Post: #126

^ Cale plays a Viola. It's an octave up from the Cello - a cello is the low groany instrument you hear on most traditionally-sad songs. The viola is higher in tone but played more like a violin is, though it's much larger in size. It has its own unique Clef in notation that is a bastard to learn to write for and, even now, still fucks with my head when I'm laying parts together. Generally Cale wanna-be's like Russell Senior of Pulp end up playing the violin instead.

I favour it in scoring for strings because it has a unique airy quality that I think of as pure 'smoke, wood and whiskey'. Since talented Viola players are very rare, it's very underused in pop music. Luckily, I'm connected that way, and he can understand what I'm after when I say "Play like the walls are melting".

Due to the difficultly of playing it, besides Cale and the Velvet Undgeround, I can only think of about three other notable uses of it in popular culture, in almost 70 years of rock music.

The most famous use I can think of would be in the Beatles' 'Hello, Goodbye' which has an arrangement for eight of the damn things, though they tracked it multiple times. (I think the story goes that McCartney told George Martin to get the top eight viola players in London to do it, and he said "You'd be lucky if there's eight top viola players in all of England.")

I suspect there's some varispeed involved in the track, but it gives it a unique quality that sounds like nothing else I've heard, even all these years later, though it's much more prominent on the original vinyl mix.





There was also a song in 2009 by fun. that made a feature of a the viola. Good album, but then they made a dumbed down second album and one of them shacked up with Lena Dunham, so I never listened to them again.





Other than that, the soundtrack for the video game 'The Last Of Us' pricked my ears up for favouring the instrument, though, like most of the instrumentation in the soundtrack, it has been heavily-processed, detuned and otherwise screwed up with.

A Cello is the low string instrument that enters at 0:56 in this track and adds to the emotional power of the track, though major respect for that masterful fucking vocal from Trace:





A cello is playing the theme here at 0:04 before it becomes doubled with a brass instrument - possibly a Frenchhorn? - at 0:13.





There's an awesome rhythmic use of dual cellos in this track, though, as with most 80's Kate tracks, there's a weird synthetic texture to them that dilutes the power they should have had, though, according to the liner notes, they're real.





I'd like to give it a crack myself because... being blunt here... Cellos seem to be a favoured instruments of Lesbians, with all the nastiness and misery that that entails. I can't remember the last time I met a male cello player, or a straight female one. It's always fat rolls, short dyed hair and sourness, and life is too fucking short.

Post: #127

(02-01-2017 11:03 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  ^ Cale plays a Viola. It's an octave up from the Cello - a cello is the low groany instrument you hear on most traditionally-sad songs. The viola is higher in tone but played more like a violin is, though it's much larger in size. It has its own unique Clef in notation that is a bastard to learn to write for and, even now, still fucks with my head when I'm laying parts together. Generally Cale wanna-be's like Russell Senior of Pulp end up playing the violin instead.

I favour it in scoring for strings because it has a unique airy quality that I think of as pure 'smoke, wood and whiskey'. Since talented Viola players are very rare, it's very underused in pop music. Luckily, I'm connected that way, and he can understand what I'm after when I say "Play like the walls are melting".

Due to the difficultly of playing it, besides Cale and the Velvet Undgeround, I can only think of about three other notable uses of it in popular culture, in almost 70 years of rock music.

The most famous use I can think of would be in the Beatles' 'Hello, Goodbye' which has an arrangement for eight of the damn things, though they tracked it multiple times. (I think the story goes that McCartney told George Martin to get the top eight viola players in London to do it, and he said "You'd be lucky if there's eight top viola players in all of England.")

I suspect there's some varispeed involved in the track, but it gives it a unique quality that sounds like nothing else I've heard, even all these years later, though it's much more prominent on the original vinyl mix.





There was also a song in 2009 by fun. that made a feature of a the viola. Good album, but then they made a dumbed down second album and one of them shacked up with Lena Dunham, so I never listened to them again.





Other than that, the soundtrack for the video game 'The Last Of Us' pricked my ears up for favouring the instrument, though, like most of the instrumentation in the soundtrack, it has been heavily-processed, detuned and otherwise screwed up with.

A Cello is the low string instrument that enters at 0:56 in this track and adds to the emotional power of the track, though major respect for that masterful fucking vocal from Trace:





A cello is playing the theme here at 0:04 before it becomes doubled with a brass instrument - possibly a Frenchhorn? - at 0:13.





There's an awesome rhythmic use of dual cellos in this track, though, as with most 80's Kate tracks, there's a weird synthetic texture to them that dilutes the power they should have had, though, according to the liner notes, they're real.





I'd like to give it a crack myself because... being blunt here... Cellos seem to be a favoured instruments of Lesbians, with all the nastiness and misery that that entails. I can't remember the last time I met a male cello player, or a straight female one. It's always fat rolls, short dyed hair and sourness, and life is too fucking short.

Oops, you are right, it was a bloody Viola, not Cello! My bad. D'oh.

Apart from that, a most informative and educational post! I learned something anyway.

I'm doubling down on my advice: You should DEFINITELY get it!

Good luck to you. I'm sure you will make good use of it. Even if you just end up hitting it with a stick and inventing a new form of music.

Post: #128

(02-02-2017 08:58 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  Even if you just end up hitting it with a stick and inventing a new form of music.

Post: #129

Had a friend/artist from back east travel out to CO to record a full length with me a couple weeks ago and it re-invigorated my love for recording music. Makes me want to buckle down and get more serious about making my studio a real business venture instead of doing oddball recording gigs here and there.

Anyone else in here record other artists for money?

Post: #130

I used to record with a metal band as well as do recordings for other artists but I had to give that up to pursue my full time career. One day when I have more time I'd like to do another album. Right now most of my recording gear/amps/cabs/drums are in storage since I'm living in a small apartment. Just working with a small interface, keyboard, guitars/bass/mics direct in and lots of samples but the approach its not suited to the type of music I like.

Post: #131

Tangential rant incoming...

Why the fuck are so many musicians unreliable, flaky, and narcissistic? I'm about ready to quit my current band and seek greener pastures for this exact reason. Communication breakdowns are terrible for any type of partnership, especially a band. This appears to be happening with my situation and I'm frankly sick to fucking DEATH of it.

Fuck I hate flaky, faggy, narcissistic dipshits. And the music world is FULL of them.

Post: #132

(02-10-2017 02:53 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Tangential rant incoming...

Why the fuck are so many musicians unreliable, flaky, and narcissistic? I'm about ready to quit my current band and seek greener pastures for this exact reason. Communication breakdowns are terrible for any type of partnership, especially a band. This appears to be happening with my situation and I'm frankly sick to fucking DEATH of it.

Fuck I hate flaky, faggy, narcissistic dipshits. And the music world is FULL of them.

Most people generally get into music to avoid working, which means the majority of those you meet will be soft, sheltered, suburban Leftists, unless you head out to Nashville. Particularly now music has been socialised by design, thanks to Google and Obama's DOJ drastically-changing copyright law.

You ok mate? Hit me up if you need to rant. I'm a bit behind on my emails 'cause internet access has been spotty whilst travelling, but I'll do what I can. I've got a couple of hours downtime and reliable wi-fi to work through things this morning.

Post: #133

Yeah working with unreliable musicians should be avoided if you can at all help it. It will just drag down the progress and creativity of the music and will frustrate you and whoever else in the process. I've had a fair share of band members who were great at playing/performing but were a pain in the ass to work with. In the end it's not worth putting up with.

Post: #134

(02-10-2017 02:53 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  Tangential rant incoming...

Why the fuck are so many musicians unreliable, flaky, and narcissistic? I'm about ready to quit my current band and seek greener pastures for this exact reason. Communication breakdowns are terrible for any type of partnership, especially a band. This appears to be happening with my situation and I'm frankly sick to fucking DEATH of it.

Fuck I hate flaky, faggy, narcissistic dipshits. And the music world is FULL of them.

Yup, over the years I've set up eight meetings with eager musicians. ALL. of them flaked. I needed to be a name, or have cash, the way one musician I knew dealt with this was by paying for the musicians to show up to rehearse, she had the money to do it however. Money talks!

One way of getting around this crap is being so effing good that you can't be ignored, so get to virtuoso levels. OR, pay musicians to show up and rehearse, or, have a rehearsal room equiped and ready so that lazy musicians won't mind just having to bring a guitar to a room. Then share the room with another band, they pay some rent and now you have other musicians coming through your life and can maybe find some other musicians you vibe with.

Money usually talks the loudest though.

Speaking of money, who is making any? and how?

From this EDM band: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/05/...royalties/

Total number of streams: 1,023,501

Total revenue: $4,955.90

these terrible numbers I've seen from other, bigger names also.

But, this is still not as bad as Youtube apparently: http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/04/...lly-earns/

Quote:Now, the latest rights owner to come forward is an independent label based in Canada with a roster of roughly one dozen artists, a group that racked up more than 2.5 million YouTube streams over a one-year span (July 2014 through June of 2015).

YouTube (proper music video plays): $0.001005 Canadian ($0.000794 US) per stream.
YouTube (Content ID): $0.001342 Canadian ($0.001061 US) per match.

Which means that in total, this label earned just $2,244.31 Canadian ($1,773.00 US) for more than 2.5 million YouTube streams in a year

How are these people making money?

I'm looking at this kid Zayn, and his hit "Pillowtalk".

680 000 000 views on youtube. At $0.000794 US per stream, this amounts to approximately $540,000 dollars. There are five writers of the song, so assuming they have equal share to the rights, this would mean a potential $108 000 each. Assuming that the writers have full access to the youtube money ... like how much does the record company take? and what other people are skimming away at this cash?

Zayn is left with what in his account after a video of 680 000 000 million views? Anything at all? because his Pillowtalk video is slick, it must have cost a lot to make that, and then there's mixing, mastering etc. I wonder if he has $50 000 in his personal account after all is said and done.

I feel sorry for Indie bands in these times.

Post: #135

A question for all you EDM lovers:
What tunes do you pop in to get yourself pumped up for a good night out ?

Post: #136

Over the last few months I have been practicing my guitar for 30-60 minutes, almost every day. I can play now as well as I did when I was young, maybe even better. I want to get into a fusion/jazz ensemble, and play out. I mostly solo and improvise, and can play jazz. For me thats fun, like playing in a squash league or doing a sport. For practice I use a Steve Vai book that I had from a long time ago. I will turn on YouTube and play along with backing tracks. I want to develop a lot more of my skills, to play on stage again. I play a strat through a tech21 amp, with some pedals. Players I have been watching lately are John5, Zakk Wylde, Eric Johnson, Guthrie Govan, Steve Vai, Vernon Reid. I like following a lot of instagram guitarists too. Someday again I will write and record another album. My style is a lot like Vernon Reid, punkish virtuoso soloing and melodic metal. My avatar pic is from a Nirvanna show on Halloween that I was at.

Post: #137

Flat out: I'm not good at mastering recordings. If anyone here is any good at it I'd love to chat one-on-one and have you show me a thing or two. Maybe even do a screen share session where you can drive a bit or give some pointers on mastering an example track of mine.

I can record, edit, and mix like a mother fucker but bringing out all the right color and getting the different frequencies to be commercial loudness (without peaking) is a damn mystery to me.

Post: #138

I had user Zep mess around with a track of mine and the result was pretty decent. He offered me a plugin to try out which I haven't had a chance to play with yet but will soon. That said, I'd like to shed a little light on my experience and perspective on mixing and mastering.

I've been recording for a few years now. My practice has always been when tracking raw analog signal into my DAW that the level should be as high as possible without peaking. That means setting up the gain for the microphone or instrument input so that the loudest sounds are just below the big bad red 0.0db. This picks up the most detail in your signal so you don't lose anything in the tracking phase.

Lets say I record two guitar tracks panned hard left and hard right, then I record a bass guitar track, then I record a vocal track, and a drum track all using this same methodology. If all of these raw tracks are recorded with healthy tall peaks hitting just below 0.0db at worst, then once summed all together on the master output, they will most definitely be hitting above 0.0db. If there is a part of the song where the drumkit, guitars, bass, and vocal signal are all at -1.0db, then the sum of them will be far into the red. Now if I want to add some effects after the fact, like some reverb, distortion, delay, some EQ, etc. Then the mix is going to be hot as fuck slamming the red to high heaven.

That said, at the end of the day, when I record a series of tracks with all the effects I want at the gain level that is sufficient to pick up all the sound detail I need, then my master fader may be telling me I'm like +5 to +8 DB in the red. The sound that comes out of my monitors is just fine with no hint of digital clipping present despite the fact my DAW is telling me my level are off-the-charts bad.

Now, then I try and master the "right" way with a super quiet -6.0db mix then my shit ends up sounding washed out, squashed, and quiet even when brought up to -0.1db.

Perhaps the problem is how I gain stage pre-mastering? Perhaps I'm over thinking it and should just add EQ then clip and limit my mixes and call it a day?

Post: #139

(02-24-2017 04:44 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  That said, at the end of the day, when I record a series of tracks with all the effects I want at the gain level that is sufficient to pick up all the sound detail I need, then my master fader may be telling me I'm like +5 to +8 DB in the red. The sound that comes out of my monitors is just fine with no hint of digital clipping present despite the fact my DAW is telling me my level are off-the-charts bad.

Now, then I try and master the "right" way with a super quiet -6.0db mix then my shit ends up sounding washed out, squashed, and quiet even when brought up to -0.1db.

Perhaps the problem is how I gain stage pre-mastering? Perhaps I'm over thinking it and should just add EQ then clip and limit my mixes and call it a day?

Your DAW is probably rendering in 32 bit floating point—you can go significantly above 0dB (something obscene and physically impossible like 1500dB if I recall correctly) without clipping in 32 bit floating.

This might sound stupid, but is the threshold just set too high on whatever mastering plugins you're using? Like if you're used to mastering at a much higher volume and using the same threshold threshold setting on, say, a compressor, it might not even be 'compressing', just cutting the volume. Just a thought.

Post: #140

(02-24-2017 04:44 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  That said, at the end of the day, when I record a series of tracks with all the effects I want at the gain level that is sufficient to pick up all the sound detail I need, then my master fader may be telling me I'm like +5 to +8 DB in the red. The sound that comes out of my monitors is just fine with no hint of digital clipping present despite the fact my DAW is telling me my level are off-the-charts bad.

I've been working on my own theories of this for a good 14 years or more now, when I was trying to figure out why both mp3's and hot-mastered CD's are so emotionally-uninvolving compared to analogue, though most people would tell me they 'couldn't hear a difference'. This was important to me due to a parallel theory of mine that you have to tap people's emotional core to make them bond with you as an artist to - unfortunately, given the climate - make them feel a twinge of shame for pirating your music, and, eventually, throw some dollars your way.

My theory: digital clipping has both audible and sub-audible effects on the listener, and the worse the clipping is, the worse the subliminal fatigue is on the listener. I'll explain in a second.

Quote:Now, then I try and master the "right" way with a super quiet -6.0db mix then my shit ends up sounding washed out, squashed, and quiet even when brought up to -0.1db.

Years and years of listening to music gave me this one simple rule: when you're deeply, deeply into a song, you want to be able to turn it up LOUD.

That's my rule of thumb for a bad mix. What happens when you try to turn it up. I don't care what 'the rules' say. Most modern listeners (and a large chunk of producers) have poor knowledge and skills and aim to have it already loud and blasting coming out of the speaker.

Whilst the louder of two mixes always sounds immediately-appealing, given our natural survival instinct to respond with excitement to loud sounds, when the volume is constant, the excitement quickly fades. The ear responds to change, particularly dynamic shifts.

If a mix has enough headroom, and you're into the track, you will feel a natural instinct to increase the volume to immersion-style levels, and it will increase the enjoyment.

If a mix is too loud, you will instinctively go to turn it up, then find yourself in this constant battle of turning it up, then down, and up. In some of the worst cases, I've found I'm tired and decreasing the volume of a song I think is really good only 90 seconds into the track.

See how this keeps the listener at a polite remove from the artist? Given the nature of Cultural Marxism, I sometimes wonder if the construction of mp3's to be so emotionally-repellent wasn't deliberate.

I work at -15dbs. I can mix for hours without ear fatigue, where I'd burn out in 10 minutes flat aiming for a -0.1. If I send people mixes at that level, they should be able to turn in up to almost speaker extremes without being hit by that subliminal 'turn it down' instinct.

Frustratingly, there's also another emotional remove created in the conversion between .wav to .mp3

Modern digital sound is a terrible way to connect with listeners, which is why I think it functions as wallpaper for the majority of listeners. Why should anyone pay for something so dull and uninteresting?

Another thing I've experimented with: you can't do a mix at one headroom level and transfer it to another headroom level without drastically-altering the fundamental relationships of the instruments and the spaces between them, meaning, the mix you think sounds awesome coming out of bud speakers is going to sound thin and lifeless on vinyl (-15dbs) and tinny and undynamic on blu-ray (-18dbs).

Yes, it's a pain in the arse, but you need to learn to mix at different headroom levels to understand just how much sound changes. I'd aim for at least two mixes per song for modern artists: one for earbuds (-6.0 to -0.1) and one for television / movie placement (-18dbs). You'll obviously need a third mix if you're also doing vinyl - even the 3 db difference moves the relationships around.

When I was doing some session work in Canada a couple of years back, I'd come up with a low, funky electric piano part for the artist, but upon further discussion, he was only aiming for digital releases and with very 'hot' master. Knowing how headroom relates to instruments by now, I knew there's no point playing electric piano in a low, bassy range, as it simply will not register or have any defined power on earbuds, and came up with a piano part in the treble range instead. (I remember an 80's band's comeback that I thought was sunk a few years ago by heavily-relying on electric piano in the tracks, which sounded lifeless on the extremely-hot mastered CD. I later came across the vinyl cheaply, and the 'unique' vinyl mix made it pop and groove. Everyone negatively compared it to their old stuff, but the songs were fine in vinyl form - just smothered in digital.

The more complex your instrumentation, the bigger your headroom needs to be. If your band's power relies upon builds and dynamic shifts, the bigger your headroom needs to be. If you have a powerful vocalist with true chops, and want to slap the listener into awe, the bigger your headroom needs to be.

Incidentally, some research came out recently saying their *is* a difference in emotional-perception between analogue and digital, validating my instincts. The funny part is, back when I was having these arguments years ago, I noticed the people who couldn't hear the difference were Progressive Nu-Male types and Lefty Commie Girls, and the ones who could were your more traditional males and females. I remember a year or so back creepy Doughy Gamma Zack Handlen of the Onion spoke about how he got rid of his enormous vinyl collection because of space concerns and how they sounded 'identical' to digital. Then, recently, John Scalzi posted a tweet along to the same lines - how digital always sounded better to him.

All I could think was, "It makes sense that these guys would have a retarded sense of emotional-perception, which is why they have such an unrealistic Gamma self-perception of themselves as being cool, funny, intelligent and sexy. Are Gammas incapable of reading emotion? Does Gamma fall somewhere on the Autistic Spectrum?"

It would explain Handlen thinking the fat, pimple-faced repulsive writer character Harold Lauder was the 'most interesting' character in 'The Stand', and Scalzi writing characters that seem to have no recognizable qualities of actual, realistic human beings. Gammas also seem to never notice how repellent they are to women who see through their sneaky, creepy Male Feminist behaviour.

Post: #141

AB thanks for the in-depth reply, but I think you are also missing the mark on what I'm getting at.

While I completely agree that music is generally as engaging as it's dynamic range and contrast dictates (you need dynamic sound to really engage the listener) - the other aspect of it is business.

The reason I'm talking about making hot ass mixes is because music nowadays is LOUD. To be commercially competitive (or at least comparable) your shit needs to stand toe-to-toe with other commercial products. A mix can be perfect, but if it sounds like that quiet shit that your grandaddy used to listen to on the turntable back in the early 60's then it's going to sound "cheap" and "low-production" compared to the super-processed boomy mixes we hear on the radio and on itunes today.

Right now I'm knee-deep in recording a grindcore full length. I will be making multiple final mixes for it because the client intends to release digital and vinyl. That said, it needs to sound as "loud" as other commercial products of it's genre for the audience to take it seriously. Especially if the client is up-and-coming and looking to schlep it out to label reps the product is going to have to be professional.

Things are not done how they used to be done. Like anything - times change.

Contrary to that, there is a somewhat recent resurgence of "old-school" music. Tons of artists are releasing on vinyl nowadays; some exclusively on vinyl. People are also going back to recording totally analog.

Anyway, all that aside if I was making masters at -15db people would be like "yo but why the fuck is this so quiet"

EDIT:

Listen to how fucking loud this track is:

Post: #142

This guy was obviously dealt a bad hand in the looks department. I wonder if he's ever scored pussy through his playing? He could do with hitting the gym. But I love his version of this song so much I learnt it.





I love Irish/Scottish jigs and reels. This one brings a smile to my face every time I hear or play it.

Post: #143

(02-15-2017 04:33 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Flat out: I'm not good at mastering recordings. If anyone here is any good at it I'd love to chat one-on-one and have you show me a thing or two. Maybe even do a screen share session where you can drive a bit or give some pointers on mastering an example track of mine.

I can record, edit, and mix like a mother fucker but bringing out all the right color and getting the different frequencies to be commercial loudness (without peaking) is a damn mystery to me.

Why would you need to master?

Hell, if you send me your track list, I'll master if for you, PQ codes 'n all.

GS, you have succumbed to the absolute biggest myth about mastering, if I may be so bold.

Don't sweat it.

It sounds to me like you aren't so much worried about the quality of your mix, just more about its loudness and presence. Do not worry.

It all depends on the program material. And your intended audience.

If you are going for the hardcore sweaty hip-hop club culture hard impact, then it needs a certain presence, yes.

But radio is another matter.

It's not possible to do it all.

I've danced through a million threads like this at Gearslutz (the no.1 producer forum on the net). I've done the dance at kvraudio (the no.2).

It still does not matter as there is no industry left.

It's over. And that is not being defeatist. It's a new day. We have to create our new game.

I have Ozone and all the iZotope tools.

It's a shame things got so messed up with that batshit crazy stalker of mine (hihi).

Ah well, you still have my old email addy. Send me anything you like. I'll make it good. Basic principles.

But I warn you, I'm about to go absolutely fucking mental in the next few days, so you may wish to shun me, as usual.

Take care good buddy.

Post: #144

^ I use Ozone / Izotope for mastering my rough 'proof of concept' demos. I don't waste too much time EQing and cutting mixing bands because I'm too busy wanting to write the next song. It seems straight-forward enough, and remarkably-good for demo quality.

Don't go mental, Rigsby. Put it into a song.

Post: #145

Is that Ozone software worth the $250 bones? I see a lot of folks using it.

Post: #146

I think Ozone is expensive for what it is. It's also why I've never gotten into Autotune. It's cheaper for me to work with singers who don't need it.

If you're considering it, I'd see what it does for the price at $250 restricting you to a laptop versus what a portable $500 self-contained unit can do. For example: I can mix / eq / compress / master with physical sliders on a $500 24 Track Tascam with zero latency and transfer to laptop, should I choose. Higher outlay and learning curve, but far more bang for you buck, especially if you're getting into tracking an entire band live.

Stalin and / or Rigsby: are either of you experienced with AutoTune? I've got a few string arrangements that were done with a pickup violinist when the original one cancelled on short notice, and they were nowhere near the skill level they claimed, so their innotation is wobby enough to make their parts fucking painful to listen to. How hard is something like that to repair in Autotune whilst still sounding natural and organic and what's the cost investment my end if I hired either of you to repair multiple wave files? I'd have to weigh up cost of repair versus just getting a good violinist back in for a few hours, because that would only cost me a couple hundred.

Said violinist in question is only occassionally sharp or flat in the lower registers, so I think most of that range would only need the odd nip, but once you get up into 'Bittersweet Symphony' heights - where the strings get very 'airy' in sound - it sounds like cats fucking as the walls bleed and melt.

Post: #147

Many times songs are mastered or mixed differently for vinyl than other mediums. There is a balance between the "loudness" you are talking about versus dynamics. You simply can't have full "loudness" like popular stuff you hear on the radio, and maintain your dynamics. That said, Ozone is easy to use and for $250 you can probably get a better mix yourself than some low budget "mixing professional" would provide for the same price. Depending on the scope of your project, it may be worth it to have it professionally mastered. Or, download copy of Ozone, crank up the limiter, add some slight brightening/stereo widening presets, and call it a day. It has tons of "mastering" presets you can pick apart to see how things work. Its somewhat of a rabbithole, as mixing is its own art and before you know it you have spent over a week trying to perfect the mix of a single song. Add in ear fatigue, and if you don't have a proper monitoring setup, and its jusr time down the drain.

Anyway, this is kind of a ramble as I have had a few drinks and am on my phone, but there is a difference between loudness and percieved loudness. Your ears percieve that higher frequencies are louder than lower frequencies, even if they are actually the same loudness when measured. That is why you can have a track that measures at -0db, but it still doesn't sound as loud as that cheap youtube video. Beginners will typically use a multiband compressor as an easy fix to this, though that can ruin dynamics. Basically, this allows you to crank the higher frequencies extra loud, while controlling the bass. This is why "louder" songs typically don't have as much bass. This is what I did back in the day when I produced/recorded/mixed stuff for various local artists.

So ya, pick up ozone, check out the presets, and develop an understanding of how they work. Number one rule though should be to fix everything before you put it through the final effects chain, except maybe loudness.

Post: #148

(02-26-2017 07:59 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Is that Ozone software worth the $250 bones? I see a lot of folks using it.

I'm going to say yes and here's why. The presets are kind of amazing, you take your tune and just press the down arrow key and hear your tune 'mixed' in all kinds of ways that you'd never think of. Now you have these possibilities and maybe you want to really understand more .. great! .. do your homework and really study the software and learn about what the limiting is doing, what compression is doing, what the stereo field is doing, what the exciter is doing, etc, etc, etc...and you'll learn about these things in context, very important. I'd use this strictly as an educational tool as well as a powerful mixer for the home user ( everyone these days ).
I learned a lot about pre-amp distortion vs power-amp distortion just playing around with Studio Devils virtual amp. I read a lot about it then when I heard the virtual amp I understood the difference immediately. Big difference in learning when you hear it.

Bosch, if you're going to try Autotune, I'd have a look at Melodyne, it really is an awesome program. Hopefully your strings were recorded dry and separately otherwise things can get complicated ( lots of artifacts).

Has anyone here mixed a tune using plugins and the same tune using outboard gear? I curious to know if there really is a big difference. Plugins are getting good, but the better they are the more CPU they use, so UAD plugins use a separate CPU for their stuff I think, apparently they sound ultra-realistic.

Post: #149

(02-26-2017 09:21 PM)Repo Wrote:  Add in ear fatigue, and if you don't have a proper monitoring setup, and its jusr time down the drain.

This is the advantage of working at -15dbs for me. I can mix for hours. Mixing hot... 20 minutes, drained and exhausted.

There's a setting on Ozone I'll have to get back to my computer at home to identify where it treats something like -12dbs as 0 dbs in terms of mixing, and even the rough mixes I've done using that have turned out very dynamic and punchy for me. Wish I could remember the setting - it's there when you right click on the levels meter in the version I have of it, though it's not going to work for the kind of genre and clientele General Stalin is using. I get thumpy bass, buzzy electric pianos, fat low saxes, groaning cellos, and thudding kick drums in a way -0.1 can't give me.

The mixes done with Ozone and monitoring speakers seem to also transfer between equipment relatively well - it'll sound great in the car, in headphones and on a standard computer speaker setup, where in the past what sounds good in the car would often sound crap on a computer and vice versa. Now and again I'll have to go back and remix after a car listen but not often.

(02-27-2017 01:21 AM)Zep Wrote:  Bosch, if you're going to try Autotune, I'd have a look at Melodyne, it really is an awesome program. Hopefully your strings were recorded dry and separately otherwise things can get complicated ( lots of artifacts).

Yeah, I always record strings flat, dry and close to give me more options. I hate reverb. Thanks for the recommendation, but I'd rather just pay someone to do the fiddling with that stuff, if it's more affordable than getting someone else in, and some of the songs have 16 or 32 tracks of individual strings, and I've got other songs to record.

Do any of you guys map out sound fields, left to right, front to back? I always do little sketches for visualisation - it's a good way to balance the placement of instruments in the mix and - if your work is complex - stop them competiting with each other. I like putting items on a scale - if this instrument is grunty, i'm not going to place another grunty one in the same general area. I haven't cracked near to far as well yet.

I saw it in a (terrible) McCartney album when I was a teenager, but he doesn't take it to the extremes I do in terms of confining things to left or right entirely at times.

https://thriftyvinyl.files.wordpress.com..._17831.jpg

Post: #150

A little late to the Cello discussion...

But I wanted to post a good one. A 40 year old classic rock song
covered by one of my favorite bands.. Bringing a fresh breath to it.

Original song came from a finger picking exercise, where this cover
uses strummed chords instead. It works.

And lest AnonymousBosch despair that all the cello players are in fact
bush-pigs, a sweet little Romanian spinner to cheer your soul.