use samples and midi, god forbid any recording, it is totally inappropriate.

Also "10 sample" latency is virtually impossible.

Around 10ms latency is generally accepted to be a decent benchmark of performance vs latency which happens to be 512 samples.

Palm is right. Get your facts straight and stop posting BS.