Hyperbased (lug00ber-remix)-samples (derived from the discussion in the Bitjam RMX-thread)
category: general [glöplog]
@rpfr:
Well, there's "mastering" and "mastering" then. One definition is to do something (usually trying to achieve ultimate loudness :V) on the master bus/a render of the track, the other to match several tracks with each other for an album, a compilation or whatever. The latter is usually left to the label, the first one is in most (underground) electronic music done by the artist (or a friend).
I usually should be able to fix whatever errors I can hear myself in the mix. However, sometimes you test your track on another set of speakers and discover things like "hey, I could really use some more air on this one!". When that happens, imo the sensible approach is to insert an equalizer on the master bus, give the higher frequencies a gentle boost and do a new render. Going through all channels to boost top end on each channel is pointless, and a waste of time.
And there is obviously compression. Gentle compression to make the individual tracks come together to form a whole, or abuse compression and limiting to get loud as fuck sound pressure.
It's not like you have to be a mastering engineer to be a musician, but if you are supposed to be a musician that releases your own stuff (demoscene, netlabel, website, myspace, give your stuff to djs, etc.) you'll get great benefit from knowing a bare minimum of "mastering".
I'm happy we could put a smile on your face with our little children's games though :)
Well, there's "mastering" and "mastering" then. One definition is to do something (usually trying to achieve ultimate loudness :V) on the master bus/a render of the track, the other to match several tracks with each other for an album, a compilation or whatever. The latter is usually left to the label, the first one is in most (underground) electronic music done by the artist (or a friend).
I usually should be able to fix whatever errors I can hear myself in the mix. However, sometimes you test your track on another set of speakers and discover things like "hey, I could really use some more air on this one!". When that happens, imo the sensible approach is to insert an equalizer on the master bus, give the higher frequencies a gentle boost and do a new render. Going through all channels to boost top end on each channel is pointless, and a waste of time.
And there is obviously compression. Gentle compression to make the individual tracks come together to form a whole, or abuse compression and limiting to get loud as fuck sound pressure.
It's not like you have to be a mastering engineer to be a musician, but if you are supposed to be a musician that releases your own stuff (demoscene, netlabel, website, myspace, give your stuff to djs, etc.) you'll get great benefit from knowing a bare minimum of "mastering".
I'm happy we could put a smile on your face with our little children's games though :)
well, musicians might be skilled at mastering (as known as 0dB+loudness war), or not.
what is getting ridiculous is that increasing amount of people who are showing utterly scandalized upsetness about not hearing a prodigy-like sound in a scene-release.
what is getting ridiculous is that increasing amount of people who are showing utterly scandalized upsetness about not hearing a prodigy-like sound in a scene-release.
Quote:
i'd preferably ask lug0 to keep the individual tracks balanced and improve the mixing on his track rather than jumping one step too far towards mastering it. it's like building the house from roof to cellar. just that fact alone reveals the absense of knowledge about mastering and its whereabouts.
No one ever denied that the mix could have been better, least of all me :)
However, that's not the point of this thread. Read the comments in the original prod-thread, and the the first post here, and you should figure it out.
Oh, and why so serious? ;)
the sidechain compression contests :D ...who can outloud the next guy at the cost of all detail in the music.
But lug00ber is ofcourse right. when we talk about mastering it is entirely outside the context of where it is normally used (production). everyone wants a loud clear sound, and when that is reached the track is deemed "mastered", and it is usually for the benefit of all involved all the way to the listeners, but rarely it means it is "media ready". I couldt take stuff i have "mastered" and put on a CD and feel good about it, thats for sure.
But lug00ber is ofcourse right. when we talk about mastering it is entirely outside the context of where it is normally used (production). everyone wants a loud clear sound, and when that is reached the track is deemed "mastered", and it is usually for the benefit of all involved all the way to the listeners, but rarely it means it is "media ready". I couldt take stuff i have "mastered" and put on a CD and feel good about it, thats for sure.
willbe: t'assures!
Wilbe has leading.
PS! I think some people in this thread are mixing up (*snigger*) the terms "mastering" and "mixing". There might be different definitions out there of course, but for me they are as follows:
- Mixing: adjusting different tracks in a song, including volume, panning, phasing etc. to reach an overall decent-sounding mix.
- Mastering: the last piece of the puzzle, including adding overall mix-reverb, compression, limiting and such.
Most of the time, my "mastering"-job is really limited, since I spend most of my time on the initial mix, so that there is little to do afterwards. Mastering is really more of getting my song to fit with other songs, and when this isn't the case (as it is with most demoscene music) then it gets very individual really.
PS! I think some people in this thread are mixing up (*snigger*) the terms "mastering" and "mixing". There might be different definitions out there of course, but for me they are as follows:
- Mixing: adjusting different tracks in a song, including volume, panning, phasing etc. to reach an overall decent-sounding mix.
- Mastering: the last piece of the puzzle, including adding overall mix-reverb, compression, limiting and such.
Most of the time, my "mastering"-job is really limited, since I spend most of my time on the initial mix, so that there is little to do afterwards. Mastering is really more of getting my song to fit with other songs, and when this isn't the case (as it is with most demoscene music) then it gets very individual really.
ehh iblis no i can't remember having seen you :)
but yeah i've been on the metro like four times in the last two months so there is a minuscule chance that it was me. did you see kusma, too? :D
but yeah i've been on the metro like four times in the last two months so there is a minuscule chance that it was me. did you see kusma, too? :D
Gloom seriously tho, any and all who are into hard electronica sideband compress atleast their kicks and bass to hell from the start, this is because the effect it makes cant be recreated if you bounce the track for a final, and it is something you as the maker wants absolute control over and not leave in the hands of someone else as it is the defining thing of "your" personal sound up against others using the very same equipment. This means from the start, if you want "that phat sound" (pendulum, optokoppler etc..), you have to use limiters, heavy compression all out, which again means...im sure you can see where this is going....
If youre making rock music, yes, what you say apply. But if you are making heavy bassdriven electronica, it does not. The control you suggest to give to the tech over your track is unacceptable entirely. What the technician usually does is make the sterio image wider, add air, small details that makes worlds of difference, he is not supposed to change the "vibe" of the track which is what all the compression and limiting on your end is all about.
If youre making rock music, yes, what you say apply. But if you are making heavy bassdriven electronica, it does not. The control you suggest to give to the tech over your track is unacceptable entirely. What the technician usually does is make the sterio image wider, add air, small details that makes worlds of difference, he is not supposed to change the "vibe" of the track which is what all the compression and limiting on your end is all about.
skrebbel: no i dont think so, i dont know what he looks like
using warez or having a loads of cash (for software or hardware) will make mastering childs play even if you don't shite about it.
and I mean top sound quality as result!
as I do not use warez and is br0ke I just stfu even if I feel it is awesomely unfair being criticized.
I just do the best I can with the software I paid...
and I mean top sound quality as result!
as I do not use warez and is br0ke I just stfu even if I feel it is awesomely unfair being criticized.
I just do the best I can with the software I paid...
ebliss: in your former post you were talking about sending demos to which i referred. i don't really get what you're saying there then. either a label a&r knows if a track is good or not.
congrats for running 2 labels already but it's not that you're the first on that moon then. it doesn't make you the guru here.
congrats for running 2 labels already but it's not that you're the first on that moon then. it doesn't make you the guru here.
eebliss: Sideband compression was implied, I just didn't feel like listing the 837284 different techniques used when mixing a track. :) Which was sort of the point really, that mastering was just the final touches, and not really what many people refer to as "mastering" in this thread.
Quote:
using warez or having a loads of cash (for software or hardware) will make mastering childs play even if you don't shite about it.
Eh, what?
Adding all the latest plugins from Waves won't make nothing sound good. Possibly loud, but not good.
If a label have two musicians with equally creative ideas, and one of them has a good sound aswell. he will get the deal more often than not. I mean all labels would love to hire any and all creative musician they year, we both know this, but in the real world money is a factor for most small labels so choices are made. And im not playing Guru, im sharing a -for a change- educated oppinion on a matter. No hostility meant man PLUR :)
Evil is altso partly right, some of the mastering stuff you can get now even as software is well impressive. But still, compared to a good tech with the right gear it is comparing a fart to a 100 man brass band Evil.
Evil is altso partly right, some of the mastering stuff you can get now even as software is well impressive. But still, compared to a good tech with the right gear it is comparing a fart to a 100 man brass band Evil.
gloom i meant sidechain, my bad sry and i agree. i think the only debate there is now is one about obscuring terms. I think we all agree actually but we use different terms for it =/
eebliss: yeah - a good sound. but that can be achieved without mastering as well.
true, purely technical and as i understand it. Mastering is the process by which a soundfile becomes media ready. And all the stuff we talk about here as mastered, arent media ready even if it sound real nice.
Id still argue that its a kind of mastering but for another purpose and setting, but its properbly incorrect usage of the term even tho the process involves the same techniques to reach the end goal. I dunno, you tell me?
Id still argue that its a kind of mastering but for another purpose and setting, but its properbly incorrect usage of the term even tho the process involves the same techniques to reach the end goal. I dunno, you tell me?
Heh, I think it's time to pull out the Wikipedia-links:
Audio mixing:
Audio mastering:
Audio mixing:
Quote:
Audio mixing is the process by which a multitude of sound sources are combined into one or more channels. The source signals might be live or recorded and could be different musical instruments, vocals, orchestra sections, announcers or crowd noise. In the process, the source signals' level, frequency content, dynamics and panoramic position are commonly being manipulated and effects such as reverb might be added. This practical, aesthetic or otherwise creative treatment is done in order to produce an elevated mix that is more appealing to listeners.
Audio mastering:
Quote:
The source material is processed using equalization, compression, limiting, noise reduction and other processes. Subsequently, it is rendered to a medium such as CD or DVD. This mastered source material is also put in the proper order at this stage. This is commonly called the assembly or track sequencing. More tasks such as editing, pre-gapping, leveling, fading in and out, noise reduction and other signal restoration and enhancement processes can be applied as part of the mastering stage.
Quote:
The source material is processed using equalization, compression, limiting, noise reduction and other processes
how many of you dont do this to your tracks before you release them to the public in any form?
eebliss: Nobody, I would hope, but that's not really the point is it? Once you release something to the public then you have already passed the mastering stage.
1) Notation/creative process
2) Mixing
3) Mastering
4) Release
5) Profit? (when it comes to music.. rarely any profit :)
1) Notation/creative process
2) Mixing
3) Mastering
4) Release
5) Profit? (when it comes to music.. rarely any profit :)
1) Notation/creative process
2) Mixing
3) Mastering
4) Release
5) promise of Profit
6) waiting
7) waiting
8) broken promises of profit
9) waiting
10) less profit than your were promised and most likely zero nothing
...ok, so as this is the scene, i announce that what we are doing is infact...maudering!
2) Mixing
3) Mastering
4) Release
5) promise of Profit
6) waiting
7) waiting
8) broken promises of profit
9) waiting
10) less profit than your were promised and most likely zero nothing
...ok, so as this is the scene, i announce that what we are doing is infact...maudering!
Iblis/lug00ber: trust me guys, good tools make good crafters.
and even if you don't know shit about it with good tools you get there faster.
and even if you don't know shit about it with good tools you get there faster.
give me examples? As lug00ber said, waves have their merrits, but they are not exactly comparable to someone who knows what he is doing with gear that knows what its doing. Stuff like waves L3 multi is powerfull tools, as are kjærhus audio, ozone 3 and several others no doubt, but seriously, you cant compare these to the real thing ever. So what software are you thinking about? afaii waves is supposed to be "teh shits" even with a wide range of pros (who knows what they are doing with those tools unlike most of those that warez them)
Iblis: well yes if some guy is a total retard (which is extreme case) even SSL won't save them.
I was generally speaking like ### demoscene musicians, mastering ### with enough brain/ears to get the job done beautifully like never before :D
so assume it isn't the guy who never made a single note that will use it
oh and I'm not in that waves league I'm afraid buddy hehe.
I'd be happy enough to have some PSP stuff...
I was generally speaking like ### demoscene musicians, mastering ### with enough brain/ears to get the job done beautifully like never before :D
so assume it isn't the guy who never made a single note that will use it
oh and I'm not in that waves league I'm afraid buddy hehe.
I'd be happy enough to have some PSP stuff...
Evil:
i one post you literary say that good tools will enable everyone to achieve better results and in the next you revert that. now what?
i one post you literary say that good tools will enable everyone to achieve better results and in the next you revert that. now what?