| Author
|
Final steps
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Oct 21, 2015 15:25:42
|
Following situation:
your track is already well arranged, most of the 40 channels of midi input are optimized (4+ oscillators in each, dozens of individual preferences in the synth for each) and many of them full of effects. A rich sound that is not everyones'taste but definitely your taste. Of course, not easy to optimize. You have quite good feedback by your close listeners and you feel like it would be nice to export it in a clean way and put it somewhere where you could link it in case someone asks you what you do on weekends, so to say just to have it public. And you actually don't want it to be very dancable, more psybient, so you need to optimize for home sound systems.
So what are then your final steps before you click on export.
- Bus: your drums and kicks are connected in a bus, maybe some synthies togethere. Do you connect everything else to a bus and what do you connect exactly together, what does make sense to be together and do the many buses make it cleaner.
- Cleanness of sound : how do you prove if it is optimized for all sound systems (similar like if you launch a web project you test some hundreds types of mobile devices, how do you do this testing for music?
- What are the basic standards of exporting a track, is there a good reading about this on the internet and in the forum? Similar like if you export a video, there are millions of combinations of how to do your preferences, normally you do it in a standard way given to you as a preference by your software. What are the more wide spreaded references for this?
- Reference track: I have been adviced to have a reference track for the final steps. Why is this good and do you use it too (in case you are not someone who produced his whole life)
p.s. and in case you are not this professional type of every day producer, you don't give it to mastering, so what can you do about it yourself?
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Oct 21, 2015 15:09
|
Lots of further questions:
- Given some of your effects are local in a channel, lots of other effects are "send effects", some channels share the same send effect with the purpose that your individual effect preferences are used by more channels. for example more channels have the same send room effect. how many rooms are good to have if you work with 30+ channels? almost all of the 30+ are not kicks and drums.
- the master channel: do you rather keep it clean from effects, or which room effect should it be sending to in case you have more "rooms". should the master effect be sending at all?
actually, i know i have to learn a lot about the final steps, i just wondered if everyone else who loads tracks on the internet knows these things too?
|
|
|
|
knocz
Moderator
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1151
Posted : Oct 21, 2015 18:21
|
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:25:42, moki wrote:
- Bus: your drums and kicks are connected in a bus, maybe some synthies togethere. Do you connect everything else to a bus and what do you connect exactly together, what does make sense to be together and do the many buses make it cleaner.
|
|
How many buses or group channels you use wont affect the sound quality (in an analogue environment it might degrade as you are increasing the chain, but in a DAW I don't see any issues) - and in the end all is going to be mixed down to 1 single stereo bug - the master 
I like to think about buses when I want to process different signals in the same way - so yeah I use a bus for the drums, cause I usually want to compress it and give it a bit of reverb;
When I do band mixing (real band, acoustic/electric music), I usually group up all instruments after all, into a single bus, and then use that to mix with the vocals. Like this I have the "instrumental bus" and "vocal bus" - and since in most common genres, the vocals is standing way in front of the mix, I can always make space for it.. particularly with some side-chain compression, so the instrumental part gets ducked a tad bit when the singer comes in
And in the end I always want to apply master-bus effects, to give the mix some final touches (I'm no mastering engineer, but if I just want to show a tune I also want to give it a quick mastering )
It's all a part of personal taste and what you can do to the signals, I wouldn't think about how many buses to make it clear, because it's not the process that matters, its only how it ends up.
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:25:42, moki wrote:
- Cleanness of sound : how do you prove if it is optimized for all sound systems (similar like if you launch a web project you test some hundreds types of mobile devices, how do you do this testing for music?
|
|
You can't 
If anyone here does know the answer please do tell! But usually this is why we try to have perfectly flat studio monitors and an acoustically good listening environment.. if you can get it to sound good here, it "should" sound good everywhere. But, if some guy has his home hi-fi with a huuuuge amount of bass, then your track will sound bass-heavy on that system
What you don't want to have wrong information about your tune and mix, and then apply changes to the sound based on this wrong info - you might have a perfect balanced low end, but if your room/monitoring setup actually dampens the lows, you'll tend to boost them, rendering the low end of your track unlistenable in anything that also doesn't cut the lows
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:25:42, moki wrote:
- What are the basic standards of exporting a track, is there a good reading about this on the internet and in the forum? Similar like if you export a video, there are millions of combinations of how to do your preferences, normally you do it in a standard way given to you as a preference by your software. What are the more wide spreaded references for this?
|
|
Yes, check out digital music theory, about sampling rate, bit depth and dithering. Tons of resources out there.
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:25:42, moki wrote:
- Reference track: I have been adviced to have a reference track for the final steps. Why is this good and do you use it too (in case you are not someone who produced his whole life)
|
|
Even for experience producers, a reference track can be very valuable. Lets say you are in the end of an 8 hour studio mixing session - you are more than accustomed to the sound you are hearing. It could be bad and have the levels way off... but your "reference" is off. Like driving and getting off of the highway - you were going 120Km/h (errr it's the limit in Portugal  ) and when coming off the limit is now 50Km/h.. and "relatively" at 50Km/h it seems you are going super slow. It's all about deltas
When using a reference track, you are A/B ing (comparing) your tune with this reference one, so if yours has a really heavy bass, when going to the reference you'll hear a lot less bass. This is a tell-tale that your balance is off.
So, in the end it's just a point to compare
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:25:42, moki wrote:
p.s. and in case you are not this professional type of every day producer, you don't give it to mastering, so what can you do about it yourself?
|
|
I would prefer to not answer this, cause I don't know better But I usually try to give is a very very slight EQ, if I feel like it a tiny bit of reverb (tiny as in, mix knob at 1%), some compression and a limiter to bring up the volume.. but I also know that it's wrong for me to do it
If anyone who actually knows what they are doing could help out on this question I'd be very thankful
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:09, moki wrote:
- Given some of your effects are local in a channel, lots of other effects are "send effects", some channels share the same send effect with the purpose that your individual effect preferences are used by more channels. for example more channels have the same send room effect. how many rooms are good to have if you work with 30+ channels? almost all of the 30+ are not kicks and drums.
|
|
That depends on how broad you want you sonic palette If you know what you are doing, the sky is the limit. If you are like me and you don't, then so many "rooms" could just leave to confusion and muddiness. Up to you
I usually have a "room" for the drums, and then a "room" for the mix as a basic template.. then apply other reverbs as sound effects or as single-channel effects when necessary
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:09, moki wrote:
- the master channel: do you rather keep it clean from effects, or which room effect should it be sending to in case you have more "rooms". should the master effect be sending at all?
|
|
Clean, maybe with a mastering chain. So, compressor, eq, very very slight reverb, stereo expander, limiter. Definitely not in that order
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:09, moki wrote:
actually, i know i have to learn a lot about the final steps, i just wondered if everyone else who loads tracks on the internet knows these things too?
|
|
I really hope more people answer, this is interesting stiff
 Super Banana Sauce http://www.soundcloud.com/knocz |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Nov 13, 2015 13:27
|
Quote:
| I really hope more people answer, this is interesting stiff |
|
Probably most people talked and read too much about these issues during the years and have nothing to add anymore, especially if it is about the millionth person trying to produce tracks . However, I am very thankful for your feedback.
Quote:
| You can't:D
If anyone here does know the answer please do tell! But usually this is why we try to have perfectly flat studio monitors and an acoustically good listening environment.. if you can get it to sound good here, it "should" sound good everywhere. But, if some guy has his home hi-fi with a huuuuge amount of bass, then your track will sound bass-heavy on that system |
|
May be this would be one more feature that is nice to have and nice to be programmed. I imagine a web application with some regulators of the most important variables that define a sound system (some nice java script library for a configurator) and then the user just uploads his tracks and can hear it for different sound systems from different manufacturors. Do we want to do this before someone else does ?
Btw, I am surprised about the statement about the studio monitors: I actually always thought that with those monitors everything sounds better than without, and if it sounds wellwith the studio monitors, the chance that it does not sound well with normal sound system is quite high.
But lets get back to facts, which are actually the most important variables that make up a sound system?
In the meanwhile, it is more than three weeks since I asked, I had a small accident and was put out of action. This reminded me somehow about how short life is, and that it would really be good to finish things, even if they are not perfect, just to leave somthing behind. At the same time three weeks is a lot of time and I have totally new ideas so I p0refer to start a different new track instead of hanging around old stuff. Pity, that I did not export it immediately .
I actually really don't know where to dind the answer of the questions like how many rooms is nice to have, how rooms interact with each other, do they intersect and where do they do this...I do not even know where to search, what search word to use. Also the question about routing effects into send channels and back.
|
|
|
|
vipal
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
123
Posts :
1397
Posted : Nov 13, 2015 16:40
|
Quote:
|
Btw, I am surprised about the statement about the studio monitors: I actually always thought that with those monitors everything sounds better than without, and if it sounds well with the studio monitors, the chance that it does not sound well with normal sound system is quite high.
|
|
nope. its the opposite. the whole concept of a good studio monitor is not to make a track sound good but to predict how the track sounds when it is played on different sound systems. on pics of many high-end studios you can see the cheap and ugly yamaha ns10's and they certainly do not make a mix shine. the idea is: when its sounds good on them it sounds good on most systems.
http://soundcloud.com/vipal |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Nov 13, 2015 17:51
|
Yes, "on most systems", but as far as I know, people need more than one pair of studio monitors to really hear how it sounds on "all systems" and even this is hard in rooms that are not designed to be professional studios. Btw where are those high end systems of different manifacturors - in which software? And how many different outputs can be seen? As a matter of fact I really do need good studio monitors with objective analytics features, would be great to know which are the best.
There is a very important principle called pareto, a very recommendable principle of sparsity of factors. It says that you need 20% of your time to achieve 80% of your goal, and you need 80% of your time to achieve the rest 20% of your goal and make it perfect. So if you made a track within some weeks, then you would need months to master it perectly - this is how I understand pareto for music production.
That is why it is often wiser to do only the first part, use pretty less time and resources and achieve 80% of your final product - then make it a lean agile product and work further only if there is good feedback. In sound production, I am looking for exactly this principle. My goal is not to make it 100% perfect, because then it would be much wiser to just give it to a masterting studio where they have all this equipment that is needed to make it sound well in all different environments - in clubs, in theaters, my be in a planetarium obeservation, or even in virtual reality environments. No, I actually just want to export some tracks to show them to some people . I have some people in my near environment who used to be djs and trance musicians who told me that I finally did prove that I can do nice stuff, which is the reason why I believe them that I am not an absolute ignorant beginner any more. It is the first good feedback I ever had - earlier most people, also in the forum, simply told me that I have no idea about anything. These are the 20 percents in the pareto principle - I am over with them, and I want to export the first results. But how to do it without starting to study mastering and professional sudio monitors on a professional level...This is the real question.
|
|
|
|
vipal
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
123
Posts :
1397
Posted : Nov 13, 2015 19:26
|
me think you long enough around to find the 'which monitor should i buy' section 
why dont you just expose yourself and post a link to a track of yours. soundquality counts but originality and charackter can speak loud also. a music-track can communicate things, words cannot. there you go; invited 
http://soundcloud.com/vipal |
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Nov 13, 2015 22:53
|
the most important factor about a mastering engineer is not his equipment, but his experience and judgement.
monitor speakers are indeed meant to give an honest feedback. they come in many different sizes and shapes, from a multitude of brands, but up to a certain point it's a personal choice. after you pick some, you still have to grow used to them + your room.
having said that. you don't need the best speakers in the world to come up with pro sounding tracks. you need fairly decent monitors, a nicely treated room and a taste for spending ours inside perfecting your craft. analysers will probably aid you more then jumping between many rooms, along with decent reference tracks similar to the ones you're making.
even though the best option is to send the tracks to a mastering engineer once you're done with them, it's not always an option when one's short of money or if it's just to show people or soundcloud or whatever. the truth is, if you know what you're doing, you can get a perfectly polished track even using the tools available in your daw. special equipment helps, yes, but the person using it counts a lot more then its merits alone - and that's always the best part to focus on, when trying to learn.
in short, it's probably not the equipment or tools. it's probably you. |
|
|
|
knocz
Moderator
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
1151
Posted : Dec 26, 2015 15:13
|
Quote:
|
On 2015-11-13 13:27, moki wrote:
May be this would be one more feature that is nice to have and nice to be programmed. I imagine a web application with some regulators of the most important variables that define a sound system (some nice java script library for a configurator) and then the user just uploads his tracks and can hear it for different sound systems from different manufacturors. Do we want to do this before someone else does ?
|
|
Hmmmmm... I want to say no, but the truth is amp and cabinet emulators exist for some time now. What I know it's mainly focused on guitar stuff (and a guitar amp is not meant to be linear, but quite the opposite it's meant to color the sound a much as possible - most guitar amps actually cut the hell out of the mid range - and distort the bass, so what we mainly hear is the harmonics created by the distortion, not the actual guitar mid range).
But emulating hardware isn't the simplest task..
Quote:
|
On 2015-11-13 17:51, moki wrote:
Yes, "on most systems", but as far as I know, people need more than one pair of studio monitors to really hear how it sounds on "all systems" and even this is hard in rooms that are not designed to be professional studios. Btw where are those high end systems of different manifacturors - in which software? And how many different outputs can be seen? As a matter of fact I really do need good studio monitors with objective analytics features, would be great to know which are the best.
|
|
Adding to the other replies, yeah even if you get all the studio monitors available, most likely it'll suck unless you can put in a couple thousand $€£*money* into your room acoustics.. and even then, you won't get a linear response.
But it will be much more "linear" than most normal "listening systems", like the hi-fi stuff. And for sure whichever P.A. system you play your tunes at
So, consider you made your tune to sound great in a "flat system", where all the frequencies are balanced, if played at the same level:
- if your fan John Doe has a poor listening setup, with tons of bass.. yeah your tune will have tons of bass. For this guy, it would sound better if your tune had less bass, but that's his problem. Either the guy loves bass, or doesn't know better, or cant afford better.. but this is what he is stuck with. If your tune has less bass, and he plays your tune in a mix, then in comparison to all the others yours will be off.
- if your fan Jane Doe (not related with John) has crappy PC speakers, no bass at all and clipping at moderate volumes, yeah your tune will have no bass at all and will clip at moderate volumes. Same applies.
But, in average, if your tune is well balanced in a linear system, then whatever playback system will just "enhance" (or degrade) the sound as it normally would. But, if you produce in a place that is not linear, like if you produced in John Does' place, then you would naturally kill all the bass of your tune to make it balanced.
Since you cant find a 100% linear system, it's a matter of knowing your own environment. How do you do that? Trial and error, listen to other tunes in your setup, listen to your tunes and other tunes in other setups.. what does it sound like?
Quote:
|
On 2015-11-13 17:51, moki wrote:
No, I actually just want to export some tracks to show them to some people . I have some people in my near environment who used to be djs and trance musicians who told me that I finally did prove that I can do nice stuff, which is the reason why I believe them that I am not an absolute ignorant beginner any more. It is the first good feedback I ever had - earlier most people, also in the forum, simply told me that I have no idea about anything. These are the 20 percents in the pareto principle - I am over with them, and I want to export the first results. But how to do it without starting to study mastering and professional sudio monitors on a professional level...This is the real question.
|
|
Forget other people. Yes, positive feedback is amazing, but why do you need someone else to believe in you? You should believe in yourself.
Trust me, over the years you'll become simple amazing (if you aren't amazing already), and since the learning curve is slow on your side, you don't always realize the progress. Outsiders, since they have a small "snapshot" of you from time to time, can better judge this
But listen to the first albums (yep, it got published somehow) of all these grand artist - infected mushroom, gms, sun project, talamasca et al. - and the sound quality is bullocks. But people love these albums, they are great.
I find I can never make a tune 100% perfect or else I would never have finished even 1. For me, this quest for the perfect tune leads me to making the next one And each one I learn and get better.
Super Banana Sauce http://www.soundcloud.com/knocz |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Jan 28, 2016 16:54
|
Quote:
| On 2015-11-13 19:26, vipal wrote:
me think you long enough around to find the 'which monitor should i buy' section
why dont you just expose yourself and post a link to a track of yours. soundquality counts but originality and charackter can speak loud also. a music-track can communicate things, words cannot. there you go; invited
|
|
Yes, it is true that I have been around for a long time, but I spent most of my time on creating visual concepts for partys or on cultural issues and unfortunately did not go deeper into reading and learning from the production sections. Wasted too much time for meaningless cultural persuasion instead of learning from those who knew:D. And I have not read the thread you mean, but I guess since then new technology has appeared, monitors are better, smarter and cheaper, new applications have appeared to make the workflow easier etc...As a matter of fact at the moment I am interested in professional headphones because I travel hundreds of kilometers to work and live in two places, so I am more and more interested in the topic mobile studio. May someone has a recommendation for some device that is good not because of a marketing brand but because it can do everything you need?
Thanks for the invitation, it took a long time to think about the reaction, but the truth is that I have no good intuition to expose myself this way. Or simply think that I am not ready. Or simply call it solidly burned mental injury from bad experiences in the trance scene during the years. But thanks anyway:).
|
|
|
|
routingwithin
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
204
Posted : Feb 18, 2016 00:35
|
Quote:
|
On 2015-10-21 15:25:42, moki wrote:
- Bus: your drums and kicks are connected in a bus, maybe some synthies togethere. Do you connect everything else to a bus and what do you connect exactly together, what does make sense to be together and do the many buses make it cleaner.
- Cleanness of sound : how do you prove if it is optimized for all sound systems (similar like if you launch a web project you test some hundreds types of mobile devices, how do you do this testing for music?
- What are the basic standards of exporting a track, is there a good reading about this on the internet and in the forum? Similar like if you export a video, there are millions of combinations of how to do your preferences, normally you do it in a standard way given to you as a preference by your software. What are the more wide spreaded references for this?
- Reference track: I have been adviced to have a reference track for the final steps. Why is this good and do you use it too (in case you are not someone who produced his whole life)
p.s. and in case you are not this professional type of every day producer, you don't give it to mastering, so what can you do about it yourself?
|
|
1.) Bus:
Usually I would bus my 1.) drums and percussion hits together. My 2.) Synths and Pads. And all 3.) SFX. The 4.) Kick n bass is in the same bus cause they should be compressed and eq'd together, to make them mesh.
Well it would make your mix cleaner (organized) but the sound would be the same if you bus them together.
2.) Cleanness of sound :
This I would concentrate more on while mastering. It is the whole point of mastering, to make it sounding good on all systems. Not a simple task. I create test tracks - i.e. different versions of the master. Say one has more bass. One has less. One has a cut in the mid range the other opposite. different reverb compression etc etc etc.
Burn to disc and go to as many systems as you can find, i am talking about crappy pc speakers to a full hi-fi system. Also headphones & Car.
While listening to every version, I make notes. Where or what is the problem that I hear.
This narrows down which version sounds good on the most systems. check what was wrong with it still and fix it in mastering. then take that version and do the process again.
The more you do it - the closer you'll get to a great sounding track on all systems.
3.) What are the basic standards of exporting a track:
If you are going to work on your track after rendering, i.e. mixing or mastering - export on 24bit (or 32bit float) with no dithering.
After the mastering you'll render it to 16bit and apply some dithering.
4.) Reference track:
Using it can be a bit tricky cause you will have to get use to the concept of it. Your brain will want to compare but the sounds used is different from yours. Maybe your lead is pitched an octave higher etc.
Get your track and the reference track on the same volume level. Then break it down in frequency ranges. How loud is your bass elements against the reference track. Not quality but loudness. Then take the mids and the then the highs. Also the stereo width.
You should get used to not listening to the music but the frequencies.
5.) Mastering: So what can you do about it yourself?
Well Ozone is a good start. you can apply EQ where needed, reverb, multi-band compression, stereo width and Limit the track to -3db. I don't use the presets cause every track is different. Check out mastering with ozone tutorials and you will end up with very good results.
6.) Given some of your effects:
I do use return channels, cause the effect it gives is just something else. Like you can have a Long reverb but just give a little bit to a sound. instead adding it on the channel and decreasing the wet knob, not quite the same.
It depends on you how many rooms you want. I usually use 4. Long Big Room, Long Small rooms, Short Big Room, Short small room. But there are many different ways to be creative, especially with return channels.
Putting a side-chain comp in a return channel is also nice to keep CPU load low.
NO No .. No effects on the master channel. He is like the sacred one.
Only a limiter throughout production if you maybe accidentally boost 30db @ 40hz, it will save you speakers and ears from permanent damage.
If there is a part in the track, say building up nearing the breakdown, and you want the whole track to flange or phase. Then rather use a return channel with automation on certain buses. Keeping some elements normal gives a more professional result.
Cheers
" We are together in this matter you and I, closer to death, yes, closer than i'd like. How do you feel? - There can be no division in our actions, or everything is lost. What affects you affects me. " |
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 18, 2016 02:43
|
Interesting post!
However, I don't necessarily agree with number 2. You should aim for a clean sound during the mix process. Mastering isn't meant to be a fixing stage. Only when it's necessary, and that usually means that it's not possible to go back to mixing stage.
Another thing: if you've produced the track from start to finish and mixed it yourself, why on earth would you have to add reverb to it on the mastering stage? You shouldn't. Doesn't make any sense. It's best to apply such effects when you have more control over them. Of course you do have some degree of control left, like defining the range of the reverb (it's color) and mix it (in parallel) with the signal. But if you want to define the space of your mix, that's a task to handle during mixing as well. And only done during mastering if presented with an overly dry mix, with no depth to it; and, again, the chance to go back to mixing is impossible for some reason.
Ozone is a nice set of tools, but sometimes can mislead people into thinking that you need all those stages and to engage in complex things like multi-band processing, when those are tools to engage only when necessary. Judgement to make such decisions in an informed way can only come from experience and a deep understanding of the tools used. Goes without saying that multi-band processing, to my mind, is the kind of thing that can ruin a good mix quite fast if used wrong. And, to me, feels like a hit-or-miss thing in the sense that sometimes it's just the right magic but most of the times just makes things feel weird.
I guess most people ignore another aspect of this that goes something like this: you use a bus compressor or any processing, in fact, that's done on top of a group of sounds to sort of mesh them together, like you say. But when you're dealing with a band of the spectrum that's made with filters, you have to account for all the things that filters do to a signal, like introducing ringing and some phase shift. The thing that makes this work is because the processing is done to the whole thing and this means it doesn't make different things to different parts of the material in ways that would be noticeable. The thing is, when you're doing different things to separate parts of the spectrum, you're doing just the opposite. This doesn't mean you can't catch some peaks just in some region, if they're excessive. Or stuff like that. You can focus on a problem and solve it. But this is best done in a subtle, as unnoticeable way as possible.
This is different from applying multi-band compression on all tracks so as to make the mix have more loudness potential by definition, as a set rule or method, like some tutorials tend to suggest.
Guess that the best rule is to only do things when there's a clear and clearly understandable reason to do it on both mixing and mastering stage. Not as some memorized ritual with fixed steps. And Ozone, I think, misleads people into thinking that since all this stuff is there, one must use it in sequence all the freaking time. Simply not true.
Cheers |
|
|
|
routingwithin
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
204
Posted : Feb 18, 2016 13:14
|
You are obviously someone that does things differently. Every thing that I state is only a guideline to use. The important thing is to know your tools. And with software like Izotope Ozone you can get very nice results if used correctly. I did not say I multiband compress every time, I merely stated it has the capabilities. but yeah i get you were digressing a bit on that subject.
I think you misunderstand many things that I say and then assume that I use it in excess. Like the reverb.
I place my reverb individually on channels and also on return channels. The mastering reverb I talked about is very little. It really helps pushing it a little bit out of the listeners face.
Also the different masters I talked about are, when i am done mixing and everything and have a nice flat sounding WAV track(meaning all processing is done), I import it back into my DAW and master it differently a few times, (the different versions i talked about), experimenting with various master chains and subtle additional processing.
Then take the versions to various systems and make notes like too much bass, not enough mids, etc etc etc. Of course ! you can go back to those Saved mastering sessions and make the alterations based on your notes and proceed with the process of shaping your final master. So it sounds great on all systems.
" We are together in this matter you and I, closer to death, yes, closer than i'd like. How do you feel? - There can be no division in our actions, or everything is lost. What affects you affects me. " |
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 18, 2016 18:28
|
"I think you misunderstand many things that I say and then assume that I use it in excess. "
Not necessarily. But please feel free to elaborate on what you think I misunderstood.
"(...)The mastering reverb I talked about is very little. It really helps pushing it a little bit out of the listeners face. "
I don't think I misunderstood anything. That's exactly what I was on about.
"if you've produced the track from start to finish and mixed it yourself, why on earth would you have to add reverb to it on the mastering stage? You shouldn't. Doesn't make any sense."
I still feel exactly the same way about it today. Now what?
"but yeah i get you were digressing a bit on that subject."
Sure. The whole time! All I've said about Ozone, multi-band and what not isn't (surprise surprise) a personal message to anyone but me digressing on the topic at hands here. As should be obvious, btw.
I'm going to reiterate that I started my previous post like this:
"Interesting post! "
I still think that today too! I even dare to think that it's best for someone else to get here and read both our posts that just one, don't you? That's the beauty of it. No one needs to get defensive. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
routingwithin
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
204
Posted : Feb 19, 2016 10:34
|
Quote:
|
On 2016-02-18 18:28, frisbeehead wrote:
I even dare to think that it's best for someone else to get here and read both our posts that just one, don't you? That's the beauty of it.
|
|
Sure. We'll leave it at that
" We are together in this matter you and I, closer to death, yes, closer than i'd like. How do you feel? - There can be no division in our actions, or everything is lost. What affects you affects me. " |
|
|
|
|
