Dubstepforum.com

I recently uploaded two test tracks on soundcloud.
The first one's waveform looks really messy while the second one's looks more defined and clean.

1st track:
http://postimage.org/image/94bf1tz89/

2nd track:

http://postimage.org/image/chymtp0dt/




As i see that lots of tracks i like on soundcloud have got defined and compact waveform and as I am very noob at producing (i started like 4 weeks ago), i would like to understand if the soundcloud's waveform could be considered as a sort of indicator about track's quality and what should i do to get a clean waveform (in both tracks i compressed and eq'd everything in the mixdown, but maybe i did these operation in the wrong way.)
Thanks a lot.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

You should'nt reference on Soundcloud's waveforms

While I'm no expert, I believe it's party due to how compressed the track is (So for example, a highly compressed track would basically have a solid block waveform), and also due to how the track itself is written. If there really is no "down-time" or break down or anything like that, it won't have the "clean" look you've described.

Simply put, the waveform doesn't really give an indication to the quality of the track, but rather how compressed it is and how much is going on in the track.

There is a wealth of information in reading waveforms, but I'd use waveforms in your audio editor or daw to judge this, not from soundcloud.

Drop a few pro tracks in there, hopefully wav's off of cd's if you can, but 320 mp3's will do too, look at their waveforms, look at your waveforms, what are the similarities, what are the differences?

nowaysj wrote:There is a wealth of information in reading waveforms, but I'd use waveforms in your audio editor or daw to judge this, not from soundcloud.

Drop a few pro tracks in there, hopefully wav's off of cd's if you can, but 320 mp3's will do too, look at their waveforms, look at your waveforms, what are the similarities, what are the differences?

I did what you said on ableton and i must admit that the biggest difference between my track and a 320 kbps mp3 track is the compression: pro tracks got a more compact and homogeneous form.
I think i'll try to improve my mixdown skills with more experiments and then do a new comparison (hopefully not basing all my judgement on waveforms), and maybe let you know the results, thank you all.

wub wrote:Use your ears, not your eyes.

Well think about what your looking at, Up and Down is amplitude and left and right is frequency.

If it looks compact then it probably has less dynamic range or there something loud all the way through.

bassbum wrote:Well think about what your looking at, Up and Down is amplitude and left and right is frequency.

If it looks compact then it probably has less dynamic range or there something loud all the way through.

According to what you said does the waveform depend exclusively on compression or does it depend also on the eq'ing process?

You have no idea and it would take a lot of time to explain what you are asking properly so im not going to.

bassbum wrote:You have no idea and it would take a lot of time to explain what you are asking properly so im not going to.

Gonna search the answer on my own then, thanks anyway for the stimulus.

bassbum wrote:Well think about what your looking at, Up and Down is amplitude and left and right is frequency.

If it looks compact then it probably has less dynamic range or there something loud all the way through.

what? left right is not frequency it is time....

ehbrums1 wrote:

bassbum wrote:Well think about what your looking at, Up and Down is amplitude and left and right is frequency.

If it looks compact then it probably has less dynamic range or there something loud all the way through.

what? left right is not frequency it is time....

Yer it is! What is it the rest of the time then?

i fail to understand....unless you mean to say that the left to right is showing the tunes "stuff"

http://www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/ ... sson44.htm

Read that.

hm never looked at it that way...i see no flaw in your argument

I studied Music Tech. for 3 years and have been a member of this forum since 08. I do know the basics.

bassbum wrote:I studied Music Tech. for 3 years and have been a member of this forum since 08. I do know the basics.

Burial studied music tek didn't he,do you know four tet?

lloydy wrote:

bassbum wrote:I studied Music Tech. for 3 years and have been a member of this forum since 08. I do know the basics.

Burial studied music tek didn't he,do you know four tet?

Nope I know like noone famous.