46
Mixing/Mastering / Re: Would anybody like me to master their work? I have ~4 years experience.
« on: January 14, 2016, 03:30:37 am »
Is this a solicitation? or pro bono?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
47
Mixing/Mastering / Re: Fletcher-Munson Curve - IMPORTANT
« on: January 14, 2016, 12:07:32 am »
There's a member of this forum (deathy) who is a "gray" noise evangelist.
Here are some of deathy's interesting posts:
Re: Perceived Loudness - a suggestion
Re: Mixing quick tip with Pink Noise - his method of producing "gray" noise
I would be remiss if I didn't include his disclaimer:
My thoughts:
The Fletcher-Munson Curves (1933) have been considered inaccurate (since 1957) and revised into ISO 226 (1987).... and again in (2003). There are reports that indicate these ELCs still do not accurately articulate the concept they purport (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oja.2012.24016).
You'll notice (on ISO's site) they indicate some points which (to me) reduce the applicability of this in production. ..."the source of sound is directly in front of the listener; the sound signals are pure tones; the sound pressure level is measured at the position where the centre of the listener's head would be, but in the absence of the listener; listening is binaural; the listeners are otologically normal persons in the age range from 18 years to 25 years inclusive."
It's not that the spec doesn't apply at all to any real circumstance (this is a laboratory finding, not a scientific theory or law)... the thing that irks me is that it's based on population sampling (asking people) and tested in a fabricated scenario with an overly reduced sample. But, say it is accurate for a satisfyingly large amount random people, it is still dependent on listening volume.
That is to say, when your listener changes the volume (what!?), or is in an environment where volume changes by location (due to speaker placement, occlusion dampening, etc... like a club or car), this consideration is undone. Also, quite a few people enjoy the freedom of EQing music for their listening pleasure... but only some do it manually. Many rely on consumer electronics manufacturers to perform this for them. You've undoubtedly heard of this... SRS WOW, ST Dynamic Bass, SRS TruBass, Beats by Dre, the Loudness feature in many car-stereos, and other audio processing (bass mangling) features of sound systems. Producing music with this processing "baked-in" doesn't make sense to me, as in these situations it would be doubled. The likelihood of your music being enjoyed without distortion and fatigue is severely diminished.
I don't consider the manner of audio reproduction as part of my art; I don't personally manufacture any headphones, speakers, cables, subwoofers, or hardware DSPs. For me, the art is the message not the medium. Not to say I balance levels on a whim. I attempt to have levels in my music in a "safe zone" where listeners naturally expect them to be... so they can leave their bass boost on, or not immediately reach for the volume / EQ knob when my music plays. Pink noise accomplishes this well for me.
Here are some of deathy's interesting posts:
Re: Perceived Loudness - a suggestion
Re: Mixing quick tip with Pink Noise - his method of producing "gray" noise
I would be remiss if I didn't include his disclaimer:
I admit that I am not completely sold on using it all the time anyway, for the same reasons as what I detailed earlier about following the curve perfectly not being interesting enough to me.
My thoughts:
The Fletcher-Munson Curves (1933) have been considered inaccurate (since 1957) and revised into ISO 226 (1987).... and again in (2003). There are reports that indicate these ELCs still do not accurately articulate the concept they purport (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oja.2012.24016).
You'll notice (on ISO's site) they indicate some points which (to me) reduce the applicability of this in production. ..."the source of sound is directly in front of the listener; the sound signals are pure tones; the sound pressure level is measured at the position where the centre of the listener's head would be, but in the absence of the listener; listening is binaural; the listeners are otologically normal persons in the age range from 18 years to 25 years inclusive."
It's not that the spec doesn't apply at all to any real circumstance (this is a laboratory finding, not a scientific theory or law)... the thing that irks me is that it's based on population sampling (asking people) and tested in a fabricated scenario with an overly reduced sample. But, say it is accurate for a satisfyingly large amount random people, it is still dependent on listening volume.
That is to say, when your listener changes the volume (what!?), or is in an environment where volume changes by location (due to speaker placement, occlusion dampening, etc... like a club or car), this consideration is undone. Also, quite a few people enjoy the freedom of EQing music for their listening pleasure... but only some do it manually. Many rely on consumer electronics manufacturers to perform this for them. You've undoubtedly heard of this... SRS WOW, ST Dynamic Bass, SRS TruBass, Beats by Dre, the Loudness feature in many car-stereos, and other audio processing (bass mangling) features of sound systems. Producing music with this processing "baked-in" doesn't make sense to me, as in these situations it would be doubled. The likelihood of your music being enjoyed without distortion and fatigue is severely diminished.
I don't consider the manner of audio reproduction as part of my art; I don't personally manufacture any headphones, speakers, cables, subwoofers, or hardware DSPs. For me, the art is the message not the medium. Not to say I balance levels on a whim. I attempt to have levels in my music in a "safe zone" where listeners naturally expect them to be... so they can leave their bass boost on, or not immediately reach for the volume / EQ knob when my music plays. Pink noise accomplishes this well for me.
48
WIPs / Re: House(?) song I've been playing around with
« on: January 13, 2016, 01:07:46 pm »
1st Listen:
Cool vibe! I hear some distortion in the piano ... first noticed it at 0:33. Change instruments at some point... in an organized, hierarchical way to support the structure you've created. I hear unexpected notes on the last count of some phrases (1:24, 1:40, 2:26, and others...) that don't sound quite in key. The 20 sec drum-out kinda left my ass flappin' in the wind (not in a good way)... an ending would wrap things up nicely (a DJ would probably love that much runway
).
2nd & 3rd Listen:
The ideas feel carefree & the progression solid. Maybe the bass could articulate a different rhythm? Give the bassline it's own identity and add some contrasting attitude to the track. The piano / bass in the intro & outtro kinda does this... but could be more pronounced. At 2:12, I'm feelin' a bass solo leading into the syncopated piano (which is probably my favorite part). The piano crescendos could use more creativity.
4th & 5th Listen:
I like how the sidechain on the reverse cymbal rise isn't overbearing (0:30, 2:55). Very high mono-compatibility (which is good)... but, the track would benefit from more stereo separation. Placing instruments in the stereo field is an additional dimension you can use to add more energy and anticipation to your music, take more advantage of it.
You can drive your kick harder... see how it's below -18dB
For house, about -8dB is common for a kick. You say this isn't mastered yet, but your bass is hitting the -8dB range in this mix 
. Take all this with a grain of salt, though... the style of this track (bassline over kick) might necessitate an adjusted balance. (Your track made this one come to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUyP74RUDlI) Your track sounds like it could be in an early 90's SEGA game (Sonic the Hedgehog's early levels) - and that's a HUGE compliment!
FFT Analysis & Spectrograph of outtro:
Cool vibe! I hear some distortion in the piano ... first noticed it at 0:33. Change instruments at some point... in an organized, hierarchical way to support the structure you've created. I hear unexpected notes on the last count of some phrases (1:24, 1:40, 2:26, and others...) that don't sound quite in key. The 20 sec drum-out kinda left my ass flappin' in the wind (not in a good way)... an ending would wrap things up nicely (a DJ would probably love that much runway
).2nd & 3rd Listen:
The ideas feel carefree & the progression solid. Maybe the bass could articulate a different rhythm? Give the bassline it's own identity and add some contrasting attitude to the track. The piano / bass in the intro & outtro kinda does this... but could be more pronounced. At 2:12, I'm feelin' a bass solo leading into the syncopated piano (which is probably my favorite part). The piano crescendos could use more creativity.
4th & 5th Listen:
I like how the sidechain on the reverse cymbal rise isn't overbearing (0:30, 2:55). Very high mono-compatibility (which is good)... but, the track would benefit from more stereo separation. Placing instruments in the stereo field is an additional dimension you can use to add more energy and anticipation to your music, take more advantage of it.
You can drive your kick harder... see how it's below -18dB
For house, about -8dB is common for a kick. You say this isn't mastered yet, but your bass is hitting the -8dB range in this mix . Take all this with a grain of salt, though... the style of this track (bassline over kick) might necessitate an adjusted balance. (Your track made this one come to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUyP74RUDlI) Your track sounds like it could be in an early 90's SEGA game (Sonic the Hedgehog's early levels) - and that's a HUGE compliment!FFT Analysis & Spectrograph of outtro:
49
WIPs / Re: Embedded | 88BPM Melodic
« on: January 13, 2016, 11:59:39 am »
1st Listen:
Simple track. It definitely embraces the synthetic sound of the instruments.
2nd & 3rd Listen:
Some of volume contrasts (1:27, 3:24) are abrasive unless you're waiting for them. 4:08 is notable as it is the ONLY departure from the main theme. Even 2:16 is a repetition of the same chord progression... maybe this could be the first appearance of the progression at 4:08, and later recapitulate it in the other arrangement.
4th & 5th Listen:
I noticed and enjoyed the stereo delays on the lead in the quiet areas. I see my Phase Analysis' mono compatibility meter flipping in some of these areas... I wouldn't worry about it too much. You might hear some unexpected volume dips on some inexpensive bluetooth speakers or something. I just noticed, I hear VERY few sound effects (a few rises)... and also few effects on sound (something neat at 2:11!).
The composition is melodically rich... but I feel like you could stand to exhibit more breadth in production technique. Maybe a jaunt through TPF would anoint you with a larger arsenal to employ. Also, giving feedback on other tracks will help you think analytically about your own music. Hope to see you around TPF.
Simple track. It definitely embraces the synthetic sound of the instruments.
2nd & 3rd Listen:
Some of volume contrasts (1:27, 3:24) are abrasive unless you're waiting for them. 4:08 is notable as it is the ONLY departure from the main theme. Even 2:16 is a repetition of the same chord progression... maybe this could be the first appearance of the progression at 4:08, and later recapitulate it in the other arrangement.
4th & 5th Listen:
I noticed and enjoyed the stereo delays on the lead in the quiet areas. I see my Phase Analysis' mono compatibility meter flipping in some of these areas... I wouldn't worry about it too much. You might hear some unexpected volume dips on some inexpensive bluetooth speakers or something. I just noticed, I hear VERY few sound effects (a few rises)... and also few effects on sound (something neat at 2:11!).
The composition is melodically rich... but I feel like you could stand to exhibit more breadth in production technique. Maybe a jaunt through TPF would anoint you with a larger arsenal to employ. Also, giving feedback on other tracks will help you think analytically about your own music. Hope to see you around TPF.
50
WIPs / Re: Future Bass WIP
« on: January 13, 2016, 11:27:23 am »
I came to give feedback... but there's no track! Please post a new link or a new version.
51
WIPs / Re: Bipolar Remake Feedback?
« on: January 13, 2016, 11:17:40 am »
1st Listen:
So crisp! Neat remix. The kick feels mono and dry.
2nd Listen (after reviewing the original):
Some of the super-wide high-frequency elements are not mono-compatible. I had to EQ the highs (I run audio through a Xone:92) to get through the track. While some of the intensity of the lead is emulated from the original, other inflections are completely left out. It makes this feel like a re-production, rather than a re-mix (I see you called it a remake on TPF). Still, it's a stellar recreation of the timbre of the original synth!
1:47, the low-passed bass starts a decrescendo into the the 2nd measure of the phrase... it doesn't sound as deliberate as the rest of the track. Maybe start at the low point (1:52) and go from there? The reduction to a mono sine wave is kinda cool.
There's a point 2:30 reveals how compressed the track is in a way that feels accidental... the snare build slips out from under the compressor release awkwardly.
3rd & 4th Listen:
I really like how the track builds anticipation... and then delivers (at 1:31) where the original transitions into its other theme. The build & grandstanding at 2:16 is fairly well done. I like how that same idea is quickly dismissed at 3:04... feels progressive and mature.
So crisp! Neat remix. The kick feels mono and dry.
2nd Listen (after reviewing the original):
Some of the super-wide high-frequency elements are not mono-compatible. I had to EQ the highs (I run audio through a Xone:92) to get through the track. While some of the intensity of the lead is emulated from the original, other inflections are completely left out. It makes this feel like a re-production, rather than a re-mix (I see you called it a remake on TPF). Still, it's a stellar recreation of the timbre of the original synth!
1:47, the low-passed bass starts a decrescendo into the the 2nd measure of the phrase... it doesn't sound as deliberate as the rest of the track. Maybe start at the low point (1:52) and go from there? The reduction to a mono sine wave is kinda cool.
There's a point 2:30 reveals how compressed the track is in a way that feels accidental... the snare build slips out from under the compressor release awkwardly.
3rd & 4th Listen:
I really like how the track builds anticipation... and then delivers (at 1:31) where the original transitions into its other theme. The build & grandstanding at 2:16 is fairly well done. I like how that same idea is quickly dismissed at 3:04... feels progressive and mature.
52
WIPs / Re: Polymetric - Synapse (WIP mix, almost finished)
« on: January 13, 2016, 10:32:32 am »
1st listen:
There are some things in this track that sound like a break-beat DJ ducking the volume just before a drop. It's really distracting... I think DJs do it to call attention to the manual, real-time efforts they take in manipulating sound, a central aspect of DJing (scratching & juggling being prime examples). It feels very strange in this track.
2nd listen:
I suspect it's the sidechain thing mentioned by Hearts. If the intention is to make a pause (like 1:07 & 4:07?), be sure to make the separation complete - top the sidechained pads, let some reverb carry the listener over the silence, and start a new note on the downbeat. The space will be more pronounced, and the impact of the downbeat will be stronger.
I hear / see (in a stereograph) the kick being manipulated a bit. Sounds like it's high-passed sometimes... and that sounds great. Adds coherence. Though, when it's used as an accent (1:22, 1:37, 3:46)... duplicate it to another channel (so the sample & verb aren't high-passed after) add some reverb like at 5:19. Maybe that bass-drop at the end could be used ... like at 4:07?
3rd, 4th, 5th listen:
At 1:37... count 4 has a snare hit that sounds off right before the quarter note snares start into the build. It works at 4:07 because it's already present in the mix before that hit on count 4.
The transitions at 4:22, and 4:52 are my favorite parts... simple, but really slick!
The textures (the low-passed arpeggiator, reverb & steady pads), at the end really point to a mood that feels more thoughtful (deliberate & pensive) than the rest of the track. It's probably the sidechain being a SO prevalent everywhere else. The bass drop at the end sounds cool, even cooler if the long reverb from the other instruments didn't persist afterwards.
There are some things in this track that sound like a break-beat DJ ducking the volume just before a drop. It's really distracting... I think DJs do it to call attention to the manual, real-time efforts they take in manipulating sound, a central aspect of DJing (scratching & juggling being prime examples). It feels very strange in this track.
2nd listen:
I suspect it's the sidechain thing mentioned by Hearts. If the intention is to make a pause (like 1:07 & 4:07?), be sure to make the separation complete - top the sidechained pads, let some reverb carry the listener over the silence, and start a new note on the downbeat. The space will be more pronounced, and the impact of the downbeat will be stronger.
I hear / see (in a stereograph) the kick being manipulated a bit. Sounds like it's high-passed sometimes... and that sounds great. Adds coherence. Though, when it's used as an accent (1:22, 1:37, 3:46)... duplicate it to another channel (so the sample & verb aren't high-passed after) add some reverb like at 5:19. Maybe that bass-drop at the end could be used ... like at 4:07?
3rd, 4th, 5th listen:
At 1:37... count 4 has a snare hit that sounds off right before the quarter note snares start into the build. It works at 4:07 because it's already present in the mix before that hit on count 4.
The transitions at 4:22, and 4:52 are my favorite parts... simple, but really slick!
The textures (the low-passed arpeggiator, reverb & steady pads), at the end really point to a mood that feels more thoughtful (deliberate & pensive) than the rest of the track. It's probably the sidechain being a SO prevalent everywhere else. The bass drop at the end sounds cool, even cooler if the long reverb from the other instruments didn't persist afterwards.
53
WIPs / Re: Ocular - ID (Neurofunk)
« on: January 13, 2016, 09:20:13 am »
Sounds great! The instruments are fantastic... and pretty in an X-Y plot too. Even though the instruments are distinct and present, I only hear small, subtle differences in placement and movement in the stereo field. For how active it sounds, I'd think it could go further in that area. But like you said, it's kinda empty.
54
R&A Graveyard / Re: Soundcloud track in signatures - please no
« on: January 13, 2016, 08:25:19 am »
I don't think they should be disabled as a matter of principle... but I do think they cheapen feel the site overall. I have signatures disabled specifically because of SoundCloud embeds.
Do they hinder use of the site, not at all. Flea markets and thrift stores are usually pretty easy to navigate, but I personally enjoy shopping at places with a little more class. Some countries ban billboards on their highways. It just depends on what the operators of the site
feel is appropriate.
As you can tell, I'm a quite active user on this forum. Embedded tracks in people's signatures have not hindered my ability to use this forum. It's pretty obvious which track are there for feedback and which ones aren't.
Do they hinder use of the site, not at all. Flea markets and thrift stores are usually pretty easy to navigate, but I personally enjoy shopping at places with a little more class. Some countries ban billboards on their highways. It just depends on what the operators of the site
feel is appropriate.
55
R&A Graveyard / Re: "Finished Tracks" Section Sucks rn
« on: January 13, 2016, 07:27:00 am »
SMF (the forum web software) has mods for polls http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?action=search;basic_search=poll It might take a little bit of coding, but it seems feasible that polls could be programmatically tracked to preclude people from creating a new topic in a board without exceeding a threshold (set number of completed polls in the board).
Also, couldn't polls be auto-created to simplify feedback? Like 1 - 10 for different categories... (an off the cuff list)
Instrument Selection
Arrangement
Overall Impact
Overall Production Quality
Another thought - the poll would be mandatory (for the reason mentioned above), and a written comment section would be available for feedback outside the scope of the poll.
Also, couldn't polls be auto-created to simplify feedback? Like 1 - 10 for different categories... (an off the cuff list)
Instrument Selection
Arrangement
Overall Impact
Overall Production Quality
Another thought - the poll would be mandatory (for the reason mentioned above), and a written comment section would be available for feedback outside the scope of the poll.
56
Mixing/Mastering / Re: Mixing quick tip with Pink Noise
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:11:38 pm »I can't really provide a link, as there was no resource that just said "here's how to make gray noise." I had to figure it out myself.
I meant a link to the ISO standard. ISO 226:2003 - http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=34222
I found them in a matlab thingy back when I made it, but can't find it online any more - if you can find something similar, I recommend that as a cheaper alternative. I would paste them here, but it's a lot of data (most of it useless, as we're not going to be mixing for very much below 60dB SPL).
...
You can extrapolate the curves to any dB SPL value you want, but I'm not going to go into that here.
Found this in about 5 seconds... Google "matlab iso 226"... about 35 lines without this header
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/7028-iso-226-equal-loudness-level-contour-signal
% The frequencies evaulated in this
% function only span from 20Hz - 12.5kHz, and only 29 selective
% frequencies are covered. This is the limitation of the ISO
% standard.
%
% In addition the valid phon range should be 0 - 90 dB SPL.
% Values outside this range do not have experimental values
% and their contours should be treated as inaccurate.
Also, this blurb from ISO:
"The specifications are based on the following conditions: the sound field in the absence of the listener consists of a free progressive plane wave; the source of sound is directly in front of the listener; the sound signals are pure tones; the sound pressure level is measured at the position where the centre of the listener's head would be, but in the absence of the listener; listening is binaural; the listeners are otologically normal persons in the age range from 18 years to 25 years inclusive."
"I highly recommend not using the values for [...] 20KHz"... is the matlab header lying? "you actually need to shape pink noise, not white noise. It's important when going from SPL to digital that you still follow that 1/f line." Why? If you're shaping it, why does white/pink matter? "After that, you'll probably also want to add on a strong low pass around, say, 50Hz and a high pass around, say 15KHz, just to soften things a little bit further." Why? How's this, say, exact? If you can write "DJ software," why not write software to compute the grey noise and ditch the EQs? Your profile says you're 44? You are welcome to explain the inconsistencies. I'm sure you have some reason for all of them. After that lengthy monologue, and no link to audio other than your SoundCloud... I'm not inclined to continue speaking with you about this subject.
btw... in a document suggesting ISO 226 should be revised yet again... Page 147 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oja.2012.24016... saved you 88 francs.
57
Rules & Announcements / Re: What does the "subsonic/sub bass" thing under my name mean?
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:55:25 pm »
How strict is this? Are moderators going to combine concurrent posts... within a certain time? Does the length of the post matter? Is there any incentive?
58
Composition/Arrangement/Theory / Re: What kind of melodies do you usually create?
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:42:05 pm »I think I get the general idea? sort of? but there has to be a better word for that than "emotional". "What kind of emotion you aiming for?" "Oh, you know, emotional."
This is just one of those things that irritates me for dumb reasons because I'm dumb.
Wow, you have a hilarious way of making fun of people... even calling them dumb by calling yourself dumb. Maybe suggest a word, though... tempestuous, sentimental, somber, brooding, contemplative? You'd have to be pretty mean-spirited to make the comments you did...
Especially since in EDM, you can't rely on lyrics to show a wide emotional range.
... considering the EDM track with lyrics that was posted to address your original red-herring reply. You'd have to be pretty uncaring not to get a clue from something this obvious : https://soundcloud.com/poisonstings/poisonstings-out #emotional
To answer poisonstings question: I usually create jovial, introspective melodies and thematic ideas. If a song is mostly composed (but missing a melody), I'll come up with something to fit the mood of the song.
59
Composition/Arrangement/Theory / Re: [Ql Creating (logical) melodies
« on: January 11, 2016, 11:22:59 am »Generally you'll want to make a melody as simple as it can be to express the underlying musical phrase. Don't cram in too many notes if it doesn't need them and generally it's not great to have melodies that meander. A good melody is usually easily singable and has enough space to breathe. If you can't easily sing your melody -- it probably needs some work.
IMO save the complexity for the harmony or counter melodies, but each individual melodic component or motif benefits from being as simply and concisely expressed as possible.
I'm kinda surprised you didn't post a link to your own video.
Trifonic: Enhancing Your Tracks With Melodic Counterpoint - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5cli_OKtQ
60
Composition/Arrangement/Theory / Re: Repetition: How Much is Too Much?
« on: January 11, 2016, 11:16:05 am »
Depends on the form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_form. When artists like Adam Beyer and Eric Prydz release long tracks, they're not just repeating sections patiently ... their music is organized with form.
The Producer's Forum © 2016
