| Author
|
Final steps
|
routingwithin
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
204
Posted : Feb 20, 2016 22:59
|
Seriously.. this forum is dead .. what a shame
  " 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 21, 2016 20:21
|
Surely looks a bit like it... Social networks are capturing nearly all the traffic these days. Forums and Blogs are slowly drying out. A shame it is.
Let's get down to business then.
Final steps should also include: checking that there's no true peak overs. Downsampling. Dithering. Removing DC offset.
|
|
|
|
splikz
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
287
Posted : Feb 22, 2016 22:07
|
Quote:
|
On 2016-02-21 20:21, frisbeehead wrote:
Final steps should also include: checking that there's no true peak overs. Downsampling. Dithering. Removing DC offset.
|
|
we are almost in 2020. is it really necessary to keep dithering and downsampling, if the physical formats are not a constrain anymore??
wouldn't it be easier to upgrade the mp3 codecs and make them 24bit or even 32 bit compatible?
|
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 23, 2016 00:50
|
@splikz
In short: I really don't think so.
Mp3 is a format born of the necessity to exchange files through the internet, for one, and for allowing portable players to hold large collections without taking up to much space. Same reasoning is applied for streaming, where bandwidth limitations mean that you can't just stream 16bit wave format as for most people that would mean a stutter effect rather then a seamless stream of music. Mp3 fits within the lossy formats, where some information (that's considered less important) is filtered out so as to make its size much smaller on disk. Any such formats are a compromise between quality and disk space. Always.
I think most people would agree that downsampling is as much a thing today as it were before. Simply put: you have many advantages for working with higher bit depth within your daw, so as to enjoy virtually limitless headroom while producing. That also means a better signal to noise ratio that's beyond justified whenever there's recording involved. Downsampling is a necessity for distribution. When the work is done, it must be rendered in a more common format (or several).
I don't see this changing in the near future. I think we're lucky to have computers powerful enough to handle oversampling on situations that demand it or that can profit from it. In mastering it definitely helps a great deal. But as far as the consumer goes, it doesn't look like we're heading for lossless formats on a major scale, for now. But that doesn't mean that you can't find music on such formats, which of course you can. |
|
|
|
ansolas
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
977
Posted : Feb 24, 2016 16:54
|
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 ?
|
|
IKMultimedia ARC2 is meant for this purpose.
Even tho I heard alot polarizing things about it I bought it some year ago.
If you are interested, here is my experience.
This time I just had some 8cm PUR Foam above, behind, besides my sweet spot and 4 Corner Traps.
After the first measurement I was really shocked how strange the compensated sound was, but I finally had some hind of bass at my sweet spot with my Adam a7x. Was the ARC usefull for me ? Somehow since it gives you more perspectives (more below)
Some time ago I decided to redesign my whole room and read and talked week in a room acoustic forum.
Learned how to use RoomeqWiz and Acoustics etc..
Weeks passed by and then I finally found the proper materials to fulfill my needs and properly treated my room.
Now comes the interesting part.
I remeasured my room.
If I now turn on the ARC2 the sound nearby doesn't change at all. I just seam to fix some phase issues which manifest in a better stereo center. If I now mix a song on my Speakers it also sounds good on my headphones  And finally I have BASS.
Another nice feature of the ARC2 is the Virtual Monitoring.
It emulates some kind of speakers:
Pretty nice when searching through samples or presets or just when you are trying to reset you ears.
Only downside is that its quite expensive :/
Hope that helps in any way
http://facebook.com/ansolas
http://ansolas.bandcamp.com/music
http://myspace.com/ansolas
http://soundcloud.com/ansolas
http://ansolas.de |
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 25, 2016 18:48
|
Nice!
That's really the way to go!
There's a guy called Marc Mozart that runs a forum that's filled with useful info for those into home made room acoustics, for those interested 
http://www.mixedbymarcmozart.com/2014/11/06/room-acoustics-ghetto-style/
doesn't get any better and it certainly doesn't go cheaper then this!
one product that's caught my attention as of late, that I'm considering buying (even though it's a little expensive) is the Subpac.
http://thesubpac.com/
does anyone here have any experience with it? those who've tried it seem highly enthusiastic about it and the claims on their website are more paradigm changing then new age literature - yes, and pun intended of course.
|
|
|
|
ansolas
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
108
Posts :
977
Posted : Feb 25, 2016 18:57
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : Feb 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
By all means |
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : Mar 4, 2016 22:49
|
Quote:
|
On 2016-02-20 22:59, routingwithin wrote:
Seriously.. this forum is dead .. what a shame
|
|
definitely not:). for me the forum is like a trampoline as a bridge between the worlds. on friday night up to a recreational music production session on the weekend. it is an amazing and very inspiring motivational place and i am very happy that this forum exists because otherwise i would not really have motivation to spend hard time on production details. which i am gonna do right now in a second. there are so many posts to read from the last time, so much drive and knowledge to find here.
thankfulness is all i'd like to express. too overwhemed to comment single suggestions, but thank you so much for sharing. i guess i will add another post after i comprehend and test out.
|
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : May 9, 2016 23:23
|
Quote:
|
On 2016-02-18 00:35, routingwithin wrote:
6.) Given some of your effects:
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.
|
|
Okey, and how do you define those four rooms, what paramaters differentiate at each room? And wouldn't it be more unified if the separate buses are routed to 2-3 types of rooms each? Or why is it good for you to have four rooms of different dimensions, different width and hight, are there any effects connected to each of the four rooms and which are they, depending on the size of a room?
Quote:
|
NO No .. No effects on the master channel. He is like the sacred one.
|
|
okey compressor and at least some incoming rooms would not make that difference. you say, boost it with 30 to 40 with a compressor but is it a must to not use a compressor in each single channel too? sometimes the master starts to shine red and be overloaded, then each channel becomes suspicious as a possible reason for overload - and the sacredness of the master channel gives way to intensive engagement with each single channel. Which incoming effects are most likely to be a reason for overload? I seriously need an answer to that: is it something like maximum 15 effects on a channel, or may be maximum 5? Is CPU the only argument against such things?
Quote:
|
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.
|
|
why would I want the whole track to flange or phase? Is a bus actually protected or limited in any way in being able to add, modify and organize effects - is it limited to manage effects in comparison to a normal channel?
|
|
|
|
Blubberbert
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
32
Posted : May 10, 2016 12:00
|
Quote:
| Is a bus actually protected or limited in any way in being able to add, modify and organize effects - is it limited to manage effects in comparison to a normal channel? |
|
No it is basically a normal channel that receives audio from other channels and passes it on to another destination (most commonly the masterchannel)
I use trackgrouping to keep the project nice and tidy. In ableton trackgroups are busses. Labels: Beat (kick and bass), Percussion, Synth, Voices
For compatability you can check it in mono say using a mono eq on the masterchannel (kitchenradios, mobiles and many clubsoundsystems are mono). You can also use that eq to simulate different playbackdevices. Use a lowcut for all devices that don´t go down there. Boost low and high with shelfefilters for a hifisimulation. You could also put a phasecorrelationmeter on the master. Phase should be between 0 and +1.
Also you can put a limiter on the master and pump up the loudness. Then check what changes it introduces (this it what will happen in the masteringstage at some point)
You can also try introduce this process early and actually produce "into" a limiter and a mono eq (turned on when introducing a new sound).
Take off anything from the master and export to stereofile.
You can check the waveform in any editor (Audacity, Adobe audition etc) to check for peaks that make your master clip. In my experience they are most commonly introduced by percussion hits and stabs (anything with a highvolume transient). Go back to the mix and turn those down, make space in the mix etc.
A very lazy way would be to throw a limiter at your busses that cuts any peaks off - and check if it still sound ok.
After all that check your tune on any device around you, ask others for their opinion.
|
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : May 10, 2016 18:28
|
I think it's good that the master channel is sort of sacred. You shouldn't put anything there, because when you mix into some processing unit, it will affect all your other decisions.
@moki
if you find that your mix has a tendency to hit the red zone on your master channel's meters, then chances are you're neglecting your gain staging. you should really go back and fix it. and it's not just about the channel's faders either, it's about the levels in each channel. some plug-ins will misbehave if you feed them with to much gain, most specially the ones that emulate analogue circuitry.
now, a quick and easy way to fix your cpu problems is quite simply to produce the music as nice as you can, then print all the channels to audio and mix in another completely new session.
fx channels can and should be handled like other channels, meaning that you should EQ, Compress, do whatever you have to, so that it fits in with the rest the best way possible. reverbs can be a bit messy and usually sound best compressed, so that there's not so much disparity between the levels, so that you can find it in the mix easily, even though it's at a low level.
again, you should take care of your dynamics case by case first. bus processing is meant to be something gentle, just to add a bit to the cohesion of it, to blend the sounds together a little bit, to add a little character. it's not meant to compensate for careless dynamics handling. the mix should sound nearly there with no processing on the group channels. it should sound crystal clear without anything on the master once you're done.
|
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : May 11, 2016 00:30
|
Compress the effect channels? This is for example something I never did. You mean, not put a compressor effect to each channel but a compressor on top only for the effects? Or is this may be one of those things that are different from DAW to DAW?
But how do I know how much - or is there a value that is always good for a compressor of an effect channel? Or would you say : just hear it and judge on your own when the sound is good. But the problem with overload is that what causes it, can probably not be heard that easy with naked ears.
Compressors are like something that I 'd feel perfectly well with leaving it away - it is something obligatory to be dragged into a channel, like having to follow grammar rules while speaking a language, something to be reluctantly taken care of. I never liked them. That is why I know very little about how to use them right. So what is the recommended value, something to immediately comprehend and work out without having to surf the internet libraries and lexicons.
Chances are that reverbs are a reason for overload, but honestly, if I 'd try to compress on top something like for example fabfilter, something extremely complex and elaborated, then I'd find it difficult to know "what I have to do" in the final steps - I mean not even the final steps of a track but the final steps of a channel, where there is complicated reverbs and peaks and where you have to clean the room at the final step.
You know, it sometimes feels so powerless and helpless to know so little and want to grasp it so much. For example, my dynamics case. dymanics handling. How do I find out which are the tools to take care for a dynamic case and what is behind it at all? Never dit it either.
Hm, CPU is honestly the last thing to be a problem. I still think music software is a paradise compared to other software like video editing. My CPU looks totally okey.
|
|
|
|
moki
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
38
Posts :
1931
Posted : May 11, 2016 00:46
|
Quote:
|
On 2016-05-10 12:00, Blubberbert wrote:
For compatability you can check it in mono say using a mono eq on the masterchannel (kitchenradios, mobiles and many clubsoundsystems are mono). You can also use that eq to simulate different playbackdevices. Use a lowcut for all devices that don´t go down there. Boost low and high with shelfefilters for a hifisimulation. You could also put a phasecorrelationmeter on the master. Phase should be between 0 and +1.
Also you can put a limiter on the master and pump up the loudness. Then check what changes it introduces (this it what will happen in the masteringstage at some point)
You can also try introduce this process early and actually produce "into" a limiter and a mono eq (turned on when introducing a new sound).
Take off anything from the master and export to stereofile.
You can check the waveform in any editor (Audacity, Adobe audition etc) to check for peaks that make your master clip. In my experience they are most commonly introduced by percussion hits and stabs (anything with a highvolume transient). Go back to the mix and turn those down, make space in the mix etc.
A very lazy way would be to throw a limiter at your busses that cuts any peaks off - and check if it still sound ok.
After all that check your tune on any device around you, ask others for their opinion.
|
|
this statement is a perfect description to the one final step:). i'd wish that i ever arrive at the final step, but honestly i found out that i am very far away from this step. which is perfectly okey, but just ot let you know...the paretto principle of 80/20 that i mentioned in the beginning is quite an exponential curve in the case of making psy. sometimes you thought that you made a giant leap in music production and soon ofter that you relize that you are at the beginning of a long process....
but thanks for the check list!
the peaks ans the waveform in an editor is for example a good tip that i could use right now too. get audacity.
p.s. but btw is a daw never enough for the waveform and the peaks? after all this data in a synth would be much more nearer to the source that causes the irregular peaks?
|
|
|
|
frisbeehead
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
1352
Posted : May 11, 2016 23:59
|
@moki
Being that the topic here is "final steps", I tried to provide some generic information on how some things are usually handled which doesn't amount to more then "generic or standard knowledge". This means you can go much deeper if you enroll on some classes or treat yourself up to some personal tutoring - which is to my mind one of the best ways to get your head around much of these topics here.
It seems like a lot to put in. It may feel like a daunting task at times. But once you get a general understanding of the basics and the tools, you then start developing ways of working that encompass all this knowledge and it then becomes almost automatic. That's my idea of a nice workflow. It saves time and allows one to be more creative, which is the ultimate goal, right?
Now back to the topic. I'll try and explain a little better some of the things I've said before.
First, you should watch your levels. Your meters should never get into the red zone, even with all the mix playing. How do you avoid it? Well, don't think of a quick way to fix it, like placing a limiter to avoid overs. Instead, try and think about what generated the problem in the first place. Quite simply: your levels are to high.
So, you need to focus on two inter-dependable things: gain staging and headroom.
This is important. Some plug-ins behave erratically when fed with lots of gain, because they're based on analogue gear. And in the analogue world, -18dBFS is the frontier where it turns to red, meaning that there's going to be a bit of overdrive from the point onwards. If a plug-in is designed to start overloading past a certain point, that's what you're going to get - and that might not be what you're looking for.
Then, you truly need to look at compression again.
Seriously, compressors are just as important as an EQ. They can handle some technical stuff you need to do, sure, but they're also, arguably, at least I think of them like that, things that you can use creatively to great effect. So, get to know them. There's a vast health of information around. All the stuff from vastly known engineers, even those working on pop stuff or whatever, it's basically the same thing. Mixing isn't a different discipline for every genre. There may be a little trick or two that's more genre specific, sure, but you're sure to know about it on forums like this one and others similar. What matters much more then that is that you get hold of the main concepts and know how to apply them and even develop your own take on things from that.
I wouldn't look into things like parallel processing or complex routing schemes, or ways to build fx chains prior to feeling comfortable with the things I've mentioned.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
