|
Squeezin the nuts out your mix (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| I also think that compression can make a tune sound awful even if you don't actually clip the master or any of the individual tracks. It's just annoying to me when every single second of a tune is as loud as every other. It sounds like noise. Seems people like that style these days, though, and of course it "works in a club" where all that matters is the loudness and practically nobody listens to what's actually happening in the tune... |
|
|
| xphonix |
| quote: | | People now..actually claim if you clip the master hard as , the hard and more dynamic range and headroom you get. Well, you better go to every mastering engineer you have ever met and tell them YOU YOU ARE WRONG. |
LOL, mastering engineers ARE the people that actually do this. They will clip their AD stage to gain an extra db or so. Its just brickwall limiting, although some high-end converters round off the transients and work as a kind of soft clipper.
Compression WILL lessen the dynamic range but using a subtle mix compression can work absolute wonders in glueing elements as well as adding character to your mix. When mixing into a compressor you will often only compress very slightly with gain reduction at most being around 0.5 - 2.db.
Cronodevir, you sound like a fool. sorry. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by xphonix
Cronodevir, you sound like a fool. sorry. |
:toothless |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by xphonix
LOL, mastering engineers ARE the people that actually do this. They will clip their AD stage to gain an extra db or so. Its just brickwall limiting, although some high-end converters round off the transients and work as a kind of soft clipper.
Compression WILL lessen the dynamic range but using a subtle mix compression can work absolute wonders in glueing elements as well as adding character to your mix. When mixing into a compressor you will often only compress very slightly with gain reduction at most being around 0.5 - 2.db.
Cronodevir, you sound like a fool. sorry. |
Then those mastering engineers fail. You don't make things sound better by destroying the signal and your hardware. And compression is, again, as always, a crutch for bad mixing skills. Mastering came about because people didn't want to fix their initially, so they decided to pay someone else to do it for them. There is no other art today where people get done with the art, then send it to some stranger to fix what they couldn't.
Mixing and Mastering are supposed to be the same thing. If your mix was good, you wouldn't need to master. Because there wouldn't be anything to fix, or make loud, or adjust, you wouldn't need to add any power or kick to the track if you made the track properly in the first place.
There is nothing done in the mastering phase that cannot be done in the production phase. |
|
|
| studiobob |
LOL, thats hilarious, i've just signed up purely to reply to this post. theres an unbelieveable amount of utter nonsense been written in the last few pages.
1st of all, if by using compression your crushing the dynamics of a track then your doing it wrong., using compression correctly will create movement and add dynamics to a track. it will control the dynamic range of a track in a way that you want and should be pleasing to the ear, it should not crush them. lower your comp ratios!!
2nd mastering and mixing are 2 very seperate processes. at a pro level theres complete different studios for this, and theres a reason for it! mainly being a fresh pair of ears on the track, speakers that reveal the slighest mistake in the overall frequency balance of a track and lots of different speakers to listen to the mix on
mastering a track will be done when your mix is absolutley finished and your mixdown is spot on. then by mastering you add a bit of polish to the finished project and make sure it translates to other systems etc etc. you cannot do that while mixing a track, it just doesnt work. mastering will not "fix" problems with a mix. if theres a problem with the mix then your mixdown needs redoing. turds cannot be polished etc etc
you guys have talked about buss compression. this is not "mastering", its merely a way of controling dynamics while your recording or mixing a track and again, if used correctly can sound really good. again if it sounds bad then you need to alter your settings or get rid of it.
i dont agree with this loudness war thats currently in fashion, the only loudness you need is the volume button on your hifi. someone who is listening to a well produced track will turn it up regardless if it sounds good. if its had the crap compressed out of it by some mastering engineer whos been told by the label to make it louder than anything then regardless of what system you hear it on its gonna sound painfull and be a wall of sound, and it will get turned down. pointless imo but there we go... |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| is that bob katz? :eek: |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
Gentlemen of TA, prepare to brix. I present to you, white noise: 
It has no amp envelope, it is simply a block of white noise with no dynamics.
Now, the same whitenoise block with this compressor on it.
Ta daaa. moar dynamics via compression |
|
|
| Waza |
| You should have posted samples as well |
|
|
| Knowland |
Beatport here we come?
Heh, okay to the guy who asked how you gain more dynamic by using a compressor on the master.
The listening experience isn't measured in an absolute way. The volume changing is one of interesting things music does. So, when we have a trance tune, the kick is usually louder than other stuff because it's the drive. Having a light compression I described earlier creates more dynamic between the rest of the track and the kick, so when the kick drops it takes more focus and creates that drive. That's not clipping or limiting or MAXIMIZING, it's compression. The absolute level of amplitude might be lowered, but the texture still retains it's dynamic. Music is relative. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
I'll quote from my post which you quoted:
"Absolutely, there are many songs that are ruined due to poor decisions, whether those decisions relate to individual sounds or to master channel processing."
With this comment, I was referring to things like "destroying dynamics so that your entire song sounds like a brick". But with my earlier comment, and again I quote myself, "There are so many great songs which have been made mixing into a compressor on the master channel", I was referring to songs which haven't been destroyed in this manner.
Things aren't black and white. Putting a compressor on your master channel doesn't automatically destroy the song. It totally depends on the settings you use. I occasionally use a compressor on the master track if I feel the song will benefit from it, but most of the time my songs don't benefit from this treatment. It is a creative option I reserve the right to use from time to time. |
Sorry, I left out a word. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knowland
Beatport here we come?
Heh, okay to the guy who asked how you gain more dynamic by using a compressor on the master.
The listening experience isn't measured in an absolute way. The volume changing is one of interesting things music does. So, when we have a trance tune, the kick is usually louder than other stuff because it's the drive. Having a light compression I described earlier creates more dynamic between the rest of the track and the kick, so when the kick drops it takes more focus and creates that drive. That's not clipping or limiting or MAXIMIZING, it's compression. The absolute level of amplitude might be lowered, but the texture still retains it's dynamic. Music is relative. |
That's fine and dandy, unless when it gets mastered the track gets mashed up to the ceiling and those peaks disappear.
The only reason I see people bricking their tracks is to sell more copies on beatport, other than that what is the point? Clubs are already loud enough. |
|
|
|
|
