|
Squeezin the nuts out your mix (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nrjizer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sonic_c
My mix was loud as hell real pumpin had to lower my speakers volume but is that right the wav looks like a black brick. |
You're doing it wrong. |
|
|
| mzvirbulis |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I agree. Compression is a useful tool. But IMO most producers now don't know when to stop and they end up squashing their tunes, making them sound like . |
exactly, some producers dont realize its a form of distortion, i mean your playing with acoustic envelope of a sound and turning it into something its not. |
|
|
| mzvirbulis |
Plus a useless fact, one reason why Radio stations used compression was to gain the listeners attention whilst tunning to a certain frequency band. Thus improving the likely hood of people that listen to the station.
Now, stations still use it but not the same intention of what it use to be used for. Bit like Mastering means a different thing from what it usually consisted of. |
|
|
| Lolo |
this Decibel war is just as ridiculous as the highest pissing guy contest is. I wanted to enter the game once, about 3 years ago, but quickly forgot about it. As if people didn't know that there's a volume knob on their stereo. Ever noticed that once into your car, you just want to push it up instead, and hear full dynamic range? I hate those overcompressed tracks that I get all the time because of that.
Many use a peak limiter as a distortion pedal on the master channel nowadays, instead of slight distortion, soft clip on the source track. What a waste of dynamics. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lolo
Many use a peak limiter as a distortion pedal on the master channel nowadays |
I've noticed that on a few songs. I really hope it isn't the start of a trend. At least with "normal" use of limiting there's a limit to how hard the sound can be pushed and still stay clean.
But if producers are starting to use the clipping/distortion as a creative effect, that throws the whole "keep the sound clean" philosophy out the window. Then it becomes a case of "how distorted can I make this and have people not immediately dismiss it as rubbish"?
In the end, it all comes down to the listeners - if they like it and buy it, it doesn't matter how distorted it is. The loudness wars will only end when listeners buy the more dynamic songs in preference to the flattened songs. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
They should remove the visual display from every wave editor, idiots use it and think that how is looks actually means something, some people actually load up their favorite track next to theirs and try to make the wave the same shape. And that is common practice among morons.
Clipping can destroy your speaker, even if there isn't any distortion. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
some people actually load up their favorite track next to theirs and try to make the wave the same shape. |
There are some EQs (like the one on Ozone Izotope, and I think I read of one of the EQs available for TC Electronic cards being similar...) that are designed to analyse the frequency balance of a professional song you're aiming for the sound of, then apply some EQ to the master track to try to squeeze the entire song into the same shape. You can set how much you push the sound into that shape. It very quickly starts to sound very horrible. I'm not quite sure what the aim of these tools is, how these companies were intending for it to be used. It seems they'd only be a cheap gimmick for producers in their first few months of production, until they learn the basics of mixing and realise that proper mixdown technique leads to a much better result than bad mixdown technique followed by an attempt at a quick fix. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
There are some EQs (like the one on Ozone Izotope, and I think I read of one of the EQs available for TC Electronic cards being similar...) that are designed to analyse the frequency balance of a professional song you're aiming for the sound of, then apply some EQ to the master track to try to squeeze the entire song into the same shape. You can set how much you push the sound into that shape. It very quickly starts to sound very horrible. I'm not quite sure what the aim of these tools is, how these companies were intending for it to be used. It seems they'd only be a cheap gimmick for producers in their first few months of production, until they learn the basics of mixing and realise that proper mixdown technique leads to a much better result than bad mixdown technique followed by an attempt at a quick fix. |
I remember watching a video tutorial and the producer used one of the Logic plug ins to get the EQs in his track to sound more like an Eric Prydz track. The track he was working on was house, but it was nowhere near the Eric Prydz sound. From what I heard it didn't really do anything. I'm wondering if these "EQ matchers" are just cheap gimmicks like you say? |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
There are some EQs (like the one on Ozone Izotope, and I think I read of one of the EQs available for TC Electronic cards being similar...) that are designed to analyse the frequency balance of a professional song you're aiming for the sound of, then apply some EQ to the master track to try to squeeze the entire song into the same shape. You can set how much you push the sound into that shape. It very quickly starts to sound very horrible. I'm not quite sure what the aim of these tools is, how these companies were intending for it to be used. It seems they'd only be a cheap gimmick for producers in their first few months of production, until they learn the basics of mixing and realise that proper mixdown technique leads to a much better result than bad mixdown technique followed by an attempt at a quick fix. |
I think those tools are aimed at people that have their sound pretty much nailed, but are trying to match their songs for an album, so u could get all tracks sounding similar for a cd compilation. Thats the only reason I would consider using it (albeit sparingly) |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lucidity
I think those tools are aimed at people that have their sound pretty much nailed, but are trying to match their songs for an album |
Yes, if you don't process the master track too hard with EQ it'd be okay. As long as the sound is pretty much "there" already and requires minimal adjustments. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
There are some EQs (like the one on Ozone Izotope, and I think I read of one of the EQs available for TC Electronic cards being similar...) that are designed to analyse the frequency balance of a professional song you're aiming for the sound of, then apply some EQ to the master track to try to squeeze the entire song into the same shape. You can set how much you push the sound into that shape. It very quickly starts to sound very horrible. I'm not quite sure what the aim of these tools is, how these companies were intending for it to be used. It seems they'd only be a cheap gimmick for producers in their first few months of production, until they learn the basics of mixing and realise that proper mixdown technique leads to a much better result than bad mixdown technique followed by an attempt at a quick fix. |
But I think it only reinforces this "click one button for awesome mastering" myth. How many people are really going to "learn the basics of mixing and realise that proper mixdown technique leads to a much better result than bad mixdown technique followed by an attempt at a quick fix." ? |
|
|
| Sonic_c |
| You know what I actually rolled my mix back to original, got mix sounding better used Q-filter on all channels and positioned the sounds correctly. Then used ozone but didnt ream it i just used exiter a little and some compression and I much prefer. |
|
|
|
|
