Everyday Ideas

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
20 Jun 2018
normen wrote:
20 Jun 2018


Yes, yes, doing everything properly but still knowing you'll kick a lot of it. I mean that's what Funk is, songs without all the music ;)
But there would still be a full version, this is just something for the unforgiving internet.
Yeah you said that :)

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:
20 Jun 2018


But there would still be a full version, this is just something for the unforgiving internet.
Yeah you said that :)
That's okay that it's nothing new, but it's not a common practice either.
This reminds me of the loudness war - originally the purpose was to stand out especially on the radio, but as a bunch of nobodies - at least I think I don't need to go loudness war, neither to make a repetitive pop arrangement. I gave this example since there's usually a reason to do something, but people tend to do the opposite: Long loudness war stuff with long buildups for DJs to mix. ...and adding "Official" to their channel name... with 0 subscribers...
Seems the jungle out there isn't that difficult after all...
But this is getting so random, obvious ADHD is kicking in.

Either way, it's good to be reminded!

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
20 Jun 2018
That's okay that it's nothing new, but it's not a common practice either.
Yes it is, it's called a "radio cut" :) The hookline has to appear in the first 30sec etc.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:
20 Jun 2018
That's okay that it's nothing new, but it's not a common practice either.
Yes it is, it's called a "radio cut" :) The hookline has to appear in the first 30sec etc.
People who get on the radio are somewhat established; and those Radio Edits are still repetitive as hell.

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

20 Jun 2018

Rob,

Why are you so resistant to posting music and .rsn files for us to help you? There are many of us here that could SHOW you how some of your ideas could or couldn’t work.


SIDE ISSUE:
In addition, you’ve talked about brickwall linear-phase FIR filters in multiple posts. To the best of my knowledge (and I’ll admit that all of my electrical engineering education was specialized in analog filter design, and not digital implementations) the filters that you are proposing have the most effect on transient material. The steeper the filter, the more “pre-ring” you get from them, which in terms of its sound comes off as a time-domain smearing. My studio monitors have 24dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley active crossovers, and that is protecting the very delicate tweeter mechanism. You simply don’t NEED higher order filters! Also, do you know of any software currently available that allows for 16-24 pole FIR filters? RE? VST? I’ve seen several 48dB/octave implementations, and I suppose you could run two in series, but I strongly believe that for percussion in particular a minimum-phase filter will serve you better. The ringing in the filter will be masked by the audio.

In closing, I’m going to create and post a .rsn file implementing some of your ideas posted here in this thread. Are you on Reason 10? If not, you won’t be able to open them, so I’d have to ask another forum member to provide the .rsn file for everyone to work on.
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:…Finally, when it comes to a No Shit version, song length is the least thing you should worry about. Sound good and entertain all the way.
In my world, at least as a goal, EVERYTHING that leaves my studio should “sound good and entertain all the way”. No exceptions. Why would I release a version that didn’t sound good and didn’t entertain all the way???

;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

20 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:…Finally, when it comes to a No Shit version, song length is the least thing you should worry about. Sound good and entertain all the way.
In my world, at least as a goal, EVERYTHING that leaves my studio should “sound good and entertain all the way”. No exceptions. Why would I release a version that didn’t sound good and didn’t entertain all the way???

;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
You’ve got a strong point there, Selig :-)
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
20 Jun 2018
Rob,

Why are you so resistant to posting music and .rsn files for us to help you? There are many of us here that could SHOW you how some of your ideas could or couldn’t work.


SIDE ISSUE:
In addition, you’ve talked about brickwall linear-phase FIR filters in multiple posts. To the best of my knowledge (and I’ll admit that all of my electrical engineering education was specialized in analog filter design, and not digital implementations) the filters that you are proposing have the most effect on transient material. The steeper the filter, the more “pre-ring” you get from them, which in terms of its sound comes off as a time-domain smearing. My studio monitors have 24dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley active crossovers, and that is protecting the very delicate tweeter mechanism. You simply don’t NEED higher order filters! Also, do you know of any software currently available that allows for 16-24 pole FIR filters? RE? VST? I’ve seen several 48dB/octave implementations, and I suppose you could run two in series, but I strongly believe that for percussion in particular a minimum-phase filter will serve you better. The ringing in the filter will be masked by the audio.

In closing, I’m going to create and post a .rsn file implementing some of your ideas posted here in this thread. Are you on Reason 10? If not, you won’t be able to open them, so I’d have to ask another forum member to provide the .rsn file for everyone to work on.
I usually just hop in and drop a few comments. Gotta schedule my day better so I leave time to actually sit down with Reason. The stuff I have is heavily dated for the most part.

What I mostly like about FIR spectrum filtering is that it can isolate sub frequencies very well. When testing, I split sound into 10 frequency bands, and those artifacts usually only show if we move the fader of a band a lot. If I do a split, then join, invert and mix with the original file, then there's a quiet humming going on, but even that can be dealt with to some extent. If you join these raw, there's no audible artifact.
I think, in GoldWave for example, you could draw a square shape on the spectrum, say, 20-40 Hz and set the rest to -120 dB at least (you could add the top above 0 dB, so I guess -144 dB is possible in one go). That's what I tested my splits with and it seemed they did a pretty good job. I'd gladly have their filter as a RE.
Now, I'm not sure at this point, but more than 24 dB/Octave filters have a different sound, so for an effect, why not?

Of course I have Reason 10 ~ otherwise I couldn't use Grain. Our results can be very different though, especially if I misunderstand something or express it wrongly - but like I said before, even that can be inspiring.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:…Finally, when it comes to a No Shit version, song length is the least thing you should worry about. Sound good and entertain all the way.
In my world, at least as a goal, EVERYTHING that leaves my studio should “sound good and entertain all the way”. No exceptions. Why would I release a version that didn’t sound good and didn’t entertain all the way???

;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Daft Punk made songs that went overboard with repetition. It gets boring quickly. Look at choruses in songs ~ barely much difference and they repeat and repeat and repeat (and I always hated that). That's no longer art, that's marketing business. They think, that if they make an earworm, they will become millionaires. Yet an earworm is pretty much a parasite.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

One more thing, I don't like crossovers when it comes to multi-band processing, due to the overlapping. (1 Hz difference is okay though.)

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
In my world, at least as a goal, EVERYTHING that leaves my studio should “sound good and entertain all the way”. No exceptions. Why would I release a version that didn’t sound good and didn’t entertain all the way???

;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Daft Punk made songs that went overboard with repetition. It gets boring quickly. Look at choruses in songs ~ barely much difference and they repeat and repeat and repeat (and I always hated that). That's no longer art, that's marketing business. They think, that if they make an earworm, they will become millionaires. Yet an earworm is pretty much a parasite.
I have no idea what they think, I’m not a mind reader, but I do know they have some damn catchy songs. If you’re on the dance floor, even a very repetitious track can keep me entertained for a long time. It only gets boring if you’re sitting still IMO! Horses for courses, as always.

For example, shamans use repetition to create a hypnotic meditative effect. Ambient music isn’t exciting, but when you’re trying to relax it can be perfect.

All to say, there are many ways to “experience” music.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:One more thing, I don't like crossovers when it comes to multi-band processing, due to the overlapping. (1 Hz difference is okay though.)
I would say it’s the overlapping that makes them work, since no music in the world is strictly contained to specific frequencies (expect maybe some specific additive patches?).

When using a device like Waves C4 which has a variable crossover feature, you can hear that sometimes you need a very smooth and gentle crossover. There are other benefits to smoother crossover shapes, but even if there were no other benefits I’d still use gentle slopes more of the time, since abrupt changes spectrally rarely (if ever!) make sense in my work.

I always like to keep an open mind, so if you have audio examples of applications or use cases for super steep crossover slopes, lay them on me! :)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:
Daft Punk made songs that went overboard with repetition. It gets boring quickly. Look at choruses in songs ~ barely much difference and they repeat and repeat and repeat (and I always hated that). That's no longer art, that's marketing business. They think, that if they make an earworm, they will become millionaires. Yet an earworm is pretty much a parasite.
I have no idea what they think, I’m not a mind reader, but I do know they have some damn catchy songs. If you’re on the dance floor, even a very repetitious track can keep me entertained for a long time. It only gets boring if you’re sitting still IMO! Horses for courses, as always.

For example, shamans use repetition to create a hypnotic meditative effect. Ambient music isn’t exciting, but when you’re trying to relax it can be perfect.

All to say, there are many ways to “experience” music.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I'm not dissing Daft Punk, I meant the repetition with choruses and stuff a common (terrible) practice.
Think simple, I mean people who start out and aren't established outside the internet, don't get radio, club or any other media plays - why would they do the same as the mainstream? People just click away and move on.
Now, an unknown person can't do much but fight to impress the first few people, because they will just move on from a nobody, unless they hear something interesting. That's how I see it.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:One more thing, I don't like crossovers when it comes to multi-band processing, due to the overlapping. (1 Hz difference is okay though.)
I would say it’s the overlapping that makes them work, since no music in the world is strictly contained to specific frequencies (expect maybe some specific additive patches?).

When using a device like Waves C4 which has a variable crossover feature, you can hear that sometimes you need a very smooth and gentle crossover. There are other benefits to smoother crossover shapes, but even if there were no other benefits I’d still use gentle slopes more of the time, since abrupt changes spectrally rarely (if ever!) make sense in my work.

I always like to keep an open mind, so if you have audio examples of applications or use cases for super steep crossover slopes, lay them on me! :)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
To say the least, there was a world of difference when I tried for example MClass splitter, and created splitting myself with GoldWave's lovely Spectrum Filter.

By all means, I'm not saying that High Passing or Low Passing is good with square shaped cuts - a Low pass like that sounds almost like down sampling, High passing can have a very weird "cheap sounding" effect. There I'd just use either IIR or FIR ~ once I compare, whichever sounds best.

I'm finally setting my system back up, so I should be able to create examples at last. And I'm downloading the latest R10 Manual, which is about time to read. 1000+ pages means probably 1 day per 100 pages for me. English is not my native language, plus my mind easily drifts away, so that makes things longer - but on the plus side, I do read very deeply and go back if I miss anything and memorize a lot.

Seriously, I need to be less random with this possible ADHD.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

Interesting summary about FIR / IIR

https://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/fi ... udio-23400

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote: To say the least, there was a world of difference when I tried for example MClass splitter, and created splitting myself with GoldWave's lovely Spectrum Filter.
Google gives me nothing on “Goldwave Spectrum Filter”. Guessing it’s either not used much in music production, or maybe called something else?

Just like EQs and narrow boosts, steep crossovers seem like they SHOULD be better than gentle. But in practice, smooth slopes are more “musical” as are gentle slopes.

Steep slopes are more surgical, which can be handy if you do repair work or have serious issues to deal with. Otherwise, I’d say 99% of my work uses wider EQ bands and gentle crossover slopes.

Again, would love to see examples of how you would use steep slopes - it’s just that with well recorded audio and good samples and synths, I can’t imagine why they would be needed. Convince me otherwise, I’m listening (and always learning - seriously!).
[emoji3]


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
RobC wrote: To say the least, there was a world of difference when I tried for example MClass splitter, and created splitting myself with GoldWave's lovely Spectrum Filter.
Google gives me nothing on “Goldwave Spectrum Filter”. Guessing it’s either not used much in music production, or maybe called something else?

Just like EQs and narrow boosts, steep crossovers seem like they SHOULD be better than gentle. But in practice, smooth slopes are more “musical” as are gentle slopes.

Steep slopes are more surgical, which can be handy if you do repair work or have serious issues to deal with. Otherwise, I’d say 99% of my work uses wider EQ bands and gentle crossover slopes.

Again, would love to see examples of how you would use steep slopes - it’s just that with well recorded audio and good samples and synths, I can’t imagine why they would be needed. Convince me otherwise, I’m listening (and always learning - seriously!).
[emoji3]


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Personally, I trust a lot of tools in GoldWave. A quick Google search gave me this pic: Image

Now, I have a preference for creating bands with splitting, and then sampling each, and then equalize by setting band audio levels with faders. That's as far as I got with experimentation. My next plan was to set said audio leves, say we get a result of + 3 dB for 20-40 Hz and + 2 dB for 40-80 Hz for example. Then, simply I'd load up the filter, set a point for each middle frequency (aka + 3 for 30 Hz, +2 for 60 Hz, etc), and I already have a smoother "curve" ~ this is something GoldWave's spectrum filter doesn't have, so it would be a bit triangular, but if I'd do 30 points (every 1/3 octave) for example, then that would be smooth enough. Though with that I'd probably lose a bit of accuracy, but definitely tolerably so.
I'm not saying that rectangular separation is the best, but I liked the sound more.
Especially when I took my DnB bass, cut below 80 Hz, and replaced it with a sine wave doing the sub frequencies. If I tried the same with MClass splitting, it wasn't nearly as good.
I believe, it can be very accurate, especially if we want to slightly mimic another sound. And like I mentioned at the very beginning when I joined the forum, effects like duplicating and detuning a sample may create a very nice effect, but at the same time, it can add some seriously problematic comb filtering if I'm not mistaken. That for example is a situation, where I would want to use some reference, and gently nudge frequency bands so it doesn't sound overly off. For that I can just split up bot the reference and the sample, then do an A/B comparison for each band, and then set up audio levels for the given band, then create the curve like I said earlier in this comment.
I know that "copy-pasta" eq-ing exists, but say if I take a few sinewaves which have constant energy, and am satisfied with how they sound, then I do some spectrum nudging ~ only I obviously don't need to split solo sinewaves into bands, since the result would be the same.

In theory I barely use them for anything final, so you rightfully could ask if it's really necessary, but I think there's some other use, too. It does a pretty good job at removing frequencies below 20 Hz or above 16~20 kHz, completely, while keeping the rest untouched and remaining quite transparent.
Goldwave has an interesting, probably IIR Filter, which can pretty much kill everything spotlessly below 20 Hz for example, but that definitely creates a very long tail, but also can have that cheap DJ filter effect to it in the wrong frequencies.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

20 Jun 2018

I forgot to add ~ if a program tries to copy the sound of pure sine waves, and apply that to my sound, it would have horrid results.
Trying to measure average audio levels for both the sample's select frequency band, and the sine wave, then setting them to the same value probably wouldn't work well. I'm looking for super lazy solutions, though.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

20 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018
Google gives me nothing on “Goldwave Spectrum Filter”. Guessing it’s either not used much in music production, or maybe called something else?

Just like EQs and narrow boosts, steep crossovers seem like they SHOULD be better than gentle. But in practice, smooth slopes are more “musical” as are gentle slopes.

Steep slopes are more surgical, which can be handy if you do repair work or have serious issues to deal with. Otherwise, I’d say 99% of my work uses wider EQ bands and gentle crossover slopes.

Again, would love to see examples of how you would use steep slopes - it’s just that with well recorded audio and good samples and synths, I can’t imagine why they would be needed. Convince me otherwise, I’m listening (and always learning - seriously!).
[emoji3]


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Personally, I trust a lot of tools in GoldWave. A quick Google search gave me this pic: Image

Now, I have a preference for creating bands with splitting, and then sampling each, and then equalize by setting band audio levels with faders. That's as far as I got with experimentation. My next plan was to set said audio leves, say we get a result of + 3 dB for 20-40 Hz and + 2 dB for 40-80 Hz for example. Then, simply I'd load up the filter, set a point for each middle frequency (aka + 3 for 30 Hz, +2 for 60 Hz, etc), and I already have a smoother "curve" ~ this is something GoldWave's spectrum filter doesn't have, so it would be a bit triangular, but if I'd do 30 points (every 1/3 octave) for example, then that would be smooth enough. Though with that I'd probably lose a bit of accuracy, but definitely tolerably so.
I'm not saying that rectangular separation is the best, but I liked the sound more.
Especially when I took my DnB bass, cut below 80 Hz, and replaced it with a sine wave doing the sub frequencies. If I tried the same with MClass splitting, it wasn't nearly as good.
I believe, it can be very accurate, especially if we want to slightly mimic another sound. And like I mentioned at the very beginning when I joined the forum, effects like duplicating and detuning a sample may create a very nice effect, but at the same time, it can add some seriously problematic comb filtering if I'm not mistaken. That for example is a situation, where I would want to use some reference, and gently nudge frequency bands so it doesn't sound overly off. For that I can just split up bot the reference and the sample, then do an A/B comparison for each band, and then set up audio levels for the given band, then create the curve like I said earlier in this comment.
I know that "copy-pasta" eq-ing exists, but say if I take a few sinewaves which have constant energy, and am satisfied with how they sound, then I do some spectrum nudging ~ only I obviously don't need to split solo sinewaves into bands, since the result would be the same.

In theory I barely use them for anything final, so you rightfully could ask if it's really necessary, but I think there's some other use, too. It does a pretty good job at removing frequencies below 20 Hz or above 16~20 kHz, completely, while keeping the rest untouched and remaining quite transparent.
Goldwave has an interesting, probably IIR Filter, which can pretty much kill everything spotlessly below 20 Hz for example, but that definitely creates a very long tail, but also can have that cheap DJ filter effect to it in the wrong frequencies.

Man, you’re talking totally over my head, and I’m guessing this is not a real time process and only for extreme sound design or surgical fixing? The image you posted is from an article about NOISE REDUCTION!

I spend more time mixing music and making music. I love sound design and will go down rabbit holes for fun when it’s called for. But 99% of the time I’m making music with tracks that don’t need to have such drastic measure applied.

Again, always willing to listen to other ways of working - there only so much time I can spend down rabbit holes like this before I get bored and just want to make music!

Never get bored of a good groove though, no matter how repetitive, so different strokes for different folks I guess. ;)

Spend my life working on trying to figure out how to “move” people with the emotion of sound and melody/rhythm, and find that creating a well balanced mix is still something that I can improve upon.
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

21 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018

Man, you’re talking totally over my head, and I’m guessing this is not a real time process and only for extreme sound design or surgical fixing? The image you posted is from an article about NOISE REDUCTION!

I spend more time mixing music and making music. I love sound design and will go down rabbit holes for fun when it’s called for. But 99% of the time I’m making music with tracks that don’t need to have such drastic measure applied.

Again, always willing to listen to other ways of working - there only so much time I can spend down rabbit holes like this before I get bored and just want to make music!

Never get bored of a good groove though, no matter how repetitive, so different strokes for different folks I guess. ;)

Spend my life working on trying to figure out how to “move” people with the emotion of sound and melody/rhythm, and find that creating a well balanced mix is still something that I can improve upon.
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
You can listen to it in real time, but it's mostly for dead processing. Something I'd love to be present in Reason. The bouncing system is so-so.
What does it matter where the image is from? It's a snapshot of the tool. And it has many purposes.
See, if every sound is perfectly prepared, you will have little to nothing to worry about during mixing, aside creating the macro dynamics for expression, that you want. No need to worry about why you can't hear the kick, even though its sub bass already owns the whole mix, thus no need to start squeezing it with generic mixing/mastering tools.

Like I said before I think 3 times outside the box, so it isn't carved in stone how something has to sound, so I dare to dig deep to bring out as many possibilities of a sound as I can. And with FIR nudging, I can bring the wildest spectrum back to the ground.

It's not at all difficult what I said. It's like making a graphical equalizer, only far more flexible with exported multiple bands. I can use it as is for whatever I need, or like I said, as a guide so I know where I will place the points of my equalization curve.

For me, it's very exciting what treasures I can find. I guess I love sound design more than any part of the audio field.
The thing is, that these might be tiny details, but in the end, they add up, and you can have a beyond excellent sound in the end.
After, like I said, you won't have to waste time on engineering the sound, nor mastering.

I already said, the internet is very unforgiving. People sit down, look for something fun, and get bored quickly. Not good for starting out channels. Consider those people.

Tiny strokes don't affect much. Smaller strokes, can cause noticeable problems. Medium strokes can make one crazy. Big strokes are lethal. (Random)

I know how people are and what to expect.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

21 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
21 Jun 2018
selig wrote:
20 Jun 2018

Man, you’re talking totally over my head, and I’m guessing this is not a real time process and only for extreme sound design or surgical fixing? The image you posted is from an article about NOISE REDUCTION!

I spend more time mixing music and making music. I love sound design and will go down rabbit holes for fun when it’s called for. But 99% of the time I’m making music with tracks that don’t need to have such drastic measure applied.

Again, always willing to listen to other ways of working - there only so much time I can spend down rabbit holes like this before I get bored and just want to make music!

Never get bored of a good groove though, no matter how repetitive, so different strokes for different folks I guess. ;)

Spend my life working on trying to figure out how to “move” people with the emotion of sound and melody/rhythm, and find that creating a well balanced mix is still something that I can improve upon.
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
You can listen to it in real time, but it's mostly for dead processing. Something I'd love to be present in Reason. The bouncing system is so-so.
What does it matter where the image is from? It's a snapshot of the tool. And it has many purposes.
See, if every sound is perfectly prepared, you will have little to nothing to worry about during mixing, aside creating the macro dynamics for expression, that you want. No need to worry about why you can't hear the kick, even though its sub bass already owns the whole mix, thus no need to start squeezing it with generic mixing/mastering tools.

Like I said before I think 3 times outside the box, so it isn't carved in stone how something has to sound, so I dare to dig deep to bring out as many possibilities of a sound as I can. And with FIR nudging, I can bring the wildest spectrum back to the ground.

It's not at all difficult what I said. It's like making a graphical equalizer, only far more flexible with exported multiple bands. I can use it as is for whatever I need, or like I said, as a guide so I know where I will place the points of my equalization curve.

For me, it's very exciting what treasures I can find. I guess I love sound design more than any part of the audio field.
The thing is, that these might be tiny details, but in the end, they add up, and you can have a beyond excellent sound in the end.
After, like I said, you won't have to waste time on engineering the sound, nor mastering.

I already said, the internet is very unforgiving. People sit down, look for something fun, and get bored quickly. Not good for starting out channels. Consider those people.

Tiny strokes don't affect much. Smaller strokes, can cause noticeable problems. Medium strokes can make one crazy. Big strokes are lethal. (Random)

I know how people are and what to expect.
There is no way every sound can be perfectly prepared for a mix - even "perfect" sounds don't always work together perfectly. It's all about context, how do these sounds work TOGETHER (which is why soloing can lead do doing crazy things like you have described!). Mixing should ideally be about massaging the tracks together, not surgically repairing them! Just my personal opinion, not at all a rule in my book. :)

As for the internet, I believe what "the internet" needs is a "short attention span" mix, which is different from what you described. At that point it becomes a lot less about making music and a lot more about pandering to the least common denominator IMO. Which is exactly what you decried about folks trying to create an ear worm to make money. How is tailoring your mix to a internet audience any less "marketing business" than what Daft Punk (very successfully) does?
To paraphrase what you said:
That's no longer art, that's marketing business. They think, that if they make a "no shit mix", they will become millionaires.

Not intending to offend or annoy, just trying to demonstrate a point…
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

21 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
21 Jun 2018

There is no way every sound can be perfectly prepared for a mix - even "perfect" sounds don't always work together perfectly. It's all about context, how do these sounds work TOGETHER (which is why soloing can lead do doing crazy things like you have described!). Mixing should ideally be about massaging the tracks together, not surgically repairing them! Just my personal opinion, not at all a rule in my book. :)

As for the internet, I believe what "the internet" needs is a "short attention span" mix, which is different from what you described. At that point it becomes a lot less about making music and a lot more about pandering to the least common denominator IMO. Which is exactly what you decried about folks trying to create an ear worm to make money. How is tailoring your mix to a internet audience any less "marketing business" than what Daft Punk (very successfully) does?
To paraphrase what you said:
That's no longer art, that's marketing business. They think, that if they make a "no shit mix", they will become millionaires.

Not intending to offend or annoy, just trying to demonstrate a point…
:)
Well, during the mix, I'm not saying that sound design is completely over. Problems tend to happen. Like a bass and a kick canceling each-other out. Nothing some band splitting, phase inversion, filtering, changing pitch, etc. couldn't fix. But let me say then, that we can prepare a sound much more precisely, than just doing quick tweaks during mixing.
See, for phase inversion and alike, those FIR splits can come in handy. So, there we have it again, sounds indeed need to be compared and then perfected together. In theory, it's a lot more work what I do, but it also comes with a lot more flexibility. And very easy to find culprits.

I rather spoke from my experience and view statistics.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

21 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
21 Jun 2018
selig wrote:
21 Jun 2018

There is no way every sound can be perfectly prepared for a mix - even "perfect" sounds don't always work together perfectly. It's all about context, how do these sounds work TOGETHER (which is why soloing can lead do doing crazy things like you have described!). Mixing should ideally be about massaging the tracks together, not surgically repairing them! Just my personal opinion, not at all a rule in my book. :)

As for the internet, I believe what "the internet" needs is a "short attention span" mix, which is different from what you described. At that point it becomes a lot less about making music and a lot more about pandering to the least common denominator IMO. Which is exactly what you decried about folks trying to create an ear worm to make money. How is tailoring your mix to a internet audience any less "marketing business" than what Daft Punk (very successfully) does?
To paraphrase what you said:
That's no longer art, that's marketing business. They think, that if they make a "no shit mix", they will become millionaires.

Not intending to offend or annoy, just trying to demonstrate a point…
:)
Well, during the mix, I'm not saying that sound design is completely over. Problems tend to happen. Like a bass and a kick canceling each-other out. Nothing some band splitting, phase inversion, filtering, changing pitch, etc. couldn't fix. But let me say then, that we can prepare a sound much more precisely, than just doing quick tweaks during mixing.
See, for phase inversion and alike, those FIR splits can come in handy. So, there we have it again, sounds indeed need to be compared and then perfected together. In theory, it's a lot more work what I do, but it also comes with a lot more flexibility. And very easy to find culprits.

I rather spoke from my experience and view statistics.
See you could have avoided that by simply supplying the source of your experience - meaning your project file or the bounce with and without your technique.

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

22 Jun 2018

normen wrote:
21 Jun 2018

See you could have avoided that by simply supplying the source of your experience - meaning your project file or the bounce with and without your technique.
I'm getting closer with setting the rest of my system up ~ \o/ so I'm slowly getting there.
Then again, I wouldn't have thought about (even if it's obvious) that it's not a bad idea for the mix to make some band splits, phase inversions, so some instruments cancel out important frequencies a bit less. And the other thought that I shouldn't forget, that sound design rules don't just apply when generating the sound, but from start to finish; gotta make use of it (all of it, whenever it's useful).

RobC
Posts: 1832
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

22 Jun 2018

Checked the manual yesterday, saying Europa is handling user samples as wavetables, which are basically grains ~ I'm guessing with square perfection? Dunno, it still didn't sound overly clean, but I doubt it's possible yet to have better results.

I mean, if the wavetable is created by slicing the audio up, then changing the pitch would change pitch of the snippets and time stretch them, that might be some tough processing power. Even if a synth would pre-render it, that might take quite some time.

Now, doing the same with Grain and just playing back a snippet of audio as I said earlier, is useful, too. I just gotta figure out, if Grain handles pitch better than NNXT. The problem with NNXT was, when loading a sample and adding a pitch envelope, after a certain height, it will get stuck and go no further, not even at 192 kHz. Not overly beneficial when we try creating FM effects for example - a bit limited to say the least.

Here's a question: What is it called, when I create not just a snippet, but a long modulating synth sample which then I load into a sampler to further work with?

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests