quote:

Originally posted by zDmn i bought this from audiojelly and its a 320bit rate. anyone know how i can reduce it down to 192bit rate??? do you guys think it would sound better??? the music is good so far, but the base lines dont seem to hit hard enough for me. im guessing the bitrate is too high.

haha 320 is the best, why on earth would you want to reduce it down to 192?

quote:

Originally posted by PEZ68 I have the feeling a lot of trance producers nowadays are trying hard to get a clean, 'professional' sound because they know they can't innovate anymore in terms of creativity, originality.

well... they try hard for that sound because 99% of DJs only play tightly produced stuff nowadays... whether the track is creative or not

for me, it's an acceptable substitute. a track is never going to make it into my alltime favourites without any substance to it, but i can still normally appreciate artistically plain stuff if it's uber-tightly produced. sean tyas' recent stuff comes to mind... i could listen to his basslines on loop all day

but at the same time, if the music behind it is quality then it isn't so important, especially if it has a kind of arcane 'warehouse' feel (nice description btw) like alot of the tracks on here

still, it would be nicer if stuff had awesome substance AND tight as fuck production... *imagines a DB vs sean tyas collaboration*

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra olver liebing i can completely see where your coming from and can respect your view. i was actually expecting to write similar comments after i first flicked through the album and even contemplated starting a whole new thread discussion the importance of production standards. when i'm browsing through recordstores looking for stuff to buy, crisp & powerful sounding stuff is paramount, i can usually rule out dodgy sounding stuff in about a second of listening to the respective samples. the thing with this though, is that i saw it as less of a collection of club tracks, more as an artistic product, and with the amazing work that's gone into the atmosphere in the tracks, i was able to forget about the dodgy production standards. long story short if these were all individual tracks i'd probably skip by most of them, with the possible exception of only you & concerto. just in the context of the album i think it works, in some cases like ritual it even benefits it chicane's first album is similar in that respect, even tho it's older. but still the production sounds incredibly dated now, but it still works cos of the atmospheric journey the album takes you on

Dated, sure, but properly mixed and mastered! My nitpick is not about Ricky's ideas, because he's always had a unique sound and approach to his work. My nitpick was nearly on the acoustic end result of those ideas.

What it basically comes down to it, Ricky invest some money into buying good monitoring equipment and have someone with a golden pair of ears help you with the mixing. It's up to J00F to fork out money for the mastering

___________________
Arnej MySpace

quote:

Originally posted by isoterra well... they try hard for that sound because 99% of DJs only play tightly produced stuff nowadays... whether the track is creative or not for me, it's an acceptable substitute. a track is never going to make it into my alltime favourites without any substance to it, but i can still normally appreciate artistically plain stuff if it's uber-tightly produced. sean tyas' recent stuff comes to mind... i could listen to his basslines on loop all day but at the same time, if the music behind it is quality then it isn't so important, especially if it has a kind of arcane 'warehouse' feel (nice description btw) like alot of the tracks on here still, it would be nicer if stuff had awesome substance AND tight as fuck production... *imagines a DB vs sean tyas collaboration*

Ideally, one would want a good track that is also well produced. In the end, a good track with horrible mastering has about just as much chance as being picked up as a boring track with amazing production. I'll probably go as far as to say, it has slightly less chance. In this day and age, when high quality tools are available it is almost inexcusable to have a shitty sounding production.

___________________
Arnej MySpace

quote:

Originally posted by 8Wonders Dated, sure, but properly mixed and mastered! My nitpick is not about Ricky's ideas, because he's always had a unique sound and approach to his work. My nitpick was nearly on the acoustic end result of those ideas.

yeh i knew how you meant

If you think this album sounds dirty I recommend some of Ricky older productions. Such as Sutra or why not Antheum. Total dirty madness

I even prefer that kind of rawness more than the little more "polished" sound some of the tracks on Synthology got.
It reminds me a bit of Deepsky's older sound. Similiar rawness.

I agree that the majority of todays tracks are so polished and clean that they totally lack depth.
Sure Above & Beyonds album sounds very crisp and clear. But how generic aren't their tune? It's not an album which will be sold for $100 in 10 years.

___________________
My new oldskool TRANCE mix!

a&b's album wasn't too bad actually. i'm normally an avid hater of them but you can tell they put some effort into it, some of the tracks are generic but others decent.

quote:

Originally posted by RebeL9 If you think this album sounds dirty I recommend some of Ricky older productions. Such as Sutra or why not Antheum. Total dirty madness I even prefer that kind of rawness more than the little more "polished" sound some of the tracks on Synthology got. It reminds me a bit of Deepsky's older sound. Similiar rawness. I agree that the majority of todays tracks are so polished and clean that they totally lack depth. Sure Above & Beyonds album sounds very crisp and clear. But how generic aren't their tune? It's not an album which will be sold for $100 in 10 years.

No one was talking about the musical appeal of A&B's album tho. On a production level, from a mastering and mixing point of view, it's flawless. Depth as you put it is not something that's obtained by improperly mixing material, it's something you do with proper mixing and mastering.

What you call raw, others may call 'amateur' or 'unprofessional'. You may argue that maybe Ricky doesn't care, but maybe he does. You could also argue that maybe the fans don't care either, but is it possible he'd get more respect and even more fans if his work was better mixed/mastered? I believe so.

___________________
Arnej MySpace

quote:

Originally posted by 8Wonders Depth as you put it is not something that's obtained by improperly mixing material, it's something you do with proper mixing and mastering.

I don't agree. Depth can be something which is within the music not bound to the mixing and mastering. As I said, there are heaps of old trance, "badly" mastered from a modern point of view but which got more depth than most of the generic stuff released today.

I dunno what modern day producers care most about. It sometimes seems rather better to produce an unoriginal and bland tune but with crystal clear audio.

___________________
My new oldskool TRANCE mix!

quote:

Originally posted by 8Wonders No one was talking about the musical appeal of A&B's album tho. On a production level, from a mastering and mixing point of view, it's flawless. Depth as you put it is not something that's obtained by improperly mixing material, it's something you do with proper mixing and mastering. What you call raw, others may call 'amateur' or 'unprofessional'. You may argue that maybe Ricky doesn't care, but maybe he does. You could also argue that maybe the fans don't care either, but is it possible he'd get more respect and even more fans if his work was better mixed/mastered? I believe so.

theres a difference between intentional rawness and plain carelesness. A good example of this is Depeche Modes "Songs Of Faith and Devotion" album. the album has a really raw and stadium like quality to it. almost as if the mastering was overlooked. yet the mastering on their previous record, Violator (which was done by the same producer and co producer), was flawless and its considered one of the best albums of all time.

I guess there are times when it works and times when it doesent. With Depeche it worked because it was incredible songwriting the production called for a more raw vibe. I cant comment on this album as I havent heard it yet but judging by the overwhelming positve response Im sure if the music itself was up to par that the mastering was intentional.

quote:

Originally posted by 8Wonders You may argue that maybe Ricky doesn't care, but maybe he does.

come again? lol. if you read his posts he said he specifically wanted it to sound like this

can you imagine ritual sounding anything like as effective with tight crystal clear production? imho it would take everything away from it, pretty much

and you're forgetting mixing & mastering standards are all subjective... there's no such thing as mixing improperly. something clear, crisp & balanced to one person can be regarded as bare, cold & lifeless to another


i'll re-iterate; i can see where you're coming from... completely. i'm a producer myself and strive for the standards you speak of (although i'm still a fair way off achieving them). but it's clear here that ricky knows how he likes his tracks to sound and pretty much all of his fans agree with him. he may have limited his potential fanbase as a result but i think it's pretty clear he isn't after mass appeal

Last edited by isoterra on Apr-18-2006 at 06:54