Dubstepforum.com

Stargazer wrote:

nowaysj wrote:I really can't tell if this is trolling.

Im legitimately looking for help and i figured this forum would be a good place to go to. In fact my last couple topics all had to do with mixing since thats something that i have a lot to learn about.

Okay then.

Stargazer wrote:When it comes to that would that mean that Au5 and Fractal were using a combination of limiting/compressing, filtering, and EQing all at the same time to enable multiple sounds to overlay each other so smoothly?

Hmmm... okay.

What is sound?

What is electrical or digital sound?

A sound, a slice of a time of a sound, every sound, has two essential characteristics: its volume and its frequency.

Compressors alter the volume of sounds.

Equalizers alter the frequency.

Those are the two primary tools used to shape and mix sounds.

A limiter is a compressor and a filter is an equalizer.

There are only really two, compressors and eq's.

And as such, they'll probably be used to shape every sound or every channel of your mix.

If you'd like to understand mixing, start figuring out how to use compressors and eq's (and filters and limiters).

The mix you referenced doesn't sound particularly incredible to me. It just sounds digital, bright and heavily limited.

There is no objective quality to mixes. Every mix is a style or an expression. You may prefer a style of mix, but don't delude yourself into thinking that that type of mix is objectively better. There is a great diversity of tastes in mixes. IMO the mix should work in two axes:

First, it should be a furtherance of the character of the song/music, so therefore is artistic. The music/song is not different than the mix, the mix is the incarnation of the song, therefore it should take on the character of the music/song.

Second, the mix should allow the character of the song/music to be expressed in the desired type of playback system(s), so needs a technical understanding of how to embody the character of the song/music. Here objectivity does enter the process. Playback systems, for whatever reason are always shit! We are at the human apex of music production technology, and the nadir of playback technology. Most music seems to be played back on laptop speakers or ear buds. It can be difficult to express a song's character on laptop speakers, but there is a skill to it, there are ways to do it. And compressors and eq's are fundamental in that process.

But anyway.

There is a whole lot for you to learn, so take the mindset of a student NOW, and if you are any good, you will never leave that mindset.

jonahmann wrote:I don't think it's most correct to say that limiting improves dynamics. Limiting reduces dynamic range. Sure Fire was making the point that music can still be perceived as dynamic even with the use of limiters. This is where a Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curve comes in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson

'improves' can be different from case to case.

If a mix has very little dynamic range and you ram it even further into a limiter then yes you are not improving it (quite the opposite!)

In some circumstances if there is too much dynamic range then compression/limiting can 'improve' the sound.

All about context

outbound wrote:

jonahmann wrote:I don't think it's most correct to say that limiting improves dynamics. Limiting reduces dynamic range. Sure Fire was making the point that music can still be perceived as dynamic even with the use of limiters. This is where a Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curve comes in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson

'improves' can be different from case to case.

If a mix has very little dynamic range and you ram it even further into a limiter then yes you are not improving it (quite the opposite!)

In some circumstances if there is too much dynamic range then compression/limiting can 'improve' the sound.

All about context

You said it perfectly imo.

Another thing to consider on the dynamic range side of things is contrast.

You can absolutely smash certain elements inside of a mix till they are flat, on their own (or if the whole mix was compressed like that, i'd be lifeless) but a heavily compressed signal, contrasted with a nice dynamic sound (within one tune/mix) can provide a great contrast. (I've noticed this in a ton in techno mixdowns, as well as many other forms of electronic music)

(Sorry I know this post is a bit tangential)

But my tangent does bring me around in a way;
I think the OP, is look at all these methods and then going straight from Point A to B.
In reality, compression, EQ's, panning, delays, they are tools that you need to learn the extreme basics of, before you can really start getting busy mixes on. You need to learn when and where to use certain techniques/tools and to do that, you need to understand the extreme basics and foundations of each tool/technique.

I'd take a step back and make a simple drum loop with a midrange patch/bass patch, and maybe one other element and then practice mixing those elements down in different ways using compression/eq'ing etc.. see how far you can push the same basic elements into a different 'mood' or sound, just by varying volume levels, panning, compression.

Yeah from a production POV I start every mix now by having my levels aim around -12dbfs but then I'll put a limit on the master to bring everything up so it's just 'kissing' Gain reduction. From there I'm essentially working at the top of the mix and end up focussing on building dynamics and looking for creative ways to make things 'loud' rather than just compressing, compressing, compressing till everything is flat!

outbound wrote:Yeah from a production POV I start every mix now by having my levels aim around -12dbfs but then I'll put a limit on the master to bring everything up so it's just 'kissing' Gain reduction. From there I'm essentially working at the top of the mix and end up focussing on building dynamics and looking for creative ways to make things 'loud' rather than just compressing, compressing, compressing till everything is flat!

compress far enough and you'll end up at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

A sine wave compressed to a singularity has nothing on DMZ imo



(sry im done)

andius wrote:

outbound wrote:Yeah from a production POV I start every mix now by having my levels aim around -12dbfs but then I'll put a limit on the master to bring everything up so it's just 'kissing' Gain reduction. From there I'm essentially working at the top of the mix and end up focussing on building dynamics and looking for creative ways to make things 'loud' rather than just compressing, compressing, compressing till everything is flat!

compress far enough and you'll end up at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

A sine wave compressed to a singularity has nothing on DMZ imo



(sry im done)

If you have a sine wave you haven't compressed enuf m8!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_wave

This thread is an interesting read.
Recently I've been focusing my work on EQing two colliding elements - finding a place for them in the mix. If changing octave does not work, I usually check in which frequency area they collide the most. Then I take down a couple of dB in that area from the sound I want to stay in the background. Sorry this is the best description I can come up with, my technical vocabulary sucks. I guess this is just one of the methods anyway. One thing which has also worked for me a few times is sidechaining those two sounds.