Dubstepforum.com

Going to take the liberty of reversing the order of your points;

Gotcha. Simple answer is: turn it down at the gui level. On a sampler, turn down the sampler, not the mixer. Okay, I think this is really clicking. Sounds like I turn it down in renoise/ableton. Thanks, guys for contributing the evolution of my art.

Yes. Even before the GUI if possible.

Sample CD manufacturers giving out normalised (or even limited) sample CDs is like someone selling you a burnt pie at the shop, and asking you to scrape off the burnt bits yourself.

Metaphor wrote: I get that. Input level, of course. I said faders, but I meant input level. I guess, since I'm mostly using samples, many of which have been limited to 0db, turning down the fader has this effect, right?

NO. Well... yes But no. Key point here; Insert fx are pre-fader, in the majority of cases. The faders are the last opportunity to adjust levels, when that individual channel has already processed for the tune.

Example:

Sample CD drum hit peaks at 0dB. You import it and instantly think 'jeebus, that is f#cking loud', grab the mixer fader, turn it down. Great.

Later on in the making of the tune, you decide it needs more 200Hz for that authentic pendulum sound. You put an eq in the first insert slot in your virtual rack. The drum hit hits that eq at 0dB, because it doesn't hit the fader until later on. So you put in 200Hz. The eq unit shows that its output is now clipping, and we aren't even anywhere near the master out yet. So you turn it down by 'some amount' until it stops clipping. Now it is too quiet. So you turn the channel fader - which you turned down a while ago - back up a bit (you starting to get my drift?). Now you decide to compress it, cos internetmanz say to always do that. Thing is, now it is too quiet cos of the compression, so you use the make up gain of the compressor to put it back up. Then you can balance it in the mix with the channel fader, which is probably still down some way. The channel fader, the last step in the chain, is being used to try to balance for the arbitrary up and down bollocks you have done before it in-between plugs. You're also running the risk of clipping a plugin (if it isn't floating point) or triggering a built-in limiter if a plugin has one (waves RComp springs to mind), when you didn't mean to.

In this example - which I am sure at least someone reading this can identify with (errr... me) - you are using three faders all working against each other in opposite directions and you're not really sure where exactly your signal is at any stage. Your goalposts are all over the shop, you don't know where anything actually is, and you inevitably end up wanging faders all over the shop across your mix. Some are way down cos the initial sample was really loud, some are way up and can't go any further because the initial sample was really quiet, or they're trying to make up for whatever processing you did... your mixer looks like the poxy Himalayas. And that's only the channel faders - each channel is up and down between processors like a whore's drawers.

Much better - IMHO! - is to set said drum sample down so it is 'about the right level' in the very very first place. Now when you do your 200Hz eq it just sounds fatter, and clipping isn't a concern. Now you put your compressor on, and it gets a bit quieter cos of the compression. So you use the compressor make up gain to balance it again, hitting bypass on the comp a few times until it sounds exactly the same level. Now you can hear the difference in the SOUND due to the compression, you can hear exactly what the compressor is doing. And the channel is still balanced in the mix - cos you did that before anything else. In this process you have only used one fader, the make up gain. The channel fader is still at unity.

This might all sound rather petty and detailed. I appreciate that. But you add it up across, I dunno, 20 channels in a mix, some using maybe 2, 3, 4 faders (various plugins in the channel, plus the channel fader, all working against each other) and suddenly you're talking about balancing and worrying about 70-80 (!!) faders instead of 20. And that's not even considering group channels, sub-mixes etc etc, with their respective concerns. At each stage in the chain you're wasting your own time, moving the goalposts, taking wth one hand, giving with the other, chasing your tail.... Bollox to that.

Does anybody know what is used to achieve this drum sound (on the kick and snare?)

The closest I've got is by limiting using logic's built in limiter,

I know It's a very compressed sound I'm just wondering what compresser/type of compression it sounds like?

(not looking for presets btw, it just has a very distinct sound imo)

cheers

sounds like some distortion and compression

This thread is THE shit. I'm very new to the world of digital music, but things are starting to make a little more sense now. Thanks for giving this guitarist some hope!

macc wrote:Going to take the liberty of reversing the order of your points;

Gotcha. Simple answer is: turn it down at the gui level. On a sampler, turn down the sampler, not the mixer. Okay, I think this is really clicking. Sounds like I turn it down in renoise/ableton. Thanks, guys for contributing the evolution of my art.

Yes. Even before the GUI if possible.

Sample CD manufacturers giving out normalised (or even limited) sample CDs is like someone selling you a burnt pie at the shop, and asking you to scrape off the burnt bits yourself.

Metaphor wrote: I get that. Input level, of course. I said faders, but I meant input level. I guess, since I'm mostly using samples, many of which have been limited to 0db, turning down the fader has this effect, right?

NO. Well... yes But no. Key point here; Insert fx are pre-fader, in the majority of cases. The faders are the last opportunity to adjust levels, when that individual channel has already processed for the tune.

Example:

Sample CD drum hit peaks at 0dB. You import it and instantly think 'jeebus, that is f#cking loud', grab the mixer fader, turn it down. Great.

Later on in the making of the tune, you decide it needs more 200Hz for that authentic pendulum sound. You put an eq in the first insert slot in your virtual rack. The drum hit hits that eq at 0dB, because it doesn't hit the fader until later on. So you put in 200Hz. The eq unit shows that its output is now clipping, and we aren't even anywhere near the master out yet. So you turn it down by 'some amount' until it stops clipping. Now it is too quiet. So you turn the channel fader - which you turned down a while ago - back up a bit (you starting to get my drift?). Now you decide to compress it, cos internetmanz say to always do that. Thing is, now it is too quiet cos of the compression, so you use the make up gain of the compressor to put it back up. Then you can balance it in the mix with the channel fader, which is probably still down some way. The channel fader, the last step in the chain, is being used to try to balance for the arbitrary up and down bollocks you have done before it in-between plugs. You're also running the risk of clipping a plugin (if it isn't floating point) or triggering a built-in limiter if a plugin has one (waves RComp springs to mind), when you didn't mean to.

In this example - which I am sure at least someone reading this can identify with (errr... me) - you are using three faders all working against each other in opposite directions and you're not really sure where exactly your signal is at any stage. Your goalposts are all over the shop, you don't know where anything actually is, and you inevitably end up wanging faders all over the shop across your mix. Some are way down cos the initial sample was really loud, some are way up and can't go any further because the initial sample was really quiet, or they're trying to make up for whatever processing you did... your mixer looks like the poxy Himalayas. And that's only the channel faders - each channel is up and down between processors like a whore's drawers.

Much better - IMHO! - is to set said drum sample down so it is 'about the right level' in the very very first place. Now when you do your 200Hz eq it just sounds fatter, and clipping isn't a concern. Now you put your compressor on, and it gets a bit quieter cos of the compression. So you use the compressor make up gain to balance it again, hitting bypass on the comp a few times until it sounds exactly the same level. Now you can hear the difference in the SOUND due to the compression, you can hear exactly what the compressor is doing. And the channel is still balanced in the mix - cos you did that before anything else. In this process you have only used one fader, the make up gain. The channel fader is still at unity.

This might all sound rather petty and detailed. I appreciate that. But you add it up across, I dunno, 20 channels in a mix, some using maybe 2, 3, 4 faders (various plugins in the channel, plus the channel fader, all working against each other) and suddenly you're talking about balancing and worrying about 70-80 (!!) faders instead of 20. And that's not even considering group channels, sub-mixes etc etc, with their respective concerns. At each stage in the chain you're wasting your own time, moving the goalposts, taking wth one hand, giving with the other, chasing your tail.... Bollox to that.

Whoa, easily one of the best posts in the thread

Sorry to sound like a n00b in advance.

I realize now that it should've been common sense to get all the original samples at the right levels before I started a damn thing, I mean it makes too much sense and now that I know this I hope my output will sound better because so. The only question I have is how do you get your master output to sound loud enough? I get the whole argument between what is weak and what is quiet and I can tell that my present mix is quite quiet lol. All my faders are set at 0db and I've followed the advice in the thread to get your levels right as EARLY as possible - so what now?

Thanks again guys!

macc wrote:
Example:

Sample CD drum hit peaks at 0dB. .........chasing your tail.... Bollox to that.

Pure Gold. Clear as a bell.

Cheers!

macc wrote:Going to take the liberty of reversing the order of your points;

Gotcha. Simple answer is: turn it down at the gui level. On a sampler, turn down the sampler, not the mixer. Okay, I think this is really clicking. Sounds like I turn it down in renoise/ableton. Thanks, guys for contributing the evolution of my art.

Yes. Even before the GUI if possible.

Sample CD manufacturers giving out normalised (or even limited) sample CDs is like someone selling you a burnt pie at the shop, and asking you to scrape off the burnt bits yourself.

Metaphor wrote: I get that. Input level, of course. I said faders, but I meant input level. I guess, since I'm mostly using samples, many of which have been limited to 0db, turning down the fader has this effect, right?

NO. Well... yes But no. Key point here; Insert fx are pre-fader, in the majority of cases. The faders are the last opportunity to adjust levels, when that individual channel has already processed for the tune.

Example:

Sample CD drum hit peaks at 0dB. You import it and instantly think 'jeebus, that is f#cking loud', grab the mixer fader, turn it down. Great.

Later on in the making of the tune, you decide it needs more 200Hz for that authentic pendulum sound. You put an eq in the first insert slot in your virtual rack. The drum hit hits that eq at 0dB, because it doesn't hit the fader until later on. So you put in 200Hz. The eq unit shows that its output is now clipping, and we aren't even anywhere near the master out yet. So you turn it down by 'some amount' until it stops clipping. Now it is too quiet. So you turn the channel fader - which you turned down a while ago - back up a bit (you starting to get my drift?). Now you decide to compress it, cos internetmanz say to always do that. Thing is, now it is too quiet cos of the compression, so you use the make up gain of the compressor to put it back up. Then you can balance it in the mix with the channel fader, which is probably still down some way. The channel fader, the last step in the chain, is being used to try to balance for the arbitrary up and down bollocks you have done before it in-between plugs. You're also running the risk of clipping a plugin (if it isn't floating point) or triggering a built-in limiter if a plugin has one (waves RComp springs to mind), when you didn't mean to.

In this example - which I am sure at least someone reading this can identify with (errr... me) - you are using three faders all working against each other in opposite directions and you're not really sure where exactly your signal is at any stage. Your goalposts are all over the shop, you don't know where anything actually is, and you inevitably end up wanging faders all over the shop across your mix. Some are way down cos the initial sample was really loud, some are way up and can't go any further because the initial sample was really quiet, or they're trying to make up for whatever processing you did... your mixer looks like the poxy Himalayas. And that's only the channel faders - each channel is up and down between processors like a whore's drawers.

Much better - IMHO! - is to set said drum sample down so it is 'about the right level' in the very very first place. Now when you do your 200Hz eq it just sounds fatter, and clipping isn't a concern. Now you put your compressor on, and it gets a bit quieter cos of the compression. So you use the compressor make up gain to balance it again, hitting bypass on the comp a few times until it sounds exactly the same level. Now you can hear the difference in the SOUND due to the compression, you can hear exactly what the compressor is doing. And the channel is still balanced in the mix - cos you did that before anything else. In this process you have only used one fader, the make up gain. The channel fader is still at unity.

This might all sound rather petty and detailed. I appreciate that. But you add it up across, I dunno, 20 channels in a mix, some using maybe 2, 3, 4 faders (various plugins in the channel, plus the channel fader, all working against each other) and suddenly you're talking about balancing and worrying about 70-80 (!!) faders instead of 20. And that's not even considering group channels, sub-mixes etc etc, with their respective concerns. At each stage in the chain you're wasting your own time, moving the goalposts, taking wth one hand, giving with the other, chasing your tail.... Bollox to that.

I don't get how you do this without just turning the channel fader down, actually dropping the level of the sample? Possibly a stupid question, and not meaning to either dig at/brown-nose your post.

^ by lowering the fader, yr only dropping the level of the sample if there's nothing else happening on that channel.

if you've got any sort of processing, whatever's happening inside the channel (via compression, eq, etc) might be all over the place, involving clipping, etc-- lowering the channel lowers the SUM of all of those processes.

Sharmaji wrote:^ by lowering the fader, yr only dropping the level of the sample if there's nothing else happening on that channel.

if you've got any sort of processing, whatever's happening inside the channel (via compression, eq, etc) might be all over the place, involving clipping, etc-- lowering the channel lowers the SUM of all of those processes.

I'm sure I'm being dense here, but I don't see what the solution is. I understand completely that EQ-ing a sample already at unity will push it over 0dB, I don't get what the alternative is?

nearly every EQ has some sort of gain funtion-- use it to lower the overall level.

or put a gain plug-in before it in the chain, and lower gain that way.

sick thread most useful shit ive ever read

Sorry, I missed all these posts!

xx773xx wrote:Sorry to sound like a n00b in advance.

I realize now that it should've been common sense to get all the original samples at the right levels before I started a damn thing, I mean it makes too much sense and now that I know this I hope my output will sound better because so. The only question I have is how do you get your master output to sound loud enough? I get the whole argument between what is weak and what is quiet and I can tell that my present mix is quite quiet lol. All my faders are set at 0db and I've followed the advice in the thread to get your levels right as EARLY as possible - so what now?

Thanks again guys!

This is most definitely all covered pretty early on in this thread. This is where mastering comes in, to take that nice clean mix you have made and bring it to its full and final potential.

Cake analogy time!!

You've made a super nice and tasty cake mixture, now it is time to bake it. As opposed to burning all the ingredients before you even mix them together, scraping the burned bits off, mixing them together and then cooking it all again.

^ In fact that is all of this thread in one tasty analogy

There are some posts early on where I waffled on about mix power and all that sort of thing - have a read of those and let us know how you get on.

therapist wrote: I don't get how you do this without just turning the channel fader down, actually dropping the level of the sample? Possibly a stupid question, and not meaning to either dig at/brown-nose your post.

Haha, don't apologise for asking man

Again, the fader is post insert. The fader comes after the effects in the channel, leading to the situation I described. You're shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted (cheesey cliche alert, sorry).

So yes - do it to the actual sample itself. Do it in an audio editor, or in Cubase, or in the sampler playing the hit.

As close to where the signal path starts as possible, that's where you should do it. Make room for yourself early on.

macc wrote: This has all been answered in the thread already, but once again;

In a modern sequencer there's no appreciable difference between the two methods you describe. They work internally at 32-bit floating point, giving preposterous amounts of headroomabove 0dBFS. However when it hits the 'real world', ie your master fader/DAC, it has to be converted to 24 bit, meaning anything over that gets chopped off, ie clipped. So turning it down on the master fader brings it down under 0dB = no more problem.

BUT

Working the way you describe is, IMO!, symptomatic of poor gain structure and doesn't lend itself whatsoever to repeatibility. You're moving the goalposts all the time. Ending up with the master fader at -24, needing your drums a bit louder in the mix but the drum fader is all the way up already, opening the first plugin on that channel and turning it up, then realising it is hitting the compressor differently so you have to nudge that, etc etc etc. Sound familiar to anyone?

Get the sound at the right level from the start of the signal chain - in an ideal world the samples are at the right level and the tune is balanced without clipping, no plugins, no faders moved (see jazz band analogy on page 84686234). Everything else is a step away from that, involving more processing, and most importantly, more fannying about when you have better things to do.

To put the point I have been trying to make in this thread (yet) another way; why move 5 knobs when 1 - or even none - will do?

By minimising the variables you're dealing with, you get good mixes, increasingly often - ie repeatibility. This thread is, for me, about becoming better at mixing, not about making one single better mix. Better at mixing = lots of better mixes. Give a man a fish and all that.

100% on the money. It's good to hear someone talking about sensible gain staging *for the right reasons* rather than "because Ableton sounds like shit if you run it into the red". FWIW, I ran a test at one stage and found that you can go up to about +35 dB or so in Cubase and (IIRC) a little more in Ableton before numerical errors start to kick in (and at that point it's very, very audible). But macc's completely right; my mixes improved by leaps and bounds when I started getting into the habit of making sure all my levels were such that I could see the entire range of the meter.

TJ

PS. Seeing as lots of you use Reason, might be worth adding -- the same might not apply here. I've heard from a couple of people that Reason's mixer is some kind of hardware emulation, so I'd advise caution before assuming that you can run things at +10 dB and still expect a linear response. Could be wrong on the mixer emulation part though. I know Record definitely emulates an SSL...

macc wrote:Sorry, I missed all these posts!

This is most definitely all covered pretty early on in this thread. This is where mastering comes in, to take that nice clean mix you have made and bring it to its full and final potential.

Cake analogy time!!

You've made a super nice and tasty cake mixture, now it is time to bake it. As opposed to burning all the ingredients before you even mix them together, scraping the burned bits off, mixing them together and then cooking it all again.

^ In fact that is all of this thread in one tasty analogy

There are some posts early on where I waffled on about mix power and all that sort of thing - have a read of those and let us know how you get on.

Mmmmm that does sound delicious. Thanks for the time Macc, I'll go back and find that stuff.

Sup guys, needed some help with EQ on FL9.
I just get all stressed out and shit when I reach that level of Equalizing each track lol.
Like the bass, kick, snare, percussion etc. Wanted to know if someone can throw me in the right direction or
with a quick FLP with a simple Kick, Bass and Snare mix to get more hands on.
Thanks in advance guys
ez

having a bit of trouble getting the levels right in Reason 4.0. Because the levels aren't seen in dB it makes it a lot harder, does anyone know roughly how it measures out?

bolsty wrote:having a bit of trouble getting the levels right in Reason 4.0. Because the levels aren't seen in dB it makes it a lot harder, does anyone know roughly how it measures out?

thanks, completely forgot about the youtube tutorials tbh

bolsty wrote:thanks, completely forgot about the youtube tutorials tbh

heh well with reason there generally is a workaround
i personally can engineer sounds in it when collabing, otherwise i hate it despite some of my fave artists using it exclusively