Trance Forum \| Stats \| Register \| Search \| Parties \| Advertise \| Login

There are 0 trance users currently browsing this page and 1 guest

Trance Forum ť ť Forum Production & Music Making - Why is there less bass in Darkpsy than Fullon and Progressive?

← Prev Page	6 7 8 9 10	Next Page →
First Page	6 7 8 9 10	Last Page

Author

Why is there less bass in Darkpsy than Fullon and Progressive?

Colin OOOD
Moderator

Started Topics : 95
Posts : 5380
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 20:33

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 18:46, soulfood wrote:
On the other hand there's a selection of artists that think producing is alike to drawing a circle on a piece of paper, where if it's not perfectly round, then you have done a bad job. Thse artists adhere to a set of parameters which they have laid in their minds, like what a kick should sound like, how much rumble you put in your bass, where to hi-pass, where to low-pass, how much to cut at 300hz etc. The truth is, it's not this way.

If there were no objective standards of sound quality then:
1) Mastering or post-producing tracks would be a lost cause and no-one would do it
2) Sound-systems would be a fuck of a lot smaller, cheaper and - yes - worse sounding.

I believe there are objective standards in sound quality... and I believe that despite what people say to the contrary, they believe it also, as otherwise this section of the forum would be pretty much empty.

Mastering - http://mastering.OOOD.net :: www.is.gd/mastering
OOOD 5th album 'You Think You Are' - www.is.gd/tobuyoood :: www.OOOD.net
www.facebook.com/OOOD.music :: www.soundcloud.com/oood
Contact for bookings/mastering - colin@oood.net

olivier
Side-A

Started Topics : 40
Posts : 1303
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 20:59

good post.
i also wanted to answer to this comment

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 18:46, soulfood wrote:

All you are doing here is making music for DJ's who are not very good at choosing which record to play next and can't use EQ's properly. What this also does is get listeners used to certain levels in the music they listen to, which leads people to asking questions like"why is there less bass in darkpsy...".

it's certainly not the Dj's work to re-EQ the music while playing, but the producer's wich then send it to the mastering, and then finally the Dj gets to play the music.
so if the producer doesn't do his job, then the masterer will encounter big troubles trying to fill the holes in the mix and the result will end up dodgy, that means probably bad sound (overwhelming of bass , or trebles for example, things that can hurt the ears, or also damage the speakers on big sound systems).
As it is true that there are many ways of mixing the music ,music also obeys to certain physical rules , like the ear also does .And there is certainly some limits not to cross in the "mixing creativity" as colin just pointed out, or you might end up blowing up some speakers or damage people's ears

Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics : 33
Posts : 1560
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 21:09

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 20:33, Colin OOOD wrote:

If there were no objective standards of sound quality then:
1) Mastering or post-producing tracks would be a lost cause and no-one would do it
2) Sound-systems would be a fuck of a lot smaller, cheaper and - yes - worse sounding.

So if there would exist no measurable way of determining quality of something, people would not do it?
I'm really not following that idea...why do people paint pictures?
What measurable variables determine is a painting is good or not?

I think there are certain factors that contribute to something that most people would call good production, just as there is certain factors that contribute to what people would call a good melody.
But that doesn't mean that it's all objective.

The things we can measure when it comes to a mix is what is objective if we should go with the established meaning of the word.
There is basically three different factors that is measurable that make up a mix; frequency, amplitude and phase coherence.
Even if a mix has a good frequency balance, a good perceived loudness and is reasonably phase coherent it can still sound like shit to many people, so there is a big part that still is subjective.

Same goes for sound systems to some degree. You can't look at a spec sheet and say that "look, the response is flat and the signal-to-noise ratio is good, it must sound great".
That's why manufacturers of audio equipment do not only do technical analysis of how the equipment perform but employ listening tests to see how designs affect the subjective aspects.

(``ˇ.¸(``ˇ.¸(``ˇ.¸¸.ˇ`´)¸.ˇ`´)¸.ˇ`´)
Ť .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... ť
(¸.ˇ`´(¸.ˇ`´(¸.ˇ`´``ˇ.¸)``ˇ.¸)``ˇ.¸)

http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth

Colin OOOD
Moderator

Started Topics : 95
Posts : 5380
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 21:27

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 21:09, Spindrift wrote:
What measurable variables determine is a painting is good or not?

Just as with music, there are two aspects to painting which you are confusing here: technique and content. Quality of technique is an objective aspect IMO, content is subjective.

Quote:

Even if a mix has a good frequency balance, a good perceived loudness and is reasonably phase coherent it can still sound like shit to many people, so there is a big part that still is subjective.

Yes, and that aspect is the content. Many people mistake the content for the presentation, and it seems to be true that for some artists the presentation takes great precedence over the content. I think everyone can agree on what constitutes a good-sounding mix, irrespective of what the music itself is doing; the arguments arise when people denigrate the sound-quality of a track by attacking its content, and vice-versa.

Dennis the menace
DevilsDennis Sparris McHilton

Started Topics : 128
Posts : 2899
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 21:51

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 19:55, EYB wrote:
Yeah - not pseudo noisy noises that are just called music, like psytrance u know

whatever, any caralarm would get in groovy at the moment!

Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics : 33
Posts : 1560
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 21:53

Ok...let me make an example.

You mixing a pop band with a vocalist.
You really like the presence of a synth line around in the same spectrum as the vocal. So you decide to reduce the vocal in level and EQ a hole in it to make room for the synth....with the unfortunate result that it doesn't cut through well enough in the mix so that you can hear what she is singing.

You think you can look with the objective tools available as a mastering engineer (spectral analyser, level meters and phase meters) and say that the mix is not good without hearing the track?
If you need to listen to decide if it's a good mix it's not objective.

soulfood
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics : 10
Posts : 875
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 22:02

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 20:33, Colin OOOD wrote:
Quote:

On 2007-10-19 18:46, soulfood wrote:
On the other hand there's a selection of artists that think producing is alike to drawing a circle on a piece of paper, where if it's not perfectly round, then you have done a bad job. Thse artists adhere to a set of parameters which they have laid in their minds, like what a kick should sound like, how much rumble you put in your bass, where to hi-pass, where to low-pass, how much to cut at 300hz etc. The truth is, it's not this way.

If there were no objective standards of sound quality then:
1) Mastering or post-producing tracks would be a lost cause and no-one would do it
2) Sound-systems would be a fuck of a lot smaller, cheaper and - yes - worse sounding.

I believe there are objective standards in sound quality... and I believe that despite what people say to the contrary, they believe it also, as otherwise this section of the forum would be pretty much empty.

Ok for example... imagine an ambient track where the bass is very low in the mix without venturing too much into the mids. Now imagine an acid bass line thats sweeping up and down thus making it more noticeable.

Two different sounds with two different purposes. On the part you have quoted I was refering to artists with basslines all the same, sorry if I wasn't clear... but I'm pretty sure I was... refering to the topic of the thread and all?

Say I want my bass low-passed at 150hz so I just get the rumble and not the upper lows and lower mids as if to make it sound like it's in another room, it's not going to make it harder to master, it's just going to mean it's placed somewhere else.

Colin OOOD
Moderator

Started Topics : 95
Posts : 5380
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 22:04

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 21:53, Spindrift wrote:
Ok...let me make an example.

You mixing a pop band with a vocalist.
You really like the presence of a synth line around in the same spectrum as the vocal. So you decide to reduce the vocal in level and EQ a hole in it to make room for the synth....with the unfortunate result that it doesn't cut through well enough in the mix so that you can hear what she is singing.

You think you can look with the objective tools available as a mastering engineer (spectral analyser, level meters and phase meters) and say that the mix is not good without hearing the track?
If you need to listen to decide if it's a good mix it's not objective.

Hmm I see where we're getting mixed up here, and it's to do with my use of the word 'objective'. I agree with you that the main tools with which to decide the quality of a mix are one's ears - not once have I mentioned the use of any other tool - however my position is that just because analysis tools equivalent to the ear do not currently exist, it is not impossible for them to be developed in the future. They would have to take into account many factors which are currently not covered by any tool - style/genre, instrumentation, intended audience... bottom line for me is indicated by the fact that we're all trying to 'improve' the sound of our tracks, and that 'improvement' is all headed in one single direction. If there was no standard by which the quality of a mix (as opposed to its musical content) could be assessed, the idea of progress in this area would be meaningless. Just because that standard can not be explicitly and precisely described and measured does not mean it does not exist.

Colin OOOD
Moderator

Started Topics : 95
Posts : 5380
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 22:15

Oh, and Mr. Scobbah - get yourself on MSN, I need to talk to you!

soulfood
IsraTrance Junior Member

Started Topics : 10
Posts : 875
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 22:17

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 20:59, Side-A wrote:
good post.
i also wanted to answer to this comment

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 18:46, soulfood wrote:

All you are doing here is making music for DJ's who are not very good at choosing which record to play next and can't use EQ's properly. What this also does is get listeners used to certain levels in the music they listen to, which leads people to asking questions like"why is there less bass in darkpsy...".

it's certainly not the Dj's work to re-EQ the music while playing, but the producer's wich then send it to the mastering, and then finally the Dj gets to play the music.

If I want to mix a 50's jazz track into a recent drum and bass track, I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the EQ.

Colin OOOD
Moderator

Started Topics : 95
Posts : 5380
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 22:22

You'll get much better results if you process the jazz track in the studio. 3-band EQ (of dubious quality, depending on the mixer) will boost (or cut) parts of the track that you don't want. Boosting bass for instance will increase the mud as well; likewise boosting the treble will most likely increase the track's harshness.

Spindrift
Spindrift

Started Topics : 33
Posts : 1560
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 22:25

@Colin
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no such thing as a standard for certain areas of production.

That doesn't mean that there is no desirable goals to achieve with a mix and that one might as well give up...it just means that like with everything else creative the goals can be subjective and that those goals might be some what different from individual to individual.
Sure, some mixes completely fail because they don't even live up to objective standards...i.e. the frequency balance is bad, the RMS value is too low or there is severe phase problems.

Like I said, I find it important that not all levels is perfect...some sounds should be slightly too loud or too soft because it helps me sustain interest in the track. Others might call that bad production even if it's within the realm of the objective standards as explained above.
I like when the leads have enough depth to clash just a bit with the bass, while others think that it sounds like the mix could be more separated and clean.

So I really don't think that there ever will be a tool that can determine the quality of a mix using objective standards that would satisfy both me and Atma...nor that everyones idea of improvement is the same.
The above mentioned factors are aspects that by their very nature is subjective and hence matters of taste.

olivier
Side-A

Started Topics : 40
Posts : 1303
Posted : Oct 19, 2007 23:08

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 22:17, soulfood wrote:
Quote:

On 2007-10-19 20:59, Side-A wrote:
good post.
i also wanted to answer to this comment

Quote:

On 2007-10-19 18:46, soulfood wrote:

All you are doing here is making music for DJ's who are not very good at choosing which record to play next and can't use EQ's properly. What this also does is get listeners used to certain levels in the music they listen to, which leads people to asking questions like"why is there less bass in darkpsy...".

it's certainly not the Dj's work to re-EQ the music while playing, but the producer's wich then send it to the mastering, and then finally the Dj gets to play the music.

If I want to mix a 50's jazz track into a recent drum and bass track, I'm afraid I'm going to have to use the EQ.

so let's hope both tracks were previously produced and mastered decently otherwise the Eq's won't be enough i'm afraid ;)

Seppa

Started Topics : 8
Posts : 485
Posted : Oct 20, 2007 00:56

Quote:

Why is there less bass in Darkpsy than Fullon and Progressive?

Its not the case of all darkpsy, but I think that most dark producers have less experience, and if they do have experience than they probably don't care as much about sound quality.

Atma mentioned than many are a bunch of kids messing around with sounds... something like that. I wouldn't go as far as the kid thing, But I think that maybe this style need some more serious producing. People spending time not only making crazy sound, but spending as much time with how it will sound overall.

I haven't heard a single bass in dark psy that I did not hear in full on. the same bass in a full on track will sound most of the time better.That's a simple fact that I think illustrate the lack of performance of most dark producers

Maybe this style is too young and it need to mature a little. On the other hand there is some really good dark psy that doesn't need anything, but how rare is it.

faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht

Started Topics : 282
Posts : 3394
Posted : Oct 20, 2007 10:58

ok this topic has become too much for me

have fun guys

The Way Back
https://faxinadu.bandcamp.com/album/the-way-back

Trance Forum ť ť Forum Production & Music Making - Why is there less bass in Darkpsy than Fullon and Progressive?

← Prev Page	6 7 8 9 10	Next Page →
First Page	6 7 8 9 10	Last Page