|
Listen to a mas--....mix?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TaylorR |
| i don't think you should be focusing on mastering just yet. |
|
|
| nortek |
| what is mastering really? mixing? its pretty hard to know how well the master is when we cant compare to the original imo. if u want feedback on the mixing here it comes. the baseline is way too loud and subby. the kick is untight and the synths are too low and thin. the whole mix sounds like its played back on a PA system without midrange. also the reverb sounds too small and the sidechaining is overdonne. its a pretty bad mix imo. the synth sounds selected is also very dated and the whole track lacks identity somehow. i really like the chord progression and the vibe you are aiming for though, quite uplifting feel without being too cheesy. but u werent wondering about the actual track but the mix/master, so therefore my feedback is pretty harsh, just as the mix. hope it helps. |
|
|
| theterran |
| quote: | Originally posted by nortek
what is mastering really? mixing? its pretty hard to know how well the master is when we cant compare to the original imo. if u want feedback on the mixing here it comes. the baseline is way too loud and subby. the kick is untight and the synths are too low and thin. the whole mix sounds like its played back on a PA system without midrange. also the reverb sounds too small and the sidechaining is overdonne. its a pretty bad mix imo. the synth sounds selected is also very dated and the whole track lacks identity somehow. i really like the chord progression and the vibe you are aiming for though, quite uplifting feel without being too cheesy. but u werent wondering about the actual track but the mix/master, so therefore my feedback is pretty harsh, just as the mix. hope it helps. |
Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD.
Mastering is also removing garbage and artifacts, doing your final EQ'ing, and doing the final compression and touchups on the track. A master will also add that extra depth, shine and clarity.
I haven't had the pleasure of tuning my tracks to a club, so yeah the reveerb is what I remember the veerb being like in large dance halls.
Nothing wrong with dated either. I like older trance sounds better than alot of the new garbage I've been hearing lately. And the ONLY thing I sidechained in there really was the crash and one synth...I've heard more liberal uses of it :P
And maybe a picture to help describe what I'm getting at : http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/p...4/IMG_0192s.PNG
Cheers for the feedback...and the original IS there to compare with, so way to go guy. :P |
|
|
| MSZ |
| someone correct me if im wrong, but normalization and mastering are two different things. |
|
|
| theterran |
| quote: | Originally posted by MSZ
someone correct me if im wrong, but normalization and mastering are two different things. |
| quote: | | Normalisation is a process that looks for the highest peak in the sound file, and then raises (or lowers) the level of the entire track so that peak matches a specific level. For example - say you under-recorded the whole take, and the highest peak is -48 dBFS. If you Normalise to -6dB, the algorithm works out that the entire track requires a boost of 42dB. This is an extreme case, where there isn't enough gain on the fader to do this in one step. It's a desperate salvage operation - not good recording practice. |
| quote: | Examples of possible actions taken during mastering:
1. Editing minor flaws
2. Applying noise reduction to eliminate clicks, dropouts, hum and hiss
3. Adjusting stereo width
4. Adding ambience
5. Equalize audio across tracks
6. Adjust volume
7. Dynamic range expansion or compression
8. Peak limit
|
My rectec book goes a little more in-depth, but copypasta shall suffice. |
|
|
| MSZ |
| i realize what normalization means, what triggered my post was "when you said Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD." its much more than that, but hey what do i know about mastering, i always let mastering-professionals do that. |
|
|
| theterran |
| quote: | Originally posted by MSZ
i realize what normalization means, what triggered my post was "when you said Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD." its much more than that, but hey what do i know about mastering, i always let mastering-professionals do that. |
I elaborated further =\
Not trying to be an ass here, I get that people get uppity about mastering for whatever reason. It's not going to stop me from trying it.
It's not life or death, and if I ever sent this out to a record label I can simply un-tick the single 4-band compressor and EQ that were used and it goes back down to it's -3dB self...
Maybe my ears are just shot then...because the track sounds clean on my HSM80s. Would actually be ty news tbh. |
|
|
| KilldaDJ |
| quote: | Originally posted by TaylorR
i don't think you should be focusing on mastering just yet. |
:haha: :tongue3 |
|
|
| nortek |
| quote: | Originally posted by theterran
Mastering is setting all of the tracks to equal loudness on a CD.
I haven't had the pleasure of tuning my tracks to a club, so yeah the reveerb is what I remember the veerb being like in large dance halls.
Mastering is also removing garbage and artifacts, doing your final EQ'ing, and doing the final compression and touchups on the track. A master will also add that extra depth, shine and clarity.
Nothing wrong with dated either. I like older trance sounds better than alot of the new garbage I've been hearing lately. And the ONLY thing I sidechained in there really was the crash and one synth...I've heard more liberal uses of it :P
And maybe a picture to help describe what I'm getting at : http://astro.uchicago.edu/~andrey/p...4/IMG_0192s.PNG
Cheers for the feedback...and the original IS there to compare with, so way to go guy. :P |
i didnt mean dated as in oldschool but as in like 2006 softsynths or something, but that wasnt so important. sorry i still dont see the original raw unmastered version, id love to hear it to compare. but i seriously think you should look at a few of the points i mentioned anyway. especially the eqing of your baseline and the thin sounding synths pluss the unfocused kick. it seems you have high-passed all your other elements but kick and base, and overdonne the eqing on the baseline. just trying to help.
i like your avatar though but your name should have been terranaut. |
|
|
| theterran |
| quote: | Originally posted by nortek
i didnt mean dated as in oldschool but as in like 2006 softsynths or something, but that wasnt so important. sorry i still dont see the original raw unmastered version, id love to hear it to compare. but i seriously think you should look at a few of the points i mentioned anyway. especially the eqing of your baseline and the thin sounding synths pluss the unfocused kick. it seems you have high-passed all your other elements but kick and base, and overdonne the eqing on the baseline. just trying to help. |
Oh absolutly that's why I posted here.
The link to compare with is above the...nevermind I'll just link the widgit.
And no, I didn't ask what anyone thought of the mix itself. Only the main fidelity. Mids are lacking? Kick isn't tight? That's fine, I can fix that. As for the synths, I made them using an old analogue controller that my friend's father left her when he passed, so *shrug* I like 'em. |
|
|
| nortek |
somehow i dont get the mastered version to play now, but i listened to the original and from what i can remember between the first listen(master) and this, i notice the same problems. too much eq on the baseline and to low/thin synths. also the hihats seems abit too much at the moment. im getting into the actual synth sounds after a few listen now though so it grows abit on me, they just need more body and presence, which is mixing, not mastering.
edit: i got to listen to both now, the unmastered version is alot better lol.
do u have a visual spektrometer(freq/amplitude) software or something? it would be rather clear whats missing using something like that at this point. |
|
|
|
|
