Dubstepforum.com

kulture wrote:Sorry to be pedantic but you said that RMS is the perceived loudness in a previous post. Loudness is affected by the equal loudness contours (a psychoacoustic phenomenon) and many other elements/phenomena. Therefore, RMS is literally what it says it is, root mean square, merely a statistical tool for finding a kind of average of sinusoidal magnitudes -- different from perceived loudness.

Well, what i mean is: A piece of music, peaking at a given level, for example 90 dB SPL (where the C-weighting matters), will seem louder when the RMS level is higher and the dynamic range is smaller. The same signal or piece of music, peaking at the same value of 90 dB SPL, will sound more quiet if the RMS level is lower and the dynamic range is bigger.
Therefore, RMS has a relation to the perceived loudness. Maybe i should not have said that RMS is perceived loudness, but it is related to it.

kulture wrote:EDIT: oh, and with respect to dynamic range, I may be thinking of something different. Because the dynamic range can be defined simply as the lowest signal to the highest signal (the range of levels). Without dither, the lowest signal will be the quantisation error. With dither it will be the dither (noise). Perhaps in mastering or some other process there is a dynamic range term which uses the upper RMS of an entire track?

The commonly used term "dynamic range" stands for the range between the highest RMS level and the highest peak, as stated in the quote above. I think what you refer to is the signal/noise ratio.
The term dynamic range is widely used in mastering, that's correct.

i did, that's why i said on ableton i do hear a difference, but obviously somehow no on the wav.
whatever.

it' def easy to do. 20 seconds work for a deep, powerfull sub. but i sometimes wonder how the bass melody (other notes) can vary AND keeping it's energy.

also i wonder how professional tracks have an audible ''sub'' on shitty speakers. it's not at all my aim to do music for laptop speakers. but it's such a big difference.
but i guess that's in the end the mastering work

vulvavibration wrote: also i wonder how professional tracks have an audible ''sub'' on shitty speakers. it's not at all my aim to do music for laptop speakers. but it's such a big difference.
but i guess that's in the end the mastering work

It is down to layering. Try another waveform on top with some fx, try chorus, dist, phazers etc etc

plane sine for the sub, then something on top of it.

serox wrote:

vulvavibration wrote: also i wonder how professional tracks have an audible ''sub'' on shitty speakers. it's not at all my aim to do music for laptop speakers. but it's such a big difference.
but i guess that's in the end the mastering work

It is down to layering. Try another waveform on top with some fx, try chorus, dist, phazers etc etc

plane sine for the sub, then something on top of it.

heard that now a 1000 times and will keep trying it, usually it somehow messes all up and makes the whole track muddy

vulvavibration wrote: heard that now a 1000 times and will keep trying it, usually it somehow messes all up and makes the whole track muddy

A sine with no FX will not be muddy unless you have it too high. The sub volume should be quite low. The bits above it can be higher of course.

Also EQ out bottom end on anything that is big, like hits with big reverb etc. Cut out all the low end shit, stuff u do not need.

serox wrote:

vulvavibration wrote:fuck this...

just listened to it. yeah. sounds same
on ableton it does not sound same.

the freq. analyzer tells me too that it's a difference.

Use ur ears instead then?

Serious, what are you lot on about?! a sub is a sub! all you need to do is choose which note you want it on lol.

You are getting lost in the science! you are trying to create the best sub ever going or something? fuck it! make a good tune and stick a sine under it. Stop wasting time on rubbish and get creative!

Its not rubbish mate. Its audio science and if you want the best sounding sub for your track, then why not?
A sub isnt just a sub. Its an m and s Sub (only uk heads will get this ) Whats wrong in trying to improve a sub bass sound? Nothing. Granted you have opinions, but dont force them on others.

Depone wrote:
Its not rubbish mate. Its audio science and if you want the best sounding sub for your track, then why not?
A sub isnt just a sub. Its an m and s Sub (only uk heads will get this ) Whats wrong in trying to improve a sub bass sound? Nothing. Granted you have opinions, but dont force them on others.

I know its real but I just think it is a waste of time and a distraction. I am only trying to push them to play with the buttons, make music and ignore the science for now.

Too many people are making tracks thinking they are making the best sub bass sound ever and are going to rock the world. They are putting so much time and effort into it they are forgetting to make a track:/

A lot of producers who are now on big labels started off just getting shit down. There mixes sound quite poor when you look back at them but they were making good tunes!

vulvavibration wrote:

serox wrote:

vulvavibration wrote: also i wonder how professional tracks have an audible ''sub'' on shitty speakers. it's not at all my aim to do music for laptop speakers. but it's such a big difference.
but i guess that's in the end the mastering work

It is down to layering. Try another waveform on top with some fx, try chorus, dist, phazers etc etc

plane sine for the sub, then something on top of it.

heard that now a 1000 times and will keep trying it, usually it somehow messes all up and makes the whole track muddy

if you just want to increase the presence of the sub, you really don't need the layer(s) to be loud at all - you're effectively just putting a sheen on an existing bassline, not muliplying it... try turning down really low so you only just hear it. this will also make sure that the focus is on the bassweight and not a wallofsound style bassline

levitate wrote:

vulvavibration wrote:

serox wrote:

vulvavibration wrote: also i wonder how professional tracks have an audible ''sub'' on shitty speakers. it's not at all my aim to do music for laptop speakers. but it's such a big difference.
but i guess that's in the end the mastering work

It is down to layering. Try another waveform on top with some fx, try chorus, dist, phazers etc etc

plane sine for the sub, then something on top of it.

heard that now a 1000 times and will keep trying it, usually it somehow messes all up and makes the whole track muddy

if you just want to increase the presence of the sub, you really don't need the layer(s) to be loud at all - you're effectively just putting a sheen on an existing bassline, not muliplying it... try turning down really low so you only just hear it. this will also make sure that the focus is on the bassweight and not a wallofsound style bassline

did that. it actually works (at least for a club rig ) i have to admit. i imitated the dmz stuff... they usually have a low level of anything but the sub. at least, that's my observance...

vulvavibration wrote:

levitate wrote:

vulvavibration wrote:

serox wrote:

vulvavibration wrote: also i wonder how professional tracks have an audible ''sub'' on shitty speakers. it's not at all my aim to do music for laptop speakers. but it's such a big difference.
but i guess that's in the end the mastering work

It is down to layering. Try another waveform on top with some fx, try chorus, dist, phazers etc etc

plane sine for the sub, then something on top of it.

heard that now a 1000 times and will keep trying it, usually it somehow messes all up and makes the whole track muddy

if you just want to increase the presence of the sub, you really don't need the layer(s) to be loud at all - you're effectively just putting a sheen on an existing bassline, not muliplying it... try turning down really low so you only just hear it. this will also make sure that the focus is on the bassweight and not a wallofsound style bassline

did that. it actually works (at least for a club rig ) i have to admit. i imitated the dmz stuff... they usually have a low level of anything but the sub. at least, that's my observance...

I dont think he was saying turn everything down apart from the sub.

allright.. the swiss cheese did not get it

allright.. the swiss cheese did not get it

Mala knows how to make music very well thats why his sub/bass stands out. Listen to how each sound has its own space, he makes it easy for himself.

serox wrote:Mala knows how to make music very well thats why his sub/bass stands out. Listen to how each sound has its own space, he makes it easy for himself.

true.

serox wrote:I am only trying to push them to play with the buttons, make music and ignore the science for now.

i mostly agree to that. i think when making tunes, it's all about feeling and creativity, BUT, the more knowledge about audio you have in the background, the more you will improve the mixdowns, arrangement, sound design etc...

also, i think a good mixdown starts with the arrangement.

serox wrote:Mala knows how to make music very well thats why his sub/bass stands out. Listen to how each sound has its own space, he makes it easy for himself.

yeah you can hear it really well, sometimes i ab with changes and you see pretty much every drum hit in the wav form

pete wrote:

kulture wrote:Sorry to be pedantic but you said that RMS is the perceived loudness in a previous post. Loudness is affected by the equal loudness contours (a psychoacoustic phenomenon) and many other elements/phenomena. Therefore, RMS is literally what it says it is, root mean square, merely a statistical tool for finding a kind of average of sinusoidal magnitudes -- different from perceived loudness.

Well, what i mean is: A piece of music, peaking at a given level, for example 90 dB SPL (where the C-weighting matters), will seem louder when the RMS level is higher and the dynamic range is smaller. The same signal or piece of music, peaking at the same value of 90 dB SPL, will sound more quiet if the RMS level is lower and the dynamic range is bigger.
Therefore, RMS has a relation to the perceived loudness. Maybe i should not have said that RMS is perceived loudness, but it is related to it.

kulture wrote:EDIT: oh, and with respect to dynamic range, I may be thinking of something different. Because the dynamic range can be defined simply as the lowest signal to the highest signal (the range of levels). Without dither, the lowest signal will be the quantisation error. With dither it will be the dither (noise). Perhaps in mastering or some other process there is a dynamic range term which uses the upper RMS of an entire track?

The commonly used term "dynamic range" stands for the range between the highest RMS level and the highest peak, as stated in the quote above. I think what you refer to is the signal/noise ratio.
The term dynamic range is widely used in mastering, that's correct.

Interesting... I learn a new thing about master techniques and terminology everyday. I'm very interested in mastering.